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

Using Whole Signs or Placidus for Natal
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hermes, the only position I defend is the need to distinguish between speculation about Hellenistic astrology and points that are reliably established by reference to original sources. I’m not mercurial about that but adamant that it is necessary – not so many years ago astrologers were being taught quite categorically, that there was no recognition of orbs of influence for aspects in ancient astrology, and no recognition of aspects except by reference to the relationships of the signs. I was blasted for making the same argument then – this is not what the sources show. Another lingering point of confusion is that many astrologers still believe there is no evidence of quadrant house division in ancient sources, which then turned to the suggestion that even if there is it was never used in a way that acknowledged house meaning. Why should we accept this argument unquestionably when there is no evidence for it, and we have both clear descriptions of how to divide the houses according to quadrant methods, and one of the earliest examples of an ancient horoscope in chart form showing the use of a quadrant system as per the usual manner? The only appropriate response to comments that suggest it is a fact that something quite specific was done, for which there is less than reliable evidence, is ‘perhaps’.

You keep giving me recommendations of reading material, for which I thank you. In return I ask that you re-read my two posts above and note that I have not commented on anything personal about anyone, but only presented discussion on very relevant ideas that are directly pertinent to this discussion. I’m not sure you realise that you are the one who centred the discussion around Robert Schmidt’s ideas, so I am surprised you are so sensitive to points of view and requests for clarification. I also don’t think you realise how you are the one that is now turning the discussion towards persons rather than ideas. I don’t really mind and don’t have an emotive concern one way or another to mentions of anyone’s name in relation to published ideas – Robert Schmidt’s ideas are out there for discussion and have been very influential. As a result they will attract both compliment and criticism. That’s the basis of informative debate – there should be nothing perceived as personal about that.

I hope you have a good Christmas and New Year too
Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
I agree that this element of the work proposes an original theory, and I am not sure if it belongs to Schmidt more than Hand, or if one proposed whilst the other popularised, or if it arose as a blending of their thoughts. Wherever or however it originated I find it unconvincing, being unsupported by the evidence, and not persuasive in its logic as far as I'm concerned. That happens to be my position on this - worth no more or no less than anyone else's...


Have you read the original Greek? Are you on a par with Schmidt in this area? Or are you saying that in your personal experience with the houses in your practice that your opinion is worth no more or no less than anyone else's opinion with their preference of house systems?

I doubt that Hand had anything to do with Schmidt's article on the "Facets of Fate" in the Mountain Astrologer from 1999 (but I could be wrong). Please give references to what was being circulated about this subject that makes Schmidt's assertions in that article more or less a regurgitation of previous statements by other scholars.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm... have you developed a superiority complex that makes you think I have to answer your questions about my right to state an opinion? The question of whether I or anyone else reads Greek is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. Rather than pamper to your demands I will simply say that my personal level of interest and research is significant enough for me to feel justified in having my own opinion, and also expressing it, yes.

If you are saying that Schmidt's renown as a translator gives him an advantage in being able to demonstrate the sources that prove his speculated theory, I would agree. So maybe he has access to some untranslated texts that have not been made publicly available elsewhere? In which case, he will have no problem supporting his argument by reference to them. That is the kind of thing that makes an argument more persuasive IMO.

As for the article I've made all the comments I intend to make. I asked twice for clarification of what - apart from the topical/dynamic distinction - was considered a unique revolutionary discovery that should be attributed to Schmidt. I didn't get a clarification, but it's not that important that I want to labour and dwell on this. The original post of Hermes made it sound like the notion that the chart comprises four sets of houses that are related as trios through the diurnal revolution of the suceedent house moving towards the themes of the angular house, and the cadent house falling away from it, was newly discovered by Schmidt, which struck me as odd since this is obviously not the case. So we are left with the suggestion that his article presents a 'fate-issue' theme to the houses. Well, it is called 'The Facets of Fate' and if this is perceived as presenting a revolutionary discovery that is essential to the understanding of the themes of the houses (as other contributors have been told), then it would have been good to have had some explanation and development of that point. That didn't happen and I'm personally no longer interested. It should be remembered that Hermes made the assertion of revolutionary discovery not Schmidt himself, so if Hermes felt unwilling to elaborate, the point should be dropped.

