VMs: Traditional Astrology and the Flat Earth

[Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Glenn!

I am afraid we have a basic disagreement.  I don't
know of any traditional astrologers (I'm not a
"modern" one either, in terms of technique, which is
how I define the term) who were not aware of the
roundness of the Earth.  Can you quote me an early
(pre-1492, by your dates) practicing traditional
astrologer who indicated that he believed the earth
was flat?  

How would the flatness of the Earth have affected the
calculation of sunset in another country, a thing that
pre-1492 astrologers were quite prepared to address?

If the Earth were flat, everyone on the Earth would
all experience sunset simultaneously.  If you
suggested this to an astrologer, he would be rolling
on the floor.  But if he was polite he would thank you
for a good laugh.

Why are astrolabes (developed c. 300 BC and used up
until the demise of astrology) dependent upon
spherical trigonometry, for calculations of the
ascendant as well as the heavens?

This is to say nothing of the multiple repeated
historic references to the Earth as a globe in art. 

I would love to discuss any number of topics with you,
but it looks like this one is probably going to go on
for ages.  I will certainly look forward to reading
your sources for the practicing pre-1492 astrologers
who proclaimed that the earth was flat.  Best of luck
to you.  And I hope this topic does not lead to more
censure from those who don't like to see "off-topic"
posts.

Warmly,

Pam


--- GC <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Pamela wrote:
> 
> 
> > Thanks!  I always love to learn. . . shh, we are
> not
> > allowed to talk about this.  It's not peritient,
> per
> > Rene.
> 
> That's quite okay.  I've been on the receiving end
> for quite some time, so
> long in fact that I'm become quite comfortable as an
> "outsider".  Not
> usually with Rene however, a person I hold in the
> highest esteem.  We have
> our disagreements, but those are usually not on
> substance, rather on
> presentation.  I understand why Rene felt the
> conversation was going
> off-topic, and I have no problem with his attempts
> at redirection.  My
> advice to you is that, if you are truly interested
> in the Voynich, you
> peruse Rene's site, and attempt to comprehend the
> vast amount of information
> he has compiled on the subject.  I've never met the
> man, but one day soon I
> hope to shake his hand and compliment him on the
> focus he's been able to
> maintain in his study.  (has anybody noticed that
> the first and second
> definitions of the word "peruse" as displayed in
> Mirriam Webster are
> entirely contradictory?)
> 
> I'm certainly no modern astrologer, nor do I really
> have an interest in the
> subject beyond the Voynich and the 15th/16th century
> works that I currently
> study.  I am keen on the writers of the time because
> this is my interest and
> I attempt to "think" in their terms when examining a
> time period.  I believe
> this is the only path to understanding, and I've
> discovered this path to be
> the correct one more than a few times.
> 
> You've invited me to address an off-list message on
> the list, and since this
> is the most efficient method to demonstrate that
> your track is not so
> different from the track that must be investigated,
> I'll take this option at
> the moment, as long as you understand that I will
> *always* respond off-list
> to anything you think should be held confidential.
> 
> You stated to me:
> 
> It has been interesting trying to wade through some
> perceptions of astrology as emerging into a "modern"
> phase in 1500. . . but as we know, if we trust
> Andrew
> Watson's dates, it really does not make much sense
> to
> toss any material out due to a post-1500 date,
> authored by Ficino or who else.  I suppose I could
> have argued that point, but I was rather intrigued
> with where these (strange, to me) ideas might have
> come from, and the gaps in knowledge of the history
> of
> astrology of which they seemed to give a glimpse.
> 
> I think you really have to look at the '1500' date
> (really '1492') and
> understand its effect on the intellectual world at
> the moment as it relates
> to astronomy, not astrology, a then predictive
> "science" that was calculated
> precisely based on astronomical observations.  This
> single event proved
> Ptolemy wrong, and brought authors such as Iohannes
> de Sacro Bosco to the
> forefront.  This is evidenced by publications of
> works, (something you
> connect with 'demand') with a fall-off on the
> publications of ptolemaic
> writings and a 1,000 fold increase in the
> publications of works by Sacro
> Bosco during the late 15th/early 16th century.  We
> know that 'establishment'
> is slow to react to change, but we also know that
> from this period that
> students were more interested in Sacro Bosco than
> anything published on
> Ptolemy, even though they often towed the public
> line.  Private notebooks
> give us some insight into the undercurrents of the
> medical society at the
> time, telling us that the Catholic official line
> went unaccepted throughout
> Europe, while authors like Sacro Bosco that
> advocated such ideas as 'round
> earth' and 'helio-centricity' were gobbled up by
> students throughout Europe.
> Up to 1492, Sacro Bosco was a minor work in
> astronomy, radical and without
> merit beyond the mathematical, and few if any used
> his calculations in their
> determination of astrological events.
> 
> The leap to 'modern astrology' is correctly dated at
> 1500, give or take a
> few years.  The singular event was 1492, repeated in
> 1493.  The earth
> immediately transformed from a 'flatland' to a
> globe, and the church refused
> to conform to the new information. 
> Astronomer/astrologers were left with
> two choices, conform to the church or search for the
> truth.  That conflict
> would consume the next 150 years, and at the end of
> the conflict, astrology
> would be thrown out as a 'pseudo-science', never
> again to be considered by
> any studied individual.
> 
> I can get very detailed on this topic, but that
> would have to be off-line,
> as it is not immediately relevant to the Voynich. 
> What is relevant to the
> Voynich is that the astronomical/astrological
> information portrayed in the
> VMS clearly reflects this transitional period, and
> must therefore be
> post-1492.  I see some talk of 'Regulus', but who
> has considered
> 'Charleswane', or like representations?
> 
> GC
> 
>  Original Message ----- 
> From: "Pamela Richards" <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: VMs: Jung and Modern/Traditional
> Astrology?
> 
> 
> > Hi, Glenn!
> >
> >
> > Warmly,
> >
> > Pam
> >
> > PS I agree with you about the time frames of the
> dying
> > gasps of astrology.  And I do think 1500 is a
> little
> > early.
> >
> > Shhh!
> >
> > Pam
> >
> > --- GC <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Pamela,
> > >
> > > Hi, we haven't spoken before, but I do need to
> clear
> > > up a couple of points
> > > you made.
> > >
> > > > Here are a few inscriptions from almanacs
> printed
> > > in
> > > > England in the seventeenth century.  Almanacs
> were
> > > > calculated by "philomaths"--people who liked
> to
> > > crunch
> > > > numbers--and sold to astrologers, who used
> them to
> > > > make predictions following the techniques of
> > > > traditional astrology.  Almanacs fall into the
> > > > category of historical evidence of the
> vitality of
> > > > astrology, as their manufacture would not pay
> for
> > > the
> > > > cost of printing unless they had an audience.
> > >
> > > The books you listed are 16th century
> publications,
> > > not 17th century.  As
> > > apparent by the titles of the authors themselves
> > > (doctors in physike), these
> > > were not drawn up by "philomaths", but by the
> > > doctors themselves.  I have
> 
=== message truncated ===


=====
"I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing, than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list