Discussion on 'Cookbooks'.

[Moderator Aquarius7000 was the opening poster. To see this go into the drop down list "Display Modes" at the top right of this forum (below the "Page 1 of 2" section) and choose "Switch to Threaded Mode". The "Linear Mode" (default mode) incorrectly identifies Lily as the original poster. - Moderator]


[non-astrological comment deleted - Moderator Note: If there is a question about a thread editing, please PM the moderator and do NOT post openly on the forum]

Re: synastry & divorce

As anyone who studies astrology above a newbie level knows, you really have to look at the whole chart and the whole individual. I am all for astro-humour, but these stereotypes really do a disservice to people who may be configured very differently.

And we really do not need them to learn astrology at a beginner's level.

Click to expand...

I am sorry to say this, but I do not agree with this. When you start out with astrology, you (unfortunately ?) DO need cookbooks. Where else do newbies otherwise get their information from. The information in those books is not wrong, but just very limited, but as a newby you usually cannot absorb all information about one aspect or planet anyways.

When I started out, by myself, I only used cookbooks, I could not do without them. Only lateron, when reading a few better books, like the one you mention about my favorite of favorites, Stephen Arroyo, you start seeing these cookbook terms in a different light and also understand that you cannot just say: Venus in Aquarius means this and Mars in Capricorn means that. You must take in account ALL the information in the chart. And actually only after I got my certificate with the Faculty of Astr.Studies, I really understood. I think a good course is necessary.

But newbies cannot cope with too much information in the beginning. It will come lateron. You start with simple examples in order to get the feeling. It is also very difficult for beginners to combine different aspects. That will also come later and as soon as that happens, the rest will follow and the need for cookbooks will pass.

About synastry.

I think synastry has its place, but I don't think it should make or break a relationship; as I explained on another thread, synastry provides good bone structure but it really is up to the individuals involved: their beliefs, their upbringings, their physical chemistry (pheromones and hormones) that will shape the relationship and the people's experiences of it.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with you AG, I dont like synastry that much,personally, it most often than not does not correspond to the real situation. Two separate charts tell me heaps more about a couple and you can warn them for certain character traits of the other person. Telling them: "your mars falls conjunct his Asc. so he finds you aggressive" or "he finds that you energize him" does not help much. People must understand why that Mars of her energizes him. How does she express that Mars.

But, everyone must choose what he likes best and can write what he/she thinks will be helpful to our community. Also, if people want to start with synastries, that is their wish and we cannot say:dont do that. We can explain why we would prefer to start with easier subjects first, but no more than that.

Starlink

Re: synastry & divorce

starlink, I used cookbooks a lot when I started out. I still have shelves of them. I still buy them. My problem with them is that, when written by unenlightened astrologers, we tend to get the low-order astro-gunk of which Lilly rightly complains.

Worse, it reduces human beings to a set of static traits to be memorized. You know, the stuff like, "Well, if you're a Virgo, you must by picky, critical, and concerned with hygiene. You want to know if your lover has washed up before initiating intimacy."

I didn't like this approach to learning when I was a university student and then a teacher, because I always wondered why a list of traits to be memorized should, in fact, be the case. I mean, did God [or the universe, for atheists] put a bunch of stars and planets in the sky just so that someone born in early September in Kalamazoo, Michigan should be born with a set of unappetizing personality flaws?

I think a better way to learn astrology is more process-oriented and dynamic.

There are some great books for beginners that take a more dynamic, active approach, such as the Stephen Arroyo books cited in my previous post, as well as Steven Forrest's books, The Inner Sky, The Changing Sky, and Skymates [the latter with Jodie Forrest--and also her super book The Ascendant.] Arroyo uses the four elements as his starting point. If we understand the nature of the elements, then a lot of the more static check-list items of astrology make a lot more sense, because there is an explanation behind them.

Forrest looks at each planet, sign, and house as having a kind of goal or end-point. Each of them also has a kind of strategy or tool kit with which to accomplish its goal. So to use the Virgo example again, her end-point is simple: perfection. Her strategy/tool kit is a finely honed analytical ability and the genuine wish to be of service. So now the fussy Virgo stereotype may yield to a higher understanding; or if not, at least her fuss-budget traits become explainable.

