Re: Questions From an Envious Skeptic
Tolepai...@yahoo.com
Thanks in advance,
Lisa Lundgren
Tolepai...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Would the regulars to this group, in concert with any other
> astrologers, permit a few questions from a skeptic, please?
>
> Let me explain my skepticism: I am skeptical of astrology, palmistry,
> tarot, numerology, etc. I am skeptical of metaphysical belief systems
> that argue for the existence of an individuated afterlife, and of
> metaphysical systems whose advocates generally reject the scientific
> method re the validation of those belief systems.
>
> I am not, however, skeptical because I don't want to believe that we
> can predict the future, or determine a person's personality
> astrologically, or retain our personal consciousnesses after we
> "shuffle off this mortal coil." I am a skeptic not because I don't want
> to believe; I am a skeptic because I want so much to believe.
>
> But I need solid evidence upon which to build my belief. I need more
> than anecdotes.
>
> One place to start is with the following question. I'd love to read
> your reasoned and articulate answers. I'll phrase my questions as would
> the Devil's advocate: with the presumption that astrology is completely
> invalid. Please don't be offended by the tone; at heart, I want to
> believe, I just need to be convinced.
>
> The recent demotion of Pluto has generated some interest in this group.
> One of the commentors (John, I think) said something akin to "It
> doesn't matter what they call it, it doesn't affect chart work at all."
> I take this to mean that Pluto's influence is astrologically evident
> irrespective of Pluto's astronomical designation. This can only be
> because Pluto's influence is required for a complete astrological
> assessment of an individual.
>
> If you accept that interpretation, here are my questions:
>
> Since advocates of astrology claim that the "science" has been around
> for millennia, how do you account for the fact that, at astrology's
> origin, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto had not yet been discovered?
>
> Pluto, in fact, wasn't discovered until 1930. How did astrologers cope
> with that? Did they just add the planet to their charts and go merrily
> along as though nothing had changed?
>
> If its discovery didn't matter, and if (as John avers) its
> declassification doesn't matter, why does it matter at all, chart-wise?
> And if Pluto doesn't matter, how is it different from any other planet?
> Could it be that none of them matter?
>
> If Pluto is astrologically significant, why is it so? Is it Pluto's
> mass, or is it just that Pluto was designated a planet in 1930?
>
> At this point, I need some clarification from astrologers as to the
> current precepts governing astrology. Is it true that astrology holds
> that the placement of the Earth relative to the sun, and the placement
> of the moon and other planets relative to the Earth are the sine qua
> non of astrological charts? Is it still held that it is the
> gravitational fields of these celestial bodies that influence the
> characteristics that astrology claims to identify?
>
> If the relevant aspect is the gravitational field, how do astrologers
> explain or incorporate the fact that there are other celestial bodies,
> such as 2003 UB313, larger than Pluto that also exist in the Kuiper
> belt? Also, if gravity is the essential force, how do astrologers
> explain that the humans in the delivery room exert a greater
> gravitational force on a newborn child than do the moon and planets?
>
> If the relevant aspect is not the gravitational field, then what is it?
> Is it a collection of mystical attributes assigned to/generated by the
> celestial bodies included in a chart? If so, by what process were these
> attributes assigned?
>
> Finally, why is it that it was astronomers, and not astrologers, who
> discovered Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? If astrology has any validity at
> all, wouldn't we expect that astrologers would have surmised the
> existence of these planets? Wouldn't they have constantly been saying
> things like "This chart would make more sense if there were other
> influences, other planets."? But to my knowledge, they didn't. When
> astronomers discovered Pluto, astrologers just added it to their charts
> and went on claiming the same predictive relevance as before, as if
> nothing had changed.
>
> OK, those are my questions. I ask them because I want to believe; I
> want to be convinced.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa Lundgren
Tolepai...@yahoo.com
John Roth
> Would the regulars to this group, in concert with any other
> astrologers, permit a few questions from a skeptic, please?
>
> Let me explain my skepticism: I am skeptical of astrology, palmistry,
> tarot, numerology, etc. I am skeptical of metaphysical belief systems
> that argue for the existence of an individuated afterlife, and of
> metaphysical systems whose advocates generally reject the scientific
> method re the validation of those belief systems.
>
> I am not, however, skeptical because I don't want to believe that we
> can predict the future, or determine a person's personality
> astrologically, or retain our personal consciousnesses after we
> "shuffle off this mortal coil." I am a skeptic not because I don't want
> to believe; I am a skeptic because I want so much to believe.
Before getting into this in detail, I'd suggest reading two rather
different references. First is anything by George Lakoff where he
discusses the way conceptual structures (which he calls frames)
affect what we can understand and what we can't. You may or
may not care for his politics, and some professional linguists don't
particularly care for his terminology, but he's not that far outside
the
mainstream with the core concepts.
Second is a pair of books by Michael Newton on the results
of hypnotic regression to the between life state.
> But I need solid evidence upon which to build my belief. I need more
> than anecdotes.
>
> One place to start is with the following question. I'd love to read
> your reasoned and articulate answers. I'll phrase my questions as would
> the Devil's advocate: with the presumption that astrology is completely
> invalid. Please don't be offended by the tone; at heart, I want to
> believe, I just need to be convinced.
>
> The recent demotion of Pluto has generated some interest in this group.
> One of the commentors (John, I think) said something akin to "It
> doesn't matter what they call it, it doesn't affect chart work at all."
> I take this to mean that Pluto's influence is astrologically evident
> irrespective of Pluto's astronomical designation. This can only be
> because Pluto's influence is required for a complete astrological
> assessment of an individual.
Actually, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. The person
I was replying to said that.
> If you accept that interpretation, here are my questions:
>
> Since advocates of astrology claim that the "science" has been around
> for millennia, how do you account for the fact that, at astrology's
> origin, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto had not yet been discovered?
People claim all sorts of things. In fact, the origins of
western astrology are just now coming into clear view
as the result of a translation project from the original
Greek by astrologers, not by academics who loath the
subject but are doing the translations as part of their job.
It's widely recognized that you can't do an accurate
translation unless you understand the subject you're
translating, consequently most translations into English
(and other languages) suck.
http://www.projecthindsight.com/articles/hellenistic.html
The takehome from this is that astrology wasn't
created by any emperical method, so referring to
it as a science is incorrect. It seems to have been
created by a small group of people in Egypt as a
counterpoint to the prevalent Greek philosophical
schools.
