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

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Pamela,

I try to stay in touch, but with all the astrall travel I'm doing, well,
it's time to cash in these frequent flyer miles so I'm not always at 'home'.
:-)  I read my post the next day when it bounced back, and saw I did indeed
miss the cusp of some of your arguments.  It happens more often than not on
this list, so I beg your forgiveness.

> 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.

I guess the problem I have in addressing any point made in this discussion
is that we're talking about a very broad period of time between Ptolemy and
Copernicus.  As example I bring up your point about the problem of gravity,
that when and object fell, it fell in the same place.  I don't have to
mention the work of Galileo in this regard, at a particular time.  The
observation was interpreted differently by earlier generations, with one
commentary prevailing for a period, and one refutation prevailing the next.
Flux is the course of human history, and to broadly discuss the progression
of an idea doesn't work.  That's why we mark history with singular or
momentous events.  No one remembers that Robert Hooke first 'described' the
effects of gravity, they only remember that Newton first described them
mathematically.  Name the individual who filed a patent for the telephone
only hours after Alexander Graham Bell?  We can't remember these events
because they are not historical markers.  Who remembers that Nikola Tesla
won a lawsuit that named him the inventor of radio, but who can't remember
the name Marconi in connection with radio?  And who can remember that the
initial attribution to the discovery of the Americas was given to Amerigo
Vespucci, hence the maps that named the continent 'America', even after the
honor was disputed by Columbus, who won the judgment that his discovery was
made three weeks earlier than Vespucci?  These events are off the top of my
head, but they suffice to demonstrate that accepted history is not exactly
'self correcting'.

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

'Practicing astrologers', that's a phrase very open to attack.  I am
speaking of astronomers, not astrologers, a distinction that did not exist
in the netherworld of the past.  Most of the works are post-1492, and I'd
have to go back and find them.  The gist of these is not that the 'earth is
flat', and I don't think I've ever read this as a statement by anybody that
wrote on the subject.  I 'deduce' their belief from statements made in the
works.  Something like this makes me suspicious that the 'math' in use is
not trig:  Venus rises at the 6th hour, at a distance of 120,000 miles, and
reaches its height at the 12th hour and 15 minutes, at a height of 235,000
miles.  If the world were a 'globe', this dimension should not change.  Am I
reading these statements wrong?  Are they talking about a distance from a
single point, and not from the 'earth'?  I frankly don't know.  If the world
were considered a globe, the distance from the horizon to the observer would
be considered further than the distance overhead, so the measurements should
reduce, not increase, as the object rose in the sky.  I do have one work in
mind where the math is extremely questionable, and I'll try to dig it out of
my archives.  As with anything in history, our historians tend to define the
'correct' documents and authors, and ignore the rest.

> 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?

Heretics burned at the stake for disagreeing with the 'flat earth'
philosophy?  No, they were generally burned for other offenses.  Take
Giordano Bruno as example.  I have to disagree with you once more however,
and submit that there are numerous significant biblical scriptures that
pertain to the flatness of the earth that were used as arguments in medieval
theories.  Among these, taken immediately from
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm:

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the
outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR
CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE
EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on
the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be
shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
 LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction,
the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say,
Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is
no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven,
and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth
him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

This particular site has many more, and I sincerely appreciate their efforts
in addressing this subject, as it has been one of the major arguments I've
had over the years with my minister friends.  One of my debating points has
always been that if the book were the work of God, he'd know the shape of
the earth and not make these misleading statements.  The earth as a circle
or a sphere has a vastly more mystical quality than an earth with corners.
If these scriptures were God's design, he would have been more effective in
emphasizing the mystical qualities of the circle, no beginning, no ending,
etc.  Make your own judgment, but don't tell me that the scriptures do not
offer any information that could be (and was) construed as proof-positive
that the earth was flat.

I should offer the opinion of one of my minister friends, that these
references only indicate that the earth at that time was considered to be
the land expanse of the Euro-Indo-Asian continent.  I of course asked him
why God didn't tell his prophets about the New World, and if this was some
mysterious secret, to at least precisely locate the 'four corners' of this
particular known land mass.

