waybread
Well-known member
Yes. However, my real love is natal chart interpretation using modern methods.
The trouble with the OP is like so many morality questions that psychologists used to use to use to "grade" people.
Remember this chestnut?
"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? " (1963) http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
This is so unreal it is almost laughable. We assume that Heinz would be able to put his hands on the drug inside a pharmacy filled with a few hundred different medications. If it were radioactive, even in 1963, it would have been kept in special high-security containment. We assume that the druggist went through his country's equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration's approval process, which would be required to put a radioactive drug on the shelf-- by prescription only. There is no mention of a doctor's prescription. We assume the druggist had a handy supply of radium-- which is not easy to come by, as it is mined in only a few places on the globe, and can cause radiation sickness when handled improperly. Radiation therapy is not for amateurs like this back-room druggist. We can assume that the container indicated the correct dosage as well as special restrictions on its use. We assume Mrs. Heinz had no health insurance, and so on.
You can't answer this "Kohlberg's dilemma" unless you enter his imaginative-- and might I say-- cuckoo kind of world.
It makes far more sense to use a case study approach based upon actual examples, where one's credulity isn't so strained.
The great majority of my chart reading is done on-line, so this is the universe I address.
I don't do horary astrology (which isn't to say I haven't studied it) for several reasons, including because of the hit-and-run prospects for so many questions, like "Will I get married?" Or "What are my future relationship prospects?"
I am not opposed to giving people news they won't want to hear about relationships. But without a natal chart and/or extensive communication, you have no idea what is really going on through the querent's mind. You can get a much better idea, I think, from a natal chart and some dialogue with the person.
Unfortunately horary can all too often deteriorate into a kind of fortune-telling, that doesn't address the fundamental issues.
We can imagine a 40-year old single woman asking about her natal chart: "Why am I 40 and still single?" Or of a horary chart: "Will I get married?"
It seems to me that with the natal chart and some discussion, you can discuss with her some life-themes that affect her single status. Maybe she is exceptionally reclusive. Maybe she needs her independence. Maybe she's smart enough not to settle for Mr. Wrong. And you can build on these in constructive ways.
With a horary chart on its lonesome, you lack all this opportunity for depth and breadth in actually trying to be helpful to someone. Combining methods, including natal plus horary and a good dialogue, seems to be what the good professionals do. It just adds so much more depth to astrological advising.
I have gotten numerous requests to engage in fortune-telling, and I don't do it. I will say if I see likely or unlikely times for something to happen, or good or not-so-good times to and places to look for Mr. Right.
The trouble with the OP is like so many morality questions that psychologists used to use to use to "grade" people.
Remember this chestnut?
"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? " (1963) http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
This is so unreal it is almost laughable. We assume that Heinz would be able to put his hands on the drug inside a pharmacy filled with a few hundred different medications. If it were radioactive, even in 1963, it would have been kept in special high-security containment. We assume that the druggist went through his country's equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration's approval process, which would be required to put a radioactive drug on the shelf-- by prescription only. There is no mention of a doctor's prescription. We assume the druggist had a handy supply of radium-- which is not easy to come by, as it is mined in only a few places on the globe, and can cause radiation sickness when handled improperly. Radiation therapy is not for amateurs like this back-room druggist. We can assume that the container indicated the correct dosage as well as special restrictions on its use. We assume Mrs. Heinz had no health insurance, and so on.
You can't answer this "Kohlberg's dilemma" unless you enter his imaginative-- and might I say-- cuckoo kind of world.
It makes far more sense to use a case study approach based upon actual examples, where one's credulity isn't so strained.
The great majority of my chart reading is done on-line, so this is the universe I address.
I don't do horary astrology (which isn't to say I haven't studied it) for several reasons, including because of the hit-and-run prospects for so many questions, like "Will I get married?" Or "What are my future relationship prospects?"
I am not opposed to giving people news they won't want to hear about relationships. But without a natal chart and/or extensive communication, you have no idea what is really going on through the querent's mind. You can get a much better idea, I think, from a natal chart and some dialogue with the person.
Unfortunately horary can all too often deteriorate into a kind of fortune-telling, that doesn't address the fundamental issues.
We can imagine a 40-year old single woman asking about her natal chart: "Why am I 40 and still single?" Or of a horary chart: "Will I get married?"
It seems to me that with the natal chart and some discussion, you can discuss with her some life-themes that affect her single status. Maybe she is exceptionally reclusive. Maybe she needs her independence. Maybe she's smart enough not to settle for Mr. Wrong. And you can build on these in constructive ways.
With a horary chart on its lonesome, you lack all this opportunity for depth and breadth in actually trying to be helpful to someone. Combining methods, including natal plus horary and a good dialogue, seems to be what the good professionals do. It just adds so much more depth to astrological advising.
I have gotten numerous requests to engage in fortune-telling, and I don't do it. I will say if I see likely or unlikely times for something to happen, or good or not-so-good times to and places to look for Mr. Right.
Last edited: