Certification - worthwhile?
Carl Miller
offer correspondence curriculums. I noticed that several of them offer
"certification" courses, and I figured that if I'm going to bother to
learn it, I might as well pick up a piece of paper to go along with my
knowledge, even though knowledge is the main goal, not certification.
One that caught my eye was the Mayo school over in England. They
particularly interested me because the book they use as a textbook just
happens to be the book I'm self-studying from. Namely, The Modern
Text-book of Astrology.
1) Does anyone here have direct experience with the Mayo school?
2) Any suggestions for an alternative ("better") school?
3) Does "certification" really mean anything? If so, which are
considered more "reputable"?
I found the ISAR site, but all they really seem to say is,
"Certification is good. We support certification." And they'll let you
give them money for a membership, which may be good, but isn't helpful
to someone looking for more information on certification.
Thanks!
--
Carl Miller
cmi...@trellis.net
www.mozuna.com
Chris Mitchell
>One that caught my eye was the Mayo school over in England. They
>particularly interested me because the book they use as a textbook just
>happens to be the book I'm self-studying from. Namely, The Modern
>Text-book of Astrology.
>
>1) Does anyone here have direct experience with the Mayo school?
>
>2) Any suggestions for an alternative ("better") school?
>
>3) Does "certification" really mean anything? If so, which are
>considered more "reputable"?
>
I'm in England, and I don't know what the status is of certification
among astrology schools here (the school at which I studied and now
teach, the Bristol School of Astrology, awards diplomas but it's not a
formal accreditation). However, I understand that Bath Spa College is
now the first university in the UK to offer a formal astrology degree
- Nicholas Campion, a well-known UK astrologer, is a lecturer (in
history, I believe) at the college and was instrumental in getting
this course set up.
I don't have any information about this, and don't know if it's
relevant, but it may be worth contacting the Astrological Association
of Great Britain, whose website is at http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/
Regards,
Chris.
--
Chris Mitchell,
Bristol, England.
http://www.zaalberg.freeserve.co.uk
CB Willis
Carl Miller (cmi...@trellis.net) wrote:
>I recently started looking at some of the schools of astrology that
>offer correspondence curriculums. I noticed that several of them offer
>"certification" courses, and I figured that if I'm going to bother to
>learn it, I might as well pick up a piece of paper to go along with my
>knowledge, even though knowledge is the main goal, not certification.
>One that caught my eye was the Mayo school over in England. [...]
I studied with the Mayo school, the British Faculty, about 30 yrs ago.
It was a good experience at the time. I didn't do a certification program.
Would I do it today if I were at the same point in my development as I was
then when I began it? probably not.
Certifications are useful if your target client base would be impressed by
sheepskins without having any idea how to evaluate what went into
achieving it, especially in relation to his experience of his
consultation(s) with you and how helpful they were to him short term and
long term, and in comparison to other
counseling/consulting/self-development approaches he could have done
instead for the same investment.
Competence is good. What constitutes competence, and how to best get it,
those are the questions to live in.
My theory is that upwards of 10% of those who call themselves experts in
any given field really are, and the number I'd really prefer to be dealing
with are in the top 1-2%. So how do you make yourself one of those?
What sets the best astrologers apart from the crowd? apart from all the
others who may also have sheepskins?
Astrologers are unconventional, unorthodox, rebels, revolutionaries, wild
galloping individualists. Many of them wouldn't be caught dead in somoene
else's certification program. Sheepskins are ok as far as they go; it's
just that they may not go far enough, and some of the studies may end up
being irrelevant to the way you practice.
So who are you trying to impress anyway?
And what are you trying to impress them with?
What are they supposed to assume about you without really knowing
anything?
Are you afraid they won't be able to see anything about who you are and
what you can do for them without the sheepskin? This is a huge question.
Most of the time selection of you as an astrology is an intuitive match,
or a personal referral from a trusted friend. But there are a few people
who are impressed by sheepskins; the question is, do you want these people
as clients?
select one: yes/no/maybe/maybe not
----------------
Carol Willis, MA
Professional Astrologer since 1970
Sunnyvale CA cbwi...@lightlink.com
Transformational Astrology Series:
http://www.astrologynow.com/carolwillis/
Two-year Astrologer Mentoring Program available.
For free subscription to my astrology newsletter and
related articles, send message SUBSCRIBE ASTROLIST-L
in the body only (subject line blank) to majo...@lightlink.com
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <00020718232929...@trellis.net>,
cmi...@trellis.net (Carl Miller) wrote:
>I recently started looking at some of the schools of astrology that
>offer correspondence curriculums. I noticed that several of them offer
>"certification" courses, and I figured that if I'm going to bother to
>learn it, I might as well pick up a piece of paper to go along with my
>knowledge, even though knowledge is the main goal, not certification.
>
>One that caught my eye was the Mayo school over in England. They
>particularly interested me because the book they use as a textbook just
>happens to be the book I'm self-studying from. Namely, The Modern
>Text-book of Astrology.
>
>1) Does anyone here have direct experience with the Mayo school?
RM: We discussed this here several weeks ago, so you might find
something extra by searching on Google Groups.
To answer you question: No, I haven't had any experience with that
school, but I believe it is very good.
>
>2) Any suggestions for an alternative ("better") school?
RM: Anything that is done in a classroom is better than correspondence
classes.
>
>3) Does "certification" really mean anything? If so, which are
>considered more "reputable"?
RM: Certification generally means that the student has a reasonably
good memory and has passed the basics of astrology.
I suppose you could equate a Certificate with 6 to 12 months of
part-time study with a lecturer once a week for a few hours plus some
avid reading and practice in your spare time.
A certificate implies that one has covered the basics (as determined
by the particular teacher or school) and it also implies that one has
ALSO been exposed to a lot of material which is practically useless -
(but the student astrologer doesn't discover this until quite a few
more years have elapsed)
>
>I found the ISAR site, but all they really seem to say is,
>"Certification is good. We support certification." And they'll let you
>give them money for a membership, which may be good, but isn't helpful
>to someone looking for more information on certification.
Obtaining a certificate is a good idea for those who feel comfortable
about it. It also reduces the chance of making serious errors whilst
practising astrology or talking about it.
Generally though, if one wanted to use "certification" as a means of
looking 'credible' in advertising material, it would mean obtaining at
*least* the next level - which might be called a Diploma, or after
that, a certificate of "Professional Membership" of a relatively large
astrological association.
I would disuade anyone from commercially advertising the fact that
they held a "certificate" from any astrological school - because it
would usually imply that one was *less experienced* than was the case.
I have the impression that examiners generally are not qualified to
identify good or excellent astrologers in written exams *unless* those
exams require the student to use astrology to supply some good answers
about real people, events and dates.
It is easy of course to identify poor astrology in exams.
Don't get me wrong here - examiners can usually identify a good
student who knows a lot of accepted 'astrological theory' - but I'm
talking about identifying good astrologers -- and that has a LOT to do
with personality, manners, professionalism and integrity. In other
words very few ratbags can be good astrologers :-)>
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <3d614afe$1...@news2.lightlink.com>,
cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com (CB Willis) wrote:
>
>Carl Miller (cmi...@trellis.net) wrote:
>>I recently started looking at some of the schools of astrology that
>>offer correspondence curriculums. I noticed that several of them offer
>>"certification" courses, and I figured that if I'm going to bother to
>>learn it, I might as well pick up a piece of paper to go along with my
>>knowledge, even though knowledge is the main goal, not certification.
>
>>One that caught my eye was the Mayo school over in England. [...]
>
>
>I studied with the Mayo school, the British Faculty, about 30 yrs ago.
>It was a good experience at the time. I didn't do a certification program.
>Would I do it today if I were at the same point in my development as I was
>then when I began it? probably not.
>
>Certifications are useful if your target client base would be impressed by
>sheepskins without having any idea how to evaluate what went into
>achieving it, especially in relation to his experience of his
>consultation(s) with you and how helpful they were to him short term and
>long term, and in comparison to other
>counseling/consulting/self-development approaches he could have done
>instead for the same investment.
>
>Competence is good. What constitutes competence, and how to best get it,
>those are the questions to live in.
>
>My theory is that upwards of 10% of those who call themselves experts in
>any given field really are, and the number I'd really prefer to be dealing
>with are in the top 1-2%.
RM: I think that very few astrologers know how good they are because
comparisons are seldom made.
>So how do you make yourself one of those?
RM: Many of us have no wish to become the best in the field because we
recognise our own limitations.
>What sets the best astrologers apart from the crowd? apart from all the
>others who may also have sheepskins?
>
>Astrologers are unconventional, unorthodox, rebels, revolutionaries, wild
>galloping individualists.
RM: Gee, you're in fine form today Carol. You sound like something is
activating your Mercury.
You've raised a good question though -- what ARE astrologers like as a
bunch?
What have we got that covers a good proportion of us?
Slightly eccentric with backbone?
Away with the pixies?
Galloping individualists? (as you proposed)
>Many of them wouldn't be caught dead in somoene
>else's certification program.
RM: Well it ~does~ impress the personality types who simply cannot
accept others working in any field without certain qualifications. In
fact some of them will not allow conversation to proceed unless one
~is~ qualified.
[....]
>
>So who are you trying to impress anyway?
>
>And what are you trying to impress them with?
>
>What are they supposed to assume about you without really knowing
>anything?
>
>Are you afraid they won't be able to see anything about who you are and
>what you can do for them without the sheepskin? This is a huge question.
RM: You sound a bit impatient with these questions. [I thought I'd
better tell you, in case you didn't mean it to sound that way].
>
>Most of the time selection of you as an astrolog[er] is an intuitive match,
>or a personal referral from a trusted friend.
RM: Yes, we've discussed this before on aamod. Who ~would~ we consult
ourselves for a reading?
It seems that the personality and style of the astrologer is a very
important factor in that selection.
At the risk of embarrassing our moderator ~again~, I can say that
someone like M. Rideout would be my sort of astrologer for a reading
because I wouldn't want to hear outlandish or scary things during a
reading.
>But there are a few people
>who are impressed by sheepskins; the question is, do you want these people
>as clients?
RM: Any reasonably skilled astrologer can still point out some of the
value of using astrology, irrespective of who the client is.
Ray
Christine
CB Willis <cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3d614afe$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> [..]
> Certifications are useful if your target client base would be impressed by
> sheepskins without having any idea how to evaluate what went into
> achieving it, especially in relation to his experience of his
> consultation(s) with you and how helpful they were to him short term and
> long term, and in comparison to other
> counseling/consulting/self-development approaches he could have done
> instead for the same investment.
>
> Competence is good. What constitutes competence, and how to best get it,
> those are the questions to live in.
>
> Astrologers are unconventional, unorthodox, rebels, revolutionaries, wild
> galloping individualists. Many of them wouldn't be caught dead in somoene
> else's certification program. Sheepskins are ok as far as they go; it's
> just that they may not go far enough, and some of the studies may end up
> being irrelevant to the way you practice.
>
>
I can vouch for being a bit of a rebel at heart myself, yet I don't see why
studying astrology through a school is not considered necessary. Imho,
astrology is trying very hard to become a recognised subject of learning
again, and the fact that it is once more being included in
college/university curriculi shows that it is ridding itself of the stigma
of the 'nonsensical fortune-telling' tag applied to it in previous centuries
and is being taken seriously by the public again. Colleges/universities and
recognised training schools are fulfilling their obligation to provide that
knowledge to the public.
What is the difference between studying Astrology and, for instance studying
Math, Foreign Languages, Nuclear Physics, Psychology or Medicine? Be honest;
would you send your family to a Dr. that had not reached a standard of
qualification, and whose knowledge you could trust to deal with any physical
complaints properly? Would you trust someone to teach you a foreign language
who had spent years in the country and could speak it colloquially but could
not tell you how to conjugate verbs or agree adjectives so that you would be
properly understood? Would you accept without question the answer of a maths
teacher who told you 3+2=6 because he had not bothered to get
qualifications, yet considered he knew enough about addition to be
considered right?
