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

Is there an 'astrological community'? If so, what is it?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2790
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juan,

it puts the emphasis on astrology being more art then science in noticeable ways..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
juan, it puts the emphasis on astrology being more art then science in noticeable ways..

To me Astrology is neither science nor art but a tool or set of tools for the modelling of reality. In this sense I think it has a strong affinity with the social sciences.

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2790
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi juan
how would you categorize or define "modelling of reality" as you put it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
how would you categorize or define "modelling of reality" as you put it?

Essentially, astrologers reduce any human reality to celestial coordinates, according to specific procedural and semantic rules and conventions. Thus, for instance, the discrete abstract coordinate that astrologers call "a planet" is not representing the astronomical planet, rather, the astronomical planet is reduced to an abstract coordinate which is then used to represent something else by means of conventionalized semantic attributions or symbolization.

Astrology cannot map how planetary energies affect us because these energies and their way of operating are not known. We can't make a model of what is unknown. But we can take advantage of the order of the heavens assigning to each astronomical point a specific cultural category, and use the result to model or map what we experience here on earth or inside human consciousness. A birth chart (for example) is not a map of the sky, but a map (model) of a human being.

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:




Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?


Completely wrong. Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget about this:''Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial objects and earthly events''.

It's an exercise in time wasting , it's essentially using an inkspot to explore societies and your own psychodynamics. Pointless, harmful , disingenuous ....not that dictionary defined astrology can't be accused of the same. See JUAN'S site for clarification where you will, bizarrely, bump into the usual mixture of religion and scientism nobbling against the none of this is real conception.

An analogy is the local priest delievering the sunday sermon whilst of a mindset, very common!, the idea of a Christian god is absurd but the belief in the idea may be helpful in terms of maintaining social order and giving your life a sense of teleology.

What I find quite odd is why 'Skyscript' tolerates this. I'm a hard core sceptic but if all my posts were a variation on 'The seed moment is rubbish , but.........'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:
It seems like you want to classify astrology as a social science, presumably meaning in association with sociology, anthropology, and some views of psychology, as opposed to classifying astrology with biology or physics?

Close. "Has a strong affinity with", not necessarily "is". In those fields the scientific method is a failure because theories cannot achieve the standard of "proof", yet we see the development of disciplined methodologies and controls by means of which knowledge and understanding of the subject-matter is possible. Sadly, these methods are generally ignored by astrologers.

Quote:
Or do you classify biology and physics or even mathematics as social sciences also? (Not that I am sure what your definition of social science is.)

No. The definition is given by the subject-matter: complex, intangible phenomena associated with human activity and production: social structure, cultural patterns, behavior and motivation, language...

Quote:
Do you take your position because contemporary scientists currently know almost nothing about the laws of nature? Or is it because of a certain worldview perhaps similar to relativism and subjectivism?

Neither. I'm not sure what you mean by "my position", but I think I am just stating a simple fact: Astrology is used by astrologers to model human experience and human concerns. The belief that Astrology belongs to the field of natural science is constantly being contradicted by astrologers in their practice by the nature of the tools they use and how they use them. This situation is a fruitless theoretical dead end.

Quote:
... But although biologists do not know what the mechanism is for their science, they still study biology without feeling like they need to apologize for their behavior, nor do they feel the need to become total relativists. For some reason, astrologers are the only people who are supposed to do this, to avoid being accused of superstition and burnt at the stake in the indoctrinational institutions.
Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?

Yes.

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:
Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget...

It would be more productive if instead of your incohesive rant you focus on explaining why what I have said here is wrong.

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan wrote:
Nixx wrote:
Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget...

It would be more productive if instead of your incohesive rant you focus on explaining why what I have said here is wrong.

Juan


What interests me is why you do this. Is it a projection of self loathing that you once believed you were imprinted by ''cosmic forces'''...only to discover in due course Horoscopy was impossible. You probably wouldn't be first or the last.

Anyway it's up to the Skyscript controllers if they want a non-believer using up space on a religious forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:
varuna2 wrote:

Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?


Completely wrong. Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget about this:''Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial objects and earthly events''.

It's an exercise in time wasting , it's essentially using an inkspot to explore societies and your own psychodynamics. Pointless, harmful , disingenuous ....not that dictionary defined astrology can't be accused of the same. See JUAN'S site for clarification where you will, bizarrely, bump into the usual mixture of religion and scientism nobbling against the none of this is real conception.

An analogy is the local priest delievering the sunday sermon whilst of a mindset, very common!, the idea of a Christian god is absurd but the belief in the idea may be helpful in terms of maintaining social order and giving your life a sense of teleology.

What I find quite odd is why 'Skyscript' tolerates this. I'm a hard core sceptic but if all my posts were a variation on 'The seed moment is rubbish , but.........'


(emphasis mine)

Nixx

It is probably better to let Juan explain what Juan's opinion on astrology is, the parts I've highlighted above teeter toward being disrespectful.
As Juan himself points out, it may be better to take his points one by one, if you wish, and demonstrate a superior argument rather than simply lambasting them as harmful and disingenuous.

In regards what Skyscript tolerates, it is not my place (or indeed yours) to suggest what Skyscript should tolerate, but we do know what it does not tolerate:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/templates/subSilver/read.php


On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:


On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.


I use the dictionary.

Debo did say some time back she did not want the space/place turned into a Horoscopy is a fallacy, we've all heard these irrelevant/irreverant Juanesque /real world postulates a million times, arena.