On a more general note, anyone's opinion in this forum is worth no more or no less than anyone else's. This is not a place to demand qualifications of a right to comment, and neither I nor anyone else should feel there is a necessity to justify a comment made when the logic for the comment has been made self-explanatory in the post. Different views exist, and different astrologers hold different sources in different regard. I do not appear to share your view on this and if that makes a temple vein throb, sorry – that’s your problem, not mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
On a more general note, anyone's opinion in this forum is worth no more or no less than anyone else's. This is not a place to demand qualifications of a right to comment, and neither I nor anyone else should feel there is a necessity to justify a comment made when the logic for the comment has been made self-explanatory in the post. Different views exist, and different astrologers hold different sources in different regard. I do not appear to share your view on this and if that makes a temple vein throb, sorry – that’s your problem, not mine.


Of course it matters how qualified someone is when evaluating an opinion, but I've noticed that since the movie "Forrest Gump" came out there's this general idea that everyone's opinion should be weighed equally as if democracy means that "your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge". Isaac Asimov said something to that effect. In a health crisis, whose opinion matters more, that of a physician or that of a bystander who saw someone collapse? It is more logical to give the physicians medical opinion more weight.

I'm not saying that if one isn't qualified that one can't have an opinion and state it freely, but it is foolish to take all opinions at equal weight. It leads to inaccuracy not to take into account the source through "democratization" of all opinions.

I'm not even saying that different house systems don't work. But then you say "have you developed a superiority complex..." trying to deflect the real issue. I say you are equally free to disregard what I said.

Deb says:
Quote:
The original post of Hermes made it sound like the notion that the chart comprises four sets of houses that are related as trios through the diurnal revolution of the suceedent house moving towards the themes of the angular house, and the cadent house falling away from it, was newly discovered by Schmidt, which struck me as odd since this is obviously not the case.

So is it so unreasonable to ask for a source for who was speaking about "angular triads" before Schmidt?

I really want to know (honestly) if there were others saying what Schmidt says in that article before he did. If you're no longer interested in the issue, don't respond, maybe someone else will. There's no need for personal attacks. I spent time with James Holden at AFA last Sept and have gotten another view of some of the material apart from Schmidt's and really don't know what to think about the different house systems at this point.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
So is it so unreasonable to ask for a source for who was speaking about "angular triads" before Schmidt?

Without wishing to become embroiled in this discussion, I'd like to offer the suggestion that the concept of 'angular triads' (if not that precise term) is present in the very vocabulary used by ancient astrologers in talking about the houses. The succedent and cadent houses are commonly referred to as 'the epanaphora/apoklima of the ascendant', 'the epanaphora/apoklima of the midheaven', etc, making it clear (at least to my way of thinking) that the four angles were seen as the fixed points of reference, each angle having one place/house 'falling away' from it (apoklima) and one 'rising after' it (epanaphora).

This is also one reason why I think it unlikely that the astronomical midheaven -- the actual point of culmination -- would not have been of interest to ancient astrologers (except in length-of-life procedures). Difficult to calculate, and therefore generally approximated, yes; but the language of the primary motion is fundamental to the way the houses (or places) were discussed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:
So is it so unreasonable to ask for a source for who was speaking about "angular triads" before Schmidt?


Without wishing to become embroiled in this discussion, I'd like to offer the suggestion that the concept of 'angular triads' (if not that precise term) is present in the very vocabulary used by ancient astrologers in talking about the houses.


OK. Then probably someone else translated the Greek terms which suggest "angular triad" before Schmidt and it shouldn't be too hard to track down a source who makes the same arguments about fate based upon the motions of the Same and the Other. However, I don't recall seeing anyone grouping the houses in the same way making the same arguments as Schmidt did in 1999 on this. The usual grouping is by quadrant (10, 11, 12... 1, 2, 3) etc...
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GR,
Quote:
I keep thinking you're Coder for some reason.

I wish I was, but my dispositions are not those sought at today's Bletchley Park.

Quote:
He'd probably tell you that both are inextricably tied together, at least when it comes to Hellenistic astrology. Why are you more interested the former?


Bad English on my part. Yes, I think Schmidt has said it is a dynamic with one taking shape from the other. I was more interested in his proposal these foundations were based, or constructed, on a Platonic Idealist geometrical demiurge and how this compared to other paradigms. In respect of the nuts and bolts, these fiendishly complex calculations require a lot of commitment. Why learn how to bake a cake when a Greek speaking other can sift through the ingredients and, eventually, give you a slice. If tasty you can roll up your sleeves and get out your own rolling pin.

Quote:
Alter your mind/body, or your perception of it? Is such alteration, of either mind/body or preception of it, utterly unique, or could it be replicated?

Yes utterly, even astrologically. I forget the maths as to when you can have the exact same chart again, but it’s a long stretch. Even then the world is a profoundly different context. Are you attempting to divert the discussion into the nativities of Siamese twins? Laughing

Quote:
More that I'm trying to see what it is you mean and what suppositions you're presenting to the discussion. But I also was thinking about the question of why one would make friends in the first place? Are they friends because they are from where one lives? Or they're engaged in what one does? Or are judged by one to be similar to oneself? Or are attractive to one for some reason or another?


All these questions have been studied for decades. Proximity, personality, similarity, compatibility, etc are all factors which influence who we end up calling our friends. The supposition is Hellenistic astrologers, both then and now, would look at the contents of one or all of these 5 houses when faced with a question such as ‘’ Will I be seeing my friends and getting some half decent presents from them this Xmas.’?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 946
Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I take my hat off to anyone who understands ancient Greek to the point of being able to translate it.

But I detect an opinion here (and on a thread in another astrology forum) that:

1. unless an astrologer can read ancient Greek, his/her opinions on the astrology of antiquity can be dismissed.

2. Entire English translations of ancient texts can be dismissed on the grounds that some words are mis-translated.

This attitude (not held by you, dear reader!) would effectively limit any acceptable discussion of Hellenistic astrology to simply replaying the views of that handful of elect individuals deemed worthy of opinion-holding. Because apparently anglophone views are by nature inferior.

I am with Deb on this one.

My Hellenistic astrology education is incomplete, but I actually started with on-line articles by Robert Schmidt and Chris Brennan (!) that suggested (to me) a seamless narrative in ancient texts.

As I began to get into the primary sources more thoroughly, and with an eye on textual criticism, I began to see diversity all over the place, as per my previous posts re: Dorotheus and Firmicus Maternus on this thread.

What amazes me, is that some astrologers of unknown or apparently limited formal education in research methodology are so definite about various points. The academic scholars, in contrast, are far more cautious as a group. And what is more, the academics footnote their work so we can see more precisely how they've put their arguments together.

I read footnotes because I want to see how a particular case is built. Ditto for bibliographies. I would love to see this more often in astrologers' work.

Because if an astrologer is fluent in Greek, apparently that's considered enough to accept his theses, judging from what I've read in Internet articles. Full stop. The rest of us have nothing to say about them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waybread,

Quote:
My Hellenistic astrology education is incomplete, but I actually started with on-line articles by Robert Schmidt and Chris Brennan (!) that suggested (to me) a seamless narrative in ancient texts.


This Mission Statment of Schmidt's may serve to clarify, and correct, some of these impressions.

http://www.projecthindsight.com/articles/hellenistic.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 946
Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Nixx, but it doesn't "correct" my thoughts on the matter.

1. It's a thoughtful essay. Some footnotes not only would have made it more helpful to anyone seriously interested in the origins of western astrology, but would have acknowledged previous authors who influenced it.

2. Schmidt wrote: "The mystery of its founding only grows deeper when we consider that it seems to have sprung forth virtually fully-formed in a singular act of autogenesis.... . The large majority of the concepts, techniques, and principles of interpretation that are the mainstay of Hellenistic astrology cannot be traced back to any earlier or contemporary source." I don't buy this at all. We can see fore-runners of the Hellenistic astrological tests in Aratus and Ovid, in the Babylonian cuniform horoscopes, and in some of the Egyptian cultural astronomy, as well.

3. Maybe the decision is subjective as to whether there are a lot or a few surviving texts. Given the ones Schmidt cites, I'd say a few. But what about the archaeological materials? Schmidt doesn't mention them. We have hardly any extant materials prior to the start of the common era.

4. Maybe one of the problems of historical scholarship is that one can find what one expects to find. Schmidt sees coherence where I see a lot of diversity. I don't deny the coherence where it exists, in part because the authors tended to copy one another. But I think he has scripted-out the diversity of thematic house contents in the different sources.