It's an open question whether it was created as
an exercise in philosophy, whether it was channeled,
or whether it was created by an earlier civilization
that is not currently well enough known for the
relationship to be clear. Hindu astrologers claim
the second: it was given by enlightened sages via
direct inspiration. If the third possibility is correct,
the most likely suspect is the civilization that's
being uncovered in the area of northern India and
Pakistan. The name unfortunatly escapes me, but
it survived to classical times, and was on the trade
routes, so it's quite possible that Hellenistic and
Hindu astrology have the same roots there.
It follows that, if there is a physical basis for astrology,
it remains to be discovered. Claims that "it's gravity"
or that it's this or that come from people whose knowledge
of the relevant physics is either so miniscule or so
inaccurate as to be ludicrous.
In point here, there was a recent study that showed
that people who measured in the bottom 15% or so
of competence in a field frequently believe they are
above average. I've dubbed this the "Lake Woebegon
effect", and it applies across the board. Before you
accept anyone's claims as knowledable, you need to
know enough about the field yourself to be able to
evaluate their competence.
There are lots of very convincing people out there.
It's their bread and butter to be convincing, and the
actual facts of whatever they're pontificating on seem
to be, at best, irrelevant.
> Pluto, in fact, wasn't discovered until 1930. How did astrologers cope
> with that? Did they just add the planet to their charts and go merrily
> along as though nothing had changed?
>
> If its discovery didn't matter, and if (as John avers) its
> declassification doesn't matter, why does it matter at all, chart-wise?
> And if Pluto doesn't matter, how is it different from any other planet?
> Could it be that none of them matter?
>
> If Pluto is astrologically significant, why is it so? Is it Pluto's
> mass, or is it just that Pluto was designated a planet in 1930?
>
> At this point, I need some clarification from astrologers as to the
> current precepts governing astrology. Is it true that astrology holds
> that the placement of the Earth relative to the sun, and the placement
> of the moon and other planets relative to the Earth are the sine qua
> non of astrological charts?
> Is it still held that it is the
> gravitational fields of these celestial bodies that influence the
> characteristics that astrology claims to identify?
No. Some astrologers still spin wild theories with nothing
to back them up, however in general the field has moved
away from seeking a physical basis. The bad faith shown
by several prominent "skeptics" in the last goaround left
a really bad taste in everyone's mouth.
> If the relevant aspect is not the gravitational field, then what is it?
> Is it a collection of mystical attributes assigned to/generated by the
> celestial bodies included in a chart? If so, by what process were these
> attributes assigned?
Nobody knows. Project Hindsight has not gotten that far,
and it may never get that far since the best texts are at
least three centuries after the date when astrology was
created. The originators don't seem to have left anything
that can be interpreted on the fundamental principles by
which they created astrology.
People who say they know are, in general, simply
projecting their own metaphysics onto the subject.
I can, for example, explain the 12 topical places
(houses), but I have no way of knowing if that's how
Hermes assigned the meanings originally. The same
is true of the Tarot. I can explain the order of the
Major Arcana in a much more systematic way than
anyone else I've met, but I have no way of knowing if
that's actually what the unknown person who created
the standard order had in mind.
> Finally, why is it that it was astronomers, and not astrologers, who
> discovered Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? If astrology has any validity at
> all, wouldn't we expect that astrologers would have surmised the
> existence of these planets? Wouldn't they have constantly been saying
> things like "This chart would make more sense if there were other
> influences, other planets."? But to my knowledge, they didn't. When
> astronomers discovered Pluto, astrologers just added it to their charts
> and went on claiming the same predictive relevance as before, as if
> nothing had changed.
Depends on _which_ astrologers. As I said in another
venue, neither Hindu astrologers nor Medieval astrologers
(and they do exist, the term refers to people practicing
astrology as it was practiced in the late medieval period)
have any difficulty predicting or explaining the same events
that are explained today by Western astrologers using the
outer planets, asteroids and such like.
The reason for this is historical. Astrology began to
decline with the Enlightenment, and by the middle of
the 19th century it had reached a very low point. It
was mostly preserved by the Masonic lodges.
The later 19th century saw a revival in the
Astrological Lodge of the Theosophical Society. That
body invented psychological astrology out of whole
cloth "to keep Alan Leo out of jail" for fortune telling.
Freud and later Carl Jung were hot topics at the
time as well, which probably had a lot to do with it.
Many of the techniques were lost from standard
practice. This process continued with the "astrology
for everybody" movement in the early 20th century,
which attempted a radical simplification.
Someone practicing modern Western astrology would
see no difficulty in replacing the ruler of Aquarius
(Saturn) with Uranus. A Hindu or Medieval astrologer
would be aghast: the techniques and definitions are
so intricitly intertwined that such a substitution would
cause the whole edifice to fall apart. Uranus is nothing
like Saturn; if anything they are opposites. The problem
is even worse with Hindu astrology: aspecting is quite
different from current practice, and one astrologer who
practiced a mixed system said that he thought Uranus
aspected in trines, like Jupiter but totally unlike Saturn.
The other half of the question is that several groups of
astrologers have hypothesized planets based on detailed
examination of charts. The Uranian school is one (8
hypothetical planets), and Transpluto is the result of
another. Those are simply the two most well known; there
are a legion of others.
>
> OK, those are my questions. I ask them because I want to believe; I
> want to be convinced.
Michael says: belief is silly. Either something works for you,
or discard it and go on to something else. (Messages from
Michael, Chelsea Quinn Yarbro).
John Roth
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa Lundgren
Claude Latremouille
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:34:08 -0500, "Tolepai...@yahoo.com"
<Tolepai...@yahoo.com> answered many of her questions, thereby
prompting my own comments and question:
*
Forgive me for commenting upon the title of your thread, as I am
very skeptical of those who call themselves skeptics. You see, my
rather long experience of the matter has been that most so-called
skeptics are not really skeptics at all but are rather dedicated
fanatics bent on attacking the very ideas they purport to be
skeptical about. Which is why I prefer to call them... false
skeptics.
*
On the other hand, my view of true skeptics is rather
straightforward: they are people who prefer to reserve judgment
upon the various matters they are skeptical about.
*
Which brings us to your last comment:
*
>OK, those are my questions. I ask them because I want to believe; I
>want to be convinced.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Lisa Lundgren
Why on Earth would you want to believe? This is hardly the
mindset of a true skeptic, isn't it?
