List of Erroneous, Illogical and Fictitious Systems in Astrology

petosiris

Banned
In the latter capacity in 1983, Curry and four other UK astrologer/academics privately published a series of theoretical papers utilizing phenomenology, structuralism, linguistics, psychoanalysis, Marxist thought, modern physics and feminist critical theory to explore astrological theory and practice. Curry’s own paper, An Aporia for Astrology, deserves a larger audience, since it is one of the first serious attempts to devise a taxonomic classification of modern astrological thought. Adopting a strategy analogous to Michel Foucault’s “epistemes”, Curry located divinatory astrology within the camp of Hermeneutic Astrology, which he characterized as being “a way of preserving and developing a ‘magical’ attitude, at a time and in a society that is hostile to such an attitude. Such an attitude is identified with the kind of mystical experience described in mystical and religious literature, and in Heidegger’s philosophy.” - http://www.astrozero.co.uk/articles/DefiningtheMoment.pdf

I think I almost got a heart attack, though it is interesting to read about the Cornelius camp. In any case, the causal conceptualization of astrology is most definitely not Ptolemaic, with abundance of evidence of it in Dorotheus, Manetho or Pliny the Elder. The list I can go through is much, although for a summary of this topic, I recommend page 146 of Chris Brennan's book.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Easy for you to say, you are Jewish astrologer too! It can't be easy being both an atheist and an astrologer.

But I wonder, waybread, do you even believe there is even one astrological technique that is real/physical/scientific?

I was raised in a non-sectarian nominally Protestant home by parents who called themselves "free thinkers." I converted to Judaism in 1974, because it mattered to my Jewish ex-husband. I was involved in Judaism for 20 years, but let go of it when we separated and divorced. I have never renounced Judaism but have been non-practicing for a long time. I am not an atheist but I do not believe in the anthropomorphism of deities in most of the world's religion.

It is difficult to make a case for an objectively real/physical/scientific basis for astrology. For sure, we deal with empirical stuff: an ephemeris, Arabic part calculations, aspects, and so on. But what is this based on? The Mesopotamians believed that the planets were gods, or omens from the gods. Sure, they wrote down all kinds of planetary observations; but fundamentally Nergal (Mars) brought warfare and drought-- not as a prediction based upon those observations-- but because this was the god Nergal's nature. The personalities of the Mesopotamian gods preceded astrology.

This is what the Hellenists adopted, along with Egyptian solar deity beliefs.

Our fave Ptolemy had as his main project getting astrology on a "rational" Aristotelian proto-scientific basis. Valens had as his main project anthologizing a lot of disparate astrological materials in a way that could help the fledgling astrologer read actual horoscopes for actual people. But their efforts followed centuries of star-gazing as an essentially religious endeavor. So whatever else these two did, they had to incorporate much of this religiously-inspired Deposit of Faith.

If today we interpret the planet Mercury as ruling liars and thieves, it is because this was the nature of the young god, mythological Mercury. If the planet Venus rules sexual love, it is because this was her nature as a goddess. The religious mythology predated the introduction of astrology into ancient Greece.

Anciently some astrologers prayed to a god (notably Mercury) to help them with their chart reading. Lilly similarly prayed to the Christian God.

Are you familiar with Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology? He discussed the problem of the wrong chart nevertheless yielding a correct answer. He sees astrology as a form of divination.

What about Under One Sky, by Rafael Nasser? He asked 12 astrologers coming from different schools of astrology to read the same "blind" chart. The chart native, an American woman, contributed an autobiographical article, which none of the astrologers read ahead of time. Schmidt, the Hellenist, sort of scrubbed out by not actually reading the chart. The most accurate readings were by Demetra George-- using asteroids!!--and the Vedic astrologer.

A horoscope interpretation takes place in the subjective mind of the astrologer. We follow rules, but these are often not the same ones between astrologers of different schools.

If your preferred traditional methods worked so well, why on earth would a sensible astrologer who came later wish to change or improve upon them?
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I don't have the authority to delete your posts.
That's up to you or the mods.
thanks for the clarification :smile:

I was raised in a non-sectarian nominally Protestant home by parents who called themselves "free thinkers." I converted to Judaism in 1974, because it mattered to my Jewish ex-husband. I was involved in Judaism for 20 years, but let go of it when we separated and divorced. I have never renounced Judaism but have been non-practicing for a long time. I am not an atheist but I do not believe in the anthropomorphism of deities in most of the world's religion.

It is difficult to make a case for an objectively real/physical/scientific basis for astrology. For sure, we deal with empirical stuff: an ephemeris, Arabic part calculations, aspects, and so on. But what is this based on? The Mesopotamians believed that the planets were gods, or omens from the gods. Sure, they wrote down all kinds of planetary observations; but fundamentally Nergal (Mars) brought warfare and drought-- not as a prediction based upon those observations-- but because this was the god Nergal's nature. The personalities of the Mesopotamian gods preceded astrology.

