Does Astrology Have Limits?

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Are you saying non-Internet astrology can be unlimited?
example of an amateur online forum discussion on astrology:

Randomizing, and categorizing
--Three types of Astrologers:

Guardians of Tradition<--->Conventional Modernists<--->Innovative Modernists.
It's a continuum.
:cool:
only three - you cannot be Sirius :smile:
i.e.
add

ECLECTIC Astrologers using Traditional & Modernist & Vedic Mehodology

also
Practitioners of Traditional Astrology who have read the ancient texts

Modernist astrologers who have not read any ancient texts
also

Astrologers who got interested five minutes ago yet are bona fide astrologers

More of a conundrum ...if you were to ask me:whistling:
Indeed
Since it's a continuum, all of your examples are included.
Innovative and Conventional Modernists include some Traditional features, but not others.
Some Guardians of Tradition might include a bit of Modern as well.

As for what makes "a bona fide Astrologer"
there is such a phenomenon
as "a natural", who
innately understands
and
quickly becomes adept
at an activity
others might take far more time and effort
to learn.
clearly the foregoing discussion
that occurred today
highlights the idea
of the existence of "the chosen few"
for whom
"there is no need to learn astrology"
the "chosen few" simply
somehow
"innately understand"

 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Personally, I think astrology is limited. What do you think?
Petosiris, that is a deep question.

Generally speaking, on earth, everything is limited by time, so everything has its limits.

Now, specifically speaking of Astrology, its strength depends on its practitioner. Astrology is a divine field, and, for that, it is of utmost importance to understand the concepts of the Higher Energy, timelessness, divinity and sentience. Those that do not believe in the like, in my opinion, cannot practice Astrology to its fullest potential. And, it is a very wide field as you can imagine. Those that are not able to predict certain areas or are not truly able to even willing to go in depth will blame it on Astrology you will see. (I am not referring to the ethics of talking about certain (difficult areas).A bad workman always blames his tools, as they say.

Since Astrology is a form of divinity, in my opinion, it is limitless. However, we earthlings are limited, so we can only go so far with it.

Everything has limits. Everything. Including communication, my good friend, JA :smile:.

For example, astrology cannot walk your dog :smile:
Ilene, I do understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think that that analogy is well suited to the question here. The purpose of Astrology is not to walk a dog, but to reflect the past and the present and predict the future.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I'm not clear on how the OP is meant, but obviously astrology does not indicate-- without additional supplementary information-- all kinds of things about your life. Gender, nationality or ethnicity (vs. birth place,) religion, and in a relative sense, whether you are born rich or poor. (I. e., a turned chart can say something about your parents' money, but not whether you were born into into the upper class.)

I also think that you could have two nearly identical charts, but one time-twin was born in Des Moines, Iowa in the US, and the other was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. Obviously their lives will be very different.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Personally, I think astrology is limited. What do you think?

I think it is imposible to know whether astrology has limits or not.

What we can certainly say is that our understanding has limits. So we can't really judge how big the ocean is, given we can only see up to the horizon.
 

Love2Know

Well-known member
Yes, I have a nearly identical chart to a celebrity and we are both extremely different. For 1 I am not a rich actor. We were both born cesearian section and the same weight at birth I believe.
 
Last edited:

Whoam1

Well-known member
Does the human psyche have limits, for it it doesn't then astrology will be boundless, as thoughts take up no physical matter. However, if the human psyche has limits, the astrology won't be boundless as we couldn't surpass the bounds to see if it continues on.
 

petosiris

Banned
Petosiris, that is a deep question.

Generally speaking, on earth, everything is limited by time, so everything has its limits.

Now, specifically speaking of Astrology, its strength depends on its practitioner. Astrology is a divine field, and, for that, it is of utmost importance to understand the concepts of the Higher Energy, timelessness, divinity and sentience. Those that do not believe in the like, in my opinion, cannot practice Astrology to its fullest potential. And, it is a very wide field as you can imagine. Those that are not able to predict certain areas or are not truly able to even willing to go in depth will blame it on Astrology you will see. (I am not referring to the ethics of talking about certain (difficult areas).A bad workman always blames his tools, as they say.

Since Astrology is a form of divinity, in my opinion, it is limitless. However, we earthlings are limited, so we can only go so far with it.

Ilene, I do understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think that that analogy is well suited to the question here. The purpose of Astrology is not to walk a dog, but to reflect the past and the present and predict the future.

I've posted this on this forum, because it is obvious that such thinking is unacceptable in philosophy and science. First you have to define your subject and to show your statements are refutable. If you view astrology as encompassing the universe, you have a problem.

I'm not clear on how the OP is meant, but obviously astrology does not indicate-- without additional supplementary information-- all kinds of things about your life. Gender, nationality or ethnicity (vs. birth place,) religion, and in a relative sense, whether you are born rich or poor. (I. e., a turned chart can say something about your parents' money, but not whether you were born into into the upper class.)

I also think that you could have two nearly identical charts, but one time-twin was born in Des Moines, Iowa in the US, and the other was born in Kabul, Afghanistan. Obviously their lives will be very different.

I somewhat agree with that notion, but Valens for example suggests that you can establish everything from the chart using the ''divine art'', including gender (his method is **** though).

P.S. We need to define the limits and subject of astrology, and show that it is refutable and falsifiable. Positivise astrology - http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/s...ages-the-corner-stone-of-auguste-comtes/43729 . So does anybody have any other explanation or subject (the latter is absolutely required) than energy, universe, god, force, synchronicity or ''as above so below bro''? If we don't, that means we are a religious cult at best.

For we can positivise astrology without giving any explanation by using inductive methods. Astrology is empirical. However, a problem appears with all statistical tests of astrologers who use Mill's Methods to differentiate between charts. That means that astrology is limited, false or badly defined - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9976 .
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
I've posted this on this forum, because it is obvious that such thinking is unacceptable in philosophy and science. First you have to define your subject and to show your statements are refutable. If you view astrology as encompassing the universe, you have a problem...
I think it is you that has a real problem. You post a thread on a public forum and then try to dictate, no, even impose your own views on others. If others come with their own views, you say "you have a problem". So, then why even shape the thread as a question, just dictate your view in the title itself, and people can stay away instead of wasting their time, which is what I am going to do now. Honestly!
Oh and cussing is not allowed on this forum, or it gets masked, as it has been in your post as "****"
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Let's see if this thread can get somewhere instead of being an endless ping-pong game.

You propose a "positivist astrology" which would be based on observation and empirical evidence, grounded on pure rationalism and scientific thought. Rationication is by it's very nature exacting, hence confined to a limit. How would a positivist astrology, then, solve the problem of "conventional astrology's" "limitedness?

Everything that astrology is "used" on is of a limited nature - humans, nations, organizations - automatically since the subjects are limited, the scope that we are able to use astrology will also be limited, due to the structure of our existence as limited beings.


I read your article on the law of three stages. Yes, astrology is empirical, in part. And it is observation, in part. BUT is ALSO "metaphysical" in part. Here is an article that poses a problem to a purely material astrology - this describes a situation where the horoscope is still "alive" while the subject it describes has died http://www.astro.com/astrology/tma_article161208_e.htm
How would purely scientific/rationalist methods explain this phenomena.

If astrology is in part metaphysical, and the theory that you use as grounding for positivist astrology states that the metaphysical is of a lesser quality than the rational, then you will have to unpack what necessarily *is* astrology; what is it exactly.

The charge that industrial/scientific progress is truly "progress" is not unanimous. In fact there are a number of persons, both of secular and non-secular persuasions, who think that modernity is actually in a state of decline. The decrying of the religious fanaticism conveniently forgets the atrocities that have occured during the 20th century under industrialist regimes and philosophy - National Socialist Germany, the Communism of Russia, Red China can all boast about death tolls in the MILLIONS. And lest we forget, two world wars have been fought in the 20th century. Quite a bloody century it was, which came after Nietzsche's pronouncement of the death of God.

Would changing the structure of astrology really amount to a better craft, or will the change to a positivist paradigm just result in even more limited, and ineffective astrology?
 

petosiris

Banned
The charge that industrial/scientific progress is truly "progress" is not unanimous. In fact there are a number of persons, both of secular and non-secular persuasions, who think that modernity is actually in a state of decline. The decrying of the religious fanaticism conveniently forgets the atrocities that have occured during the 20th century under industrialist regimes and philosophy - National Socialist Germany, the Communism of Russia, Red China can all boast about death tolls in the MILLIONS. And lest we forget, two world wars have been fought in the 20th century. Quite a bloody century it was, which came after Nietzsche's pronouncement of the death of God.

It is progressive in the sense it is easily verifiable and accessible knowledge. All three stages can be used for good or bad (inquisition, crusader wars, european religious wars, islamic invasions - quite bloody don't you think?). Religious and metaphysical statements are not scientific, they can true or false, but they are of no concern to modern scientists. If you are ok with astrology not being a science, then this does concern you.

I thought most astrologers wanted astrology to be a science.

In fact Comte was unique among philosophers by saying that religions and metaphysics give knowledge and are valuable for good or bad. Is it really that complicated to understand that? You can believe whatever you want, but unlimited and divine are not scientific terms. And I am going to mention this again, I got the wrong impression that this part of the forum is ''designed for applying scientific methods''. It appears most people do not have the slightest idea what that means.
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Why would most astrologers want astrology to be a science? Honest question.

The article was a very simplified version of what Comte's philosophy was likely saying, so they leave some of that information out.
 
Last edited:
Top