5. I was left incredulous by this statement: "In fact, the lineage recorded by Firmicus Maternus gives credit to Hermes Trismegistus for the founding of this astrology, whom he says passed it on to one Asclepius, whereupon it was explicated by Nechepso and Petosiris and promulgated by Abram, Orpheus, and Critodemus. Moreover, most of the core doctrines that characterize Hellenistic astrology are independently ascribed to these same astrologers by later Hellenistic authors as well, often in the form of direct quotations of their writings or paraphrases of their doctrines."First of all, some of these "astrologers" are pseudepigraphical: i.e., mythological or legendary. There was no single "Hermes Trismegistus": rather, this was a body of literature with different authors writing under the name of the "greatest" Hermes. Greek and Roman authors often romanticized their own pasts, attributing origins to legendary founders. And how "independent" are the "later" authors? Here is where some citations would be helpful. Tamsyn Barton's book on ancient astrology is helpful in dispelling the fictional quality of some of astrology's history.

6. Re: Schmidt's section: "Preliminary Survey of the Contents of the Hellenistic Astrological Corpus." I won't bore you with a repetition of my posts on historical methodology. They're up there. I repeat my comment, however, that attention to the guidelines of historiography would be extremely helpful for astrologers who want to write history.

7. The section on the philosophical underpinnings of western astrology seems out of touch with the scholarly publications on this point.

There's more, but 'nuff said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dajorok



Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Posts: 23

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi everyone,

I appreciate all of the input going into this thread, but I feel that some of the arguments and stuff could be a bit lightened. This was my inquiry in effort of gaining better insight to the traditional methods and ways of how this science is applied. While I'm really happy that this thread has so much input, I think we should all be trying to pool our knowledge together in an effort toward the Placidus/Whole Sign thing.

That being said, I have actually used Porphyry over the past couple weeks and I must say that of all the systems so far I really like that one. I may not know as much as some of the others here, but I enjoy reading what everyone has said. I often wonder what the ancients would think of our discussions.

Anyway, I realize this response has no real "meat" to it, but I figured I would just like to continue our discussion on these forms of house systems, which, I believe I had read several times, that we probably will never know which is the most accurate, or whichever fits the best. I am beginning to wonder if exiling any of them would be an error, but then that begs the question as to why there were so many in the first place.

As for everyone else, carry on -- and also please have a wonderful, joyous holiday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
But I detect an opinion here (and on a thread in another astrology forum) that:

1. unless an astrologer can read ancient Greek, his/her opinions on the astrology of antiquity can be dismissed.

2. Entire English translations of ancient texts can be dismissed on the grounds that some words are mis-translated.


This is too simplistic. It just means that there's a greater chance that someone could be mis-informed. BTW, that also includes me because my Greek is not very good, which is why when I said something in the past, I've tried to make sure the reader knows where this is coming from. It is just common sense to admit that unless we've got first hand understanding that our thoughts on what the ancients said in Greek are more likely to be flawed.

The ironic thing about this is that I don't dismiss Deb's opinion. I was trying to see where her opinion was coming from. But I do think it is very reasonable that if her opinion is coming from personal experience, that it should be taken one way, whereas it is coming from some sort of other examination, to take it accordingly. We all make judgements like this whether we admit it or not. As Alan White used to say, we have a right to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

BTW, what other forum? This one is the only one I spend any significant time with.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
OK. Then probably someone else translated the Greek terms which suggest "angular triad" before Schmidt and it shouldn't be too hard to track down a source who makes the same arguments about fate based upon the motions of the Same and the Other.

On that, I have no information and no opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
My Hellenistic astrology education is incomplete, but I actually started with on-line articles by Robert Schmidt and Chris Brennan (!) that suggested (to me) a seamless narrative in ancient texts.


It's definitely not a seamless narrative and how you get this from Schmidt is beyond me. Schmidt has said hundreds of times about various passages that the Greek is very tricky and he has had to change his opinion more than once because of it.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
5. I was left incredulous by this statement: "In fact, the lineage recorded by Firmicus Maternus gives credit to Hermes Trismegistus for the founding of this astrology, whom he says passed it on to one Asclepius, whereupon it was explicated by Nechepso and Petosiris and promulgated by Abram, Orpheus, and Critodemus. Moreover, most of the core doctrines that characterize Hellenistic astrology are independently ascribed to these same astrologers by later Hellenistic authors as well, often in the form of direct quotations of their writings or paraphrases of their doctrines."

First of all, some of these "astrologers" are pseudepigraphical: i.e., mythological or legendary. There was no single "Hermes Trismegistus": rather, this was a body of literature with different authors writing under the name of the "greatest" Hermes....


This is not accurate because it is taken out of context. Schmidt has also said countless times (what I've highlighted from your comment in bold) that "Hermes" could be a mythological or assumed name for an individual writing under an assumed name or a group working together.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
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 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
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