This is what the Hellenists adopted, along with Egyptian solar deity beliefs.

Our fave Ptolemy had as his main project getting astrology on a "rational" Aristotelian proto-scientific basis. Valens had as his main project anthologizing a lot of disparate astrological materials in a way that could help the fledgling astrologer read actual horoscopes for actual people. But their efforts followed centuries of star-gazing as an essentially religious endeavor. So whatever else these two did, they had to incorporate much of this religiously-inspired Deposit of Faith.

If today we interpret the planet Mercury as ruling liars and thieves, it is because this was the nature of the young god, mythological Mercury. If the planet Venus rules sexual love, it is because this was her nature as a goddess. The religious mythology predated the introduction of astrology into ancient Greece.

Anciently some astrologers prayed to a god (notably Mercury) to help them with their chart reading. Lilly similarly prayed to the Christian God.

Are you familiar with Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology? He discussed the problem of the wrong chart nevertheless yielding a correct answer. He sees astrology as a form of divination.

What about Under One Sky, by Rafael Nasser? He asked 12 astrologers coming from different schools of astrology to read the same "blind" chart. The chart native, an American woman, contributed an autobiographical article, which none of the astrologers read ahead of time. Schmidt, the Hellenist, sort of scrubbed out by not actually reading the chart. The most accurate readings were by Demetra George-- using asteroids!!--and the Vedic astrologer.

A horoscope interpretation takes place in the subjective mind of the astrologer. We follow rules, but these are often not the same ones between astrologers of different schools.

If your preferred traditional methods worked so well, why on earth would a sensible astrologer who came later wish to change or improve upon them?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Lets see:

Your current claim (or Morin's) about astrology is to look at it from a rational scientific perspective, while employing an atheistic view of the unvirse and look at the physical influence of the planets in our biological human affairs. But then you (or Morin) call horary "sorcery", which by definition mean its a technique used by employing the invocation of some mystic divine being to forsee the future, and thus presenting a case for the supernatural?

Doesn't make much sense. Unless of course you are using the word "sorcery" just as a simple construction to demean the technique, by implying horary does not work. Which is it?
 

petosiris

Banned
Lets see:

Your current claim (or Morin's) about astrology is to look at it from a rational scientific perspective, while employing an atheistic view of the unvirse and look at the physical influence of the planets in our biological human affairs. But then you (or Morin) call horary "sorcery", which by definition mean its a technique used by employing the invocation of some mystic divine being to forsee the future, and thus presenting a case for the supernatural?

Doesn't make much sense. Unless of course you are using the word "sorcery" just as a simple construction to demean the technique, by implying horary does not work. Which is it?

Where did I say it does not work? No, I did not, I am just saying there has never been founded argument for its mechanism, just as there is no one for reading liver entrails or augury. To many astrologers, it didn't seem right to classify astrology with these fields of ''divination''.
 

petosiris

Banned
Here is the opinion of one religious thinker and notable astrologer, Al-Biruni of horary:

''Here astrology reaches a point which threatens to transgress its proper limits, where problems are submitted which it is impossible to solve for the most part, and where the matter leaves the solid basis of universals for particulars. Where this boundary is passed, where the astrologer is one side and the sorcerer on the other, you enter a field of omens and divinations which has nothing to do with astrology, although the stars may be referred to in connection to them.'' - Lewis, J. R. (2003). The astrology book: the encyclopedia of heavenly influences. Visible Ink Press.
 

petosiris

Banned
As far as I can tell, Morinus constantly refers to the Bible and occultism in his work. However, as far as I can tell Ptolemy does not make a single argument involving such, and to the extent that his hypothesis are natural and capable of investigation, they deserve our attention. And though the four qualities do not constitute the material basis of the world as he thought, they do still persist in the atmosphere to heavily affect human affairs. Of course, it could be proven that they are wrong, for if you compare the two other scientific fields of Ptolemy, astronomy and geography, they had progress and advancement that is myriad-fold, but astrology, mostly zero.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Where did I say it does not work? No, I did not, I am just saying there has never been founded argument for its mechanism, just as there is no one for reading liver entrails or augury. To many astrologers, it didn't seem right to classify astrology with these fields of ''divination''.

Just trying to get a picture of the intention behind your post, which was in part to bring foward the discussion about Morin's ideas (which to be honest is about time we have it), so just trying to see how much of what you wrote was playing devil's advocate.

