31
Varuna2, suit yourself. Yes, I do try to go by what people actually post, not by what they do not post. I sometimes joke that we are (mostly) amateur astrologers on these forums: not mind-readers. Yes, it is entirely simply to understand a "tit for tat" mentality among some resentful astrologers. My question is, where does this get us?

Anti-intellectualism gets us nowhere. I regret that some people with less education resent people who have more. But again, where does resentment get us? The assumption is that by virtue of having post-graduate degrees people are somehow less spiritual? Bushwa. What they are, taken very generally, is less gullible.

Spock, I agree with your recent post. I would also add (as you know) that some some science is primarily theoretical-- in the first instance.

Myriam, I think the idea that science is restricted to the senses (including the senses as enhanced through instrumentation or numerical results;) whereas there is some higher sort of knowledge that is not so restricted is a false dichotemy. If you consider thinking, brainstorming, flashes of insight, or even "sleeping on" a thorny problem, then these are part of the scientific process as well.

Moreover, who is to say on what basis we determine what is better or what is not-so-good? Gut feelings? Faith? It isn't as though, according to the essentialist universe, there is some objective template against which the truth-claims of their knowledge system can be assessed. Sure, the Platonists contrasted eternal archetypes with ephemeral phenomena, but then there are no independent criteria by which to evaluate these truth-claims.

The cockroach example is extraordinary. So far as evolutionary biologists and paleontologists know, there is a way that insects and birds evolved. Birds probably evolved from the dinosaurs. The story is incomplete but it is based upon actual fossil evidence and systematics. The essentialist argument about birds doesn't even make sense given the thousands of species of birds on the planet, ranging from humming birds to emus to geese to road-runners to penguins. What could the archetypal bird possibly look like? There is no evidence for the essentialist thesis, and plenty for the evolutionary model.

NikolaiTesla is irrelevant to a discussion of whether astrology today is a science. Tesla died in 1943, 70 years ago. Science today has moved on. Sience today is largely conducted by teams of researchers employed by universities, corporate, or government labs, not by lone geniuses engaging in high-risk electrical experiments.

It should be noted that astrology was part of the rational science project of its day in the hands of Ptolemy and his adherants. In his day astrologers were often called "mathematicians."

32
There has been a lot of activity since my last post. Please forgive me if I do not respond to everything that has been said in a point by point manner, but instead address some of the more general points of Spock and Waybread. I have also written some articles on these very subjects, so in the interests of saving effort, I will refer to these articles when they are helpful. I do appreciate the kind words of James and Varuna, by the way.

In traditional thought, there is a distinction between Lunar Reason and Solar Intellect. I discuss this more thoroughly in this article on my blog: http://appleseedtreeoflife.wordpress.co ... uminaries/

Inferences, sleeping on a problem, and everything else both of you described are all a part of Lunar Reason. Please do not misunderstand me, I do not think that Lunar Reason is bad or even that in the Kali Yuga, that Varuna described, it is not more necessary than ever. If you do not understand this reference, I made a humble attempt to explain the concept in this article: http://appleseedtreeoflife.wordpress.co ... -the-ages/

Waybread, you mentioned the fossil record. I really do not think that the fossil record is as complete as is popularly believed. Even if the fossil record were iron-clad, though, there is still a presumption that life was the same in the past as it is today. According to traditional teachings, the Iron Age, or Kali Yuga, did not begin until about 5,000-6,000 years ago, which is interestingly enough, at around the same time that the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that the world began. We need to be very, very careful and humble about making any judgments or assumptions about prior ages, because there is much we really don't know and that is beyond our current comprehension.

I will go back to my cockroach/bird hypothetical. I don't think it is as extraordinary as it seems at first. Think about pterodactyls. Were they dinosaurs, or were they birds? Supposedly, they were the precursors of birds, but how can that be? Weren't dinosaurs all destroyed? I am not arrogant enough to think I know the answer to these questions, but I don't think that Modern Science does either. Not really.

