waybread
Well-known member
I don't know what you mean here. Religious people wouldn't presume to imagine they could read the Mind of God.
Atheists wouldn't believe in God in the first place.
Next.
List of Erroneous, Illogical and Fictitious Systems in Astrology
- Thread starter petosiris
- Start date
I don't know what you mean here. Religious people wouldn't presume to imagine they could read the Mind of God.
Atheists wouldn't believe in God in the first place.
Next.
Waybread, we have already established that you do not accept the validity of astrology, so I am not even going to try to win you over another field (even with much more reputation).
But I am especially curious to see what ''utter incompatibility'' do you see of its theories with Ptolemy's determination from the seed, since I somehow got the opposite idea.
But I am especially curious to see what ''utter incompatibility'' do you see of its theories with Ptolemy's determination from the seed, since I somehow got the opposite idea.
waybread
Well-known member
Petosiris, What do you mean by "the validity of astrology"? We apparently mean different things by it.
And please don't be flippant. I've been reading all sorts of charts for people here and at Astrodienst since 2007. Why on earth would someone do that if she though astrology were invalid? Your assertion makes no sense.
I referred to the incompatibility of your dismissal of cultural explanations in favour of your biological determinism vs. your belief in astrology. I didn't mention Ptolemy.
And please don't be flippant. I've been reading all sorts of charts for people here and at Astrodienst since 2007. Why on earth would someone do that if she though astrology were invalid? Your assertion makes no sense.
I referred to the incompatibility of your dismissal of cultural explanations in favour of your biological determinism vs. your belief in astrology. I didn't mention Ptolemy.
Opal
Premium Member
Do you see the possibility of creating an astrological chart from a strand of DNA? or a strand of DNA from an astrological chart?
It has to be moderately possible (not in all respects) with the fertilisation, otherwise we could add nativities to the list.
Opal
Premium Member
It has to be moderately possible (not in all respects) with the fertilisation, otherwise we could add nativities to the list.
That would be a maybe? It's what I derive from reading A T Mann's "A Round Art"
It's a tentative hypothesis at least. How do you reconcile what we know about life with your astrology?
Opal
Premium Member
I am not sure that I understand your question?
Opal
Premium Member
I believe that thinking human being have been on earth much longer than it has been accredited them. I believe that the pyramids are much older than I am told.
Belief is not provable though......
I believe that astrology is the older than all religion, and that all religions are branches of the tree.....astrology is the root of religion.....
But, that's me......
Belief is not provable though......
I believe that astrology is the older than all religion, and that all religions are branches of the tree.....astrology is the root of religion.....
But, that's me......
Last edited:
I believe that what I can make the best reasoning of.
Opal
Premium Member
Do you follow an organized belief system? or do you create your own, dependant on your personal reasoning?
waybread
Well-known member
This is way too metaphorical for me. If a theory isn't necessary, I tend to look for one with more explanatory power.
I don't, and somewhat.
My opinion is that beliefs can be beneficial when there is not enough factual information to fill the gap, as belief too is some kind of knowledge. If there is enough evidence for me to establish that the world is more than 6000 years old, I am not going to believe the evidence of a holy book, I am going to belief my reason and the reason of others I trust through it.
My opinion is that beliefs can be beneficial when there is not enough factual information to fill the gap, as belief too is some kind of knowledge. If there is enough evidence for me to establish that the world is more than 6000 years old, I am not going to believe the evidence of a holy book, I am going to belief my reason and the reason of others I trust through it.
What do you mean its metaphorical? The planets could influence human life in both direct and indirect ways, and they obviously do.
Opal
Premium Member
I would say, the planets influence life in both direct and indirect ways........
animal and mineral.....and apparently spiritual......
waybread
Well-known member
So Ptolemy talks about seeds in Tetrabiblos 1.2 as a metaphor for a human life and horoscope at birth.
But then he goes on to talk about the limits to his seed metaphor, due to the differences in the place of birth in countries, child-rearing and "customs" of different places.
Customs=cultural.
Although Ptolemy works out an astrology for different regions in book II, in sec. I.2 his argument is that we cannot predict everything about a human life from a simple horoscope reading. We have to look at both the horoscope and the native's non-horoscopic circumstances. We cannot "demand everything of the art" of astrology, because there are "instances wherein it could not provide the full answer."
He notes that astrologers often make mistakes, because the topic is so vast.
"...we should not object to astrologers using as a basis for calculation nationality, country, and rearing, or any other already existing accidental qualities."
(Robbins transl, -- 17-19.
So Ptolemy himself says that the seed metaphor only goes so far.
In I.3 he makes a similar argument about predictive astrology for nativities. An individual's fate and life can be greatly affected by large-scale disasters. Just as a doctor can mitigate the worst effects of a disease or even cure it, an individual can mitigate pending individual misfortunes.
Of course, if I wrote like this, you'd say I didn't accept the validity of astrology.
But then he goes on to talk about the limits to his seed metaphor, due to the differences in the place of birth in countries, child-rearing and "customs" of different places.
Customs=cultural.
Although Ptolemy works out an astrology for different regions in book II, in sec. I.2 his argument is that we cannot predict everything about a human life from a simple horoscope reading. We have to look at both the horoscope and the native's non-horoscopic circumstances. We cannot "demand everything of the art" of astrology, because there are "instances wherein it could not provide the full answer."
He notes that astrologers often make mistakes, because the topic is so vast.
"...we should not object to astrologers using as a basis for calculation nationality, country, and rearing, or any other already existing accidental qualities."
(Robbins transl, -- 17-19.
So Ptolemy himself says that the seed metaphor only goes so far.
In I.3 he makes a similar argument about predictive astrology for nativities. An individual's fate and life can be greatly affected by large-scale disasters. Just as a doctor can mitigate the worst effects of a disease or even cure it, an individual can mitigate pending individual misfortunes.
Of course, if I wrote like this, you'd say I didn't accept the validity of astrology.
You still don't want to address the real issue, which is that the planets influence and mirror most terrestrial events, which is the definition of astrology (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/astrology).
Yes, but he ascribes the influence of race to astrological factors, for example the Ethiopians are burned by the Sun, the Scythians are nourished by the Moon, this in 2.2. He even ascribes ethnicities and particular countries to astrological governors, for example the nations of Italiy, Apulia, Gaul and Sicily are masterful, benevolent, and co‑operative because of Leo, this in 2.3. In the previous chapter, he rightly points out that:
So two thousand years before sociobiology, Posidonius and Ptolemy pointed out that cultures and customs are based on heredity and (geographical) environment (which they rightly pointed out to formed from astronomy). I think that the current concept of ''culture'' as a top down approach did not arise up until the Enlightenment (which is neither DIT, nor sociobiology). It is a logical fallacy, which these ancient philosophers did not fell into.
Indeed, I am not biological determinist in the sense that I ignore environment, which is geographical culture.
Waybread, this is precisely what I argue throughout this thread. You could take some effort to read the posts though.
Yes.
I never claimed it did. It is the synthesis of biological determinism with the effect of the environment, from which we conjecture human affairs. And I say, that the first processes are dependent on physics, that is by physical reductionism.
Which is something that was accepted by everyone in classical astrology, that people that perish in disasters do not have all their prorogators destroyed, but simply fall under the influence of universal event and influence. And I gave similar arguments for the latter problem, at least in relation to ''electional astrology'', see my previous correspondence with Dirius.
I don't know what you are talking about what you are talking about, since I have already restated these arguments in..., oh wait you deleted the thread. Nevertheless, I have developed further some of these theories, concepts and methods here:
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125418
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125435
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125479
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125501
Yes, but he ascribes the influence of race to astrological factors, for example the Ethiopians are burned by the Sun, the Scythians are nourished by the Moon, this in 2.2. He even ascribes ethnicities and particular countries to astrological governors, for example the nations of Italiy, Apulia, Gaul and Sicily are masterful, benevolent, and co‑operative because of Leo, this in 2.3. In the previous chapter, he rightly points out that:
So two thousand years before sociobiology, Posidonius and Ptolemy pointed out that cultures and customs are based on heredity and (geographical) environment (which they rightly pointed out to formed from astronomy). I think that the current concept of ''culture'' as a top down approach did not arise up until the Enlightenment (which is neither DIT, nor sociobiology). It is a logical fallacy, which these ancient philosophers did not fell into.
Indeed, I am not biological determinist in the sense that I ignore environment, which is geographical culture.
Waybread, this is precisely what I argue throughout this thread. You could take some effort to read the posts though.
Yes.
I never claimed it did. It is the synthesis of biological determinism with the effect of the environment, from which we conjecture human affairs. And I say, that the first processes are dependent on physics, that is by physical reductionism.
Which is something that was accepted by everyone in classical astrology, that people that perish in disasters do not have all their prorogators destroyed, but simply fall under the influence of universal event and influence. And I gave similar arguments for the latter problem, at least in relation to ''electional astrology'', see my previous correspondence with Dirius.
I don't know what you are talking about what you are talking about, since I have already restated these arguments in..., oh wait you deleted the thread. Nevertheless, I have developed further some of these theories, concepts and methods here:
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125418
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125435
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125479
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125501
Last edited: