The clockwork of Astrology

david starling

Well-known member
No, but are you doubting that process of birth is also controlled by the planets? :unsure:

Btw, it's interesting thing to note that according to Gauquelin, that is the case. I've always wondered if he wasn't basing it on the relationship between the two. I would respectfully disagree though for a few reasons.

The MFR configuration we delineate for a moment in time isn't controlled by the planets themselves.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Visible celestial bodies describe a moment in spacetime.
Space-time interacts with celestial bodies, but they do not create it!
clearly a misunderstanding of my comment :smile:


i.e.
without visible celestial bodies
nothing to see
I think that JA might have been confused
probably :smile:
with how the planets gave rise to our definition of
the year (one revolution of Sun)
month (one revolution of the Moon),
week (the seven planets)
and day (one revolution of the caelum).
The circadian rhythm, for example, is approximately aligned with the day.
 

david starling

Well-known member
The Earth's magnetic field is included in the totality of the Magnetic Field Resonance. That's why the Earth's astrological Ages have to be factored in.
 

david starling

Well-known member
An astrological chart is literally a "field guide" to past, present, and future effects of magnetic resonance on our own, biologically generated magnetic fields.
 

petosiris

Banned
Interesting. Has this theory helped you come up with astrological results? Because Aristotelian universals (the qualities you called a washer/dryer) have helped me better understand the planets and the zodiac more than any astrology book.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Did you try to dodge my question? :whistling:

Astrology could never have been conceived of in our own Age. We have to rely on the intuition, visionary abilities, and reasoning of past Ages to form the foundation of we're able to see now, using what's been given. Even something as simple as the division of the zodiac into 12 equal parts is part of our astrological inheritance. But when it was being developed, there wasn't unanimous agreement on "what it all meant".
I'm focused primarily on the patterns formed by the sequence of Modalities and Elements. Is Aristotle the originator of those? Ptolemy is said to have interpreted them, but that their origin predates him.
 

petosiris

Banned
Astrology could never have been conceived of in our own Age. We have to rely on the intuition, visionary abilities, and reasoning of past Ages to form the foundation of we're able to see now, using what's been given. Even something as simple as the division of the zodiac into 12 equal parts is part of our astrological inheritance. But when it was being developed, there wasn't unanimous agreement on "what it all meant".
I'm focused primarily on the patterns formed by the sequence of Modalities and Elements. Is Aristotle the originator of those? Ptolemy is said to have interpreted them, but that their origin predates him.

Humorism and atomism predates Aristotle and it might predate Greek philosophy too. Most ancient physicians and some astrologers (like Ptolemy and Antiochus) would assign the elements to the four seasons (each encompassing three signs) successively in the way I describe in this thread - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125505

Ultimately, the seasons do approximate these qualities (by which I personally mean atmospheric conditions, and not the ancient belief that these qualities make up matter) in some way or another for places other than inbetween the tropics, barring sublunar particulars like the particular climate, elevation, location etc. I recommend checking my new thread on the traditional board - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126640

What you call modalities is actually ''qualities'' in Ptolemy, by which he refers to how the element of the season (air, fire, earth or water) manifests in quantity. The quantity of the two qualities that make up the elements change every month, for example, Aries brings spring by equalizing the day and the night, Taurus makes it solid by making the moistening and moderately heating most firm, and Gemini is dual since although the moistening element is still predominant, it is lesser in quantity and moving towards dryness (while heat also increasing towards fire).

The ecliptic is divided into twelve equal parts because the astronomical seasons are exactly four, and they are best divided by three in the aforesaid manner. The only further subdivision that can be naturally defended is the system of terms in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Flapjacks

Well-known member
This Moment is defined and described by the cosmic elements we have chosen to use as our astrological tools -- planets, signs, aspects and such.

Just what is it that is described by this horoscope? It is not a person, or a question about a missing cat. Our only input was Time and Place (Spacetime), so that the only thing the arrangement of the heavens can directly describe is the Moment itself and nothing more.

clearly a misunderstanding of my comment :smile:


i.e.
without visible celestial bodies
nothing to see

There is nothing contrary between greybeard's statements and your comment, then. I don't believe he was arguing that a horoscope can be cast without celestial bodies... unless I misunderstood him, too. :alien:
 

petosiris

Banned
Time is one of the more unreliable ways to set up the Ascendant. Ptolemy noted the inaccuracy of solar gnomons and water clocks of the more careful practitioners of his time, think about how clocks in hospitals can also just be off by a few minutes even with near immediate record (I am not saying they are as unreliable, though they can have the same flaws to some degree). Ptolemy recommended an astrolabe which can be set up to show Ascendant degree (emphasizing direct observation by astronomy than chronometry) and also a rectification method (emphasizing astrology rather than relying solely on the "4th hour of the day on the second day of Thoth" which many surviving horoscopes have).
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Waybread, I get the feeling you are trying to play some double game here, because I believe most people here would think of synchronicity as an objective type, rather than cold reading (which ''often'' is synchronous).

Not at all.

I'm merely saying that simply because A and B occur at the same time, you cannot say that A causes B (or B causes A) without supplementary evidence. Which you don't have. Currently there are no robust theories as to why astrology should work-- assuming that it does.

Citing hot, cold, moist, and dry qualities does not explain how the planets should manage to produce these qualities--on earth, millions of miles away.

Gravity and electromagnetism are invalid explanations. Even if gravity actually had meaning (which it doesn't) there is nothing in a gravitational pull capable of producing the 4 humors.

The idea of a planet exerting some influence on human behavior breaks down when you consider horary, which goes by the moment of the question.
 

david starling

Well-known member
"Resonance" is the wrong word for the all-surrounding medium we live in. The correct word is "Matrix". So, restating: It's the MFM, Magnetic Field Matrix of the Solar-system, interacting with our own, personal biomagnetic fields, that astrology is all about.
 
Top