Waybread, you ask a very good question as to where we get our information if not from Lunar Reason. I think that this is where Tradition comes in. While I do believe that our ancestors were our superiors, intellectually and physically, that is probably a hard pill for most modern Westerners to swallow. A good start would be to at least consider them our equals and really study what they had to say, without dismissing it as "superstition". It is hard in the West, because tradition had already been broken by the time of Ptolemy and actually was broken even in Plato's time. Plato was trying to restore and preserve Traditional teachings, which were already being lost. Tradition was much better preserved in the East, and much can be learned from Eastern Tradition.

While I do believe that we still have access to intuition (in its highest form, which is Solar Intellect), few of us have the capacity to distinguish this from other types of non-sensory sources of information, or from urges from the lower psychic realms. Much of what is thought of as intuition is often lower than Lunar Reason, rather true higher Solar Intellect. For this reason, particularly in the late Iron Age, we must really test our intuition against both solid Tradition and our sense data.

As you see, I do not propose throwing out the scientific method, and I do think it of value in astrology (inasmuch as it can really be applied). I just propose that we understand and accept it for what it is and its limits.

The other main point I want to address is the issue of prediction and free will. There is Traditional teaching on this as well, which I discuss in these two articles:

http://appleseedtreeoflife.wordpress.co ... ss-and-wa/

http://internationsocietyofclassicalast ... free-will/

I hope this is helpful to the discussion.

33
Myriam, I mean no disrespect towards traditional belief systems, let alone you and your thoughtful posts. I hope you enjoy a good debate.

I have no difficulty with the Bible, because I take much of it as metaphorical rather than literal; and I understand much of it as history-- written from a strongly sectarian perspective in order to promote particular agendas. Taken in these ways, it would make no sense to argue whether the Bible is "true" or not, although it might make sense to critique a literal interpretation of much of it. (This was often the Gnostic take on the Bible, incidentally.)

Paleontologists would be the first to claim there is much that they don't know about the evolutionary pre-history of species. There are gaps in the fossil record as well as puzzles. Where I think they would disagree with you is about whether the gaps in the record can be taken to somehow discredit their methodology in favour of an essentialist outlook.

A seemingly staid topic like evolutionary biology is full of all kinds of in-house debates amongst the scientists about rates of change, causes of sudden change, and so on. This doesn't mean some of them use Neo-Platonism or religious scriptures as their playbook. They certainly wouldn't subscribe to an essentialist doctrine, which is utterly contrary to all of their considerable amassed and very tangible evidence.

In terms of the history of astrology, we have to be careful not to read it in such a way that we overlook contrary examples. Ptolemy is not noticeably metaphysical, though we can see where he borrowed from more metaphysical scholars of Antiquity. When Rome banned astrologers (as it did repeatedly) they were often called "mathematicians." Putting together an ephemeris or calculating cusps for a new house system does not require a metaphysical world-view though this isn't to say the Campanus or Placidus didn't have one.

In your first linked blog article you wrote, "A traditional science is a craft which applies metaphysical principles in a practical way to our material and physical lives." Well, yes and no. This isn't to deny that scientists before the Enlightenment were typically Christian (or Muslim, &c) and understood the world through those lenses. But oftentimes their scientific contributions had no necessary connection to their metaphysical world views. Examples would be improvements in navigation or star catalogues. One can sail a ship by a compass bearing or observe the stars without a necessary reference to whatever religious beliefs the discoverer might have held.

Moreover, there is no going back to some pre-Enlightenment era. We know too much.

The astrologers who have done the most work with archetypes seem to me to be Liz Greene and her associates, who are influenced by the work of Carl Jung.

34
Thank you, Waybread, for reading and considering my posts.

I really don't enjoy debate, to be honest, and from my experience, rarely is anything settled that way. I think we are at the point of agreeing to disagree, but there is no reason not to be friendly about it.

There is one clarification I would like to make, to keep the record clear, as it were. In no way, shape, or form, do I think that the Judeo-Christian written tradition (or any Scripture) should be read as literal, factual history.

Again, I do thank you the time you have taken to read and respond.

35
here is an excellent article titled "An Astrophysicist's Sympathetic
and Critical View of Astrology" that many here would enjoy reading.
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/astrol.htmla

it is taken from vic mansfields website which is still up, although he is no longer alive and was given to me on another astro website.
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/

myriam - i didn't care for your article 'nativity charts and free will'. the article comes across as extremely negative towards modern astrology.. i'm sure it works preaching to the choir at the 'international society of classical astrologers' website though. the words ethnocentric, or xenophobic come to mind, although i don't know what the word would be to describe astrologers who are determined to denigrate other astrologers based on the different methods for learning. unfortunately it spoiled some of the worthwhile ideas contained in the same article.

one of the benefits of reading your article for me was an interest in the astrology at work in queen victoria for the time of her husbands death and the years following. for anyone interested, take a close look at the primary directions and note how the lights and ascendant make contact with saturn in pisces in the time following her husbands death.

36
The reason I do not like "debate" is that too often, each "side" is already set in their ways, and it is just a continual conflict where each "side" continues to defend their "side," and there is no real communication involved. I do enjoy discussion where everyone is challenged and learns. There is a big difference between the two.

I would never denigrate anyone on a *personal* level. There are some very fine and sincere Modern Astrologers, who do some excellent work. I do believe that those working with Modern Astrology are working with inferior tools, however. I was a Modern Astrologer myself for a very long time, before I began learning Classical techniques. I was converted to Classical Astrology when I was shown how much richer and more accurate readings using Classical techniques were, and how much Modern methods confused things. As you are a musician, James, I am sure you understand the difference between playing a fine, well-made instrument in contrast to a playing an instrument that is not well-made. A good musician can play on an inferior instrument and still sound good, but what a difference it makes with a fine, well-crafted instrument.

Actually, I believe that my article was rather challenging to Classical Astrologers as is the Essentialist approach I am taking, for different reasons than you complain of, James. Most Classical Astrologers are working from an Aristotelian worldview, which has been passed down through Ptolemy and Arabic astrologers. Please understand that Aristotle was not a modern rationalist, nor was Ptolemy. On the other hand, they were proponents of some major departures from Ancient Tradition, which led the West on the path it is on today. The next major departure from Ancient Tradition was nominalism, which was championed by William of Ockham.

For those not familiar with the Traditional Symbolism of the Cross,* I will explain it because it is relevant to what I am saying. The Cross is the Traditional symbol of the material world, and it is embedded in the glyphs for all of the non-luminary planets. The Cross has two axes, the horizontal and the vertical. Humans are Axial Beings, in that we can move along both the vertical and horizontal axes. In the context of Essentialism, the vertical axis is Essence and the horizontal axis is Substance. Anything in manifestation must have Essence and Substance.

A metaphor for this is a statute of Venus. We know it to be Venus from the image. That is a metaphor for the Essence. The statue is made out of marble. That is a metaphor for its Substance. Without Substance, Essence can not manifest, but without Essence, there is nothing to hold Substance together. Those of you who are Modern Scientists can recognize this in subatomic theory, most likely.

The modern, substantialist worldview only recognizes Substance, or the horizontal axis. In extreme cases, the vertical axis of Essence is denied. This is really the philosophy of nominalism, which I think has evolved** to modern scientism. I think it is more common to give some lip service to the existence of the vertical axis of Essence, but give primary importance to the axis of Substance.

Most astrologers practicing in the modern era operate from a substantialist worldview, and in general, the *test* for whether methodology is sound is whether it "works." I practiced this way myself for a time. In many ways, a good, solid practice can be built upon this, particularly in the late Kali Yuga, where we are about as consolidated in substance and matter as is possible. I actually agree with Waybread, in there is no turning back the clock, but it is not because we "know too much," but the reverse, we have declined to the point where we are not capable of understanding many things our ancestors knew.

Going back to the symbol of the Cross, the modern practice of Classical Astrology is mostly substantialist, or focused on the horizontal axis of Substance. On the other hand, it is still rooted in the upward vertical axis of the pole of Essence. These roots are largely unconscious or semi-conscious, but they are still there. A deeper and more conscious understanding of the Higher Spiritual principles can very much enrich the practice, and on a personal level, it has for me. On the other hand, the practice does not change much with respect to methodology or technique. What this worldview does do is give a better understanding of the reasons for the techniques, which can be quite helpful in shifting through a broken tradition. It also give some guidance in order to have some flexibility in adapting astrology to the modern world.