Every astrologer talks about astrological symbolism being' tools to work
with'; some may use and prefer the hammer approach whilst others choose to
chisel away carefully. But each should be able to clarify a MA. conj. UR.
with a MO. square NE. that provides a particular effect, without umming and
aahing around it because they are not adequately familiar with the meaning
of what is involved. Professional teaching provides this supervision.
It may not make an individual an excellent astrologer but it will surely
turn him into a better one than simply learning through self-study, where
there is no one to share one's questions, views and ideas with.
who are you trying to impress anyway?
>
> And what are you trying to impress them with?
>
I can't speak for Carl, but I studied astrology for 18 years before I felt
the need to get professional qualifications (NN/SN in Cancer/Capr.11th/5th).
It had nothing to do with wanting to impress people with my credentials
(don't even know where I've put them:-) ), but rather with integrity; to
take away my own feeling of being considered a charlatan who had no right to
mess around with other people's lives (Blame that on my BML square UR!).
> What are they supposed to assume about you without really knowing
> anything?
>
> Are you afraid they won't be able to see anything about who you are and
> what you can do for them without the sheepskin? This is a huge question.
>
Have you been able to answer that one sufficiiently yourself, Carol ?
> Most of the time selection of you as an astrology is an intuitive match,
> or a personal referral from a trusted friend. But there are a few people
> who are impressed by sheepskins; the question is, do you want these people
> as clients?
>
> select one: yes/no/maybe/maybe not
>
There is a 'belief' amongst the astrologers I know that a client will
somehow be drawn towards the astrologer and his/her methods because these
fulfil the needs of the client at that particular period in time. Just as a
person learns more from the particular style of one teacher than with
another, or feels more at ease with one doctor whilst feeling misunderstood
with another.
Regards,
Christine.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <ajt0jd$l8u$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>, "Christine"
<a.h...@planet.nl> wrote:
It has not seemed that way to me at all. It appears that in isolated
pockets, some practitioners have merely persuaded some colleges and
universities to let them teach it.
>Colleges/universities and
>recognised training schools are fulfilling their obligation to provide that
>knowledge to the public.
Providing that knowledge doesn't mean the colleges or universities
support astrology.
>What is the difference between studying Astrology and, for instance studying
>Math, Foreign Languages, Nuclear Physics, Psychology or Medicine?
Let me guess - Astrology is an art, and the others are not?
> Be honest;
>would you send your family to a Dr. that had not reached a standard of
>qualification, and whose knowledge you could trust to deal with any physical
>complaints properly?
He or she would not ~be~ a doctor if no qualifications were held :-)>
>Would you trust someone to teach you a foreign language
>who had spent years in the country and could speak it colloquially but could
>not tell you how to conjugate verbs or agree adjectives so that you would be
>properly understood?
If it only cost $50 -- why not?
>Would you accept without question the answer of a maths
>teacher who told you 3+2=6 because he had not bothered to get
>qualifications, yet considered he knew enough about addition to be
>considered right?
>
>Every astrologer talks about astrological symbolism being' tools to work
>with'; some may use and prefer the hammer approach whilst others choose to
>chisel away carefully. But each should be able to clarify a MA. conj. UR.
>with a MO. square NE. that provides a particular effect, without umming and
>aahing around it because they are not adequately familiar with the meaning
>of what is involved.
Astrologers don't actually need to know ALL the theory, but can use
what they ~do~ know.
>Professional teaching provides this supervision.
>It may not make an individual an excellent astrologer but it will surely
>turn him into a better one than simply learning through self-study, where
>there is no one to share one's questions, views and ideas with.
Non-professional teachers of astrology can do the same thing.
>
[....]
>>
>
>There is a 'belief' amongst the astrologers I know that a client will
>somehow be drawn towards the astrologer and his/her methods because these
>fulfil the needs of the client at that particular period in time. Just as a
>person learns more from the particular style of one teacher than with
>another, or feels more at ease with one doctor whilst feeling misunderstood
>with another.
We are all 'drawn' to many astrologers -- but do we let them read our
charts?
No - not usually.
We look for compatibility after we are drawn to them or bump into
them.
>
>Regards,
>Christine.
Ray
Christine
Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
3d62d...@news.chariot.net.au...
>
> ----------
> In article <ajt0jd$l8u$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>, "Christine"
> <a.h...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >Hi Carol and all,
> >I can vouch for being a bit of a rebel at heart myself, yet I don't see
why
> >studying astrology through a school is not considered necessary. Imho,
> >astrology is trying very hard to become a recognised subject of learning
> >again, and the fact that it is once more being included in
> >college/university curriculi shows that it is ridding itself of the
stigma
> >of the 'nonsensical fortune-telling' tag applied to it in previous
centuries
> >and is being taken seriously by the public again.
>
> It has not seemed that way to me at all. It appears that in isolated
> pockets, some practitioners have merely persuaded some colleges and
> universities to let them teach it.
>
Maybe not to you, but that persuasion had to be pretty determined to get
past school administrators, boards of governors, ministries of education,
and ruling government who, together, have the final say about what is taught
in the college/university. There has to be enough proof presented that
astrology can hold its own with other subjects of learning, and meet the
requirements of the teaching standards, otherwise the college/university is
going to have pie in its eye or mud on its face, wouldn't you say? I could
talk my hind legs off to get my jam-making curriculum taught at university,
but I doubt I'd succeed in a million years :-)>
> >Colleges/universities and
> >recognised training schools are fulfilling their obligation to provide
that
> >knowledge to the public.
>
> Providing that knowledge doesn't mean the colleges or universities
> support astrology.
Did I say they did, or had to?
> >What is the difference between studying Astrology and, for instance
studying
> >Math, Foreign Languages, Nuclear Physics, Psychology or Medicine?
>
> Let me guess - Astrology is an art, and the others are not?
>
> > Be honest;
> >would you send your family to a Dr. that had not reached a standard of
> >qualification, and whose knowledge you could trust to deal with any
physical
> >complaints properly?
>
> He or she would not ~be~ a doctor if no qualifications were held :-)>
Which goes to prove the success of qualification of competence.
> >Would you trust someone to teach you a foreign language
> >who had spent years in the country and could speak it colloquially but
could
> >not tell you how to conjugate verbs or agree adjectives so that you would
be
> >properly understood?
>
> If it only cost $50 -- why not?
I'd like to hear you ask what time train today can be expected to leave at
the same time as the train that was delayed yesterday that, according to the
time table for to-morrow, should leave later than the train scheduled to run
on Sundays only........with or without use of a foreign dictionary and a
ephemeris!
> >Would you accept without question the answer of a maths
> >teacher who told you 3+2=6 because he had not bothered to get
> >qualifications, yet considered he knew enough about addition to be
> >considered right?
> >
> >Every astrologer talks about astrological symbolism being' tools to work
> >with'; some may use and prefer the hammer approach whilst others choose
to
> >chisel away carefully. But each should be able to clarify a MA. conj. UR.
> >with a MO. square NE. that provides a particular effect, without umming
and
> >aahing around it because they are not adequately familiar with the
meaning
> >of what is involved.
>
> Astrologers don't actually need to know ALL the theory, but can use
> what they ~do~ know.
>
Are you saying that if there are those who don't know, let alone understand,
the meaning of some of the basic astrological formulae, it's still o.k. for
them to translate charts for others?
> >Professional teaching provides this supervision.
> >It may not make an individual an excellent astrologer but it will surely
> >turn him into a better one than simply learning through self-study, where
> >there is no one to share one's questions, views and ideas with.
>
> Non-professional teachers of astrology can do the same thing.
> >
Carl was asking whether it was worth studying through a registered school.
> [....]
> >>
> >
> >There is a 'belief' amongst the astrologers I know that a client will
> >somehow be drawn towards the astrologer and his/her methods because these
> >fulfil the needs of the client at that particular period in time. Just as
a
> >person learns more from the particular style of one teacher than with
> >another, or feels more at ease with one doctor whilst feeling
misunderstood
> >with another.
>
> We are all 'drawn' to many astrologers -- but do we let them read our
> charts?
> No - not usually.
> We look for compatibility after we are drawn to them or bump into
> them.
Well, as one who has done charts for many people who have never set eyes me,
I can't really agree to that.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Christine.
>
> Ray
>
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <ak0jnj$q0n$1...@reader12.wxs.nl>, "Christine"
<a.h...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
>3d62d...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <ajt0jd$l8u$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>, "Christine"
>> <a.h...@planet.nl> wrote:
[....]
>> > Imho,
>> >astrology is trying very hard to become a recognised subject of learning
>> >again, and the fact that it is once more being included in
>> >college/university curriculi shows that it is ridding itself of the
>> >stigma of the 'nonsensical fortune-telling' tag applied to it in previous
>> >centuries and is being taken seriously by the public again.
>>
>> It has not seemed that way to me at all. It appears that in isolated
>> pockets, some practitioners have merely persuaded some colleges and
>> universities to let them teach it.
>>
>
>Maybe not to you, but that persuasion had to be pretty determined to get
>past school administrators, boards of governors, ministries of education,
>and ruling government who, together, have the final say about what is taught
>in the college/university. There has to be enough proof presented that
>astrology can hold its own with other subjects of learning, and meet the
>requirements of the teaching standards, otherwise the college/university is
>going to have pie in its eye or mud on its face, wouldn't you say?
RM: I would imagine that one good reason for teaching astrology in
universities, would be to provide accurate information about what
astrology IS, so that academics will know what they are talking about
- which is not usually the case.
This could be very handy for those who follow psychology, sociology,
law and religions.
[....]
>
>>
>> > Be honest;
>> >would you send your family to a Dr. that had not reached a standard of
>> >qualification, and whose knowledge you could trust to deal with any
>physical
>> >complaints properly?
>>
>> He or she would not ~be~ a doctor if no qualifications were held :-)>
>
>Which goes to prove the success of qualification of competence.
RM: This doesn't apply to the arts very much.
>
>> >
>> >Every astrologer talks about astrological symbolism being' tools to work
>> >with'; some may use and prefer the hammer approach whilst others choose
>> >to chisel away carefully. But each should be able to clarify a MA.
conj. UR.
>> >with a MO. square NE. that provides a particular effect, without umming
>> > and aahing around it because they are not adequately familiar with the
>> > meaning of what is involved.
>>
>> Astrologers don't actually need to know ALL the theory, but can use
>> what they ~do~ know.
>>
>Are you saying that if there are those who don't know, let alone understand,
>the meaning of some of the basic astrological formulae, it's still o.k. for
>them to translate charts for others?
RM: Of course! We do it all the time.
Astrology is not a complete art - or anywhere near it.
Anyone who has a good grasp of any ~part~ of astrology can use that
part successfully; in fact sometimes it is more valuable to say what
we strongly believe (through observation) - rather than ramble on
about stuff we know very little about - which is the case for a LOT of
our astrology.
>
>> >Professional teaching provides this supervision.
>> >It may not make an individual an excellent astrologer but it will surely
>> >turn him into a better one than simply learning through self-study, where
>> >there is no one to share one's questions, views and ideas with.
>>
>> Non-professional teachers of astrology can do the same thing.
>> >
> Carl was asking whether it was worth studying through a registered school.
RM: Yes it is a good idea to study through a "registered school"
(whatever that is supposed to mean) but registration is not needed,
nor even possible in some places. I think we should be talking about
"recognised schools" - whether they be "recognised" by many or few
astrologers.
Sure some have registered business names, but that doesn't make them
registered "schools".
>> >
>> >There is a 'belief' amongst the astrologers I know that a client will
>> >somehow be drawn towards the astrologer and his/her methods because these
>> >fulfil the needs of the client at that particular period in time. Just as
>> > a person learns more from the particular style of one teacher than with
>> >another, or feels more at ease with one doctor whilst feeling
>> >misunderstood with another.
>>
>> We are all 'drawn' to many astrologers -- but do we let them read our
>> charts?
>> No - not usually.
>> We look for compatibility after we are drawn to them or bump into
>> them.
>
>Well, as one who has done charts for many people who have never set eyes me,
>I can't really agree to that.
RM: Compatibility would be coming fom somewhere - whether it be from
your writing or through others' recommendations.
Ray
Anthony Lyons
"Christine" <a.h...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:ak0jnj$q0n$1...@reader12.wxs.nl...
I don't think it matters if universities don't offer astrology as a course.
Take naturopathy for example. Years ago, people just learnt some techniques
and made various herbal conconctions. They didn't have a degree or
certificate. They dabbled and probably had some clients, those of whom could
see the value in the more natural approach. At this time, it would have
mattered little whether or not the naturopath had certification because
whatever schools that may have been offering it probably had no real
reputation or established credibility anyway. And if they had some kind of
"new-agey" or unconventional name, then having such certification from that
school would probably have made the naturopath's perceived credibility
plummet (because it would just reinforce quackery)!
However, over years, people were gradually educated more and more about what
naturopathy really is (i.e., not "quackery"!) and how it can help people.
More and more people began to see the value in it. As the discipline itself
began to attract more favourable attention, schools were built that also
attracted attention. Today, most major cities have one or more schools or
colleges for studying natural medicine. These schools are generally
considered to be reputable and credible because the discipline itself is now
appearing to be more reputable and credible.
People now expect naturopaths to have some kind of a degree, because many
believe that naturopathy is a legitimate discipline alongside other
conventional disciplines, and in order to be a professional in such
disciplines, the belief is that you need to have a degree or diploma. In
fact, many now believe that naturopathy offers more than western medicine in
some areas of a person's health.
Only now is naturopathy beginning to attract attention from universities.
Here in Australia, a major university is now offering a three or four year
bachelor degree in naturopathy and there are probably others around of which
I am not aware. Most private health insurance services provide rebates for
seeing naturopaths and naturopathic consultations and treatments are now
offered in many pharmacies.
If astrology is following a similar course, then I think that we are still
at the stage of dealing with all the misconceptions held by the public and
trying to obtain increased perceived credibility by more members of the
public. Some of us are attracting clients but the general public, although
often slightly interested in astrology, still probably don't take it as
seriously as astrologers would like. We are still working at the public
education level in which I think certification is mostly pointless. In some
cases, if the school has a "new-agey" or eccentric name, then all the worst
to the astrologer who has a certificate from it. I do think, however, that
as the public come to respect astrology more and schools and colleges that
teach it attract more attention and respect, then I think that certification
will become essential.
Later, universities might begin to consider astrology more seriously as some
kind of a degree. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it in the short
term. Either way, I think it is irrelevant whether or not universities adopt
astrology as a course. Private colleges can do the job well and even better
when astrology has more credibility in the eyes of the public. Universities
are likely to be the last on the scene and generally lag behind.
I also think that whether or not the astrologer has some kind of
certification right now is irrelevalent. People mainly judge whether an
astrologer is likely to be good by the amount of experience they have had
and through word-of-mouth. The astrologer, however, can help to provide a
professional and credible service, and in that way will help to educate
people about the value of astrology to society.
(And would someone *please* get rid of those trashy newspaper horoscopes!
<aargh!> They are an impediment to astrology's perceived credibility)
--
_____________________________________
Anthony Lyons
a.l...@psych.unimelb.edu.au
_____________________________________
Anthony Lyons
Christine
Anthony Lyons <nos...@nospam.edu.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
ak4b8f$2sm$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
[..]
> I don't think it matters if universities don't offer astrology as a
course.
>
> Take naturopathy for example. Years ago, people just learnt some
techniques
> and made various herbal conconctions. They didn't have a degree or
> certificate. They dabbled and probably had some clients, those of whom
could
> see the value in the more natural approach. At this time, it would have
> mattered little whether or not the naturopath had certification because
> whatever schools that may have been offering it probably had no real
> reputation or established credibility anyway. And if they had some kind of
> "new-agey" or unconventional name, then having such certification from
that
> school would probably have made the naturopath's perceived credibility
> plummet (because it would just reinforce quackery)!
>
When I arrived in the Netherlands in the mid 60's, Homeopathy and
natural healing were in the taboo sphere.
A traditional GP who was beginning to use herbal remedies was considered a
quack and struck off the medical register. It left a lasting impression on
me, mainly because I could not understand why something/someone that was of
help and could heal in a natural way was considered to be wrong. To-day,
reform shops and natural healing centres are as common in the High Street as
Woolworths.
Although not into astrology at the time, at a deeper level this may have
had everything to do with my own need to finally get astrological
qualifications, whether they are credible or not. This thing about ' being
accepted as qualified' rather than the traditional fear of being burnt at
the stake :-)
It's given another twist to the transiting Uranus-Pluto in mid-Virgo at the
time, which crossed my CH-BML-ASC., activating the square to Uranus in 10th,
and the grand Earth trine with
Capr. Moon in 5th, and ME-VE-SU in 9th. I have always considered this
transit to
explain my sudden decision to leave England and make a new life abroad, but
there was more behind it that I didn't recognise at the time, obviously.
Mmmm....food for thought.
This is also so in Holland and with a European parliament dictating European
legislature, it's probably so in most European countries.
I still hope to live to see the day that 'general' astrology, psychology,
and naturopathy become part of high school curriculum.
> I also think that whether or not the astrologer has some kind of
> certification right now is irrelevalent. People mainly judge whether an
> astrologer is likely to be good by the amount of experience they have had
> and through word-of-mouth. The astrologer, however, can help to provide a
> professional and credible service, and in that way will help to educate
> people about the value of astrology to society.
>
But there does have to be a starting point towards public credibility,
doesn't there ?, and it seems to me (unlike Ray) that colleges/universities
are taking the first wonky steps in this direction by providing the
opporrtunity to receive professional tuition.
I admit that I believe astrologers possess a 'natural talent' for the
subject, otherwise their desire for learning would not go beyond the general
interest stage, but this also applies to anyone whose talents lean towards a
particular field. Why should astrology/astrologers be treated
differently?...... What an absoutely stupid question to ask about a subject
that is considered to fall under Uranus/Aquarius. :D
Christine.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <ak4b4k$45e$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au>, "Anthony Lyons"
<nos...@nospam.edu.au> wrote:
[....]
>I don't think it matters if universities don't offer astrology as a course.
I think it's better if they don't just yet.
How would it be if a lecturer was confronted with students who were
only seeking knowledge and facts, rather than wanting to practice
astrology?
