Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

P

petosiris

Banned
Glad we agree on something.

Related to the topic of Geocentric-Heliocentric-Ages stuff I use topocentric coordinates. I find it ridiculous to measure the Moon from the center of the Earth. If I would investigate an initiation in space (a satellite or a space mission), I would use their coordinates. The place is what matters.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
Glad we agree on something.

Related to the topic of Geocentric-Heliocentric-Ages stuff I use topocentric coordinates. I find it ridiculous to measure the Moon from the center of the Earth. If I would investigate an initiation in space (a satellite or a space mission), I would use their coordinates. The place is what matters.
Click to expand...

The (Lunar) Nodes run through the Earth's center. But, perhaps you don't use them. Topocentric is a measurement from EARTH'S surface, in any given location, where our Charts are concerned. A total eclipse is when the center-points of the Earth, Sun and Moon are aligned.
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
Now for the record, I can understand your argument about the fixed stars, constellations and the signs is true with modern siderealists. In fact:
''I don't know that, as Siderealists, we have any greater need or bear any greater responsibility regarding fixed star research than Tropicalists; but I'm pretty sure the rest of the astrological world thinks we do, based primarily on a mistaken idea that the Sidereal zodiac has something specific to do with particular fixed stars (it doesn't).'' - James Eshelman http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?t=381

''it doesn't''??? The modern Fagan school does not use the zodiac to any great extent. They say the sidereal zodiac is better because they find their solar and lunar returns work better with precession.

In fact, they label all Hellenistic astrology as ''tropical influenced'' (even if the author was using sidereal), apparently working with signs and places is tropical astrology. According to their logic and statements, I am doing tropical astrology with a sidereal zodiac, which is preposterous considering both the history and practice of the subject.

The modern Fagan school likes pointing that Hellenists were mostly siderealists, but conveniently ignore most of their methods. Instead they hail Babylonian astrology tales by Fagan, as if Babylonian omens had anything to do with the way they practice astrology either.

Furthermore, as a counter-argument to their absurd statement, I would note that the way they practice astrology has many similarities with modern tropical astrology, little if none with ancient traditional astrology. Using their logic, it would appear they are the ones doing tropical astrology with a sidereal zodiac.

And maybe, using the same logic, the traditional astrologers are doing mostly sidereal astrology with a tropical zodiac. Because, if Ptolemy or some other Hellenist (Greek astronomer) was the originator of the tropical VP=0° Aries zodiac, he was definitely building upon previous observations and data by siderealists. That is a controversial statement and with little value to be honest. There are differences between the four and observational data is bound to change. Both the approach and the workframe are very important.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
The confusion and disagreements seem to be due mainly to the Zodiacal constellations having been within Tropical Sign-parameters for about 500 years, from about 200 B.C. to about 300 A.D.
Ptolemy's rationale for Sign rulerships (apparently already in place) uses Tropical seasonality. Is there a way to explain the rulerships without ANY Northern hemispheric seasonal considerations?
 
AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
Modern science doesn't have any limitations except regarding spirituality.

But it doesn't matter because we live on the Earth, which is a materialistic life.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
The confusion and disagreements seem to be due mainly to the Zodiacal constellations having been within Tropical Sign-parameters for about 500 years, from about 200 B.C. to about 300 A.D.
Ptolemy's rationale for Sign rulerships (apparently already in place) uses Tropical seasonality. Is there a way to explain the rulerships without ANY Northern hemispheric seasonal considerations?
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing that interesting topic. The reasons he gives for exaltations and depressions are horribly untrue for the Southern hemisphere (which does not exist for Tropical astrologers). Because if you follow Ptolemy, Australians have the Moon exalted in Scorpio. Reverse the zodiac, if you follow Ptolemy.

I reject these for other reasons. They do appear to be partially connected with seasons, even though, they are used by almost all traditional and modern astrologers, sidereal and tropical. Their origins is ambiguous, some say it is related to the ''secret houses'' of the Babylonians, which used a sidereal zodiac, but it could be the case that 19° was the presumed vernal point of the Sun, therefore exaltation degree*. I also reject the lunar and solar axis, of which I have not seen one practical example or usage.