Frankly I find these authors' process-oriented approach to be easier to learn than the cookbooks filled with innumerable "ingredients" without an apparent logic behind them.

As you know (but for other readers here) astrology provides a fairly simple template of elements (what is real for people?); modalities (cardinal/fixed/mutable), and ruling planets. So if Venus is the principle of attraction, and someone has Venus in Aquarius, we know that ideas are very real to him, and that he is likely to be fixed in his ideas. He is moreover liable to appear rather cool in his affections, thanks to Saturn (traditional) and/or Uranus (modern), as these are not warm, fuzzy planets. So here we have an explanation for Venus in Aquarius that gets "under the hood" of simply saying, "With Venus in Aquarius he is likely to be cold and unresponsive."

At an intermediate level, I think there is a lot more to be memorized, notably the planetary rulerships, but then again, I always want to ask why something should be the case: what is the logic behind it?

Re: couples astrology: Robert Hand, Planets in Composite would get my vote as "best cookbook."

BTW, I support your approach to looking at two people as individuals first and formost. Some folks are not cut out to be good partners/spouses, and no amount of dyn-o-mite synastry is going to make them super to live with.

Re: synastry & divorce

In real life, I adore Libras,..

Click to expand...

and I the 'Gems' of the zodiac (though they can also be quite irritating at times). Now the moment we make such statements, we do pin down our adoration to a certain sign in a way. Isn't it so because we associate the signs of Libra and Gemini with certain qualities (that have won our adoration). Now that's where it all starts. There is no avoiding associating certain traits/qualities with certain aspects/planets/signs. Why did the traditionalists call the likes of Saturn and Mars 'malefics'. A stands for something and so does B; 'simple' as that. Yet, these are like stepping stones, or the literal 'A, B, C's' of Astrology, but it all exists and is relevant. As you 'graduate', the subject becomes more intricate and studying a chart with the entire alphabet in it, as well with the various permutations-combinations involved, is quite a big leap forward. However, even in a chart, a particular aspect can be understood simplistically - to stand for something specific. Yet, a chart is much more than the meaning of that aspect, which is not a stand-alone thing, and the native is MUCH more than just the language that chart speaks to an astrologer, or than just the mere 'decoding' of its constituents. His life goes beyond the 'circle' around him - his surroundings/circumstances/experiences, etc, etc. And that changes a lot of things -like, simply said, what a person X might use his Ura-Ven for and a person Y the same aspect for. A Sun-Venus conjunction might be great for most, and a Sun-Pluto conjunction could be a bit to over-bearing. Most would agree, but then that is because Pluto is quite heavy and controlling and intense, and the aspects it makes, will carry these energies over. Different aspects, various meanings, several manifestations.

Also, some might use their expertise and deem certain explanations as mere generalisations, whilst others might see them as definitions of what they are trying to explain. The favourite site/author of one, might be graded as one, who is simply cooking the books to explain certain things in his cookbookish writer-style, by another. On this forum, EVERYONE is allowed to freely express their astrological views no matter what level they are at, and the least the others try to grade another co-member's level, the better it is.

Oh, and personally, I find synastry a great tool to understand how two people might relate to eachother.

AQ7

Re: synastry & divorce

Cookbooks on synastry, like much of astrology in general, contain the good, the bad, and the ugly. It is important for all learners, regardless of our level, to learn to distinguish between these categories.

Quite possibly astrology students have different learning styles. Maybe some would prefer to assimilate a lot of facts about the character traits of the signs, planets, and houses; and then to move on to an explanation or logical frame work as to why they should be the case. I have generally found it more helpful to begin withsome basic principles, so that I have some reason to pigeon-hole the otherwise seemingly disparate traits in certain ways.

I suspect this is the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning. Introductory astrology texts come in both ways: especially the Forrest books cited above are introductions for complete newcomers.

Re: synastry & divorce

I see the use of cookbooks also as a learning style matter. However, it is also important to realize that while depending ONLY on the information in them, the results will be very poor.

There is a dilemma here: we all have to start at the beginning, or at *a* beginning. I would not recommend the books I started with to other people for the simple reason that my own style of learning is rather non-standard.