*
Personally, I do not believe, nor do I wish to believe in
astrology. I have merely experienced it, found it to be a
satisfactory view of the Universe, and recommend it to anyone
interested in it.
*
As I am sure that you might also find it a very satisfying
subject of interest, I can only suggest that you start studying
it; you might even become convinced by it, without any need for
validation or confirmation from third parties, something which
you appear to be seeking here.
*
Not that I dismiss entirely other peoples' views of it, but
having experienced astrology, I have come to the realization that
the best witness to its validity is... oneself.
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille
August 29, 2006
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=== cla...@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
Pedantus
> Tolepai...@yahoo.com wrote:
[........................]
>> OK, those are my questions. I ask them because I want to believe; I
>> want to be convinced.
>
> Michael says: belief is silly. Either something works for you,
> or discard it and go on to something else. (Messages from
> Michael, Chelsea Quinn Yarbro).
>
> John Roth
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lisa Lundgren
>
The evolving postmodern/contemporary point of view does not side with
pragmatic religious attitude. In the spirit of astrology's ninth house,
the quest to see how all things "work", in their own way, is the
unifying Spirit of Knowledge...it has no authoritative
prophets...Authority belongs to, is of, is indebted to to, house
ten--not house nine.
Abhi
There are answers for your questions. Unfortunately I am not native english speaker and
writing in english takes a lot of time which I don't have right now. But by reading the
following question I understand which sources you have been reading.
> belt? Also, if gravity is the essential force, how do astrologers
> explain that the humans in the delivery room exert a greater
> gravitational force on a newborn child than do the moon and planets?
I would reccomend you to start getting answers from here:
http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm
And if you want, I may save your address and one day, when I will have time, I will write
a very long e-mail to all the skeptics in my list, with all the answers. ;) I am not
saying though that I will change anyone's views. I have a lot of experience with both
skeptics and belivers and I know that there are always enough arguments for both sides.
You just choose your side and be happy.
Another option would be use BOTH hemispheres of your brain, but this is very uncommon
nowadays.
I mean, it is a scientific fact that humans have two hemispheres of brain, right? It is
also scientific fact that one side deals with logic and reasoning and things that we call
scientific and another side deals with things like believes, religion, art etc. Now, is
science saying that the other hemisphere is a mistake of evolution and should not be used?
;) Or should be used less?
Think about that. And try to use both.
Abhi
Pedantus
Nice site, Ahbi! Now,....can you do any tricks with napkins....:| ?
Tolepai...@yahoo.com
Claude Latremouille wrote:
> *
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:34:08 -0500, "Tolepai...@yahoo.com"
> <Tolepai...@yahoo.com> answered many of her questions, thereby
> prompting my own comments and question:
> *
> Forgive me for commenting upon the title of your thread, as I am
> very skeptical of those who call themselves skeptics. You see, my
> rather long experience of the matter has been that most so-called
> skeptics are not really skeptics at all but are rather dedicated
> fanatics bent on attacking the very ideas they purport to be
> skeptical about. Which is why I prefer to call them... false
> skeptics.
First, thanks to all of you who have responded to my post. (John, I
will respond to your thoughtful response when I have a bit more time.)
Claude, I understand your feelings about those who identify themselves
as skeptics. This is why I tried to explain the animating force behind
my skepticism. I didn't want to be lumped in with the hostile skeptics
who, apparently, don't want to believe in anything that they can't
quantify; and who seek, under the aegis of "skepticism," to disprove
the reasons for belief in anything else.
> *
> On the other hand, my view of true skeptics is rather
> straightforward: they are people who prefer to reserve judgment
> upon the various matters they are skeptical about.
> *
Then I am a true skeptic by your definition. I am open to new ideas and
to other ways of thinking about "life, the universe, and everything." I
am seeking reasoned discussion on topics about which I have reasoned
doubts. I do not intend to offend, only to question. Because my
experience and (admittedly limited) study has led me to question the
validity of astrology, I consider myself to be skeptical of it. But I
am not opposed to being convinced.
> Which brings us to your last comment:
> *
> >OK, those are my questions. I ask them because I want to believe; I
> >want to be convinced.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Lisa Lundgren
> *
> Why on Earth would you want to believe? This is hardly the
> mindset of a true skeptic, isn't it?
Not by your definition. Certainly, I have reserved judgment. A true
skeptic can reserve judgment even if there a desired result in mind. I
just won't let what I wish to be the case influence my assessment of
the data presented, whether it be for or against the validity of
astrology. In short, I have no "Randian" axe to grind.
As to why I want to believe: I suppose it's for the same reasons that
most others have: I want there to be evidence of a higher power who has
given us some signposts (pardon the pun). Such a higher power is,
perhaps, reason to believe that individuated consciousness can exist
after we die. I'm attached to my consciousness and fear losing it. I
have not, as yet, found convincing evidence that it can survive the
death of the body.
Claude, I like to be right. I am chagrined on those occasions that I am
wrong. But I want to be wrong about my belief that our identities die
with our bodies. In fact, I would gladly be wrong about every belief I
have and every statement I've ever made, if I could also be wrong about
this one thing.
I doubt that astrology can convince me otherwise, but I hope it can.
> *
> Personally, I do not believe, nor do I wish to believe in
> astrology. I have merely experienced it, found it to be a
> satisfactory view of the Universe, and recommend it to anyone
> interested in it.
> *
> As I am sure that you might also find it a very satisfying
> subject of interest, I can only suggest that you start studying
> it; you might even become convinced by it, without any need for
> validation or confirmation from third parties, something which
> you appear to be seeking here.
> *
> Not that I dismiss entirely other peoples' views of it, but
> having experienced astrology, I have come to the realization that
> the best witness to its validity is... oneself.
> *
Perhaps, so. My problem with that is it seems to require faith, and I'm
hoping for more than that.
Thanks,
Lisa Lundgren
chrissybh
Tolepai...@yahoo.com schreef:
[,,]
> As to why I want to believe: I suppose it's for the same reasons that
> most others have: I want there to be evidence of a higher power who has
> given us some signposts (pardon the pun).
Why?
> (Such a higher power is,
> perhaps, reason to believe that individuated consciousness can exist
> after we die.)
I'm attached to my consciousness and fear losing it.
Why?
( I
> have not, as yet, found convincing evidence that it can survive the
> death of the body)
>
> Claude, I like to be right. I am chagrined on those occasions that I am
> wrong.)