The bounds are of Babylonian and Egyptian sidereal origins - http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/1/ , and in my opinion are related to specific fixed stars and asterisms. Although everyone says ''there is no pattern'', for me there is a clear pattern - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=856712&postcount=13

If there was no pattern, there is no connection to the seasons. I do not hate the seasons, they should be taken into account for the Sun, especially for mundane work, but do not say that the zodiac is based on that.

The zodiac is based on specific 12 constellations on the ecliptic. Their rulers are entirely explainable using the Seven-Zone system. Place Moon in Cancer, Sun in Leo (because they are Foundation and Beauty and should be together) and all other planets easily fall in the correct domicile - ''Thema Mundi'', which surprisingly has Cancer Asc, not Aries. Now there can be a few explanations for why the Lights fall in these places:
1. Seasons.
2. Sirius rising with Cancer in Egypt. Moon being the nearest ''planet'' makes sense for the first sign and Asc in the Thema Mundi.
3. Cancer being very faint and related to the water like the Moon and Leo being the symbol of the Sun.

I prefer 3, which is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for me. Do not pretend that is not a true archetype for all nations and cultures.

And even if the ancients thought it was 1., they were wrong because they did not take into account half of Earth. Ptolemy was wrong.

Therefore only 2. and 3. can be true.

* - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=858319&postcount=100 Because some people think that the ancient siderealists who erroneously used tropical imagery were tropicalists, I am now officially a tropicalist too. The vernal point is the start of 5° (6 ordinal) Pisces. Try it out.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
AppLeo said:
Modern science doesn't have any limitations except regarding spirituality.

But it doesn't matter because we live on the Earth, which is a materialistic life.
Click to expand...

If Modern Materialistic Science has no limitations, then why is it unable to explain why Astrology works?
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
Thank you for bringing that interesting topic. The reasons he gives for exaltations and depressions are horribly untrue for the Southern hemisphere (which does not exist for Tropical astrologers). Because if you follow Ptolemy, Australians have the Moon exalted in Scorpio. Reverse the zodiac, if you follow Ptolemy.

I reject these for other reasons. They do appear to be partially connected with seasons, even though, they are used by almost all traditional and modern astrologers, sidereal and tropical. Their origins is ambiguous, some say it is related to the ''secret houses'' of the Babylonians, which used a sidereal zodiac, but it could be the case that 19° was the presumed vernal point of the Sun, therefore exaltation degree*. I also reject the lunar and solar axis, of which I have not seen one practical example or usage.

The bounds are of Babylonian and Egyptian sidereal origins - http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/1/ , and in my opinion are related to specific fixed stars and asterisms. Although everyone says ''there is no pattern'', for me there is a clear pattern - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=856712&postcount=13

If there was no pattern, there is no connection to the seasons. I do not hate the seasons, they should be taken into account for the Sun, especially for mundane work, but do not say that the zodiac is based on that.

The zodiac is based on specific 12 constellations on the ecliptic. Their rulers are entirely explainable using the Seven-Zone system. Place Moon in Cancer, Sun in Leo (because they are Foundation and Beauty and should be together) and all other planets easily fall in the correct domicile - ''Thema Mundi'', which surprisingly has Cancer Asc, not Aries. Now there can be a few explanations for why the Lights fall in these places:
1. Seasons.
2. Sirius rising with Cancer in Egypt. Moon being the nearest ''planet'' makes sense for the first sign and Asc in the Thema Mundi.
3. Cancer being very faint and related to the water like the Moon and Leo being the symbol of the Sun.

I prefer 3, which is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for me. Do not pretend that is not a true archetype for all nations and cultures.

And even if the ancients thought it was 1., they were wrong because they did not take into account half of Earth. Ptolemy was wrong.

Therefore only 2. and 3. can be true.

* - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=858319&postcount=100 Because some people think that the ancient siderealists who erroneously used tropical imagery were tropicalists, I am now officially a tropicalist too. The vernal point is the start of 5° (6 ordinal) Pisces. Try it out.
Click to expand...

