Michael wrote:

I am not sure why you would include me in this list, Mark.

This seems to be a mistake. Didn't Mark mean to say "Rod?" It's easy to confuse posts when so many appear on the forum close together in one day.

Therese Hamilton wrote:It's really poor form to discuss the birth charts of forum members unless it's an agreed upon topic.

therese - it would be wise to apply your perspective in a practical manner if you really believe what you say.. you are the one who started discussing your chart!

Therese wrote:

It's really poor form to discuss the birth charts of forum members unless it's an agreed upon topic.

I do agree that citing the specifics of other members natal data in this kind of discussion seems inappropriate. It one thing for a member to reveal an aspect of their chart. Its another for other members to cite natal configurations to support a criticism of that member. I have been at the receiving end of this kind of treatment in the past and its not pleasant. That is why I would not reveal my data on a public forum like this.

Mark

Therese wrote:

This was a mistake. I'm sure Mark meant to say "Rod." It's easy to confuse posts when so many appear on the forum close together in one day.

No. There was no mistake. Michael has edited his earlier post above several times now but he originally made a comment quoting your statement on zodiacs and seemed to suggest he agreed with your comment.

In particular your comment:

There cannot be two zodiacs in totally different positions in the sky with the same rulerships and principles. It?s just not logical. Well, logic as I see it anyway.

Michael initially expressed agreement with you on that specific point but that comment and the quote were later removed. However, as the comment was removed and considering Michael's subsequent comments I accept his position on this may be quite different from what I initially assumed.

Mark

Therese Hamilton wrote:


RodJM wrote:

Well, "approx date of 200 A.D." is exactly that, its approximate only. I'd have thought Indian astrologers would have tested this with there Jyotisha astrology by now. I mean how long has their version of astrology been around for now?

India has never been into testing astrology. India accepts convention and tradition, and an astrologer will use the astrological tables that happen to be at his disposal.

Well, in that case, caution be to the client who requests the assistance of an Indian (Jyotisha) Astrologer. I would never consult an astrologer who didn't exercise discrimination and objective (as far as is humanly possible) delineation when reading a natal chart. Passively just "accepting" established dogma is downright delusional and dangerous. Blind leading the blind it sounds like?

Therese Hamilton wrote:

So only the graphics got you on that website? that's shallow, coming from someone like yourself, Therese... nothing what he states makes any sense?

Rod, I?ve been very busy today, and was away from home this evening. I had no time to do much reading. I only glanced at the site because I had only a few minutes. I do have ?a life? apart from astrology. But (just checking the site now), white text on a dark background starts to dance in front of my eyes. Very difficult to read...probably my age.

Yes, the presentation of the text made my eyes a bit "jarred" too! I'm nearly at the point where I need reading glasses now.. lol..
However, his views of the Earths relationship to the Galactic Center I find interesting as well, but that points off topic for this thread.

Martin Gansten wrote:
2. Any astrologer using any zodiac will almost always base his or her judgements on a variety of factors, only some of which will be zodiac-dependent. Indeed, the principle of semantic redundancy is often explicitly invoked by astrologers (we like to see several 'testimonies' of the same thing in a chart in order to be sure). This obviously increases the chances of two astrologers differing on certain points of technique (be it zodiacs, house systems, or whatever) both making correct judgements about a chart. Such an occurrence does not prove that the technical assumptions of both must be equally right, or arbitrary. (Besides which it is, depressingly, much more common for both astrologers to be wrong, except in a 50-50 shot.)

Hi Martin,

That part I highlighted in your post is exactly one of the biggest problems with modern western astrology today. Unless astrologers agree on the primary meanings of words such as is defined in modern dictionaries that are globally accepted (English language) these debates and discussions will go on forever and ever.. round and round in a loop. In you opinion, how could this be rectified? if at all possible.

Therese wrote:

I believe all of us posting here would agree that astrology as a practice is divinatory. But it would be very helpful if someone would post a definition of "divinatory" in the astrological sense in one paragraph or less for the benefit of those who may not completely understand the term.

Its a big issue Therese and expecting one short definition to sum it all up is somewhat optimistic. I suspect astrologers may be using the term in quite different ways. I would be very surprised really if we could find a short form of words we could all agree on. Geoffrey Cornelius seems to be sanguine about that since we are not trying to agree some sort of astrological equivalent of the Nicene creed.

As he states:

Looking at astrology this way raises more questions than it answers. ...But divination is at the heart of the issue, and how each of us answers that question matters very much.

However, let me offer this very short article by Geoffrey Cornelius on the CURA site entitled ''Is Astrology Divination and Does it Matter?''. Its from 1998.

Since Cornelius was really the first astrologer to raise the topic of 'divinatory astrology' in modern western astrology it seems appropriate to start with him.

http://cura.free.fr/quinq/01gfcor.html

Therese wrote:

I'm not sure of the meaning of "decoding impersonal patterns of reality" according to E.M. Zuesse. Martin, could I ask you to elaborate?

I would very interested too Martin. I note you cited this same source in your article on Nadi divination but I am still not that clear what you mean. You have told me before you totally disagree with Geoffrey Cornelius. I would therefore be most interested in knowing exactly what your take is on how astrology operates as divination and why that differs from the view of Geoffrey Cornelius.

