Comments on: 10 Questions About Astrology from a Skeptic http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/ The best astrology blog in the world. Seriously. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:07:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Harold http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-1837 Harold Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:46:23 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-1837 When one looks at the solar system from above, stretching the view to encompass a great distance, one sees all the movements of the planets, around the Sun, singing, like in a choir. From this perspective, it is easy to tell that the planets, in their motion, are synchronistic principles in accord with all the living entities stationed in the center of all of it. How simple must these things be? Stand before the Moon and Jupiter at night, and you will be filled with a radiance. Have you ever caught a glimpse of the full moon when you weren't expecting it, and it took your breath away? It is the notion that there is an intelligence and a beauty, a numinous light which birthed the Sun, that makes astrology valid. We but float on influences we will never, ever measure with our gross modern tools. The skeptic but has a closed heart; and as a practicing astrologer, yes, I have seen that this closed-mindedness does influence the reading toward their refusal of light; they may leave still not knowing that for which they searched. This happens with Virgos and killer Mercuries. And yet, why should one's intent control the circumstances of time? Do we understand the nature of what thoughts and intentions are? All of life, we just see through one giant screen, that is placed 3 inches or so in front of our face. Astrology may be that screen. For certainly, it is valid that astrology may function as a screen, because it is comprised of real planets, against the cosmic background, which is the Father. It is as Robert Hand says "the universe is infinitely weird." Even with my South Node and Jupiter in Sagittarius, I wouldn't claim to know how astrology works. Nor anything. Knowing is ignorance. When one looks at the solar system from above, stretching the view to encompass a great distance, one sees all the movements of the planets, around the Sun, singing, like in a choir. From this perspective, it is easy to tell that the planets, in their motion, are synchronistic principles in accord with all the living entities stationed in the center of all of it. How simple must these things be? Stand before the Moon and Jupiter at night, and you will be filled with a radiance. Have you ever caught a glimpse of the full moon when you weren’t expecting it, and it took your breath away? It is the notion that there is an intelligence and a beauty, a numinous light which birthed the Sun, that makes astrology valid. We but float on influences we will never, ever measure with our gross modern tools. The skeptic but has a closed heart; and as a practicing astrologer, yes, I have seen that this closed-mindedness does influence the reading toward their refusal of light; they may leave still not knowing that for which they searched. This happens with Virgos and killer Mercuries. And yet, why should one’s intent control the circumstances of time? Do we understand the nature of what thoughts and intentions are? All of life, we just see through one giant screen, that is placed 3 inches or so in front of our face. Astrology may be that screen. For certainly, it is valid that astrology may function as a screen, because it is comprised of real planets, against the cosmic background, which is the Father. It is as Robert Hand says “the universe is infinitely weird.” Even with my South Node and Jupiter in Sagittarius, I wouldn’t claim to know how astrology works. Nor anything. Knowing is ignorance.

]]> By: Chris Brennan http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Chris Brennan Thu, 01 May 2008 18:10:51 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-214 I did propose an alternative. I questioned the necessity of there being a causal mechanism underlying astrology in the first place, and used synchronicity as an example of an alternate theory. I did propose an alternative. I questioned the necessity of there being a causal mechanism underlying astrology in the first place, and used synchronicity as an example of an alternate theory.

]]> By: Ian Srivatsav http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-213 Ian Srivatsav Thu, 01 May 2008 13:58:17 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-213 I think, despite the booing, as a science, astrology must continue to evolve. But it hasn't. There's stagnation, and we're still stuck with combinations and interpretations put forth decades/centuries ago. If we want to be relevant, we also have to pay heed to the skeptic's doubts. Never mind if we can't explain how, we must at least know what causes these correlation of celestial phenomena and human incidents. Case in point: when Newton gave the formula for gravity, he didn't explain what it was or how it worked. That was done in Einstein's time. As proponents of an idea under attack, blindly fending off the naysayers isn't the way. You say it's not gravitational waves, for example. Propose an alternative? What do you think it is? I think, despite the booing, as a science, astrology must continue to evolve. But it hasn’t. There’s stagnation, and we’re still stuck with combinations and interpretations put forth decades/centuries ago.
If we want to be relevant, we also have to pay heed to the skeptic’s doubts. Never mind if we can’t explain how, we must at least know what causes these correlation of celestial phenomena and human incidents.
Case in point: when Newton gave the formula for gravity, he didn’t explain what it was or how it worked. That was done in Einstein’s time.
As proponents of an idea under attack, blindly fending off the naysayers isn’t the way.
You say it’s not gravitational waves, for example. Propose an alternative? What do you think it is?

]]> By: Astrology Explored » Blog Archive » The Full Meal Deal http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Astrology Explored » Blog Archive » The Full Meal Deal Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:47:06 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-211 [...] For a thoughtful piece on one astrologer’s answers to a skeptic, check this out. Did You Enjoy this Post? Subscribe to Astrology Explored. It's Free! « Back Home Posted in General Link to this Entry Email This Entry [...] [...] For a thoughtful piece on one astrologer’s answers to a skeptic, check this out. Did You Enjoy this Post? Subscribe to Astrology Explored. It’s Free! « Back Home Posted in General Link to this Entry Email This Entry [...]

]]> By: Beth Turnage http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-212 Beth Turnage Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:53:21 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-212 "I was speaking to Robert Zoller recently and he said something very pertinent along these lines. He said something to the effect that, astrology gives you the ability to know things that you shouldn’t otherwise be able to know. That is to say, it doesn’t provide omniscience, but it does give the practitioner the ability to tap into the undercurrents of specific situations and systems and to determine things that you would otherwise not be able to know. . " I loved this comment. As a practicing astrologer, I have run across those clients that expected an "instant oracular experience". Having seen on television only those people who are extraordinarily gifted psychics, they expect instant "verification" of your gifts, with little understanding of what an astrologer actually does. They want to hear that everything is going to be wonderful, that they'll meet the mates of their dreams, that their married lover is going to come running to them and/or they are going to win the lottery when the timing is right. Sometimes there is a real blind-spot to the fact that the information an astrologer is giving them is really something that no stranger should be able to tell them. Quantifying astrological results is a difficult, time consuming process. Even Gauguelin, after analyzing 6,000 charts, came up with just a few quantifiable results. The complexity of the Art defeats this perhaps, or we have to wait for those computers that can synthesize the information in a birth chart with the same skill that a human mind can. Maybe then we can "prove" astrology to the world at large. All I know is that I can tell you things about yourself that I shouldn't know. To me, that is proof enough. Thank you for a well thought out and elegant article. “I was speaking to Robert Zoller recently and he said something very pertinent along these lines. He said something to the effect that, astrology gives you the ability to know things that you shouldn’t otherwise be able to know. That is to say, it doesn’t provide omniscience, but it does give the practitioner the ability to tap into the undercurrents of specific situations and systems and to determine things that you would otherwise not be able to know. . ”

I loved this comment. As a practicing astrologer, I have run across those clients that expected an “instant oracular experience”. Having seen on television only those people who are extraordinarily gifted psychics, they expect instant “verification” of your gifts, with little understanding of what an astrologer actually does. They want to hear that everything is going to be wonderful, that they’ll meet the mates of their dreams, that their married lover is going to come running to them and/or they are going to win the lottery when the timing is right. Sometimes there is a real blind-spot to the fact that the information an astrologer is giving them is really something that no stranger should be able to tell them.

Quantifying astrological results is a difficult, time consuming process. Even Gauguelin, after analyzing 6,000 charts, came up with just a few quantifiable results. The complexity of the Art defeats this perhaps, or we have to wait for those computers that can synthesize the information in a birth chart with the same skill that a human mind can. Maybe then we can “prove” astrology to the world at large.

All I know is that I can tell you things about yourself that I shouldn’t know. To me, that is proof enough.

Thank you for a well thought out and elegant article.

]]> By: Chris Brennan http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-204 Chris Brennan Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:20:19 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-204 Yeah, it really is apt for the Mercury retrograde actually. I try to put things in perspective and go with the flow when there are certain astrological trends such as that one happening. Sometimes it can be just as productive to review and revise certain projects that you have been meaning to do, instead of trying to start something from scratch or initiate a new phase of activity. Yeah, it really is apt for the Mercury retrograde actually. I try to put things in perspective and go with the flow when there are certain astrological trends such as that one happening. Sometimes it can be just as productive to review and revise certain projects that you have been meaning to do, instead of trying to start something from scratch or initiate a new phase of activity.

]]> By: hitchhiker72 http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-203 hitchhiker72 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:07:18 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-203 Hi Chris, I really enjoyed this and learned a lot from it. I looked at the date of the post -- isn't this such an apt one for Mercury retrograde though? Going over old material, even finding the old source again. Mercury rx gets too much of a bad rep sometimes. Good stuff can come out of it! Thanks again. Hi Chris,
I really enjoyed this and learned a lot from it. I looked at the date of the post — isn’t this such an apt one for Mercury retrograde though? Going over old material, even finding the old source again. Mercury rx gets too much of a bad rep sometimes. Good stuff can come out of it!
Thanks again.

]]> By: Moses http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Moses Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:52:07 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-210 You're doing outstanding work with your blog, Chris. It's very inspiring to me, and I'm sure others too. Thanks! You’re doing outstanding work with your blog, Chris. It’s very inspiring to me, and I’m sure others too. Thanks!

]]> By: Chris Brennan http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Chris Brennan Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:43:50 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-209 After browsing through your blog I would have expected a more well thought out or poignant argument from you. Did you even read this post? After browsing through your blog I would have expected a more well thought out or poignant argument from you. Did you even read this post?

]]> By: Dave Bath http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-205 Dave Bath Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:06:19 +0000 http://apotelesmatics.com/2007/06/17/10-questions-about-astrology-from-a-skeptic/#comment-205 Does anyone have any thoughts about the entries in the astrology sections of New York newpapers prepared in the wee smalls of the morning 11-Sep-2001? Does anyone have any thoughts about the entries in the astrology sections of New York newpapers prepared in the wee smalls of the morning 11-Sep-2001?

]]>