Guest guest Posted October 31, 2005 Report Share Posted October 31, 2005 Hi Fim Tinnegan! The Uranian Astrology is still an object for research, everywhere. I do not consider myself an astrologer. I am fond of research. Of course the void of course Moon is useless sometimes, since various astrologers limits themselves to 10 planets for various reasons. It is your good right to deny the existance/value of anymore planets,since you are content with your knowledge. I 'll not bother you anymore with Uranian Astrology. Afterall it is your responsibility. Regards, Anny -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Verzonden: zondag 30 oktober 2005 17:25 Aan: Onderwerp: Digest Number 1179 There is 1 message in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: 1st house sign? " fimtinnegan " <kh1100 ______________________ ______________________ Message: 1 Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:56:12 -0000 " fimtinnegan " <kh1100 Re: 1st house sign? Astrology is based on astronomy. Astrologery is based on whichever I-just-made-it-up-techniques Noel Tyl et al. said at their last jam-packed lectures to the faithful (like Tyl's theoretical progression formulas, just for starters ... starters on an almost endless list of nonsense). Void of course Moon ... how about that for a good example of astrologery? Or astrolocality (not astrocartography) Pluto-sextile-ascendant lines ... how about that for a good example of astrologery? Or Uranian planets ... how about that for a good example of astrologery? On and on and on and on. I can't believe you even have to ask, Patrick and Bert. What I'm saying is simple: astrology vs. whatever some astrologer makes up = astrology vs astrologery. Philosophical relativism and open-mindedness (hwhich are good things) do not excuse, in the context of astrology, techniques rooted nowhere in astronomy -- such as the parallel between houses (rotation/mundane/earth/clockwise) and signs (revolution/ecliptic/sun/counterclockwise). Astrologers make stuff up, century after century. Astronomy provides clues to what is and isn't plausible. Astrologery is whatever may be *easily* classified as " implausible " in the context of first principles based on astronomy. If we want to turn astrology into an oracle a la Tarot, phrenology, I Ching, palmistry, numerology, runes, and the entrails of slaughtered animals, fine. Otherwise, we have to fall back on the thing which is unique to astronomy among all oracles: astronomy. The former is astrologery. The latter is the basis for anything plausibly called astrology. ______________________ ______________________ " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 , " Anny van Berckel " <avbdk@x...> wrote: > > The Uranian Astrology is still an > object for research, everywhere. > It is your good right to deny the existance/value of > anymore planets,since you are content with your knowledge. > I 'll not bother you anymore with Uranian Astrology. > Afterall it is your responsibility. Look -- the Uranian planets do not exist, and yet you must lecture me about my " responsibility. " Astrology is based on astronomy. The Uranian planets do not exist. The Uranian planets do not exist. The Uranian planets do not exist. It's fine to use oracles that are man-made and woman-made. Make up something! That's great! Seriously -- make up your own oracle. Make up a new Tarot deck. Just invent it. It doesn't have to be 78 cards. Make up a deck with 39 cards! or 151 cards! or 93 cards! That's fine. Seriously -- I mean it, and I accept it. Oracles are good. Tarot is good. But it's not astrology. And neither are made-up planets. Look how simple it is -- I refuse to accept made-up planets, and yet, as an astrologer, I'm being closed-minded. In terms of progressing as astrologers, isn't there something wrong with that picture? Doesn't it suggest a certain lack of analytical discrimination? I'll let the facts speak for themselves. Astrology is based on astronomy. The Uranian planets do not exist. The Uranian planets do not exist. The Uranian planets do not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.