Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Dave, your post was truly scary, but it does point out how necessary a good foundation is in any field we want to become proficient in. That's the trouble with astrology. Only in astrology are many practitioners self-studied. What makes us so far superior that we think we don't need a solid professional foundation presented by experienced teachers for our practice? Why do we think we're exempt from the standards all other professional fields possess? There's a real " I'm just as good as you are, and I know just as much as you do, " attitude among some of the up and coming self-taught younger astrologers. They seem to think that another 40 years of life means nothing at all, not to mention cartification and testing in their field. Well, Dave, you've made the point much better than I could. This is why a few of us want to see standards set for practicing astrologers. Right now anyone can set themselves up to practice and call themselves an astrologer. And that is...entertainment. That's all it is, except that some clients can really get hurt because their 'counselor' isn't professionally trained either in astrology or counseling. Sorry everyone, but his is a sore spot with me. Therese At 03:33 AM 3/10/06 -0000, you wrote: >I'm currently doing an on-line discussion and teaching project on a >popular Internet site that has an astrology sub-forum... > >While they come from a variety of career backgrounds and age groups, >they most seem to have great difficulty grasping what I had always >seen as " simple concepts. " For example, understanding what an opening >square is versus a closing square, how to calculate the degree of >distance one planet is ahead of another planet, simple things of this >nature. > >Another group expouses a 13-sign zodiac and can quote all kinds of >mythology and ideas but cannot explain how many degrees each of the > " new and revised " signs will have when divided among 360 degrees and >how the subject of degrees or rulerships or aspects will be defined >within this improved zodiac, nor does this person truly understand the >difference between signs, tropical and sidereal zodiacs or >constellation star-patterns and/or houses -- it is all mixed up for >this person. And there are a number of " followers " that just love >this mumbo jumbo or " astro-babble " even though nobody can deliniate a >chart or offer helpful advice. > >What I'm trying to bottom-line here is that there are a number of >people with various areas of deep knowledge but who also do not want >to take the time, make the effort, and truly get their mind around the >subject of astrology before they start pontificating about it. >...I sincerely hope to find a single good student -- no luck so far. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 , " therese92003 " <eastwest wrote: > > This is a general message for everyone. I hope you all realize that > I'm only trying to help the cause of astrology. > > I think the main problem with astrology today is the age of > astrologers, most of whom are older than 50, and many of us are over > 60 or 70. Education has changed drastically in those years since we > left school, and this means that standards have also changed a great > deal. > > If we don't have grandchildren in school, we won't be aware of the > huge changes that have taken place over the years in education. Today > it's almost impossible to find a creative well paying job without a > higher degree. Even B.A. or B.S. degrees seem to present very little > in the way of opportunity. If we're old enough to be living on a > pension or social security, we may have no idea what's going on 'out > there.' > > These days second graders are learning their way around possessive > pronouns (it's our's, their's etc.). By second and third grade they > are learning pre-algebraic concepts, formulas and equations. They're > learning the basics of geometry. In third grade they're learning how > to distinguish between physical and chemical changes in matter. Does > anyone here remember learning that in elementary school? I don't. We > might have been learning the difference between elephants and insects. > > The bottom line is that today young children are being taught to > think and reason in order to prepare them for careers in higher > mathematics and science. Our world is changing. Those of us who began > our astrology by using log tables to calculate charts now see our > horoscopes in an instant on the computer screen. Modern technology > came from very bright creative minds (and perhaps not a little from > past-life Atlantean recall). > > Maybe our tech pioneers didn't have the best education, but today in > order to find employment in the tech fields, you need the education > society says you need. Few can match the mental genius of pioneers in > any field. > > Our children are already way ahead of us. And few young people have > an interest in a subject that has seen no discipline or scientific > method or mutual cooperation among practitioners. The least we can do > is to remain humble and flexible and open to the thought that, " Life, > it's been a-changin', and maybe my attitude toward astrology needs to > change too. " > > Otherwise, aren't we simply a Uranian version of the rednecks that > still populate the small towns of America? " Me and my family been > doin' it this way my whole life, and I don't see no reason to change. " > > Therese > I think this is a very important consideration for the future of astrology. Astrologers, just like any other profession, requires a foundation of knowledge upon which to build and a well-defined protocol from which to operate. But this is problematic because there's just no unity among us. This isn't like the medical profession or the military where there's a standard operating procedure for even the most minor situation. As was noted, the better part of astrologers are self-taught and with no regimentation in education or guidance, an amatuer can fly off into any tangent they fancy and have a lot of missing pieces in their knowledge. Here's my own situation as an example: I live in a fairly remote area. There's one (tropical) astrologer who lives a half hour away. That's it. So it's been pretty much up to me to teach myself. Learning the delineations is easy for me, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to erect a chart by hand. My learning style is such that I don't learn mathematics well from books. I'm more of a " show me " type. I'd love to learn these techniques, but I have to bypass this most fundamental part of astrology and rely on computer charts. I do feel that my education in astrology is very incomplete because of this and I'm sure my example is similar to many other show-me types. It's not like people can enroll a class at the local community college. I also think the computer age has a lot to do with the haphazard learning of astrology. Surely, it's been a mixed blessing for us students in that it brings us together to discuss topics with professionals, but it also makes a lot people lazy when it comes to the techniques of astrology. I hope that as astrology grows as a science and becomes more acceptable in the mainstream, that schools with actual classrooms and live instructors will spring up here and there. This will probably take decades though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Joanna wrote: >>...Astrologers, just like any other profession, require a