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

Eudoxus of Knidos, founder of Greek astrology
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> News, Notices, Books, Links
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1402

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
Paul wrote:
To take the example Chris Brennan made on this point on Facebook, would you see Euclid as the founder of geometry?


To extend this logic further you're implying that Schmidt is saying that Eudoxus was the founder of "astrology". Do you see the problem with that? It's not what Schmidt said. The title on his web page right now says:

Quote:
Eudoxus of Knidos:
Founder of Greek Astrology


Nice try...


Curtis

It's actually just a simpler question, I'm not trying to "trick" anyone here, nor have I implied anywhere that Schmdit is saying that Eudoxus was the founder of astrology. But Schmidt is saying that Eudoxus is the founder of X, and I'm replacing X with something else, in this case geometry.

But if it makes you feel more comfortable, let me ask a different way:
In a like manner, would you consider Euclid the founder of Greek Geometry?

For example people will sometimes refer to Euclid as the father of geometry (or Greek geometry if you prefer it), but would we say that Euclid was the founder of (Greek) geometry? If not, is there a distinction here to Eudoxus and astrology that we could parallel?

Of course if I wanted to be exacting I could say I am being more lenient to Schmidt than not - a better way of wording it could have been to ask if someone was the founder of Greek mathematics as a whole. Schmidt isn't saying some sub-branch of Greek astrology like aspect doctrine, or the use of the zodiac etc. but being broad and inclusive as Greek astrology as a whole. I could do likewise and refer to the broader apparatus in which geometry works in the same manner and say mathematics. But my point isn't to trip up you or Schmidt - my 'nice try's are a lot nicer than you may give me credit and the only 'try' I'm attempting is to understand what Schmidt (or others who follow him) mean by the term. Let's keep giving one another the benefit of the doubt.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were a number of comments on my FB page by Chris Brennan that serve to muddy the picture rather than elucidate that would fool the less intelligent. All I can say is that you're playing without a full deck of cards. You'll just have to wait for Schmidt's argument to see what he says "Greek astrology" consists of.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoidsoft wrote:
Quote:
All I can say is that you're playing without a full deck of cards. You'll just have to wait for Schmidt's argument to see what he says "Greek astrology" consists of.


Well something we can all agree on! Curtis have you any idea when Robert Schmidt intends to publish his research?

I am on the mailing list given in the link. Its just after the major disappointment of the failure to produce the TARES series of new translations so long promised by Project Hindsight its made me quite sceptical.

Thanks

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was skeptical too for a long time that Bob would publish, but he committed himself with this announcement. I don't think it's possible now for him to back out of it. That would be like suicide. So relax, it's coming.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 895
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The sensible thing would be to wait for the full article to come out, but in the meantime, this is an interesting discussion!

Assuming that people here are basically clear on Babylonian astrology, including its invention of signs and genethliacal component, how would anyone here define Greek astrology?

What innovations would make astrology essentially Greek or Hellenistic? As opposed to Mesopotamian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mjacob



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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I gather from FB Medievalis Astrologiae Collegium that Schmidt's lecture on this is released
_________________
Matthew Goulding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mjacob wrote:
I gather from FB Medievalis Astrologiae Collegium that Schmidt's lecture on this is released


Only the very small part about the house system division which doesn't say anything about Eudoxus. There's a larger series of workshops that Schmidt has already done that hasn't been published yet.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1215
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
The sensible thing would be to wait for the full article to come out, but in the meantime, this is an interesting discussion!

Assuming that people here are basically clear on Babylonian astrology, including its invention of signs and genethliacal component, how would anyone here define Greek astrology?

What innovations would make astrology essentially Greek or Hellenistic? As opposed to Mesopotamian?


Identifying and Matching with Gods, mythology and philosophy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 895
Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mesopotamian astrology invented the match-up of heavenly bodies with their gods, mythology, and theology. I don't think they had a secular philosophy. Very anciently, the Greek religion seemed to have Indo-European roots, which gave them a few parallels with ancient Indian religion. The earliest Greeks didn't have a well-developed mythology of their own, but they borrowed a lot of the divine personalities and myths from the Mesopotamians, probably by way of the Minoans. This is pretty well known by classical scholars.

Venus (Aphrodite)=Ishtar, Inanna
Mars (Ares)=Nergal
Jupiter (Zeus)=Marduk

and so on with other close parallels.

What the Babylonians didn't have was spherical geometry, the ascendant point, houses, or a Platonic concept of perfect spheres.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
Curtis

It's actually just a simpler question, I'm not trying to "trick" anyone here, nor have I implied anywhere that Schmdit is saying that Eudoxus was the founder of astrology. But Schmidt is saying that Eudoxus is the founder of X, and I'm replacing X with something else, in this case geometry.

But if it makes you feel more comfortable, let me ask a different way:
In a like manner, would you consider Euclid the founder of Greek Geometry?

For example people will sometimes refer to Euclid as the father of geometry (or Greek geometry if you prefer it), but would we say that Euclid was the founder of (Greek) geometry? If not, is there a distinction here to Eudoxus and astrology that we could parallel?

Of course if I wanted to be exacting I could say I am being more lenient to Schmidt than not - a better way of wording it could have been to ask if someone was the founder of Greek mathematics as a whole. Schmidt isn't saying some sub-branch of Greek astrology like aspect doctrine, or the use of the zodiac etc. but being broad and inclusive as Greek astrology as a whole. I could do likewise and refer to the broader apparatus in which geometry works in the same manner and say mathematics. But my point isn't to trip up you or Schmidt - my 'nice try's are a lot nicer than you may give me credit and the only 'try' I'm attempting is to understand what Schmidt (or others who follow him) mean by the term. Let's keep giving one another the benefit of the doubt.


