Guest guest Posted November 10, 2005 Report Share Posted November 10, 2005 Message: 2 Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:05:48 -0000 " fimtinnegan " <kh1100 Re: Digest Number 1179 , " fimtinnegan " wrote: Astrology is based on astronomy. Fim. You are right: astrology is indeed based on astronomy. astrology and astronomy was one faculty, formerly. : Tarot is very interesting, but indeed it's not astrology. : I Ching: astrologers tried to combine astrology with I Ching. : The TNT are not yet visible, indeed. The Uranian Astrology is the study of planetairy pictures: clusters of planets sharing one midpoint. I think it is the object of study. Up till now we study the planetary pictures and take into account these invisible planets; every time I am surprised in my research of those terrible attacks from terrorists or these youngsters in anger (in France) in charts. Regards, Anny ____________________ ______________________ Hi Dave A good idea! I need this to take into account from now on. I just look for when the angle comes into contact with a planet -- this is where the energy seems to be released. Regards, Anny ______________________ ______________________ " 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 13, 2005 Report Share Posted November 13, 2005 , " Anny van Berckel " <avbdk@x...> wrote: " The TNT are not yet visible, indeed. " They will never be visible, because they do not exist. They were invented. They are imaginary. Their supposed " orbits " could not be occupied even by a speck of dust -- the orbits were made up based on an incomplete understanding of physics, and they are not possible in the real world, which I take to be the world in which the real, non-imaginary celestial bodies exist. But I suppose that's debatable, too ... along with the existence of a bunch of billion-year-old planets invented by a few 20th Century astrolgers ... My point is: this is not good for astrology. We owe it to ourselves to exercise at least a minimal degree of discrimination. The absence of that capacity is far more damaging thanb would be a slight decrease in absolute, anything-goes open-mindedness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2005 Report Share Posted November 13, 2005 Regarding Anny's four TNTs: Yes Yes Yes & Yes Cervantes said (possibly even Chaucer, at least in spirit) that the journey taken is to be preferred over the arrival. In astrology it's the other way around. The road there doesn't count; only that we get there with the right answer. Herr Witte through sheer force of mind was able to construct an imaginary universe which apes the real one and in turn invented ephemerides to predict its own movements. Witte's chart should be examined for godlike qualities. The nazis didn't know who they were talking to that day in August 1941. Uranian astrologers continue to do very fine work to this day. Dark*Star _______________________________ fimtinnegan wrote: > , " Anny van Berckel " > <avbdk@x...> wrote: > > " The TNT are not yet visible, indeed. " > > They will never be visible, because they do not exist. > > They were invented. > > They are imaginary. > > Their supposed " orbits " could not be occupied even by a speck of > dust -- the orbits were made up based on an incomplete understanding > of physics, and they are not possible in the real world, which I take > to be the world in which the real, non-imaginary celestial bodies > exist. But I suppose that's debatable, too ... along with the > existence of a bunch of billion-year-old planets invented by a few > 20th Century astrolgers ... > > My point is: this is not good for astrology. We owe it to ourselves > to exercise at least a minimal degree of discrimination. The absence > of that capacity is far more damaging thanb would be a slight > decrease in absolute, anything-goes open-mindedness. > > > " 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 14, 2005 Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 , Dark Star <pansophia@e...> wrote: >Uranian astrologers continue to do very fine work to this day. I'm sure they do. But they are " astrologers " only when they use astrology. That seems sensible. So they are not " astrologers " when they use non-existent planets. At that point they are psychics -- which is fine too. But don't mix up psychics with astrologers, even when the two are the same person. Astrologers use astronomy. Otherwise, there is no point at all to the existence of astrology, when there are so many excellent imaginary invented made-up non-existent systems to choose from. Why bother with the real planets, the sun, the moon? Just make it up. That's fine. But it is not astrology. I mean, DUH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2005 Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 Astrologers will use any tools their charts can marshall. All these people belong to the same guild and you really can't separate them because of crossover. Anybody making their living through astrology IS A PSYCHIC. The best are the most. Casual readers hardly register. _________________________________ fimtinnegan wrote: > , Dark Star <pansophia@e...