Definition of Astrology

[Hekate]

I'm opening a new thread since the previous is getting a little irrelevant.

Definitions begin with names.

Astrology is a hellenic word. It is a composite word from Astron (=Star) and Logos (=Analogy).

What is Star, according to Hellenes?
-A solid, a sphere with two more dimensions: motion and sound (compare with Pythagorean doctrine about Music of the Spheres) that floats "in the waters" of what today we call wrongly Space (wrongly, since it is not vacuum).
-Stars are the visible Gods. (each God is a Triad that constists of the Noetic -i.e. the Idea-, the Noeric -i.e. The Idol- and the Visible -i.e. the Star)
-Stars are divided in two major categories:
a. Aplaneis (=non wandering)
b. Planitai (=wandering)
-Stars, particularly non-wandering, emit their own essence. This essence is called "aeizoon pyr" (=everliving fire) according to Heracletus or "pyr and aether (=fire and aether) according to other Hellen philosophers. Aether is the material manifestation of "nous" (mind, from "nous" derive the words noetic, noeric and from the verb "noo" origins the corresponding verb "know"). The nous is related with what we could today call "conscience".

*In Hellenic Philosophy/Theology there is no seperation between "matter" and "spirit", but it is Hylozoistic. Matter (symbol word: Gaia) is considered self-existing, self-motioned, inconscient and living. This is Hylozoismus.


What is Logos?
-Analogy. From Logos the word Logic derives. The Latin equivalent is Ratio, from which the word Rational derives.
-In mathematics of Hellenes, the word Logos is used to descrive the fraction.
-In Hellenic Philosophy/Theology, the Logos concept plays an important part. Since ancient times, the Hellenes had observed that all the worlds present analogies, similarities in their structure and these analogous similarities were due to the presence of initial, funamendal Principles.

To explain this with a small practical example, let's compare a tree, a man and a city (three different worlds) and see if some basic Principles are present. I will mention only a few Principles for the sake of the example:
1. Principle of Form, of the formation, shaping process, of eumorphia (=beauty) (Aphrodite)
2. Principle of Management, of the administration process (Zeus)
3. Principle of Communication, of the exchange of ideas, concepts etc (Hermes)
4. Principle of Strife, of battle, of struggle against external circumstances that threat the existence of the Being (Ares)

A tree:
1. Presence of formation principle, according to its kind. Ability of reproducing its shape if we cut its branches. Ability of reproducing the same shape through the seed.
2. Presence of the management principle. Τhe necessary functions that needs to sustaing itself are allocated, divided and all the parts cooperate with each other.
3. Presence of the communication principle. The parts of the tree communicate with each other. The tree communicates with its environment and can benefit (food, light) or not (disease).
4. Presence of the strife principle. Each tree develops its own mechanisms which will allow it to "fight" to protect its existence, for example against the invasion of a virus.

A man:
1. Presence of formation principle, according to its kind. Ability of reproducing some of its parts, like the skin for instance. Ability of reproducing the same shape through the seed.
2. Presence of the management principle. Τhe necessary functions that needs to sustaing itself are allocated, divided and all the parts cooperate with each other (heart, lungs, brain etc.)
3. Presence of the communication principle. The parts of the man communicate with each other. The man communicates with its environment and can benefit (food, light) or not (disease). A man is a much more complex organism than a tree so the communication principle extends to words, concepts, ideas, the interaction with others of its kind.
4. Presence of the strife principle. Each man develops its own mechanisms which will allow it to "fight" to protect its existence, for example against the invasion of a virus. A man is a much more complex organism than a tree so the strife principle extends to the personal and social level, like the proffesional strife out of which some men become better than others and gain the corresponding benefits.

A city:
1. Presence of formation principle, according to its kind. The corresponding analogy for a city is the construction of buildings, roads and generally everything the city needs in order to fulfil the cause of its existence.
2. Presence of the management principle. Τhe necessary functions that needs to sustaing itself are allocated, divided and all the parts cooperate with each other (army, politics, trade, arts and sciences etc.)
3. Presence of the communication principle. The parts of the city communicate with each other. The corresponding analogy of the Hermes Principle in the city level can be the marketplace, the trade functions etc.
4. Presence of the strife principle. Each city develops its own mechanisms which will allow it to "fight" to protect its existence, and to flourish. The achievement of wealth and well being of its inhabidants, the presence of army etc.

This is only a small example of Logos. In fact, it would require a lengthy article to only touch the basics of the concept of Logos. It would require to enter many areas from biology to theology to analyze this concept. The contemporary comparison of microcosm and macrocosm is another example of the Logos concept.

Now, we can say that Astrology deals with the "Logos of the Stars". But Logos between Stars and what else? Well, the Stars are considered the Visible Gods. As Visible Gods they are carriers of the essence of the Gods in many levels, one of which is the level of Ideas (compare with the Platonic doctrine about the noetic world of Ideas). So the Logos relevant to the Stars is the one between the Stars and the Ideas they carry and emit.

Through their emissions all life origins. In contemporary astrophysics, it has been discovered that "All of chemistry, beyond hydrogen and helium, and therefore, all of life has been formed by stellar evolution. In other words, with the exception of hydrogen, everything in our bodies and brains has been produced in the thermonuclear reactions within stars which later exploded in galactic space" (Benjamin Gal-Or, Cosmology, Physics, and Philosophy).

All living organisms are a compination of the stellar emitions and this compination is not random and accidental but ELLOGICAL.

Astrology investigates the Logos of the Stars and its application on the living organisms and the(ir) worlds.

It does this:
-with the use of a mathematical/geometrical model that projects the 3-dimensional (and visible to us) sky (celestial sphere) in two dimensions (circle).
-with the use of a specific theological/philosophical corpus according to which the various stars are grouped (idolized) into asterisms, according to their closeness and likeness of form (Geminus Rhodius, Introduction to Phaenomena). It assigns properties to the constellations according to a process called Katasterismos (Eratosthenes, Katasterismoi). To explain the rationale behind Katasterismos is not possible since it relates to inner theological concepts that are quite complex and take years to comprehend even for someone who is a Hellen by religion and has a profound knowledge of the Hellenic Philosophy and Theology.
-a further Katasterismos takes place through the division of the Zodiac into 12 equal parts of 30 degrees each that are called Dodecatemories and each zodiacal constellation is assigned to its corresponding Dodecatemory. The constellations of the Zodiac are not of equal length and some exceed their Dodecatemory (like Virgo) or are much shorter (like Cancer).

Now, why am I writing all these?

My thesis is that Astrology is a polytheistic science, therefore it cannot be comprehended outsides its frame-of-reference. That is why it cannot be comprehended in a christian-oriented world or an atheist one. My intent is not to persuade any christian or atheist about the validity of Astrology. My intent is to demonstrate that Astrology is a well-structured system, with a perfect and impeccable rationale when examined from the polytheistic point of view, with perfect logic and with a relation to serious philosophical/theological concepts like Theogony, Astrogony, Psychogony and Cosmogony and of course of the Logos between them.

[ToSeek]

My intent is to demonstrate that Astrology is a well-structured system, with a perfect and impeccable rationale when examined from the polytheistic point of view, with perfect logic and with a relation to serious philosophical/theological concepts like Theogony, Astrogony, Psychogony and Cosmogony and of course of the Logos between them.

Even if all that is admitted, that still doesn't mean that it's true. I do admit that I'm impressed with how much thought has gone into it.

[Sigma_Orionis]

My thesis is that Astrology is a polytheistic science, therefore it cannot be comprehended outsides its frame-of-reference

Ok. Now please tell me what is Polytheistic Science

[SciFi Chick]

Ok. Now please tell me what is Polytheistic Science

A contradiction in terms? That's my guess. 8)

[The Supreme Canuck]

I think he means that it is a form of science that can only be understood by those with polytheistic beliefs. Which means that it is not science but is, rather, a belief system.