Well the argument has always been that questions are created at a certain time for a specific purpose and thus a chart can be drawn for them. In the similar manner that elective is used to create a specific event. Aren't those functionally similar?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Here is the opinion of one religious thinker and notable astrologer, Al-Biruni of horary:

''Here astrology reaches a point which threatens to transgress its proper limits, where problems are submitted which it is impossible to solve for the most part, and where the matter leaves the solid basis of universals for particulars. Where this boundary is passed, where the astrologer is one side and the sorcerer on the other, you enter a field of omens and divinations which has nothing to do with astrology, although the stars may be referred to in connection to them.'' - Lewis, J. R. (2003). The astrology book: the encyclopedia of heavenly influences. Visible Ink Press.

But Al-biruni is limited by the religious element of his time. It is not uncommon given divination was banned in the religion/empire of his time, and while astrology was permitted as the study of the influence of the planets, most techniques concerned with astrology were not about divination.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
As far as I can tell, Morinus constantly refers to the Bible and occultism in his work. However, as far as I can tell Ptolemy does not make a single argument involving such, and to the extent that his hypothesis are natural and capable of investigation, they deserve our attention. And though the four qualities do not constitute the material basis of the world as he thought, they do still persist in the atmosphere to heavily affect human affairs. Of course, it could be proven that they are wrong, for if you compare the two other scientific fields of Ptolemy, astronomy and geography, they had progress and advancement that is myriad-fold, but astrology, mostly zero.


I agree with this.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Just trying to get a picture of the intention behind your post, which was in part

to bring foward the discussion about Morin's ideas
(which to be honest is about time we have it),

so just trying to see how much of what you wrote was playing devil's advocate.
All things which occur in this world are brought about by higher causes :smile:
that is the caelum and the stars - MORIN
as Aristotle himself implied when he said:

"This lower world is contiguous with the higher egions which govern all its activities"
and elsewhere
"The sun and man beget man"
ASTROLOGIA GALLICA Book 21 translated from the Latin by Richard S. Baldwin
 

petosiris

Banned
Just trying to get a picture of the intention behind your post, which was in part to bring foward the discussion about Morin's ideas (which to be honest is about time we have it), so just trying to see how much of what you wrote was playing devil's advocate.

Well the argument has always been that questions are created at a certain time for a specific purpose and thus a chart can be drawn for them. In the similar manner that elective is used to create a specific event. Aren't those functionally similar?

I am not very familiar with Morin's work, but didn't he explicitly rejected horary astrology, but not elections for the reason you mention? Of course, one could accept that a question is an event and that an event has its origin, but the assumption that the universe ''magically'' or just ''so happens'' to agree with absolutely every event and question its ludicrous to anyone who has not been indoctrinated in belief. Furthermore, I question the assumption that universe just so happens to be able to answer ''how long will I live'' by a question, no matter much it occupies the mind of the individual.

Because the question ''how long will I live'' is precisely the subject matter of genethlialogical astrology, and partly, universal, for sometimes people perish as groups. And of course, it has to be investigated through the origin of the individual or through the many origins of the universals rather than the question. It seems unlikely that the latter is able to ''just so'' agree with the preceding.

Edit: But if we take a much simpler question that can't be answered by nativities like the length of life, but rather ''where are my keys'', in this case one may wonder how much the universe is able to determine such very particular sublunar phenomenon which clearly leaves the aforementioned ''solid base of universals'', by I which I think Al-Biruni meant the four qualities.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
But Al-biruni is limited by the religious element of his time. It is not uncommon given divination was banned in the religion/empire of his time, and while astrology was permitted as the study of the influence of the planets, most techniques concerned with astrology were not about divination.

Well that would mean they adopted a materialist/mechanistic viewpoint partly because of their religion, would you not agree? It probably survived because of this (I recall this argument elsewhere, Nicholas Campion?). Then I don't understand what is the problem with my worldview at all, in fact it's more in line with theirs than yours.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
I am not very familiar with Morin's work, but didn't he explicitly rejected horary astrology, but not elections for the reason you mention? Of course, one could accept that a question is an event and that an event has its origin, but the assumption that the universe ''magically'' or just ''so happens'' to agree with absolutely every event and question its ludicrous to anyone who has not been indoctrinated in belief. Furthermore, I question the assumption that universe just so happens to be able to answer ''how long will I live'' by a question, no matter much it occupies the mind of the individual.

Because the question ''how long will I live'' is precisely the subject matter of genethlialogical astrology, and partly, universal, for sometimes people perish as groups. And of course, it has to be investigated through the origin of the individual or through the many origins of the universals rather than the question. It seems unlikely that the latter is able to ''just so'' agree with the preceding.

I never really got around the last chapters of astrologia gallica, could never find them online. But presumably Morin did reject many of the theorems of the persian astrologers, considering them blasphemous and attributes Horary as their own invention, along with "arabic" parts.

Certainly Horary comes to europe through the medieval persians, but since the discovery of catalogus codicum astrologorum graecorum, along with the 5th book of Dorotheus, there is evidence that Horary was practiced in a rudementary form in Helenic times.

