perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

[Gravy]

Hi, Aquila. I know very little about astrology, but for some reason I was surprised to read this. What do you mean by the birth chart being earned?

What comes to mind is the idea of two babies being born at exactly the same time. One dies within moments of birth and the other lives a long, happy life. What can your version of astrology teach us about that?

Thanks.

Hi, Gravy. Your question deserves – no, demands – a thorough, sensible answer, so I'll take some time to compose one. Can I get back to you on the 12th? Not of November. Of Never.

Thanks,
A.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I did explain this above, somewhere.



Dear NobbyNobbs and everyone, I'm not tryng to evade your questions, but as you can see, I am getting a bit overwhelmed by all the posts. I think that I've tried to answer most of them over the past week, and in earlier pages of this thread, but am really feeling overwhelmed now, as I am the only astrology student who seems to be answering at the moment. I need to get on with the rest of my life, so I hope that someone else can pick up where I am leaving off, if they want to.

If anyone is interested in reading up on psychological astrology, and the philosophies behind it, I would recommend books by one of my favorite astrology authors, Liz Greene.

Thank you everyone for the dialogue,
All the best,
Aquila

Ah, so you enjoy a good game of dodgeball, do you?

 

[Aquila]

A quick reprise, in order to explain what I perhaps implied in my posts above, but did not address directly;

Re the question about Pluto, and whether it was valid, astrologically, before 1930, the answer is yes. You will not find it charted of course in horoscopes cast before 1930, but most modern astrologers do chart Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in all charts, whatever dates they are for. I say most astrologers, because there are some purists who do leave them out. Even though these planets are symbolic of personaltiy triats in horoscopes drawn up in say the middle-ages, these latter astrologers say that they were not understood by the mass of humanity then and so they leave them out.

Re the question about all the other bodies that have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, and bodies that might be bigger than Pluto. As mentioned above, the asteroid Ceres has now been upgraded to a dwarf planet. It was used for many years in charts, being one of the 4 big asteroids, Juno, Pallas, Ceres and Vesta. Personally, I prefer to view planets as "big and round", not jagged chunks of rock; this is a subject that astrologers are debating.

It is true there are many bodies orbiting in our solar system which according the aphorism "as above, so below" could be included in horoscopes, but it basically all boils down to what each astrologer thinks is important. Personally I like to stick to the 10 "planets", Sun through Pluto (by the way, the Sun and Moon are known as planets, even though they are of course, respectively, a star, and a satellite). My reasoning is not very complicated; they are "big and round", and therefore more likely, in my "wooster" opinion, to be important nouns in the language of astrology.

Re the question about karma: I tried to explain above, that the birthchart, in theory, is only a blueprint of previous karma - maybe earned in one or many previous lifetimes. But we do also have free will, so that karma cannot predict our behavior or events.

These questions are about important concepts, and deserve an explanation, even though you might regard it all as woo. I hope I've managed to explain them a bit better.

 

[Thing]

Aquila,

I'm glad you're continuing this discussion, at least for the time being.

May I ask what, if anything, you think of the article "The case for and against astrology: the end of a shouting match" which can be found at Rudolf Smit's website http://www.astrology-and-science.com ? Is there any overlap between your views and those expressed in this article? I'll briefly quote from it:

The case for astrology is that it is among the most enduring of human beliefs, it connects us with the cosmos and the totality of things, it provides a basic means of describing ourselves, and there is a wide range of approaches. In practical terms a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. And new ideas are always emerging that could raise spiritual awareness. In a dehumanised society an astrologer provides personal support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?

but there's more to the article than just that.

 

[Elizabeth I]

A quick reprise, in order to explain what I perhaps implied in my posts above, but did not address directly;

Re the question about Pluto, and whether it was valid, astrologically, before 1930, the answer is yes. You will not find it charted of course in horoscopes cast before 1930, but most modern astrologers do chart Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in all charts, whatever dates they are for. I say most astrologers, because there are some purists who do leave them out. Even though these planets are symbolic of personaltiy triats in horoscopes drawn up in say the middle-ages, these latter astrologers say that they were not understood by the mass of humanity then and so they leave them out.

Re the question about all the other bodies that have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, and bodies that might be bigger than Pluto. As mentioned above, the asteroid Ceres has now been upgraded to a dwarf planet. It was used for many years in charts, being one of the 4 big asteroids, Juno, Pallas, Ceres and Vesta. Personally, I prefer to view planets as "big and round", not jagged chunks of rock; this is a subject that astrologers are debating.