> But I want to be wrong about my belief that our identities die
> with our bodies. In fact, I would gladly be wrong about every belief I
> have and every statement I've ever made, if I could also be wrong about
> this one thing.
>
Why?
> I doubt that astrology can convince me otherwise, but I hope it can.
>
>
> > (Claude) *
> > Not that I dismiss entirely other peoples' views of it, but
> > having experienced astrology, I have come to the realization that
> > the best witness to its validity is... oneself.
> > *
>
> Perhaps, so. My problem with that is it seems to require faith, and I'm
> hoping for more than that.
>
You sound very much like me, Lisa, in that faith of itself isn't
enough; you require PROOF BY FACT of a belief before, and without
which, you can even consider, let alone understand the concept of
Faith. We're the 'Doubting Thomas' of the faithful 12 ! Yet to find
'proof', even every scientist first had to work through a belief that
this+that = result.
You seem to want the result/answers handed on a plate to you without
attempting yourself to walk the road that will lead to their
verfication/disqualification. Do you fear what you will find, or ...
perhaps more so ... what you won't ?
It's interesting that you pose your questions at a time when transiting
Saturn (reality) and Neptune (faith) oppose each other in the FIXED
signs. Makes me wonder how they are effecting your natal chart. :-))
Regards,
Christine.
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa Lundgren
Claude Latremouille
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:04:08 -0500, "Tolepai...@yahoo.com"
<Tolepai...@yahoo.com> made an interesting series of remarks
about my own, ending with what
*
>Claude Latremouille wrote:
*
[...]
*
>> Not that I dismiss entirely other peoples' views of it, but
>> having experienced astrology, I have come to the realization that
>> the best witness to its validity is... oneself.
>> *
>
>Perhaps, so. My problem with that is it seems to require faith, and I'm
>hoping for more than that.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Lisa Lundgren
It was not my intention to sound like a 'faith' person, as I do
consider myself a person lacking in faith. My comment was
intended to point to the fact that you are the only person who
knows how you feel when such and such astrological transit
occurs. Even if you were to get a good 'coach' during your first
months of astrological learning, you are the only witness to your
state of mind when such and such event occurs.
*
More to the point, in my experience, one needs a good memory to
learn astrology. In my case, I got myself the astrological charts
of most of my friends, colleagues, etc., i.e., those I came in
contact with regularly, to observe how astrology 'worked' on them
as well as on me.
*
The second thing one needs to learn astrology is a good ephemeris
(on line or on paper). Preferably one which would cover a period
of time prior to the time when you started 'doing' astrology.
This to ascertain that you are not auto-suggesting yourself into
'making astrology work'. One cannot argue that past events
occurred because you 'wanted' them to occur because you 'saw'
them in your chart. If you study your past, this cannot happen.
*
Finally, it does not hurt to be quite critical of oneself when
'doing' astrology. Rather than 'believing' anything, it is best
to test if such and such a planet -- including Pluto ;-) -- is
really 'responsible' for whatever event you might be tempted to
ascribe to it.
*
Back to your ending comment: if you are really 'into' astrology,
you will realize that there is no need for faith in realizing how
it 'works'. All it takes is a good sense of observation. Taking
notes like a maniac does not hurt either! ;-)
*
Once you have made enough observations about 'astrology at work',
you might then start thinking about WHY it works. But the latter
is not necessary (it might even interfere with it) to the
achievement of the former. In other words, don't let your
critical self 'choke' your astrological observations to death.
*
Even if you don't understand why it works, enjoy astrology. There
will always be a time for theorizing as to WHY it works.
*
Have a nice day, Lisa.
*
Claude Latrémouille
August 30, 2006
Leo
(a) Astrology
(b) Life after death
(a) A good book on the subject is "The Night Speaks" by Steven Forrest
and a famous quote from Sir Isaac Newton says that if you study the
subject in depth then you will realise that there really is something
in Astrology. I personally cannot explain it just that it does work
for me. I must state that if you do go to an Astrologer please make
sure that the person is qualified and registered with a professional
body.
(b) Please see - www.survivalafterdeath.org - which is co founded by
Thomas Jones and goes into great depth on the subject of scientific
research into life after death.
Hopefully these few lines will be of interest to the group.
Leo Taylor (Astrologer)
www.leotaylor.info
V2
The space in which the Earth moves is not the perfect vacuum we sometimes
assume; it is filled with what is known as the "solar wind", a continual
outflow of various particles from the Sun, some if not all of which are
charged. The gravitational and magnetic fields of the various planets and
other objects in the solar system affect the distribution of the solar wind
so that it is not uniform in time and space. While many of these charged
particles in the vicinoty of the Earth are trapped in the Van Allen belts by
the Earth's magnetic field, some make it down to the planet (want evidence:
look at the Aurora Borealis or northern lights). It is already known that
people are affected by the distribution of charged particles around them;
whether anyone has studied the effects in detail I don't know for sure.
Also, we know that people are affected by the movement of the Moon; this
movement is not as uniform as we usually assume it to be. In addition to
the changes due to whether it is at apogee or perigee or somewhere in
between, and the changes due to whether it is on the side of the Earth
toward the Sun or away from it, there are minor variations that would appear
to be due the the gravitational effect on the Moon from other bodies in the
system, which however slight is always changing in direction and magnitude.
The most obvious effect of the Moon is the tides which affect not only the
level of water but also the air pressure. Again I am not aware of detailed
studies -- the people likely to do the studies tend to be the skeptics who
would not be looking for anything to support astrology and might even want
to conceal anything that would tend to do so.
I think we are only at the beginning of understanding the physical universe
well enough to work out the details of how astrology works; it would appear
that it was either worked out empirically long ago, revealed by some divine
source, or was brought here by some advanced civilization from elsewhere in
the universe. Take your pick. It works well enough for me that I will
continue to make use of it, although I regard it as something like a weather
report -- a knowledge of conditions that one needs to work within, rather
than a way of absolutely predicting events -- people still have free will,
and you can choose to have a picnic in a blizzard if you want to.
<Tolepai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156840820.3...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Apollia
more later), have been lazy about posting it...
Tolepai...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Would the regulars to this group, in concert with any other
>astrologers, permit a few questions from a skeptic, please?
Of course! :-)
>Let me explain my skepticism: I am skeptical of astrology, palmistry,
>tarot, numerology, etc.
Same here, actually. I just am very open-minded and willing to
experiment or at least fool around with things... :-)
I have almost no interest at all in palmistry and numerology,
though... never seen anything to make me suspect at all that there's
anything to them. Tarot, I have fun with, at least.