In the end, there has to be some kind of instinct, talent, feel for astrology that alllows beginners to make a leap forward to synthesizing charts. I don't think some people ever get there, for the same reason that some people who study music and work very hard, with excellent teachers, never develop the ability to interpret music and continue to be robotic.

Cookbooks are robotic. They have to be. This does not mean that the people who write them are robotic. It means that they are grappling with the simple fact that unless things are kept basic, most people will not grasp the essentials.

For this reason I judge all astrology books that are meant to teach people, starting at the beginning, cookbooks. I am not using the word in a pejoritive way. However, the best of them continually warn that what is being learned is only the beginning, and they continually mention the goal of synthesis, putting it all together.

My objection to cookbook astrology is when cookbook explanations are used to by experienced astrologers to advise. I think they are fine when used for educational sources, but I don't like to see "blurbs" used to give advice, since such advice may not only be misleading but also disturbing if taken too much to heart by people who are new here (or to astrology).

Finally, synthesis: I think it should be step three, then it is a valuable tool. First, study two charts very carefully. From this you should get a general feel for the personalities of two individuals. It those two individuals seem quite incompatible, just on the basis of who they are separately, that certainly needs to be factored in when thinking about how they will function as a unit.

Re: synastry & divorce

I think they are fine when used for educational sources, but I don't like to see "blurbs" used to give advice, since such advice may not only be misleading but also disturbing if taken too much to heart by people who are new here (or to astrology).

Click to expand...

Whilst I can understand where the above text is coming from and generally also find it sound piece of advice, there are also a couple of general points I'd like to make:

1) On what basis do we deem certain Astrology material as cookbooks? Simply because they are too simple or have simple definitions, and do not go deeper into clarifying the 'traditions' of the field (or base all their reasoning on them), such as triplicities and dignities and whatnots. Personally, though I've had the pleasure of reading quite a bit of traditional literature and use it quite often; sometimes, the so-called 'simple' stuff can be extremely and simply helpful.

2) As regards:- "such advice may not only be misleading but also disturbing if taken too much to heart by people who are new..to astrology"; I'd like to reiterate that this is a 'forum' - a platform for discussion, where people with different astrological backgrounds and levels converge to have a dialogue, ask questions and give answer. Though this place is a learning site and, consequently, also a teaching one; it is not an Astrology school, at least not in the traditional sense of the word, where we are neither meant to judge whose advice might be too simplistic or "misleading"; or, on the other hand, who might be vulnerable enough to be misled (which maybe debatable) by such supposedly simplistic (and well-meant) advice.

Going about my work as a moderator, it sometimes baffles me, or perhaps appal is a more befitting word most of the times, how much energy and time some of us invest in gauging and grading others' contributions. It often leads me to ask myself, who are we and what expertise do we possess (how well-tested and by whom) that we deem ourselves in a position to deem a simple Astrology book or site as a cookbook, or worse still, another members' post as being too 'ordinary' or stereotypical; not to mention that some even go to the extent of deeming it outright 'wrong' (sometimes even go a lot further). I am not talking here about the absoluely blatant stuff, such as 2+2≠5, or, when we correct a (new) member by saying that Venus (by itself) ≠ discord, but usually just the opposite. Why not simply express your own views, do Astrology and answer questions on threads, and live and let live?pinched I think, the message I am trying to convey here is quite clear. Actually, come to think of it, many 'such' actions and motivations also show the 'real' quality of even the most well-read astrologer, who might have made it a point to go every so-called cookbook out of the way in his own fledgling days, and only or mostly relied on the William Lilly's or Rob Hand's of this world.


AQ7

PS: A50 & all, sorry for dwelling on this a bit longer than I'd actually planned. Pertaining to the subject: "synastry and divorce", I'd like to say that, whilst it is all right to express one's own views as to how a certain aspect may be understood, it is really best not to express ultimatums, esp negative ones; moreso not when a person asks a delicate question, say, will we end up in front of the courts..

Re: synastry & divorce

[non-astrological comment deleted - Moderator]

Re: synastry & divorce

There are plenty of synastry and composite chart cookbooks out there, both in print and on-line.

