delete

varuna2 wrote:It seems sensible to leave it wide open, I would too except not when the alternative is worse such as the ideas I was addressing in this thread. I do not consider it to be correlation because that is a kaliyuga notion.

Okay but how are determining what alternative is 'worse'? What tools are we using to determine what is better or worse except for our own subjective viewpoints?

Really if we accept that astrology really is anything which correlates celestial phenomena with earthly/human matters then it is wide enough to incorporate many potential theories and views - even those whose main crime is disagreeing with our own or our own philosophies. We cannot rightly throw some theories out unless we redefine astrology again, and the problem is that when we do this too often what we're left with is a very narrow definition of astrology that excludes anything which disagrees with our own very marginal and idiosyncratic way of doing astrology. I might redefine astrology iteratively until I exclude all those pesky theoretical planets, astrocartography, modern rulerships etc etc ad nauseum until the definition of astrology stops defining astrology and only defines "Paul's Astrology". We run the same risk here. There is nothing particularly offensive about Juan's view point that it cannot also fit into the paradigm of correlating (somehow) celestial phenomena with earthly/human concerns. Btw when I say correlation I just mean "has a relationship with" without specifying what it is (it allows for that relationship to be causal, synchronous, or anything else).

You say this is a 'kaliyoga' notion - this is said as though to explain within itself how automatically this cannot be accepted, the problem is that it does not consider who labels it as a kaliyoga notion, what this actually means or why it is a bad thing. Most importantly it does not consider whether even if it were such a thing, whether this tells us anything about the truth of it.

Really the use of the wording kali yoga implies a religious sentiment that astrology as a whole need not sit within. Whilst it is true that your own philsophy/religious outlook incorporates such things, astrology as a whole need not, and so, astrology as a whole, need not bend to such sentiments - though your own particular usage of astrology and understanding may. As an analogy I might argue "well you're wrong cos that's just satan tricking you so astrology cannot be that" and we're really informing ourselves not one bit about astrology at all, merely using our religious paradigm as a crutch against which we can ignore a valid argument. We cannot simply say "I'll accept all arguments except those which I do not accept for some personal religious reason" as that's not a valid approach to a debate. Of course you personally do not have to agree, and are free to disagree with the sentiment, but we cannot prevent others from taking that view as being equally valid to our own.

Regarding magnetism: Right, I did not explain the missing pieces in the forms of ,e.g., F=ma, since that is a job for those interested in such things.

But wait a second, this is the actual natural science part that you're theorising. What you're now saying is that you're not interested in that part? If you're suggesting electromagnetism is responsible for astrology simply stating is not enough - you need to explain why and how this may be true. Otherwise this is no different than me pointing out that a kettle produces energy and affects gravity and as a result concluding that the kettle is affecting my personality without expanding on how or why that may be true.

Right now we don't even have a theory with regards electromagnetism just your statement that it may be responsible. The problem with this is that so far nobody, yourself included, has given any rationale as to how it might or indeed any demonstrations that it is indeed the case either.

We do not need to classify astrology as a natural science, except that I personally believe it is a natural science, perhaps the first one, and it was only mentioned as an alternative to the views expressed by Juan and others, which to me is a far worse option.

The question isn't whether we think it worse, the question should only be whether or not we can prove him wrong. If we cannot then we must contend that his theory is at least equally as valid as our own, even if it makes us uncomfortable. We don't have to subscribe to the theory, but we cannot contest that his theory is worse than our own. Certainly saying "well you might be wrong, it might be electromagnetism" is not good enough as you might also say "you might be wrong, it might be magic/unicorns/god/aliens/leprechauns" - it might be lots of things, but then, it is JUST as equal that it might not be.

Until we have evidence or at least some model to work with or to try to test against, all we're left with is a philosophy.

The end result then is that Juan has his view of how astrology works and we cannot disprove him or find flaws or fault in his logic for why he might be right. And yet if we start to turn to electromagnetism to explain our own philosophies all it takes is one skilled enough in understanding electromagnetism to instantly prove us wrong, pointing out, perhaps, the greater electrical field from the microwave oven or mobile phone etc. As soon as we start giving forces which may be responsible all it takes is someone to go examine them, demonstrate that it's not because of that and as a result utterly ridicule astrology as a whole.

In my world, astrology is the result of superior beings from a previous world age, and now all we are left with is bits and pieces and no one knows the basis and such things, because the kaliyuga humans would not be able to invent such a science. So instead we do what we are doing now, I guess.

Well you're certainly entitled to this view, but I would have to say my own philosophy and world view would disagree with it. I do not see any reason to think there was some master race or master beings who knew astrology and what we have is the bits and pieces that were preserved simply because its history clearly shows evolution and change. So if this premise is correct, then what we have is so morphed and shaped from the original that very little if any must be left.

As for indians practicing horoscopic astrology for thousands of years (presumably meaning past the introduction by the greeks) then again we have no evidence for it, just a religious story.
But if we want to talk about natural sciences we need to do better than fall back on a religious argument. Of course if we don't want to, and my opinion is that it is not appropriate, then we don't have to and we can keep our own philosophies whilst recognising that they are just that - philosophies, not hard natural sciences.

delete

delete

varuna2 wrote:...your general view of astrology, but it exactly parallels what you already said previously to me in another thread about astrology in regards to the planets being different in the chart, from in the sky

This issue has several angles. A first angle is latitude and parallax (in the case of the Moon) as it affects the position shown in the chart. Most astrologers work with celestial longitudes exclusively and remain oblivious to the fact that often where the planet appears in the chart is not where the planet really is in the sky in terms of the houses, the horizon, and the meridian.

A second angle is that what is called "a planet" in an astrological chart is a discrete, unidimensional abstract coordinate that works as a signifier of something else that is not the astronomical planet. This signification is part of a well established system of cognitive or linguistic categories, a deeply layered cultural classification system (houses, signs, planets, aspects, rulerships).

A third angle is evidenced in the way astrologers use their charts. A planet in the chart exists only in the human imagination, it is a conventional representation of something that happened a long time ago. Jupiter in the sky is real, Jupiter in the sky a long time ago no longer is, there are no two Jupiters. Often this is explained by means of a "birth imprint" metaphor: Jupiter is one aspect of this imprint. But this is ignoring that a chart is only an ordered classification grid and not a real organism or organic process.

it feels like you are playing games, or otherwise I do not understand you whatsoever.

I get the impression that it is the last.

I also disagree with the implications that horoscopic astrology is Greek only and was not practiced in India thousands of years ago.

It is your prerrogative to ignore the historical evidence.

1) I exclude Pluto because as I already mentioned, I believe in a causal perspective of astrology and Pluto is tiny and twice as far as Neptune, which is twice as far as Uranus, etc.

The outer planets are not twice as far from each other by a long stretch, and sometimes, Pluto is closer than Neptune. Your model of causality depends on distance and size/mass, a materialistic and mechanical Newtonian paradigm very far from vedic spirituality. And you are ignoring the experience of several generations of astrologers as well. This is an ideological choice to which you are entitled, but its motivation is cultural and psychological, it is not science.

2)...I suspect you are wondering where these divisions are in the sky. My answer to this is that it has to do with specific earth-related energy patterns which the vedic seers and others elsewhere, intuited when in tune with the cosmos when humans were not so devolved...

Energy patterns is reasonable, exact 30 degree divisions with different and contrasting properties each like chinese boxes is something very different.

Your answer is based on faith: "... even though they cannot actually be seen in the sky, I choose to believe that they come from a source of knowledge higher than normal human cognition". This is a religious belief.

3)Because we are indirectly children of the Cosmos and the Solar system and stars. Because the universe was invented for us and not us for the universe. Because the Cosmic Mind wanted us to be able to read the Divine Plan. Therefore, the spouse can be read with astrology. See again the Isho Upanishad quote above.

It seems that to you astrology is revealed religion, not natural science. You presume it is all there in nature but you don't know how or where, you just trust the source of revelation and the authority of tradition. This is compatible with choosing to ignore the historical evidence of how Astrology originated and evolved, and with the choice to ignore cultural and psychological differences (relativism).

4)I already stated why I use a natal chart, reread what I wrote for the part about the template being set with the first independent breath of prana. The current energies are called transits and I do use them but not in isolation.

You did not answer the question.

5)I use so-called 'whole-sign house divisions,' so it is less likely to be an issue, and certainly not for my own chart. I consider the visual sky to be more important in questionable moments like this example.

OK, but then you would have to leave tradition and what most astrologers do behind, you would have to try new and experimental techniques.

6) No, but only because I am a beginning student of astrology and so I have not made the time to learn how to do that yet, especially since astrology for me is not a primary subject of study.

You should know that as a result of lunar parallax, what most astrologers see and calculate in a chart (the standard geocentric position without parallax) is often different from what appears in the sky, the Moon can appear in a different sign and the time of lunar aspects, ingresses, returns, etc. will also differ. You don't have to worry about this because traditionally astrology never works with the position of the Moon observed in the sky, but with a position calculated as if we were at the center of the earth.

What I call "superstition" is believing one thing in spite of evidence to the contrary. Examples are believing that astrology deals with planetary influence on my body and brain (or soul) where in the real world it completely ignores it except at the moment of birth, or that the 4 elements are displayed in the sky in perfect order and sequence, or assuming that the Moon and Venus are tightly together in the sky simply because they appear that way in the chart, or asuming that a transit by longitude to a birth chart is a natural or astronomical phenomenon...

Juan

juan,

i take it you neither believe in astrology or do astrology. is that correct?

james_m wrote:juan, i take it you neither believe in astrology or do astrology. is that correct?

I've been a professional astrologer (psychological astrology mostly) practically all my life, although right now (I'm 55) I'm kind of retired.

What I'm saying is not different from what Marc Edmund Jones "the dean of American astrologers" said decades ago and throughout most of his life, I'm just using a different language.

I am not criticizing Astrology at all. I think Astrology is a wonderful tool. What I'm pointing at is the errors and fallacies that are so evident in what astrologers **believe** about what they are doing. In my view, this endless repetition of theoretical fallacies has contributed to a stagnation in our understanding of Astrology.

Do you believe in a guitar? Do you believe in the calendar? Astrology as I see it is a tool or set of tools. You don't believe in a skrewdriver or a typing machine, you just keep it well-tuned, use it, and master it.

Juan

thanks juan,

marc edmund jones said a lot of things and wrote many books that tended to be quite abstract.. i liked his ideas on different types of chart patterns - bundle, seesaw, bucket and etc. etc..

about that guitar you mention, i think that is a good analogy actually in so far as - guitar and astrology - they both get played by artists, lol..

what i have found on astrology forums often times is a lot of talk about astrology but not so much practicing or demonstrating the astrology.

regarding your main thrust here which is what astrologers **believe**..

perhaps it matters a lot what astrologers believe, but i haven't really thought that myself.. i think it matters more what they share and whether they are able to offer some insight and value that might be of real benefit to others. in so far as an astrologer is able to do this, i think it doesn't really matter what they believe.. if someone wants to believe the moon is made of cheese, all the power to them.. the main thing for me is whether they are able to provide some cheese when they give a reading on the moon position in a chart if you get my drift. it can't be too cheesy either..

folks that claim to be really into religion get caught up in this same thinking about what another person believes and these same folks tend to pay more attention to minuet differences then they do practicing what they actually believe. to me it is in the expression and practice that people can get a feel for what someone actually believes. saying and doing are two different things to me.. thanks for sharing..

james_m wrote: marc edmund jones said a lot of things and wrote many books that tended to be quite abstract.. i liked his ideas on different types of chart patterns - bundle, seesaw, bucket and etc. etc..

This is an interesting claim of Juan's that Jones regarded Horoscopy as a tool or technology and removed all or most judicial or natural justifications/conceptions.

Whoever wrote this entry seems to have another angle/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Edmund_Jones

delete

Good morning,

Might some of the issues expressed in this thread concerning the exactness and application of more or less 'exact' astronomical phenomena contrasted to their 'simplified', 'symbolised' uses in astrology perhaps at least be mitigated by placing them in the context of 'essential' and 'accidental' as elucidated by Aristotle and others?

Here are three perhaps useful links for those not yet so familiar with this:

Aristotelian substance theory

Aristotle on Substance, Matter, and Form

Essential vs. Accidental Properties

Best regards,

lihin

varuna2 wrote: I am sorry to say that your arguments do not make sense to me.

When I look at contemporary society with its naive beliefs in progress, it looks insane to me. Same as when others look at my beliefs.

I"m sorry to hear that, if I can clarify any points I made I will. Let me know.

For what it's worth I do not think your beliefs look insane. I do think that you're being wilfully ignorant with regards the history of the zodiac etc. but that's okay. The reason for it is so as to fit within the paradigm of your religious outlook.

I do not buy into the notion that all views are equally valid, it sounds like something from the kaliyuga as well.

Perhaps equally valid was the wrong thing to say, but unless we can prove someone wrong or demonstrate a better argument we cannot simply ignore them. Juan's theories regarding astrology are valid within their own merits even if we disagree with them.