Hail to the Chief, but not to teleology!

[Guest guest]

Mu:

 

>In an earlier article, "The Road Ahead for Al Gore" I

>suggested that his Vedic horoscope did not support his

>becoming the President of the United States; my

>reasons and analysis can be found in that essay. If

>you take his chart and compare it to Bush's, there is

>little doubt that Bush would win.

>

>In a Vedic chart, there are combinations known as Raja

>Yogas, that give fame, success, wealth, and even

>Political Power. A politician should have at least a

>few of these yogas in their chart, along with several

>very well fortified houses; they are, the 1st, the

>5th, and the 10th, as these are the houses of fame

>(1st) luck (5th) and government (10th).

 

I appreciate your efforts to put something new out there and this is a

noteworthy piece. Nice work. But I'm not up to debating the relative

importance of every point (there's just too many here to encourage

meaningful debate I think) and instead I thought I'd respond to your piece

with something that's been a concern of mine for a while, that is the

problem of teleology. Teleological analyses make historical end points

into necessary outcomes. This is ex post facto reasoning that finds comfort

in pat answers without having to confront the true complexity of the

historical record. A synonym for it might be "inevitabilism": the result

had to occur for such-and-such reasons. Teleological reasoning is

considered flawed in philosophy as it undermines the strength of the

argument used to support the explanation. One finds teleology in all sorts

of things such as Eurocentrism (the West dominated the world because it's a

better society), Marxism ("the revolution in Russia *had* to occur because

the conditions of exploitation of working classes were at their

unparalleled worst") or capitalist triumphalism ("capitalism won the cold

war because it is a better economic system) These are all *plausible*

explanations of course, but none actually proves the point. (just ask all

those maquilladora workers in Mexico) Things are rarely that necessary in

history. Life is always more complicated.

 

In astrology, we fall victim to this kind of thinking whenever we engage

post facto analyses: 'the divorce was clearly evident because of Saturn's

transit to his Venus and he was running the dasha of the afflicted 7th lord

and the bhuktie of Mars, which is placed in the 12th.' Well, OK, we might

respond, that's plausible enough, but how can we know that was really the

key reason for the divorce? Obviously, there is no simple answer to this

question; one has to persevere and be thorough and give it one's best shot.

Perhaps the best reply might be: would I have been able to predict it,

before it happened? And more to the point: in fact, why didn't I?

 

 

I sense some of this teleological thinking in your assumption that Bush's

chart easily bests Gore's. How clear was it that Gore would lose? How

many good astrologers predicted a Gore victory? Lots, including James

Braha in his published article in TMA. In light of your analysis, does this

mean that those astrologers who picked Gore to win are blind and ignorant?

I doubt it, and yet the confidence in your swagger suggests just this. And

as I recall, you didn't pick anybody to win before the election.

 

As astrologers, we are easily seduced by charts. Charts have a funny way

of communicating themselves. Some look like they were pulled from a

textbook, rife with all those easy first-level yogas and house placements.

We should be grateful for them when they cross our paths because they make

out jobs easier. But we should curse them too. Because just as often,

charts do not come gift-wrapped to us. They confound us.

 

What would we have predicted in 1960 if we had to compare the charts of

Nixon and JFK? Nixon was running Saturn-Venus and had Saturn in the 10th

(ruling the 6th and 7th; Leo lagna) while Venus ruled the 10th positioned

in the 7th. Yes, he had nothing less than an exchange of signs between the

dasha lord and the bhuktie lord, and both had clear connections to the 10th

house! Neither had bad aspects (unless you consider the 9th aspect of Ketu

to Saturn an aspect, and even then it was a wide orb of 9*). JFK was

running Rahu-Mars with Rahu in the 4th in Sagittarius (Virgo lagna) without

any benefic aspects. Dispositor Jupiter was looking pretty good in the 9th

house in Taurus with Venus but it was in the first degree of Taurus, not an

indicator of strength, especially in an even-numbered sign. Yogakaraka

Mars was in the 8th with 10L Mercury.

 

JFK's chart did have some strength for sure, but it certainly wasn't

*obviously* better than Nixon's. This isn't meant as a proper analysis but

just to illustrate the point: how many astrologers -- yes, and good

astrologers -- would have said Nixon's chart was the winner? Lots, I'll

bet -- but only before the election! After he lost the 1960 campaign, how

many astrologers would have argued Nixon still had the better chart?