foundation of knowledge upon which to build and a well-defined protocol from which to operate. But this is problematic because there's just no unity among us. Joanna, of course you have hit upon the main problem. But it's a problem that I believe has been at least partly solved in England. I know when I learned astrology there were recognized schools of astrology in London that offered not only local classes but very good correspondence courses with personal attention from teachers. I believe we'll find that there is much more unity among English astrologers than in America. The English educational system also seems to turn out better rounded students than here in the states. Today astrologers need a good over-all foundation in education. Just about everyone has access to a community college if not a four year university. If every other professional field requires a general subject college education (math, English, writing, etc.), why not astrologers? A big part of the problem with astrologers is that they are sloppy thinkers. They don't understand logic. Logic doesn't in the least hurt the more spiritual part of our psyche. So astrology has become a hodgepodge of miscellaneous techniques based on a poor understanding of the fundamental rules of logic. Actually there are only two valid astrological topics for college study at this time: research and history. I suppose we're a long way from setting standards for practice because this has to be done by astrologers themselves. This places the burden on the astrological organizations, which cannot even work together because they themselves have different standards. The answer is that anyone who wants to can study astrology, but they cannot set themselves up as counselors. Anyone can study physics, but no one is going to hire a person to teach at a university or work in a laboratory without the requisite degrees. If someone wants to be a counseling astrologer, then that person needs to go to college and get a counseling degree. They will then be recognized as a professional counselor. Then it's valid to use astrology as an aid to counseling. >>Here's my own situation as an example: I live in a fairly remote area. There's one (tropical) astrologer who lives a half hour away. That's it. So it's been pretty much up to me to teach myself. Learning the delineations is easy for me, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to erect a chart by hand. I don't think it's necessary any longer to know how to erect a chart by hand. We have computers now, so we only need to understand why and how the different house systems relate to the actual sky. Even many seasoned astrologers don't understand that (which is why we need a more formal education system for astrology). For example, a great many astrologers still believe that the M.C. is the highest point of the ecliptic in the sky. I believe that all astrologers should have a basic astronomy course as a foundation for their work. This is available in community colleges. >>I also think the computer age has a lot to do with the haphazard learning of astrology. And computers also have a lot to do with sloppy writing and thinking-- in all fields!! What a difference from the past where we had to type our articles and books, and for editing we had to retype an entire page or chapter. Now...just press the delete key! >> I hope that as astrology grows as a science and becomes more acceptable in the mainstream, that schools with actual classrooms and live instructors will spring up here and there. This will probably take decades though. Or longer....We'll have to begin with history and then go to research. Much of the delineation around now is just plain wrong, psychology incorrectly applied to astrology. But until we can prove it wrong, drawing incorrect conclusions from the signs and planets will remain with us. Students are no more at fault that professionals when it comes to mis- reading horoscopes. No test of astrology has shown that astrologers can correctly read horoscopes. I haven't read the book UNDER ONE SKY, but I've heard that no astrologer who blindly delineated the chart was really accurate. This says only one thing: We don't know what we think we know. The astrology of the siderealists is more honest, as it deals mainly with timing rather than psychology. Someday I hope we'll have specialized fields in astrology, and timing will be one of the major fields of speciality. Thanks for your thoughts, Joanna! Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Bur isn't astrology essentially an Uranian Ray? _______________________________ therese92003 wrote: > Dave, your post was truly scary, but it does point out how necessary > a good foundation is in any field we want to become proficient in. > That's the trouble with astrology. Only in astrology are many > practitioners self-studied. What makes us so far superior that we > think we don't need a solid professional foundation presented by > experienced teachers for our practice? Why do we think we're exempt > from the standards all other professional fields possess? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 My reply just vanished. However, I will try once again. For Therese92003 and Dark Star, When I started studying astrology in 1971 to prove to my wife that her daily newspaper horoscope column had to be total bunk, there were few " official " institutions around that would teach and certify astrology. There were local astrologers in Boston that one could take lessons from but that areas was fought over by three competeing organizations and was quite scarey to behold. The two groups that I could find were the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London and the American Federation of Astrologers, then located in Washington, DC. From reading their materials it was quite clear as to who would be the better group to work with. I studied with Jeff Mayo in London. Later I worked with Bob Pellitier (author of Planets in Aspect and Planets in Houses) for several years while he lectured at a group that I had formed (20+ members who met weekly for seven yers). Today, the situation in terms of teachers and education seems quite different. Yet, from those that I run into, few seem to take advantage of those resources. Having a computer and a report generator seems to have become a substitute for learning. Meanwhile, I continue my studies and I also help whoever asks for help. I work within Tropical Astrology to the degree I have to in order to help those who ask while I promote Sidereal methodologies to all that I can. Dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 At 04:18 PM 3/13/06 -0000, Dave wrote: > >...The two groups that I could find were the Faculty of Astrological >Studies in London and the American Federation of Astrologers, then >located in Washington, DC. From reading their materials it was quite >clear as to who would be the better group to work with. I studied >with Jeff Mayo in London. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I also learned astrology from Jeff Mayo at the Faculty of Astrological studies. That's probably where my higher standards came from. The amount of time and care Jeff took with each student was truly amazing. The Faculty had apparently taken great care to develop courses anchored in the basics. I still have my course assignments and lessons. I suppose I keep them to help me remember where I started! Therese 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.