An astrology "cookbook" basically delineates the static, characteristic personality traits attributed to different placements of planets and other sensitive points. Some go by sign, some go by house, some go by aspects. Whatever their focus, they normally go through the whole list of placements. If it's a book on "planets in signs", for instance, it will essentially have a matrix of 10 planets times 12 signs, with an entry under each of the 120 permutations. Ditto for a cookbood on 10 planets in 12 houses.

Lilly's Mars square Pluto equals criminal behaviour is one example of a cookbook description. Saying that someone with Venus in Virgo wants her partner to wash up before they become physically intimate is another example. Some cookbook entries are a bit nicer: saying that someone with Leo rising loves attention, is well-dressed, and is magnanimous is another example.

The point is, that couples compatibility is a complex topic indeed. Cookbooks are not a bad place to start, but they have limits as endpoints of a horoscope reading.

Why? Because astrology is above all a work of synthesis. And it becomes increasingly complex where two or more horoscopes are involved.

Mars square Pluto equals criminal behaviour is one example of a cookbook description.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it does - I agree with what you call a cookbook says there. What I mean to say is that criminal behaviour can be one of the manifestations of a Pluto-Mars aspect. HOWEVER, and that is where the individual - both the native and the astrologer - comes in, and this has nothing to do with a book being a cookbook; what maybe wrong is, if you and I were to take it all so literally, try to somehow apply it to the native in question, and then blame it on the information in the cookbook. The book is not reading the native's (in question at that time) chart, but is simply denoting what one aspect could stand for -- how the Pluto-Mars energy could manifest itself, or, even more simply put, what it could mean, which is not wrong. It can mean what has been said about it under certain circumstances and requisites. However, I have the Pluto-Mars aspect, a tight one, but I haven't used it, no matter how much I simmer inside, for any criminal activity. Yet, I am very aware of how potent this energy can be, and I fully understand that, depending on other factors in the chart, the native's upbringing and value-systems, circumstances, etc the potence of this energy, along with the mix of another factor or two, could lead one to do irreversible damage.

Just because something has been quite simply put does not mean that, firstly, it is wrong or cookbookish (that's in our heads and we might be too ready to lay the blame on something else - perhaps because someone I know or I myself might have the aspect in question). Secondly, it does not mean that any and everyone who has the this aspect (like myself) will grow up to be a criminal - that is the astrologers' cookbookish interpretation or folly. This is like saying that anything that is reasonably priced, or costs less than usual is automatically bad quality (that maybe too simplistic and ignorant an attitude on the part of the buyer- being equal to the astrologer here). Also, the author of the so-called cookbooks does not have any control over whose hands his book might fall into - a gullible Astrology beginner or a person with more experience, who will be able to think beyond the mere association of an aspect with a trait. All he does is list up a no. of traits that maybe associated with certain aspects, etc within the scope of limited space. Not every book can start with the 'traditions' of Astrology. Even there, the likes of W. Lilly constantly refer to Saturn as a malefic creating obstacles, etc.

Since my own thoughts are closest to Starlink's on this subject, I will simply reiterate what she said - (the so-called..by some of us) cookbooks are not wrong, just limited in their information. And, I think that there is some responsibility as regards the interpretation and application in individual cases/readings that the astrologer/reader/even beginner (as far as researching further goes) needs to bear. Btw, I am very well aware of the definition of a 'cookbook'. I was hinting more at what gives us the expertise to deem book A as a cookbook.


AQ7

Re: synastry & divorce

Hi EJ, I have actually enjoyed the debate here whether I have agreed wholeheartedly with it all, is another matter. I am just another astrologer stating 'another' opinion. I definitely think something constructive can come out of this, and perhaps this debate on 'cook book' astrology deservedly needs a thread of its own. Obviously it raises strong opinions. I am not as cleverly worded as some members but my opinion on cookbooks is this;

1. Cookbooks are a guideline

2. Cookbooks list the essence of the aspect, the astrologer has the skill and technique to integrate it into the chart with other factors.

3. Keywords are useful and the use of Virgo keywords for example: critical, hygienic, orderly are not untrue in their pure essence. I posted a chart the other day with Virgo planets who happened to be a chef, his cleanliness and hygiene methods are an important part of his job. The Astrologer would not be wrong in listing these attributes. However, he wasn't the shy variety - analysis of his other chart factors showed this. The Chef for example had a controlling character, and ruthlessness (Saturn-Pluto) we would integrate this into his humble, "service" orientated profession and suggest he might not be the lowly worker at the bottom. The need to be top dog is there. In karmic astrology we could say lessons around power, control and how he expresses authority.