[informant]

Astrology is a hellenic word. It is a composite word from Astron (=Star) and Logos (=Analogy).
[...]
What is Logos?
-Analogy. From Logos the word Logic derives. The Latin equivalent is Ratio, from which the word Rational derives.

I believe you are mistaken about the meaning of logos. It does not mean analogy (our word "analogy" comes from Greek too, ana + logos); it means word, or speach, or science. (It's the same word which was used at the start of the gospel of John: In the begining, there was the Word...)
I could not find a decent online etymological dictionary, but it should be easy to check this at a library.

(Edited: 'gospel of John', not 'John's gospel'.)

[Alex W.]

It's a well-structured and internally consistent belief system, true, but so was the idea of the four elements, the four humours, the idea that evil spirits cause disease etc.

Like all of those, when tested against the real world, it fails, whereas the accepted scientific truth is both internally consistent and practically relevant.

[JimTKirk]

My thesis is that Astrology is a polytheistic science, therefore it cannot be comprehended outsides its frame-of-reference.

In what frame of reference are you calling this a thesis? Here are the definitions:

1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.
2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.
4. The first stage of the Hegelian dialectic process.
5.
a. The long or accented part of a metrical foot, especially in quantitative verse.
b. The unaccented or short part of a metrical foot, especially in accentual verse.
6. Music. The accented section of a measure.

It seems from your demeanor in the other thread that you abandoned, I'd guess either #1 or #3, unless you are looking for us to proof this thesis for your degree.

Please continue... I'm sure CM will have fun!

[A.DIM]

Ok. Now please tell me what is Polytheistic Science

A contradiction in terms? That's my guess. 8)

Not really. Astronomy and Astrology are inherently linked. I still find it odd that scientists/astronomers treat "astrology" like a bad word. In ancient polytheistic societies, namely, Sumer / Akkad / Babylonia / Egypt, the kings & priests were the astronomers; religion and science were "one," if you will. In this manner, then, there is no contradiction.

From the link on the other "astrology boys" thread:

"On the other hand, there is a seriously practiced astrology, which understands itself mainly as practical-diagnostic. In this way, it is used today in some forms of psychological consultation and alternative medicine. In terms of its effects, it can only be judged by those involved. Advocates of this type of astrology emphasize time and again that a horoscope can never really predict what will happen to a person, but that it merely gives information in the form of a mirror-image of dispositions. On the one hand, this serious astrology builds, in part, upon very sophisticated empirical studies whose results, yet, remain scientifically disputed. Advocates of this line of thought also admit this and thus support their position with the purported fact that it is sufficiently confirmed through personal experience to be able to apply it meaningfully.

One can thus say that this serious astrology strives toward a synthesis between "science," "personal experience," and "religion," which makes it difficult, indeed, for scientists with strict standards to recognize astrology as science as well. But it remains to be said that astrology is there and is being practiced. At some universities in South America, Asia, and Africa (for example, in Cairo) and also at the University of Riga in Latvia, astrology is taught. This is certainly also because its importance in the history of religions, including the history of Christianity, is just now being discovered anew. Apart from its often criticized practical application, its religious-historical meaning is certainly great enough to be dealt with also in the context of religious studies. On this, the classical philologist Franz Boll once again, who expresses himself concerning the historical importance of astrology thus: "The most important thing about the history of astrology is that it shows the connections of peoples with a clarity and irrefutability as are hardly to be exposed anywhere else. Perhaps in it alone have East and West, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists understood one another without difficulty."

My emphasis

[SciFi Chick]

Ok. Now please tell me what is Polytheistic Science

A contradiction in terms? That's my guess. 8)

Not really. Astronomy and Astrology are inherently linked. I still find it odd that scientists/astronomers treat "astrology" like a bad word. In ancient polytheistic societies, namely, Sumer / Akkad / Babylonia / Egypt, the kings & priests were the astronomers; religion and science were "one," if you will. In this manner, then, there is no contradiction.

Please note that the question referred to the term polytheistic science NOT astronomy and astrology.

Religion and science do not go together. Therefore, I stand by my comment that the term polytheistic science is a contradiction in terms, since religion is based on faith and science relies on evidence.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[A whole lot of snipping!]Now, why am I writing all these? My thesis is that Astrology is a polytheistic science, therefore it cannot be comprehended outsides its frame-of-reference. That is why it cannot be comprehended in a christian-oriented world or an atheist one. My intent is not to persuade any christian or atheist about the validity of Astrology.

You must think it is valid, otherwise you would not be posting here. So why bother?

My intent is to demonstrate that Astrology is a well-structured system, with a perfect and impeccable rationale when examined from the polytheistic point of view, with perfect logic and with a relation to serious philosophical/theological concepts like Theogony, Astrogony, Psychogony and Cosmogony and of course of the Logos between them.

Much the same can be said of the belief in Santa Claus. It is a "well-structured system with perfect and impeccable rationale" (at least when examined from a child's point of view) "with perfect logic and with a relation to serious philosophical concepts" like Virgin Birth, Original Sin, Redemption, Good versus Evil (well, OK, sort of as a "warm-up" to believing in such things!). There is about as much evidence for Santa Claus as there is for astrology. Of course, I don't expect someone in a Hellenic "frame of reference" to understand!

[A.DIM]

Ok. Now please tell me what is Polytheistic Science

A contradiction in terms? That's my guess. 8)

Not really. Astronomy and Astrology are inherently linked. I still find it odd that scientists/astronomers treat "astrology" like a bad word. In ancient polytheistic societies, namely, Sumer / Akkad / Babylonia / Egypt, the kings & priests were the astronomers; religion and science were "one," if you will. In this manner, then, there is no contradiction.

Please note that the question referred to the term polytheistic science NOT astronomy and astrology.

Religion and science do not go together. Therefore, I stand by my comment that the term polytheistic science is a contradiction in terms, since religion is based on faith and science relies on evidence.

Noted. And I'll add, then, that it's an oxymoronic turn of phrase.

But I merely wanted to bring to light the fact that Astrology and Astronomy are inherently linked, and when viewed in broader context, "polytheistic science" as describing "astrology" is not so contradictory. That's all.

I am in no way a proponent of Astrology, mind you.
I'm more interested in Astrology's roots in Sumer, as well as Astronomy's, and how they came up with the sexigesimal system to keep track of it all; Time Reckoning.

[informant]

I'm opening a new thread since the previous is getting a little irrelevant.

It was irrelevant from the start.

a sphere with two more dimensions: motion and sound (compare with Pythagorean doctrine about Music of the Spheres) that floats "in the waters" of what today we call wrongly Space (wrongly, since it is not vacuum).

Space is not a vacuum?! Could you elaborate on that?

Stars, particularly non-wandering, emit their own essence. This essence is called "aeizoon pyr" (=everliving fire) according to Heracletus or "pyr and aether (=fire and aether) according to other Hellen philosophers. Aether is the material manifestation of "nous" (mind, from "nous" derive the words noetic, noeric and from the verb "noo" origins the corresponding verb "know"). The nous is related with what we could today call "conscience".
[...]
Now, we can say that Astrology deals with the "Logos of the Stars". But Logos between Stars and what else? Well, the Stars are considered the Visible Gods. As Visible Gods they are carriers of the essence of the Gods in many levels, one of which is the level of Ideas (compare with the Platonic doctrine about the noetic world of Ideas). So the Logos relevant to the Stars is the one between the Stars and the Ideas they carry and emit.

Can that "essence" be detected in some objective way?

My thesis is that Astrology is a polytheistic science, therefore it cannot be comprehended outsides its frame-of-reference.

I agree with others that "polytheistic science" seems like a contradiction in terms. Unless you wish to redefine "god" and "science" as well...

My intent is to demonstrate that Astrology is a well-structured system, with a perfect and impeccable rationale when examined from the polytheistic point of view, with perfect logic and with a relation to serious philosophical/theological concepts like Theogony, Astrogony, Psychogony and Cosmogony and of course of the Logos between them.

As others have said, a system of ideas can be well-structured, with an impeccable rationale, etc., and still have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. E.g., Tycho Brahe's model of the solar system.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Arguing about the original or ongoing basis of the philosophy of astrology, though interesting, is largely irrelevant to the purpose of this board. Arguing over whether it is a science is.

Astrology's history is varied and rich. Its lack of ability to predict human relationships, however, has not changed since antiquity.

If you want to argue science, fine. Otherwise, this thread is in danger of being closed.

[Hekate]

I believe you are mistaken about the meaning of logos. It does not mean analogy (our word "analogy" comes from Greek too, ana + logos); it means word, or speach, or science. (It's the same word which was used at the start of the gospel of John: In the begining, there was the Word...)
I could not find a decent online etymological dictionary, but it should be easy to check this at a library.

Then please do. Personally, I know my native language and I can read and write in ancient Hellenic. It took me also a lot of time to achieve that since modern greek is a very poor language in relation to ancient Hellenic which is immensly complex and all words have specific etymologies. In ancient Hellenic the verb for say is "phesin" (compare with euphemism, this is the only word I can think of right now in the american language that is related to this verb). Logos does not mean word, but today in modern greek it has aquired the meaning of "speech", due to the illiterate orthodox christian monks of the last 16 centuries.

Please note that the question referred to the term polytheistic science NOT astronomy and astrology.

Religion and science do not go together. Therefore, I stand by my comment that the term polytheistic science is a contradiction in terms, since religion is based on faith and science relies on evidence.

A science ("epistimi", in ancien Hellenic, the word means cognize) is defined as any knowledge of something that is logical according to Aristotle. Logic means that there must be analogy for example between the observed phaenomena (fact) and the theories that attempt to interprete them (explanation).

Religion and science do not go together.....in the christian-oriented world. For all others religion must comply with science and science with religion. There is no conflict between these two. What is religion though? It is a system of knowledge (and not of beliefs) about the Multiverse, how it works, about the Gods-Principles and their operations and manifestations and about the connection between the various Beings of the Multiverse. This knowledge has a specific practical intent: to elevate the conscience.

Now theology and philosophy observe and investigate the same things but whereas theology uses Symbols (that is why it uses the symbolic language of Mythology), philosophy uses Ideas. The sum of both becomes a religion. We do not considered christianity a religion, because it has no native character, it did not emerge through a long natural evolutional process, it was not naturally accepted but needed to be brutally enforced (and a religion does not need brutal enforcement, everyone tends to like proper and logical knowledge systems for conscience evolution), it's basic dogmas are irrational and have been vitiated almost 2000 years ago (that is why there had to be a lot of book-burning along with author-burning also).

Polytheistic religions relate to knowledge systems, not beliefs. Knowledge is considered a high noetic procedure whereas belief is considered a lesser noetic procedure. So if one wants to seek belief systems (like the Supreme Kanuk) should look outside polytheism.

In what frame of reference are you calling this a thesis? Here are the definitions:

1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.
2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.
4. The first stage of the Hegelian dialectic process.
5.
a. The long or accented part of a metrical foot, especially in quantitative verse.
b. The unaccented or short part of a metrical foot, especially in accentual verse.
6. Music. The accented section of a measure.

It seems from your demeanor in the other thread that you abandoned, I'd guess either #1 or #3, unless you are looking for us to proof this thesis for your degree.

Please continue... I'm sure CM will have fun!

I did not abandon. I am under process of moving so I do not have a telephone line any more in my house. This means internet cafes and it also means that I cannot spend too much time in them.

Interesting definitions. I would go for 2, since my work on Hellenic Astrology is the product of a long exhausting and extensive research, not to mention that I had to take lessons on ancient Hellenic. But I am not going for an academic degree. I prefered the path of book writing, since
1. there are no universities that can accomodate me and my research.
2. one can make more money with book writing.
3. if the books turn out to be good and the research interesting, one can win a place in history


Now, let's go to an interesting field. Philosophy.

There is an article I have written, at the occasion of vitiating some irrationalities of a well known pseudo from britain, who recently discovered Hellenistic astrological texts. This person made some unspeakable claims about Pythagoras (guess what? yes, pythagoras a...monotheist) and his definition of number 1. Why Pythagoras? Because from the Pythagorean doctrine about the properties of numbers (that pass on to surfaces and solids) the theory of astrological aspects formed, along with their interpretations.

I utilized this conflict to write a damn good article that proves:
-the "all is one" modern disease is irrational
-Multiverse is not a construction
-there can be no constructor god of Multiverse
-there are many Gods, in fact infinite.
-the number 1 is simply a numeric that defines an infinite series of like-kinded things. Which is exactly what Pythagoras taught.

It is purely a philosophical article. An internet buddy, Beth Havens decided to publish it in their unusual magazine Weyr Live.

I recommend a reading:
http://www.drgnslfthnd.org/articles.html

[Alex W.]

Its lack of ability to predict human relationships, however, has not changed since antiquity.

Actually, believers in astrology may, consciously or not, skew their behaviours to match what their star sign tells them it should be, so, if anything, changes in the amount of people that believe in astrology will change people's relationships.

[Alex W.]

Did I just quote and correct the Bad Astronomer?

[Hekate]

Space is not a vacuum?! Could you elaborate on that?

What is this that the astrophysisians call "dark matter"? And how do material particles "emerge" and "dissapear" according to quantum physics?

Can that "essence" be detected in some objective way?

Yes. Everything is material. Materless is non-existent. Nous and Psyche are material. If you read Timaeus by Plato, you will find the material manifestations of Nous and of the Psyche.

As others have said, a system of ideas can be well-structured, with an impeccable rationale, etc., and still have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. E.g., Tycho Brahe's model of the solar system.

"Reality" has the annoying habit of changing all the time. "Reality" for the christians was a flat earth. But it was not an impeccable and well-structured system. And also Tycho Brahe's model was not impeccable nor well-structured. It lacked analogy with the observed phaenomena.

Now, I agree than a logically impeccable and well-structured model cannot apply practically sometimes. Still to investigate and to form theories in this way is a necessity. Because the logically impeccable and well-structured may sometimes be proved wrong but the illogical and badly-structured is always wrong.

[freddo]

Its lack of ability to predict human relationships, however, has not changed since antiquity.

Actually, believers in astrology may, consciously or not, skew their behaviours to match what their star sign tells them it should be, so, if anything, changes in the amount of people that believe in astrology will change people's relationships.

But that's not a real test of the field is it.. That's people actively subscribing to a belief system. Now if behavoural predictions were accurate for people who carry on life unaware of astrology, there would be a case to answer.

[Hekate]

Actually, believers in astrology may, consciously or not, skew their behaviours to match what their star sign tells them it should be, so, if anything, changes in the amount of people that believe in astrology will change people's relationships.

Exactly. And if they are told that they are "Libras" for example and if they are given a text that supposedly discribes what a Libra should be they start acting this way. Which actually results in blinding them about their true nature.

But, actual Astrology has nothing to do with these shallow characterisms. 1. It is stupid to put the billions of the inhabidants of Earth into 12 general categories.
2. The actual meanings of the zodiac constellations have nothing to do with the modern "astrological" meanings. Which are funny and entertaining but they have nothing to do with those constellations from the Astrological point of view.

An example: the definition of Aries according to Hephaestion Thebanus

"The Dodecatemory of Aries is called head of cosmos, house of Mars, exaltation of Sun in the 19th degree, equatorial, vernal, tropical, royal, commanding, vocal, overland, nocturnal".

The weather signified by the position of Sun in Aries, 2000 years ago, in eastern Mediterrenean places:

"characterized by thunder or hail, but, taken part by part, through the variation in degree that is due to the special quality of the fixed stars, its leading portion is rainy and windy, its middle temperate, and the following part hot and pestilential. Its northern parts are hot and destructive, its southern frosty and chilly"

terms of Aries, in degrees:
"Jupiter = 6; Venus = 6; Mercury = 8; Mars = 5; Saturn = 5"

places under Aries:
"Britain, Gaul, Germania, Bastarnia; in the center, Coelé, Syria, Palestine, Idumaea, Judaea"

fixed stars of Aries, concerning quality of soul:
"The stars in the head of Aries, then, have an effect like the power of Mars and Saturn, mingled; those in the mouth like Mercury's power and moderately like Saturn's; those in the hind foot like that of Mars, and those in the tail like that of Venus"

Follows a signification of appearance and basic life events according to the decan of the Dodecatemory of Aries, ascending at the time and location of birth

3. A Horoscope is a synthesis of many factors, and not the position of the Sun in a constallation, from earthean viewpoint. All other planets are taken into account, all their aspects, their position in the Dodecatopos systems that is a model of Heimarmeni, and certain fixed stars are included.

4. A Horoscope does not necessarily applies in a birth. Natal Astrology is merely one branch, on field of application. It is not the most important branch though. Electional is. Numerous other branches exist, like Medical (originally developed by Hippocrates), Horary as an indication of a possible future for a given time (there are many possible futures since at each time point the Heimarmeni is dynamically redifined), Hieratic (my personal favourite) and others.

5. Since Astrology is a serious science that deals with serious matters (cosmogony, psychogony etc), so it is not popular nor widely known. It takes more years than medicine to grasp the basics. That is why, the popular modern "astrology" disease is so widely spread.

6. It does not predict, it is not a divination. To accept prediction certainity, one should also accept this: that everything is pre-determined. And it is not. Future is always a possibility.

7. Astrology does not predict, it signifies. It can signify the cards you hold at a given time but not how to play. It is a signification map for designing the future, not some divination for predicting it.

8. Why predict when you can design future?
8)


PS: I will be out of town for a week. I wish you
Happy Holidays

[TriangleMan]

Hellensitic Logos, Christian cover-up conspiracy, blah, blah, blah. Lots of semantics, lots of ancient definitions of words - I feel like I'm reading an "ancient greeks attempt to explain the universe" crossed with Star Trek philosophical technobabble. Star Trek comes up with all sorts of logical & complete ways to describe the universe too but at least it knows it's fiction.

BA is right, care to come up with testable, verifiable, falsifiable predictions for this "science" of Christian-atheists-can't-understand Hellenistic astrology of the pagan-polytheistic-gods? That is what science is all about you know, regardless of what Aristotle or some other greek philosopher might have said 2500 years ago.

[freddo]

7. Astrology does not predict, it signifies. It can signify the cards you hold at a given time but not how to play. It is a signification map for designing the future, not some divination for predicting it.

Interesting. So astrology is only good for evaluating past and present? From this you can choose what to do with your future?

I contend that you can do this equally well without the help of the stars.

[Alex W.]

Last time I checked, astrologers were telling me that certain things would be happening to me in the future.

Hell, for a year, the UK National Lottery had Mystic Meg predicting what sort of people would win. (It never seemed to match, BTW).

And I do not believe that astrology actually allows us to understand the present in any way- all it leads to is people trying to match everyone else up to the things in the newspaper, and it just doesn't work. It homogenises things and makes people make pre-judgements based on what astrology tells them.

It might be a bit entertaining to say "oh, I had a run-in with an earthy person today!", but that doesn't mean there's any significance to the connection- you could write a computer program to create random sentences which would be just as profound.

[Alex W.]

What is this that the astrophysisians call "dark matter"? And how do material particles "emerge" and "dissapear" according to quantum physics?

Dark matter is the matter that must be present in the universe (because otherwise it would simply not be dense enough and would behave differently) which we simply cannot detect. Particles "emerge" and "dissapear" because there is an inherent uncertainty in small scale situations- you can't be completely certain that a particle won't appear, so, on average, particles do appear, and promptly annihilate eachother.

"Reality" has the annoying habit of changing all the time. "Reality" for the christians was a flat earth. But it was not an impeccable and well-structured system. And also Tycho Brahe's model was not impeccable nor well-structured. It lacked analogy with the observed phaenomena.

Now, I agree than a logically impeccable and well-structured model cannot apply practically sometimes. Still to investigate and to form theories in this way is a necessity. Because the logically impeccable and well-structured may sometimes be proved wrong but the illogical and badly-structured is always wrong.

Nothing is useful unless it can be applied to the world around us; science is useful (the computer you use, for example, is built upon our understanding of the way atoms and elementary particles work, and the monitor wouldn't work without a vacuum), astrology is no more useful than the explaination of the universe found in the videogame Final Fantasy 7.

[Alex W.]

You've posted a lot of stuff saying what astrology ISN'T, namely something which predicts, and some stuff saying what it is (a connection between celestial objects and living creatures), but you've still not defined it. What does astrology DO?

For example, in my twice-a-week Chemistry lab, I frequently put a sample of organic material through an IR Spectroscopy analysis, whereby I can determine what functional groups are present in that material, and (with a little more information from NMR spectroscopy, the molecular formula, and possibly some chemical tests) figure out more or less exactly what it is. This is the application of physics and chemistry to the day-to-day world, allowing me to make sense of something and solve a problem.

Astrology tells me... what, exactly, about the world around me, and what problems does it help me solve?

[Xbalanque]

Astrology tells me... what, exactly, about the world around me, and what problems does it help me solve?

It allows you to utilize the results of modern science while at the same time expounding on how modern science is wrong.

[Alex W.]

It's ingenius!

It is bizarre that someone would use the basic scientific principle of nuclear fusion to explain astrology, but then claim that the rest of subatomic and quantum physics is nonsense.

[Jovianboy]

My thesis is that Astrology is a polytheistic science, therefore it cannot be comprehended outsides its frame-of-reference. That is why it cannot be comprehended in a christian-oriented world or an atheist one. My intent is not to persuade any christian or atheist about the validity of Astrology. My intent is to demonstrate that Astrology is a well-structured system, with a perfect and impeccable rationale when examined from the polytheistic point of view, with perfect logic...

To demonstrate that astrology has a perfect logic and rationale would be sufficient to persuade a rational person that astrology has some validity - so one intent is contained within the other. However, not only have you not been able to demonstrate what you claim, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate it.

So how do the positions of the planets, the Moon and the Sun as set against a background of totally unrelated imaginary shapes made up of extremely distant stars affect the lives of miniscule sentient beings such as us? What experimentally testable force is at work? As has already been asked - what is the mechanism? If you don't have a rational theory (or at least a hypothesis supported by some observable facts) to explain the mechanism then any claim you make about astrology's rationale is unfounded and invalid. Claiming that the rationale is incomprehensible by those who argue against it is a cop-out - it's an escape from the reality of being held accountable for your beliefs by your peers. And as we all know, that just won't wash in science or in any other realm of rational discourse.

[ToSeek]

Astrology is a hellenic word. It is a composite word from Astron (=Star) and Logos (=Analogy).
[...]
What is Logos?
-Analogy. From Logos the word Logic derives. The Latin equivalent is Ratio, from which the word Rational derives.

I believe you are mistaken about the meaning of logos. It does not mean analogy (our word "analogy" comes from Greek too, ana + logos); it means word, or speach, or science. (It's the same word which was used at the start of the gospel of John: In the begining, there was the Word...)
I could not find a decent online etymological dictionary, but it should be easy to check this at a library.

(Edited: 'gospel of John', not 'John's gospel'.)

Logos has lots of meanings in ancient Greek. Trust me on this.

[kilopi]

Hekate[/url]]My intent is to demonstrate that Astrology is a well-structured system, with a perfect and impeccable rationale when examined from the polytheistic point of view, with perfect logic and with a relation to serious philosophical/theological concepts like Theogony, Astrogony, Psychogony and Cosmogony and of course

Agony?