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

Symptoms of Kali Yuga as Reflected in Contemporary Astrology
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:52 pm    Post subject: Symptoms of Kali Yuga as Reflected in Contemporary Astrology Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:06 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Symptoms of Kali Yuga as Reflected in Contemporary Astro Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:07 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 11:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Symptoms of Kali Yuga as Reflected in Contemporary Astro Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:


Firstly, I am amazed and disgusted by the treatment of a certain Ms. Soniah, by some fellow forum members (not necessarily Juan), in the 5210 thread titled Chronobiology.
.


Soniah was way out of her epistemological depth and was interacted with - here - quite resonably by most posters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Symptoms of Kali Yuga as Reflected in Contemporary Astro Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:

Firstly, I am amazed and disgusted by the treatment of a certain Ms. Soniah, by some fellow forum members (not necessarily Juan), in the 5210 thread titled Chronobiology.
...
I see that Juan's views are shared by many here, judging by how everyone attacked the one who spoke out about this on the 5210 thread cited in the first post.


I've not read the 5304 thread yet, but I have to say I'm amazed at the patience that posters showed Soniah who, to my mind, was nothing but rude to those with whom she disagreed. The other posters were, for the most part, nothing but courteous to her. I do not see where Soniah was attacked, the closest was when Bill seemed to lose patience with her. On the contrary Soniah repeatedly behaved patronisingly and sometimes insultingly toward others.

Quote:
And it is a start at refuting the notion that because science cannot explain the effects of the planets and the stars, therefore astrology is not a natural science. This argument by appealing to the current lack of knowledge of science is very weak, it reminds me of the weak argument for the 'God of the Gaps' in the field of theology.


How do you define a natural science? I don't recall Juan (we can assume this is to whom you are referring) stating that the reason it is not a natural science is because science cannot explain the effects of planets. In fact when you made a similar argument in the other thread I thought he summed up his rationale quite well - page 2 at 4.24pm - "Astrology is better tied to the social sciences because of its subject matter, its methodology, and the nature of the tools it uses". I'm not sure how he could have made his position clearer.

Also, I'm not sure what the photographs regarding Jupiter's magnetic field were meant to convey - you never actually said. You just posted them and left them there with no context. Is there some implication that you were attempting to point toward with the post? What do these photographs demonstrate in regards the argument that astrology is a science?

Quote:
Contemporary scientists still know almost nothing about the laws of the universe.


I think we're forced into agnosticism on that issue. It would take someone who knows all the laws of the universe to judge how much or how little a scientists know. No such person appears to be available to tell us. What we do know is that science (by which I mean the body of contemporary scientists) does not know everything. That science does not know everything does not simply mean that we fill the gaps with notions of our own - oddly this is more like the 'god of the gaps' scenario that only moments ago you criticised.

Quote:
Transits are a picture of the astronomical sky from a geocentric perspective and the idea that they do not represent the movement of the heavens is one of the strangest things I have had the misfortune to hear from an astrologer (with all due respect to Juan and everyone here who finds these notions to be satisfying).


What Juan is referring to here, clear from the context he gives and the explanations which follow, is the transits to a birth chart. Astronomy is used as a tool with which to draw the diagrams but the referencing of one diagram (planetary positions at birth) to another (planetary positions today) is not astronomy or any other natural science.

Quote:
Progressions and directions will be explained in a rational way, by myself later when there is time, however both of them certainly do represent the movement of the heavens, from a geocentric perspective.


They are a representation as you say - but that is all. A metaphor, an analogy - all the kinds of things you might use in a social science.

I think before going any further it would be better to stop and put down what the distinction is between a social science and a natural science because I suspect that much of the problem is assumptions regarding nomenclature. I suspect that not everyone is reading from the same page when it comes to defining a natural science as distinct from a social science.

Quote:
It appears to me that astrologers have chosen these positions to try and avoid and appease the hostility towards astrology by so-called educated contemporary persons, whom we are trained to consider their (scientists, psychologists, sociologists, statisticians, etc.) views as tantamount to the Gospel. Sorry, I do not drink that water, and my own mental realm of Lemuria is more satisfying to me.


This is strange, because I was actually thinking similar things, only the other way around.

I was wondering why the necessity to project astrology into the category of natural science (when to my mind it so clearly is not). I suspect the problem is actually one to do with insecurity and devaluing astrology on its own merits. To put it another way - who cares whether someone labels it a natural science or not? Will this somehow strengthen astrology or weaken it? Is astrology and by proxy astrologers incapable of standing on their own merits rather than needing these props? I think that a part of the problem here is that science and a post newtonian scientific paradigm of cause and effect is the most popular philosophy right now. It actually sits right in the playground of a materialistic approach to consider that astrology need to be a natural science with the physical planets by way of some force causing astrological phenomena.

Of course that may be what is happening - there may be some force as of yet undiscovered. But until such time as this force is discovered or some model put forward to explain it, we cannot in good faith consider it a natural science. Not yet at least.

Returning to your argument here, it would seem more likely that those who wish to consider astrology a natural science may likely do so for the very reasons you are accusing those who disagree may do it for. Namely to appease the materialist-scientist philosophy (as Gospel). In fact it predisposes the idea that this paradigm is a better one than a social science - who says? If anything the likes of Juan who are clearly astrologers and who clearly value astrology and place it as a social science are simply making the distinction that things of value (like astrology) can be placed as a social science and in doing so in no way devalues what astrology has to offer - because surely what it has to offer it will do so on its own steam regardless of its classification.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lihin



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

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:52 am    Post subject: Causes Reply with quote

Good morning,

Those who prone dogmatic, sceptical materialism prefer to ignore or even negate formal and final causes. Those who consider astrology as a 'mantic art' prefer to ignore or negate material and efficient causes. Many or most of both apparently have never studied causality in philosophy and in spite of such lack of basic knowledge obtain academic degrees in today's world.

Thus i concur with Mr Varuna II that much if not most of what today proudly parades as 'astrology' is an excellent example of the vertiginous descent of humanity in the current Iron Age (Hermetic tradition) or Kali Yuga (Hindu tradition). Traditional understandings of cycles of development are mostly the opposite of theosophistical ones purported in various 'New Age' beliefs. Those particularly interested in such topics might profit by reading English translations of the renowned 20th century French metaphysician René Guénon's works The Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity & the Signs of the Times.

Those who opine that there are no possible 'scientific' underpinnings of astrology might like to read Professor Dr Percy Seymour's (he is an astrophysicist) excellent book The Third Level of Reality: A Unified Theory of the Paranormal and / or his books explicitly concerning astrology. Specific reference is made to physical phenomena of plasma, resonance and magnetism.

Best regards,

lihin
_________________
Non esse nihil non est.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



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

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:
Juan wrote, "2) there is nothing that warrants the assertion that this correlation is a phenomenon of nature, except a simple hypothesis for which no physical or biological testable model exists.
In the absence of such a physical model, the correlation belongs to the realm of numerical (mathematical) and social constructions, not to the world of natural phenomena.


The above information demonstrates that Juan certainly did suggest astrology cannot be a natural science because science does not have a currently accepted mechanism explanation.

The statements you are quoting here were a specific reference to Gauquelin's statistical work, not to Astrology.

In my opinion it would be foolish to deny the extent to which the stars and planets are interwoven with or are "influencing" what happens on earth and inside human beings. Science provides no satisfactory explanation but I think inside every one of us there is a spiritual memory or intuition that keeps reminding us of our strong connections with the Cosmos or the spectacle of the sky.

But unfortunately many if not most astrologers believe that this is what the Greek horoscopics that we all practice today (including in India) is about, and cannot see the difference no matter how many times or with how many different words one explains the reasons why this is not the case, and regardless of how they constantly contradict this belief in their astrological practice.

You are ignoring all of my main points, so I would like to ask you a few simple questions and see if we can establish a dialog. No need to answer them all.

1) Do you exclude Uranus, Neptune, Pluto from your practice? Why?

2) How or where are in the sky 30 degrees of fire next to 30 degrees of earth next to 30 degrees of air next to 30 degrees of water?

3) Why can a birth chart speak of or describe your spouse?

4) Why do you ignore all those planetary influences on your body or brain happening right now and instead refer them to a chart of the moment you were born?

5) When the Moon in the chart is below the horizon in the first house while in the sky it is above the horizon in the 12th, what do you do?

6) Do you use the Moon with parallax? Why?

Juan


Last edited by Juan on Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:
I suppose my main objection to what happened with Soniah, was that I watch beginning astrologers like myself, arrive at astrology forums only to be told by the more seasoned astrologers that they themselves are either skeptics or that the astrology chart is not a picture of the sky!


As it happens I don't agree that it's not a picture of the sky - I think it is a symbolic picture of the sky. What I think people disagreed with Soniah over was the repeated statement that there was rock hard scientific proof for astrology - there is not. It was this stance that people disagreed with.

Quote:

My Natural Science definition: a system of knowledge of the "natural" world. Astrology is a system of knowledge pertaining to the planets and stars, therefore it is a natural science.


Astrology is the system of knowledge not pertaining to planets and stars but pertaining to their apparent effects here on earth, so it's a bit different I think.

It relates back to the argument over how to define astrology. I would define it as the correlation between celestial phenomena and mundane matters and leave it wide open as to what that correlation is or how it works. Would you agree with this?

Quote:
The social sciences are, as far as I see it, concerned with humans, and astrology, or at least jyotish, is not only focused on humans, also see, for example, the mundane section of this forum, which is not only about human activities.


What about geography? Would we agree it's predominantly a social science even if it has elements of the natural sciences within it? Perhaps astrology is similar?

Quote:

I will address magnetism later on.
...
I presented some science of magnetism as suggestive of other forces even beyond magnetism as it is currently understood, as an analogy for what I believe is what is happening with astrology charts which represent the forces of nature onto bio-electric organisms and the earth itself which is also energy, since matter itself is also energy according to "rational and educated scientists" and not just hippies. There are different types of energy on different levels, some easily measurable, some currently not so easy to measure.


Unfortunately you did not present some science of magnetism in any context that may be relevant to astrology. You simply stated that there was a magnetic field around Jupiter etc. but not how this ties into astrology. Simply observing a given energy (magnetism or gravity for example) is not enough to conclude anything other than its presence. To be more blunt and more simple, what is it about Jupiter's magnetic field that establishes clearly that Jupiter is domiciled in Saggitarius and is in detriment in Gemini, exalted in Cancer and has a benefic influence, in contradistinction with, say, Saturn who is not. What about magnetism indicates to us that Jupiter cannot be domiciled in Capricorn for example. What about its magnetism tell us about equal 30 degree divisions of the ecliptic band with Jupiter's domicile being in a fire and water sign?

In what way is magnetism actually relevant whatsoever? Simply observing it is there does not inform us on any conclusions we've made about it.

Quote:

Let me finish my explanation of how astrology works and then it will make sense to you, whether you choose to agree or not is another matter, and it really does not matter whether we disagree. Ultimately what we all do is have faith in some things, even skepticism and agnosticism ultimately requires faith in certain things.


I understand your philosophy relatively well on astrology but that is the point, it is a philosophy. It is not a natural science. We all have a philosophy on how astrology works and why and I guess it's likely that at times one philosophy comes into contact with one which disagrees with it but that's to be expected. Ultimately as we're agnostic on the issue we must agree to disagree on these issues. Personally I do not understand why we would need astrology to be classified as a natural science - will this make our astrology somehow more merit-able? Make astrologers less insecure? Why does it matter?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 320
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 8:10 am; edited 2 times in total
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 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
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