Urania - Collaborative Media for astrologers Everything | News | Diaries | Horoscopy | Op-Ed | Foundations | Ask_Urania | Mundane | Internet | Technique | Biography |
What is "core" Astrology? | 22 comments (22 topical, editorial, 1 pending)
One answer: Planets, cycles, harmonics ( 4.00 / 1 ) (#10)
by johnnyc (johnnyc@urania-dott-info) on Mon May 6th, 2002 at 12:19:42 EDT
(User Info) http://www.livejournal.com/users/johnnycampbell

With Ray's response to Axel, I have a better idea of what we're trying to tackle, which I must say is very ambitious but I don't think it's beyond us. It' s probably beyond us to agree, but we might at least come to some kind of consensus eventually.

Ray brings it down to a finer point when he asks Axel:

Well let's put it this way: If I said that you will be given only 10 pieces of astrological data about a person, with which to get some inkling about their makeup - which would you prefer:
(a) The zodiacal signs of 10 celestial bodies of your choice, or
(b) Ten aspects (of your choice) between the natal chart factors?

For me the choice is simple - give me nothing but Ten aspects (of my choice) between the natal chart factors anyday of the week. There was a spell in my time practicing astrology where I would only use aspects and would never touch the signs. It's not that I don't grasp the signs, only that from the feedback I got from clients in the past, and from my own sense of what is most effective in interpreting a horoscope, aspects have proven themselves time and again.

Broadly, this would fall into the category of cycles and harmonics, since aspects are a 'subset' of harmonics.

So, IMHO, planetary cycles and their harmonics are "core" astrological techniques.



Bare Bones ( 4.00 / 1 ) (#2)
by Lenore on Sun May 5th, 2002 at 13:35:18 EDT
(User Info)

The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology is unsatisfyingly vague about the origins of "core". However it includes in its definitions: "horny seed-capsule of apple, etc.; unburnt centre of coal; hard centre of boil..."

In considering "core astrology", I think we should peel off philosphical implications and myriad techniques and focus on basic premises. There is an order or pattern to the universe too vast to be comprehended in its totality, but we can see resonances between seemingly unrelated occurrences. All of art, all of science seek to cull from perceived chaos patterns, relationships and, ultimately, meaning.

As astrologers, we follow that line of reasoning by studying the cycles of the sun, moon and planets and corresponding events on earth and drawing hermeneutic conclusions about their relationships and implications.

Those are the bare bones. After that, we get fancy.


Cores ( none / 0 ) (#18)
by Rab (rab@peterboro.net) on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 02:41:30 EDT
(User Info) http://www.astrocyclics.com

            What is "core" Astrology?

            By Ray Murphy, Section Technique
            Posted on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 22:49:07 ADT

            What do we all "believe in" or know is valuable?

            On the other hand, there have been many hair-brained methods put
            forward which have attracted "followers" without a skeric of
            evidence being supplied.

Rab> "Skeric"?! Anyone who uses a word like that deserves a response.

            What things do you use or accept in astrology?
            It seems that there is a core of belief or knowledge in our art and
            we take it for granted that most astrologers subscribe to that
            "core" but we really don't know which things are universally
            accepted or practised.

Rab> These questions seems strange in a way, yet revelatory.  
Would e/g a physicist, after some years of learning & practice,
suddenly turn round and query colleagues about their beliefs
and values? As if to ask: What are we actually doing here?
To which I suspect the answers would be quicker in coming,
with mutual agreements more in evidence and clearly defined.

There are some advantages to being trained to think and
produce worthwhile results in the same kind of school or
educational tradition. Astrologers invent things as they
go along, jazzily. Including schools and traditions.

There's a process ongoing in astrology, as in all worthy
studies, that's like an old washing-machine wringer: >< :
during which items all wet and unwearable become almost
dry and ready to be hung in the sun. It involves a
transformation from belief (in rumour, gossip, tales, &
fancies) to knowledge. But once through the wringer is
never adequate, and the second pass releases more of the
sweet moisture of subjective or personal knowledge that
clings to the fabric & weave that's universal. That when
dry can be worn on anyone's skin. (Dry is important,
especially in cold climates).

Of course in the eldest times there were no washing machines,
just wives & daughters who often resorted to the punishing
process of slapping and beating laundry on rocks. But since
we have evolved since then, thanks to the hardwork miracles
of sci-tech, we need not regress.

However, modern astrology is the unenviable position of
being 97% soaked, with only the cuff of a once green sleeve
showing on the nether side of those Gemini rollers. And
after many years of trying to persuade other astrologers
not to shrink from the task, to wring their faithful clothes
rather than skillful hands in a worried manner -- with minimal
success -- I'm left with the suspicion that most astrologers
would rather swim than walk. With the Sabian seal, back into
the primordial ocean of Lilliputia.

            It also appears that most astrologers (a term which includes
            students, dabblers and researchers) have convinced themselves
            through observation that some things in astrology are proven beyond
            reasonable doubt.

Rab> Now there's problem right there. What is an astrologer?
Or who actually qualifies as such? And how? Because the answers
would determine where the Urania questionnaires would go.

            credible people have simply stated facts and
            quoted the astrological correspondences which existed in relation to
            them - and the quantity of that evidence is remarkably large, but
            unfortunately no one has bothered to collate a decent set of data to
            demonstrate anything convincingly yet.

Rab> How do you know this to be so? Is it? One problem is
ready availability of all the tests & research that have
been undertaken. But they're out there. (Many would argue
that the Gauquelins have contributed much in this area,
but astrological research does not begin & end with them).

            The time has arrived for astrologers to (collectively) gather data
            to begin to show in a more convincing way, that our art is NOT a
            belief system adopted by simpletons (as some skeptics and cynics
            would have others believe).

Rab> You'd like to see evidence of astrology as art? I see no
dearth of that. Coffee tables of the world are alive with it.
Not to mention museums and galleries. Or is it a clever rather
than naive art you wish evidence of? That might be more difficult.
Things have dumbed down a bit since the Renaissance.

Perhaps the stumbling block is that no-one cares much about
astrology as art or belief system, irrespective of how clever
or simple it may be. When it comes to creativity and faith,
anything goes. What counts more is what works and can be used
by anybody to improve a situation. Like washing-machines can.

            We can however begin to test some of our "single factors" any time
            we choose - especially now that personal computers have become very
            powerful.

Rab> Indeed. But first we need to learn how to do that. Properly.
But it seems the majority of "astrologers" are as afraid of facts
and scientific analysis as they are of dry clothes. (I think this
must have something to do with the right temporal lobe).

            Now before we embark on some sort of project to test various
            components of astrology it would be very handy indeed to identify
            "What is astrology" and what things are thought to work best, and
            this can only be ascertained by asking thousands of astrologers from
            all over the planet.

Rab> It might be more useful, first, to find out how often
this type of thing has already been done. And the results
thereof. Survey the field before planning further research.
Otherwise it's the wheel you may be reinventing.

However, "What is astrology?" certainly ranks as a core
question. Or better, "What is good astrology?" because
there's no dearth of the bad, and this would reduce the
number of questionnaires required. (Besides, you don't
need "thousands" for a fair sample).

If the criterion for "good astrology" is just what makes
people happy, we would decrease the amount of "bad"
considerably, but then it becomes a subject not amenable
to easy or useful measures. And not a subject that I, for
one, would care to investigate. But if good astrology
involves the production of substantive and replicable
results, preferably of the statistically significant kind,
then we're in business.

            So where do we start?

Rab> With things that can be tested.
So there goes 500 million asteroids (according to the most
recent count). Thank goodness.

With things that have already been tested -- replication.
(How valid are the claims of the Magi Society?)

With learning about valid tests. Otherwise how is it possible
to recognise good astrology? Or predictions of any sort.
(What has the Moscow Institute of Predictions been doing
lately?)

With the collection of study materials? Papers, reports,
articles. At least links to same.

-
            [new] Bare Bones ( 4.00 / 1 ) (#2)
            by Lenore on Sun May 5th, 2002 at 14:35:18 ADT

      In considering "core astrology", I think we should peel off philosphical
      implications and myriad techniques and focus on basic premises. There is
      an order or pattern to the universe too vast to be comprehended in its
      totality, but we can see resonances between seemingly unrelated
      occurrences. All of art, all of science seek to cull from perceived chaos
      patterns, relationships and, ultimately, meaning.

      As astrologers, we follow that line of reasoning by studying the cycles of
      the sun, moon and planets and corresponding events on earth and drawing
      hermeneutic conclusions about their relationships and implications.

      Those are the bare bones. After that, we get fancy.

Rab> Meaning IS relationship. IS pattern. IS resonance.
Astrology is one branch in the core study of Meanings,
actually a sub-branch of Geometry, for the most part,
with Time as well as Space components. Used to be that
one got to astrology only eventually, after studying
the basics -- geometry, harmony, music, etc.-- but now
it's usually the other way round. With attendant confusion.

-


What is "core" Astrology? ( none / 0 ) (#15)
by lemnisc8 on Tue May 7th, 2002 at 14:34:01 EDT
(User Info)

<<Tropical astrology is practised in many ways, and it seems that there are as many versions as there are astrologers. I suppose that's normal for an "art" but what do the vast majority of us have in common? What do we all "believe in" or know is valuable? Let's hear from everyone on this Urania site. We've got 86 members here at the moment, and
most are not posting very much, and I know you could not all have broken fingers, preventing you from typing - so please contribute something :-)>>

With such a kind request, a reply is offered.  One must note, very little(if anything) under discussion in this thread is uniquely "Tropical Astrology."  Should one wish to collect data or opinion on *tropical* practice, it is necessary to define the concept and stick to it.  Given *none* of the following fall exclusively within the province of a tropical zodiac,  maybe the core of the question needs reformulation.

<<Natal charts
Transits
Progressions
Aspects
House systems
MC, ASC, VX
Midpoints
Large asteroids
Small asteroids + flying rocks
Flying rocks with names that seem to "click" with us
Eclipses
Paranatellonta
Noon Charts
Midnight Charts
Pre-natal Epoch
Rectification of natal charts
Harmonic charts
Increased potency of stationary planets
Hypothetical planets>>

Signs, elements, modes and seasons anyone?

Yours,
Amorphous Heroine


Ray's rapidly expanding core ( none / 0 ) (#1)
by Axel Harvey on Sun May 5th, 2002 at 10:44:10 EDT
(User Info)

Ray should change his name to raises - he always raises more issues than he realizes or that others can handle unless they take a deep breath and proceed cautiously. Note, this is a compliment.

I am asked, "What things do [I] use or accept in astrology?" There is a difference between "use" and "accept". What I use is limited by what I can hold in my head when reading a chart, by what I can express in normal language to my client, and by the need to have methods which make sense in combination with one another. In brief, there must be coherence. I won't go into any more detail right now because it would constitute a manual on How Axel Does a Horoscope, and it would take me all day.

What I accept is something else. I trust that sensible methods of astrology were developed in Mesopotamia, central Asia, China, the Indian subcontinent, Europe, precolumbian America, and anywhere else I may have forgotten (what about pre-invasion Australia?) If we try to find the core shared by all of these we probably end up with a simple statement: different times and places have different properties. Simple, but not practical. Still, it's useful to remember that we are merely spacetime evaluators.

Oh, yes... I'm not answering your question. Referring to the list at the end of your article, I could weasel out of the interrogation by saying I have confidence in most of the things you mention. But it's not that easy. Aspects, sure, but which aspects? Rectification, sure, but by which methods? I'll end my rambling nonsense by saying that I'll ask johnnyc if we can set up a huge multi-choice questionnaire on Urania. This questionnaire would have to be designed collectively.


  • core astrology by Anonymous Hero, 05/06/2002 00:45:47 EDT (none / 0)
  • Ray's core by Ray Murphy, 05/06/2002 00:09:12 EDT (none / 0)

What is "core" Astrology? | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 editorial, 1 pending)

Menu
· Become a Member
· FAQ
· Search
· Site Help
· Q & A
· Mission

Login
Create Member Account
Username:
Password:


Creating an account is easy and painless. Simply enter your e-mail address and you'll instantly receive a confirmation e-mail. When you do, you get to:

Submit articles
Vote on publication of articles
Rate comments
Write diary entries

 Once you register, you get to participate in the creation of something unique in the world of astrology online.

SourceForge Logo Powered by Scoop
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 2004 The Management

create account | faq | search