the state Astrology is in

[Guest guest]

Hi Therese,

 

Thanks again for all the valuable information.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

> Well, Antonio, go to it! Your life work is all set out for you.

> However, you might need a team of assistants.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your are very flattering (smile). What I wanted to say is that for a

beginner like me, the messy state in which Astrology is at the

moment can be very frustrating.

 

I know a little bit about many subjects, for example, Mathematics,

Physics, Biology,

History, Geography, Economics, Psychology, Music, Theatre, Yoga,

Massage, Religion, etc. But the fact is that in all these subjects,

while being aware that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge,

I feel my feet on a solid ground. For example, I have books on seven

religions, and even if it may appear they contradict each other, I

can

easily resolve the contradictions, and feel solidity there.

 

Astrology then is unique among all the many fields of my knowledge,

in that I feel that my feet are on jelly. So many people believe so

many

different things and have so many different opinions, that the

obvious conclusion is that whatever truth one has, it is very limited

and partial. And obviously I am not the only one thinking that way.

The book " Recent Advances in Natal Astrology " edited by

Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather, shows very clearly many of the

contradictions I am

talking about. And this book was published 26 years ago, and I

don't

thing things have improved at all since then.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

> We live in an age where the lone scientist can't do much by

himself.

>

> All the great current discoveries in medicine, for example--how many

> laboratories, scientists, chemists, biologists and assistants all

> contributed to even one discovery? Astrology now has to become

specialized.

> Even each category has to be sub-divided such as various illnesses

and

> diseases under medical astrology or occupations or character

traits. It is

> all mind-boggling. Yet even one laboratory can produce a few

discoveries of

> note. But astrologers tend to be erratic. They don't want to get

down to

> the nitty gritty of work and research. It's a whole lot more fun

(they

> think) to argue theory.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with you completely. Geniuses always relied on the work done

by

those that came before. And yes, many astrologers just like to dream

up beautiful theories that may have little or nothing to do with

reality. And yes, it is much easier to debate ideas than to do actual

research. Thomas Edison used to say that genius is 5% inspiration and

95% sweat, I think many modern astrologers have forgotten that!

 

António

[Guest guest]

At 11:59 PM 11/22/03 -0000, Antonio wrote:

>... What I wanted to say is that for a

>beginner like me, the messy state in which Astrology is at the

>moment can be very frustrating.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

It's just as frustrating for me, and I've been at it since 1965. Sometimes

it seems that all I've learned is what we DON'T know!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

>Astrology then is unique among all the many fields of my knowledge,

>in that I feel that my feet are on jelly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, all of our feet are on jelly. Only most astrologers don't want to

accept that. But the sidereal astrologers DO have something going with

solar and lunar return charts. And we DO know that the earliest 12 sign

zodiac was sidereal. This is in the Mesopotamian texts.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>So many people believe so

>many different things and have so many different opinions, that the

>obvious conclusion is that whatever truth one has, it is very limited

>and partial. And obviously I am not the only one thinking that way.

>The book " Recent Advances in Natal Astrology " edited by

>Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather, shows very clearly many of the

>contradictions I am talking about. And this book was published 26 years

ago, and I

>don't think things have improved at all since then.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Ah, Geoffrey Dean, the bane of astrologers!! I have his book and knew Geoff

when he wrote it. He was my house guest once. He gave out false information

for his birth and watched in glee while astrologers mis-read his chart. His

real birth time is now available. I'll have to look it up...Oh, I have it

here by my computer: Geoffrey Dean, December 30, 1935 16:30 or :31, Eltham,

UK. My writing is sloppy. I think it's 'Eltham.'

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And yes, many astrologers just like to dream

>up beautiful theories that may have little or nothing to do with

>reality. And yes, it is much easier to debate ideas than to do actual

>research. Thomas Edison used to say that genius is 5% inspiration and

>95% sweat, I think many modern astrologers have forgotten that!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I'm afriad so. In a study conducted by Marcello Borges of Brazil, the only

constant he found in the horoscopes of astrologers was Neptune!! Just

recently I came across that article, but it's now in a big bin of papers

called " Astrology-miscellaneous " yet to be sorted and filed.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> Ah, Geoffrey Dean, the bane of astrologers!! I have his book and

knew Geoff

> when he wrote it. He was my house guest once. He gave out false

information

> for his birth and watched in glee while astrologers mis-read his

chart. His

> real birth time is now available. I'll have to look it up...Oh, I

have it

> here by my computer: Geoffrey Dean, December 30, 1935 16:30 or :31,

Eltham,

> UK. My writing is sloppy. I think it's 'Eltham.'

 

For the UK, the ACS Atlas doesn't have Eltham, but does have Elham

and Egham, and other names not quite as close. Can you figure out the

correct name?

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Geoffrey Dean 12/30/35 4:30 pm UT. London is quite close enough.

What change would the minutes of arc by neighborhood add to the natus

of someone that shows a strong bent for astrology over steered by the

even stronger hold of science and measure...irrational + rational?

 

Dark*Star

 

-

rahasyavadi wrote:

 

> , Therese Hamilton

> <eastwest@s...> wrote:

>

> > Ah, Geoffrey Dean, the bane of astrologers!! I have his book and

> knew Geoff

> > when he wrote it. He was my house guest once. He gave out false

> information

> > for his birth and watched in glee while astrologers mis-read his

> chart. His

> > real birth time is now available. I'll have to look it up...Oh, I

> have it

> > here by my computer: Geoffrey Dean, December 30, 1935 16:30 or :31,

> Eltham,

> > UK. My writing is sloppy. I think it's 'Eltham.'

>

> For the UK, the ACS Atlas doesn't have Eltham, but does have Elham

> and Egham, and other names not quite as close. Can you figure out the

> correct name?

>

[Guest guest]

On 30 Nov 2003 at 15:57, Dark Star wrote:

 

>

> Hi,

>

> Geoffrey Dean 12/30/35 4:30 pm UT. London is quite close enough.

> What change would the minutes of arc by neighborhood add to the natus

> of someone that shows a strong bent for astrology over steered by the

> even stronger hold of science and measure...irrational + rational?

 

> > > Dark*Star

 

The change of 4m in the RAMC or Sidereal Time of the

natus will mean that the major trends denoted by the primary

directions will be off by a full year.

Bert Fannin

you may download my PGP Public key off he MIT Keyserver

at http://pgp.mit.edu

[Guest guest]

Hi, Therese -

 

No, it really is Eltham, which is in South East London. The coordinates are

51N27 0E04.

 

Chris.

 

 

On Sunday, November 30, 2003 11:10 AM ,

rahasyavadi wrote:

 

> , Therese Hamilton

> <eastwest@s...> wrote:

>

>> Ah, Geoffrey Dean, the bane of astrologers!! I have his book and

> knew Geoff

>> when he wrote it. He was my house guest once. He gave out false

>> information for his birth and watched in glee while astrologers

>> mis-read his chart. His real birth time is now available. I'll have

>> to look it up...Oh, I

> have it

>> here by my computer: Geoffrey Dean, December 30, 1935 16:30 or :31,

>> Eltham, UK. My writing is sloppy. I think it's 'Eltham.'

>

> For the UK, the ACS Atlas doesn't have Eltham, but does have Elham

> and Egham, and other names not quite as close. Can you figure out the

> correct name?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bert,

 

Even if you dig Eltham from its boroughs the difference is 08' at the ASC.

No measurement is finer than its most gross component. In astrology this

grossment is usually the supposed birth time. I didn't know astrologers,

harking back a whole century still much did bushel basket primary directions,

 

but then I forgot the (neo) San Francisco Sidereal school. Does J.Mazurek

still thrive? I just know when I go to your PGP...edu, I won't have a clue.

But I shall try.

 

Best,

Dark*Star

 

-

 

 

Bert Fannin wrote:

 

> The change of 4m in the RAMC or Sidereal Time of the

> natus will mean that the major trends denoted by the primary

> directions will be off by a full year.

> Bert Fannin

> you may download my PGP Public key off he MIT Keyserver

> at http://pgp.mit.edu

>