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

The Devine Shekinah and the Gauquelin Sectors
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:41 am    Post subject: The Devine Shekinah and the Gauquelin Sectors Reply with quote

Like many astrologers, for a long time in my practice I had ignored the findings for the Gauquelin sectors and followed the standard texts (e.g. deVore 1947) that described planets in the cadent houses as “weak” placements. Eventually I became aware from observations, and protests from clients who had many cadent planets, that cadent planets actually tended to favor an outgoing personality, which I began to think of as “high profile,” as contrasted with “low profile” (angular planets), or “moody” (succeedent planets).

I wondered if the standard texts were wrong and if there were some more ancient writings that would support Gaquelin’s findings. Although I hadn’t done much research, it seemed to me that I might have read somewhere that in ancient times a rising planet (in the 12th house) was auspicious.

Recently, I came across the idea that the “devine shekinah,” mentioned numerous times in the Bible, might be linked to helical Venus (in the 12th house), which has an eight year cycle of brightness, as well as longer cycles, and other combined cycles of brightness with Mercury. This is discussed in The Book of Hiram: Freemasonry, Venus and the Secret Key to the Life of Jesus by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas.

The shekinah was usually described as a cloud of brightness and temples such as Solomon’s were oriented with dormers designed to capture its glory. Solomon, it is reported in this book, did not desire to have a democracy, such as David his father had. Democracy was considered to be an inferior and ineffective form of government at the time. Solomon desired to be exposed to the shekina which would bestow him with charisma and make him a mortal god, a true king.

(Eze. 10:4) Then the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the LORD's glory.

(Eze. 43:4) And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. (Eze. 43:5) So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Knight and Lomas describe how Solomon tried to learn the secrets of temple building from the King of Tyre, a true king. They also mention much earlier structures oriented to capture the glory of helical Venus, such as the Newgrange megalithic structure in Ireland. The efforts made to capture this glory light are apparently very ancient.

I recall that when my second daughter was born, the room seemed to glow with a wondrous light. The doctor remarked about it, and everyone there noticed it. There were no windows and the door was shut. It was a moderately lit birthing room, not a brightly lit OR, which I'm sure would have drowned out the effect. The glow lasted for about a minute. Was it the divine shekinah? The chart however shows no 12th or 9th house planets. The closest, Jupiter, was in the 1st house, still 4 degrees from the ascendant.

Does a person born with planets in the 12th house enjoy a special charisma? What have other Forum readers experienced? How does astrology reconcile this meaning--which the ancients venerated, and the Gauquelin findings seem to support--with the standard interpretations for cadent houses?

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3464
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What have other Forum readers experienced? How does astrology reconcile this meaning--which the ancients venerated, and the Gauquelin findings seem to support--with the standard interpretations for cadent houses?


One of the traps some of us, myself included, tend to fall into is viewing the chart as static, rather than looking at it as the beginning of a life unfolding. Planets in cadent houses are progressed, directed, and/or "arced" to the angles. When these planets hit the angles, significant changes occur. When George W. Bush's third house Jupiter was progressed to his IC, he was elected President of the US.

Therefore cadent planets can be viewed in terms of what they potentially can deliver as well as what they indicate in their static positions in the nativity. This is the significance of the Gauquelin results, if they tell us anything of value at all. Remember, the correlations he found worked only for the very top of the professions he examined. Everyone with Mars on an angle doesn't become a top athlete or prominent military leader. In fact, only a very tiny percentage of people with planets close to angles rise to the top of anything. Gauquelin's results beat chance. That doesn't mean 50% plus one. It means consistently beating random placement.


Quote:
Does a person born with planets in the 12th house enjoy a special charisma?


Absoutely. This is the one dictum in astrology that is 100% reliable 100% of the time. Never, ever hesitate to reveal the charismatic nature of people with planets in the 12th. They have all sorts of sex appeal and other admirable qualities as well. Wink

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tom,

I agree that progressed planets indicate important transitions, but I'm doubtful that the potential of progressions can explain personality. If your hypothesis is true then personality would have to be conditioned by events in the future. George W. Bush clearly had the personality of a politician and was very successful long before Jupiter progressed to his IC, and Gauquelin didn't even find significance for the 3rd house anyway.