4. I am not going to criticize "cook book" astrology. Nobody criticizes the English dictionary for simple definitions of words. We use words to convey what we need to say. The same as we use definitions in "cookbook" astrology to explain an astrological aspect. The astrologers skill will interpret the chart as a whole, but we first need to "know" what all those separate parts mean, before we can attempt a 'whole' synthesis of a natal chart.

5. The problem I have with some books which are more theoretical and too advanced, is that for beginners of astrology there really is no starting place. Basic astrology is what they need at such an early stage, it's like giving a baby solid food before he is able to chew and digest it. There are stages in development, and you spoon feed the basics first, and soon enough the student will want to chew on something meatier and more complex. The student will know when he/she is ready to digest more of our astrological art. You overfeed a baby (a newbie) and all he will do is spew it all up, undigested.

6. We all know trash sells on the market - and the more advanced books show lower sales than books which are commercially driven for 'pop' astrology and entertainment purposes. These are not the cook books I am referring to. I believe you get out of astrology what you put in. I see an idea in an astrology book, that has been stated numerously, especially in older books. You do need to modernise them for today's times. I don't think astrology itself ages, but we need astrology interpreted in the world we are living in today. The Saturn-Uranus archetype, is one of the reasons we do need to breakdown (old way) and revolutionize with a "new" astrology but without losing it's firm structure and time tested knowledge.

Hi,

This thread is being started in order to continue the Discussion on 'Cookbooks', which got triggered on the 'synastry & divorce' thread. All posts, whose main content was on 'cookbooks'.. have been moved from here.

AQ7

post deleted. The placement of this post creates the false impression that I have started a discussion about cookbook astrology when in fact my comments were in the context of a different debate

Click to expand...

Lilly, I dont see anything strange or wrong in starting a discussion about cookbook astrology. I dont understand why this bothers you.??
Aquarius7000 thought it useful for newbies to know about this issue, so they will be more critical when buying such books and using them. That is the whole point of this exercise and has nothing to do with you starting this or that. You maybe gave her the good idea to start this new thread!

And now that we are indeed discussing cookbook stuff, about what you mentioned here:

This is the problem I'm having with all these cookbook definitions-they don't fit with the charts I have!

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, but dont forget that these are only a few example (the one's you have about your family). In my chart, I have Mars in Aries and boy, am I ever attracted to Aries men!! The man I would really like to have married was an Aries, Asc. Scorpio (like me, so maybe that bit added to the attraction), but I just knew that he would not be good marriage material, so I went for a Cancer man. But I am always attracted to Aries, I like their "go for it" attitude.

Lilly,

Before wanting to argue out every point you come across; switch over to the threaded mode, and you will see my post right at the top of this thread. I first posted on this thread and then moved the other posts over to this one!! Though, many mods would not first do a post of their own first (normally I don't either), and they don't have to.

Not that moderators need to be justifying things here, but following is the post I first posted in order to open this thread with MY own post. However, you are free to delete all contents in all your posts!!

Hi,

This thread is being started in order to continue the Discussion on 'Cookbooks', which got triggered on the 'synastry & divorce' thread. All posts, whose main content was on 'cookbooks'.. have been moved from here.

AQ7

Click to expand...

post deleted. The placement of this post creates the false impression that I have started a discussion about cookbook astrology when in fact my comments were in the context of a different debate. I also object to the manner in which this *transfer of thread* has been conducted, without even a polite enquiry as to whether I was in agreement with being made the *thread starter*. If you look at the original thread, you will see a number of threads on the cookbook subject still remain, so why was my post selected to be the new thread starter?
Lillyjgc

Click to expand...

[non-astrological comment deleted - Moderator]

2 things:

1) The threaded mode (if you are aware of that one) shows the opening post by aquarius7000, the one I quoted in my previous post. Even leaving all that aside, I know the order I worked in: first posted my own post and then moving all the other posts which were derailing the 'synastry and divorce' thread- posts on cookbooks, such as your and mine.

2) The mods do not choose as per like or dislike of someone as to whose post will open a thread- created to move posts that are derailing the main/original thread.

