Astrologers' Community

Astrologers' Community (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php)
-   Read My Chart (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=81)
-   -   Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113604)

david starling 01-02-2018 09:25 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Relating Astrology to Modern Science, Astrology is less like Classical Mechanics, and more like Theoretical Physics. Several different viewpoints there, as well.

Whoam1 01-02-2018 09:34 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.

david starling 01-02-2018 09:54 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 851893)
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.

Personally, I have no problem with different versions "working" for different people. Tropical works well for my own Chart, and many others I've studied and discussed with the people those Charts represent. But, I'm well aware that the Tropical view doesn't work for everyone. I just don't see Astrology as a "one-fits-all" practice. There is something you might want to consider, even if it's a long shot--several times, when a Chart didn't matchup with the person, it turned out the birthtime, and in two cases, the birthdate was incorrect. Not everyone is born in a hospital with someone recording the exact time. My attitude is, if the time is accurate, and the Chart doesn't do the job, it's the type of Astrology that needs to change. Clearly, Tropical isn't your type of Astrology (again. If you're certain about the time of birth).

Whoam1 01-02-2018 10:30 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Thanks for that information. My mother is certain that i was born 7:23 am. However i came out six days late according to the second estimation which was a month later than the first to begin with. As for using tropical charts even in someones chart i read, i emphasize their dominant sign, planet, etc. due to the fact that it is often times more accurate to them than their sun sign. This is the case of Scorpio in my sidereal chart. It is dominant, its element and modality are dominant, and Pluto is my dominant planet, doc. in its own sign of Scorpio.

folelser 01-02-2018 10:34 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 851893)
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.

I think escorpio has the fame of being "cool",
You are really not accepting the reality.

I know many people who are Capricorn, and they are very secretive as well they have an interesting personality and very intense as well.

obsidianmineral 01-02-2018 10:34 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 851893)
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 851892)
Relating Astrology to Modern Science, Astrology is less like Classical Mechanics, and more like Theoretical Physics. Several different viewpoints there, as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 851866)
Several viewing angles of the same phenomenon is necessary to get the complete picture. Btw, which Religion has the "one True" version of a Deity, in your opinion? :biggrin:

With all due respect, all these arguments are horrible. You can't simply deduce the validity of a pseudo-science based on analogies. How does evolution and religion have anything to do with how astrology works? With all due respect once again, all religions describe a single god but in different manners and that is correct, but religions are not based on empirical and logical convictions. I do believe in God myself, however I know that it is irrational and I don't care if it is. I just feel that he is there. However, when astrology is supposed to be provable and based on observation and statistics, you can't just throw out there that it works just because it does.

Astrology is meant to work because it follows a lot of guidelines and rules that it diligently follows. It's a pseudoscience because it starts off premises that are irrational (balance and symmetry of the planets, aesthetics in their placements, the fact that they affect human life from a distance, etc.) hence its irrationality and designation as a pseudoscience. It is up entirely to us to decide to believe in it or not.

Astrology is absolutely, not in the least related to theoretical physics. If by theoretical physics you mean quantum mechanics then it still doesn't have anything to do either. Quantum mechanics is proven because there have been experiments that have validated its premises 100% of the time, not because they were conceived by scientists randomly and suddenly were proven much to the surprise of everyone. No.

You're in your right to believe sidereal works as well as tropical does, but understand how irrational it sounds. Instead of focusing in your specific natal chart Whoam1, why don't you think about almost everyone else who identifies with their tropical charts? I invite you once again to share with us your natal chart so we can see what you might have not noticed in the chart. Sidereal seems like a poor excuse to everyone who didn't identify initially with tropical. Can't you see how cynical the system is? People can identify with tropical, but if they don't then we magically make up a new zodiac system that ensures everyone identifies with their charts.

Whoam1 01-02-2018 11:27 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Astrology in India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, is probably older than that made tropically by Greece and eventually the Christian church... so wouldn't (if was I speculate is true) the tropical version be a bastardized version of the Kevin's of astrology to begin with. Also if you all are so smart just count the dregrees back on the chart I showed you to get the tropical placement of the signs... btw Scorpios in real life are totally awkward nerds who have a lot of social weirdness. Also I can't relate to earth signs in general... and in my tropical chart I have a earth grand trine a Capricorn sun Virgo moon and Taurus as a dominant sign.

