skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Brian Williams NBC Nightly News talks about astrology
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
handn



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 509

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When astrologers don't know about astrology, how can we blame astronomers for not?


I take your point and I agree with it.

However I do think there's a world of difference between 'Professor of Astronomy at the University of Wherever' speaking to the media on a subject they have no education in, and a bunch of astrological mostly hobbyists who are self-funded and self-taught (i.e. they've probably skipped the astronomy and the history and gone straight to the interpretation) typing on an internet forum. The internet amplifies the voices of the ignorant more than the informed.

If it was a Professor of Astrology from the University of Wherever spouting rubbish, I'd be a lot more worried and annoyed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EdF 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.
This perhaps makes the choice of technique of secondary importance. For example the use of the arithmetical calculation of primary directions according to the Babylonian arithmetical methods of calculations of rising times of signs wasn’t really correct compared to the trigonometrical calculations http://www.antonblog.net/astrology/primary-directions-the-story-of-calculations-vol-1/ but nevertheless may have given good results at the time. Perhaps the effectiveness of a certain technique partly depends on the acceptance of it by the user. Like healthy food may be good for you but you have to like the taste of it.

For example my sometimes passionately expressed aversion towards the semi-arc division usually has got its expression in some polar oddities but the deeper background is my preference of the use of ‘usual’ spatial coordinate systems (poles, base plane) in which I find geometrical perfection the most expressed. With a certain set of preferences based upon some geometrical philosophy in mind, it’s difficult to accept the preferences which form the basis of systems used by others.

It therefore leads to the following problem:
zoidsoft wrote:
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.
But I think it will be almost impossible to get to a commonly shared technical foundation. Some namely wouldn’t find themselves/their views represented in a certain philosophical foundation.

Quote:
All successful fields have set standards for accreditation so that one can say who is a "doctor" and who is not.
The problem with this comparison is that there’s a consensus on many basic factors in medicine while this is absent in astrology. Although I’m a proponent of research in astrology, I can understand that the up to now negative results leads to rejection. On the other side when I read in Koen van den Moortel’s Astro-logics ( http://www.astrovdm.com/astro-logics3.pdf p.6) that
the article wrote:
The same kind of reports was (and is) used commercially though. It has to be mentioned
here that similar experiments have been done with descriptions written by psychologists, and also there, the results were not at all positive, which means that also their theories need some improvement
, I realized that not only astrology is subject to failure. Psychology, economy, law and all kinds of social related studies have their weak immeasurable sides so for a standard of accreditation astrology should rather look in these areas than in the factual realm and subscribe a code of ethics as in the Association of Professional Astrologers International. For the code of ethics see: http://www.professionalastrologers.co.uk/ethics.htm

Quote:
One of the factors contributing to this climate is the idea that everyone has a right to their opinion and some vague notion that goes along with it is that everyone's opinion should be treated equally. This couldn't be more wrong. As Alan White likes to say, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Astrology needs a foundation of facts to survive.
If a natal chart delineation would be done according to Morin’s or a horary according to Lilly’s methods and written down, I have the feeling that an astrologer of the Morin/Lilly school who reads it will recognize its applications just like a student of literature can recognize styles of writing of several eras. The difference with astrology is that literature doesn’t require facts where astrology does to a certain extent. The difficulty with astrology therefore is that there’s a need for some consensus whether which ‘literature’ is the correct factual one. The recent Pluto poll which gave very different results, displays how difficult it can be to discern which experience is fact. More concrete predictions may be easier to research but classical astrology usually was not that fatalistic as that a certain prediction would happen but rather could happen. The non-occurrence of events could be explained by this but in turn this makes it harder to discover facts. This view causes that the occurrence of events easily will be attributed to chance, especially when predictions for the same person/state contradict each other. Modern astrology which sometimes can be interpreted as more fatalistic than ancient astrology (‘during Pluto’s transit through the 4th house you will experience troubles concerning your childhood’) may not perform much better because of the difficulty of measuring the experience.

Tom wrote:
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.
But this is the case throughout astrological history. It’s done by a usual procedure: first listing techniques and explaining what others do and then discard the use of it and come with the ‘correct method’. In almost any astrology book with some technical explanation, different house systems are discussed and discarded ending up with the one to use (usually Placidus). Ptolemy already did such things:
Ptolemy wrote:
However, the number of years, determined by the distances between the prorogative place and the destructive planet, ought not to be taken simply or offhand, in accordance with the usual traditions, from the times of ascension of each degree, except only when the eastern horizon itself is the prorogator, or some one of the planets that are rising in that region. For one method alone is available for him who is considering this subject in a natural manner –
Tetr. III 10. Robbins. A similar discussion he did with the terms. I personally don’t reject change, provided it is done in a coherent way and doesn’t consist of an endless addition of objects or mixing of techniques alien to each other, which is all too often the case nowadays.

zoidsoft wrote:
History has shown that people can't agree on it any more than they agree on religion.
Perhaps the realm of religion is the safest place for astrology, there it can’t be argued unless it collides with nowadays concepts of reasonability (see code of ethics, mentioned some sentences ago).

Quote:
When religion succeeds to the level of becoming a mainstream belief, then there is a tendency for it to shut down rational thought.
Very true, it therefore would worry me a lot if astrology would gain such acceptance that major decisions would depend on it. In Keith Thomas’ Religion and the decline of magic an example of a case is given about a thief was searched based upon a horary question. In some communities it was (until recently) usage to arrange marriage according to astrology (see for example Steven E. G. Kemper - ‘Sinhalese Astrology, South Asian Caste Systems, and the Notion of Individuality’ in The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3 (May, 1979), pp. 477-497). Hopefully it will never happen that a man applying for a job as a primary school teacher will hear that he has been rejected for the reason that he has a natal chart that probably makes him to abuse young boys, "Venus in the domicile of Mercury, with Mercury badly situated, makes pederasts." Rhetorius the Egyptian p.121 Even astrologers wouldn’t like to live in a society ruled by astrology. This also counts for classical astrologers in modern society who also have been raised in the standards of modern rational thought.

Tom wrote:
This is Ptolemy and he is clearly talking about the seasons not the constellations. He notes Aries begins at the vernal point not the beginning of the constellation Aries. It should settle the argument permanently, but it won't. There is too much ignorance to overcome.
Although the siderealists don’t use the constellations but also a rather schematical representation, they would disagree with Ptolemy’s rationale. The origins of the meanings of the signs lay in a period when precession was unknown. Therefore astrology was not sidereal or tropical, but sidereal and tropical. Only after the discovery/acceptance of precession, the different symbolical views had to go separate directions.

Paul wrote:
Tom wrote:
> It should settle the argument permanently, but it won't. There is too much ignorance to overcome.[/color]


It won't, because, perhaps fairly, the next refutation that a skeptic would make of astrology is to point out that if, by chance, astrology was instead popularised in the southern hemisphere, rather than the northern, then the other point of intersection between eclipitc and equator, which we call Libra, would in fact have taken on the 'traits' of Aries and vice versa.
Which would then beg the question as to whether the zodiac should be reversed for the southern hemisphere.
This doesn’t necessarily need to make someone a skeptic. Astrologers themselves have asked such questions and thought about what should be done in the southern hemisphere and Kepler didn’t use the division in signs because it was not a ‘natural’ division. I’ve always found myself in Kepler’s views on this. And although I can be quite sceptical myself (I was almost about to kick out all astrology) you can still practice astrology and ask yourself such questions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1391

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

handn wrote:
Quote:
When astrologers don't know about astrology, how can we blame astronomers for not?


I take your point and I agree with it.

However I do think there's a world of difference between 'Professor of Astronomy at the University of Wherever' speaking to the media on a subject they have no education in, and a bunch of astrological mostly hobbyists who are self-funded and self-taught .


Unfortunately in the example I saw on that forum, the poster was a professional astrologer who signed her post as "I'm Jane Bloggs of mywebsite.com" - names edited obviously.
Am I allowed say who it was?

Anyway the point I'm making is that this poster was clearly a professional astrologer, their website is set up to demonstrate her role as a professional astrologer and says that she is a Certified Member of the American Association of Professional Psychics.
This is clearly not the remark of a hobbyist. Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to astrology if, by chance, she was asked to comment on the whole issue to counter refute the whole Ophiuchus/Precession subject?
Deb has alluded, for example, to the fact that it is somewhat unfair to only give one side of a view, such as with the BBC and Brian Cox, and how it would be fairer if they got a professional astrologer to be given equal air time. Personally I'd rather that they didn't if, by chance, they contacted this particular astrologer instead. As the saying goes, better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

So that's basically what I mean. That whole forum seems littered with misinformation (with the exception of a handful of posters, some of which post here) and really, professional astrologers seem to be getting this stuff wrong, so we can hardly blame astronomers when they do. It's embarrassing for astrology that something as simple as this is misunderstood by apparent professionals in the area.

(btw, there's a certain irony in the astrologer continuing on to describe the astronomer as a 'stupid astronomer in Minnesota', who, at least, knows his astronomy, when the astrologer doesn't know her astrology.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the poster was a professional astrologer who signed her post as "I'm Jane Bloggs of mywebsite.com" - names edited obviously.
Am I allowed say who it was?


Why not? She has already made the information public herself.

I read a few of the posts in this thread last night, and felt demoralised by some of the points being made, such as what is going on it other forums (thankfully I don't have time to read them).

It was also a bummer to follow Matt's link where he wrote:
Quote:
I see that the BBC news website has allowed a couple of astrologers the right of reply.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12207811


But look at who they have turned to again - Jonathan Cainer and Russell Grant - popular media astrologers who don't make any of the really relevant points. Russell Grant uses the opportunity once again to mention zodiacs with Arachne the Spider, just as he did when the Ophiuchus-13th-sign bunkum got splattered in England in 1995. In my article I included a link to David Plant's TA editorial at that time, which includes the comment:

Quote:
First up was the popular media personality Russell Grant. Over a crackling telephone link, Russell chattered away happily about Ophiuchus and Arachne the Spider (!) and, sadly, failed to say anything of relevance at all.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/deb/issue8_p2.pdf


Eddy, I enjoyed your post and you make a pertinent point in this comment:

Quote:
The origins of the meanings of the signs lay in a period when precession was unknown. Therefore astrology was not sidereal or tropical, but sidereal and tropical. Only after the discovery/acceptance of precession, the different symbolical views had to go separate directions.


Actually I believe that precession has a longer period of discovery than is generally credited, but what we can say about the Babylonian development of the zodiac is that there are definite historical stages, where astronomy moves from the imprecise visual observation of planets against the Moon's path, to the mathematical precision of planetary movement tracked against the Sun's path; and this started with the ability to mark out the four quarters of its circle (equinoxes and solstices) before shortly afterwards leading on to the full development of ecliptic measurement. So for the Babylonians at least, the zodiac was always motivated by seasonal and calendrical considerations, (and all the early references to the zodiac are using it as a tropical zodiac, attempting to get greater alignment between astronomical cycles and the calendar). It was only around classical times that the two zodiacs co-incided most neatly, which is why we have the ancient references to the equinox moving through 15°, 12° or 8° of the constellation Aries. (But these are complex points which deserve a full argument - my 'quickpoint' here is that there is a lot of evidence to show that what came to us via Babylonian development was only ever intended to be tropical, and to act as a definition of the Sun's annual circuit, as the tropical zodiac does today).

I think the Southern hemisphere inversion of seasonal symbolism is very philosophically problematic. The only defensive principle we have is that the original view remains pertinent for the greater part of the Earth's inhabitable regions, so we can use it as the most pertinent Earth-centred influence. I know that is probably not satisfactory for many, but at the moment it seems to be the only justifiable argument on the table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be fair to Jonathan Cainer on his own website he explained it all a bit clearer and anyway,unless anyone else steps up to be a media astrologer he is about all we have.

If someone did have the time to do this I am sure that it can't be that hard to point out the facts without patronising the general audience. A lot of us have already made the argument face to face so providing a quick sound bite to the media could be possible to a professional.

There is always the letters column in papers as well. This is not astrology but Qabalah but a relevant example. A while back when Madonna was dabbling in some dumb Kabbalah cult I write a letter to the Sun of all papers mentioning the first translation of the Sefer Yetzirah and the western esoteric tradition and blow me they published it and sent me a cheque for my troubles.

Give it a go next time.

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1391

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Deb"]
Quote:
Why not? She has already made the information public herself.


From the original post on the other forum:

"No,our signs haven't changed.As Western Astrologers we use Sidereal Astrology. The confusion happened when an ASTRONOMER from a small technical college jumped to conclusions about Ophiuchus. ... I'm exhausted trying to keep up all the confusion this stupid astronomer in Minnesota has caused. I addressed the Associated Press and Susan Miller is addressing all the media sources now to correct this big blunder.... I'm Suzan Hayden of www.astrology101.com and hopefully you can spread the news with friends that nothing has changed."

So presumably she's been addressing the 'Associated Press' informing them that western astrologers use Sidereal astrology.

From her website:
"As a Certified Member of the American Association of Professional Psychics, Suzan has studied astrology in the United States, England, Ireland, and has interpreted over 12,000 charts over the last 12 years using both psychological and spiritual approaches. Suzan is also well known throughout the United States for her lectures and motivational speeches that integrate astrology with various psychological portraits of individuals past and present.."

If you knew nothing about astrology you would presume she was qualified enough to comment on the matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good for you Matt.

Jonathan is not so bad - probably the best spokesman for representation from sun-sign columnists, but the BBC know that the AA are always willing to provide press releases or make recommendations - so why aren't we seeing any quotes from representatives of the AA, APAE, APAI, Faculty, etc. Why is Dr Nick Campion, Vice President of the AA, who heads up a university department, not being quoted? This is part of the AAs remit, but the BBC seems to want to present astrology as nothing more than media entertainment.

Paul - I like it. After interpreting 12,000 charts over the last 12 years, on top of everything else, no wonder she's confused and feeling exhausted Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

She does a lot of media and public appearances from the looks of her about page.

As for the American Association of Professional Psychics: http://certifiedpsychics.com/

But who's going to google that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always try to avoid the term 'certified' in reference to astrological qualifications. In Britain it has an additional meaning, which is not worth bragging about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
handn



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 509

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"Unfortunately in the example I saw on that forum, the poster was a professional astrologer who signed her post as "I'm Jane Bloggs of mywebsite.com" ... Anyway the point I'm making is that this poster was clearly a professional astrologer, their website is set up to demonstrate her role as a professional astrologer and says that she is a Certified Member of the American Association of Professional Psychics.
This is clearly not the remark of a hobbyist."


Professional in the sense of 'set up in business' but that means nothing. Cowboys are cowboys. Certainly not professional in the same way as a professor of astronomy.

Member of the Association of Professional Psychics clearly doesn't give any certification in astrology, and even the BBC wouldn't think that it did.

I want to second the point about the BBC having gone to two famous astrologers rather than any professional body or representative body. It demonstrates how the BBC prioritises ratings (website hits, in this case) over representation of the field in question. They've showed their game in going to names the public would recognise rather than a professional body's spokesperson.

Dismayed though we may be, I still don't think we need to be. Astrology is being subjected to the same cultural change as are all other fields of enquiry. There is a degradation and confusion of perception of authority in every field, without exception. Astrology can't escape that, but astrologers don't have to become overreactive to it.

I was just reading some of the recently released Vettius Valens translation today and at the end of book 5 there are a couple of paragraphs that show that there's nothing new in the uninformed degrading the status of the subject by passing themselves off as more informed than they are, while the better informed don't always get their chance to have their due input. The changes in the media in the 1990s and 2000s, and the invention and widespread take-up of the web, have amplified it but they haven't brought anything new, it's just the worse side of human nature up to its old tricks again.