It is true there are many bodies orbiting in our solar system which according the aphorism "as above, so below" could be included in horoscopes, but it basically all boils down to what each astrologer thinks is important. Personally I like to stick to the 10 "planets", Sun through Pluto (by the way, the Sun and Moon are known as planets, even though they are of course, respectively, a star, and a satellite). My reasoning is not very complicated; they are "big and round", and therefore more likely, in my "wooster" opinion, to be important nouns in the language of astrology.

Re the question about karma: I tried to explain above, that the birthchart, in theory, is only a blueprint of previous karma - maybe earned in one or many previous lifetimes. But we do also have free will, so that karma cannot predict our behavior or events.

These questions are about important concepts, and deserve an explanation, even though you might regard it all as woo. I hope I've managed to explain them a bit better.

You still haven't explained how charts cast before the outer planets were discovered could be accurate, if astrology were valid. If astrology were valid, those objects were having a hell of a big influence on people's lives that was never accounted for in astrological work.

...but it basically all boils down to what each astrologer thinks is important. Personally I like to stick to the 10 "planets", Sun through Pluto (by the way, the Sun and Moon are known as planets, even though they are of course, respectively, a star, and a satellite). My reasoning is not very complicated; they are "big and round", and therefore more likely, in my "wooster" opinion, to be important nouns in the language of astrology.

[bolding mine]

So a "planet" is what you say it is, never mind the actual definition? And something is astrologically significant, if you say it is? Do you really not see that you can't say stuff like this and then turn around and say that astrology is valid? Why are your definitions any "realer" than another astrologer's, or vice versa?

A fact is a fact. If I base a system of prediction or explanation (or whatever it is you are doing with astrology) on the temperature of water, I can't say that sometimes the boiling point of water is 212 degrees F, but sometimes it's 1000 degrees, depending on which value I need to make my system work that day. (For everyone else in the rest of the world, yes, I know that it's 100 degrees C. )

You can't just arbitrarily assign definitions, or "value," or "influence" to something, then say you have anything like a logical system.

 

[Aquila]

Aquila,

I'm glad you're continuing this discussion, at least for the time being.

May I ask what, if anything, you think of the article "The case for and against astrology: the end of a shouting match" which can be found at Rudolf Smit's website http://www.astrology-and-science.com ? Is there any overlap between your views and those expressed in this article? I'll briefly quote from it:...
.

Although the passage you quoted might resonate with some people who have received some sort of positive counseling from astrology, it is not my definition of the subject. Just in case anyone is interested, I was stimulated to study astrology after questioning Judaism. I was intrigued by the mystical side of this religion, known as kaballah, and when I started to inquire about it I was surprised that it included spiritual astrology. As mentioned many times in this thread, I see astrology as a spiritual-psychological language which classifies the different levels of consciousness. The material level of sense experience is just one of these levels, the others being the emotional, intellectual and spiritual.

I hope this answers your question, Thing.

 

[Aquila]

You still haven't explained how charts cast before the outer planets were discovered could be accurate, if astrology were valid. If astrology were valid, those objects were having a hell of a big influence on people's lives that was never accounted for in astrological work.

Yes, you are right.
There is a theory in astrology that goes something like this; if a certain personality trait is important in a person's life, or if they have some sort of spiritual "lesson" to learn, or test to overcome in order to evolve, than you are going to see that trait indicated in a person's horoscope more than once. Some astrologers say that there is a "rule of three" - if you see indications 3 times, it's a very important life theme.

So, even though we wouldn't see, for example a Moon-Pluto aspect until 1930, we would see, perhaps other planets in a person's 4th house (which rules the home, traditionally associated with the Moon), or in the sign Cancer (ruled by the Moon), or maybe Moon in Scorpio (now assigned rulership by Pluto), or aspects to the Moon or planets in these signs or houses which indicated a similar, but not exactly the same, karmic lesson that the person was working on in this lifetime.

So a "planet" is what you say it is, never mind the actual definition?

If you are referring to the Sun and Moon, here the term "planet" is not used in its scientific sense, and of course we know this. It is perhaps sloppy for astrologers to go on using the word planet for Sun and Moon, but it's just something which unfortunately has stuck. Sun and Moon are sometimes called the "lights", which is probably less confusing.

