76
Ed F wrote:
Olivia wrote:...

That's about right. The scary part is that even prominent astrological spokesmodels are getting it wrong in their refutations by saying that the sidereal zodiac is affected because it's based on constellations. A sad state of affairs for us fogeys - how did we fail?

- Ed
I guess it depends upon which sidereal zodiac, oh lets just invent one so that "we're right" and we don't have to admit that we goofed. ;>
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

77
Eddy wrote:
Olivia wrote:On other forums, astrologers are indeed questioning the validity of the constellational boundaries, Deb. They never learnt any astronomy. For that matter, they can't read a chart that comes without an aspect grid and are shocked at those of us, who seemingly by magic, can look at a chart alone without benefit of lines or grids, and not only see aspects, but can tell whether the aspects are applying or separating.
..., but it's hard to imagine that it's that bad. This is shocking. Have they never opened an astrology book?
Yes, it really is that bad! I alluded to something similar earlier in the thread - some students of esoterica are claiming that although precession might (might!) be a fact, the present discussion points to deeper metaphysical truths that supercede even astronomy. Where astrology is concerned, astronomy and time-honored astrological procedures are seen within that group as mere historical stepping-stones on the stairway to heaven, which culminates in intuition as the final arbiter of everything.

80
LOL.

I've gotten some odd comments from people when I mentioned that a couple of the first assignments I had to do when I started a traditional astrology course were writing a paper on the Babylonian sidereal and synodic periods and goal years, and why they're different to the modern ones.

Then it was on to Aristotle and the concept of one changing and one stable quality in elements and how that ties in to the cycle of the season.

No wonder they keep telling me I don't know anything about astrology!

Though I'm beginning to think it was a blessing that when I started, Margaret Hone's Textbook of Modern Astrology was the standard. We'll forgive the 'modern'. One thing the late Mrs Hone did was to explain how to calculate a chart, clearer than any other explanation I've since run across. I'm pretty sure that was Chapter 1 (don't have my copy anymore).

Times have changed.

81
Ed F wrote:A lot of us who used to do charts manually have expressed this feeling - as you say, it's a matter of engaging both perspectives, and letting it cook over the time it takes to construct a chart.

And it is that bad. In some supposedly astrological settings, to bring up the technical underpinnings of methods is to court being accused of being a scientist or mathematician - horrors!

- Ed
Schmidt argued that the origin of the different house systems is based upon misunderstanding the difference between topical houses and dynamical ones through the centuries of translation, and then this same accusation came up. Even Valens says that when the MC is in the 9th whole sign that it too gives signs for "praxis".

In primary directions, when directing Jupiter to Venus, what constitutes a conjunction? Because the two rarely actually meet on the celestial sphere, one has to define "conjunction" and each house system gives rise to a new set of primary directions. Only directions to the mc and asc have simple calculations. I would think that a mundane "in mundo" conjunction would be when the two are at their closest distance, but this is not necessarily true given different coordinate systems. A point parallel to the ecliptic is not necessarily going to give the same position parallel to the equator.

It's a real headache for programmers because it is getting to the point that we have to create a custom program for every astrologer because no two astrologers use the same techniques. This is why Schmidt said that there needs be a solid philosophical foundation laid.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

82
zoidsoft wrote:
In primary directions, when directing Jupiter to Venus, what constitutes a conjunction? Because the two rarely actually meet on the celestial sphere, one has to define "conjunction" and each house system gives rise to a new set of primary directions. Only directions to the mc and asc have simple calculations. I would think that a mundane "in mundo" conjunction would be when the two are at their closest distance, but this is not necessarily true given different coordinate systems. A point parallel to the ecliptic is not necessarily going to give the same position parallel to the equator.
And of course, most systems of direction use "oblique" projections to the equator or ecliptic rather than perpendicular ("right") ones.
It's a real headache for programmers because it is getting to the point that we have to create a custom program for every astrologer because no two astrologers use the same techniques. This is why Schmidt said that there needs be a solid philosophical foundation laid.
I'm sure Rob, who authored Morinus, can relate. Though it does turn out that for primaries, most methods can use similar overall calculation approaches, provided they're not systems that take into account secondary motion, or use dynamic keys.

As to the philosophical foundation, the elephant in the room is which one?

- Ed

83
but it's hard to imagine that it's that bad. This is shocking. Have they never opened an astrology book?
Even if they have so what? There is more than one prominent modern astrologer who has glibly informed all who pay attention that he has studied all forms of astrology and realized none of them were right, so he changed things his way. How would a beginning student know that this statement is a load of hooey? And yes ,this is from a well known textbook by a well known modern astrologer. And I believe Dane Rudhyar said something similar.