I maintain my points in my first post in this thread. I don't think it's a good idea to get caught up in the details of the 'fight'. I think it's more important to see and feed the strengths that have already grown in our field, and to be patient and in it for the long haul. Astrology isn't as vulnerable as we might feel, and we have more strength and influence than we feel we have.

Regards

H.


Last edited by handn on Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4919
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I read a few of the posts in this thread last night, and felt demoralised by some of the points being made, such as what is going on it other forums (thankfully I don't have time to read them).


Yes this whole issue is very depressing. I first picked up the story myself on my yahoo browser at the weekend where an article had been written by the fashion and lifestyle writer on the story. That just about sums up the status of astrology in contemporary society. Someone qualified to write recipes one week is felt competent enough to write on superstitious mumbo jumbo like astrology. I immediately, thought of responding but when I read the response page I realised the utter futility. There were already nearly 2000 replies with most people either commenting that they still believed in their sun sign or that it just confirmed it was all nonsense. There are several issues underlying the whirlwind success of this story.

Firstly, the avaracious nature of modern media on the internet which is always looking for populist stories. The arguments are not new. In particular the idea of the 'wrong sign' and the 'lost' 13th sign has been used as a trojan horse argument by sceptics for years. There are the committed sceptics who take a delight in making astrology look even more contradictory than it already is. Religious fundamentalists also find common cause in consigning astrology to the realms of the occult with the witch of Endor.

Lastly though and perhaps most damaging are the astrologers themselves. Its not just an issue of astrologers ignorant of the astronomy and or our basic principles although that is a worrying factor.

To me this issue is more fundamental than that. It also includes perfectly competent astrologers willing to prostitute the art of astrology in sun sign astrology. Ok I have said it! What I have noticed in post after post in response to this story in public forums is that most people haven't got beyond sun sign astrology in their awareness. Moreover, most assume the signs are the constellations. Knowledge of the tropical zodiac is almost non-existent outside the astrological community.

There are many reasons for such ignorance of astrology. However, I think a major factor is that there are hoards of professional astrologers happy to pander to it. I know many here will leap to the defence of sun sign astrologers. Yes, many excellent astrologers have written columns. Yes, I know astrologers are perpetually hard up trying to make a living from consultations. Yes, it pays the bills. Yes, it is very popular and meeting a demand. Yes, sun sign astrologers often do proper consultations too.

However, as long as astrologers operate on this entertainment/show business level we can hardly expect to be taken seriously. In fact why should we be? The general view of astrology as light nonsense is fed directly by sun sign astrology. So if I was setting basic professional standards for a real astrologer I would say the basic first requirement would be to abstain from all involvement in sun sign astrology. Of course the gravy train will always be too tempting for many. However, at least it would establish a line between astrology and the entertainment business.

Naturally, the sceptics and religious fundamentalists will still attack the principles of astrology. On some points there are general issues of difference or confusion within the astrological community itself that make this inevitable ie differing zodiacs, house systems, twins, group tragedies etc. Still at least we will be able to operate from a more serious level of discourse.

I accept as Olivia has pointed out there has always been a populist level of astrology. Equally Kim Farnell's book Flirting with the Zodiac demonstrates the power of astrological almanacks and other popular forms of astrology goes back to classical times. Nevertheless, I think if a contemporary astrologer wants to be seen as more than a naive and superstitious fool they have to take a stand against populist sun sign astrology. In that respect expecting people like Jonathan Cainer to come to the rescue is a bit like asking an alcoholic to run a rehab centre.

This point on sun sign astrology may seem unrelated to the contemporary fuss over Ophiuchus as the 13th sign and the precession of the equinoxes but I think it is actually at the root of it. Asking to be taken seriously and personally endorsing sun sign astrology is hypocritical and is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and being able to eat it too.

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:06 pm; edited 14 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1391

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivia wrote:
She does a lot of media and public appearances from the looks of her about page.

As for the American Association of Professional Psychics: http://certifiedpsychics.com/

But who's going to google that?


