Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Other Astrology > Research and Development

Research and Development This is a forum designed for applying scientific methods and understanding to all approaches of astrology, cooperative formulation and testing of new ideas, re-examination of known methods of delineation and interpretation, and the exploration of new astrological methods of all kinds (e.g. heliocentric models, planetary nodes and apogees, etc.).


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 06-21-2011, 05:51 PM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Theoretical Astrology

I'm really not sure where to post this, as there isn't really a forum to discuss this sort of matter. Research and Development seems to be the best place, because research needs to start with an idea, right? Since my questions are theoretical, there can't really be any testing... but... eh, whatever.

So, I got into Astrology about ten years ago and didn't really progress any further than learning the signs, and a few of the major aspects. Relying mostly on Linda Goodman's Relationship signs for my thoughts and study. Most of the things, like the different types of astrology, orbs, meanings, etc while I find very interesting, gets extremely confusing very quickly.

What I found most interesting were the questions that I came up with from the very beginning. So I'd like to share some of my questions and thoughts with you... and maybe find some more questions and thoughts on some of the more theoretical applications of Astrology.

First:

The first question, I'm sure most people have already come up with:
If I was born on a different planet, what would my chart look like?

Sure, right now, space travel/being born on other worlds/living on other worlds is far in the future... but it might be helpful to start looking at the question to get an idea of what future generations might expect.

If I were born on Mars, and lived on Mars my entire life... would Mars be the center of my chart, and Earth a planet effecting my chart?
If Earth is a planet effecting my chart, what are it's characteristics?
Would an Astrologer instead draw a line from where I was born on the other planet, to a spot on Earth to determine how to draw my chart?
How would that line be determined?

Second:

Do the planets really effect us, or is it just the background pattern of the universe (rounding chaos), and we simply use the planets and placements to determine where in the pattern we are in that pattern?
Because of Astrology's bad name in Science, how can a person afford to research it legitimately to find the answer to the previous question? - (The answer I came up with was, prove it works in a way that there can be no doubt, see Proving Astrology for more info).

Third:

There can be no question that the planets and forces move in a very specific manner. It can be charted, and this pattern repeats. An example would be, you'll never find an Ares (sun) with a Libra Mercury, it just doesn't work like that.

How adaptable is our psyche to the changes in these patterns?

Say we had the technology to travel in time. I shoot a laser beam at you, and poof, your back in 1901.
How much of a shock would it be to us, simply because we were removed from the natural progression of the pattern, and placed in the progress of a different pattern?
One minute your dealing with Saturn in Libra, and the next your dealing with Saturn in Capricorn.
Would it be less stressful, less of a shock if you revisited a time that your chart had already experienced? Like sending you back to a time that existed in your life?

Fourth:

If we could artificially generate the effects that Astrology relates, say in a small room, containing it... what would happen if we moved the pattern back? What would happen if we moved the pattern forward?
Would we see the past in that room?
Would we see the future?
Or would nothing visible happen?
If we were in the room when that happened, would we travel in time?
Would we age rapidly?
Would we get younger suddenly?
Or would nothing happen?

I don't know why... everyone else in the books I've read, on forums, and pretty much anywhere seem so focused on Astrology itself. How "this" effects "this", what "this" means... it just seems really odd to me that there aren't at least some people focusing more on the why's, and how's, and the what happens if's. They seem distracted by the almost overwhelming difficulty of the task that needs to take place, or afraid of being treated as a martyr... so instead they focus on the other things, because that brings more immediate satisfaction.

Astrologers seems so brow beat into accepting that everyone else considers this an occultic science. Or they themselves like to ascribe mysticism to it... I don't understand that. I just don't.

Astrology works. It really does. It can be so incredibly helpful... especially in the near future. The world needs a change, and Astrology can do that. Bringing it from the underworld, the back alleys, and whispers, to the forefront of the science community Can-Change-The-World-As-We-Know-It. For the better, and for the worse.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 06-22-2011, 07:05 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Theoretical Astrology

After many years in this, and related fields (such as bioenergetic medicine and homeopathy), all I can say is: good luck to you in your efforts. There HAVE BEEN objective attempts to determine the how and why (mechanisms of action) in astrology (and homeopathy and many other fields of this type); and there is literature available on these investigations. Let me say that even the best of this type of work has been ignored by the mainstream-when all possibility of chance and error have been swept away (as in a few of these investigations), and results remain, then the mainstream simply plops these results into the "artifact" category, and forgets about them because they have been classified as "artifacts".

But, maybe it will be different for you! Best wishes!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 07-08-2011, 09:56 PM
spock's Avatar
spock spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: southwest Indiana
Posts: 100
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
I'm really not sure where to post this, as there isn't really a forum to discuss this sort of matter. Research and Development seems to be the best place, because research needs to start with an idea, right? Since my questions are theoretical, there can't really be any testing... but... eh, whatever.
Given the kinds of questions you're asking you might like my article After Symbolism, which deals with such issues, including a causal account of how something like astrology could even be possible, a sketch of the kind of astrology (motivations, not external events are timed by transits, "astrological" events are caused by us rather than happen to us, etc.) licensed by this account and suggested by empirical research, and descriptions of several promising lines of research.

Quote:
So, I got into Astrology about ten years ago and didn't really progress any further than learning the signs, and a few of the major aspects. Relying mostly on Linda Goodman's Relationship signs for my thoughts and study. Most of the things, like the different types of astrology, orbs, meanings, etc while I find very interesting, gets extremely confusing very quickly.
One of Francis Bacon's most perceptive insights was: "Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion." If we have a wrong idea, and it can be shown to be wrong, we can correct, improve or replace it. But if we're confronted with a blizzard of ideas with no way of differentiating between fact and fancy we're simply lost at sea. We don't know where to begin to bring order out of chaos. There is an unwitting point, however, to astrology's reign of confusion. With enough factors, with enough techniques, with enough elasticity of meaning and logic, virtually any chart can be made to "explain" virtually any eventuality and astrology will always seem to "work for me" despite its paucity of empirical content. No field can progress unless it exists in the meantime, and it exists in the meantime only if we think it already works, so for much of its history a way for it to seem to work even in the absence of established facts was a necessity. But that way of thinking, which is instilled in each astrologer by the very process of learning to do astrology, is now holding us back from a more powerful and rapid form of development.

Quote:
What I found most interesting were the questions that I came up with from the very beginning. So I'd like to share some of my questions and thoughts with you... and maybe find some more questions and thoughts on some of the more theoretical applications of Astrology.
Some of our earliest questions are the most perceptive. Part of what we learn, when we learn how to do astrology by following examples (i.e. paradigms in Kuhn's original meaning of the term), is how not to see some of the things that bothered us when we were neophytes. The student assumes that the problem is hers, that it's her inexperience causing the confusion, and when she eventually becomes unconfused or unbothered she doesn't realize that it's largely because she's "learned" how not to see some of the things that troubled her at first.

Quote:
The first question, I'm sure most people have already come up with:
If I was born on a different planet, what would my chart look like?

Sure, right now, space travel/being born on other worlds/living on other worlds is far in the future... but it might be helpful to start looking at the question to get an idea of what future generations might expect.

If I were born on Mars, and lived on Mars my entire life... would Mars be the center of my chart, and Earth a planet effecting my chart?
If Earth is a planet effecting my chart, what are it's characteristics?
Would an Astrologer instead draw a line from where I was born on the other planet, to a spot on Earth to determine how to draw my chart?
How would that line be determined?
The first question is, Could you be born on Mars? to which I have no answer. I don't know if there are subtle temporal effects the lack of which might make it impossible to carry a baby to term in a Martian environment. But if you simply posit a person being on Mars, by whatever means, I am pretty sure of this. The clocks that time you, physiologically and psychologically at various temporal wavelengths, have evolved here on earth, and in recent years chronobiologists have established pretty conclusively that these clocks are internal. It is the internal circadian clock, not the sun's position at various times of day, that determines when we're sleepy or alert, active or quiescent, and a host of other factors including body temperature that change according to a 24-hour rhythm. What the sun does, besides being the temporal template for the evolution of 24-hour processes, is reset the clock once a day. The internal clock isn't exactly 24 hours and would gradually drift out of alignment with the sun if not reset daily.

On Mars we might either adapt to the martian day, about 24 hours and 40 minutes long, or our various inner rhythms would simply free-run at their normal evolved intervals. I'm not sure how the diminished sunlight would affect its ability to reset the circadian clock. It might need to be supplemented. As for Mars rhythms, Jupiter rhythms, etc. I suspect they will continue as before, since in each case the rhythm itself is internal rather than external and is thus taken with us wherever we go. In the absence of actual instances this is all, of course, mere speculation.

My hypothesis is that Mars, Jupiter et al also have served as temporal templates for the evolution of biological (including psychological) processes that correspond to their periodicities, that in each case the planet resets the clock at some point in its cycle, and that (more speculatively) it's the clock, not the planet at its current point in space, that determines the timing of the various developments in the cycle, including the turning points when characteristic motivational patterns come to the forefront, causing us to want to make changes.

Quote:
Do the planets really effect us, or is it just the background pattern of the universe (rounding chaos), and we simply use the planets and placements to determine where in the pattern we are in that pattern?
Because of Astrology's bad name in Science, how can a person afford to research it legitimately to find the answer to the previous question? - (The answer I came up with was, prove it works in a way that there can be no doubt, see Proving Astrology for more info).
I think life on earth has used the planets, which are the largest and most stable sources of "time" in our cosmic neighborhood, as temporal templates around which to organize its constituent processes. Hence the planets themselves cause nothing, nor is each's physical make-up or name a clue to its supposed inherent meaning.

Quote:
There can be no question that the planets and forces move in a very specific manner. It can be charted, and this pattern repeats. An example would be, you'll never find an Ares (sun) with a Libra Mercury, it just doesn't work like that.

How adaptable is our psyche to the changes in these patterns?

Say we had the technology to travel in time. I shoot a laser beam at you, and poof, your back in 1901.
How much of a shock would it be to us, simply because we were removed from the natural progression of the pattern, and placed in the progress of a different pattern?
One minute your dealing with Saturn in Libra, and the next your dealing with Saturn in Capricorn.
Would it be less stressful, less of a shock if you revisited a time that your chart had already experienced? Like sending you back to a time that existed in your life?
Surprisingly, perhaps, I sort of grok what you're getting at here, but don't have the time at this time to do it justice (I don't write fast). It's actually a pretty deep question, one that I've considered in other contexts. You have a wicked imagination.

Quote:
If we could artificially generate the effects that Astrology relates, say in a small room, containing it... what would happen if we moved the pattern back? What would happen if we moved the pattern forward?
Would we see the past in that room?
Would we see the future?
Or would nothing visible happen?
If we were in the room when that happened, would we travel in time?
Would we age rapidly?
Would we get younger suddenly?
Or would nothing happen?
This, too, is something I'll try to address at another time. From what I've already written it might be evident that I don't see "the astrological effect" as the sort of thing that could in principle "be" in a room or any other physical location, but that doesn't mean your thought experiment is barren. You've asked some thoughtful, imaginative questions which I'll return to if I can find time. (Busy co-authoring a book.)

Quote:
I don't know why... everyone else in the books I've read, on forums, and pretty much anywhere seem so focused on Astrology itself. How "this" effects "this", what "this" means... it just seems really odd to me that there aren't at least some people focusing more on the why's, and how's, and the what happens if's. They seem distracted by the almost overwhelming difficulty of the task that needs to take place, or afraid of being treated as a martyr... so instead they focus on the other things, because that brings more immediate satisfaction.
Most people are less interested in the why of something than in just using it. There are people -- I'm one of them -- interested in the why's and how's and from time to time a "heavy" discussion will break out in a group normally preoccupied with more mundane concerns, but they don't happen everyday and you don't meet people like that very often. That being said, hi.

Quote:
Astrologers seems so brow beat into accepting that everyone else considers this an occultic science. Or they themselves like to ascribe mysticism to it... I don't understand that. I just don't.
Astrology has been inherently implausible to the educated "class" since the second half of the seventeenth century. That's when it began its precipitous decline. The change is due, I believe, to the Uranus/Neptune conjunction at midcentury. The Newtonian world-machine, which was created one Saturn cycle later, supplanted a reality-picture in which astrology played a central and plausible role. Living in the modern world we can't be totally oblivious to current accepted notions about reality and causation, so it's natural to feel defensive in the company of those who don't see how something like astrology could work. With respect to astrology as understood by the overwhelming majority of astrologers, I don't see how it could work, either.

However, unlike debunkers who "know" it doesn't work, and astrologers who "know" it does, I'm driven to imagine/discover what it would have to be like in order to work. So many astrological researchers seem to think astrology will be accepted only in the wake of a revolution in science, after which it will make sense that astrology as we understand it actually works. This is the tail wagging the dog. Rather than a revolution in science, what we need is a revolution in astrology, so that it becomes knowledge of a kind of order that actually exists in the world and can be understood in post-Newtonian terms.

Quote:
Astrology works. It really does. It can be so incredibly helpful... especially in the near future. The world needs a change, and Astrology can do that. Bringing it from the underworld, the back alleys, and whispers, to the forefront of the science community Can-Change-The-World-As-We-Know-It. For the better, and for the worse.
Careful there. I suggest that you, me and everyone else here was predisposed to believe in astrology from the beginning, that there is something about the kind of order it posits that attracts us, just as a chemical or physical or biological approach to understanding reality attracts certain other individuals. They may think that they accept the validity of the science they study based on the evidence offered in their textbooks, but that is as much a myth as the skeptic of astrology who, being open-minded, checks it out and ends up being "convinced against my will." We believe in astrology because we want to, but that doesn't mean we can't make the astrology we believe in something that's more believable than what we started with. And I believe that the more plausible astrology that results from such a process will, in the final analysis, still give us much of what attracted us to the older astrology in the first place.

Last edited by spock; 01-06-2015 at 08:58 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 07-30-2011, 05:30 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 52,486
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
...........What I found most interesting were the questions that I came up with from the very beginning. So I'd like to share some of my questions and thoughts with you... and maybe find some more questions and thoughts on some of the more theoretical applications of Astrology.

First:
The first question, I'm sure most people have already come up with:
If I was born on a different planet, what would my chart look like?

............Sure, right now, space travel/being born on other worlds/living on other worlds is far in the future... but it might be helpful to start looking at the question to get an idea of what future generations might expect......If I were born on Mars, and lived on Mars my entire life... would Mars be the center of my chart, and Earth a planet effecting my chart?
If Earth is a planet effecting my chart, what are it's characteristics?
Would an Astrologer instead draw a line from where I was born on the other planet, to a spot on Earth to determine how to draw my chart?
How would that line be determined?
You would need to draw a Mars centred chart. Here's a link to an article re: Mars centred charts/Planet centred charts that you may find interesting http://www.skyviewzone.com/articles/article4sc.htm
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 09-06-2011, 07:06 PM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by spock View Post
Given the kinds of questions you're asking you might like my article After Symbolism, which deals with such issues, including a causal account of how something like astrology could even be possible, a sketch of the kind of astrology (motivations, not external events are timed by transits, "astrological" events are caused by us rather than happen to us, etc.) licensed by this account and suggested by empirical research, and descriptions of several promising lines of research.
I like the way you think, really I do. It's difficult to find people with a willingness to have an open mind and the ability to actually absorb another persons point of view without immediately agreeing with or discrediting what they are saying.

I read your article, and while I found it interesting... I also found it to be a very difficult read. It read like a text book, which I'm sure you were going for, but the whole time I was reading it I couldn't help but feel as if you were trying to say something that could have been put much simpler with greater impact.

I translated it as you were making a nature vs nurture argument. No, that's not quite right... a nature vs environment/nurture argument into how people should be viewing astrology. Nature in this case being the "planets/signs" your born with as well as the current transits effecting you vs environment/nurture, how you were raised and the people/objects you are around and how they influence your nature. Hence why it is more viable to find out the individuals patterns in the past rather than base a reading solely on the traditional way of doing things.

That isn't quite what you're saying, more of a warped version of it. Either way, it's getting bookmarked so I can go back through it someday.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 09-06-2011, 07:06 PM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Re: Theoretical Astrology

I call Astrology - Rounding Chaos. And I came by this term after running across the third picture from this web page in a book. http://mrflip.com/teach/lessons/newt...sFractals.html

Something about that picture calls to me and places itself in the Astrology category of my mind, like it's relevant and I don't know why. You take a chaotic system and try to apply a pattern to it, you can get basins that are relatively easy to define but the boundaries become an infinite fractal pattern. Positive/Negative, Leader/Organizer/Communicator, Fire/Earth/Air/Water, 12 houses/signs, orbs/degrees. Every step seems to be trying to round the chaos into more and more basins of understanding, but what it really comes down to is, it's still chaos... and basically what Astrology is trying to do is round chaos.

Unlike most science, which attempts to break down chaos from the starting point of it's smallest denominator. Astrology is breaking down chaos from the other end of the spectrum, starting from chaos and breaking it in two... then three, then four, then 12, then 360.

This idea isn't quite right, but I think the idea might be enough to lead someone to what is right.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 09-06-2011, 10:22 PM
miquar's Avatar
miquar miquar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: North West England
Posts: 3,215
Re: Theoretical Astrology

I remember being fascinated when reading in Mundane Astrology, European natives different pelvises to people born in North America - and the grandchildren of European settlers to America had pelvises of the American kind. In only two generations, something had the skeletal structure being passed down the ancestral line had changed to that which is natural to the new part of the Earth. The authors were suggesting that perhaps each part of the Earth has a different energy that affects the beings that are born there, irrespective of planetary pattens, etc.

If people were born on another planet, and then they had children, how might they differ in shape? Would people born on Mars have large foreheads (Mars) as has been imagined in many a sci-fi film? We'd lose our beloved Moon by being born on Mars, because the Moon would just be in the same part of the chart as the Earth. But we'd have two Moons in its place - so I wonder what affect that would have?

Uranus rotates on an axis that is fairly parallel to the plane of its orbit around the Sun, so the planets would always fall near the MC, or the IC, I think???
__________________
True freedom and the end of suffering is living in such a way as if you had completely chosen whatever you feel or experience at this moment.

Eckhart Tolle, Stillness Speaks, page 118
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 09-07-2011, 01:16 AM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by charmvirgo View Post
Our being, which goes beyond just physical, is encoded in our DNA, and we originated on Earth, which is why we are subject to geocentric influences even if living on other planets. In order to create the DNA in the first place, Earth is only able to create life as we know it because it is exactly the right temperature, the right size, the right distance from the Sun, has the right astmosphere, the right type of core, etc, etc.
DNA changes based on our surroundings, so would it not stand to reason that if it is encoded in our DNA, should we migrate and live on another hospitable world... this aspect would also change?

EDIT: It has been pointed out that this information is false. I was thinking of genetics not DNA. Sorry.

Last edited by Rayek; 09-11-2011 at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 09-07-2011, 01:23 AM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by miquar View Post
I remember being fascinated when reading in Mundane Astrology, European natives different pelvises to people born in North America - and the grandchildren of European settlers to America had pelvises of the American kind. In only two generations, something had the skeletal structure being passed down the ancestral line had changed to that which is natural to the new part of the Earth. The authors were suggesting that perhaps each part of the Earth has a different energy that affects the beings that are born there, irrespective of planetary pattens, etc.

If people were born on another planet, and then they had children, how might they differ in shape? Would people born on Mars have large foreheads (Mars) as has been imagined in many a sci-fi film? We'd lose our beloved Moon by being born on Mars, because the Moon would just be in the same part of the chart as the Earth. But we'd have two Moons in its place - so I wonder what affect that would have?

Uranus rotates on an axis that is fairly parallel to the plane of its orbit around the Sun, so the planets would always fall near the MC, or the IC, I think???
I'm actually of two minds about this. Part of me wants to say, "Yes! Yes! Yes! People born on Mars would have huge foreheads and be born with a Mars centric chart. That would be awesome!"

The other part of me wants to say that Astrology is just the study of the background pattern of the universe. To get an accurate chart, it would still be Earth centric... drawing a line from where a person was born to Earth because it's easier to use the accumulated data from Earth than to figure out spacial coordinates in the universe and working from there to determine the current part of the pattern that one is being influenced by.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 09-07-2011, 01:55 AM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50 View Post
Wish it wasn't just a list of books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50 View Post
Based in Multiverse theory. I've seen a lot of interesting thoughts come from Multiverse theory, but nothing to do with Astrology... until now. Kind of reminds me when a lot of Astrologers were pointing to Electromagnatism as the reason why Astrology works, except this one is much cooler. I unfortunately don't find it really credible... at least not in my universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50 View Post
I honestly hate to say this, but monkeys throwing food at a newspaper taped to the wall had better stock predictions than the guy who uses Astrology as his tool of anylsis. It's difficult to look at anything else on this page as accurate information when the third sentence is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50 View Post
I cringe when I see the terms "metaphysical" and "synchronisity". But I rather enjoyed this one. It doesn't actually explain HOW astrology works, not from a scientific standpoint, but it did provide a nice analogy and a warm fuzzy feeling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50 View Post
Well put together, well thought out... but I still think it is foolish to deny the ability to scientifically explain astrology. Relying on sychronisity as the answer still seems sort of like giving up. Like the church denying that the Earth is round because they don't believe it and they don't have evidence to support it. It just... seems like giving up because finding the answer is too hard. I come from the mindset that given enough time and information, everything can be explained by science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50 View Post
Just gives a few various interpretations of the more popular reasons why people think it works. Interesting, but already covered by your previous links.

Doesn't explain anything, other than people have questions on how it works. The writers answer to that is, why yes, it does work. ??


But since this is a theoretical astrological discussion... I'm curious.... Since you're theoretically focusing on the "How does Astrology Work"... how do you think it works?



Personally, I think we're all in a giant AI generated universe. The people who created the program understood that in order to recreate intelligence one must start from the smallest denominator and work it's way out. Astrology is the parameters set to the program to get it to run and continue evolving.

Or that's one thought.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 09-07-2011, 07:15 AM
miquar's Avatar
miquar miquar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: North West England
Posts: 3,215
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
I'm actually of two minds about this. Part of me wants to say, "Yes! Yes! Yes! People born on Mars would have huge foreheads and be born with a Mars centric chart. That would be awesome!"

The other part of me wants to say that Astrology is just the study of the background pattern of the universe. To get an accurate chart, it would still be Earth centric... drawing a line from where a person was born to Earth because it's easier to use the accumulated data from Earth than to figure out spacial coordinates in the universe and working from there to determine the current part of the pattern that one is being influenced by.
Hi. If you were born on Mars, then Mars would be at the centre of the chart, and the House positions would be based on where the rational horizon and meridian (except Equal House system, etc) of the birth place on Mars crossed the plane of Mars' orbit around the Sun. The zodiac itself would be on a different plane to our zodiac on Earth. Earth on the Martian native would just be another inner planet that clung to the Sun throughout the year, as Mercury and Venus do for us. I'm sure that within a couple of generations of conception, pregnancy and birth, that we would see physiological differences compared to their terrestrial ancestors!

I think the Moon being replaced with two moons could reflect some emotional upheaval - perhaps a kind of instinctual schizophrenia. I think that maybe this would be the biggest adjustment of a life form that evolved on Earth to being gestated, born and raised on Mars.
__________________
True freedom and the end of suffering is living in such a way as if you had completely chosen whatever you feel or experience at this moment.

Eckhart Tolle, Stillness Speaks, page 118
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 09-11-2011, 05:08 PM
spock's Avatar
spock spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: southwest Indiana
Posts: 100
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
DNA changes based on our surroundings, so would it not stand to reason that if it is encoded in our DNA, should we migrate and live on another hospitable world... this aspect would also change?
Where did you hear this? It's a central tenet of molecular biology that DNA does not change based on our surroundings. That's long-discredited Lamarckian evolution, in which for instance the giraffe stretching its neck to reach tasty leaves lengthens it, and then passes on this lengthened neck (via its DNA) to its progeny. Maybe you're thinking of the phenotype, the individual's actual observed properties, which is strongly influenced by its genotype (its genetic makeup, or DNA) but also subtly by environmental factors. For instance, if two people have identical genotypes but one is malnourished while growing up, she'll be shorter than her genetic twin. But being malnourished doesn't affect our DNA and neither would living on Mars. Almost certainly we'd have to function on a 24-hour schedule or suffer physiological consequences, which if we deviated far enough might even include death.

As to whether our descendents would evolve in time to become, in essence, a native species on whatever planet we migrated to, I think it might take a very long time. The evolution of the 24-hour earth clock predates our species by many millions of years. We've merely inherited it, so in a way the difference would be bigger than that between us and dogs, or perhaps even us and worms. I don't know how long it would take for a Martian clock to evolve via genetic mutations and natural selection, but I suspect it would be tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. Of course I could be completely wrong and it might take only a few hundred years, as unlikely as that seems.

Last edited by spock; 09-11-2011 at 09:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 09-11-2011, 05:50 PM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by spock View Post
Where did you hear this? It's a central tenet of molecular biology that DNA does not change based on our surroundings. That's long-discredited Lamarckian evolution, in which for instance the giraffe stretching its neck to reach tasty leaves lengthens it, and then passes on this lengthened neck (via its DNA) to its progeny. Maybe you're thinking of the phenotype, the individual's actual observed properties, which is strongly influenced by its genotype (it's genetic makeup, or DNA) but also subtly by environmental factors. For instance, if two people have identical genotypes but one is malnourished while growing up, she'll be shorter than her genetic twin. But being malnourished doesn't affect our DNA and neither would living on Mars. Almost certainly we'd have to function on a 24-hour schedule or suffer physiological consequences, which if we deviated far enough might even include death.

As to whether our descendents would evolve in time to become, in essence, a native species on whatever planet we migrated to, I think it might take a very long time. The evolution of the 24-hour earth clock predates our species by many millions of years. We've merely inherited it, so in a way the difference would be bigger than that between us and dogs, or perhaps even us and worms. I don't know how long it would take for a Martian clock to evolve via genetic mutations and natural selection, but I suspect it would be tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. Of course I could be completely wrong and it might take only a few hundred years, as unlikely as that seems.
You're right.

I think I was thinking genetics... the various evolutions of physical attributes does not change the base DNA. Urgh! I hate spreading false information.

btw, hello from Northern Indiana.
__________________
You smile at me
The world has stopped
...wonder...

"Felines and dames in flames will hardly serve your aims.
Do you surmise it's wise to have laser beams emitting from your eyes?" - TMBG (The Lady and the Tiger)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 09-11-2011, 08:28 PM
miquar's Avatar
miquar miquar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: North West England
Posts: 3,215
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Hi spock. I hear what you're saying and I'm sure its scientifically valid, but I'd be curious whether the way that DNA multiplies itself in a gestating foetus is in any way dependent upon it being on earth. We have no other perspective than terrestrial genetic inheritance. Presumably the pelvis size is considered a genetic attribute, and yet in the example given in Mundane Astrology, it took only two generations for the pelvis shape/size of the offspring of European settlers to North America to be like that of the native North Americans rather than that of their genetic ancestors. Don't know what you think of this - there could be holes in it???
__________________
True freedom and the end of suffering is living in such a way as if you had completely chosen whatever you feel or experience at this moment.

Eckhart Tolle, Stillness Speaks, page 118
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 09-11-2011, 11:32 PM
spock's Avatar
spock spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: southwest Indiana
Posts: 100
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by miquar View Post
Hi spock. I hear what you're saying and I'm sure its scientifically valid, but I'd be curious whether the way that DNA multiplies itself in a gestating foetus is in any way dependent upon it being on earth. We have no other perspective than terrestrial genetic inheritance. Presumably the pelvis size is considered a genetic attribute, and yet in the example given in Mundane Astrology, it took only two generations for the pelvis shape/size of the offspring of European settlers to North America to be like that of the native North Americans rather than that of their genetic ancestors. Don't know what you think of this - there could be holes in it???
A change in gravity due to being on Mars might affect cell division, for instance by slowing it or speeding it up in ways (most likely) deleterious to the developing foetus, and it might even increase the possibility of copying errors. Such errors, however, would normally affect the viability of the foetus, resulting in miscarriage, or if full term in the birth of a child with serious genetic abnormalities. These errors are not part of the evolutionary process. Errors (i.e. mutations) in germ cells that produce sperm and eggs are, but are usually fatal unless the mutated gene is recessive. Only a small percentage of mutations are beneficial or neutral, but they don't directly drive evolution. They become part of the genetic stock available for recombination. It's recombination of genes that provides the variation that nature "selects" from via "survival of the fittest."