Quote:
To Paul Kiernan, regarding what it means to be a "founder", from Anonymous (of Facebook).

Your analogy of astrology with geometry, and of the claim of a putative founder of astrology to the claim of Euclid as the founder of geometry, is not apt. The reason is because geometry cannot be compared to astrology in that way. I understand why you think it can, because you primarily see astrology as a set of tools and techniques accumulated over time. Just as in mathematics various contributors discover new theorems out of the axioms, or introduce new definitions, etc, so too, astrologers discover new empirical correlations, introduce new ways of looking at charts, etc. We do not see Greek astrology as merely being that kind of technical art, although mathematics plays a very important role in it, and not just for calculating planetary positions, but at a deep theoretical level, as you will soon see. While mathematics has its own metaphysical presuppositions, the examination of which lies outside its own scope and for which it depends on philosophy, it does not by itself propound a cosmological doctrine, and that is the key difference. Mathematics is not quite philosophy, as Kant points out in the Critique of Pure Reason, though they can be used in each other's service quite profitably and justifiably.

A much better analogy would be to the founder of a religion or a branch of philosophy, such as Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, Zoroaster as the founder of Zoroastrianism, Plato as the founder of Platonism, Epicurus as the founder of Epicureanism, and last but not least, Pythagoras as the founder of Pythagoreanism. Religions and philosophical schools have foundational theologies and principles that may be introduced by a single person over a short period of time, and cannot merely be added to arbitrarily, and without regard to the founding principles, without turning it into something else. I trust that you understand what it means to be a "founder" in that sense, and that is the sense Bob is conveying here. If that is still unclear to you, then it seems to me you are merely engaging in sophistical refutations by trying to attack the use of everyday language that we all depend on to communicate as humans, in order to distract others from the actual content of the argument.

_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1402

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Curtis

I'm happy to speak to you and get your thoughts and engage with you. I'm not happy to do so to "masked" people who only act through intermediaries. Let anonymous create a profile to speak directly and I'll happily engage with his/her concerns. Otherwise it seems to me that if someone can't be bothered to speak for themselves, I feel little compulsion to take them seriously. If Anonymous doesn't considers his post serious enough to register, I probably won't 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
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul,

I was originally given permission to post these unattributed, but I wasn't comfortable doing that. It seems that you are evading the content of these ideas by using the ad-hominem fallacy for cover, just as Chris Brennan did on FB over the issue of the apparent contradiction between statements by Cicero and Pliny.

I'm engaged with a number of academics right now over Schmidt's recent discoveries and have relayed what's being said to them. A number of them are appalled at the tactics being used.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2707
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

curtis,

what planet do these folks live on where they can't come down and speak with ordinary earthlings at skyscript? sorry curtis, but i see it the same way as paul here.. the fact someone is reading the contents of thread and can't comment directly shines a weird light on them doing it thru an intermediary.. you are a secretary for them? it seems very weird either way...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1402

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
Paul,

I was originally given permission to post these unattributed, but I wasn't comfortable doing that. It seems that you are evading the content of these ideas by using the ad-hominem fallacy for cover, just as Chris Brennan did on FB over the issue of the apparent contradiction between statements by Cicero and Pliny.


Hi Curtis

I'm okay with whatever conclusion you want to draw from my approach. Perhaps you are the same, but when I was a child, regularly there would be some other kids who would have some argument or irritation or be too cool, but there would end up being a situation where one kid tells another kid what some other child had said or believed. Apparently that child whilst not wanting to communicate to anyone directly (for whatever reason) still wanted to be heard. I wasn't too enamoured with this acting through an intermediary as a child, and am even less inclined to bother as an adult.

To repeat myself - if Anonymous has something he thinks is important enough to listen to, it's surely important enough to state in his/her own stead rather than someone else's. I don't have any inclination to communicate to someone via someone else. You can take what you want from that about avoiding anything. There's nothing ad hominem in saying let's all talk in openness and not with hostility and through intermediaries. That's all I'm willing to say about that.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:
Paul,

I was originally given permission to post these unattributed, but I wasn't comfortable doing that. It seems that you are evading the content of these ideas by using the ad-hominem fallacy for cover, just as Chris Brennan did on FB over the issue of the apparent contradiction between statements by Cicero and Pliny.


Hi Curtis

I'm okay with whatever conclusion you want to draw from my approach. Perhaps you are the same, but when I was a child, regularly there would be some other kids who would have some argument or irritation or be too cool, but there would end up being a situation where one kid tells another kid what some other child had said or believed. Apparently that child whilst not wanting to communicate to anyone directly (for whatever reason) still wanted to be heard. I wasn't too enamoured with this acting through an intermediary as a child, and am even less inclined to bother as an adult.

To repeat myself - if Anonymous has something he thinks is important enough to listen to, it's surely important enough to state in his/her own stead rather than someone else's. I don't have any inclination to communicate to someone via someone else. You can take what you want from that about avoiding anything. There's nothing ad hominem in saying let's all talk in openness and not with hostility and through intermediaries. That's all I'm willing to say about that.


Perhaps you just don't know what an ad-hominem is:

Ad hominem fallacy: the personal behavior or character of the speaker is grounds for denying the logical truth of what he says.

In the first paragraph you have used "misleading vividness" (aka - anecdotal fallacy) which leads to the reader drawing the wrong conclusions for why an argument is not being addressed.

Then you use something close to onus probandi in the 2nd paragraph when you say "there's nothing ad-hominem...". Shifting the burden of proof by taking an intermediary step (user gets own account).

Since you say "I'm okay with whatever conclusion you want to draw from my approach." I'll take it that you have conceded the argument.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> News, Notices, Books, Links All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
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