Probably zero. And that's the moral of my story: the facts of history makes

everything "clear". But an astrology that only functions through the prism

of history isn't very persuasive as a science. It's just another way of

telling a story. That's why if we're going to be good astrologers, we have

to make predictions. I look forward to seeing if there is a scandal in Aug

2001.

 

with warmest professional regards,

 

Chris

 

 

PS Why do you rely so heavily on solar arcs? They're only occasionally

right and usually wrong or irrelevant. Plus, you rattle off a million of

them at once. It's too hard to follow, much less evaluate critically. I'm

afraid this is the Noel Tyl influence on you Mu. I wish you'd give him the

pink slip (or just the slip!) Jyotish is way more powerful than this stuff.

 

his "Wandering Years" which were from 1968 to1973,

>shows Solar Arc (SA) Neptune = Saturn, transiting (tr)

>Saturn square Sun, opposed the Moon, and conjunct the

>MC; SA Pluto = Saturn/Neptune, SA Uranus =

>Sun/Neptune, SA MC = Uranus/Neptune, SA Moon =

>Mars/Neptune, SA Neptune = Sun/Pluto, and SA Mercury =

>Saturn/Neptune (1968); tr Neptune = Sun/Moon

>(1970-71); tr Uranus opposed MC (being shaken out of a

>rut), tr Jupiter opposed Asc and Pluto, tr Saturn

>returning to its natal position; SA Asc = Sun/Moon, SA

 

Sure, I occasionally use solar arcs but never without lots of other

evidence. This is what Tyl does too: "wow them with lots of solar arcs".

For all those not familiar with Tyl, he's one of the most well known

western astrologers who sells books by the thousands. His psychologistic

approach appeals to many "new age" westerners seeking new ways of

understanding themselves. When he ventures in the realm of mundane

astrology, he's in "uncharted" territory (groan!). I took a look at his

Predictions for the New Millenium and, frankly, it's lame. I mean, I

didn't see any correct predictions so far out of, what?-- 20, 30, 40? --

that he made. If he made a correct one, let me know about it. How can the

guy go around without dying of embarrassment? He should go to India and

learn jyotish! He relies on the tropical zodiac, solar arcs and transits.

His sorry record should give pause to anyone wanting to predict using the

same tools. What makes it all the more grim is that Tyl has an

overwritten, know-it-all style. Not a good thing, especially when you turn

out to be wrong all the time. Gotta wonder when his star will fade.

[Guest guest]

Me, again, to agree with you Christofer.

 

But I don't want to deal with "politics"- however important it is for our lives.

 

When Mu said:". A politician should have at least a

>few of these yogas in their chart, along with several

>very well fortified houses; they are, the 1st, the

>5th, and the 10th, as these are the houses of fame

>(1st) luck (5th) and government (10th). ", I wonder if one has so many yogas in

his chart, how come that one can be a weak personality?- and we have seen that,

haven't we?

Anna

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

gjlist

Tuesday, January 23, 2001 10:12 AM

[gjlist] Hail to the Chief, but not to teleology!

 

 

Mu:

 

>In an earlier article, "The Road Ahead for Al Gore" I

>suggested that his Vedic horoscope did not support his

>becoming the President of the United States; my

>reasons and analysis can be found in that essay. If

>you take his chart and compare it to Bush's, there is

>little doubt that Bush would win.

>

>In a Vedic chart, there are combinations known as Raja

>Yogas, that give fame, success, wealth, and even

>Political Power. A politician should have at least a

>few of these yogas in their chart, along with several

>very well fortified houses; they are, the 1st, the

>5th, and the 10th, as these are the houses of fame

>(1st) luck (5th) and government (10th).

 

I appreciate your efforts to put something new out there and this is a

noteworthy piece. Nice work. But I'm not up to debating the relative

importance of every point (there's just too many here to encourage

meaningful debate I think) and instead I thought I'd respond to your piece

with something that's been a concern of mine for a while, that is the

problem of teleology. Teleological analyses make historical end points

into necessary outcomes. This is ex post facto reasoning that finds comfort

in pat answers without having to confront the true complexity of the

historical record. A synonym for it might be "inevitabilism": the result

had to occur for such-and-such reasons. Teleological reasoning is

considered flawed in philosophy as it undermines the strength of the

argument used to support the explanation. One finds teleology in all sorts

of things such as Eurocentrism (the West dominated the world because it's a

better society), Marxism ("the revolution in Russia *had* to occur because

the conditions of exploitation of working classes were at their

unparalleled worst") or capitalist triumphalism ("capitalism won the cold

war because it is a better economic system) These are all *plausible*

explanations of course, but none actually proves the point. (just ask all

those maquilladora workers in Mexico) Things are rarely that necessary in

history. Life is always more complicated.

 

In astrology, we fall victim to this kind of thinking whenever we engage

post facto analyses: 'the divorce was clearly evident because of Saturn's

transit to his Venus and he was running the dasha of the afflicted 7th lord

and the bhuktie of Mars, which is placed in the 12th.' Well, OK, we might

respond, that's plausible enough, but how can we know that was really the

key reason for the divorce? Obviously, there is no simple answer to this

question; one has to persevere and be thorough and give it one's best shot.

Perhaps the best reply might be: would I have been able to predict it,

before it happened? And more to the point: in fact, why didn't I?

 

 

I sense some of this teleological thinking in your assumption that Bush's

chart easily bests Gore's. How clear was it that Gore would lose? How

many good astrologers predicted a Gore victory? Lots, including James

Braha in his published article in TMA. In light of your analysis, does this

mean that those astrologers who picked Gore to win are blind and ignorant?

I doubt it, and yet the confidence in your swagger suggests just this. And

as I recall, you didn't pick anybody to win before the election.

 

As astrologers, we are easily seduced by charts. Charts have a funny way

of communicating themselves. Some look like they were pulled from a

textbook, rife with all those easy first-level yogas and house placements.

We should be grateful for them when they cross our paths because they make

out jobs easier. But we should curse them too. Because just as often,

charts do not come gift-wrapped to us. They confound us.

 

What would we have predicted in 1960 if we had to compare the charts of

Nixon and JFK? Nixon was running Saturn-Venus and had Saturn in the 10th

(ruling the 6th and 7th; Leo lagna) while Venus ruled the 10th positioned

in the 7th. Yes, he had nothing less than an exchange of signs between the

dasha lord and the bhuktie lord, and both had clear connections to the 10th

house! Neither had bad aspects (unless you consider the 9th aspect of Ketu

to Saturn an aspect, and even then it was a wide orb of 9*). JFK was

running Rahu-Mars with Rahu in the 4th in Sagittarius (Virgo lagna) without

any benefic aspects. Dispositor Jupiter was looking pretty good in the 9th

house in Taurus with Venus but it was in the first degree of Taurus, not an

indicator of strength, especially in an even-numbered sign. Yogakaraka

Mars was in the 8th with 10L Mercury.

 

JFK's chart did have some strength for sure, but it certainly wasn't

*obviously* better than Nixon's. This isn't meant as a proper analysis but

just to illustrate the point: how many astrologers -- yes, and good

astrologers -- would have said Nixon's chart was the winner? Lots, I'll

bet -- but only before the election! After he lost the 1960 campaign, how

many astrologers would have argued Nixon still had the better chart?

Probably zero. And that's the moral of my story: the facts of history makes

everything "clear". But an astrology that only functions through the prism

of history isn't very persuasive as a science. It's just another way of

telling a story. That's why if we're going to be good astrologers, we have

to make predictions. I look forward to seeing if there is a scandal in Aug

2001.

 

with warmest professional regards,

 

Chris

 

 

PS Why do you rely so heavily on solar arcs? They're only occasionally

right and usually wrong or irrelevant. Plus, you rattle off a million of

them at once. It's too hard to follow, much less evaluate critically. I'm

afraid this is the Noel Tyl influence on you Mu. I wish you'd give him the

pink slip (or just the slip!) Jyotish is way more powerful than this stuff.

 

his "Wandering Years" which were from 1968 to1973,

>shows Solar Arc (SA) Neptune = Saturn, transiting (tr)

>Saturn square Sun, opposed the Moon, and conjunct the

>MC; SA Pluto = Saturn/Neptune, SA Uranus =

>Sun/Neptune, SA MC = Uranus/Neptune, SA Moon =

>Mars/Neptune, SA Neptune = Sun/Pluto, and SA Mercury =

>Saturn/Neptune (1968); tr Neptune = Sun/Moon

>(1970-71); tr Uranus opposed MC (being shaken out of a

>rut), tr Jupiter opposed Asc and Pluto, tr Saturn

>returning to its natal position; SA Asc = Sun/Moon, SA

 

Sure, I occasionally use solar arcs but never without lots of other

evidence. This is what Tyl does too: "wow them with lots of solar arcs".

For all those not familiar with Tyl, he's one of the most well known

western astrologers who sells books by the thousands. His psychologistic

approach appeals to many "new age" westerners seeking new ways of

understanding themselves. When he ventures in the realm of mundane

astrology, he's in "uncharted" territory (groan!). I took a look at his

Predictions for the New Millenium and, frankly, it's lame. I mean, I

didn't see any correct predictions so far out of, what?-- 20, 30, 40? --

that he made. If he made a correct one, let me know about it. How can the

guy go around without dying of embarrassment? He should go to India and

learn jyotish! He relies on the tropical zodiac, solar arcs and transits.

His sorry record should give pause to anyone wanting to predict using the

same tools. What makes it all the more grim is that Tyl has an

overwritten, know-it-all style. Not a good thing, especially when you turn

out to be wrong all the time. Gotta wonder when his star will fade.

 

 

 

 

 

gjlist-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Christopher Kevill <ckevill wrote:

>Hey Chris: Did you publish this article after all?

Congratulations

 

 

Mu:

>

> >In an earlier article, "The Road Ahead for Al Gore"

> I

> >suggested that his Vedic horoscope did not support

> his

> >becoming the President of the United States; my

> >reasons and analysis can be found in that essay. If

> >you take his chart and compare it to Bush's, there

> is

> >little doubt that Bush would win.

> >

> >In a Vedic chart, there are combinations known as

> Raja

> >Yogas, that give fame, success, wealth, and even

> >Political Power. A politician should have at least

> a

> >few of these yogas in their chart, along with

> several

> >very well fortified houses; they are, the 1st, the

> >5th, and the 10th, as these are the houses of fame

> >(1st) luck (5th) and government (10th).

>

> I appreciate your efforts to put something new out

> there and this is a

> noteworthy piece. Nice work. But I'm not up to

> debating the relative

> importance of every point (there's just too many

> here to encourage

> meaningful debate I think) and instead I thought I'd

> respond to your piece

> with something that's been a concern of mine for a

> while, that is the

> problem of teleology. Teleological analyses make

> historical end points

> into necessary outcomes. This is ex post facto

> reasoning that finds comfort

> in pat answers without having to confront the true

> complexity of the

> historical record. A synonym for it might be

> "inevitabilism": the result

> had to occur for such-and-such reasons.

> Teleological reasoning is

> considered flawed in philosophy as it undermines the

> strength of the

> argument used to support the explanation. One finds

> teleology in all sorts

> of things such as Eurocentrism (the West dominated

> the world because it's a

> better society), Marxism ("the revolution in Russia

> *had* to occur because

> the conditions of exploitation of working classes

> were at their

> unparalleled worst") or capitalist triumphalism

> ("capitalism won the cold

> war because it is a better economic system) These

> are all *plausible*

> explanations of course, but none actually proves the

> point. (just ask all

> those maquilladora workers in Mexico) Things are

> rarely that necessary in

> history. Life is always more complicated.

>

> In astrology, we fall victim to this kind of

> thinking whenever we engage

> post facto analyses: 'the divorce was clearly

> evident because of Saturn's

> transit to his Venus and he was running the dasha of

> the afflicted 7th lord

> and the bhuktie of Mars, which is placed in the

> 12th.' Well, OK, we might

> respond, that's plausible enough, but how can we

> know that was really the

> key reason for the divorce? Obviously, there is no

> simple answer to this

> question; one has to persevere and be thorough and

> give it one's best shot.

> Perhaps the best reply might be: would I have been

> able to predict it,

> before it happened? And more to the point: in fact,

> why didn't I?

>

>

> I sense some of this teleological thinking in your

> assumption that Bush's

> chart easily bests Gore's. How clear was it that

> Gore would lose? How

> many good astrologers predicted a Gore victory?

> Lots, including James

> Braha in his published article in TMA. In light of

> your analysis, does this

> mean that those astrologers who picked Gore to win

> are blind and ignorant?

> I doubt it, and yet the confidence in your swagger

> suggests just this. And

> as I recall, you didn't pick anybody to win before

> the election.

>

> As astrologers, we are easily seduced by charts.

> Charts have a funny way

> of communicating themselves. Some look like they

> were pulled from a

> textbook, rife with all those easy first-level yogas

> and house placements.

> We should be grateful for them when they cross our

> paths because they make

> out jobs easier. But we should curse them too.

> Because just as often,

> charts do not come gift-wrapped to us. They

> confound us.

>

> What would we have predicted in 1960 if we had to

> compare the charts of

> Nixon and JFK? Nixon was running Saturn-Venus and

> had Saturn in the 10th

> (ruling the 6th and 7th; Leo lagna) while Venus

> ruled the 10th positioned

> in the 7th. Yes, he had nothing less than an

> exchange of signs between the

> dasha lord and the bhuktie lord, and both had clear

> connections to the 10th

> house! Neither had bad aspects (unless you consider

> the 9th aspect of Ketu

> to Saturn an aspect, and even then it was a wide orb

> of 9*). JFK was

> running Rahu-Mars with Rahu in the 4th in

> Sagittarius (Virgo lagna) without

> any benefic aspects. Dispositor Jupiter was looking

> pretty good in the 9th

> house in Taurus with Venus but it was in the first

> degree of Taurus, not an

> indicator of strength, especially in an

> even-numbered sign. Yogakaraka

> Mars was in the 8th with 10L Mercury.

>

> JFK's chart did have some strength for sure, but it

> certainly wasn't

> *obviously* better than Nixon's. This isn't meant

> as a proper analysis but

> just to illustrate the point: how many astrologers

> -- yes, and good

> astrologers -- would have said Nixon's chart was the

> winner? Lots, I'll

> bet -- but only before the election! After he lost

> the 1960 campaign, how

> many astrologers would have argued Nixon still had

> the better chart?

> Probably zero. And that's the moral of my story: the

> facts of history makes

> everything "clear". But an astrology that only

> functions through the prism

> of history isn't very persuasive as a science. It's

> just another way of

> telling a story. That's why if we're going to be

> good astrologers, we have

> to make predictions. I look forward to seeing if

> there is a scandal in Aug

> 2001.

>

> with warmest professional regards,

>

> Chris

>

>

> PS Why do you rely so heavily on solar arcs?

> They're only occasionally

> right and usually wrong or irrelevant. Plus, you

> rattle off a million of

> them at once. It's too hard to follow, much less

> evaluate critically. I'm

> afraid this is the Noel Tyl influence on you Mu. I

> wish you'd give him the

> pink slip (or just the slip!) Jyotish is way more

> powerful than this stuff.

>

> his "Wandering Years" which were from 1968 to1973,

> >shows Solar Arc (SA) Neptune = Saturn, transiting

> (tr)

> >Saturn square Sun, opposed the Moon, and conjunct

> the

> >MC; SA Pluto = Saturn/Neptune, SA Uranus =

> >Sun/Neptune, SA MC = Uranus/Neptune, SA Moon =

> >Mars/Neptune, SA Neptune = Sun/Pluto, and SA

> Mercury =

> >Saturn/Neptune (1968); tr Neptune = Sun/Moon

> >(1970-71); tr Uranus opposed MC (being shaken out

> of a

> >rut), tr Jupiter opposed Asc and Pluto, tr Saturn

> >returning to its natal position; SA Asc = Sun/Moon,

> SA

>

> Sure, I occasionally use solar arcs but never

> without lots of other

> evidence. This is what Tyl does too: "wow them with

> lots of solar arcs".

> For all those not familiar with Tyl, he's one of the

> most well known

> western astrologers who sells books by the

> thousands. His psychologistic

> approach appeals to many "new age" westerners

> seeking new ways of

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

http://auctions./

[Guest guest]

Leela:

 

Good to hear form you -- and on the list, no less! No, it's Mu who was

referring to his previous piece on Al Gore. The only congratulations I

deserve are those for having sent in the post which critiqued the

teleological aspects of Mu's post. Some might say a simple email isn't

worthy of such fanfare. But when is an email an article and when is it

just an email? :-) Anyway, I'd like to know what you thought of it.

 

Chris

 

 

>

>--- Christopher Kevill <ckevill wrote:

>>Hey Chris: Did you publish this article after all?

>Congratulations

>

>

>Mu:

>>

>> >In an earlier article, "The Road Ahead for Al Gore"

>> I

>> >suggested that his Vedic horoscope did not support

>> his

>> >becoming the President of the United States; my

>> >reasons and analysis can be found in that essay. If

>> >you take his chart and compare it to Bush's, there

>> is

>> >little doubt that Bush would win.

>> >

>> >In a Vedic chart, there are combinations known as

>> Raja

>> >Yogas, that give fame, success, wealth, and even

>> >Political Power. A politician should have at least

>> a

>> >few of these yogas in their chart, along with

>> several

>> >very well fortified houses; they are, the 1st, the

>> >5th, and the 10th, as these are the houses of fame

>> >(1st) luck (5th) and government (10th).

>>

>> I appreciate your efforts to put something new out

>> there and this is a

>> noteworthy piece. Nice work. But I'm not up to

>> debating the relative

>> importance of every point (there's just too many

>> here to encourage

>> meaningful debate I think) and instead I thought I'd

>> respond to your piece

>> with something that's been a concern of mine for a

>> while, that is the

>> problem of teleology. Teleological analyses make

>> historical end points

>> into necessary outcomes. This is ex post facto

>> reasoning that finds comfort

>> in pat answers without having to confront the true

>> complexity of the

>> historical record. A synonym for it might be

>> "inevitabilism": the result

>> had to occur for such-and-such reasons.

>> Teleological reasoning is

>> considered flawed in philosophy as it undermines the

>> strength of the

>> argument used to support the explanation. One finds

>> teleology in all sorts

>> of things such as Eurocentrism (the West dominated

>> the world because it's a

>> better society), Marxism ("the revolution in Russia

>> *had* to occur because

>> the conditions of exploitation of working classes

>> were at their

>> unparalleled worst") or capitalist triumphalism

>> ("capitalism won the cold

>> war because it is a better economic system) These

>> are all *plausible*

>> explanations of course, but none actually proves the

>> point. (just ask all

>> those maquilladora workers in Mexico) Things are

>> rarely that necessary in

>> history. Life is always more complicated.

>>

>> In astrology, we fall victim to this kind of

>> thinking whenever we engage

>> post facto analyses: 'the divorce was clearly

>> evident because of Saturn's

>> transit to his Venus and he was running the dasha of

>> the afflicted 7th lord

>> and the bhuktie of Mars, which is placed in the

>> 12th.' Well, OK, we might

>> respond, that's plausible enough, but how can we

>> know that was really the

>> key reason for the divorce? Obviously, there is no

>> simple answer to this

>> question; one has to persevere and be thorough and

>> give it one's best shot.

>> Perhaps the best reply might be: would I have been

>> able to predict it,

>> before it happened? And more to the point: in fact,

>> why didn't I?

>>

>>

>> I sense some of this teleological thinking in your

>> assumption that Bush's

>> chart easily bests Gore's. How clear was it that

>> Gore would lose? How

>> many good astrologers predicted a Gore victory?

>> Lots, including James

>> Braha in his published article in TMA. In light of

>> your analysis, does this

>> mean that those astrologers who picked Gore to win

>> are blind and ignorant?

>> I doubt it, and yet the confidence in your swagger

>> suggests just this. And

>> as I recall, you didn't pick anybody to win before

>> the election.

>>

>> As astrologers, we are easily seduced by charts.

>> Charts have a funny way

>> of communicating themselves. Some look like they

>> were pulled from a

>> textbook, rife with all those easy first-level yogas

>> and house placements.

>> We should be grateful for them when they cross our

>> paths because they make

>> out jobs easier. But we should curse them too.

>> Because just as often,

>> charts do not come gift-wrapped to us. They

>> confound us.

>>

>> What would we have predicted in 1960 if we had to

>> compare the charts of

>> Nixon and JFK? Nixon was running Saturn-Venus and

>> had Saturn in the 10th

>> (ruling the 6th and 7th; Leo lagna) while Venus

>> ruled the 10th positioned

>> in the 7th. Yes, he had nothing less than an

>> exchange of signs between the

>> dasha lord and the bhuktie lord, and both had clear

>> connections to the 10th

>> house! Neither had bad aspects (unless you consider

>> the 9th aspect of Ketu

>> to Saturn an aspect, and even then it was a wide orb

>> of 9*). JFK was

>> running Rahu-Mars with Rahu in the 4th in

>> Sagittarius (Virgo lagna) without

>> any benefic aspects. Dispositor Jupiter was looking

>> pretty good in the 9th

>> house in Taurus with Venus but it was in the first

>> degree of Taurus, not an

>> indicator of strength, especially in an

>> even-numbered sign. Yogakaraka

>> Mars was in the 8th with 10L Mercury.

>>

>> JFK's chart did have some strength for sure, but it

>> certainly wasn't

>> *obviously* better than Nixon's. This isn't meant

>> as a proper analysis but

>> just to illustrate the point: how many astrologers

>> -- yes, and good

>> astrologers -- would have said Nixon's chart was the

>> winner? Lots, I'll

>> bet -- but only before the election! After he lost

>> the 1960 campaign, how

>> many astrologers would have argued Nixon still had

>> the better chart?

>> Probably zero. And that's the moral of my story: the

>> facts of history makes

>> everything "clear". But an astrology that only

>> functions through the prism

>> of history isn't very persuasive as a science. It's

>> just another way of

>> telling a story. That's why if we're going to be

>> good astrologers, we have

>> to make predictions. I look forward to seeing if

>> there is a scandal in Aug

>> 2001.

>>

>> with warmest professional regards,

>>

>> Chris

>>

>>

>> PS Why do you rely so heavily on solar arcs?

>> They're only occasionally

>> right and usually wrong or irrelevant. Plus, you

>> rattle off a million of

>> them at once. It's too hard to follow, much less

>> evaluate critically. I'm

>> afraid this is the Noel Tyl influence on you Mu. I

>> wish you'd give him the

>> pink slip (or just the slip!) Jyotish is way more

>> powerful than this stuff.

>>

>> his "Wandering Years" which were from 1968 to1973,

>> >shows Solar Arc (SA) Neptune = Saturn, transiting

>> (tr)

>> >Saturn square Sun, opposed the Moon, and conjunct

>> the

>> >MC; SA Pluto = Saturn/Neptune, SA Uranus =

>> >Sun/Neptune, SA MC = Uranus/Neptune, SA Moon =

>> >Mars/Neptune, SA Neptune = Sun/Pluto, and SA

>> Mercury =

>> >Saturn/Neptune (1968); tr Neptune = Sun/Moon

>> >(1970-71); tr Uranus opposed MC (being shaken out

>> of a

>> >rut), tr Jupiter opposed Asc and Pluto, tr Saturn

>> >returning to its natal position; SA Asc = Sun/Moon,

>> SA

>>

>> Sure, I occasionally use solar arcs but never

>> without lots of other

>> evidence. This is what Tyl does too: "wow them with

>> lots of solar arcs".

>> For all those not familiar with Tyl, he's one of the

>> most well known

>> western astrologers who sells books by the

>> thousands. His psychologistic

>> approach appeals to many "new age" westerners

>> seeking new ways of

>>

>=== message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

> Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

>http://auctions./

>

>

>gjlist-

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Christopher Kevill <ckevill wrote:

>Actually, Chris - I sent you two emails to which you

didn't reply...you were in the thick of battle. But

actually, I think the teleological argument is very

true. I have more time on my hands now and once I get

the doctor stuff out of the way, picking one, checking

up on my functioning, I'll start to get back into

things. I might even start working out after 3 months.

Being some place where you absolutely don't know

anyone is awfully depressing so I end up hanging

around work a lot and sending you email or Perry who

doesn't reply either!! I have never felt such a loser,

believe me. Of course, this is also the time of yer

when applications are going in so that doesn't help

matters because I keep thinking maybe that's what I

should be doing....but I can't see it happening. I

wish God or whoever would just TELL me what I am

supposed to be doing next.

Anyway...

Tata

L

 

 

Leela:

>

> Good to hear form you -- and on the list, no less!

> No, it's Mu who was

> referring to his previous piece on Al Gore. The

> only congratulations I

> deserve are those for having sent in the post which

> critiqued the

> teleological aspects of Mu's post. Some might say a

> simple email isn't

> worthy of such fanfare. But when is an email an

> article and when is it

> just an email? :-) Anyway, I'd like to know what

> you thought of it.

>

> Chris

>

>

> >

> >--- Christopher Kevill <ckevill

> wrote:

> >>Hey Chris: Did you publish this article after all?

> >Congratulations

> >

> >

> >Mu:

> >>

> >> >In an earlier article, "The Road Ahead for Al

> Gore"

> >> I

> >> >suggested that his Vedic horoscope did not

> support

> >> his

> >> >becoming the President of the United States; my

> >> >reasons and analysis can be found in that essay.

> If

> >> >you take his chart and compare it to Bush's,

> there

> >> is

> >> >little doubt that Bush would win.

> >> >

> >> >In a Vedic chart, there are combinations known

> as

> >> Raja

> >> >Yogas, that give fame, success, wealth, and even

> >> >Political Power. A politician should have at

> least

> >> a

> >> >few of these yogas in their chart, along with

> >> several

> >> >very well fortified houses; they are, the 1st,

> the

> >> >5th, and the 10th, as these are the houses of

> fame

> >> >(1st) luck (5th) and government (10th).

