New Moon Report

[pocossin]

This is very simplistic, was it from the book ?

No, it's from the link Topal gave in message #9.

Everyone will have these planets in their birth chart obviously and will not fall into only one of these categories.

The characterizing planet in Cartledge's system stands out in some way. That is, it is at the Ascendent, Midheaven, or perhaps especially aspected. I'm not sure how.

 

[Trojina]

No, it's from the link Topal gave in message #9.



The characterizing planet in Cartledge's system stands out in some way. That is, it is at the Ascendent, Midheaven, or perhaps especially aspected. I'm not sure how.

I see...so if several planets are conjunct at the Midheaven etc it throws the whole idea a bit. Overall from what I've seen it seems reductive...as if all could be reduced down to one governing planet whereas in reality where one planet may be stronger...it is the interaction of all the planets, their aspects, signs and houses that need to be considered.

 

[Trojina]

...however without a Zodiac there can be no Midheaven as the Midheaven is the sign of the zodiac at the top of the chart and there is no chart without a zodiac

 

[pocossin]

...however without a Zodiac there can be no Midheaven as the Midheaven is the sign of the zodiac at the top of the chart and there is no chart without a zodiac

Perhaps Topal will clarify this point by telling us how the characterizing planet is identified. The Midheaven is a place on a circle. The zodiac refers to qualities of segments of the same circle.

 

[Trojina]

Perhaps Topal will clarify this point by telling us how the characterizing planet is identified. The Midheaven is a place on a circle. The zodiac refers to qualities of segments of the same circle.

I know, I have drawn up astrological charts for myself and others...so yes I know where the Midheaven is on the chart and what the zodiac is ....thats how I know the system this book speaks of is reductive

 

[Tohpol]

Oh Dear.....the hubris of this assertion, the hubris of the (not) 'scientific' writer leaves me speechless for which no doubt you will be grateful LOL

Thats my view of the book so far....but don't let me deter you from posting more if others are keen to view it


(goddamn it Topal got me to write another essay !!!!)

Very graeteful. lol


"In Astrology there can be no 'proof'.....either you feel it resonates or you don't."

Nope. He's saying that is exactly what it is not - with data and evidence to prove it. Resonating to something means nothing if it's all a bunch of baloney. It's just a placebo otherwise.We'd never make any progress in understanding and gaining knowledge if you took a purely subjective stance every time. Astrology is an art AND a spiritual science and a very venerable one. Why not find secure it to some solid ground if it's there?

An objective science is a beautiful thing. This incorporates intuition and all the things we associate with psycho-dynamic, spiritual perceptions. There's definitely some stigma for you in these words that's giving a somewhat reactive, clouded appraisal perhaps? You've made your mind up based on very little indeed...He's not throwing astrology out of the window, on the contrary, he seeks to improve it! See the first post:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showpost.php?p=135931&postcount=23

Further, I don't see why "science" is a dirty word. The real science is a spiritual one not the reductionist nonsense you are talking about. I think you might be completely missing the point if you think that astrology can't be tested and evaluted to give ACCURATE and precise readings rather than suprious subjective renderings. I think it IS possible. And he provides compelling evidence to suggest that it is the planets rather than the signs are the keys here.

But stay tuned.. I hope I can clarify further. I can write up the whole book mind you but I can post more to make things clearer. Remember, we haven't even got to the planetary influence theories yet just to sohw that astrology, as it is currently is sorely lacking in basic principles.

I'll post more in due course...Glad to see it's created some discussion anyway...

 

[Trojina]

when I taught Psychology there was usually an exam question where students were asked to discuss if psychology as a subject could really be called a Science at all. Students had to discuss what made a science a science... I can't remember much of it but I think the criteria for a subject being a science included something along the lines of hypotheses being able to be verified by repeatable experimentation

IOW it was accepted as debatable (hence debate as exam question) if psychology could be called a science at all since so many of its theories rested upon observational methods and all observation carries observer bias and researchers recognise that. Even when using the experimental method in Psychology studies involving people carry so much more experimenter bias than they would for example experiments with substances...naturally

Now if Psychology as a study of human behaviour still is not be said by some be a Science because of its lack of scientific method then where does that leave Astrology !

