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

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pamela,

You said,

> I'm sorry we are not coming any closer to agreement on
> these points.  It is fascinating that two people who
> both attempt to project themselves into history using
> hands-on application of extant technical procedures
> should come to such different conclusions.

You're a self-proclaimed astrologer, I use the "self-proclaimed" not as a
detractor, it's only that I can't currently think of the proper phrase.
It's saying that you "believe" something without any physical or
mathematical proof, and to me that's tantamount to saying you're Christian
in a Muslim country when you enter into a conversation with me, so I'm not
particularly surprised that we come to very different conclusions.  I
respect your right to your beliefs, but I don't go as far as to say I
respect the foundation of your belief.  We will have differences in this
regard, no doubt, though I find your viewpoint rather refreshing,
considering.

> Regardless of distances to planets calculated by
> then-current astronomy throughout history, the
> calculations for "a figure of the heavens" used in
> astrology accounts for a spherical earth.  The
> distance from Venus to the Earth is not applied in
> drawing up an astrological chart.  Individual errors
> in this calculation are not the subject of this
> discussion.

By whose design?  The "closest" planet or heavenly body by modern terms was
the most influencial, and there are calculations out there that have actual
planets closer than the sun and the moon at times.  These calculations were
used to "cast" the very charts you talk about as if they were an exact
science even then, so why does this discussion not relate?

> Have you ever tried to cast a chart yourself?

I certainly have the books, I have the 15th/16th/17th century methodology, I
have everything I need to do so, but the question is, WHY would I do such a
thing, and what would I be trying to accomplish by performing such a futile
act?  You're the believer, I am not.  I only examine these things for the
purpose of explanation - I need to know what was in these people's minds - I
don't believe for a minute that it has any serious bearing on modern
thought.

> The Bible uses figures of speech that are derived
> quite literally from the original languages.  "The
> four corners of the earth" you are so fond of are the
> four directions of the compass.  If you had much
> experience in the art of interpretation, you would
> understand how frequently this appropriation of
> metaphor takes place between languages, and how great
> an error it is to take it literally when it is meant
> figuratively.

I hope you don't mind me pointing out that the compass was not extant when
the bible was written, but it was in use during critical times when the
Latin translations of Hebrew scripts were the subject of interpretation.
You and I both know NOW that this is the correct interpretation of the
Hebrew, but if you're time travelling as you say you are, you know this was
not the understanding over a period of almost 1,200 years of Catholicism.
Go to the Vatican Library - there are thousands of minor papers on the "flat
earth".  It's not the illusion your man says it is, simply because what is
realistically practical is not always religiously practical, and it is the
religiously educated that wrote the early books.  Questioning my ability to
interpret information serves little purpose in this debate.  I USED the art
of interpretation to determine which authors wrote one their own, and which
*modified* their viewpoint in fear of church reprisal.  I make no judgment
on which was the most prominent, though I suspect that seekers of truth lean
toward truth in their own minds.  I simply point out that a volume of
information exists in either direction, and from a mathematical perspective,
these calculations tend toward the "flat earth" rather than a globe,
depending on the period of history you sample.

> As for "all the kingdoms of the Earth",
> we don't need a Mercatur projection to literally
> spread out the world before Jesus when there is no
> reason to suppose that angel of the status of Satan
> (assuming that we subscribed to one) could not project
> a vision of temporal omnipotence without the actual
> optical effect.

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand this entire section.  As much as I try
to keep my finger on the pulse of modern Christian thought, this one is out
of my range.  "Satan" in the Jewish tradition was the "accuser", not a
fallen angel, and certainly not the monster the Christian world has mentally
developed over the last 2,000 years.

> Now please tell me that in your study you have not
> found that farmers used astrology, historically.
> Perhaps farmers did not write many theses, but they
> used the waxing and waning moon and other astrological
> markers to plant their crops, nevertheless.  One of
> the greatest reasons cited for an astrological
> calendar, historically, is that so that farmers will
> know when to plant.  Since therefore they planted
> their crops according to astrology, farmers must have
> been identical with the authority of the Church. . .
> and must have rebelled against themselves in 1492.
> Surely someone took note of this event.  Please, where
> is your evidence?