> > wrote: > >Uranian astrologers continue to do very fine work to this day. > > I'm sure they do. But they are " astrologers " only when they use > astrology. That seems sensible. So they are not " astrologers " when > they use non-existent planets. At that point they are psychics -- > which is fine too. But don't mix up psychics with astrologers, even > when the two are the same person. Astrologers use astronomy. > Otherwise, there is no point at all to the existence of astrology, when > there are so many excellent imaginary invented made-up non-existent > systems to choose from. Why bother with the real planets, the sun, the > moon? Just make it up. That's fine. But it is not astrology. I > mean, DUH! > > > " 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 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 all of us love astrology and would like for the practice of it to become better and better for the practice of astrology to become better, for each of us or all of us, we need to have SOME definition of astrology. For example: astrology is not baseball, or nuclear physics, or automotive repair, or magazine publishing. astrology is also not something that depends on non-astronomical root information. all of the root information properly defined as the information relevant to astrology is astronomical. whenever an astrologer uses non-astrological information, he or she is doing something other than, or in addition to, astrology. this is so simple, so obvious, so clear, so self-evident but those qualities are irrelevant, it seems, to disputing any position held by astrogers who incorporate non-astrological information into their practice -- or to " metaphysical " or " new age " thinkers who do not like the idea of defining anything, ever, except if it contributes to their own belief-system astrology is rooted in astronomical information. anything not rooted in astrological information (as a point of departure, as a first source, as something OTHER THAN interpretation) is not astrology. who could possibly disagree with this? if you do, please explain how astrology has any meaning at all, when it can mean anything at all , Dark Star <pansophia@e...> wrote: > > > Astrologers will use any tools their charts can marshall. All these people belong > to the same guild and you really can't separate them because of crossover. > Anybody making their living through astrology IS A PSYCHIC. The best are the > most. Casual readers hardly register. > _________________________________ > > fimtinnegan wrote: > > > , Dark Star <pansophia@e...> > > wrote: > > >Uranian astrologers continue to do very fine work to this day. > > > > I'm sure they do. But they are " astrologers " only when they use > > astrology. That seems sensible. So they are not " astrologers " when > > they use non-existent planets. At that point they are psychics -- > > which is fine too. But don't mix up psychics with astrologers, even > > when the two are the same person. Astrologers use astronomy. > > Otherwise, there is no point at all to the existence of astrology, when > > there are so many excellent imaginary invented made-up non- existent > > systems to choose from. Why bother with the real planets, the sun, the > > moon? Just make it up. That's fine. But it is not astrology. I > > mean, DUH! > > > > > > " 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 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Your statement, as copied below, is basically true in my opinion but there are a few external factors that need to be recognized. Quote: astrology is also not something that depends on non- astronomical root information. all of the root information properly defined as the information relevant to astrology is astronomical. whenever an astrologer uses non-astrological information, he or she is doing something other than, or in addition to, astrology. Eng of quote. As humans, as user's of tools, we bring other things to astrology to make it work for us. We have over time related the planets to gods and myths as a way to identify their workings and meanings in our use of astrology. So, then and now, we overlay astronomical data and astrological methodology with social constructs as a means of expressing ourselves through " astrology " . I think that is appropriate. We have also, some of us, adapted non-astrological tools such as psychology to help us organize our thoughts and perceptions so that we can communicate more effectively with each other. The danger here is that those overlays might obscure or shift the emphasis or basic understanding of astronomical and astrological practice and methods. We always have to guard against the tools that distorts rather than helps. So, your reference to " root " functions is absolutely correct, and the overlay of other resources has to be very discriminatingly applied. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 I appreciate what you've said and I'm appreciative OF it. But I still think you're missing my point: no matter what you overlay on astrology, astrology is ONLY astrology if it's rooted in astronomy. Overlay whatever makes sense to you -- but overlay it on astronomical information. If you overlay it on something else, then you're no longer doing astrology -- you're doing something else. Astrology is rooted in astronomy. Anything else is something else -- it's not astrology if it's not rooted in, and overlaid upon, astronomy. 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.