Moderator.

The post that appears at the top of this page is mine. I did not begin the thread. I do not wish to take part in this discussion. I have therefore deleted my comments as they are now *out of context* .
Case closed.
Lillyjgc

Click to expand...

aquarius7000 said:

Btw, I am very well aware of the definition of a 'cookbook'. I was hinting more at what gives us the expertise to deem book A as a cookbook.


AQ7

Click to expand...

Sometimes the authors themselves will identify portions of their books as "cookbooks." But it doesn't require much expertise. Basically a cookbook, whether on-line or in print, has a catalogue of planets or senstive points in signs, houses, or aspects. Pluto in the first house, Pluto in the second house, Pluto in the third house;..... Sun trine moon, sun square moon, sun oppose moon, sun sextile moon.....

Re: your earlier question about what gives someone the right to judge: "It often leads me to ask myself, who are we and what expertise do we possess (how well-tested and by whom) that we deem ourselves in a position to deem a simple Astrology book or site as a cookbook...."

I can only speak for myself, but I have 3 university degrees, I retired from a long university career, and I have studied astrology for about 18 years. So I come from a background in which critical thinking is highly valued. This doesn't mean criticising the individual. It means analysing ideas to see how well they hold up under scrutiny.

cookbooks and so on

aquarius7000 said:

Whilst I can understand where the above text is coming from and generally also find it sound piece of advice, there are also a couple of general points I'd like to make:

Click to expand...

Note that here, as I attempt to reply, the "above text" is gone. Note also that in the post you wrote, although you appear to be replying to me, since you are quoting me, you have not quoted my name.

This is what you quoted.

gaer said:

I think they are fine when used for educational sources, but I don't like to see "blurbs" used to give advice, since such advice may not only be misleading but also disturbing if taken too much to heart by people who are new here (or to astrology).

Click to expand...

Now:

aquarius7000 said:

1) On what basis do we deem certain Astrology material as cookbooks? Simply because they are too simple or have simple definitions, and do not go deeper into clarifying the 'traditions' of the field (or base all their reasoning on them), such as triplicities and dignities and whatnots. Personally, though I've had the pleasure of reading quite a bit of traditional literature and use it quite often; sometimes, the so-called 'simple' stuff can be extremely and simply helpful.

Click to expand...

I want to make it clear that I have no disagreement with the above.

aquarius7000 said:

2) As regards:- "such advice may not only be misleading but also disturbing if taken too much to heart by people who are new..to astrology"; I'd like to reiterate that this is a 'forum' - a platform for discussion, where people with different astrological backgrounds and levels converge to have a dialogue, ask questions and give answer.

Click to expand...

You are creating a straw man. I was talking about entries in astrology books, which are limited in subtlety due to the medium. This means that books have to sum things up. I object to simplistic answers being given to people as solutions, as advice. I am NOT objecting to the passing on of such information to other people for the purpose of self-learning, for investigation.

Though this place is a learning site and, consequently, also a teaching one; it is not an Astrology school, at least not in the traditional sense of the word, where we are neither meant to judge whose advice might be too simplistic or "misleading"; or, on the other hand, who might be vulnerable enough to be misled (which maybe debatable) by such supposedly simplistic (and well-meant) advice.

Click to expand...

Call this site what you will. When something is given carelessly or flippantly to someone who is relatively new to astrology, the potential for harm is there. I'm not quite certain why you have chosen to use my words as a focus for your rebuttal.

Going about my work as a moderator, it sometimes baffles me, or perhaps appal is a more befitting word most of the times, how much energy and time some of us invest in gauging and grading others' contributions.

Click to expand...

The implication is that I am one who gauges and grades. If this is not aimed at me, please do not quote me, then reply as if your words are aimed at me personally.

It often leads me to ask myself, who are we and what expertise do we possess (how well-tested and by whom) that we deem ourselves in a position to deem a simple Astrology book or site as a cookbook, or worse still, another members' post as being too 'ordinary' or stereotypical; not to mention that some even go to the extent of deeming it outright 'wrong' (sometimes even go a lot further).

Click to expand...

Same question. Are these rhetorical questions, or are they to me?

I'd like to say that, whilst it is all right to express one's own views as to how a certain aspect may be understood, it is really best not to express ultimatums, esp negative ones; moreso not when a person asks a delicate question, say, will we end up in front of the courts..

Click to expand...

Has it not occurred to you that exactly *this* is what many of us are concerned about? I would not use the term "ultimatums". Instead, I would say that very harsh answers are given that make very negative things appear as though they are all but written in stone. There is no absolutely clear line that can be drawn between posts containing helpful advice and others that can be quite destructive. I continue to believe that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Re: cookbooks and so on

gaer said:

Note also that in the post you wrote, although you appear to be replying to me, since you are quoting me, you have not quoted my name.

Click to expand...

Well, I did not had not "quoted your name" as this is often the case many a time when people use quotes from posts on threads. Many member quote texts (using the quote icon), but do not type in the names--for eg you yourself have done so four times in your post above.

As regards all the quotes, you have used from my post, if you had read carefully, I began my post by saying in my first sentence: "..there are a couple of *general* points I'd like to make."

gaer said:

If this is not aimed at me, please do not quote me, then reply as if your words are aimed at me personally.

Click to expand...

Shall not in the future, though I could show you many posts where something that one finds fitting (as I did on this occasion your quote- in a nice way); one then uses that quote to simply then continue with the rhetoric, and not particularly *aiminig*/ dedicating one's own complete post to that person.

gaer said:

Are these rhetorical questions, or are they to me?

Click to expand...

These are, as was said at the beginning of my post, from where you took so many quotes "some *general points*", so they were not directed at you in particular.

gaer said:

Has it not occurred to you that exactly *this* is what many of us are concerned about? I would not use the term "ultimatums".

Click to expand...

Now, you have not quoted my name in the quote in your own post- to which you seemed to have responded with your above quote. However, the question in the quote above, I suppose, is not *general* "rhetoric" on your part, but aimed at me. So, let me answer it: Yes, it has occurred to me.. is that not clear or did my concern not come across clearly to you when you quoted my text?:

I'd like to say that, whilst it is all right to express one's own views as to how a certain aspect may be understood, it is really best not to express ultimatums, esp negative ones; moreso not when a person asks a delicate question, say, will we end up in front of the courts..

Click to expand...

AQ7

Re: cookbooks and so on

I don't really enjoy cookbooks, and I don't think I've ever really intentionally owned one. The only real problem with cookbooks is over-simplication and watering down of information. As has been stated plenty of times before, it's often necessary to water down information for people just starting to be able to get it, after all, you have to crawl before you can walk (and any other early child development analogies you can think of).

As for the definition of a cookbook, I would say it'd be a book that's about a particular part of astrology without referencing anything else in its consideration. Above, waybread summed it up pretty much in a way I would, except I'd expand it a bit and say that when the subject of the cookbook is planet + house, it doesn't referrence what sign it's in and how that could augment what's going on. The best (or worst? I'm not sure how we're grading this, hehe) cookbook I've ever come across (and unfortunately purchased online >.<) would be Aspects in Astrology by Sue Tompkins. As the title implies, the book is a cookbook about aspects. It starts off with the Sun and goes through aspects with all the other planets and goes on throughout the planets and their pairings that haven't already been done in previous chapters.

The problem? I'm glad you asked. The book talks about Sun-Moon connections and talks about the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, and opposition, which is good...however...then we get into Sun-Mercury and it only talks about "harmonious" and "hard" aspects, without diferentiating into the different kinds of hard and harmonious aspects. Also, there's no mention of the sign the aspects take place in, the house they take place in, whether the aspect is dexter or sinister, who's dominating the aspect, the temperment of the chart, blah blah blah blah blah.

In short, I'd say a cookbook is a textbook that offers watered down explainations of elements of a subject at the expense of leaving out other valuable information that could alter the description of the "mixture" involved.

Hoping that made sense.

While cookbooks can be a helpful beginners tool, is it still helpful when you later realize you have to unlearn the information you gained from that cookbook when you realize there are several other factors your cookbook didn't mention? Perhaps that's what we should judge cookbooks on, how relevant the information contained within them is two years afterwards when the reader has learned about the other variables that come up in consideration of the subject.

I'm impressed. I really had no idea where this post was going when I first started.