List of Erroneous, Illogical and Fictitious Systems in Astrology

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
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.
"a religious element" is evident even in todays 21st Century :smile:
i.e.
an example comment
It can't be easy being both an atheist and an astrologer, but
I think you've made a good outline for yourself, and others who are.
for some then "astrology" is aka "theism"/"Theism"
 

Dirius

Well-known member
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''.

True, though Firmicus or Valens do add the exception that fate can be changed by God's will. So while this may be a bit of reading between the lines on my part, there is the concession on both authors that fate while solid and ordained, has the possibility of change (although certainly uinlikely).

Its clear that in pagan stories throughout the hellenic period, the hero can always bargain with the Gods to change his fate. So the notion of this possibility has never surprised me when reading Valens. If we remove the theological or mystical aspects from astrology, in essence taking out the notion that the source of this limited form of choice is not because of God, then that fits with your explanation on Ptolomy.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
"a religious element" is evident even in todays 21st Century :smile:
i.e.
an example comment

for some then "astrology" is aka "theism"/"Theism"

What I mean is that the religious theocracy of his time would have prevented him from openly writting about certain branches and topics of astrology that would go against religious teachings, thus why he denounced them.

The catholic church in Europe also had a negative view of astrology, but allowed weather predictions with it (viewing it as part of the Aristotelian natural science), while discouraging other forms of prediction through astrology. You may notice that astrology in europe did not arise until the latter part of the medieval period, when the church's influence began to wane.
 

petosiris

Banned
True, though Firmicus or Valens do add the exception that fate can be changed by God's will.

Firmicus says that astrology does not apply to the emperor (we all know the reason), but Valens says that gods are actors and play their part as much as men - ''the gods are agents of the Fates''
''Just as actors on the stage change their masks according to the poets’ words and act the characters as they should - sometimes kings, sometimes bandits, sometimes rustics, city people, gods - in the same way we too must act the parts assigned us by Fate and adapt ourselves to the chances of the moment'' - https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf

Both Manilius and Valens reject that men can change their fate by prayer.
''It is impossible to overcome with prayers and sacrifices what has been established from the beginning
or to gain for oneself something different, something more to one’s liking.
What has been given will come
about even if we do not pray; what is not fated will not happen, even if we do pray.
'' - ibid.

So what you say is not true.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What I mean is that the religious theocracy of his time would have prevented him from openly writting about certain branches and topics of astrology that would go against religious teachings, thus why he denounced them.

The catholic church in Europe also had a negative view of astrology, but allowed weather predictions with it (viewing it as part of the Aristotelian natural science), while discouraging other forms of prediction through astrology. You may notice that astrology in europe did not arise until the latter part of the medieval period, when the church's influence began to wane
.
If as I mention
"astrology is aka Theism"
then
religious thinking of 21st Century
may well be preventing aka censoring some today
from openly writing on certain topics of astrology :smile:
that "go against Theism"
 

petosiris

Banned
If as I mention
"astrology is aka Theism"
then
religious thinking of 21st Century
may well be preventing aka censoring some today
from openly writing on certain topics of astrology :smile:
that "go against Theism"

It is unlikely that religious authorities will be able to censor this where I live, at least for now, though its easy to derogate someone in many parts of the world by calling him ''atheist'' (presumably because the person thinks he is morally superior in some sense), as if he thinks I would be offended, rather than flattered, for one is lacking argument, because of emotion or ignorance.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
It is unlikely that religious authorities will be able to censor this where I live, at least for now, though
its easy to derogate someone in many parts of the world by calling him ''atheist''
(presumably because the person thinks he is morally superior in some sense), as if
he thinks I would be offended, rather than flattered.
Quite :smile:
Nevertheless our forum has in the past
hosted discussions
with members whose families forbid them
currently
i.e.
21st Century
from entertaining astrological ideas
or undertaking any form of astrological prognostication

also
while it is clearly acceptable to denigrate/scorn/scoff at "atheists"
in contrast
to scoff at religious beliefs
is not allowed
 