Anyway I got to go out and look for carpets, so I'll need to take a short break from my Nick Campionesque role playing here. If you are looking for a good read for Chrissy and have not perused it his 'What do Astrologers believe' is a cracker.

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


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:
Paul wrote:


On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.


I use the dictionary.


Perhaps it depends on the dictionary.

Quote:
Debo did say some time back she did not want the space/place turned into a Horoscopy is a fallacy, we've all heard these irrelevant/irreverant Juanesque /real world postulates a million times, arena.


Like Deb, I wouldn't want to see this place turned into a horoscopy is a fallacy arena either. But as I don't think Juan is doing that I see no reason to take it up as an issue. What instead Juan has postulated is that astrology is not causal and is instead a construct/tool/paradigm to model human and worldly behaviour. This falls within my dictionary's definition of astrology which is primarily linking celestial phenomena with human and worldly concerns - note that it doesn't necessarily preclude any particular ways that they may be linked. Juan has his own philosophy about how this occurs and varuna has another and perhaps you and I would still others. But that's okay. The original poster made the remark that there are many sub-groups of astrologers each with their own philosophy. I see no reason why we can't budge down the aisle and make room for Juan's as well - and, it should be noted, he is not alone in these opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:
We see all sorts of examples where the so-called natural sciences cannot offer proof, here are a few: singularities, black holes, dark matter, the original biological seed - for example, acorns. We also see contradictions, for example, light is a particle and a wave. We also see numerous unexplained phenomenon that science cannot yet account for. Therefore, the classification of astrology as a soft or social science, because of lack of proof, fails.

I never said that Astrology is akin to a social science "because it lacks proof". Astrology is better tied to the social sciences because of its subject matter, its methodology, and the nature of the tools it uses. The subject-matter of Astrology is a person, a life, a question, an event... all these are symbolic constructs, not physical entities. The methods astrologers use to deal with these are qualitative: metaphor and analogy, analytic induction, statements and construction of meaning, symbol manipulation... and the tools used (zodiacal signs, houses, radix charts, abstract and discrete coordinates, transits, progressions, etc.) are cultural inventions that do not exist in the natural or physical world or in the sky. These are the field of anthropology, linguistics, and semiotics.

What you list above is theories or models that are operationalized in terms of well- known physical laws. No such operationalization exists in Astrology, only a simple postulate (e.g."the planets and the stars are the cause of what happens on earth" or "astrology studies the correlation between celestial and earth events") with nothing in between but a simple and powerful metaphor.

Furthermore, even though the stars and planets send their rays to us all the time, astrologers never study these because nobody knows what is there to study nor how to model their effect or interaction with us. Instead of looking at real organisms the astrologer refers everything to the flat unidimensional coordinates of an artificially frozen instant of time long ago in the past (the radix, the birth chart) that is taken AS IF it were a real entity. This is a purely metaphoric and cultural convention that has nothing to do with natural science.

Quote:
I would never state that the Jupiter in the sky is different from the Jupiter in the natal chart

You evidently are not familiar with the effects of latitude in an astrological chart. In the case of Jupiter these effects are not very notable, but in the cases of Venus and the Moon they can be dramatic. Additionally, Jupiter in a natal chart is a mere abstraction of something that happened a long time ago, it doesn't belong to the natural world like the Jupiter that can be seen in the sky, it exists only in the imagination. Therefore something like a simple astrological transit is physically impossible. Astrology does not provide tools to model how this Jupiter at the moment of your birth affects you, it can only model how it affects a set of abstract coordinates that are taken AS IF if it were you. This is not natural science.

Quote:
I still do not quite know where you are coming from...

That's understandable, but you can check my previous posts in this section of the forum where I explain a little bit better, e.g.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5304
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5210

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lihin



Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 470
Location: Mount Kailash

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:57 pm    Post subject: Plural Reply with quote

Good evening,

Methinks that one cannot appropriately use the word 'astrology' in the singular in the current period. There are 'astrologies', not astrology. This was in my humble opinion also the case in the mediaeval and ancient past, perhaps less extreme than today.

One might consider that there is also Chinese astrology with quite different underpinnings. Except for its often self-imposed language barrier of Sanskrit (one can translate most of ancient Greek, why not Sanskrit?), it seems to me that Indian astrology should be fully included in the framework of 'horoscopic' astrology. There are usually more similarities between Indian and Hellenistic astrologies than between either and modern astrologies.

Although i already stated my reason to often exclude Helios from the initial chart present to a client, i shall elaborate a bit to answer Mr Paul. To my naive, simplistic way of thinking, the faster points move astronomically, the more they indicate individual (rather than collective) attributes. As most are aware, aside for exceptions like stations, the order from fast to slow is: Pivots (angles), Séléné, Hermès, Aphrodité, Helios, Arès, Zeus, Kronos. Since there are two pivotal axès, Helios is the 6th of 9. Usually i put Him back in the chart at an appropriate stage after the client has been successfully de-conditioned from sun-sign astrological assumptions. Very Happy In my humble experience his importance in natal astrology is generally much exaggerated in modern astrologies but already to some extent in the Western Renaissance.

Best regards,

lihin

PS Off Topic. To me being on a first-name basis with someone implies at least more than fleeting acquaintance, mostly trust or even friendship. Thus neither intent nor desire to be on such a basis with everyone. General use of first names voids these specific meanings and therefore, in my humble opinion, constitutes a linguistic impoverishment.
_________________
Non esse nihil non est.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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