...but it basically all boils down to what each astrologer thinks is important. Personally I like to stick to the 10 "planets", Sun through Pluto (by the way, the Sun and Moon are known as planets, even though they are of course, respectively, a star, and a satellite). My reasoning is not very complicated; they are "big and round", and therefore more likely, in my "wooster" opinion, to be important nouns in the language of astrology.

And something is astrologically significant, if you say it is? Do you really not see that you can't say stuff like this and then turn around and say that astrology is valid? Why are your definitions any "realer" than another astrologer's, or vice versa?

I have always thought that the planets in astrology are more significant than say the asteroids or other bodies, because in kaballah, it says that there are 10 emanations on the Tree Of Life, not 9 and not 11. The spheres on the Tree do seem to correspond symbolically to the known planets (the 7 ancient planets and the 3 outer planets). I suppose that this is what makes my definition (which most astrologers would agree with) real, rather than just picking any orbiting bodies in our solar system.

I hope that I've answered any outstanding questions now, and not generated any more. When I first started to study astrology, I had many questions like this. I know that sKeptics would probably rather be seen dead than in a metaphysical bookstore, but there are many wonderful books on astrology which can answer the more general questions much better than I can.

This might sound strange considering my interest in astrology, but I do actually take a keen interest in science, and I'd like to start a new thread now about diesel fuel, over in the Math and Science section. Hope to see you there.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yes, you are right.
There is a theory in astrology that goes something like this; if a certain personality trait is important in a person's life, or if they have some sort of spiritual "lesson" to learn, or test to overcome in order to evolve, than you are going to see that trait indicated in a person's horoscope more than once. Some astrologers say that there is a "rule of three" - if you see indications 3 times, it's a very important life theme.

So, even though we wouldn't see, for example a Moon-Pluto aspect until 1930, we would see, perhaps other planets in a person's 4th house (which rules the home, traditionally associated with the Moon), or in the sign Cancer (ruled by the Moon), or maybe Moon in Scorpio (now assigned rulership by Pluto), or aspects to the Moon or planets in these signs or houses which indicated a similar, but not exactly the same, karmic lesson that the person was working on in this lifetime.



If you are referring to the Sun and Moon, here the term "planet" is not used in its scientific sense, and of course we know this. It is perhaps sloppy for astrologers to go on using the word planet for Sun and Moon, but it's just something which unfortunately has stuck. Sun and Moon are sometimes called the "lights", which is probably less confusing.

...but it basically all boils down to what each astrologer thinks is important. Personally I like to stick to the 10 "planets", Sun through Pluto (by the way, the Sun and Moon are known as planets, even though they are of course, respectively, a star, and a satellite). My reasoning is not very complicated; they are "big and round", and therefore more likely, in my "wooster" opinion, to be important nouns in the language of astrology.



I have always thought that the planets in astrology are more significant than say the asteroids or other bodies, because in kaballah, it says that there are 10 emanations on the Tree Of Life, not 9 and not 11. The spheres on the Tree do seem to correspond symbolically to the known planets (the 7 ancient planets and the 3 outer planets). I suppose that this is what makes my definition (which most astrologers would agree with) real, rather than just picking any orbiting bodies in our solar system.

I hope that I've answered any outstanding questions now, and not generated any more. When I first started to study astrology, I had many questions like this. I know that sKeptics would probably rather be seen dead than in a metaphysical bookstore, but there are many wonderful books on astrology which can answer the more general questions much better than I can.

This might sound strange considering my interest in astrology, but I do actually take a keen interest in science, and I'd like to start a new thread now about diesel fuel, over in the Math and Science section. Hope to see you there.

Sorry, but I just can't take it seriously.

But if it works for you, then great.

 

[Gravy]

I hope that I've answered any outstanding questions now, and not generated any more.

I'm sorry, but I'd appreciate it if you'd address my questions.

Re the question about karma: I tried to explain above, that the birthchart, in theory, is only a blueprint of previous karma - maybe earned in one or many previous lifetimes. But we do also have free will, so that karma cannot predict our behavior or events.

I'm really struggling to understand your logic. For the third time:

Two babies are born at exactly the same time. One dies within moments of birth and the other lives a long, happy life.

1) Do these people share the same astrological birth chart?

2) Assuming that the answer to the above question is yes, if their fate is determined by karma earned in a previous existence, then what does the (identical) position of stars and planets at their birth have to do with anything?

3) If their fate is not determined by karma, then what can their (identical) birthcharts tell us about their vastly different lives?

Thank you.