Astrology is my favorite of those four things, though.
>I am skeptical of metaphysical belief systems
>that argue for the existence of an individuated afterlife, and of
>metaphysical systems whose advocates generally reject the scientific
>method re the validation of those belief systems.
Yes, me too. But my favorite afterlife theory to toy with is the
theory of reincarnation.
>I am not, however, skeptical because I don't want to believe that we
>can predict the future, or determine a person's personality
>astrologically, or retain our personal consciousnesses after we
>"shuffle off this mortal coil." I am a skeptic not because I don't want
>to believe; I am a skeptic because I want so much to believe.
Makes sense. It's much more fun to believe in things when you have
some pretty darned solidly convincing and sensible reasons to believe
in them.
>But I need solid evidence upon which to build my belief. I need more
>than anecdotes.
Well, unfortunately, one person's first-hand experience is another
person's anecdote... :-)
I could tell you all kinds of strange things (and not only about
astrology), especially if I were in the mood to make myself seem
extremely strange... :-) But, I have nothing terribly solid to
back it up with.
Sure, I have my own records... my own journal I keep on my computer,
with the dates and times noted continually... various interesting
computer files with timestamps on them, which provide convincing
evidence - to myself - of some really darned bizarre coincidences.
But if I showed them to anyone else, it would be quite reasonable
for anyone to question the validity of all of this evidence, and
wonder if perhaps I just falsified the timestamps on the files, or
even the content of the files, or if I am lying about what I wrote in
my journal and/or when I wrote it, etc.
Even if I had printed all this stuff out, people could question
the validity of the dates, the genuineness of the content, my
accounts of what happened, etc., etc.
So, it's all basically good for nothing except convincing me, and
others who know me well enough to feel confident that I am
trustworthy and am not making things up... :-)
But I guess all that's rather beside the point... :-)
I guess what might be more to the point would be to say that there is
a big shortage of serious scientific or statistical studies being
done or attempted with astrology, and with the ones that exist, they
can probably be summed up as, either against astrology, or disputed.
I would say possibly the least faith-reliant way to get answers is
probably to do all the work yourself. Then you can be certain the
results are honest (even if they're erroneous - in which case you
know it's an honest mistake since you did all of it).
That way, you don't have to be confused or in the dark about the
researchers' exact methods, or have any suspicion about whether they
did anything unscrupulous.
I do think it's probably easier to see astrology "working" at the
level of an individual chart rather than an impersonal aggregation
of statistics, though.
I really haven't worked as extensively with giant masses of
statistics as I would like, but I haven't seen anything really
incredibly astounding. Then again, maybe I'm just too ignorant
a fool to notice. :-)
But, in my opinion, astrological charts are very personal, individual
things... for instance, the exact same factor in one chart can mean
something quite different in another.
Currently I think there may be more to be gained from developing
incredibly thorough methods to analyze the living heck out of an
individual chart or set of charts, than from conducting massive
impersonal statistical studies.
But I still do consider both tacks interesting and worth
exploring... :-)
>One place to start is with the following question. I'd love to read
>your reasoned and articulate answers. I'll phrase my questions as would
>the Devil's advocate: with the presumption that astrology is completely
>invalid. Please don't be offended by the tone; at heart, I want to
>believe, I just need to be convinced.
No problem... :-)
>The recent demotion of Pluto has generated some interest in this group.
>One of the commentors (John, I think) said something akin to "It
>doesn't matter what they call it, it doesn't affect chart work at all."
>I take this to mean that Pluto's influence is astrologically evident
>irrespective of Pluto's astronomical designation. This can only be
>because Pluto's influence is required for a complete astrological
>assessment of an individual.
>
>
>If you accept that interpretation, here are my questions:
>
>
>Since advocates of astrology claim that the "science" has been around
>for millennia,
Well, actually, though I'm not sure all advocates would call it a
"science", it _has_ been around for millenia.
http://astroblahhh.tripod.com/astrology/1911britannica-astrology.html
>how do you account for the fact that, at astrology's
>origin, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto had not yet been discovered?
Well, I just figure, astrologers weren't, and aren't, all-knowing,
so, whatever. :-)
Astrology is also pretty darn blurry... and in my opinion it might be
impossible to fully account for all the tons of details in a chart,
without either exaggerating or neglecting some facets, unless you
use some kind of computer software to help you.
Which was my rationale behind writing a little program called
AstroTally, which is still not really complete.
http://astroblahhh.tripod.com/astrology/astrotally/astrotally-info.html
Yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands. :-)
>Pluto, in fact, wasn't discovered until 1930. How did astrologers cope
>with that? Did they just add the planet to their charts and go merrily
>along as though nothing had changed?
Don't know, but it would be interesting to look up.
>If its discovery didn't matter, and if (as John avers) its
>declassification doesn't matter, why does it matter at all, chart-wise?
I would find it rather odd if discovery or classification _did_
matter, since I don't really see why astrological effects, if they
exist, should magically vanish or reappear merely based on what
humans are aware of, or what they deem something to be.
Not saying that _can't_ be the case... it just doesn't sit right with
me for some reason.
Then again, the astrological meaning of the planets often seems to go
awfully well with their names/mythology. (For instance, Venus isn't
the planet of death, and Pluto isn't the planet of love).
So, I don't know... can't totally cut human subjectivity out of the
picture, I guess. :-)
>And if Pluto doesn't matter, how is it different from any other planet?
>Could it be that none of them matter?
>
>
>If Pluto is astrologically significant, why is it so? Is it Pluto's
>mass, or is it just that Pluto was designated a planet in 1930?
>
>
>At this point, I need some clarification from astrologers as to the
>current precepts governing astrology. Is it true that astrology holds
>that the placement of the Earth relative to the sun, and the placement
>of the moon and other planets relative to the Earth are the sine qua
>non of astrological charts? Is it still held that it is the
>gravitational fields of these celestial bodies that influence the
>characteristics that astrology claims to identify?
>
>
>If the relevant aspect is the gravitational field, how do astrologers
>explain or incorporate the fact that there are other celestial bodies,
>such as 2003 UB313, larger than Pluto that also exist in the Kuiper
>belt? Also, if gravity is the essential force, how do astrologers
>explain that the humans in the delivery room exert a greater
>gravitational force on a newborn child than do the moon and planets?