> >>

> >> I appreciate your efforts to put something new

> out

> >> there and this is a

> >> noteworthy piece. Nice work. But I'm not up to

> >> debating the relative

> >> importance of every point (there's just too many

> >> here to encourage

> >> meaningful debate I think) and instead I thought

> I'd

> >> respond to your piece

> >> with something that's been a concern of mine for

> a

> >> while, that is the

> >> problem of teleology. Teleological analyses make

> >> historical end points

> >> into necessary outcomes. This is ex post facto

> >> reasoning that finds comfort

> >> in pat answers without having to confront the

> true

> >> complexity of the

> >> historical record. A synonym for it might be

> >> "inevitabilism": the result

> >> had to occur for such-and-such reasons.

> >> Teleological reasoning is

> >> considered flawed in philosophy as it undermines

> the

> >> strength of the

> >> argument used to support the explanation. One

> finds

> >> teleology in all sorts

> >> of things such as Eurocentrism (the West

> dominated

> >> the world because it's a

> >> better society), Marxism ("the revolution in

> Russia

> >> *had* to occur because

> >> the conditions of exploitation of working classes

> >> were at their

> >> unparalleled worst") or capitalist triumphalism

> >> ("capitalism won the cold

> >> war because it is a better economic system)

> These

> >> are all *plausible*

> >> explanations of course, but none actually proves

> the

> >> point. (just ask all

> >> those maquilladora workers in Mexico) Things are

> >> rarely that necessary in

> >> history. Life is always more complicated.

> >>

> >> In astrology, we fall victim to this kind of

> >> thinking whenever we engage

> >> post facto analyses: 'the divorce was clearly

> >> evident because of Saturn's

> >> transit to his Venus and he was running the dasha

> of

> >> the afflicted 7th lord

> >> and the bhuktie of Mars, which is placed in the

> >> 12th.' Well, OK, we might

> >> respond, that's plausible enough, but how can we

> >> know that was really the

> >> key reason for the divorce? Obviously, there is

> no

> >> simple answer to this

> >> question; one has to persevere and be thorough

> and

> >> give it one's best shot.

> >> Perhaps the best reply might be: would I have

> been

> >> able to predict it,

> >> before it happened? And more to the point: in

> fact,

> >> why didn't I?

> >>

> >>

> >> I sense some of this teleological thinking in

> your

> >> assumption that Bush's

> >> chart easily bests Gore's. How clear was it that

> >> Gore would lose? How

> >> many good astrologers predicted a Gore victory?

> >> Lots, including James

> >> Braha in his published article in TMA. In light

> of

> >> your analysis, does this

> >> mean that those astrologers who picked Gore to

> win

> >> are blind and ignorant?

> >> I doubt it, and yet the confidence in your

> swagger

> >> suggests just this. And

> >> as I recall, you didn't pick anybody to win

> before

> >> the election.

> >>

> >> As astrologers, we are easily seduced by charts.

> >> Charts have a funny way

> >> of communicating themselves. Some look like they

> >> were pulled from a

> >> textbook, rife with all those easy first-level

> yogas

> >> and house placements.

> >> We should be grateful for them when they cross

> our

> >> paths because they make

> >> out jobs easier. But we should curse them too.

> >> Because just as often,

> >> charts do not come gift-wrapped to us. They

> >> confound us.

> >>

> >> What would we have predicted in 1960 if we had to

> >> compare the charts of

> >> Nixon and JFK? Nixon was running Saturn-Venus

> and

> >> had Saturn in the 10th

> >> (ruling the 6th and 7th; Leo lagna) while Venus

> >> ruled the 10th positioned

> >> in the 7th. Yes, he had nothing less than an

> >> exchange of signs between the

> >> dasha lord and the bhuktie lord, and both had

> clear

> >> connections to the 10th

> >> house! Neither had bad aspects (unless you

> consider

> >> the 9th aspect of Ketu

> >> to Saturn an aspect, and even then it was a wide

> orb

> >> of 9*). JFK was

> >> running Rahu-Mars with Rahu in the 4th in

> >> Sagittarius (Virgo lagna) without

> >> any benefic aspects. Dispositor Jupiter was

> looking

> >> pretty good in the 9th

> >> house in Taurus with Venus but it was in the

> first

> >> degree of Taurus, not an

> >> indicator of strength, especially in an

> >> even-numbered sign. Yogakaraka

> >> Mars was in the 8th with 10L Mercury.

> >>

> >> JFK's chart did have some strength for sure, but

> it

> >> certainly wasn't

> >> *obviously* better than Nixon's. This isn't

> meant

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

http://auctions./