Re: VMs: Re: Traditional Astrology and the Flat Earth

[Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Glenn

I think you, too have failed to grasp the cusp of my
argument.  It was not astrologers who were ignorant of
a round earth.  There are many calculations involved
in casting a chart.  They certainly do take into
account the spherical shape of the Earth, and have
since Ptolemy, no matter who read Arabic or Latin or
Greek when.  I have heard that mathematics is a
universal language, yes?  Wherever and whenever charts
are cast, these principles are applied.  An
"astrologer" not knowledgeable of such principles is
an astrologer who can't earn a living at his art and
is not worthy of the title.  

So where are the citations from practicing astrologers
who proclaimed that the world was flat?  I'm still
looking forward to those. 

Even the Bible (not a science textbook, after all)
does not speak of a flat earth, so I don't know why
you think Catholics were so excited about it.  Can you
list me some heretics burned at the stake for
believing the earth was spherical?

Let's see some proclamations from the Church on the
issue of centrality of the flat earth to Christian
doctrine.

Do you think that "people"--I thought it was
scientists and physicians who finally had enough of
astrology; am I wrong?--felt the authority of the
Church and the authority of astrologers was identical?
 Where did you get that idea?  

What about the heretic gnostics or magi, who practiced
astrology as a form of communication with God--of
necessity outside the auspices of the Church?  They
would get burned for that, no matter what the shape of
the Earth is.  Didn't they tell you in Sunday school
that anything, even the Bible, certainly
astrology--can be used for "good" or "evil" purposes? 


I see evidence that the church tolerated astrology as
a necessity when it was virtually the only medical art
available.  I don't see much evidence that "people"
thought astrology and the Church were the same thing,
hence overthrew astrology as an act of rebellion
against the church.

I get the sense that there is some modern overlay
here.  I don't much feel like reading modern
interpretations of history to uncover it, though.  You
love to study historical technology. . . I'll tell you
what; I'll offer you a deal.  I'll read modern
historical interpretation to find out where these
ideas are coming from, if you will start practicing
astrology to find out how people who believed in and
practiced astrology used to think.  Let me know when
you know how to cast a chart and interpret it
according to traditional techniques. 

I wonder which approach will give us more insight into
the times and thought processes that went into the
VMs?

Warmly,

Pam


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

> Pamela 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?
> 
> Sorry for the delay in response.  A quick stop on
> Jupiter turned into a
> nightmare - storm interfered with my connecting
> flight and internet
> connections were impossible, so I had to sit in the
> airport bar for 3 whole
> days with nothing but a copy of Terrence McKenna's
> lecture on the Voynich.
> And the increased security after Hale-Bopp, just
> don't get me started!  Was
> it all a nightmare?  Most of it.  The true part is
> the McKenna article.
> I've done a lot of computer transcription for cash
> and personal interest,
> and oddly enough, I was the guy who got paid $50 to
> transcribe Terrence
> McKenna's lecture, which was originally a
> transcription of a radio interview
> if I remember correctly, though he's built upon it
> since.  It's a very small
> world when you think about it, and some things never
> change, like Terrence's
> ability to present lavish gifts of dog-doodoo in
> neatly wrapped packages.
> 
> As to Sacro Bosco versus Ptolemy, I don't think you
> grasped the cusp of my
> argument, especially as it pertains to western
> thought and the control of
> the church.
> 
> It's reasonable that *any* seaman would notice on a
> calm day how the horizon
> gradually curves, or that a ship sinks "hull first"
> on the horizon, as Dan
> Gibson so carefully and comprehensively relates. 
> Dan did a very good job of
> covering what is known about Ptolemy in modern
> times.  The question is not
> what we know now, but what *they* knew then.  The
> *they* I speak of is the
> western mind, not the ancient Arabic mind.
> 
> Take the 'Almagest' as a case study.  Most of
> Ptolemy's works were
> available, but this particular book was only
> translated into Greek, not
> Latin, and the first Latin translation appears only
> in 1481 to my best
> judgment.  The Greek translations of this book were
> done for Popes and quite
> controlled as a document.  I would suppose it was
> because that it was
> contradictory to the church stance on the shape of
> the earth, but that would
> be speculation.  I've read several commentaries on
> the reasons for the
> control of the 'Almagest', but as with anything, I'd
> investigate the matter
> and formulate my own opinion.  You and I have
> available to us the entirety
> of the existing books by Ptolemy, but was this the
> case for the average
> astronomer in medieval times?
> 
> > 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 for one would like to see any reference of the
> 'Earth as a globe' in
> western pre-Columbian art, with the exception of
> certain technical
> depictions found only in astronomical manuscripts. 
> I state specifically,
> Western art, as this would have been in
> contradiction to teachings of the
> Catholic church.  Perhaps I'll learn something I
> don't know.
> 
> For the next address, I need to take from one of
> your other e-mails.
> 
> > Isn't it amazing how much ancient people knew?
> > Obviously, there was room for improvement.
> > Geocentrism predominated for as long as it did not
> > because of deficiencies of astronomy, but pretty
> much
> > because the known laws of physics at that time
> could
> > not account for how, if the earth was moving, an
> > object could be dropped and land directly beneath
> the
> > spot where it had been dropped.
> 
> I don't think this is right.  I think that if there
> were any sign of
> rotational motion of any other body in the heavens,
> rotation of the earth
> would have been considered and taken into account. 
> The moon however, always
> faces us with the same 'man in the moon', and
> demonstrates no rotation.  As
> the only closely viewable body beyond the sun, no
> earth rotation could be
> considered by example, so the idea of 'static earth'
> was as engrained in
> medieval times as was the idea of 'static universe'
> in the early mind of
> Albert Einstein. Your gravitational argument worked
> in the interest of the
> church.  Only the telescope suggested that planets
> can rotate, and only the
> telescope suggested that we were simply a planet and
> not the center of the
> universe, and that's well beyond the Voynich
> time-frame.
> 
> What differentiates Sacro-Bosco from Ptolemy is not
> content per se, rather
> mathematics, not that he was so much different from
> Ptolemy, but that he
> couched his meaning in calculations, made no
> directly confrontational
> statements, and was therefore passed by church
> censure and became available
> very early.  As with Ptolemy, the calculations of
> 'sun spirals' are
> relatively close, and neither takes into account an
> earth that is in motion
> relative to other solar bodies or the heavens. 
> Sacro-Bosco got the billing
> post 1492 primarily because he was one of few
> authors whose works were
> generally released by the church, not because they
> were more innovative or
> insightful than those of the ancient Greek authors.
> 
> We see by Sacro-Bosco's math that the differences in
> times for sunsets could
> be calculated from a 'static earth' by figuring the
> curvature of the earth
> as a static body, and since this x-factor is a
> relative constant, there was
> very little reason to question this until the
> telescope.  It did however
> lead to really obscene calculations of the sun as
> being "340,000 miles
> high", etc., as observed in Dr. Askham's treatise on
> astronomy.  No one
> worried about why something fell 'straight down',
> since the earth itself did
> not move.  We still say 'sunrise' and 'sunset', even
> though these terms are
> geocentric and grossly inaccurate.
> 
> I really love investigating the state of technology
> throughout time, and how
> many of these observations were gathered.  Someone
> asked, (sorry I can't
> find the e-mail), how relative longitude could have
> been established by
> Ptolemy.  How was it established by Sacro-Bosco,
> Cardanne or Mercator?
> Anyone with a stick could calculate true north,
> high-noon 
=== 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