petosiris

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

No, I don't think so. As I demonstrated it is perfectly fine to say that elections exist and are possible, people ''elect'' for business, for planting crops, for travel, they organize everything on certain schedules, all this even without knowledge of astrology, but it's quite stretching to say that you can answer particular questions in physical manner, just because the preceding is possible. I have no problem with this kind of electional astrology based on common sense, but as I said, particulars can be easily investigated from nativities (the ambient at the very time of conception which determines the genetic admixture of the seed from the parents and therefore our biology, and the very time of birth which for the most part indicates it) and universals (whether through the influence of terrain, weather or the political systems in authority) in this manner.

In my OP, I mean that electional astrology as this type of procrastination characterized by observing a lucky minute on a certain day, which is without any obvious natural benefit, rather than to act as soon as possible with common sense, since the daily motions of the stars do not control or indicate all minute particulars, which is quite unfounded in argumentation, and frankly impossible. Of course, I am well aware that astrologers will insist on the non-procrastinating part of their work (that involves time range), but it's very doubtful they do not precisely encourage it, for the aforementioned reasons, if anything, the average person needs more internal locus of control in matters pertaining to his destiny, and one would be even more successful in his affairs if he combines the ''resisting faculty with the prognostic''.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
He sees astrology as a form of divination.

We live in a very tolerant time, each astrologer doing dozen different of the points mentioned on the first page side by side with the other, and both frequently failing with their objective, which does not bode well for the god theory helping each one of us in the usage of contradictory systems. But we need not become pessimistic of our field, or become subjectivists.

Its main attraction is the promise that it contains entirely new and extremely important knowledge that might be gained by systematic study of the phenomena in question, and this would be worth pursuing even if the subject happened to be partly or complete waste of time.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Jumping in briefly. Al biruni spent the later part of his life as a court astrologer, so I'm thinking that questions would have been a big part of his work, and he certainly wrote about horary.

Germane, but slightly OT. I was at amazon (can't remember if it was .ca or .com) a couple of days ago, and if you go look at Ben Dykes' Choices and Inceptions, you will find that the preview of the book contains almost 80 pages of his introduction. It's relevant to this discussion if you've not read it, because it goes into a lot of how horary, elections, and the natal chart were seen by the Persians. And it's fascinating.

What I mean is that the religious theocracy of his time would have prevented him from openly writting about certain branches and topics of astrology that would go against religious teachings, thus why he denounced them.

The catholic church in Europe also had a negative view of astrology, but allowed weather predictions with it (viewing it as part of the Aristotelian natural science), while discouraging other forms of prediction through astrology. You may notice that astrology in europe did not arise until the latter part of the medieval period, when the church's influence began to wane.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
On the concept of divination. That's how I see astrology. It's how the stoics saw it, too, and quite a few others. It's trying to see/understand the mind of God in some small way. That's what divination is.

Unlike Cornelius, I don't think anyone else uses the term in a way that includes 'if I reinterpret this chart, it will nullify fate'.
 

SunConjunctUranus

Well-known member
Oddity,

May care to share your experience as an astrologer in the 80s before software era. How can you generated birth chart back then? Must be using ephimeris, no?

Thanks
R
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
I think you mean the 1960s, cos that's when I started. Margaret Hone's Modern Textbook of Astrology figured heavily into it as she gave wonderfully clear explanations of how to construct a chart, determine planetary positions, use logarithmic tables, and houses. Thank you, Mrs Hone!

Tools: ephemeris, books of longitude and latitude, books of time changes, tables of houses, logarithmic tables, paper, pen or pencil, and compass.

It'd take a couple of hours to do up a chart in those days, and a knowledge of maths and astronomy, so the barrier to entry, so to speak, was considerably higher than it is today.

What we didn't have were traditional texts. There was some research in that field going on, but the writings tended to be scholarly critical editions that ended up in university libraries, usually in Latin, at a cost of several hundred dollars per volume.

So I was stuck with modern astrology. Some of which made sense, and some of which seemed like 'okay, this is right, this is right, this bit looks like it's papered over, but it doesn't fit and I don't know what does'. And Jung. I can't say what I think of his work here without getting banned, but I'm not a fan. 'Synthesising' a chart was a big deal, and I'm not sure anyone ever managed to do it, because I don't think it's possible, and I'm not sure it even means anything. People's lives tend to be a whole lot messier than that, and astrology is NOT primarily a psychological pursuit.

Horary and mundane were virtually unheard of, as were elections, so it was birth charts, solar and lunar returns, and progressions, and the progressions never worked. And way too much emphasis on the outer planets (that hasn't changed).

I persevered for reasons that would offend the non- religious and that I don't care to share here, but I knew there was something more to it, though by the 1980s I was pretty disillusioned. Luckily, the trad renewal was starting to happen. Luckily, I lived quite near to Robert Zoller.

Stuff finally started making sense.

Software is great. While I don't use Solar Fire anymore, that was the first comprehensive astrology programme to hit the market. My registration number was - 93.

Oddity,

May care to share your experience as an astrologer in the 80s before software era. How can you generated birth chart back then? Must be using ephimeris, no?

Thanks
R
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Firmicus says that astrology does not apply to the emperor (we all know the reason), but Valens says that gods are actors and play their part as much as men - ''the gods are agents of the Fates''
''Just as actors on the stage change their masks according to the poets’ words and act the characters as they should - sometimes kings, sometimes bandits, sometimes rustics, city people, gods - in the same way we too must act the parts assigned us by Fate and adapt ourselves to the chances of the moment'' - https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf

Both Manilius and Valens reject that men can change their fate by prayer.
''It is impossible to overcome with prayers and sacrifices what has been established from the beginning
or to gain for oneself something different, something more to one’s liking.
What has been given will come
about even if we do not pray; what is not fated will not happen, even if we do pray.
'' - ibid.

So what you say is not true.

I never said, that they said it changed through prayer. And I also said and I quote myself, might be a bit of reading between the lines on my part, however I always found the following statements interesting:

In book 9 of the Anthology Valens states:

It is then perfectly obvious that the gods can attend to men and can supply them with the finest and most respected benefits. Wishing men to keep the laws which they have made, the gods do not nullify the Fates; rather they confirm their effective control of human affairs with unbreakable oaths. For there is among the gods a fearsome and respected oath “By the Styx,” an oath which is accompanied by a steady cast of mind and unalterable Necessity.(..) The poet portrays Zeus making this threat, a god who can do what he says, but the Poet also mentions that Zeus does nothing to transgress the law nor does he do wrong among the gods.

So in the Anthology when providing this example, it is implied that Valens does not believe the Gods to be subject to Fate, but rather act in compliance with it. However, in the very paragraphs he also states that fate is unchangable, and the reason given is that the God's do not wish to intercede in human affairs. The implicartion being that while God's do not go against Fate, they could if they wanted to. This is when we enter the myth discussion (from where the attributes of the planets originate), in which the God's actually do intercede on behalf of humans all the time. This opens the possibility that both authors, while sustaining that fate is unchangable and unmovable, can't by logic eny the possibility. As I stated before, it does take reading between the lines. I did not try to imply they mean that fate can be changed (I might have understated that fact).
 

petosiris

Banned
Jumping in briefly. Al biruni spent the later part of his life as a court astrologer, so I'm thinking that questions would have been a big part of his work, and he certainly wrote about horary.

Germane, but slightly OT. I was at amazon (can't remember if it was .ca or .com) a couple of days ago, and if you go look at Ben Dykes' Choices and Inceptions, you will find that the preview of the book contains almost 80 pages of his introduction. It's relevant to this discussion if you've not read it, because it goes into a lot of how horary, elections, and the natal chart were seen by the Persians. And it's fascinating.

https://ia801209.us.archive.org/24/...ents of the art of Astrology by Al-Biruni.pdf

It's taken from - 515. At the end, he does actually briefly describe horary, while rejecting idle questions and thought-interpretation (what item does the person hold), which he ascribes to magicians. But he does seem to have reservations about the subject. I've read a similar claim about Morinus, do you have reference for him?
 

petosiris

Banned
Dirius, I do not understand your argument, first you claim

''True, though Firmicus or Valens do add the exception that fate can be changed by God's will.''

And then you quote as argument ''the gods do not nullify the Fates; rather they confirm their effective control of human affairs with unbreakable oaths''. If anything, this quote is another argument to be added to the preceding, which is that the gods are merely actors, and that the benefits they give too are fixed and unchangeable, by which he means present in the birth chart.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
No, I don't think so. As I demonstrated it is perfectly fine to say that elections exist and are possible, people ''elect'' for business, for planting crops, for travel, they organize everything on certain schedules, all this even without knowledge of astrology, but it's quite stretching to say that you can answer particular questions in physical manner, just because the preceding is possible. I have no problem with this kind of electional astrology based on common sense, but as I said, particulars can be easily investigated from nativities (the ambient at the very time of conception which determines the genetic admixture of the seed from the parents and therefore our biology, and the very time of birth which for the most part indicates it) and universals (whether through the influence of terrain, weather or the political systems in authority) in this manner.

In my OP, I mean that electional astrology as this type of procrastination characterized by observing a lucky minute on a certain day, which is without any obvious natural benefit, rather than to act as soon as possible with common sense, since the daily motions of the stars do not control or indicate all minute particulars, which is quite unfounded in argumentation, and frankly impossible. Of course, I am well aware that astrologers will insist on the non-procrastinating part of their work (that involves time range), but it's very doubtful they do not precisely encourage it, for the aforementioned reasons, if anything, the average person needs more internal locus of control in matters pertaining to his destiny, and one would be even more successful in his affairs if he combines the ''resisting faculty with the prognostic''.

But then here you are referring to elective astrology done in a manner which does not consult the natal chart, unlike the number of methods employed by Hellens (which by searching for suitable times would be considered a form of election), and comparing to Horary.

While I certainly agree elective isn't practiced today in modern circles as it should, the possibility the ancients did apply certain theorems that do not include the birth chart are also present. For example when Valens advises that beginning something when the Moon transits the nodes would result in an incomplete endeavour. This type of astrology not based on natal readings has existed for long.

When it comes to Horary, or the matter of interrogations, its clear intent is to pursue information that may not be related to the radical chart, such as when you inquire about a 3r party (which is usually the case). Seems to me the answers of Horary aren't that mcuh related to the querent, in the sense that what you ask is about this object or person whose chart you will not read. When you ask about getting a job, you are asking whether a particular employer whose chart you do not have will respond to you


- I do agree with you generalised questions in Horary are not worth it, and should not be pursued ("will I ever get married?"). However it seems to me that this question ultimately fail and are generally discouraged by serious horarists. Most of them don't seem to work for what I've seen.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Dirius, I do not understand your argument, first you claim

''True, though Firmicus or Valens do add the exception that fate can be changed by God's will.''

And then you quote as argument ''the gods do not nullify the Fates; rather they confirm their effective control of human affairs with unbreakable oaths''. If anything, this quote is another argument to be added to the preceding, which is that the gods are merely actors, and that the benefits they give too are fixed and unchangeable, by which he means present in the birth chart.
Unless my interpretation is wrong, its says the Gods created the laws, but do not nullify the fates so men would follow the law (who would follow a law if the God's played an impartial role in changing the fates at convinience?)- while fates are effective in managing human affairs as they are. Then this is compared with Zeus story of the golden chain, which shows Zeus can break any law, just chooses not to.
 

petosiris

Banned
Unless my interpretation is wrong, its says the Gods created the laws, but do not nullify the fates so men would follow the law (who would follow a law if the God's played an impartial role in changing the fates at convinience?)- while fates are effective in managing human affairs as they are. Then this is compared with Zeus story of the golden chain, which shows Zeus can break any law, just chooses not to.

Ok, so what you are saying they are capable of doing it, but they will never ever do so, is this like the Catholic Christian God?
 
Top