To make matters worse, this is nothing new. Marc Edmond Jones told the story of his realization astrology was in trouble when he related the following anecdote. The astrologer, an unnamed woman, claimed she had no need of looking at the chart and instead performed a reading by simply placing her hand on the chart. When I related that story to someone, I was told he had a reading like that and it was the best ever.

I would gladly accept several different philosophical traditions and wade through them, if we didn't have to put up with the above kinds of astrologers. Part of the problem is that there are too many people who have no idea what a chart represents out there in the sky. There are all sorts of astrologers who can't grasp where retrograde motion comes from. And if you can't grasp retrograde motion, how can you hope to understand precession?

I'm afraid this is just part of the general dumbing down of society. It's estimated that over 1/3 of the adult American population cannot name the current Vice President of the United States regardless of who he is. More to the point a radio personality once went into the street and couldn't find anyone to tell him the correct number of planets in our solar system (astrologers struggle with this because we forget to count earth but add the Sun and Moon). There is a woman in the United States Congress who, on TV when looking at photos taken from the Mars Rover wanted to know if it could go to where the astronauts planted the flag.

We are not organized and disciplined and nothing like that seems to be on the horizon. The best we've been able to do is to separate into modern and traditional camps, and given the volume of sects in each that obviously isn't good enough. To the rest of the world there is no difference between Robert Zoller who has studied the subject in depth and "Nadej - Astrologist:Sees All Knows All; No appointment necessary." In the UK any reporter wanting a quote from an astrologer will more than likely go to "Mystic Meg" than to one any of a large number of highly qualified astrologers who actually know something.

So what is happening amongst our own regarding this gigantic misunderstanding is quite predictable even as it is undesirable. And no, I have no idea what to do about it.

84
The best solution I can think of is to simply call non-astrology reading - something else.

But that's not going to happen, as everyone who engages in those kinds of readings seems to be convinced they've found the holy grail of astrology.

I want to say it was 1524 - if it wasn't, it was close - when there was a triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in Pisces. The printing press had been recently invented, and the Italian charlatans had a field day being able to publish their 'build your ark now!' pamphlets and almanacs - and I'm sure they were doing all kinds of private readings as well. The professionals pretty much stayed out of it.

Yet it gave astrologers the dubious distinction of being the first profession to engage in the wholesale publication and distribution of pulp fiction.

Perhaps some things never change.

85
Tom wrote:So what is happening amongst our own regarding this gigantic misunderstanding is quite predictable even as it is undesirable. And no, I have no idea what to do about it.
When companies develop bad reputations, they simply dissolve the company and form a new LLC under new management, etc...

I think that the subject is doomed to suffer an ignominious fate and perhaps it is better that it is an occult subject that shouldn't have a high profile (Valens seems to suggest that this should be the case). History has shown that people can't agree on it any more than they agree on religion. I think Christianity or Islam is similar to what astrology would become if it was accepted into the main stream, but it's already too political with many agendas. When religion succeeds to the level of becoming a mainstream belief, then there is a tendency for it to shut down rational thought.

To some people astrology comes across as a religion which says what each person is likely to become and people will fight statements like this if they aren't followers. Even the mainstream religions don't go quite this far and to some, this might seem like big brother stepping in to say how one should live one's life... I think that is at the root of skeptic emotions about this subject and why they hate it so much.

Looking at all of the people who suffered an identity crisis because of this news, those of us who care about how this subject comes across might want to re-think what it is we are doing. However if we are subject to fate as Valens would say, none of this is in our control.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

86
Curtis.

Are you aware of Schmidt's position on, in the right hands, a set of Tarot cards being, or not being, able to achieve the same/similar ''outcomes'' as a Horoscope ?

87
The scary part is that even prominent astrological spokesmodels are getting it wrong in their refutations by saying that the sidereal zodiac is affected because it's based on constellations.
I would imagine that they are referring to precession though, rather than Ophiuchus.
For that matter, they can't read a chart that comes without an aspect grid and are shocked at those of us, who seemingly by magic, can look at a chart alone without benefit of lines or grids, and not only see aspects, but can tell whether the aspects are applying or separating.
The problem is that anyone can call themselves an astrologer. If they 'know' any scrap of astrology at all they can label themselves as astrologer. Imagine if that was true of doctors or scientists or lawyers.
The astrologer, an unnamed woman, claimed she had no need of looking at the chart and instead performed a reading by simply placing her hand on the chart.
Well at least she was a hands on astrologer
There is a woman in the United States Congress who, on TV when looking at photos taken from the Mars Rover wanted to know if it could go to where the astronauts planted the flag.
Silly, everyone knows MTV landed on the Moon.
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/com ... n-moon.jpg