I guess I'll skip over answering this in great depth - others have
already answered this well enough. I'll just mention that, no, I
personally don't think there is any physical cause (like gravity) for
astrological effects (if they exist).
I think if astrology works, it probably has to do with whatever
mechanism is responsible for really weird coincidences or
synchronicities which occasionally pop up.
Here's my favorite essay I've ever found on this and other topics:
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/astrol.html
"An Astrophysicist's Sympathetic and Critical View of Astrology", by
Victor Mansfield.
>If the relevant aspect is not the gravitational field, then what is it?
>Is it a collection of mystical attributes assigned to/generated by the
>celestial bodies included in a chart? If so, by what process were these
>attributes assigned?
It's these kinds of questions that have forced me to consider
completely different perspectives on the universe than
materialism. :-)
My favorite theory for the past few years has been that, maybe
life is nothing but a very solid, unusually mostly logical-seeming
dream. (It'll be a little while before I tie this back in to the
topic of astrology, so bear with me... :-) )
I've had dreams in the past which are indistinguishable from reality,
where nothing really odd happens. Everything seems perfectly solid,
normal, and boring. There's no evidence within the dream to suggest
that it's a dream. I only figure it out once I wake up.
Which got me thinking about "actual reality"... what if things only
_seem_ logical, mundane, materialistic.
What if the weirdness and fluidity of dreams is the fundamental
attribute of reality - and reality has only temporarily taken the
form of _seeming_ orderly, logical, material, etc., etc.
Which might mean that, despite surface appearances, the fluidity and
weirdness is still inherent, still potential, no matter how rigid,
frozen, consistent, and rational things seem.
In my opinion, the main clues that such a thing might be true (and
the only reason I began considering such an outlook in the first
place) are really weird, unlikely coincidences, "synchronicities",
psychic experiences, etc., which defy all reasonable materialistic
explanations.
There's little I enjoy more, than when things happen that are _sooo_
darned weird, they seem like they could only happen in a dream - yet
they've happened in actual, literal reality.
Like the time I was playing a demo of a one-player simulation game
by the name of Real Lives. :-) http://www.educationalsimulations.com/
Yes, sorry, this is an anecdote. :-)
I decided to start a custom life modeled after my own real life -
female, born in Pittsburgh, PA. It was the first time I had ever
tried that.
I decided to play it sort of like my real life, and not even have
my character go out dating and looking for a mate... :-)
She randomly met a guy around age 18, but he broke up with her soon
after that. She went for years without meeting anyone.
Then, when she reached age 28 or so - wham!
It was one of the most stunning coincidences I've ever experienced.
The love interest in the game who she randomly encountered had
exactly the same name - first and last - as the guy I had actually
really fallen in love with in reality - just that the spelling of
the first name was slightly different, "ph" in the game instead of
"f" in reality. :-O :-O :-O
This was _really, really bizarre_, because it's not like there were
only a few different random first and last names characters in the
game could randomly end up having. There were way more than that,
though I'm not sure how many exactly... for a low estimate, there
were probably over 50 different possibilities apiece for first and
last names.
And to have _both_ the first name, _and_ the last name be exactly
the same as the real person, on my first time _ever_ playing this
game with a life modeled after my real life... I don't know, it
just staggers me.
So, needless to say, I was totally bowled over and astounded. I
took a screenshot... which of course proves nothing, because it's
very easy to falsify screenshots or other computer-related things.
I had no witnesses looking over my shoulder, either.
But... dang, that was one of the most shocking experiences I've
ever had. I have no explanation for it, unless it really was just
an incredibly unlikely random occurrence.
But... after a multitude of weird experiences, you start to doubt
that it's just random.
I haven't really decided for certain that I definitely believe in
the "life is just a mostly rational, solid-seeming dream"
philosophical perspective.
But... if such a thing is true, it does mean that the way everything
in life works doesn't really have to make perfect sense... :-) No
more sense than a dream makes. So, astrology could fit in
perfectly well in such a universe... :-)
Though, mind you, even dreams can seem to make sense, if you pay
attention to them and try to interpret them. And I've also found
them an extraordinary source of many weird coincidences. I'll
get into that a bit later in this post.
(...)
>As to why I want to believe: I suppose it's for the same reasons that
>most others have: I want there to be evidence of a higher power who has
>given us some signposts (pardon the pun).
I've seen plenty of what seem to maybe be signposts, I just don't
know for sure what their source is.
>Such a higher power is,
>perhaps, reason to believe that individuated consciousness can exist
>after we die. I'm attached to my consciousness and fear losing it.
I'm the other way around... I think nonexistence sounds very peaceful.
>I have not, as yet, found convincing evidence that it can survive the
>death of the body.
Have you ever looked into reincarnation?
I _still_ have never gotten around to _really_ investigating that...
I ought to, though. But, apparently some people think the evidence
for that is pretty convincing.
>Claude, I like to be right. I am chagrined on those occasions that I am
>wrong. But I want to be wrong about my belief that our identities die
>with our bodies. In fact, I would gladly be wrong about every belief I
>have and every statement I've ever made, if I could also be wrong about
>this one thing.
>
>I doubt that astrology can convince me otherwise, but I hope it can.
I don't know if the following idea will help you come to any
conclusions about the afterlife, but, it might help shake up your
philosophical outlooks a bit, if it works for you the way it did for
me.
I recommend keeping a dream journal - making certain to meticulously
note down the dates and times when you're writing in it - and seeing
if you notice any odd coincidences with your dreams and things
happening in reality.
For example - a few years back, I dreamed about there being a tornado
high above my home town of Pittsburgh, PA, and then a few days later,
I found out there really _had_ been a tornado there, which didn't
touch down, right over the exact road I dreamed of being on - and
this happened just hours before I had my dream.
Which was really pretty weird, especially since I don't often dream of
tornadoes, and Pittsburgh rarely has them.
Fortunately, I had noted my dream down in my journal with the date
and the time, or I never could have judged how close in time the two
events (my dream, and the actual tornado) had been. I might even
have forgotten my dream except for writing it down.
If nothing else, this and other experiences like it have been
personally very mind-opening for me.
Hearing weird stories from other people hardly ever made a dent in my
outlooks - weird stuff had to happen to me before I began to even
consider this kind of thing to be a possibility.
As for astrology... others have given you some good advice regarding
that, and I guess I'm repeating some of it... :-)
I recommend looking at lots of charts, and taking lots of notes of
anything you notice that seems interesting.