The difficulty with Modern Astrology (and I am talking about techniques and methodology NOT people or practitioners), is that it is cut off from BOTH the higher movement of the vertical axis, which is our connection with Tradition AND the horizontal axis of Substance. This means it has no where to go but downwards along the vertical axis, which is BELOW the material, rather than ABOVE it! This is the difficulty with Psychological Astrology (and Modern Psychology as well, by the way). It explores the Lower Psychic regions, which are below the level of substance. What can be confusing is that the lower regions on the vertical axis can resemble the higher regions, because both move away from the material, horizontal axis of Substance.

Many Classical/Traditional Astrologers are quite dismissive of "Spiritual Astrology," for this reason I think. In the modern world, spiritual is often confused with psychic, and as I said, both spiritual and psychic are on the vertical axis. The difference is that spiritual is above the material, and psychic is below.

Another example is the difference between the use of peyote in a Traditional, ceremonial context as contrasted with the modern use of hallucinogenic drugs. On the level of Substance, these things LOOK the same, but they are very, very different! In the Traditional, ceremonial context, there is ritual, training, and long Tradition surrounding its use and how to navigate the Higher Realms. There is also Tradition in how to avoid the dangers of being pulled into the Lower Realms. Without the anchor of Tradition, ritual, and ceremony, one is far more likely to find oneself exploring the Lower Realms than the Higher ones.

I hope that this has made my position a bit clearer. I do not think I will move anyone from an entrenched position; however, at least, I think I have done my best to be clear about what I AM saying and to clear up any misunderstandings.

________

*I am not referring to the Christian Cross; although, I think that the deeper symbolism of the Cross is embedded in the Christian symbolism as well. Actually, understanding the Traditional meaning of the Cross really underscores that crucifixion as a punishment was intended as spiritual torture as well as physical torture.

**Actually, the words evolve and evolution are much more accurate than is generally understood. Evolve means to move away from the Center. It is very much understood in Tradition that evolution (moving away from the Center) has happened, is happening, and to some extent is inevitable. The difference is that from the Traditional standpoint, this is decline, not progress!

37
Actually, the metaphor of the marble statute of Venus is relevant to the bird analogy I gave above, as well as to the importance of Tradition.

A statute of Venus would be a statute of Venus, whether it was made of marble, concrete, wood, or aluminum. The Substance can change, but still have the same Essence! That is why the bird would still be a bird, no matter whether avian (as we understand it), mammalian, insect, or reptilian in substance! The statute of Venus is Venus first, the substance it was made from second.

With respect to Tradition, it is by Tradition that we KNOW that the statute of Venus is a statute of Venus, and not just of a pretty woman. We have learned and studied Greek and Roman mythology, and we have been told that this is what the statute is. This is also how we can recognize other statutes or images of Venus that might look different. Without Tradition, we would not be able to recognize these images.

If our knowledge of Greek and Roman mythology were lost, and if we did not have references to who these artists were depicting, we would likely mistakenly think that these different images were of different goddesses, or even that they were of people. We might even write academic papers debating the issue, without any resolution, because the authority of Tradition had been lost!

It is for this reason that I think we must be very careful and humble about making assumptions regarding our ancestors. There has been a LOT that has been lost or destroyed over the millenia. Astrology is one of the last fields where Traditional symbolism is preserved and studied, if only in remnants, which is I think why astrology really IS quite important!

38
I think we're moving away from the point now with regards whether or not a degree is needed to identify a science.

I appreciate people are passionate about differences in approach between what we can loosely distinguish as 'traditional' and 'modern' but I really want to discourage getting into debates about the differences between them or suggestions of superiority for one or the other. Not only is that not the subject of this title, but it seldom produces much of value that isn't subtracted by conflicts which can also arise.

I appreciate nobody is deliberately taking the conversation that way of course.

39
paul,

i appreciate your concern..

myriam,

if you would like to show the superiority of your approach while negating any approach which is not 'classical astrology', please feel free to do so.. i didn't pick up on it in your article while i did take what you had to say personally, in spite of your well meaning comment "I would never denigrate anyone on a *personal* level." perhaps it is difficult for you to understand how others would perceive your choice of words in an unfriendly and biased way, but it is just how i perceive them.
Myriam Hildotter wrote:
It is for this reason that I think we must be very careful and humble about making assumptions regarding our ancestors.
i think this is true for making assumptions on those in the present day as well!

40
Paul, I apologize for my part in taking this thread off topic.

I do think that what happened on this thread really underscores the difficulty with a formalized or standardized education in astrology. There is no agreement or consensus among astrologers as to some of the fundamentals of our practice.

Even on this rather informal thread we have very different approaches to astrology, including the basic underlying philosophy behind our practice. What would be required learning if there were a formalized education program?

Of course, the present state of the practice is rather chaotic, with many teachers and organizations providing an education. There are advantages and disadvantages to this; one of the advantages being the accomodation of all of the different philosophies and methods of practice. So, I honestly don't know the answer to the education dilemma.

41
varuna2 wrote: To Spock: Based on what you wrote it is clear you have almost no knowledge on the personal history of Tesla, or very little such as how to spell his name, which, incidentally, the person who mispelled the name has a type of mind which sometimes results in letters being reversed while writing. Tesla knew as much about his scientific field as any scientist in his field, and even today the understanding of that field is far from complete. Tesla also studied physics ideas that were later attributed to Einstein from the almost unknown work of Ruder Boscovic. Tesla had ways of knowing things that Edison could never know. Tesla knew things in ways that someone who does not have that capacity could never understand. I deleted most of my posts in the thread but if you look at the thread titled: 'ketu and mathematics,' maybe some of the mathematician's names are still in the posts by Ken or Stefan, which you may find it interesting to compare a particular Indian Brahmin mathematician's life story (through his own beliefs and words) and his and those other's natal charts with Tesla's life story and natal chart...
I could be mistaken but I remember reading that Tesla attended Austrian Polytechnic in Graz, Austria but dropped out and didn't graduate. Hence he had no degree in physics and to the best of my knowledge has had no impact on that discipline. In contrast, he has had an enormous impact on technology. My point is that science and technology are separate and distinct enterprises, which isn't negated by the fact that they've interacted fruitfully since the last third of the nineteenth century, or by the fact that Tesla is called a scientist by admirers who assume, as many people do, that technology is a product of science rather than a separate enterprise that predates it. Whether Tesla had ways of knowing things that Edison could never know is irrelevant because Edison, like Tesla, wasn't a scientist. Your assertion that Tesla knew as much about "his scientific field" (physics?) as any scientist in his field is not accompanied by evidence or even a description of what he knew. Crispin Andrews, in the 16 September 2013 issue of E & T: Engineering and Technology Magazine, writes that "[W. Bernard] Carlson, whose book Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age was published last year, believes Tesla was more interested in technological innovation than whether the science underpinning his inventions was sound." In "Extraordinary Science and the Strange Legacy of Nikola Tesla," Jeff Johnson writes, "It?s easy to see why Tesla should have become the focus of an effusive subculture: He was absolutely convinced of his own genius; he promoted his own personality cult of the 'great inventor' sort; he enjoyed financial success in early life, and later in life was able to indulge in a panoply of bizarre and grandiose ideas; and he achieved considerable scientific notoriety, despite a flawed understanding of physics and other sciences. [my emphasis] I looked at the thread you cited but found nothing useful in it.
Article: After Symbolism

42
Geoffrey wrote:Astrology is about people. People are about more than just science. It follows that astrology should be about more than just science - it must be richer than that.
Psychology, developmental psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, political science and more are about people and are considered sciences. Astrology treats personality and life developments as things it knows about ? that is, as knowledge ? and therefore is not barred from the sciences by anything other than developmental level if correspondences between us and the heavens actually exist. (I believe they do.) Astrology at its current level of development is less than, not more than science.
Article: After Symbolism