Astrology doesn't deserve university recognition until we (as a group)
can learn to work together and demonstrate how frequently the various
astrological factors "work" or appear to work in practice.
I'm not talking about showing statistical correlations, but merely
producing ~some~ good examples.
Ray
CB Willis
>But there does have to be a starting point towards public credibility,
>doesn't there ?
Not *necessarily*. The public at large does not need to accept astrology
for individuals to take a small risk or two to begin to explore and have
their own experience with it. If a person is curious enough, they will
have a reading, find a book and get even more curious, etc. - one thing
will lead to another and they will be drawn back on likely more than one
occasion to explore the possibilities. With any luck they will lose the
common misconception early on that astrology is about the stars causing
human behavior or that man is passive to the stars or such. No wonder
most religions warn their members away from it.
I suspect public credibility would in practice be more like public
credulity. I think I would almost prefer public abhorrence to public
credulity, though it's hard to say which is worse.
----------------
Carol Willis, MA
Professional Astrologer since 1970
Sunnyvale CA cbwi...@lightlink.com
Anthony Lyons
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
news:3d669...@news.chariot.net.au...
Agreed. We are still at the stage of demonstrating the worth of astrology. I
am planning to do a small study in the next month or so at the university in
which I work and, depending on the results, I will try to publish it.
Anthony Lyons
>
> Anthony Lyons <nos...@nospam.edu.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
> ak4b8f$2sm$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
[...]
> >
> I still hope to live to see the day that 'general' astrology, psychology,
> and naturopathy become part of high school curriculum.
In Australia, psychology is a part of high school curriculum, but obviously
not astrology or naturopathy. In my opinion, I think the biggest help to
boosting astrology as a serious discipline of study and practice can only
come from astrologers themselves, in terms of educating the public and
demonstrating how useful astrology can be to them. Naturopaths demonstrated
how their approach and practices could offer more to people than western
medicine and demonstrated that the treatments can work. In the same way,
astrologers need to demonstrate how their approach and practices can help
people lead more fulfilling lives over and above other
guidance/advice/counselling services. And astrologers need to continue to
try to demonstrate how astrology works.
> Why should astrology/astrologers be treated
> differently?...... What an absoutely stupid question to ask about a
subject
> that is considered to fall under Uranus/Aquarius. :D
>
I know we tend to associate astrology with Uranus/Aquarius, and the notions
of being "unconventional, unorthodox, rebels, revolutionaries, wild
galloping individualists" (to quote Carol from a previous post in this
thread).
But I think it is important to remember that Saturn is a co-ruler of
Aquarius and can work with Uranus. I see it this way. Astrology needs to be
proven in terms of its worth to society. Doing this means that we need to
show how astrology can help society and people to attain common and
established goals, to further society in the way that society already wants
to go. So maybe we need to package astrology in a similar way to other
guidance/advice/counselling services so that it is seen as part of the
caring profession with similar aims and philosophies but demonstrating how
astrology can help people in new and better ways (which I think it can!).
Conducting research into astrology can also serve this purpose. Only when
astrologers are well-established in society and the general public are
visiting them regularly, can astrologers be in the position to bring new and
unorthodox ideas (or whatever we associate with Uranus) more effectively
into society.
By following Saturn the revolutionary can have a stronger voice. Without
Saturn, probably no-one will listen because the wannabe revolutionary will
only be seen to be a wacko or a trouble-maker :-)
Carl Miller
>> Carl was asking whether it was worth studying through a registered
>> school.
>
> RM: Yes it is a good idea to study through a "registered school"
> (whatever that is supposed to mean) but registration is not needed,
> nor even possible in some places. I think we should be talking about
> "recognised schools" - whether they be "recognised" by many or few
> astrologers.
Thanks Ray, "recognized" is pretty much exactly what I was getting at.
And wondering whether it's worth leaning towards a "recognized" school
that offers "certification" and whether there REALLY IS such a thing as
"recognized certification" in the field.
And for the resident sceptics, I just have to say, I'm a born sceptic
myself, but think about it, if nothing else, astrology makes for one
heck of a big 'ol honkin Rorchak Inkblot (sp?), now doesn't it?
Christine
>
> "Christine" <a.h...@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:ak59b2$ehe$1...@reader12.wxs.nl...
> >
> > Anthony Lyons <nos...@nospam.edu.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > ak4b8f$2sm$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
>
> [...]
>
> > >
> > I still hope to live to see the day that 'general' astrology,
psychology,
> > and naturopathy become part of high school curriculum.
>
> In Australia, psychology is a part of high school curriculum, but
obviously
> not astrology or naturopathy.
I was thinking of high school in the European stage of 12-16 yr. olds. Is
it the same in Australia?
If so, I think it's wonderful that young minds are learning early enough to
become aware of what can influence one's actions etc.. Do you find it's
having results in people's personal attitudes and towards others, or is it
too soon to tell ?
[...]
> > Why should astrology/astrologers be treated
> > differently?...... What an absoutely stupid question to ask about a
> subject
> > that is considered to fall under Uranus/Aquarius. :D
> >
>
> I know we tend to associate astrology with Uranus/Aquarius, and the
notions
> of being "unconventional, unorthodox, rebels, revolutionaries, wild
> galloping individualists" (to quote Carol from a previous post in this
> thread).
>
> But I think it is important to remember that Saturn is a co-ruler of
> Aquarius and can work with Uranus. I see it this way. Astrology needs to
be
> proven in terms of its worth to society. Doing this means that we need to
> show how astrology can help society and people to attain common and
> established goals, to further society in the way that society already
wants
> to go.
You believe that society and people will want the same thing?
I have always understood person-oriented astrology as being a manner that
shows the individualism of one's nature within the society of which it is a
part. Aquarius/Uranus may indicate where the communal/humanitarian spirit is
inherent in one's nature and will be utilised in a particular way, but my
humanitarian spirit may not function with the same goals in mind towards
society as your humanitarian spirit because of my individual nature. There
will always be differences, each considered the best for society from one's
personal viewpoint, according to the very nature through which Aquarius
functions. Or am I VERY naive in seeing it this way ?