And if you make any guesses about what kinds of things someone else
has in their chart - write them down (along with the date and time you
made them - just since it's annoying to have a whole lot of notes that
you have no idea when they're from) - and try to confirm them, and try
to keep track of all the hits and misses.
Though before you get knowledgeable about astrology you probably
shouldn't expect anything too extraordinary when you make guesses.
First, give yourself some time to get acquainted with astrology.
Learn the basics, so you can begin understanding the "language"
of astrology - what the signs, houses, and astrological planets
mean, in isolation and in combination.
And of course, the aspects... can't forget those, they're extremely
important. I also am starting to consider midpoints increasingly
neat, but, the basics are the planets, houses, signs, aspects.
Probably not in that order of importance.
And, it's helpful to study the charts of people you know well, and
open-mindedly try to observe how the charts suit those people. I
also think it's helpful to look at least two charts at once and
compare them to each other, etc.
It might be especially interesting to compare your own chart to that
of someone you feel a great affinity for, someone you really feel
similar to in a lot of ways, who has a lot of similar outlooks, etc.
A journal/diary might come in handy in a lot of ways.
I would recommend getting some good astrology software... like the
freeware Astrolog 5.40. http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm
I even bought the Kepler software for like $300 and I still like
Astrolog more - it's nice, fast and uncumbersome. I use it all the
time.
Well, I guess that's all I can think of to say for now... good
luck.
----
Apollia
(Formerly known as Blahhh, but I'm getting tired of having so many
different aliases on the internet... :-) )
My website: http://www.astroblahhh.com/
My birth data:
-qa July 3 1981 12:50 EDT 79:59W 40:26N (Pittsburgh, PA)
taro...@jktarot.com
> People who say they know are, in general, simply
> projecting their own metaphysics onto the subject.
> I can, for example, explain the 12 topical places
> (houses), but I have no way of knowing if that's how
> Hermes assigned the meanings originally. The same
> is true of the Tarot. I can explain the order of the
> Major Arcana in a much more systematic way than
> anyone else I've met, but I have no way of knowing if
> that's actually what the unknown person who created
> the standard order had in mind.
The thing is, the "standard order" for Tarot was mainly a mnemonic to
aid in the playing of a card game. And this was true up till the point
in time a Masonic-Egyptomaniacal creation myth was adapted to Tarot:
http://jktarot.com/egyptomania
There are many things we do know about the people who invented Tarot,
and what their motivations may have been in using the symbolism they
chose for the cards. But, it should be recalled that Tarot was created
as a card game, not as a metaphysical tool.
Somebody's metaphysics therefore did get projected onto Tarot to make
it occult. But having done that, Tarot subsequently came to express
that metaphysics, and so if modern people decide to repeat that process
without knowledge of how it has already worked, they will take a
traditional knowledge base and practice and make it merely personal.
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Rhapsodies:
http://www.lulu.com/content/362876
************************************
ast...@yahoo.com
I don't think using both hemispheres of the brain is all that uncommon.
Dyslexics(I am one of them) actually use the right hemisphere and not
just the left hemisphere for language tasks. Between 5 and 15 percent
of the population can be diagnosed as suffering from various degrees of
dyslexia.
Studies (doctor type) have shown that when dyslexics read, they use
more parts of their brain to formulate and store information than
non-dyslexics. Instead of simply understanding and accepting
information, it is common for dyslexics to want to visualize it, or use
other senses to put it to memory, sort of like a virtual reality walk
through of information as it applies to our whole brain.
Dyslexic children use nearly five times the brain area. This means
their brains were working a lot harder and using more energy than the
normal children
Dyslexic children use nearly five times the brain area as normal
children while performing a simple language task, according to a new
study by an interdisciplinary team of University of Washington
researchers. The study shows for the first time that there are
chemical differences in the brain function of dyslexic and non-dyslexic
children.
Significant Strengths of people with dyslexia
Although their unique brain architecture and "unusual wiring" make
reading, writing, and spelling difficult, most people with dyslexia
have gifts in areas controlled by the right hemisphere of the brain.
The right side controls:
* artistic skill
* athletic ability
* musical ability
* mechanical ability
* people skills
* 3-D visual-spatial skills
* vivid imagination
* intuition
* creative, global thinking
* curiosity
Dyslexic people are visual, multi-dimensional thinkers. We are
intuitive and highly creative, and excel at hands-on learning. Because
we think in pictures, it is sometimes hard for us to understand
letters, numbers, symbols, and written words.
We can learn to read, write and study efficiently when we use methods
geared to our unique learning style.
My Dyslexia indicators are:
Neptune in 3rd in t-square with Moon in Pisces in 6th and Saturn in
Gemini in 9th.
Moon square Neptune
MO.NE.*
+ empathic . intuitive. sensitive. tender. future-oriented. highly
imaginative or visionary. private; drawn to obscurities. opaque.
sensitive to the weather. interested in metaphysical factors. Actress.
Private or obscure woman. Intuitive person. Keen instincts. Things
or feelings out of the subconscious or unconscious. Dreamlike state or
conditions. The future of the public. Sacrifices of the public or
nation. Air. Water. Homeopathy.
- semiconscious or unconscious. touchy. easily swayed. disillusioned.
unrealistic. needful of protection. secretive. ambiguous. unstable.
unreliable. vulnerable. impersonal. prone to feelings of inferiority.
prone to sleepwalk. allergy prone.
Secretive woman. Allergy proneness. Deceit, disillusionment, or
disappointment in relation to the wife. Emotional uncertainty or
insecurity. Weakness of a woman. Public deception. Losses of the public
or a nation.
Moon oppose Saturn/Neptune midpoint
MO.SA.NE.
+ empathic. sensitive . private; drawn to obscurities. serious. free of
confinement or restraints. cautious. deals with medical issues.
seriously interested in metaphysical factors.
Gynecology. Concern with obscure problems. [Responsibilities during
night hours.]
- secretive. insecure. dissatisfied; discontented. hopeless.
pessimistic. melancholy. contrary. lacking in self-confidence.
dejected; mournful. emotionally distraught. manic depressive.
emotionally cold.
Uncertainty of an older woman. Continual deceit of or due to the
wife. Secret separation from a woman. Problems due to uncertainty.
Unrecognized problems. Continual emotional weakness. Insomnia. Long
illness. Chronic circumstances. Brain malfuctions. Uncertainty about or
due to public problems. Deceit of a small nation.
Mercury parallel Neptune
ME.NE.*
+ intuitive. highly perceptive. thinks in the abstract. has an active
imagination. skilled at empathizing. has reliable hunches.
future-oriented. interested in metaphysical factors. highly
imaginative. daydreams. imitative.
Secret thoughts. Obscure conversation. Private communications.
Discussion of the unknown. Intuitively-aided communication. Opinions
about the future. Thoughts of the immaterial. Motion in the water or
air. Acting ability.
- self-deceiving. deluded. deceptive. unreliable. absent-minded.
forgetful. prone to misjudge.
Unclear ideas. Deceit in a discussion. Disillusionment due to a
conversation. Uncertainty or unreliability in connection with
communications. Confusion. To be resigned to fate.
Mercury conjunct Sun/Neptune midpoint
SU.ME.NE.
+ intuitive. has a lively and impressionistic mind. sensitive.
sentimental. interested in metaphysical factors. inspired. quick to
figure things out. highly imaginative. inquisitive. capable at abstract
thinking. daydreams. future-oriented.
Discussion/s of a reclusive or secretive man. Communication about a
man's uncertainty or instability. Discussion of physical
vulnerabilities.
- easily impressed. deluded. indecisive. easily swayed. unrealistic.
doesn't think clearly. absent-minded. confused. prone to lie. lacking
in self-reliance.
Unclear ideas of man. Deceiving conversation with the husband.
Deceit in younger years. The unconsciousness of youth. Thoughts of
physical weakness. Days of Untruth. Years of business losses.
Mercury square Mars/Neptune midpoint
ME.MA.NE
+ intuitive. highly imaginative. resourceful. inventive. private.
obscure. circumspect. future-oriented. works with metaphysical factors.
To put ideas into action intuitively. Talk of obscure activities. To
enact progressive ideas. To proceed diplomatically. Preoccupied with
nonmaterial themes. Pseudonyms.
- secretive. insincere. underhanded. shifty. deceitful. easily imposed
upon. irresolute. hesitant. aimless. weak-willed. contrary.
To not keep promises. Words without action. Active business deceit.
Discussion of mistakes. Deceiving course of a conversation. Plan
without prospects. Deceitful intentions. Endless prattle. Weak brain
functions.
Raymond
John Roth
taro...@jktarot.com wrote:
> John Roth wrote:
>
> > People who say they know are, in general, simply
> > projecting their own metaphysics onto the subject.
> > I can, for example, explain the 12 topical places
> > (houses), but I have no way of knowing if that's how
> > Hermes assigned the meanings originally. The same
> > is true of the Tarot. I can explain the order of the
> > Major Arcana in a much more systematic way than
> > anyone else I've met, but I have no way of knowing if
> > that's actually what the unknown person who created
> > the standard order had in mind.
>
> The thing is, the "standard order" for Tarot was mainly a mnemonic to
> aid in the playing of a card game. And this was true up till the point
> in time a Masonic-Egyptomaniacal creation myth was adapted to Tarot:
>
> http://jktarot.com/egyptomania
It was not, however, true at the beginning. Early tarot
decks show a wide variety of orders. I've seen an analysis
that shows that they tend to fall into groups, one for each
of the three major cities in northern Italy, with the (at the time
four) virtues coming at seeming random in the order. This
was before the virtue of Prudence got changed to Pope Joan,
and thence to the female pope, the hierophant, the high priestess
or whatever a modern deck uses for the card.
> There are many things we do know about the people who invented Tarot,
> and what their motivations may have been in using the symbolism they
> chose for the cards. But, it should be recalled that Tarot was created
> as a card game, not as a metaphysical tool.
Quite true. I liked your point about the name originally
being Triumphs. That goes well with the point from the
work already mentioned about the images being typical of
a triumphal parade in major northern Italian cities of the
time, pretty much in the order that the participants and
floats would occur.
> Somebody's metaphysics therefore did get projected onto Tarot to make
> it occult. But having done that, Tarot subsequently came to express
> that metaphysics, and so if modern people decide to repeat that process
> without knowledge of how it has already worked, they will take a
> traditional knowledge base and practice and make it merely personal.
Well, I certainly won't dispute that. However, I think that
happened _after_ the standard order was created. Long
after. And since there is a very simple correspondance
between the trumps (the triumphs) and astrological
symbolism that has _no_ relationship to anyone's occult
metaphysics, your answer has not bearing on my comment.
It's pure astrology as it has been understood since shortly
before the Christian era.
Since it's not very well known, I'll repeat it here.
The first 12 cards, counting from the Fool (the Juggler
in very early decks) are the _rulers_ of the signs in
order from Aries. The exceptions are the Hermit, which
was originally Time (Capricorn, ruled by Saturn) and
The Wheel, which corresponds to Aquarius, likewise
ruled by Saturn and which I can't account for.) Also,
the Pope and the female Pope have reversed sex.
The 13th card (the hanging man) is the North Node
by exclusion - it's the odd card and symbol. Otherwise
I can't account for it.
The next 7 cards are the planets in order from Saturn
to the Sun, with Mars and Venus switched. It finishes
with the Resurection being the Rising Sign, and the World
being the Midheaven.
See? Simple, straightforward, no occult metaphysics.
Basic astrology. It could be used as a set of flash
cards to teach astrology, and I suspect it was in
situations where astrological paraphernalia could have
caused major complications but gambling would have
merited no more than a rueful shake of the head.
However, note that whoever did it definitely had a
major sex hangup; Venus is both the Mountebank
(the Magician in modern decks) and the Devil, while
there are two sex reversals, neither of which seem
to have any function other than confusion.
John Roth
xl...@sympatico.ca
> (a) A good book on the subject is "The Night Speaks" by Steven Forrest
> and a famous quote from Sir Isaac Newton says that if you study the
> subject in depth then you will realise that there really is something
> in Astrology.
The misunderstanding about Newton and astrology
(and the oft-reproduced "I have studied these
things - you have not") is clearly exposed by
Robert van Gent; see
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/astrology/newton.htm
Nick Kollerstrom dealt with this phemomenon in the
_Astrological_Journal_ (xxx 6, November-December
1988, 334-335), noting "It is only recently that
textbooks without this mandatory delusion have
appeared on the scene." Kollerstrom could not have
guessed tha the Web would take over where the
textbooks left off. A quick search shows that,
alas! the "mandatory delusion" has been vigorously
promoted in the eighteen years since his letter
appeared.