Whoam1 01-02-2018 11:30 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
What's more cynical is that's people need these signs to support there personalities because they don't know who they are as people. So they can find a way to label who they are, but deep down they have some level of insecurity and if that builds up, people won't know who they are and society could collapse if astrology somehow failed. Maybe it's a good thing one system doesn't exist so people can define themselves.

Whoam1 01-02-2018 11:38 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Tropical chart

JUPITERASC 01-02-2018 11:52 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
SOLAR & LUNAR RETURNS

In 1944, Cyril Fagan discovered the superiority of
Sidereal Solar and Lunar Returns (“Solunars”)
over their Tropical counterparts.
These returns, calculated in a precession-free reference frame
yield quite different results from Tropical returns.
For example, the difference in the time of a Solar Return
amounts to a whole day at age 72 :smile:

The literature on this subject is very rich, though much is out of print.
You may be able to find two books on the subject:
Solar & Lunar Returns
by Donald A. Bradley (1948)
and
Interpreting Solar Returns
by James A. Eshelman (1979).
http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6

Whoam1 01-03-2018 12:33 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
I could see maybe why i feel related to water signs in my natal tropical chart. Tell me if this remotely makes any sense. There is a void for water in my natal chart, with only one celestial planet total in a water sign, and a normal four or more bodies in all of the other elements. The other elements could possibly be trying to balance this void. This would manifest in Venus as it is the only place in my natal chart that has water placement. Then this manifestation is then outwardly expressed in the way I love others, the way I want to be loved and in my aesthetic, which is very, lets say dark :venus::scorpio::devil:. Then there are compensations in a chart that try to express the missing element, i have three of 5 that i have found. That is moon in a water house, moon in aspect to the sun, and moon in aspect to Pluto. I have 8th house moon, moon trine the sun, and moon square pluto.

IleneK 01-03-2018 03:20 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sibylline (Post 851684)
I think people are getting confused because of the (ETA: incorrect) sidereal use...the OP said birthdate is 12/27/1999, i.e. Capricorn Sun.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

Whoam1 01-03-2018 03:34 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
I've posted my Tropical chart in this forum too...

david starling 01-03-2018 04:23 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by obsidianmineral (Post 851908)
With all due respect, all these arguments are horrible. You can't simply deduce the validity of a pseudo-science based on analogies. How does evolution and religion have anything to do with how astrology works? With all due respect once again, all religions describe a single god but in different manners and that is correct, but religions are not based on empirical and logical convictions. I do believe in God myself, however I know that it is irrational and I don't care if it is. I just feel that he is there. However, when astrology is supposed to be provable and based on observation and statistics, you can't just throw out there that it works just because it does.

Astrology is meant to work because it follows a lot of guidelines and rules that it diligently follows. It's a pseudoscience because it starts off premises that are irrational (balance and symmetry of the planets, aesthetics in their placements, the fact that they affect human life from a distance, etc.) hence its irrationality and designation as a pseudoscience. It is up entirely to us to decide to believe in it or not.

Astrology is absolutely, not in the least related to theoretical physics. If by theoretical physics you mean quantum mechanics then it still doesn't have anything to do either. Quantum mechanics is proven because there have been experiments that have validated its premises 100% of the time, not because they were conceived by scientists randomly and suddenly were proven much to the surprise of everyone. No.

You're in your right to believe sidereal works as well as tropical does, but understand how irrational it sounds. Instead of focusing in your specific natal chart Whoam1, why don't you think about almost everyone else who identifies with their tropical charts? I invite you once again to share with us your natal chart so we can see what you might have not noticed in the chart. Sidereal seems like a poor excuse to everyone who didn't identify initially with tropical. Can't you see how cynical the system is? People can identify with tropical, but if they don't then we magically make up a new zodiac system that ensures everyone identifies with their charts.

I don't really care if Modern Science ever develops enough to be able to explain, in its own terminology and according to its own "Laws of Nature", how and why Astrologically determined synchronicity exists. But if it does, it will be done by the theoretical physicists, most likely through advancements in their understanding of Quantum-mechanics.

Starry595 01-05-2018 04:19 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
I'm a bit late to the party, but I have my 2 cents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obsidianmineral (Post 851416)
Well, the fact is that most people use the tropical zodiac for a reason. If you're gonna be so hard on choosing the exact constellation that's rising in your birth, then use Ophiucus as your rising sign, because it's the actual constellation. The zodiac we use is there for a reason, it's based on symbolism and seasons, like most of the techniques used in astrology.

That makes no sense. If the stars are irrelevant, why even call it astrology? Saying, "it's all about the seasons" seems like a cop out. You hear astrologers refer to your "star sign" and tell "what the stars hold for you", but if you bring up procession they retreat to all this talk about seasons.

Originally, astrology took large account of the fixed stars (even a "tropical" astrologer such as Ptolemy did), but for some reason they ignore the stars these days. Astrology was sidereal from Egypt to at least 300 AD. The oldest surviving horoscope is dated July 16, 2767 BC, where the Sun is cast in Leo.

Heliacal Phenomina

Page 10-11 of Primer

Chaldean Forum

Quote:

There's really no point in trying to be more exact or real in using the actual position of the constellations when pretty much all of astrology is based upon the symbolism and symmetry of things. I don't know if you did know this, but the aspects, rulerships, triplicities, symbols for the planets, order, elements, etc. are all based on symbolical meaning, not exact facts.
All maths and sciences are, more or less, based on symbolism and symmetry (trying to communicate abstract concepts and finding patters in the universe by creating natural laws). Yet scientists, such as astronomers, still take empirical reality for what it is. Astrologers should return to doing the same.

I personally am fine with a pure 12 constellation zodiac (with Ophiuchus/Scorpio simply treated as Scorpio). Either way, uneven constellations do not negate attempts to pin down a sidereal ayanamsha. Sidereal astrologers are not united in where to being the sidereal zodiac, but that doesn't make their ideas invalid.

Personally, I find the 12 uneven constellations the most valid form of astrology. You can bleat how the Moon is in Virgo right now all you want, but once night falls and you look up at the sky you will see the Moon in Leo, and nothing can change that reality.

Quote:

For example, trines are said to be harmonious because they represent the triangle, a figure that's regarded as spiritual and harmonious. And, going even beyond the basic structure of astrology, there's a lot of empirical research being done on astrology and most of it is done using the tropical zodiac. In personal experience I've seen vedic to fail a lot more times than tropical. I've asked many people about their charts in vedic and they just don't see it. If you use vedic as a result of opinion then you're free to do it, but it's a couple of testimonies against the much more vast and common use of the tropical zodiac.
Plenty of research was done in sidereal astrology, primarily by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley in the past and Jim Eshelman today. I don't know how much is "a lot" regarding scientists researching tropical astrology (source plz?). If they focus only on tropical zodiac, it's probably because they don't even know sidereal astrology exists.

As for your testimonies, yours is as good as mine. The tropical zodiac never made much sense to me as I observed people around me; and I always found it severely lacking in any true understanding of human nature. Western sidereal astrology makes way more sense.

I think people have issues with sidereal astrology for three main reasons. 1. Tropical astrology is all they have ever known, and they want to be comfortable. 2. Some base their entire sense of self on their supposed zodiac sign, so they have an existential crises when exposed to new information. 3. The ancients described the characters of the zodiac signs somewhat differently than we moderns do. Hack astrologers also do a fair amount of gross stereotyping, but this issue is a whole different kettle of fish.

Quote:

There are also people who like to use the argument of "Vedic and Tropical are both correct because astrology is so mysterious and magical that in both systems, natal charts describe the same person" - Yeah, that's probably the weakest argument you can come up with. If you firmly believe this is the case then you firmly believe astrology is false.
Do you have any idea how many people justify any form of astrology with the exact same argument? There is a form of astrology where the tropical zodiac and the fixed stars are both taken into account. The website is called Dark Side Astrology. Take it for what it's worth.

Quote:

If things do "match up" even after changing the signs it's because your mind is telling you so, trying to find connections and patterns, a job at which our minds are really good at.It's like denying confirmation bias .
Your typical scientist will say you're doing exactly the same thing.

Whoam1 01-06-2018 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 852729)
I'm a bit late to the party, but I have my 2 cents.



That makes no sense. If the stars are irrelevant, why even call it astrology? Saying, "it's all about the seasons" seems like a cop out. You hear astrologers refer to your "star sign" and tell "what the stars hold for you", but if you bring up procession they retreat to all this talk about seasons.

Originally, astrology took large account of the fixed stars (even a "tropical" astrologer such as Ptolemy did), but for some reason they ignore the stars these days. Astrology was sidereal from Egypt to at least 300 AD. The oldest surviving horoscope is dated July 16, 2767 BC, where the Sun is cast in Leo.

Heliacal Phenomina

Page 10-11 of Primer

Chaldean Forum



All maths and sciences are, more or less, based on symbolism and symmetry (trying to communicate abstract concepts and finding patters in the universe by creating natural laws). Yet scientists, such as astronomers, still take empirical reality for what it is. Astrologers should return to doing the same.

I personally am fine with a pure 12 constellation zodiac (with Ophiuchus/Scorpio simply treated as Scorpio). Either way, uneven constellations do not negate attempts to pin down a sidereal ayanamsha. Sidereal astrologers are not united in where to being the sidereal zodiac, but that doesn't make their ideas invalid.

Personally, I find the 12 uneven constellations the most valid form of astrology. You can bleat how the Moon is in Virgo right now all you want, but once night falls and you look up at the sky you will see the Moon in Leo, and nothing can change that reality.



Plenty of research was done in sidereal astrology, primarily by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley in the past and Jim Eshelman today. I don't know how much is "a lot" regarding scientists researching tropical astrology (source plz?). If they focus only on tropical zodiac, it's probably because they don't even know sidereal astrology exists.

As for your testimonies, yours is as good as mine. The tropical zodiac never made much sense to me as I observed people around me; and I always found it severely lacking in any true understanding of human nature. Western sidereal astrology makes way more sense.

I think people have issues with sidereal astrology for three main reasons. 1. Tropical astrology is all they have ever known, and they want to be comfortable. 2. Some base their entire sense of self on their supposed zodiac sign, so they have an existential crises when exposed to new information. 3. The ancients described the characters of the zodiac signs somewhat differently than we moderns do. Hack astrologers also do a fair amount of gross stereotyping, but this issue is a whole different kettle of fish.



Do you have any idea how many people justify any form of astrology with the exact same argument? There is a form of astrology where the tropical zodiac and the fixed stars are both taken into account. The website is called Dark Side Astrology. Take it for what it's worth.



Your typical scientist will say you're doing exactly the same thing.

Thank you for the support and my tropical sign does make sense but i to find my spiritual birth time. At this time Pluto is conjunct asc. In sag, on the first house. This puts my sun and moon in the 12th and 8th houses, and the sun/moon midpoint at 7 degrees Scorpio. This mid point acts as my sun and moon as they can express themselves a lone in there signs. However some people only like me using physical birth time, in which case i say to go pound sand.

aquarius7000 01-06-2018 04:23 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Hi,

A couple of things are many a contradiction in terms here:
You post on the 'Modern Astrology' section of this site,
but talk about your sidereal chart (traditional)?:w00t:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 851449)
I did my sidereal chart that Is the sag sun and asc. Birthday 12/27/1999.

Then you become very modern using Pluto and negating the Sun and the Asc. completely?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 851320)
And sorry to do this. I don't frimly believe in sun sign or ascendent signs. I think these are rather shallow celestial bodies. The sun covers the ego, the rising covers the apperance. The moon is what these to hide and protect. Also I believe more firmly in a dominant sign, this is the sign that has the highest percentage in your chart. It covers you in general not just your ego. And the connections at the end that I have listed Pluto square moon and moon in the eight house, will give me emotional traits similar and often more intense that a Scorpio moon. By these standards in the chart I choose to use, I am a Scorpio dominant with a (double) hades moon.

But with the birth date you gave, you are, per Western tropical standards, a Capricorn Sun. And, if you want to consider the tradtional sidereal Vedic system, your Sun will be in Sag. and you need to consider the Moon, not Pluto connections. And, if you want to study your sidereal chart, you would do better on the Vedic section of this site.

It is interesting to be adventurous and experimental, but with some system and solid reasoning, please. That will be helpful.

david starling 01-06-2018 04:31 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 852729)
I'm a bit late to the party, but I have my 2 cents.



That makes no sense. If the stars are irrelevant, why even call it astrology? Saying, "it's all about the seasons" seems like a cop out. You hear astrologers refer to your "star sign" and tell "what the stars hold for you", but if you bring up procession they retreat to all this talk about seasons.

Originally, astrology took large account of the fixed stars (even a "tropical" astrologer such as Ptolemy did), but for some reason they ignore the stars these days. Astrology was sidereal from Egypt to at least 300 AD. The oldest surviving horoscope is dated July 16, 2767 BC, where the Sun is cast in Leo.

Heliacal Phenomina

Page 10-11 of Primer

Chaldean Forum



All maths and sciences are, more or less, based on symbolism and symmetry (trying to communicate abstract concepts and finding patters in the universe by creating natural laws). Yet scientists, such as astronomers, still take empirical reality for what it is. Astrologers should return to doing the same.

I personally am fine with a pure 12 constellation zodiac (with Ophiuchus/Scorpio simply treated as Scorpio). Either way, uneven constellations do not negate attempts to pin down a sidereal ayanamsha. Sidereal astrologers are not united in where to being the sidereal zodiac, but that doesn't make their ideas invalid.

Personally, I find the 12 uneven constellations the most valid form of astrology. You can bleat how the Moon is in Virgo right now all you want, but once night falls and you look up at the sky you will see the Moon in Leo, and nothing can change that reality.



Plenty of research was done in sidereal astrology, primarily by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley in the past and Jim Eshelman today. I don't know how much is "a lot" regarding scientists researching tropical astrology (source plz?). If they focus only on tropical zodiac, it's probably because they don't even know sidereal astrology exists.

As for your testimonies, yours is as good as mine. The tropical zodiac never made much sense to me as I observed people around me; and I always found it severely lacking in any true understanding of human nature. Western sidereal astrology makes way more sense.





Your typical scientist will say you're doing exactly the same thing.

Why do the Constellations cause effects on human thought, actions, emotion, and fate, according to your scientific point of view?

Whoam1 01-06-2018 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquarius7000 (Post 852981)
Hi,

A couple of things are many a contradiction in terms here:
You post on the 'Modern Astrology' section of this site,
but talk about your sidereal chart (traditional)?:w00t:
Then you become very modern using Pluto and negating the Sun and the Asc. completely?

But with the birth date you gave, you are, per Western tropical standards, a Capricorn Sun. And, if you want to consider the tradtional sidereal Vedic system, your Sun will be in Sag. and you need to consider the Moon, not Pluto connections. And, if you want to study your sidereal chart, you would do better on the Vedic section of this site.

It is interesting to be adventurous and experimental, but with some system and solid reasoning, please. That will be helpful.

Ok so I figured out my tropical chart, it just took a birth time and house system correction, like I said in a previous post my sun and moon are in repressed houses, there mid point however isn't, and is the strongest point in my chart, that mid point is in Scorpio. That's y I act like a Scorpio, my ascendent is set on Pluto in Sagittarius in this redrawn tropical chart. This gives me a Scorpio rising feel with the Sagittarius traits I display. Saggitarus would follow scorpio in chart dominance as it contains a minor stellium and the asc. Keep in mind that in the chart i sent the mid point does not show up, but is on 7 degrees in scorpio.

Solar Flare 01-06-2018 05:19 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 852729)
I think people have issues with sidereal astrology for three main reasons. 1. Tropical astrology is all they have ever known, and they want to be comfortable. 2. Some base their entire sense of self on their supposed zodiac sign, so they have an existential crises when exposed to new information. 3. The ancients described the characters of the zodiac signs somewhat differently than we moderns do. Hack astrologers also do a fair amount of gross stereotyping, but this issue is a whole different kettle of fish.

