Re: VMs: Traditional Astrology and the Flat Earth

[Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ptolemy on the Shape of the Earth, from the Almagest,
Book I, Ch. 4.:

"Now, that also the earth taken as a whole is sensibly
spherical, we could most likely think out in this way.
 For again it is possible to see that the sun and moon
and the other stars do not rise and set at the same
time for every observer on the earth, but always
earlier for those living towards the orient and later
for those living towards the occident...And since the
differences in the hours is found to be proportional
to the distances between the places, one would
reasonably suppose the surface of the earth
spherical...Again, whenever we sail towards mountains
or any high places from whatever angle and in whatever
direction, we see their bulk little by little
increasing as if they were arising from the sea,
whereas before they seemed submerged because of the
curvature of the water's surface." (Ptolemy, Almagest,
I.4).

Hope this is of interest.

Warmly,

Pam


--- Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== 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!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list