Thanks

Mark

Mark wrote:Therese wrote:

I'm not sure of the meaning of "decoding impersonal patterns of reality" according to E.M. Zuesse. Martin, could I ask you to elaborate?

I would very interested too Martin. I note you cited this same source in your article on Nadi divination but I am still not that clear what you mean. You have told me before you totally disagree with Geoffrey Cornelius. I would therefore be most interested in knowing exactly what your take is on how astrology operates as divination and why that differs from the view of Geoffrey Cornelius.

I have very little time right now (and for most of the coming week), so I'll be as brief as possible. I don't remember saying that I 'totally' disagree with Geoffrey Cornelius, though perhaps I did say it in some particular context. In truth, I have heard him speak once (that I recall) and never read his book, so he is not, to me, a major figure embodying a particular point of view that I could undertake to define and position myself in relation to. I do recall not agreeing with much of what he said the one time we spoke at the same conference, though.

Putting Cornelius firmly to one side for now, then, I take divination simply to mean the attempt to acquire knowledge by means beyond everyday sense perception and reason. (This is not meant as a watertight definition, just to give an idea of what I mean. I haven't the time to formulate a precise definition, even if I thought it worthwhile.) Such endeavours can be variously subdivided, and the context of the Zuesse quotation was contrasting 'wisdom divination' (which is how I would see astrology) with other types, such as 'possession divination' etc. Basically, wisdom divination assumes that there are connections between seemingly unrelated parts of reality, so that one who understands the pattern of these connections (or at least part of the pattern) can form conclusions about one thing, such as the destiny of a human being, from something not necessarily related in a causal fashion, such as the positions of the planets at the moment of birth. My key point was that this assumes that there is an actual, underlying structure to reality, so that we as astrologers are faced with the task of discovering this structure. Assuming that several mutually contradictory models can be true, equally and in the same sense, strikes me as a very modern, post-modernist view, rather different from most if not all traditional forms of divination.

That's probably all I'll have time for at least until next weekend.

Martin wrote:

I take divination simply to mean the attempt to acquire knowledge by means beyond everyday sense perception and reason. (This is not meant as a watertight definition, just to give an idea of what I mean. I haven't the time to formulate a precise definition...)
(...)
My key point was that this assumes that there is an actual, underlying structure to reality, so that we as astrologers are faced with the task of discovering this structure. Assuming that several mutually contradictory models can be true, equally and in the same sense, strikes me as a very modern, post-modernist view, rather different from most if not all traditional forms of divination.

Thank you, Martin for taking the time to write your post. It clarified several concepts for me. I have bolded the last sentence of your post because it particularly resonates with what I see as a major problem of modern astrological thinking. It's a view that defies logic.

Martin wrote: Sun May 04, 2014 3:01 pm

My key point was that this assumes that there is an actual, underlying structure to reality, so that we as astrologers are faced with the task of discovering this structure. Assuming that several mutually contradictory models can be true, equally and in the same sense, strikes me as a very modern, post-modernist view, rather different from most if not all traditional forms of divination.

Martin,

The two ways to look at this are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

There can be one underlying structure to reality which is, however, beyond our comprehension as such. All we can do is to see it through different, but equally valid models, for the time being.

A parallel can be found in the way modern chemistry uses various models of the atom, none of them complete, but each of them descriptive of the atom in a specific context.

This is not to say that, by synthesis and simplification of our models, we cannot arrive at a more profound level of truth but we should not be surprised to find that, ultimately, the way is the goal.

Michael

two people can arrive at similar viewpoints in astrology using very different methods. how did they arrive at the position? was it all based on logic or was intuition also at play? does logic trump intuition or do we need both in order to understand our world and astrology more fully? i think we need both.. those who rely on logic only are ignoring or underplaying an important part of the brain that is more direct if more unconscious or automatic in nature. actually in this sense i think intuition (which can also be wrong) is highly under-rated, especially by those who put logic up on some type of pedestal.. mercury and the moon are the 2 planets we associate with the mind.. we need them both.. if we lean too strongly on one while ignoring the other we come to positions that are unbalanced.. if these planets are in conflict with one another, or conflicted individually in a chart, i think this can and does lead to a mental outlook with liabilities, typically out of balance.

really i think this idea of their being only 1 'correct' zodiac to use the topic is to imply that we have subjected our viewpoints to the supremacy of mercury at the cost of the moon( or vice versa) to use astrological imagery. i have always thought of the 2 zodiacs as equally relevant and valid in that they are different vantages point.. does what one sees with a telescope, or a microscope mean what we can't see with our 2 eyes isn't their? it's ALL there.. the reference point or lens we begin with conditions it accordingly.. to suggest their is only 1 zodiac is to not understand the valid basis for both of them. what zodiac a person chooses to use, is a personal choice, much like whether one wants to look with a telescope verses a microscope.. that's how i see that fwiw.

james_m wrote:.. mercury and the moon are the 2 planets we associate with the mind.. we need them both.. if we lean too strongly on one while ignoring the other we come to positions that are unbalanced.. if these planets are in conflict with one another, or conflicted individually in a chart, i think this can and does lead to a mental outlook with liabilities, typically out of balance.

It is ironic that astrologers insist that one only need mercury,logic and not Moon intuition to assess a chart thus ignoring what is plainly stated by a founding father of the art