I think there are two main reasons why people have issues with sidereal astrology and they are different from what you've described. 1. People have tried and tested both tropical and sidereal zodiacs and came to the conclusion that the tropical zodiac works a lot better. 2. The rationale behind tropical astrology makes to those people more sense than the one behind sidereal astrology. These are the reasons why I personally and many other astrologers I've engaged with continue to use tropical. As for your points, I think the 1st and 2nd points don't apply to the majority of astrologers in the West because most of them are introduced to the sidereal zodiac at early stages and always have a possibility to switch. There are a lot of sources in English available for the sidereal astrologers now so it's not a problem if someone wants to gather more information about sidereal astrology. From what I know, many astrologers in India are never properly exposed to tropical astrology though and I've observed that the cultural bias among Indian astrologers is usually much stronger than among Western astrologers. If those two things weren't the case, I'm sure that there would be a lot less sidereal astrologers today. As for your 3rd point, it's more interesting and perhaps true to an extent, but I don't think it could be the primary reason of sticking with tropical.

aquarius7000 01-06-2018 07:12 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by obsidianmineral (Post 851908)
With all due respect, all these arguments are horrible. You can't simply deduce the validity of a pseudo-science based on analogies. How does evolution and religion have anything to do with how astrology works? With all due respect once again, all religions describe a single god but in different manners and that is correct, but religions are not based on empirical and logical convictions. I do believe in God myself, however I know that it is irrational and I don't care if it is. I just feel that he is there. However, when astrology is supposed to be provable and based on observation and statistics, you can't just throw out there that it works just because it does.

Astrology is meant to work because it follows a lot of guidelines and rules that it diligently follows. It's a pseudoscience because it starts off premises that are irrational (balance and symmetry of the planets, aesthetics in their placements, the fact that they affect human life from a distance, etc.) hence its irrationality and designation as a pseudoscience. It is up entirely to us to decide to believe in it or not....

Obsidianmineral, I request to please read the text in quotes. Perhaps you might be able to see how contradictory your thoughts are. Perhaps it is just some confusion and I am not trying to offend you here. However, to say that Astrology is not related to religion is literally like saying Maths is not related to numbers. And then you go on to say that Astrology is a pseudoscience, but that it is provable and based on statistics? "It is up entirely to us to decide to believe" in anything or not, not just Astrology. You might want to pick up a good book on how the Greek and/or the Indians started out with Astrology, which should clarify Astrology's very deep connection to religion.

Statistics today can be collected on anything, but that does not necessarily make anything a science.

aquarius7000 01-06-2018 07:13 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 852984)
Ok so I figured out my tropical chart, it just took a birth time and house system correction, like I said in a previous post my sun and moon are in repressed houses, there mid point however isn't, and is the strongest point in my chart, that mid point is in Scorpio. That's y I act like a Scorpio, my ascendent is set on Pluto in Sagittarius in this redrawn tropical chart. This gives me a Scorpio rising feel with the Sagittarius traits I display. Saggitarus would follow scorpio in chart dominance as it contains a minor stellium and the asc. Keep in mind that in the chart i sent the mid point does not show up, but is on 7 degrees in scorpio.

Try to pull a Western Placidus chart and have a specific question ready, and I can look at it.

Whoam1 01-06-2018 07:22 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
I use western azmuith. I can upload the chart.

david starling 01-06-2018 07:27 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by aquarius7000 (Post 853016)
Obsidianmineral, I request to please read the text in quotes. Perhaps you might be able to see how contradictory your thoughts are. Perhaps it is just some confusion and I am not trying to offend you here. However, to say that Astrology is not related to religion is literally like saying Maths is not related to numbers. And then you go on to say that Astrology is a pseudoscience, but that it is provable and based on statistics? "It is up entirely to us to decide to believe" in anything or not, not just Astrology. You might want to pick up a good book on how the Greek and/or the Indians started out with Astrology, which should clarify Astrology's very deep connection to religion.

Statistics today can be collected on anything, but that does not necessarily make anything a science.

The connection of Western Astrology to religion is obvious: Those gods and goddesses were real beings to most of the Ancient Greeks. Vedic is still strongly connected to religion.

Whoam1 01-06-2018 07:28 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
The crooked claw of Scorpio, is were my sun and moon midpoint lies, because of repressed sun and moon is it possible to feel the energy of this point more than the sun and the moon alone.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.