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

I don't think I ever said that this was a solid church position, and if I
implied this, I'm sorry.  What I meant to say is that this was something in
the political arsenal.  Each new pope had a new opinion, and when that
opinion differed from the prior pope, the nature of writing reflected that
change.  As example of influence, one pope came along and decided that
short-hand writing was the work of the devil, and all but destroyed that
type of writing for almost 400 years.  Another decided that prognostication
of individual health and outcome was okay, but to prognosticate the outcome
of a pope or kingdom was an act of the devil.  As I believe I've suggested,
I've formulated my opinions primarily based on examination of the type of
geometry used by the writer of the medical, astronomical or astrological
document.  When things don't jive they're not using calculations based on
the earth as a sphere.  I'll find you some examples of this.

> 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?

Taking everything else away from your statement, I read your question as "Do
you think that people felt the authority of the Church and the authority of
astrologers was identical?". Yes, of course, that's a given.  Who gives
authority to anyone but the church during this time?  We're talking about
the VMS timeframe, which extends slightly into the range of time where
Catholic ideas were being publicly confuted, but that's the high end of the
equation.  Of course I think this, why would you think differently?  We
mutually misunderstood the argument, and again we're touching on broad time
spectrums, which doesn't help.  Let's stay within the Voynich timeframe for
this one, 1450-1550, so we're not shifting so much.

The identification with 'physicians' and 'the church' is virtually identical
during this time frame, as I had made clear in posts previous to your
arrival, and during this time frame we must also conclude that mathematics
as a major science was non-exisent.  I will reiterate these conclusions.

Virtually all medical care for the populace was relegated to the abbeys and
monasteries, and for wealthy individuals something more on the order.  For
these individuals, they employed a clergy/physician for both connections.
Under the various laws of countries involved in christianity of various
types, including early Protestant England, there was a legal commitment to
attend mass and church.  The weekly 'church' attendance could not be usually
escaped, but the 'mass' obligation for the rich was attended to by a live-in
clergy.  This clergy was also usually the attending physician, who could
also issue a 'note from mother' for non-attendace at Sunday mass.  The
reason that the two are so heavily connected is that virtually all (close to
97%) of all students trained in medicine during this century were trained by
the church, and almost 93% of those trained by the church were trained under
church scholarships.  Better than 70% of the students trained in medicine
were trained under a 'poor scholarship' program, where the church extracted
a number of years of service from the trainee in exchange for education.
Even in the cases of the elite 'doctors', it was generally unacceptable that
a doctor to the rich had not taken vows to the church in advance.  An
understanding of this history gives some meaning to Holme's "Dr. Watson",
even if this is something I overlay as a modern on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's
books, though Watson acts in all the traditional roles of his predecessors.

> 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?

Ramble mode: Don't even go there.  History is full of examples of people who
have done great evil in the name of good, and I'm living a similar moment
right now with the current president.  Extreme actions always evoke extreme
responses, while careful moderation and control evokes predictable and
stabilized response, even when that moderated response takes a forceful
tone.  Action and reaction are generally symmetrical, and I might use Isreal
as example, where the entire world can predict the outcome of policy changes
beforehand.  We don't need astrologers to gauge a population's reaction to
violent radical changes when human history is a better measure.

Sunday school?  They said the fossilized shells I found on the hills
surrounding my town were evidence of the flood.  Geologists tell us that
evidence of a global flood is 'totally lacking', and also tell me that those
fossils I found were 230 million years old, though Sunday School says that
the earth cannot be much more than 7,000 years old.  Sunday school said Noah
built the ark, but never mentioned that this story dates back far beyond
Noah's acknowledged lifetime in archives from Ur and Ebla.  I could write
pages on this, including the famous "if a man steals your cloak, give him
your tunic as well.  If he forces you to walk a mile, walk the next mile
with him willingly."  Buddha said that in the 'Dhamma Phadda", 500 years
before the words were attributed to Jesus.  They never told me that in
Sunday school. My 'Sunday School' education was rather filtered and
selective, and left out a lot, like the actual definition of "good and
evil".  I've only recently been able to interpret this definition, which
boils down to "what serves us is good, and when it doesn't serve us it's
evil".  But this interpretation is okay because 'God is on our side'.  I've
yet to determine the precise definiton of "us", just as I'm a bit confused
about the pronouncements of things "good for America".  Usually those things
that are deemed "good for America" cost me money and adversely impact my
freedom and lifestyle.  Things that are presented under the heading of
"American Interest" seem to be the most confusings, since the definition
tends to be more elusive than UFO sightings.  I've yet to see the general
good in this type of misinformation from any perspective, as much as I try.
Overall however, I usually view things that advance humanity in all nations
as good, and since advancement of human society usually pisses off religious
people, I concede that I *may* hold opinions viewed to be in direct conflict
with those of the average Sunday School teacher.  I'm one of your heretics,
I guess.

> 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 don't think I said this, and if you read my message this way, it is a
misread.  I was coming from the position that astrology as you speak of it
was used only by physicians, and physicians were trained only by the church,
as I have demonstrated in numerous emails on the subject.  The connection is
solid between the physician/astronomers that you include in your definition
of astrologers, and I don't precisely agree that these individual
professionals should be generically connected to the likes of Michele
Nostradamus, who shared the same background, but used that training in
something as demeaningly equivalent to appearing on 'Opra'. he was
immediately slammed by several publications by traditional astronomers, with
the charge that he was using false calculations.  The vast majority of the
individuals who graduated this church training on medicine were very serious
individuals devoted to the knowledge they had gained.

> 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 seriously don't think that I've filtered my information through modern
eyes, though you might correct me.  I have approached this history
statistically, since the practice of astronomy/astrology tends to be a
subjective topic, and found that throughout early European history it was
almost entirely relegated to the physician trade.  I use the word *almost*
in regard to the Voynich period especially because travelling back in time
makes the assumption increasingly certain, but the time of the Voynich
offered a slight degree of ambivalence to the equation.  The same standard
applied to the use of shorthand symbols on f57v reveals that it was almost
entirely confined to the 'physician' trade, and that the first 50 years of
publications on the subject during the late 16th/17th centuries were
produced by individuals who were trained as physicians.

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

This is the vms-list, and approach is the name of the game.  I've outlined
several things that are residual efforts of my investigation of this
manuscript, and I've carefully hit on a few that are direct results.  The
result of my research has always been accepted the same, Ms. Nill.

Most recently I was involved in a discussion with Jorge Stolfi about his
claims that there was 'retouching' in the manuscript that in his mind
demonstrated equivocally that there was an outside editor involved, to the
point of altering images.  I didn't mind so much that he suggested the
images to be altered, but when he suggested the text to be minutely altered,
I took exception.  We had a few exchanges, nothing really definitive as an
insult on my part, but I did raise enough questions that Jorge said he'd
reavaluate some things, and disappeared for awhile.  When he came back, he
used republican labels like 'hallucinating' and 'imagining' to establish his
dominance.  These were not the words of a scholarly man, rather the labels
were designed to keep me from counter-pointing, and Jorge can rest assured
that his strategy succeeded, as I will never again directly address Jorge in
formal speech.  He lost the argument with me when he resorted to childish
tactics, and any mind who uses such defacing labels to gain dominance is not
a mind to be reckoned with, but a mind to be disregarded as inadequate to
the task.  There is no doubt Jorge will also find exception to these
statements, probably in terms similar to those he used before.  I sincerely
hope he manages a much more mature demeanor in response, but he can choose
to say what he wants, since I will no longer respond.  The only response I
may have is where to store the pepperoni, since the pizza prize was
apparently never a serious offer.

You *must* move your understanding back in time.  Sometimes I use sheer
math, sometimes I use a modified modern judgment.  It's not an easy task,
and it's not always a science.  As much as you try, you can't forget what
you know.  It's most of all an eye to the anachronism and how the most minor
may creep into the conversation and cloud the judgment.

GC

>
> 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

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list