The geometrical aspects for the planets defined. (From 'Astrology' by Hugh Arthur, 1979)
The interpetations of planetary "aspects" in relation to the zodiacal signs (from 'Astrology' by Hugh Arthur)
Well, in the wake of astronomy professor Parke Kunkle's recent exposure of astrology as fraudulent:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/01/gosh-darn-americans-in-tizzy-over.html
showing clearly all the astrological signs used for horoscopes are actually displaced by ~ 30 degrees (meaning a Cancer is really a Gemini, and a Leo is really a Cancer and a Virgo is really a Leo ) - all hell broke loose among the social network types crying and begging for clarification.
In the meantime, it seems assorted astrologers have come to the fore in the media and insisted, 'Oh please! The astronomers are just ignorant and got it all wrong! Of course, we've known this for over two thousand years!"
BULL SHIT! It reminds me of a conversation I had with a Bajan astrologer-ess ca. 1977, when I noted how the Earth's precession had actually altered the horological signs and shifted them by 30 degrees. She pegged my pre-occupation with zodiac signs as "out of step" and the zodiac wasn't not a matter of genuine signs at all, but the constellations (star patterns) associated with them! In her incredible view, the zodiacal constellations are shifted by the Earth's precession, but not the fundamental signs! These signs remain firmly anchored in the sky, immune to all Earth's motions, forever and ever! They always remain exactly where they are!
REALLY?
Even if one is generous enough to grant astrologers the benefit of the doubt on this, other serious problems arise. For example, Greek horological astrology is based on the entirely fallacious concept of a geocentric (Earth-centered) cosmos. In this view (of Ptolemy), the Earth was the center of the solar system and the Sun just another planet going round it! The very brightness of the Sun was like a kind of beacon which, when it appeared in a given sign at the time of birth, disclosed the nature of the person.
The modern crop of astrologer nutbags seem to be little changed from the ones I argued and debated in the 70s. Modern Western astrology, according to these whiz bangs, is based on the movement of the Sun and planets through the seasons, not even signs! In other words, the tropical zodiac is merely divided into 12 regions for "convenience" and "the stars themselves are irrelevant to the zodiac" - in the immortal words of Tarot.com astrologer Jeff Jawer.(Never mind the arrangement and star patterns were used to designated the original 12 signs which today are used for "convenience")
So the good news for devotees of this bunkum (mostly those who never completed one physics or astronomy course, like most fundies) is that the "sign" you were born under is still your sign, but the bad news is (according to the astrologers) it's not really a star sign - more a "planet sign" because the import trades on any given planet's apparition in the sign!
To fix ideas I show two graphics from the (1979) monograph 'Astrology' by High Arthur. The table shows each named "aspect" by angle and its name (e.g. "conjunction", etc.) and whether the putative "force" is weak, strong or moderate. The other graphic shows the geometric relations in terms of the planetary aspects. For example, in conjunction two planets, say Venus and Jupiter, essentially "line up" so the planets' principles combine in unity with each other.
By contrast, any two planets, say Mars and Venus, in a "square" aspect, will emit a discordant influence and result in frustration, imbalance and inner conflict. In other words, the planetary aspects determine the outcome of one's day or life or whatever.
The planet principles themselves antedate from ancient conceptions, mostly based on first impressions. For example, astrologers generally attribute a "maleficent influence" or prinicple to Mars. Its presence is associated with undefined aggression, hostility or some kind of impending confrontation or war. (Naturally, as its color is red!) Some astrologers have insisted that those born with Mars in their Sun sign are destined to become warriors, or soldiers. All these associations follow from the color. In truth, the color is not from blood at all but a chemical comprising most of soil of the planet: iron oxide, or rust. So in truth, Mars' color is not really "red" like blood, but rusty!
According to astrologer Rick Levine, given these planetary associations, "We could call it planetology instead of astrology but that would be stupid!"
Why, if it's closer to the truth? If indeed the stars are "irrelevant" then why persist in the use of a misnomer "ASTRO-logy"? It makes no sense! Worse, it's blatantly dishonest!
But of course changing the term might make a dent in their pocket books, because the substitution of a less well known title would mean fewer people recognizing it, spending time on its gibberish or what not.
In the end, all this tap dancing around terms, meanings and definitions shows me the astrologers are just as dishonest in their own way as the biblical authority fundies are in theirs. Neither admits that their preferred bag of tricks - bible or astrological charts - is essential humbug and not worth the paper written on. The astrologers won't admit that the altered zodiacal sign positions (from precession) totally eradicates any real meaning from their horoscopes - just like the fundies won't admit that the 1000+ contradictions in their good Book render it a fictional work at most.
Let us hope that eventually humans will grow up enough to no longer rely on either of these ridiculous crutches.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/01/gosh-darn-americans-in-tizzy-over.html
showing clearly all the astrological signs used for horoscopes are actually displaced by ~ 30 degrees (meaning a Cancer is really a Gemini, and a Leo is really a Cancer and a Virgo is really a Leo ) - all hell broke loose among the social network types crying and begging for clarification.
In the meantime, it seems assorted astrologers have come to the fore in the media and insisted, 'Oh please! The astronomers are just ignorant and got it all wrong! Of course, we've known this for over two thousand years!"
BULL SHIT! It reminds me of a conversation I had with a Bajan astrologer-ess ca. 1977, when I noted how the Earth's precession had actually altered the horological signs and shifted them by 30 degrees. She pegged my pre-occupation with zodiac signs as "out of step" and the zodiac wasn't not a matter of genuine signs at all, but the constellations (star patterns) associated with them! In her incredible view, the zodiacal constellations are shifted by the Earth's precession, but not the fundamental signs! These signs remain firmly anchored in the sky, immune to all Earth's motions, forever and ever! They always remain exactly where they are!
REALLY?
Even if one is generous enough to grant astrologers the benefit of the doubt on this, other serious problems arise. For example, Greek horological astrology is based on the entirely fallacious concept of a geocentric (Earth-centered) cosmos. In this view (of Ptolemy), the Earth was the center of the solar system and the Sun just another planet going round it! The very brightness of the Sun was like a kind of beacon which, when it appeared in a given sign at the time of birth, disclosed the nature of the person.
The modern crop of astrologer nutbags seem to be little changed from the ones I argued and debated in the 70s. Modern Western astrology, according to these whiz bangs, is based on the movement of the Sun and planets through the seasons, not even signs! In other words, the tropical zodiac is merely divided into 12 regions for "convenience" and "the stars themselves are irrelevant to the zodiac" - in the immortal words of Tarot.com astrologer Jeff Jawer.(Never mind the arrangement and star patterns were used to designated the original 12 signs which today are used for "convenience")
So the good news for devotees of this bunkum (mostly those who never completed one physics or astronomy course, like most fundies) is that the "sign" you were born under is still your sign, but the bad news is (according to the astrologers) it's not really a star sign - more a "planet sign" because the import trades on any given planet's apparition in the sign!
To fix ideas I show two graphics from the (1979) monograph 'Astrology' by High Arthur. The table shows each named "aspect" by angle and its name (e.g. "conjunction", etc.) and whether the putative "force" is weak, strong or moderate. The other graphic shows the geometric relations in terms of the planetary aspects. For example, in conjunction two planets, say Venus and Jupiter, essentially "line up" so the planets' principles combine in unity with each other.
By contrast, any two planets, say Mars and Venus, in a "square" aspect, will emit a discordant influence and result in frustration, imbalance and inner conflict. In other words, the planetary aspects determine the outcome of one's day or life or whatever.
The planet principles themselves antedate from ancient conceptions, mostly based on first impressions. For example, astrologers generally attribute a "maleficent influence" or prinicple to Mars. Its presence is associated with undefined aggression, hostility or some kind of impending confrontation or war. (Naturally, as its color is red!) Some astrologers have insisted that those born with Mars in their Sun sign are destined to become warriors, or soldiers. All these associations follow from the color. In truth, the color is not from blood at all but a chemical comprising most of soil of the planet: iron oxide, or rust. So in truth, Mars' color is not really "red" like blood, but rusty!
According to astrologer Rick Levine, given these planetary associations, "We could call it planetology instead of astrology but that would be stupid!"
Why, if it's closer to the truth? If indeed the stars are "irrelevant" then why persist in the use of a misnomer "ASTRO-logy"? It makes no sense! Worse, it's blatantly dishonest!
But of course changing the term might make a dent in their pocket books, because the substitution of a less well known title would mean fewer people recognizing it, spending time on its gibberish or what not.
In the end, all this tap dancing around terms, meanings and definitions shows me the astrologers are just as dishonest in their own way as the biblical authority fundies are in theirs. Neither admits that their preferred bag of tricks - bible or astrological charts - is essential humbug and not worth the paper written on. The astrologers won't admit that the altered zodiacal sign positions (from precession) totally eradicates any real meaning from their horoscopes - just like the fundies won't admit that the 1000+ contradictions in their good Book render it a fictional work at most.
Let us hope that eventually humans will grow up enough to no longer rely on either of these ridiculous crutches.
Terrific takedown of a stupid waste of time. Btw, you forgot to mention the finding by two members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal(Paul Kurtz and Andrew Fraknoi, A.: 1988) Belief in the Stars is nota Good Sign, Skeptical Inquirer) in which they cited calculations showing the obstetrician at a baby's birth exerts a much more powerful gravitational influence on the newborn than either Sun, Moon or other planet!
ReplyDeleteActually I did reference the Kurtz and Fraknoi article in my original blog on astrology:
ReplyDeletehttp://brane-space.blogspot.com/2007/12/astrology-astronomys-specious-sister.html