A change in environment cannot in any known way change DNA except in the longterm sense of favoring offspring who have combinations of genes (and hence characteristics) that are a better fit for that environment. But variability isn't caused by the environment. It's part of the process of random gene recombination in sexual reproduction. The environment merely "selects" between more favorable and less favorable (in the context of that environment) variants and in that way "determines" which genes and characteristics are dominant in the population.

However, environmental changes can cause phenotypic changes almost immediately, because genetic make-up interacts with the environment in determining the actual physical (and perhaps mental) make-up of the individual, that is, his or her phenotype. With regards to the pelvic changes you mention my first thought is, is this really a fact? More often than not it isn't. Too many times I've struggled trying to explain some odd fact only to discover, down the road, that it wasn't a fact at all. But if we grant, for the sake of argument, that these pelvic changes actually occurred, I'd suspect a systematic environmental difference that had a systematic effect on how the genetic make-up expressed. It might be something as simple as better nutrition, or poorer nutrition, or simply different foods, than in the Old World. It might be some other subtle but pervasive difference. If this is a fact, and I don't consider that a given, I strongly suspect it's directly the difference in envronments, not a difference in genetic make-up due to the difference in environments, that accounts for the pelvic differences. Can you provide a source for this fact?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 09-12-2011, 02:50 AM
spock's Avatar
spock spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: southwest Indiana
Posts: 100
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
I read your article, and while I found it interesting... I also found it to be a very difficult read. It read like a text book, which I'm sure you were going for, but the whole time I was reading it I couldn't help but feel as if you were trying to say something that could have been put much simpler with greater impact.
Textbooks are pretty simple. If they seem difficult it's because they cram a lot of information into a relatively small space. My article might seem like a textbook in that sense but that wasn't what I was after. If it was it would have been easier to be clear, because for the person reading the textbook the facts are not in doubt. She's studying the textbook in order to learn "what we know." But After Symbolism is an extended argument, in which "what we know" is part of what's at issue. To make it simpler would require the reader to accept, at least "for the sake of argument," assertions I'd otherwise feel compelled to defend in depth (which I think is where much of the difficulty you perceive comes in), assertions most astrologers are not only unwilling to accept, even hypothetically, but are actively hostile towards (and often towards me for making them). I'm not sanguine about the ability of anyone familiar with astrology being able to accept such assertions even hypothetically, but for the sake of simplicity I'll nonetheless proceed on that basis.

Astrologers trying to explain "why astrology works" are in a position analogous to that of a person who thinks a cow really can jump over the moon and tries earnestly to explain how. You can't explain what isn't so. I believe that astrology as presently constituted doesn't work. It only seems to. (I'll leave out for the time being, again for the sake of simplicity, why I think this is so.) Hence we need to look for answers to two entertwined questions. One, how is it that something like astrology can work? Two, what does that something have to be like in order to work that way? An explanation of how it is that astrology can work might require us to realize that the astrology that works that way is different in important ways from the astrology we learned. A good way to approach these questions is to define astrology simply as correspondences between the heavens and life on earth. That doesn't require us to commit to a particular set of factors, interpretations, and rules, in which the acknowledgment of invalidity would be tantamount to abandoning astrology. Rather, it frees us to discover what we can reasonably believe that can still be considered "astrology", even if not the astrology handed down to us that we're familiar and comfortable with.

The predictability of external events not only contradicts free will as we understand it, it also hasn't been demonstrated as a fact. The predictability of motivations, however, doesn't contradict free will, and not only is there evidence, including the work of preeminent cognitive developmental psychologists Jean Piaget and L.S. Vygotsky, that it's a fact, it's also possible to conceive how it can be a fact. We know, thanks to advances in chronobiology within the last twenty years, not only that earth creatures have internal circadian, circatidal and circannual clocks that time various biological (including psychological) rhythms, we also know the cellular molecular feedback mechanism by which the circadian clock keeps time and thereby times the various processes in a 24-hour day, and the molecular means by which light at sunrise and sunset resets the clock to keep it in phase with external daylight and darkness. My hypothesis is that there are also clocks and hence rhythms corresponding to the periods of Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn et al, and that all of these clocks are products of evolution. Evolution, not anything inherent in the planets themselves, is the source of the effects of the rhythms associated with them. We may not currently know the means by which organisms have interacted with planets and evolved these clocks/rhythms, but at least it's an imaginable possibility, an alternative to simply assuming that transiting Jupiter conjoining natal Venus magically corresponds to marriage with absolutely no idea of how that's possible, of how we get from heavenly configuration to terrestrial "I do".

Since discoverable rhythms appear to correspond to planetary periods and to whole number (especially fourths) divisions of them, transits, especially hard-angle transits (i.e. conjunctions, squares and oppositions), are the starting point for an astrology that actually exists in nature and is an expression of natural order. Transits understood this way, however, predict not external events but rather characteristic recurrent motivational states of mind. Understanding these states of mind doesn't mean we can predict a specific event outcome, but it is possible to know the range of outcomes a given mental state can underpin. Hence Mars transiting conjunct, square or opposite its natal place might coincide with an apartment change, a rearrangement of furniture, a different route to work, a different shift or work schedule, patronizing a different grocery or department store or bank, starting a new diet or exercise regimen, or beginning or ending a physical relationship, each of which is a change in daily routine. None is specifically predicted by the transit, and more often than not nothing specific occurs. What the transit actually predicts, I think, is an increased awareness of and often discomfort with this facet of our existence, which we feel a need to do something about. That doesn't mean we will do something about whatever's bothering us, but if we don't we might well wish, the next time this rhythm comes to the forefront, that we had. Similar developments often coincide with Mars transiting conjunct, square or opposite the nonagesimal (NG), but for a different reason. We simply get around to doing these things rather than putting them off due to inertia. We get our butts in gear. Jupiter and Saturn transits similarly correspond to characteristic mental states, and there is a comparable difference between each planet's transits to its natal place and transits to the NG, but this is covered, along with much else, in After Symbolism, so I'll stop here.

Is that simpler?

Quote:
I translated it as you were making a nature vs nurture argument. No, that's not quite right... a nature vs environment/nurture argument into how people should be viewing astrology. Nature in this case being the "planets/signs" your born with as well as the current transits effecting you vs environment/nurture, how you were raised and the people/objects you are around and how they influence your nature. Hence why it is more viable to find out the individuals patterns in the past rather than base a reading solely on the traditional way of doing things.
While nature vs environment/nurture isn't irrelevant I was actually making a methodological point. Astrologers normally deal with isolated events, each explained differently, not with a set of events associated with the same or similar configuration. But if I cite a single event in someone's life and associate it with transiting Saturn square natal Mercury, how do I know that's so? How do I know some other configuration isn't relevant? How do I know any configuration at all is relevant? How do I know the Saturn/Mercury configuration isn't relevant to some other development, perhaps something I didn't notice or think of? But if I can see a sequence of developments in Freud's life which strike me as in some sense "the same thing," and if they coincide with Saturn closing square (1875-76), conjunct (1882-83), opening square (1889-90), opposite (1896-97), closing square (1905), conjunct (1912), etc. natal Mercury, and if I can then analyze these developments and see what "it" is that's the same each time (doubt or uncertainty regarding his beliefs about how things work that made possible new insights), I can then say that this apparent mindset and related developments regularly and thus predictably coincided with transiting Saturn hard-angle natal Mercury. If I can see similar even if not identical sequences in other lives, yet nonetheless see how in a broader sense all are instances of "the same thing," I can then offer a general account of the effects of this cycle. Rather than accepting handed-down notions of what Saturn transiting Mercury ought to mean we can look for evidence of regularity per se and then describe, not interpret, what recurs at the relevant intervals and times.