One thing that's never mentioned, stands out for me--It's the simple fact that the Moon and Sun move through the Zodiac in ONE direction only, and rule only ONE Sign each. Whereas, the planets display both "Direct", as defined by the movement of the Moon and Sun, and "Retrograde-motion", defined as moving in the opposite direction, and therefore move in TWO directions and Traditionally rule TWO Signs each. Ptolemy's explanation was that the Sun is too masculine to rule a "feminine" Sign, and the Moon is too feminine to rule a "masculine" Sign. Unfortunately for that explanation, the earliest known (recorded) Moon deity was decidedly male, and remained so during the entirety of the Sumerian line of civilizations, including Ancient Babylonia.
Also, no reason why a masculine entity can't rule a feminine Sign.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Unfortunately for that explanation, the earliest known (recorded) Moon deity was decidedly male, and remained so during the entirety of the Sumerian line of civilizations, including Ancient Babylonia.
Also, no reason why a masculine entity can't rule a feminine Sign.
Click to expand...

I believe all planets are masculine in relation to the next sphere and feminine in relation to the previous one. The Moon is the most feminine of all stars and indeed gives signs of nourishment, mothers and females, but also of kings and high priests, for He is entirely masculine in relation to the sublunar sphere.

Many ancients though of the Moon as masculine - Thoth, Iah, Khonsu, Chandra, Sin, also among the Hebrews and Germans. Truly, only the goddess Venus should be referred as She, for in her is the mystery of victory.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Strange that Astrology (at least surviving Astrology) is a Northern Hemispheric creation. It's only natural that it would incorporate at least some Northern Hemispheric characteristics.
 
R

rahu

Banned
david starling said:
If we define "science" simply as "knowledge", I have to say Astrology has provided me with what I consider valuable knowledge about myself, others, and the world in general. So, if the use of what's known as the "scientific method" as an analytical device labels Astrologically obtained knowledge as "pseudo", I have to question the current capability of that method to determine what's "real", and what's not. Meaning, an understanding of why and how Astrology works is not yet included within the limited range of Materialistic Modern Science, although it may one day expand its parameters and be able to do so.
Click to expand...

I think your definition of science is too broad. science is not just knowledge, but "science" specifically evaluates only things that can be measured. and metaphysics and astrology are thereby excluded and fall under the term of pseudo science but not necessarily in a pejorative sense .

rahu
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
One thing that's never mentioned, stands out for me
--It's the simple fact that the Moon and Sun move through the Zodiac in ONE direction only
and rule only ONE Sign each.
Click to expand...
Apparently
Aeons past
SUN ruled two ZOIDONS aka DOMICILES :smile:
MOON had no domicile

david starling said:
Whereas, the planets display both "Direct", as defined by the movement of the Moon and Sun, and "Retrograde-motion", defined as moving in the opposite direction, and therefore move in TWO directions and Traditionally rule TWO Signs each. Ptolemy's explanation was that the Sun is too masculine to rule a "feminine" Sign, and the Moon is too feminine to rule a "masculine" Sign. Unfortunately for that explanation, the earliest known (recorded) Moon deity was decidedly male, and remained so during the entirety of the Sumerian line of civilizations, including Ancient Babylonia.
Also, no reason why a masculine entity can't rule a feminine Sign.
Click to expand...
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
rahu said:
I think your definition of science is too broad. science is not just knowledge, but "science" specifically evaluates only things that can be measured. and metaphysics and astrology are thereby excluded and fall under the term of pseudo science but not necessarily in a pejorative sense .

rahu
Click to expand...

Modern Materialistic Science co-opted the definition of "science", and now claims to be the sole arbiter of what is "real" and what is "pseudo" science. It's a Materialistic development of monotheism, with priest-like "scientists" performing their sacred ritual they call the "scientific method", revealing the laws of the One materialistic Universe and performing "scientific miracles". It's a very narrow minded version of Creation.
 
AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
Modern Science just observes what we can with our senses.

You can't just start with something like God or the spaghetti monster and try and prove it. You have to start with something we can see, touch, smell, hear, and taste and then build our knowledge from there. It is limiting, but it keeps us from believing in things that aren't real.

It's like Saturn vs. Jupiter.

Saturn is limiting, but Jupiter over-expands leaving many holes unfulfilled.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
AppLeo said:
Modern Science just observes what we can with our senses.

You can't just start with something like God or the spaghetti monster and try and prove it. You have to start with something we can see, touch, smell, hear, and taste and then build our knowledge from there. It is limiting, but it keeps us from believing in things that aren't real.

It's like Saturn vs. Jupiter.

Saturn is limiting, but Jupiter over-expands leaving many holes unfulfilled.
Click to expand...

Jupiter opens doors, and Saturn closes them. Mercury's a lock-pick.
 
Top