 

[godless dave]

Re the question about all the other bodies that have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, and bodies that might be bigger than Pluto. As mentioned above, the asteroid Ceres has now been upgraded to a dwarf planet. It was used for many years in charts, being one of the 4 big asteroids, Juno, Pallas, Ceres and Vesta. Personally, I prefer to view planets as "big and round", not jagged chunks of rock; this is a subject that astrologers are debating.

Ceres is round:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)

 

[Janot]

well Chaldeans knew (kind of 5,000 years ago) about the existance of two more planets which are being now called X and Y and the greeks called them Ceres and Vesta, astronomers have yet to discover them and study them and they will, in some more years

How do you respond politely on this forum to such statements? May I have some classical reference for the claim that the 'greeks' called them Ceres and Vesta, which are of course Roman godesses?

 

[nathan]

It was used for many years in charts, being one of the 4 big asteroids, Juno, Pallas, Ceres and Vesta. Personally, I prefer to view planets as "big and round", not jagged chunks of rock; this is a subject that astrologers are debating.

The bodies you mention are big and round. They are not jagged in any meaningful sense of the word. 'chunk of rock' could apply to any of the terrestrial planets.

What bodies are planets is somewhat subjective -- it's rather like trying to define whether a stone is a pebble or a rock. If astrology was valid, I'd expect there to be some property of an astronomical object that determined the amount of influence the body had -- be it gravitation mass, astrological coupling coefficient or whatever. If it's the former (or some other mundane property), then the influence should be determinable from known data. If it is something extra-ordinary, like the latter, why is there any reason to believe it relates to any mundane property such as mass or shape?

 

[Tristan Chi]

If astrology was valid, I'd expect there to be some property of an astronomical object that determined the amount of influence the body had -- be it gravitation mass, astrological coupling coefficient or whatever. If it's the former (or some other mundane property), then the influence should be determinable from known data.

OK. For those of us who understand a logarithmic scale, it should be obvious that gravity can't be it.

 

[Cuddles]

Cuddles, Ben m, FSM and ChristineR : I do understand the points you are making and I did read the first post (Cuddles) where you explained about one correlation not proving anything. I admit that this is a big problem in astrology.

But apparently you didn't understand a word of it. The problem is not that one correlation doesn't prove anything. This can be a problem, but it is not one that astrology has. The problem you have is that one point is not a correlation. There is no point worrying about cause and effect or anything like that when you have yet to show even one correlation between any part of astrology with any part of reality.

As for the scientific tests that you suggest, I think that most astrologers I know would not submit to putting their beloved astrology though what they see as the cold claws of science. It is not that we don't understand science or that we object to it - it is just that we'd rather keep astrology as a spiritual descriptive system.

So basically, you know astrology can't stand up to scrutiny and therefore you refuse to ever think about it. It's nice that your honest about it at least, but don't you think you could find something better to spend your time on?

Re the question about all the other bodies that have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, and bodies that might be bigger than Pluto. As mentioned above, the asteroid Ceres has now been upgraded to a dwarf planet. It was used for many years in charts, being one of the 4 big asteroids, Juno, Pallas, Ceres and Vesta. Personally, I prefer to view planets as "big and round", not jagged chunks of rock; this is a subject that astrologers are debating.

The problem you have here is that Ceres is big and round. So is Titan. So is Ganymede. So are many other bodies, many of them bigger and closer than Pluto. While you have admited that you simply make up your definition of planets to use, your made up definition is horrendously inconsistent.

I like to stick to the 10 "planets", Sun through Pluto (by the way, the Sun and Moon are known as planets, even though they are of course, respectively, a star, and a satellite).

According to your definition there are 11 "planets". Maybe you should think this through a little more before spouting it out all over the interweb.

 

[Aquila]

I'm sorry, but I'd appreciate it if you'd address my questions.

I'm really struggling to understand your logic. For the third time:

Two babies are born at exactly the same time. One dies within moments of birth and the other lives a long, happy life.

1) Do these people share the same astrological birth chart?

It would be very rare for two individuals to share exactly the same birth chart. Twins share similar charts, but they would be very slightly different - their ascendants would be a few degrees different (I degree every every 4 minutes), so would their Moon position and all the house cusps.

In the case of two babies born at exactly the same time to different mothers, in the same geographical location - perhaps as someone suggested earlier in this thread, on different floors of the same hospital, then yes, they would have almost exactly the same birthchart, BUT, they would have different environmental stimuli reacting with that birthchart. They would have different doctors and nurses, different air, light, sounds.

2) Assuming that the answer to the above question is yes, if their fate is determined by karma earned in a previous existence, then what does the (identical) position of stars and planets at their birth have to do with anything?

Gravy - this is important; fate is not determined by karma. In order to understand this concept, imagine a game of squash, or racket ball. Imagine a ball that someone hits against a wall. Knowing the speed and force that it was hit, we can predict, scientifically, the exact angle and speed that the ball will bounce off the wall.

But we cannot predict how the other person will react to that bounced ball - whether he will run towards it or let it bounce, or in which direction he will hit it, giving the ball "new" karma. Karma is not fate. Karma refers to the past, whereas fate (the future) is a combination of past and the present action.

So, in the case of the 2 babies, even if they shared the same karma, thier fates would be determined by a combination of that karma and everything done by them, and to them since birth.

3) If their fate is not determined by karma, then what can their (identical) birthcharts tell us about their vastly different lives?

Since fate is not determined by karma, as explained above, thier vastly different lives would be explained by different environmental stimuli reacting with natal karma and changing it.

 

[Giggywig]

It would be very rare for two individuals to share exactly the same birth chart. Twins share similar charts, but they would be very slightly different - their ascendants would be a few degrees different (I degree every every 4 minutes), so would their Moon position and all the house cusps.

In the case of two babies born at exactly the same time to different mothers, in the same geographical location - perhaps as someone suggested earlier in this thread, on different floors of the same hospital, then yes, they would have almost exactly the same birthchart, BUT, they would have different environmental stimuli reacting with that birthchart. They would have different doctors and nurses, different air, light, sounds.

If the effect of the environmental stimuli is enough that children with the same star chart can die immediately, live a full and happy life, or presumably anything in between, doesn't that make the effect of the star chart quite negligible?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

So, in the case of the 2 babies, even if they shared the same karma, thier fates would be determined by a combination of that karma and everything done by them, and to them since birth.

<< SNIP >>

So one dies ten seconds after its birth (or is it when the umbilical cord is cut?). How is this explained by "everything done by them, and to them since birth"?

 

[Aquila]

But apparently you didn't understand a word of it. The problem is not that one correlation doesn't prove anything. This can be a problem, but it is not one that astrology has. The problem you have is that one point is not a correlation. There is no point worrying about cause and effect or anything like that when you have yet to show even one correlation between any part of astrology with any part of reality.

So basically, you know astrology can't stand up to scrutiny and therefore you refuse to ever think about it. It's nice that your honest about it at least, but don't you think you could find something better to spend your time on?
.

How about my new thread "London Buses"?

Re the question about all the other bodies that have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, and bodies that might be bigger than Pluto. As mentioned above, the asteroid Ceres has now been upgraded to a dwarf planet. It was used for many years in charts, being one of the 4 big asteroids, Juno, Pallas, Ceres and Vesta. Personally, I prefer to view planets as "big and round", not jagged chunks of rock; this is a subject that astrologers are debating.

The problem you have here is that Ceres is big and round. So is Titan. So is Ganymede. So are many other bodies, many of them bigger and closer than Pluto. While you have admited that you simply make up your definition of planets to use, your made up definition is horrendously inconsistent..

For me, simple is best. Sure, Titan and Ganymede are big and round, but aren't they moons of Saturn and Jupiter respectively? Saturn and Jupiter astro-logically, would be more important.

I like to stick to the 10 "planets", Sun through Pluto (by the way, the Sun and Moon are known as planets, even though they are of course, respectively, a star, and a satellite).

According to your definition there are 11 "planets". Maybe you should think this through a little more before spouting it out all over the interweb.

Actually, what with this new one, Eris (formerly Xena) there are now 12.
I was simply talking about the 10 bodies that have been used in horoscopes for about the past 70 years, namely, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. That's 10, I believe.

 

[Aquila]

OK. For those of us who understand a logarithmic scale, it should be obvious that gravity can't be it.

[qimg]http://hem.spray.se/badgerspotting/images/Gravity.gif[/qimg]

This is very pretty, but as discussed earlier in the thread, I don't think we're going to find a causal mechanism for astrology with today's science. Perhaps we'll have to wait until the theory of extra dimensions is given more credence.

I must leave now, I have a bus to catch.

 

[rsaavedra]

Joining this thread quite late, will read it throroughly to see where the discussion has been and where it is right now.