I don't know how it is in Australia but at very fudamental levels Europe is
experiencing the greatest challenges that go with trying to create a common
community within a growing society in which non-European societies are also
a part, and where racial, religious and cultural differences seem to be
separating them further. It's going to take a long while before the whole of
this new society works toward one common goal.
Christine.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <ak6rsp$sm2$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au>, "Anthony Lyons"
<nos...@nospam.edu.au> wrote:
>
>"Christine" <a.h...@planet.nl> wrote in message
>news:ak59b2$ehe$1...@reader12.wxs.nl...
>>
>> Anthony Lyons <nos...@nospam.edu.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> ak4b8f$2sm$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
>
>[...]
>
>> >
>> I still hope to live to see the day that 'general' astrology, psychology,
>> and naturopathy become part of high school curriculum.
>
>In Australia, psychology is a part of high school curriculum, but obviously
>not astrology or naturopathy. In my opinion, I think the biggest help to
>boosting astrology as a serious discipline of study and practice can only
>come from astrologers themselves, in terms of educating the public and
>demonstrating how useful astrology can be to them. Naturopaths demonstrated
>how their approach and practices could offer more to people than western
>medicine and demonstrated that the treatments can work. In the same way,
>astrologers need to demonstrate how their approach and practices can help
>people lead more fulfilling lives over and above other
>guidance/advice/counselling services. And astrologers need to continue to
>try to demonstrate how astrology works.
And when that has progressed a bit further, it will be the clients who
will have the greatest influence -- just like clients of Naturopaths
and Chiropractors did.
>
>
>> Why should astrology/astrologers be treated
>> differently?...... What an absoutely stupid question to ask about a
>subject
>> that is considered to fall under Uranus/Aquarius. :D
>>
>
>I know we tend to associate astrology with Uranus/Aquarius, and the notions
>of being "unconventional, unorthodox, rebels, revolutionaries, wild
>galloping individualists" (to quote Carol from a previous post in this
>thread).
If the *best* of tropical astrology is accepted by western societies,
it could hardly remain under the rulership of Uranus. It would be
shifted to Saturn. The residue would remain with Uranus and probably
Neptune.
Nature has not appointed astrology (or anything else) to be
permanently associated with one planet. It really depends upon what
Ruler is the 'best fit' at any time in history.
Personally I think that good astrology is still connected more with
Saturn - but it is the *astrologers* who are quite often 'Uranian'
and 'Neptunian' - but when we collectively settle down and practice
this art more steadily and factually (as it should be) it will return
to Saturn.
>
>But I think it is important to remember that Saturn is a co-ruler of
>Aquarius and can work with Uranus. I see it this way. Astrology needs to be
>proven in terms of its worth to society. Doing this means that we need to
>show how astrology can help society and people to attain common and
>established goals, to further society in the way that society already wants
>to go.
So maybe we need to package astrology in a similar way to other
>guidance/advice/counselling services so that it is seen as part of the
>caring profession with similar aims and philosophies but demonstrating how
>astrology can help people in new and better ways (which I think it can!).
Well that shouldn't be too hard -- after all it's not too hard to
figure out who fits best into certain types of occupations.
>Conducting research into astrology can also serve this purpose. Only when
>astrologers are well-established in society and the general public are
>visiting them regularly, can astrologers be in the position to bring new and
>unorthodox ideas (or whatever we associate with Uranus) more effectively
>into society.
We have a fair way to go yet. Let's wait until we hear astrologers on
aamod or other places saying "XYZ astrologer is absolutely great at
reading charts - you should see him or her!"
>
>By following Saturn the revolutionary can have a stronger voice. Without
>Saturn, probably no-one will listen because the wannabe revolutionary will
>only be seen to be a wacko or a trouble-maker :-)
This Uranian influence is over rated in my book. I have noticed that
the astrologers I respect the most, approach this art in a Saturnian
way - even if they themselves are Uranian.
>
>
>--
>_____________________________________
>
>Anthony Lyons
>a.l...@psych.unimelb.edu.au
>_____________________________________
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <00020722231559...@trellis.net>,
cmi...@trellis.net (Carl Miller) wrote:
>On August 22 2002, "Ray Murphy" <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
>
>>> Carl was asking whether it was worth studying through a registered
>>> school.
>>
>> RM: Yes it is a good idea to study through a "registered school"
>> (whatever that is supposed to mean) but registration is not needed,
>> nor even possible in some places. I think we should be talking about
>> "recognised schools" - whether they be "recognised" by many or few
>> astrologers.
>
>Thanks Ray, "recognized" is pretty much exactly what I was getting at.
>And wondering whether it's worth leaning towards a "recognized" school
>that offers "certification" and whether there REALLY IS such a thing as
>"recognized certification" in the field.
My impression for two decades has been that certification at the basic
level has always been authentic. The same goes for higher levels in
the bigger schools, but I am not sure about higher levels in small
schools.
>
>And for the resident sceptics, I just have to say, I'm a born sceptic
>myself, but think about it, if nothing else, astrology makes for one
>heck of a big 'ol honkin Rorchak Inkblot (sp?), now doesn't it?
(Rorschach). For many astrologers it is, but as I've said before -
astrology is more about reading charts, than social work and
counselling. In fact a barman or hairdresser can do it quite well
~without~ a chart.
I'm inclined to think that the semi-scientific "art" of psychology is
better than astrology for "reading" most people. That is to say that I
think a ~good~ psychologist would get more hits than misses but good
(or even mediocre) astrology is streets ahead for the assessing the
events of a whole lifetime.
>
>--
>Carl Miller
Ray
Anne
I believe Mayo school is one of the recognised course if you wish to
go on to study the UK Faculty of Astrological Studies' diploma. (I
have a personal story about my first and only astrological
consultation I had if you care to email me privately I'll divulge.)
Chris mentioned the Bristol school which, as he said, doesn't offer
'formal' certification even though it is a 4-year course (someone did
try to pack it all in much quicker ;) and cover a much wider range of
topics than I have seen of anywhere else. It's structured much like a
degree course, how much you do the work in a way is up to you BUT you
still have to pass the exam and need to be of a certain standard
before you can get a diploma. An 'honour' designation apparently isn't
so easy to get unless you know your stuff really well. The only
downside for you may be that you need to attend the school especially
in the fourth year since it is also about counselling and teaching.
(Sorry, Michael, I'm not trying to advertise on their behalf here and
of course, caveat emptor.)
I think University of Kent is offering the first and only UK Bachelor
degree course in Astrology. There are misc. other courses and
research facilities in the UK and the one Chris Mitchell mentioned is
a post-graduate degree (BSc or MSc) in Cultural Astrology and
Astronomy, I think is more of a history course.
It's important to remember that few genuinely good astrologers stopped
learning and researching once they achieved their certification. I am
a bit dubious with those who does.
Having said the above, I second what most other people had already
said about self-studying could be as effective and more flexible
unless you really feel you need the discipline of a structured-guided
learning. What I did was to read as many books as possible.
Obviously it can get really expensive if you have to buy them all so I
joined many libraries and ordered as many books as the library budget
allows.
AAM is a great source of interactive learning but if you are short of
time and want to find particularly topics which interest you, you can
just do a AAM only search. Separately, (not trying to resort to
flattery here) if you search the archive and read up on all
articles/replies by Michael Rideout (and many other really
knowledgeable contributors here) you will have learned much more than
any primary astrology course can offer (a feat I haven't been able to
achieve yet - sigh).
I think I am rambling a bit so I shall stop here.
Good luck with your study, Carl,
Annaaa
Anna
Kaxanova Zakomo
It is necessary to have good natal aspects first. Then one does not
need any certification, I guess. Well, that's medieval. One good
point is knowing how to calculate a horoscope, which is rare. Dire
erros are being made in the Moon's position (in places of authority)
and other little errors, too. Directions are overlooked (and there
250 types of direction). The hierarchy of planets is overlooked.
Ixion > Vesta, Ceres; Varuna > Pallas
The centaurs are almost unknown (except lesser centaur Chiron) and
the Earth's second moon is neglected. These are some points. Here:
TEN THINGS YOUR ASTROLOGER DID NOT KNOW - 2002 Version
[ Featuring 10 points on O5 technique and 10 I Ging lessons ]
Klaudio Zic, I Ching Specialist, Astrologer, O5 Futurechanger
(C) 2002 Klaudio Zic t...@puck.dhs.org http://puck.dhs.org
1. HOW MANY MOONS DOES PLANET EARTH HAVE?
Earth has one moon, but a `trojan' named Cruithne is often
refered as `Earth's second Moon'. Cruithne as part or an
astrological analysis may be linked to special gifts in
some powerful women shamans and sacred sexuality in general.
2. WHICH ASTEROID IS THE LARGEST ONE?
Ixion, a plutino, is the largest asteroid. Ceres held this
primate for 200 years.
3. WHICH DEGREE IS HELD BY MY MOON?
The calculations of most popular web sites and magazines
erroneousely assume the `geocentrical' position, but since
we are not born in the centre of our planet (but somewhere
on the surface), we must assume the `topocentrical' position.
This means quite a revision of your natal and horary
data base. Many a Moon is not void of course at all,
and vice versa, and perhaps in the neighboring house.
The Moon is not necessarely in Leo or Cancer, as siderealists
(jyotish, vedic) or tropical astrologers would want it to be.
It may stray close to Sextant constellation. Vivian Robson
has something to say about constellations and for good reasons.
4. IS MY MARS IN THE SEVENTH HOUSE?
It depends on the latitude. The wheel chart is not a reliable
slice of information. Your Mars might be in the 6th house.
5. DO MY TRANSNEPTUNES HAVE A LATITUDE?
They do. Since 1992. All (half a thousand) transneptune objects,
cubewanos, plutinos, SDO (Scattered Disk Objects) do have a latitude.
The hypotheticals don't have one. Avestans, dark planets and
hamburgers (or `uranian's) are theoretical planets. Perhaps
some of them are discovered, which question remains open.
Some `retrograde' avestans seem to have their counterpart
in real `backward moving' objects, and Cupido may have it's
real minor planet, but the matter has yet to be ascertained.
6. WHO IS AN ASTROLOGER?
Sun trine Uranus Saturn, Moon conjunct Neptune, Mercury sextile
Jupiter Spica, Sun sextile Uranus, Uranus M.C. or prominent.
A good aspect to Uranus makes for an astrologer, like Jupiter
trine Uranus, even Venus trine Uranus; Mercury in good aspect
with Jupiter makes for correct judgement (the square the opposite),
objective analysis and communicating skills (ingenious writing);
Moon trine Neptune makes for `intuition'; Saturn adds up to some
extra astronomical background. Mercury should be in good aspect,
since calculation and judgement must be perfect. This is of course
just a few strong hints as concerns this subject. Sun opposite
Uranus bstows quite some gift and Saturn square Uranus with some
difficulty; Mars square Uranus is too rash; Mars square Venus
deconcentrates and so on. Other positions can be taken into
consideration. Neptune (possibly with Jupiter) on the ascendant
make for an outlandish intuition on the part of the astrologer.
This subject is most likely to be happily disputed among astrologers
siderealists or non.
7. WHAT ARE THE DARK PLANETS
The Dark Planets are a compact set of 17 hypotheticals elaborated
years ago in Bavaria, Europe. Another set known as the `uranians'
was invented in Hamburg, and there is a russian school of `avestans'.
8. I CHING IS ASTROLOGY?
Horary astrology was developed by Shao Yung. Further works and an
aspectarian is available for directional use, e.g. I Ching works
with transits. The eight diagrams are the Earth (ascendant) and
seven planets. http://ghettobox.dhs.org/t8
9. IS THE FUTURE PREDICTABLE?
The future seems predictable. The year, month, day, hour and even
minute of the event was often predicted. It can also be changed
in advance, since astrology is only one of the majikal initiations.
10. WHAT ARE THE DEGREES?
The degrees emit energy rays and are conscious. One school wants
them inorganic but alive. The stars sometimes communicate with
evocational magickians. Every degree has it's mission and counter
demon. They can be perhaps thought as `ascended masters'.
Want to discuss this points? Why not join us on our mailing list
by sending an `subscribe puck' message in the body of an e-mail
to majo...@ghettobox.dhs.org
___