This particular case study, by the way, is covered in more detail in an article titled Life Changes: Transit Cycles and Astrological Theory at the website A Place in Space. I have four articles there, each of which covers one of the facets dealt with in After Symbolism, which is a more comprehensive statement of my approach to astrology because that's what the site owner wanted. Each of those four articles is a more focused treatment of a single subject and therefore might be easier to digest.

Quote:
That isn't quite what you're saying, more of a warped version of it. Either way, it's getting bookmarked so I can go back through it someday.
Hope I haven't overwhelmed you. And hello from the other end of the state.

Last edited by spock; 09-12-2011 at 05:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 09-12-2011, 05:56 AM
Rayek's Avatar
Rayek Rayek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 69
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Saying that the planets have anything to do with astrology other than they are like the hands of a clock is akin to saying Spring is caused by Venus being on the horizon. Yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spock View Post
Hope I haven't overwhelmed you.
Not overwhelmed in the slightest.

Let me try again...

I understand that you are saying Astrology isn't caused by anything (ie, the planets, or a "force") rather it's an evolved biological pattern?

Now, let me explain. I have very little background in the study of astrology. The area that I find the most fascinating isn't the current state of the planets and how they effect us, but the individual charts and the synastry between people.

To me, in a persons chart, a conjunction means simply that: The planets work together. A square means: Attempting to do two different things in a way that causes problems for the other. A Opposition means: Attempting to do the same thing in the exact opposite way. A trine and sextile are relatively good. Any other aspect is foreign to me at this time.

The meanings of planets and signs are also broken down in this way. For example. Mars - Aries - Masculine - Leader - Fire, any description deeper than that is going too deep into "word science" (as opposed to "number science") which has yet to be perfected.

So, that is the primary focus of my questions and the background that my questions start from.

- We are born with certain "characteristic recurrent motivational states of mind"
I think that is the defining point of your post and article? The rest of it is simply to explain how this is different from the regular astrologers view point, why you believe this is so, and giving various examples of how it works? (Oh PLEASE tell me I got it this time!) lol

If that is a correct assumption of your point, it sits perfectly fine with me. My belief is that there is a background pattern in the universe (as described by astrology). One being true does not automatically assume the other to be false. Even with traditional Astrology, it doesn't seem that either are mutually exclusive. And I find your thoughts intriguing.


I understand how your idea relates to current transits influencing a person, but I am unsure on how it relates to the creation of a person's chart.

Where you lose me, is in the understanding on how your assumption relates to birth charts. I think... I think I'm having a hard time understanding, if we are born with these clocks, how do we know when our clocks start? And, why does the "when the clocks start" have an effect on our internal workings, thought processes and how we react to the rest of the (looking for a better term here but can only find) turn of the clock.

Also, using your system, synastry becomes a slight problem for me. If we are born with these clocks, how does synastry fit into the grand scheme?

As I typed my questions, I started to have answers form, but am interested in your thoughts.
__________________
You smile at me
The world has stopped
...wonder...

"Felines and dames in flames will hardly serve your aims.
Do you surmise it's wise to have laser beams emitting from your eyes?" - TMBG (The Lady and the Tiger)

Last edited by Rayek; 09-12-2011 at 06:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 09-12-2011, 09:02 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Theoretical Astrology

These concepts are very similar to the extensive work of Gauquellin and his associates, who eventually developed a system called "neo-astrology"; there is at least one recent thread on the Gauquellin work (I contributed to that thread) here on AW, and it might be of interest. The "neo-astrology", based on extensive statistical research, is basically a type of planetocentric aspectology; houses and signs (and constellations and stars) have been eliminated (as Kepler did several hundred years ago in the elaboration of his astrological method), and also the Sun and Mercury (and the outers) are rejected from consideration, everything in the "neo-astrological" approach concentrating on aspects involving Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

I personally don't have any interest in these concepts (Gauqellin, Kepler), not that I necessarily dispute them, but rather that I am very satisfied with the eclectic whole system model I use in obtaining a high degree of accuracy in both analysis and predicition, from astrological data.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 09-12-2011, 08:55 PM
miquar's Avatar
miquar miquar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: North West England
Posts: 3,215
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by spock View Post
Can you provide a source for this fact?
Hi Spock. I no longer have a copy of Mundane Astrology (Harvey and Campion) so I can't tell you the source of the study. If anyone has this book perhaps they could look in the section which asks whether different parts of the Earth have different energies, and post the name of the study that is used as a source for citing the changes in the pelvises of ancestors of settlers to North America? Thanks.
__________________
True freedom and the end of suffering is living in such a way as if you had completely chosen whatever you feel or experience at this moment.

Eckhart Tolle, Stillness Speaks, page 118
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 09-13-2011, 12:55 AM
spock's Avatar
spock spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: southwest Indiana
Posts: 100
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
Saying that the planets have anything to do with astrology other than they are like the hands of a clock is akin to saying Spring is caused by Venus being on the horizon. Yes?
If you're contrasting the actual cause of Spring (the pole of the hemisphere in question tilting neither towards nor away from the Sun following a period when it was tilted away from it) with something (Venus on the horizon) that merely evokes the idea of it I'd say we're on the same page. So yes.

Quote:
I understand that you are saying Astrology isn't caused by anything (ie, the planets, or a "force") rather it's an evolved biological pattern?
Exactly. Life has used the Sun, Moon and planets as a means of organizing its processes in time. A corollary is that it's illogical (and lacking in evidentiary support) to have charts for events, nations, ingresses, returns, or relationships, none of which is a biological entity.

Quote:
Now, let me explain. I have very little background in the study of astrology. The area that I find the most fascinating isn't the current state of the planets and how they effect us, but the individual charts and the synastry between people.
That was pretty much my own starting point. What am I like according to astrology? What about attraction and a relationship between me and another person? At the time I formulated some crude ideas about synastry and followed Grant Lewi (Heaven Knows What) in my understanding of the natal chart, but I didn't feel I knew enough about how astrology works to know for sure how to apply it specific situations. So I took a long detour. That detour turned out to be a fascinating end in itself, a quest for a certain kind of knowledge, but those basic questions -- what can astrology tell me about myself? what can astrology tell me about where I'm going? what can astrology tell me about compatibility between myself and others? -- are the motives underlying that quest.

The crude ideas I referred to are as follows. One, having similar aspects, the idea being that we can best relate to someone who is, in important ways, like us. My ex, who was a skilled press operator, was very straigtforward and untactful in human relations, a quality I related to Mercury conjunct Uranus in her chart. At new jobs she would invariably have a blow-up with an equally straightforward press operator already there, after which they'd be great friends because they understood each other. I don't know if her printing press co-workers generally had the same or similar Uranus aspects, but I suspect they did. What constitutes similar aspects, when it's not the same planets and aspect, is an open question. Sun/Uranus and Mars/Uranus, for instance? And does the aspect between them, for instance square or trine, have to be the same?

Two, having complementary aspects, which I related mostly to Venus and Mars and to a lesser extent to Moon and Sun. A person with Venus conjunct Saturn, for instance, would be attracted to profundity and conscientiousness, and a person with Mars conjunct Saturn would embody or express these qualities. The way I thought about it was Venus likes the way Mars does it, with Venus aspects indicating what we're receptive to (in males or females), and Mars aspects indicating our style, the way we come across. What I liked about this was it could account for lack of symmetry in interactions. We're not always attracted to people who are attracted to us and vice versa.

Third, there is of course interaspects, which I've understood in terms of timing (anticipating my subsequent approach to natal aspects, about which more later). If she has Mars conjunct his Venus, for example, this means everytime Saturn transits conjunct, square or opposite her Mars it will simultaneously transit conjunct, square, or opposite his Venus. Their lives are in sync. They experience turning points at the same time, which I think might be a prerequisite for having a relationship. It also enables me to account for the fact that an attraction now might be a repulsion five, ten, or twenty years from now, even though their charts and supposedly the attraction they indicate haven't changed. If synastry simply indicates attraction how does it account for break-ups? I decided that interaspects most likely signal that the people involved can have an impact on each other. If they weren't going through change periods at the same time (inlcuding, of course, the change period for each that coincided with their marriage and/or the beginning of their relationship) they'd pass by each other like ships in the night, never making contact. But the changes each experiences (due largely to choices made) during subsequent simultaneous transits will pull them closer together or push them apart. Usually there are several interaspects indicating several levels of change. The initial impetus for a relationship will often involve simultaneous Mars transits, and if the relationship survives only two years, or one-quarter, half, or three-quarters of a Mars cycle, that suggests the relationship was never more than a physical relationship, a love affair. There is often a Jupiter component, indicating the companionship aspect of the relationship, their liking to do things together. Jupiter transits time new enthusiasms (including for astrologers the first exciting exposure to the subject), hobbies and friendships (and by the same token often the termination of old ones). And there is usually a Saturn component, the level at which the couple is a unit of and contributor to society, which tends to lead to a formally sanctioned relationship (i.e. legal marriage) with expectations about the role(s) in the relationship each plays (often a source of dissatisfaction which comes to a head during subsequent Saturn transits). Transits at each of these levels can strain or strengthen that level of the relationship. (Of course it's not the transit per se that does this but rather our response to the mindset that comes to the forefront at regular intervals.)

Quote:
To me, in a persons chart, a conjunction means simply that: The planets work together. A square means: Attempting to do two different things in a way that causes problems for the other. A Opposition means: Attempting to do the same thing in the exact opposite way. A trine and sextile are relatively good. Any other aspect is foreign to me at this time.
Except for sextiles those are the aspects I use in the natal chart. I use only the hard-angle aspects, the conjunction, square and opposition, for transit work. I do think associating the opposition, for instance, with "the . . . opposite way" is a little pat albeit perhaps not totally irrelevant and at any rate not inconsistent with what you'd have been exposed to in learning astrology. But ultimately, and I've tried to do this as much as possible, it's better to collect examples of oppositions and conjunctions and squares and see how they're different rather than going by the words themselves. But since you don't present yourself as a researcher (although I like your mentality) it would be unfair to expect you to have done something like that.

Quote:
The meanings of planets and signs are also broken down in this way. For example. Mars - Aries - Masculine - Leader - Fire, any description deeper than that is going too deep into "word science" (as opposed to "number science") which has yet to be perfected.
I don't think signs or elements (or houses) have any meaning at all. Fire, earth, water and air are medieval concepts of elements that have long since been abandoned by the modern world, yet astrologers still use them mostly, so far as I can tell, because we're used to them and don't usually think about the implications of our beliefs. I think most astrological techniques and factors are invalid, although there's a reason astrologers have so many of them which I'll talk about in my response to dr. farr.

Quote:
- We are born with certain "characteristic recurrent motivational states of mind."
I think that is the defining point of your post and article? The rest of it is simply to explain how this is different from the regular astrologers view point, why you believe this is so, and giving various examples of how it works? (Oh PLEASE tell me I got it this time!) lol
Yes, you got it right as far as what I think astrology is about, albeit I'm also concerned with methodological issues: how we know what we think we know and the means by which we can create a more valid astrology.
.
Quote:
I understand how your idea relates to current transits influencing a person, but I am unsure on how it relates to the creation of a person's chart.

Where you lose me, is in the understanding on how your assumption relates to birth charts. I think... I think I'm having a hard time understanding, if we are born with these clocks, how do we know when our clocks start? And, why does the "when the clocks start" have an effect on our internal workings, thought processes and how we react to the rest of the (looking for a better term here but can only find) turn of the clock.
They start at birth. To save time and avoid reinventing the wheel I'm going lift the subsection "Transit Patterns and the Evolution of Personality" from my article, with some minor editing. If I've left questions unanswered or you have additional ones let me know.

Change in the individual can also be seen as a source of personality, those relatively stable attributes by which we differentiate one person from another in terms of what each is like. If a given configuration says something about what the person who has it is like, what's the connection between that configuration and that fact? How did the person come to be that way? For instance, I have Saturn and Mars at 2453' and 2706' Cancer, respectively. What does this mean? It means everytime Mars transits conjunct, square, or opposite its natal place it also transits conjunct, square, or opposite natal Saturn. During Mars/Mars hard-angle transits matters tend to come to a head with regards to our daily routine, including not only what we do throughout a normal day but also who we interact with. (We often initiate or terminate personal relationships, including love affairs, during Mars/Mars hard-angle transits.) But we don't experience an obvious external event during every transit. The actual predictable "event" appears to be a kind of restlessness, which is itself indicative of a part of the psyche being temporarily in the forefront of consciousness, thereby making us aware of whatever latent dissatisfactions we have. This awareness of discontent sometimes rises to the level that we feel we have to do something about it. In developmental terms, the first Mars Return (22-23 months) coincides with the transition, in the Piagetian system, from the sensorimotor to the preoperational period. This is when we "get it" about how names apply to things. This and other developments suggest a motivational "force" that is itself the same during all Mars/Mars transits, regardless of age, albeit the life outcomes differ.

My account of Mars/Saturn transits will be sketchier and less certain. It essentially times a period of inhibition during which we're more than usually aware, but not necesssarily in a fully conscious sense, of the consequences, particularly the social consequences, of whatever we're thinking about doing. In a sense we manage to bring those consequences down upon our heads, a kind of what-I-have-feared-has-come-upon-me situation. Grant Lewi viewed the squares and the opposition in the Saturn/Mars cycle as periods when we're likely to meet disaster if we push our luck too far, and the same might apply to Mars/Saturn.

Now imagine the developmental consequences of always having the turning points in these two rhythms coincide. Everytime I feel the urge during a Mars/Mars transit to resolve issues that have been bothering me, that I now can't ignore, a simultaneous Mars/Saturn transit is causing me to feel inhibited, which presumably not only keeps me from doing some things but even more likely gives a characteristic shape or psychological spin to what I actually end up doing. Year after year, transit after transit, a set of propensities, a personality pattern, builds up. Dealing with the same issues won't necessarily cause people with the same aspect (and pattern of simultaneous transits) to develop the same specific behaviors, but their characteristic responses to situations, even though different, stem from the same recurrent psychological challenges. Behind different coping behaviors we may find the same thing being coped with, for instance an exaggerated fear of humiliation. One person might cope with such a fear by being evasive and hard to pin down, so that he can never be shown to have been wrong, whereas another might go to exaggerated lengths to eliminate errors, to avoid being wrong.

By noting the timing patterns natal relationships imply, we can use transit dynamics to make sense of the natal chart. Rather than expecting a Mars conjunct Saturn or a Jupiter square Sun to magically confer the qualities we associate with it, we can see those qualities developing over time via the patterns of simultaneity resulting from that particular natal setup. The natal chart has other timing implications as well. If, for instance, Saturn and Uranus cross the Ascendant (ie. square the Ng) together at age 25 in a given person's life, it means that at birth they were the right distances from each other and from the ASC to arrive together at it at age 25. There are many such timing statements in the natal chart.

Quote:
Also, using your system, synastry becomes a slight problem for me. If we are born with these clocks, how does synastry fit into the grand scheme?
Did my earlier coments on synastry answer this question?

Quote:
As I typed my questions, I started to have answers form, but am interested in your thoughts.
Hope you found them helpful.

p.s. As an example of the compatibility ideas I enunciated above I notice, if I'm not mistaken, that you have Sun conjunct Saturn and your husband has Venus conjunct Saturn. The latter can be a control freak, due to emotional and material insecurity. The former tends to feel obligated.

Last edited by spock; 01-06-2015 at 09:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 09-13-2011, 11:30 PM
spock's Avatar
spock spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: southwest Indiana
Posts: 100
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr. farr View Post
These concepts are very similar to the extensive work of Gauquellin and his associates, who eventually developed a system called "neo-astrology"; there is at least one recent thread on the Gauquellin work (I contributed to that thread) here on AW, and it might be of interest. The "neo-astrology", based on extensive statistical research, is basically a type of planetocentric aspectology; houses and signs (and constellations and stars) have been eliminated (as Kepler did several hundred years ago in the elaboration of his astrological method), and also the Sun and Mercury (and the outers) are rejected from consideration, everything in the "neo-astrological" approach concentrating on aspects involving Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
If you read Grant Lewi's Astrology for the Millions you'll see a closer resemblance: change periods, psychological in nature, at regular intervals. And these developments recurring at the same intervals and times, in a one to one temporal relationship, as recurrent developments in the sky. Simple. Elegant. Mathematical. I threw out my menagerie of predictive techniques not long after I encountered Lewi and have pursued regularity per se since. Psychological effects recurring at regular intervals in a cycle/circle. It appeals to my mathematical aesthetics. I don't subscribe to Gauquelin's neo-astrological system because it's too incomplete to be a system, but I think the facts he's established are valid and valuable even if subject to revision. But his biggest accomplishment was showing how to separate the wheat from the chaff. You complain that he didn't test a whole bunch of stuff you think is valid. All he did was encounter a regularity and pursue it. Shame on him!

It seems to me most of the people in that thread got bent out of shape over a misconception. In the opening post miquar writes, "The results showed that planets in cadent houses influenced career more than in other houses, overturning the assumption that the angular houses are more powerful." The Gauquelin distributions aren't house distributions. They're displaced aspect distributions, and possibly not even displaced. (Since you note above that "houses and signs . . . have been eliminated . . . ,concentrating on aspects involving Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn," I'm surprised you didn't point this out. Or did I miss it?) In Recent Advances Geoffrey Dean presents indirect evidence of an average lateness in reported times and shows that if there was an average lateness factor of about 30 minutes the peaks would fall on the angles. He then argues, however, that "this intriguing explanation is not supported by direct evidence," but the evidence he cites appears to suggest there were no systematic errors in writing down the reported times, not that the reported times weren't off by an average amount. Either way we're not talking about twelve interpretive boxes with twelve different effects but single effect that's either on or off depending whether the planet is or isn't at one of a set of specified distances from a reference point, that reference point being the birthplace. So it's much ado about nothing even if the real peaks are displaced about 9-10 degrees from the angles, which they're probably not.

In a later post miquar also makes explicit another common misconception, that "there was a correlation between the diurnal cycle of the planets and the occupations of people born at different points along that cycle." Not exactly. What the results show is that planets are nonrandomly distributed for eminent professionals, not for members in general of those professions. Mars in one of the key zones indicates a trait that's advantageous to have if you happen to be an athlete but doesn't indicate whether or not you'll want to become one. If Mars is in the right place you'll have that trait whether or not you're an athlete, whether or not you're eminent. If Mars in a plus zone was solely responsible for athletic success there'd be no distribition. Every eminent athlete's Mars would be there and nowhere else (i.e. the effect size would be huge). Since it isn't it's evident success in sports is influenced by a number of factors, only one of which is (what I call) "unlaziness".

Gauquelin's work is compatible with Lewi's because it, too, relates regular developments on earth to regular developments in the heavens in a one to one temporal relationship. It's just a frozen cross-section of a recurrence pattern. And it's significant because it shows us a way to settle questions and more precisely describe regularities even if it isn't the means by which they're discovered. As for Kepler he was way ahead of his time and probably still is. (Astrology is a slow-moving river.)

Quote:
I personally don't have any interest in these concepts (Gauqellin, Kepler), not that I necessarily dispute them, but rather that I am very satisfied with the eclectic whole system model I use in obtaining a high degree of accuracy in both analysis and prediction, from astrological data.
I see. I guess as long as you're happy . . .

Last edited by spock; 09-14-2011 at 02:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 09-14-2011, 03:29 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Theoretical Astrology

You bet!!


...but I think it is great that you, and others, are seeking to determine the "mechanisms of action" involved in our astrological art: thanks to all of you for your interesting thoughts!

Note: Lewi's "Astrology for the Millions" is one of the first astrology books I read when I began investigating astrology back in the early 1960's (later I read his other work, "Heaven Knows What") I remember it as a quite interesting book (ie, his "Astrology for the Millions") and his explanatory hypothesis I remember as being of some interest to me at the time.
I would suggest those AW members who might be interested in this, to obtain Lewi's book, which is still available on such websites as Amazon Books and Abe Books, at low cost...

Last edited by dr. farr; 09-14-2011 at 07:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 09-14-2011, 06:49 PM
spock's Avatar
spock spock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: southwest Indiana
Posts: 100
Re: Theoretical Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr. farr View Post
You bet!!


...but I think it is great that you, and others, are seeking to determine the "mechanisms of action" involved in our astrological art: thanks to all of you for your interesting thoughts!

Note: Lewi's "Astrology for the Millions" is one of the first astrology books I read when I began investigating astrology back in the early 1960's (later I read his other work, "Heaven Knows What") I remember it as a quite interesting book (ie, his "Astrology for the Millions") and his explanatory hypothesis I remember as being of some interest to me at the time.
I would suggest those AW members who might be interested in this, to obtain Lewi's book, which is still available on such websites as Amazon Books and Abe Books, at low cost...
Best to get the fourth edition or earlier if possible. If not questions about content can be directed to me. The fifth and sixth editions have been edited, actually partly rewritten, with much added material and gratuitous rewording that in at least one instance substantively alters the meaning of a key passage. They're adulterated versions of a book ironically lauded as a classic by the publisher.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
astrology, theoretical

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Theoretical Election - Getting Away With Murder. Draco Electional and Event Astrology 8 04-26-2017 01:19 PM



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.