Actually the question "how long will I live" seems farfetched to me, because Horary will never net an answer such as "88 years, 11 months 12 days.." etc., but rather tell you a "soon" (by implication of a perfecting aspect with 8th ruler or conjunction with Sun) or "not for now" (by lack of configuration) - in which case the question is asked from a reference point when living through a situation where death may be close. For the real timing natal astorlogy has always been prefered, which can actually tell you the totality of your life span. The problem with Horary today is the astrologers making claims about exact timing of events.

Elective astrology does work on a similar basis to Horary if we think about it, because it creates a suitable time to perform an event, but does not mean that all events performed at that time will be gracious for anyone (which also as we know, means "event" astrology does not exist). What would be the different configuration between doing something on one day or the next, when planetary motion may not even change signs (not even the moon), and the only practical change would be a different planetary hour? If we think about the irrationality of Horary, we also have to assume the irrationality of Elective.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Well that would mean they adopted a materialist/mechanistic viewpoint partly because of their religion, would you not agree? It probably survived because of this (I recall this argument elsewhere, Nicholas Campion?). Then I don't understand what is the problem with my worldview at all, in fact it's more in line with theirs than yours.


Its not that I find a problem with it, I do agree on the subject that the movements of the stars can influence human affairs, and that we could and should find a natural explanation to them.
 

petosiris

Banned
Horary did not exist in Hellenistic times, however, event astrology was applied to elections and questions like ''where is the missing ship'', they could be called initiations, or inceptions (Dykes), or initiatives (Riley). However, questions like the missing ship in ''Palchus'' can be viewed as events for which there is no other way to answer than by question, and this is easily recognized when you read Dorotheus Book V, Hephaistio Book III or other Hellenistic material that I am intimately aware of. Also this event astrology did not involve its own technicality, as does the Arabic one. Eventually Arabic material was translated by the Byzantines as its own field, called ''questions''.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Elective astrology does work on a similar basis to Horary if we think about it, because it creates a suitable time to perform an event, but does not mean that all events performed at that time will be gracious for anyone (which also as we know, means "event" astrology does not exist). What would be the different configuration between doing something on one day or the next, when planetary motion may not even change signs (not even the moon), and the only practical change would be a different planetary hour? If we think about the irrationality of Horary, we also have to assume the irrationality of Elective.

Well, I do not dispute that you can't elect more favourable times for undertaking, because this thing is self-evident and everyone even non-astrologers ''elect'', I am just skeptical we should do this by minutely observing lucky minutes/ascendants of the day. Furthermore the nativity of the individual and the limited volition of the individual takes precedence to this, I think, unless of course we again adopt a ''just-so'' model of the universe for everything. I believe this is why the philosopher, in contrast with the opinion of his contemporaries like Valens and Firmicus, rejects the notion of full determinism, and never once mentions this branch, while explicitly focusing on the ''two great parts''.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Well the argument has always been
that questions are created at a certain time for a specific purpose
and thus a chart can be drawn for them.
to be clear :smile:

Horary questions must be specific
and are answered using a specific set of rules
for example by allocating significators for the question
and focusing on those significators to the exclusion of all else
which is very different from the way a natal chart is read

Horary question 'purpose' could be for example discerning location of missing people
or

discerning the intentions of the Quesited
or

discerning the location of lost objects
such as important papers, jewellery

in contrast
ELECTIONAL astrology attempts to discern the ideal moment to act
In the similar manner that elective is used to create a specific event.
Aren't those functionally similar?
ELECTIONAL aka elective charts do not "create" a specific event
but rather assess the ideal TIME to undertake a specific event
for example
ideal time to travel/sign a business deal et al

EVENT astrology may discern for example
circumstances surrounding a murder/suicide/crime et al

and thus
Horary
Electional
and Event astrology differ
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Horary did not exist in Hellenistic times, however, event astrology was applied to elections and questions like ''where is the missing ship'', they could be called initiations, or inceptions (Dykes), or initiatives (Riley). However, questions like the missing ship in ''Palchus'' can be viewed as events for which there is no other way to answer than by question, and this is easily recognized when you read Dorotheus Book V, Hephaistio Book III or other Hellenistic material that I am intimately aware of. Also this event astrology did not involve its own technicality, as does the Arabic one. Eventually Arabic material was translated by the Byzantines as its own field, called ''questions''.

Yes and in medieval european texts they usually call it interrogations, which is what we call Horary (with many authors using the term "proto-horary" to refer to this manuscripts). Functionally they work the same, because it is casting a chart in order to solve a question. While I agree medievals added many techniques to Horary, and have ignored others, I disagree its development has varied so much as to be indistinguishible from the texts.

But on subject, given it is a branch that derived from elective, Morinus rejection of it seems a bit of a nit-pick.
 
Top