You say 'objective science is a beautiful thing' well objective science maybe...but a) there really does not exist a purely objective science there will always be experimenter bias to account for and b) I have seen nothing scientific about this approach whatsoever other than observational data highly subject to observer bias

There is no science here Topal. Making observations about how people appear is not a scientific method. Observations may absolutely encapsulate some truth ...as all literature, poetry, art, can be said to do....but that is not Science.

It is not 'science' I object to at all , its pseudo science....where observations borrow a mantle of being scientific, of being objective, in order to add credence to whichever theory the 'scientist' would like to put forward.

Science is about as much use in understanding Astrology as it would be in understanding the I Ching.

Not choosing to defer to a pseudo scientist who claims to have 'compelling evidence' does not mean ones current astrological understanding is a 'placebo'

I don't understand the need for someone elses 'compelling evidence' anymore than I'd need it to use the I Ching...maybe some pseudo scientist will come and tell us all our castings are placebos because he did a study involving 1000s of people where they all found hexagram 30 didn't exist or something....compelling evidence again ?? and because there was evidence as he saw it for hexagram 30 not existing all our previous hex 30 answers were placebos....and he knows cos he calls himself a scientist and wrote a book so he must be right ...lol

I hope not be discussing this further, definately no more essays but you know what i think ....

 

[Trojina]

Very graeteful. lol


"In Astrology there can be no 'proof'.....either you feel it resonates or you don't."

Nope. He's saying that is exactly what it is not - with data and evidence to prove it. Resonating to something means nothing if it's all a bunch of baloney. It's just a placebo otherwise.We'd never make any progress in understanding and gaining knowledge if you took a purely subjective stance every time. Astrology is an art AND a spiritual science and a very venerable one. Why not find secure it to some solid ground if it's there?

An objective science is a beautiful thing. This incorporates intuition and all the things we associate with psycho-dynamic, spiritual perceptions. There's definitely some stigma for you in these words that's giving a somewhat reactive, clouded appraisal perhaps? You've made your mind up based on very little indeed...He's not throwing astrology out of the window, on the contrary, he seeks to improve it! See the first post:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showpost.php?p=135931&postcount=23

Further, I don't see why "science" is a dirty word. The real science is a spiritual one not the reductionist nonsense you are talking about. I think you might be completely missing the point if you think that astrology can't be tested and evaluted to give ACCURATE and precise readings rather than suprious subjective renderings. I think it IS possible. And he provides compelling evidence to suggest that it is the planets rather than the signs are the keys here.

But stay tuned.. I hope I can clarify further. I can write up the whole book mind you but I can post more to make things clearer. Remember, we haven't even got to the planetary influence theories yet just to sohw that astrology, as it is currently is sorely lacking in basic principles.

I'll post more in due course...Glad to see it's created some discussion anyway...

Re the underlined......this is the equivalent of saying Yi must give accurate and precise readings but you know surely it all depends on how a person interacts with situations.

There is no dead accurate and precise astrological reading because what actually happens is still dependent on the will and development of the individual.


How the soul expresses the qualities of a natal chart can never be wholly and totally and accurately predicted since its a living moving entity . An astrologer may see the liklehood of a certain event but there is no knowing if and how the person will choose to live it.

I'm really flabbergasted you have this idea that Astrology is there to give 'accurate and precise readings' like fortune telling ?


I am beginning to wonder if Toe-Pull has been abducted by aliens and another Topal wrote that post


I always cringe when people talk about 'accuracy' with the Yi...its like they miss the whole point....but you ....you Topal...I didn't expect such a comment from you of all hares


shaking head ruefully and thinking of contacting Hilary about the alien abduction of the real Topal

 

[pocossin]

....but you ....you Topal...I didn't expect such a comment from you of all hares

Hares are lunar creatures, and today the moon is in cancer and not bright

 

[Trojina]

what is your sun sign Tom I have forgotten ?

you've had several 'happy birthday ' threads in the last few months so its hard to know what sun sign you are

 

[pocossin]

what is your sun sign Tom I have forgotten ?

you've had several 'happy birthday ' threads in the last few months so its hard to know what sun sign you are

Aquarius. I remember only one thread. Maybe there are several Toms here?

Oh, I see. The unbirthday thread too. What a memory you have!

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=12577

 

[Trojina]

Ah Aquarius

the most eccentric sign of the Zodiac

I have had a number of close Aquarian friends, I find them quite funny

I notice they often wear the wrong clothes for the time of year

on a hot summer day they may wear heavy coats

and on a freezing day in winter they will wear very little

maybe thats just the Aquarians i know its not scientific

 

[pocossin]

Ah Aquarius

the most eccentric sign of the Zodiac

I have had a number of close Aquarian friends, I find them quite funny

I notice they often wear the wrong clothes for the time of year

on a hot summer day they may wear heavy coats

and on a freezing day in winter they will wear very little

maybe thats just the Aquarians i know its not scientific

You've pegged me.

 

[Tohpol]

I'm really flabbergasted you have this idea that Astrology is there to give 'accurate and precise readings' like fortune telling ?

Of course not!

Come on Trojan read between the lines a bit. Your flabbergasted-ness is correct. I DON'T mean it in that way. Obviously I have to be more explicit in the future. The point is to get a much closer accuracy - a more AUTHENTIC rendering and there is always room for that. You are talking about the soul as though it's workings are a open and shut case and lots of assumptions all over the place. The soul and how it moves and has it's being is still very mysterious yet we can always strive to improve our understanding of it and how it speaks to us through it's various tools.

Incidentally, this isn't just the author's idea. It has a very long tradition that the astrology that we have now may be a degenerate form of something much more accurate and powerful.

Always good to keep an open mind...and await new knowledge...

 

[Trojina]

All I meant re the soul was what its choices and movements are aren't either predictable or visible via science or observation so while Astrology may show a predisposition for an occurence to come into someones life at some time there will always be an unknowable element...

 

[Trojina]

The Planets are the dimensions of experience
The Signs are the qualities of experience
The Houses are the fields of experience
[...]

BTW This way of seeing is pure Marc Edmond Jones...its not new. I feel already the writer has taken credit for work of other research and other astrologers and not referenced it.

so my points so far are not really a result of a closed mind...as you have dismissed them...but a mind that has some awareness of what underpins what hes said so far


Anyway as you say we shall see if there is really anything of substance in this.

 

[Tohpol]

BTW This way of seeing is pure Marc Edmond Jones...its not new. I feel already the writer has taken credit for work of other research and other astrologers and not referenced it.

so my points so far are not really a result of a closed mind...as you have dismissed them...but a mind that has some awareness of what underpins what hes said so far


Anyway as you say we shall see if there is really anything of substance in this.

I haven't dismissed anything - only that we can't have a proper evalution until you read something from cover to cover. I said it was a good idea to keep an open mind - that does not mean your mind is closed...Though we all have a tendency to reject things initially that don't fit with our current ideas. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it of course when all the data is in.

The Planets are the dimensions of experience
The Signs are the qualities of experience
The Houses are the fields of experience
[...]

This above quotation is a quotation from another astrologer in the book which was an illustration from a chapter about how astrologers see things - nothing more. Nothing about the planetary types has any connection to Marc Edmond Jones and his Sabian stuff. For the record, planetary types is rooted in Fourth Way cosmology.

I'll try to be clearer regarding the extracts...