Another thing that makes me doubt this is that if this were true then because of the progressed speeds of the planets, the peak of Saturn in Gauquelin's data would be closer to the ASC or MC than the Jupiter peak, and the Jupiter peak would be closer than the Mars peak. The data doesn't look like that. All the peaks are about in the middle of the g-sectors.

Military men are indicated by both Mars and Jupiter in the g-sectors. This makes things a bit tricky. Moon in the g-sectors is indicated in the charts of writers. The Moon progresses to the ASC or MC pretty fast, so maybe writers don't count? A lesser known finding is that Mars for artists is indicated not by a surplus in the 12th and 9th houses but rather in the 11th house! Your hypothesis is easily bent out of shape by the data.

By saying that only a very tiny percentage of people with planets in the g-sectors rise to the top, you seem to suggest that the Gauquelin results don't mean much. (Wasn't that the skeptic's old argument?) Is that because a g-sector Mars means nothing at all, is only a tiny contributor, or is it really because so many people don't reach their potential because they just don't know their potential?

As an astrologer it is clear to me that a consultation is worthless unless it guides the client to full potential. If astrologers do their job then maybe fewer and fewer sports champions and military men will *not* have Mars in the g-sectors, because more and more these potentially gifted people were helped by astrologers to reach their full potential. If some group of people have had great success professionally, then shouldn't the hard-earned information that's been gathered about it be passed on to others who could use it?

You agree then that 12th house planets bestow charisma, extroversion, and sex appeal. This conflicts with the conventional interpretation of 12th house representing solitude, escape, subconscious, and dreams. Were you influenced to change your mind by Gauquelin, ancient texts, or what? What made you notice this?

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3464
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

I offered the hypothesis as a possible explanation of why Gauquelin found planets of champion athletes and prominent individuals with appropriate planets in cadent houses. In no way would I attempt to explain George Bush's personality or anyone else's with a single placement, much less with a single "hit." I only noted a planet in a Gaquelin sector (i.e. close to an angle) progressed to an angle at an important time in his life. Jupiter after all, is the planet associated with politicans. Of course he would need an apptitude for a political profession and that would be found elsewhere in the chart.

In terms of value to the practicing astrologer, I find the Gauquelin data to be just slightly above worthless. This is not because I believe it is invalid either. That would be the true position of the skeptics. For example:

Gauquelin took the charts of 3,142 military leaders. Of those 634 had Mars on an angle. Chance level was 535. The odds against his data being a fluke were estimated at one million to one. Very nice. But what does this do for a practicing astrologer? Not much. Let's say 1% of the general population becomes military leaders. That is preposterously high, but let it ride. That would mean that 314,200 people would come through your doors; 3,142 would be military leaders and you would correctly identify 634 of them using Mars on an angle. I'm not impressed. 2508 top military leaders out of 3,142 do not have Mars on an angle. Statistically this may be significant; practically it is useless. Even this data suggests an individual needs more than Mars on an angle to become a military leader just as Jupiter in the third is insufficient to produce a President.

What Gauquelin may have demonstrated is that, statistically, the birth moment matters. Science cannot abide by this as it indicates one moment is not the same as another, so they attacked him. I think he was a scrupulously honest man, and that quality, ultimately, made the skeptics and scientists that attacked him look vicious and foolish, which they were and are.

As for the 12th house remarks of mine they were intended as a joke. Nothing works 100% of the time. I only said those flattering things about people with 12th house placements because I have two planets in the 12th. I thought that was obvious, but I guess it was too subtle. I wasn't poking fun at you, just at myself.

Best wishes,

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Were you influenced to change your mind by Gauquelin, ancient texts, or what? What made you notice this?


Geez, I wonder. Isn't one of your 12th house planet Saturn, Tom? Let's face it, Saturn has about as much sex appeal as a block of wood. So surely your undeniable charm must come from somewhere else. Probably that Regulus on your ascendant Razz And you shouldn’t poke fun at yourself Tom. Not when there are those who are willing to do it for you. Laughing But I probably should agree with this very astute observation since I have four planets in the 12th myself. (Does that make me twice as charming as you?) In fact, of the traditional planets, only Venus is not in a cadent house.

I really like the quote by Manilius that 'each alike (12th and 6th) moves dejected from a cardinal point with the spectacle of ruin before its eyes.' Reminds me of another often quoted phrase from Dante, 'Abandon every hope all ye who enter here.' I know he was talking about the gates of hell but perhaps hell to him was the candent houses.

The fabulous thing about statistics is that they can always say just what you want them to say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3464
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Sue,

Yes indeed, I have Saturn Rx in Leo in the 12th along with Pluto. Mars is at 26 Leo, and my ASC is at 29 Leo so I toss Mars into the first, others would leave it in 12. So having all malefic planets retrograde in the 12th probably doesn't equal charm. You probably are twice as charming as I am, but 4 planets in 12 might not be the reason. I think we need to look elsewhere. Wink

Gauquelin's work has value. I don't deny that. It's the practical application that eludes me. Also his statistical analysis works best with people at the very top of their profession. The same correlations do not hold for second level professionals. Still it was enough to set the scientists in a tizzy. He even tried to deny the significance of his own work because he set out to disprove astrology. His "fair minded" collegues questioned his integrity, his intelligence, and his sanity. "It can't be true, so it isn't true" was their motto. Despite all this his research was honest and rigorous. Although I'm sure he made mistakes, he never deliberately misreported his data or results. Sadly, he comitted suicide. Some suggest he was driven to it by the scorn, and venom heaped on him by those who refused to even consider what he found, prefering personal attack to reasoned discourse.

Tom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kenneth,

I've been pondering the same problem now and then; here's the solution Francoice Gauquelin offers in her article "The Greek Error or Return to Babylon":

http://cura.free.fr/xxv/24app3-3.html

She claims that before Ptolemy astrologers considered the first house ending to the ascendant, not starting from it and offers some historical evidence to support her view. I find this very interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tom and others,

While I do agree with you that there are many factors to consider in a chart, my concern is that, like perhaps many others, you have been unduly influenced by the arguments of astrology skeptics to think that the Gauquelin discoveries are next to worthless, or apply only to the top ranks.

First discoveries normally start small, but then improvements are made. A skeptic would have considered the Wright brothers’ first flight to be inferior to balloons because flying a couple of hundred feet is next to worthless. Edison’s first electric light was worthless because it burned out in half and hour. What good is that? Early aluminum was so expensive to produce that it had no practical value. The good thing about each of these discoveries is that the inventors, and the people who backed them up, did not listen to the skeptics.

Do you believe that astrology does not have any power to influence people and that no matter what good advice astrologers give, the percentages will always come out the same? I don’t believe that. If someone has found a consistency, even a small one, in highly successful people then I’m ready to support it and use it.

If I’m a soldier then I want my leader to have a prominent Mars because I want to win the fight. If I’m a general, then I would want to find a way to change the percentages in the leaders under my command for an advantage that will win the war. When it comes to the crunch, the small things matter and we look for them to help our intuition. As it turns out, airplanes *are* better than balloons and the people with vision knew that. Airplanes just needed more development, and the percentage of people traveling by airplane instead of by balloon testifies to this.

The view you have stated, which may be shared among many, is that g-sector planets are next to worthless. In the view of Knight and Lomas, the shekinah, which they link to bright rising planets, was believed by ancient people to be of monumental importance (literally) and enormous resources were used to capture its glory. Quite a contrast.

My view is that while the ancients might have gone overboard in their veneration of the shekinah, the shekinah is possibly connected to the g-sectors. In other words, the g-sectors may be a rediscovery of the shekinah. I am not an historian, but I wonder if the obsessive fixation on the powers of rising bright planets survives in ancient astrological texts, Hellenistic or earlier. It could lend credence to the g-sector findings.

KennethM


Last edited by Piper on Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Papretis,

Thanks for bring this important consideration into the discussion. It’s been a long time since I read that article by Françoise Gauquelin, and although I pondered it at the time, it must not have had a lasting effect and I tended to disfavor it. According to Lassen, whom she cites, the houses should be numbered in the reverse order than they are by current convention. She points out that this makes more sense because of the celestial mechanics and would be in line with pre-Ptolemaic, pre-revisionist Babylonian astrology.

Michel Gauquelin shows the diurnal sectors numbered in reverse order in his books. This would make the 12th house become the 1st house, which would allow the traditional meanings of the houses to support his findings.

I think I initially rejected this order of the houses because transits would proceed in reverse order and this seemed to make less sense when you consider the development and growth of the personality with regard to the meanings of the revised houses. Looking at this again, as you suggest, I’ll have to admit that it explains a few things in my own chart that I have long puzzled about. Maybe Françoise is right and I just didn’t see it before.

This might work even for transits and progressions. For example, as Tom has already pointed out, George W. Bush became President when Jupiter progressed to his IC, not his MC!

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
my concern is that, like perhaps many others, you have been unduly influenced by the arguments of astrology skeptics to think that the Gauquelin discoveries are next to worthless, or apply only to the top ranks.


Agreeing with the so-called sceptics does not mean that one is unduly influenced by them. Sometimes they have a point. I am not talking specifically about this case but I have noticed most astrologers are not willing to even consider any arguments made by sceptics because they think it means devaluing astrology. If I agree with the findings of the Gauquelin data might it not be because I have been unduly influenced by other astrologers who argue so vociferously for its worth? We should not be afraid to be critical of our own craft. In fact, it is essential that we are. If we accept the proper use of the word sceptic then we should all be sceptics. Some astrological theories are rubbish. We should be discerning enough to make up our own minds regardless of who says what.

Quote:

The view you have stated, which may be shared among many, is that g-sector planets are next to worthless. In the view of Knight and Lomas, the shekinah, which they link to bright rising planets, was believed by ancient people to be of monumental importance (literally) and enormous resources were used to capture its glory. Quite a contrast.


I'm not sure that Tom was saying they were worthless. In fact, unless I have misunderstood him, he hasn't disagreed with, or devalued the findings at all. But I have to agree with him that it is difficult to see how they would fit into a practical setting. I don't believe statistics mean anything to the individual. The Gauquelin data only proved the Mars effect to a point. It proved nothing across the board. What does this data really mean? Astrologers get so excited that someone appears to have some statistical evidence showing something of astrological significance. But that is as far as most people get in their understanding of this data. How does it make a difference to the way I should read a chart?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KennethM wrote:
According to Lassen, whom she cites, the houses should be numbered in the reverse order than they are by current convention. She points out that this makes more sense because of the celestial mechanics and would be in line with pre-Ptolemaic, pre-revisionist Babylonian astrology.
KennethM


Hi Kenneth,

I don't think Francoice Gauquelin suggested that the houses should be numbered in reversed order, but that the numbering should go counter-clockwise as it does now, but so that the house that is now the twelfth should be the first, the first house should be the second, the second the third and so on. At least this is what I get from the picture on the third page of Gauquelin's article.

Rob Hand says that the ancients used whole sign houses to delientate the sphere of life where a planet operates, but the house system we now call Porphyry to define the strength of the planet.

I'm wondering that could it be that the ancients (before Ptolemy) actually considered the strongest places being after the axes (according to diurnal movement), not before them as we think now? And when they talked about cadent planets, maybe they were referring to a different thing and talking about those whole sign houses that don't make an aspect to the ascendant (sign) and are considered weak because of that, but not because of their relation to the axes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Agreeing with the so-called sceptics does not mean that one is unduly influenced by them. Sometimes they have a point. I am not talking specifically about this case but I have noticed most astrologers are not willing to even consider any arguments made by sceptics because they think it means devaluing astrology...We should not be afraid to be critical of our own craft. In fact, it is essential that we are. If we accept the proper use of the word sceptic then we should all be sceptics. Some astrological theories are rubbish. We should be discerning enough to make up our own minds regardless of who says what.


Liz Greene once said: "I don't believe they (the planets) impel, compel, dispel, or 'do' anything. They are simply signatures."

I believe that astrological signatures are correlative rather than causal. Correlations between configurations do not have a causative relationship nor do they represent a deterministic influence. Astrology is, therefore, non-falsifiable and unverifiable, but this does not invalidate it as a 'way of knowing.' It is not a modern scientific 'way of knowing,' its provenance is not amenable to absolutist statements or causal determinants, but this no more invalidates it as a 'way of knowing' than any other form of intuitive, creative engagement with the world around us. So long as our practise of a particular astrological discipline is internally consistent, why bother with statistical anomalies? They belong to an entirely different order of things.

I have always understood that a planet conjunct an angle from within a cadent house (within an orb of twelve degrees) carries the same influence as a planet conjunct an angle from within an angular house. I think this is traditional practise, I think even Margaret Hone wrote about this, so I do not see why this would necessitate turning the twelfth house into the first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3464
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings,

When I read Kenneth's post I was afraid I wasn't very clear about my position, but Sue came to my resuce (Thank You Sue), so let's make a couple of things very clear.

1. Trust me, the skeptics have not had undue influence on my astrological thinking. I do however use them for objects of ridicule now and again. Sue however, is exactly right when she says that we should all be skeptics given the actual meaning of the word.

2. I have no problem whatsoever with Gauquelin or his work. I've frequently mentioned my admiration for his refusal to compromise his techniques in the face of ridicule and scorn. It was the practical application of the work as it exists that I objected to and the unthinking acceptance of its universal application that I object to (see 3 below). I admit that finding materialistic and other "Scientific" basis for astrology holds no interest for me, but I didn't say anything that might be construed as objecting to others going forward with this sort of work. I may think it is a waste of time, but it isn't my time that is being wasted and I could very well be proven wrong. Continue the research with my blessing.

3. If we limit our search for generals to those with Mars on an angle in the data I provided, we would omit 2500 generals who were well qualified to lead. This is silly especially since so few people are really qualified to that sort of work at that level. Not only that, but in order to fill the vacancies we would appoint many people that have Mars on an angle to positions that they are not qualified to fulfill. This is my problem with the use of the data. It is statistically signfiicant, but it is not a prima facie case for deciding careers.

Speaking of statistics, I watched a TV prgram last week, for me a rare event, about Rabbis who study the Hebrew Bible and claim to have found predictions of events in the 20th century cleverly hidden in that work. They dedicate their lives to finding words made out of letters taken diagonally and perhaps backwards and paired with other words to make phrases signifying an event. A computer program recently determined that the number of things they found were statistically impossible to occur by chance. The "scientific" conclusion is that the Hebrew Bible was likely written by God since no man could do all this.

There are of course skeptics, but we have the statistics don't we? Well we do if we accept the infallibility of statistics. One skeptic did the same sort of work with Moby Dick. He too, found clever ways of coming up with words that predicted events long after Melville's classic was published and the computer said the odds of this being random were off the charts; in other words impossible. So one believer concluded that God must have written Moby Dick. The rest of us got to wondering about statistics.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good lord. I can see I’ll have a lot of explaining to do whenever I come home from work. I don’t know if I can keep up. Here goes.

Uh… how do you snip a quote? I didn’t see how to do this in the instructions

Hi Sue,

I agree when you say, "We should not be afraid to be critical of our own craft." However, that is not what I find much of the time. When it comes to the Gauquelin findings, a lot of the so-called self-criticism doesn't seem to come from the astrological worldview at all, but only repeats the words of the skeptics.

Don't get me wrong, the arguments by skeptics are definitely worth considering and contribute to a dialog that astrologers should participate in much more than they do. I have a chapter in my book (see my web site) devoted to critical thinking wherein I examine some of the more notable claims on both sides of the debate. On the whole, I think that astrologers, when confronted by the skeptics, tend to ignore the deeper examination of their own principles, give up too easily, and accept what they are told. This is what I mean by astrologers being unduly influenced.

Where does your belief that "statistics don't mean anything to the individual" come from? What's the astrological basis? To me this belief seems to directly echo the words of the skeptics, and it's an exaggeration.

Contrary to this belief, I believe that everything we actually know in astrology is based on correlation through astrology's ongoing practical research. If astrology is nothing more than an application of symbols, then why would ancient Babylonian and Chinese astrologers bother to keep the extensive records they did? Apparently they wanted to verify their findings against the historical record and reduce their bias. It's the same method that scientists use today. In my discussions with scientists, I've found some good common ground based on this easily appreciated understanding.

Common ground means that my belief, coming from an astological perspective, meets with their belief, coming from a scientific perspective. To gain this common ground, I've had to abandon the belief that astrology is nothing more than an application of symbols, which I for one am willing to do.

Françoise Gauquelin urged astrologers to use the Gauquelin statistical findings, saying it is one of the most certain and practical things that astrologers can use today. She certainly does not have any trouble seeing how the findings would “fit into a practical setting,” and she is extremely critical of astrology. When I had my practice, I found the findings to be not only practical but also a source of useful ideas.

You say that astrologers get so excited by evidence of statistical significance. Where is this excitement? It's very sad that Michel Gauquelin could hardly fill more than a few seats wherever he lectured and the audiences he did manage to attract were nearly falling asleep from boredom. That's the reality I've seen.

I believe the real problem is that Gauquelin presented some challenges to astrology and astrologers as a whole have not been up to the task of examining their own beliefs and developing ideas to match the tangible results.

Hi Papretis,

You are correct, Lassen's proposed solution shifts the houses clockwise by one house. I should pay better attention. I'll also add that I find this arrangement bizare. If Lassen's houses are shifted but have the same meanings, then I have trouble with the groupings.

For example, houses 1, 12, and 11 would occupy the same quadrant together. If the upper hemisphere represents public life, as Rob Hand and the consensus of astrologers say, then why would something as personal as the house representing the physical body (1st house) be there?

Why would the 10th house, representing career, where you need mainly to compete, be on the DSC side of the chart, the hemisphere of cooperation and social accord with others? Why would the 4th house be in the lower rising quadrant; I'd think the expectation is to have love and cooperation rather than competition within the home and family.

I believe that the signs, houses, and aspects follow a similar developmental pattern and this Lassen arrangement makes no sense. Why sould the ASC angle (a major transition) fall between houses 1 and 2? I don't think I'm alone when I say these Lassen houses clash with my reason, experience, and beliefs.

Because the houses represent a cycle, and I associate cycles with development, I think the houses mean more than a way to define the strength of the planets. In my view what's needed is a house system that is both developmental and consistently interprets the g-sectors/shekinah as contributing to charisma or "strength."

Compared to Lassen's unusual arrangement of houses, Michel Gauquelin's reverse order houses make more sense because it keeps the house quadrants together with regard to compete/cooperate and public/private (although this one is inverted).

Good work!

Hi Andrew,

You said: “Correlations between configurations do not have a causative relationship nor do they represent a deterministic influence. Astrology is, therefore, non-falsifiable and unverifiable, but this does not invalidate it as a 'way of knowing.”

I'm with you on thinking the astrological correlations do not have a causative relationship, nor are they deterministic, but the rest of this statement does not necessarily follow. I think you are equating correlation with statistics.

For example, I believe I have the ossuary of the apostle James in my museum. I've made this correlation because the ossuary is inscribed "James, brother of Jesus" on the side. Later it is discovered to be a fraud. My belief is therefore falsified, invalidated, and my way of knowing, intuition, creative engagement with the world, etc. was incorrect.

What does that have to do with statistics? Nothing. Falsifiability is not confined to statistics or causal determinants. It is the weight of evidence that made the ossuary a fraud. Many beliefs stated in astrology are potentially falsifiable. If they weren’t then we wouldn't be enjoying this little exchange.

Astrologers should not describe the Gauquelin findings as “anomaly.” Why? If Gauquelin’s findings mean anything at all at the very least they have confirmed the expected astrological properties of the planets. If it’s expected, then how can it be an “anomaly”? Let’s please refrain from using the skeptic’s term for this. Has everyone been brainwashed?

With regard to the g-sectors/shekinah debate, you state that a planet conjunct an angle in a cadent house has the same influence as a planet conjunct the angle in the adjacent angular house. If this were true, then we'd expect the distribution to peak at the angle and spread evenly on both sides, but the findings show otherwise. How do you explain this?

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You said: “Correlations between configurations do not have a causative relationship nor do they represent a deterministic influence. Astrology is, therefore, non-falsifiable and unverifiable, but this does not invalidate it as a 'way of knowing.”

I'm with you on thinking the astrological correlations do not have a causative relationship, nor are they deterministic, but the rest of this statement does not necessarily follow. I think you are equating correlation with statistics.


Correlation does not imply causation but may be an apparently physical property shared by events without the requisite corollary of a classical cause-effect relationship, as shown for example in quantum physics where widely separated events can be correlated without being linked by a direct physical cause-effect. Synchronicity embodies the principle of correlation as the expressive interdependence of objective events among themselves with or without the subjective participation of the observing psyche. The astrological symbolon of the noumenal world mirrors the flow of life on earth and reflects back to us the truth of our lives imprinted deep within our souls. This has little if anything to do with attempts to verify influences through recourse to statistical evaluations of meta-physical paradigms.

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule identify several modes or ways of knowing; notably authoritarian knowing, received knowing, subjective knowing, procedural knowing, connected knowing, separated knowing, and constructed knowing. Connected knowing is rooted in the conviction that truth is personal, particular, and grounded in actual experience, whereas separated knowing relies strictly on linear reason. Constructed knowing integrates both connected knowing and separated knowing, and it is this latter way of knowing which astrological traditions and conventions seem to exemplify, not unlike those associated with music, art, emotions, etc.

Quote:
For example, I believe I have the ossuary of the apostle James in my museum. I've made this correlation because the ossuary is inscribed "James, brother of Jesus" on the side. Later it is discovered to be a fraud. My belief is therefore falsified, invalidated, and my way of knowing, intuition, creative engagement with the world, etc. was incorrect.

What does that have to do with statistics? Nothing. Falsifiability is not confined to statistics or causal determinants. It is the weight of evidence that made the ossuary a fraud. Many beliefs stated in astrology are potentially falsifiable. If they weren’t then we wouldn't be enjoying this little exchange.


This depends on the worldview in which the belief is interpreted or the perspective from which it is communicated. Science does not generally concern itself with questions of ultimate origins because such questions are beyond its purvue. Theologians, not scientists, attempt to offer proofs of God, and they do so entirely within the framework of theological discourse. If one regards astrological directives as normative rather than descriptive, in the sense that the horoscope reflects who one ought to be rather than who one actually is, then the question of evidence is immaterial. Astrology was created centuries before the development of modern psychometric measures such as personality inventories and trait analyses, and I think it is a profound mistake to confuse these. It leads to attempts to 'prove' the 'truth' of astrological descriptions through recourse to statistical research.

Quote:
Astrologers should not describe the Gauquelin findings as “anomaly.” Why? If Gauquelin’s findings mean anything at all at the very least they have confirmed the expected astrological properties of the planets. If it’s expected, then how can it be an “anomaly”? Let’s please refrain from using the skeptic’s term for this. Has everyone been brainwashed?


'Anomaly' is a statistician's term which is occasionally used by skeptics, just as 'horoscope' is an astrologer's term which is occasionally employed by publishers. My reference to statistical anomalies was made with regard to the 'failure' of the Gauquelin research to obtain expected 'confirmation' for the presence of other planetary properties. But then I regard research of this kind as anomalous anyway. It is like trying to quantify the number of Mars units in an Aries, or the number of emoticons in a human emotion. If you define a unit or an emoticon in a certain way, you will definitely obtain a certain result. I don't see how this applies to the metaphysical or divinatory model of 'reality' suggested by astrology, unless one claims that one has 'proof' of an astral influence, and is able to offer some kind of empirical evidence to support such an assertion or, in the absence of that, to claim that 'evidence' really means 'non-evidence' in 'your science' but 'proof' in 'my science.'

Quote:
With regard to the g-sectors/shekinah debate, you state that a planet conjunct an angle in a cadent house has the same influence as a planet conjunct the angle in the adjacent angular house. If this were true, then we'd expect the distribution to peak at the angle and spread evenly on both sides, but the findings show otherwise. How do you explain this?


I don't know. Let's revise the parameters and fiddle with the findings. Then we can explain anything! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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