That's actually a copy-cat website, I was interested in what the requirements were to become accredited by the Amercian Association of Professional Psychics. Is there an arduous examination process for example?
http://www.americanassociationofpsychics.com/Join_Us.php

Actually no. It's by invite only. So you don't even have to open a book.
The page lists a number of things you can't do, such as be a hotline only psychic. Nowhere, however, does it say that you have to actually be psychic nor know what you're doing or study the subject you claim to be professional of. So you don't have to know anything about the subject, nor study it, you just have to accept an invite. Guess it really is about who you know rather than what you know.

Maybe Deb could collaborate with Kellogg's and release an astrology cert when you buy 6 boxes of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes? In a couple of months I could have certification too!!
*crosses fingers*


edit:
Quote:
I always try to avoid the term 'certified' in reference to astrological qualifications. In Britain it has an additional meaning, which is not worth bragging about.


LOL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
handn



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 509

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree Mark, the whole thing is reinforcing the idea of Sun Signs. So many people on the web forums I've read are heaving sighs of relief that 'I'm still a Gemini, thank god for that! Thank you astrologer!' and that's the end of the matter for them.

But it's not surprising because the original attack was an attack not on birth charts etc but on 'star sign'/horoscope columns.

So the defence is, wittingly or unwittingly, of Sun Signs and the columns that rely on them.

The whole thing is a waste of energy, hence my original post that it's better to not be deflected from directing our energy into the continued education of ourselves, our clients, genuinely interested parties, and only occasionally the media and those determined that they already know what astrology is and so have closed ears.

IMO there's nothing wrong with a bit of fire-fighting here and there but it has to be strategic otherwise we'll (a) exhaust ourselves and (b) dance to the media's and/or astronomers' tunes. Long term prevention is better than short term cures. When it comes to astrology's status, we're facing society's chronic misperceptions of itself, mirrored through astrology, not really acute flare-ups of prejudice and ignorance (wilful or otherwise).

H.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1391

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

handn wrote:
I agree Mark, the whole thing is reinforcing the idea of Sun Signs. So many people on the web forums I've read are heaving sighs of relief that 'I'm still a Gemini, thank god for that! Thank you astrologer!' and that's the end of the matter for them.H.


Some comments I loved were those where someone had a tattoo of the zodiac symbol of their sun sign, faced with the possibility that their sign was actually wrong. Of course it wasn't, but I love what must have gone through their heads when they heard about it first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Deb, I'm with you about the tropical intended zodiac at the Babylonians. With the symmetry of the planetary exaltation signs in mind I even think that this would suit most with a tropical zodiac in which the equinox is at 15° Aries. So the tropical astrologers perhaps should move the zodiac 15° backwards I believe. Somewhat related to your remark on the antiscia in here, http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html .
Deb wrote:
I think the Southern hemisphere inversion of seasonal symbolism is very philosophically problematic. The only defensive principle we have is that the original view remains pertinent for the greater part of the Earth's inhabitable regions, so we can use it as the most pertinent Earth-centred influence. I know that is probably not satisfactory for many, but at the moment it seems to be the only justifiable argument on the table.
A while ago I speculated on a possible origin of the exaltations related to the Babylonian meaning of the planets in an older thread but I can't relate to any sources to support my speculations. According to this the exaltations relate to a cultural/symbolical meaning rather than Ptolemy's climatological explanation. However if the Babylonians had lived on the Southern hemisphere, I believe we would have had the exaltations on the other side of the zodiac. Same would apply for the rulers. (I think these are of (the Greeks in) Egypt). I'm afraid the defense wouldn't hold for long. Technically (astronomically) there's no difference between the northern and southern half of the zodiac.

Quote:
After interpreting 12,000 charts over the last 12 years, on top of everything else, no wonder she's confused and feeling exhausted
Perhaps she should just use her hand, like the woman M.E. Jones told about (see Tom's post monday).

Paul wrote:
Some comments I loved were those where someone had a tattoo of the zodiac symbol of their sun sign, faced with the possibility that their sign was actually wrong. Of course it wasn't, but I love what must have gone through their heads when they heard about it first.
Probably something like..."I've been nailed."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated