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

Sidereal Sign/Mansion Research: Leo through Scorpio
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 682

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese, do you ever consider that most just don't agree with you rather than a lack of understanding? You talk of academic influence and rigour but use the words of a reputed psychic as foundational principles of your research. To me that is exactly what you claim academic influence would remove.

I'm happy to discuss practicalities but the problem is it is really just two people presenting their method, which is fine, but I sense thst isn't what you're looking for.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Thus, I don't like it remaining in the realm of entertainment. Respect?? I was thinking of general respect among astrologers and the public. The advantage of academic respect is that there would be grant money for studies (not necessarily statistical) that would benefit astrology in general. Yes, this would mean standards that would have to be met, but even now astrology schools have fairly high study standards before certificates are given.

It's probably true that astrologers who would like to see professional standards have degrees or certificates themselves, and those who want to bypass standards and formal education haven't earned those certificates or degrees. So it comes down to personal experience, which of course influences attitudes. Yes, I value education, but shouldn't be criticized for that view.


Therese

I am not sure who has criticised you for your valuing education. From my point of view, to echo Konrad's last post, I think people just have different views on the matter.

I would like to clarify my view though, as I don't think it has been understood fully. I do not care whether academics respect astrology, nor whether Universities teach astrology or have astrology modules that student studying other subjects can also gain credit for. I strongly resonate with James' analogy of music pertaining back to my comment that academia does not have a monopoly on knowledge etc.

But I think you really mean a few different things. Firstly you wish for astrologers to be educated and astrology to be well taught. Well I am all for that as well. I do not necessarily think that academia needs to respect astrology for that to happen or that universities have a monopoly on the education process. I attended a school of astrology in London. It wasn't a University. I learned a lot of good astrology. I think, rather than look to academia to value judge astrology/astrologers as worthy of their respect, we would do better to look inwards and, as a community, push for having our own internal sense of value and professionalism and education. We do not need a university professor to value astrology or astrologers for that to happen. Personally I value astrology and astrologers enough that I really do not need anyone else to, provided I am given free reign to continue to study and practice it as I see fit.

Secondly you wish for astrology to be respected by the wider public. It seems that an underlying motivation is that by gaining academic respect, we can use this to leverage a general demand for respect amongst the wider public. Well, once again, if astrologers as a community act in way deserving of respect, we will have earned it on our own right, rather than using academia as a platform to spring from to expect it.

Thirdly you wish to have access to university resources and grants. I understand that, and I addressed it in my previous post. What I meant was that student studying philosphy, history etc. can already leverage their academic resources. Heres the rub, you say, on the other thread:
Quote:
Right!! But a university has a library! How many of us have the resources to keep purchasing all these new and wonderful translations?! It's really helpful to go to a section in a library and see a selection of books on the topic we want to read about.


Well that's the thing, if someone does not have access to a University, then they won't have access to University resources. But this actually undermines your point for desiring academic acknowledgement, because it continues to rely upon someone who is in a University. Not having academic respect tells us nothing about whether or not someone has access to a library.

In fact this is a major reason I would be against academia getting involved. Because right now the situation with astrology is that anyone regardless of their financial situation etc. can start to study and practice astrology. They do not need to pay massive sums of money to Universities to be allowed this privilege. Nor do they have to subscribe to some particular body's idea of what astrology should be.

Let's theoretically imagine this university course on astrology. What would it teach? That tropical signs are a modern problem and that sidereal signs are the most historically accurate and true? Would it teach your own views on astrology? Surely when I am in charge it will teach mine? WIll it teach that horary is rubbish as some astrologers believe? Or that natal forecasting is a waste of time?

Would the one true astrology please stand up, because whilst we have all these different flavours and each of them is "allowed" to be studied by whomever wishes to do so, we have more diversity and yes, less broad agreement on some things. However I infinitely prefer this approach, where I am given liberty to make up my own mind on a given area of astrology or historical point, then to have a top down enforcing of what astrology is or ought to be. Because that is down to the highly individual idiosyncrasies of that astrologer or group of astrologers. What do we do instead? Teach sidereal astrology alongside tropical and allow students to hand in their coursework in either zodiac? This would never happen.

Instead we can still learn and research the philosophy behind astrology in philosophy dissertations, and its history in history dissertations. We study the subjects without needing the respect and therefore the control and interest of academics and we leave astrology as a branch that allows the individual to make up their own mind on controversial issues rather than have universities make it for them.

In addition, an extreme example of academic 'respect' would be to reserve the term "Astrologer" such as we have with the reserved word "architect" or "doctor". It is easy to imagine that, just like with law or with medicine, or architecture, that one cannot be or practice astrology, or indeed perhaps study it, unless they have the relevant academic qualifications, I am fundamentally against this idea of monopolising education. I am all for needing some system to demonstrate the acknowledgement by their peers for certain disciplines, such as medicine and law etc.
However I prefer that someone can be an astrologer without needing to pay someone extortionate fees every year for the privilege.

Right now I am completing a post-graduate in computer science in London. For my two year part time course I have paid about 9000. Lucky me. I can afford that. But many cannot, and many great astrologers with fantastic insights may not have gotten the opportunities they did if astrology was suddenly under the interested eye of academia.

I take an extreme example of course, but I think it's worth considering. If someone is not fortunate enough to have access to University resources such as a library then they won't suddenly have this opportunity just because said university adds it to their syllabus - the library will still be just as inaccessible as ever. Instead the only people who might benefit are those who are already able to access the resources, and really with the exception of research grants, they can do this already.

I am all for requiring some sense of professionalism and education. But it is just that I do not think academia is the best approach for this to be done, and I'd much rather it is done internally, using the carrot approach rather than the potentially top down stick approach of a university.

Interestingly I might just add one thing about the presumed lack of respect of academia. One of my end of year submissions will include a piece of work centring on astrology. My professor did not give a damn one way or another about the subject matter. Not having the respect of academia does not always imply that we have their disrespect either.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1367
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:


Let's theoretically imagine this university course on astrology. What would it teach? That tropical signs are a modern problem and that sidereal signs are the most historically accurate and true? Would it teach your own views on astrology? Surely when I am in charge it will teach mine? WIll it teach that horary is rubbish as some astrologers believe? Or that natal forecasting is a waste of time?


Quote:


Instead we can still learn and research the philosophy behind astrology in philosophy dissertations, and its history in history dissertations.



This is exactly the point I raised in my Facebook page... I completely agree with you, Paul. An academical course necessarily means to me Professors with an adeguate background, which is not always the case, I'm afraid.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2897
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i really like what paul had to say too. i agree with konrads quick overview as well.

much of the conversation here seems to be philosophical in nature.

as i understand it, therese is in favour of some type of 'formal' educational process' for astrology whereby astrology gains a type of legitimacy it doesn't presently have. we had a long conversation on the philosophy forum that discussed this same topic - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7817
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1209
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad wrote:
Quote:
You talk of academic influence and rigour but use the words of a reputed psychic as foundational principles of your research.

Konrad, I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you mean that I sometimes post quotes from Edgar Cayce? Those quotes aren't fundamental principles of my research. But perhaps you mean something else?
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 682

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Konrad wrote:
Quote:
You talk of academic influence and rigour but use the words of a reputed psychic as foundational principles of your research.

Konrad, I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you mean that I sometimes post quotes from Edgar Cayce? Those quotes aren't fundamental principles of my research. But perhaps you mean something else?


Yes, Cayce. You use his readings to provide significations for the invisible planets. That seems pretty foundational to me, but contradicts the academic rigour you want to put astrology and its practitioners through. Not a huge deal, just an observation.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mjacob



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 412
Location: Kent - England

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Intuition isn't a concept found in ancient texts. It's a modern concept, and most likely belongs to Uranus or Neptune or both. That is exactly where Rex Bill's The Rulership Book places intuition: "Uranus, Neptune, 9th house." So it appears to be a false assumption that intuition as such is a lunar trait. As astrologers I believe we would all like to say we use clear logic in our astrological work combined with a helpful dose of intuition.

If for the sake of argument we say Medieval Astrology was formulated in Baghdad in the eighth or ninth century then we will not find a reference to intuition because intuition is a word in the English language - a language that did not even exist at that time. Some people were aware that there was a sphere beyond Saturn. Saturn ruled time and space and if one could go beyond his realm one could experience the realm known as Empyrean or Heaven. They felt no need to add more barriers to Saturn like Uranus or whatever. To describe these realms as "transpersonal" or supra conscious is merely to coin a neologism that adds nothing to my understanding and probably to no one else's either I would guess
_________________
Matthew Goulding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1209
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad wrote:
Quote:
Yes, Cayce. You use his readings to provide significations for the invisible planets. That seems pretty foundational to me, but contradicts the academic rigour you want to put astrology and its practitioners through. Not a huge deal, just an observation.

I posted the Pluto quote because Michael asked what Cayce said about Pluto. I was just being helpful. It's true that I have material on Cayce's astrology. I also have all the Project Hindsight publications, Ben Dykes' translations, Rob Hand's books, many articles and books by various astrologers, etc. It's all for study purposes. But when I research a topic, it's investigation and not something like "I've got to find evidence that what Cayce said about Neptune is true." That's not science or investigation.

The main focus of the Cayce readings was on spiritual principles to live by. That and thousands of medical readings for clients with health concerns. Astrology came into the readings purely by accident.

Real education is open ended---learning how to ask the right questions. It's not force feeding information to anyone who will listen. But in order to know how to ask the right questions, there has to be training in logical thinking and a foundation in whatever subject a person want to study.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
RodJM



Joined: 02 Feb 2014
Posts: 82
Location: Tasmania!

Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread has gone "off topic" a bit don't you all think?
In my opinion let Therese continue what she thinks is right under this topics thread tittle.
The last couple pages of this thread are bordering on philosophical issues with eduction in astrology as a subject.
_________________
Libra Sun/ Pisces Moon/ Sagittarius Rising
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mjacob



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 412
Location: Kent - England

Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RodJM wrote:
This thread has gone "off topic" a bit don't you all think?
In my opinion let Therese continue what she thinks is right under this topics thread tittle.
The last couple pages of this thread are bordering on philosophical issues with eduction in astrology as a subject.

I agree but as Therese Hamilton was the op then it should be up to her to say so and the moderators to judge. As a general point I ask why does Skyscript have a separate space for philosophy anyway? It is actually for science and philosophy but it implies that they are separate subjects that do not really count as important but are mere side issues to Astrology. I am not the spokeswoman for the "tradition" but surely in former times everything came under the umbrella term philosophy? Was not science called natural philosophy. It was then that Astrology was a respected part of the curriculum and that it what we want now is it not? Perhaps the wheel will turn in our favour again some time but perhaps not in the present Zeitgeist. A zeit with no Geist
_________________
Matthew Goulding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
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