Where does this come from?  Are you just trying to pick a fight?  I once had
a friend, a fellow Vet, that stuck with me through thick and thin.  He
always knew I was smart enough to make the right decisions, and never
questioned me, except when we drank together.  I'd go on about something
beyond his knowledge, and he'd look me square in the eye and say "don't f&#k
with tradition."  I could do anything or say anything I wanted, as long as I
didn't with full respect as long as I didn't try to offer him any kind of
education that challenged his base.  So where are you coming from, bringing
up farmers?  How far are we travelling back in time?  In answer to your
question -

The use of stars or other heavenly bodies to predict times to plant or sow
is not a use of astrology, but astronomy.  The "waxing and waning" of the
moon as you describe, are correctly astronomical observations, not
astrological.  Farmer's almanacs were directed toward these cycles because
of their familiarity to farmers, but no observation in these publications
qualifies as an astrological observation.  1492 didn't alter the
astronomical observations of the farmers any at all.  I might bring up
astronomical calculations done by the peoples of Usbekistan and Kazakstan
that *may* date back as many as 10,000 years, and  they were totally unaware
of western changes in theory and ideology.  Don't bring farmers into the
argument.  They do what they do based on astronomical events, not
astrological events.  Astronomy is the observation of the consistency of the
heavens, while astrology is an attempt at predicting events beyond that
consistent observation.  NEVER confuse the two in our conversations.

> And what about those dependent upon their astrologer
> physicians for diagnosis and treatment?  Did they
> languish in their rebellion against the Church,
> without aid for several hundred years until the
> invention of the microscope?  I think not.  Physicians
> continued to use astrology until at least 1700;

That's relatively accurate.  As Anthony Ascham said in 1550, we use
astrology simply because no one has yet come up with a better explanation.
People were still dependent on their astrologer/physicians for diagnosis and
treatment, but at least in England, we see that the entire industry fell
under major regulation by 1617, and by 1650 a full regimen of laws was in
place to protect the populace.  No one "languished" in their rebellion
against the church in this time period, I assure you.  Their rebellious
attitude is the very thing you owe to your freedoms today.  Signify the year
or group of years you're talking about.  Were people dependent on their
astrologer/physicians before reformation, and did they suffer for this
before modern science?  No matter what their belief in medical cures and
practices, they are all now dead, and each died in his/her own way.  We have
an extensive diary of medical treatment for Francis Bacon, and we have an
extensive diary of medical treatment for Robert Hooke, two men separated by
a period of time.  The treatments differed little.  The hows and whys hadn't
caught up to theory yet, even over this period of time.  I recommend as a
read, the diary of Robert Hooke.

> and the nascent technologies which were eventually to
> replace astrology in the practice of medicine were so
> unformed at that time, that most physicians practiced
> a modified form of astrological medicine (roughly
> based on the work of astrologers such as Galen and
> Hippocrates, but minus the astrology) which was called
> "humoral medicine", until at least the mid
> nineteenth-century.

This is also correct.  "Cause and effect" was not well defined.  It's
definition moved forward with each new technology.  But I would submit that
with each new discovery, this became clearer.  We could go through the
inventions of history, mostly medical, but many non-medical that had a
bearing on medical thought.  The spectrum of discovery is fascinating, but
each one put another nail in the coffin of the belief that astrology exerted
an influence on the individual and their health.  Meanwhile, other
discoveries relating to weather patterns, suggested in the 16th century,
expanded in the 17th century, classified as a distinct science the in the
18th century, fully in operation by the 19th century, and refined as a
science in the 20th century, again attacked the astrological view.

> Since we are speaking of events and history, in my way
> of thinking, the greatest event to lead to the demise
> of astrology was Van Leewenhoek's use of the
> microscope and subsequent discovery of bacteria,
> free-living and parasitic microscopic prostists, sperm
> cells, blood cells, ect., in 1673.

Not something I would consider as a momentous event in the argument against
astrology, since the discussion was well underway, and it had already been
attacked on so many other grounds.  Thank you however - it fits in well with
what I have been saying about medical research and the Voynich.

> This was when the clamor on the part of scientists and
> physicians for empericism began.  Or please correct me
> if you can cite demands for empericism prior to this
> time.

Actually I think I have demonstrated substantially in this post and the
former that there were quite good reasons for professionals in medicine and
other arts to question the authority of astrology, long before the
inevitable scientific attack.  You've moved all over the historical screen
in this post.  Pick a time, we'll talk about it.  Generic doesn't work.

> Between you and me, Glenn, I am not fond of Church and
> all that it intends to purport, myself.  But to say
> that everyone equated astrology with the "Church" is
> to ignore that astrology was used for a variety of
> purposes, many of which were even understood to be
> opposed to the Church.  Bruno, who you have cited, is
> one example.

Let's see - Bruno wrote his piece during the 1580's, in Protestant England.
The church went on to entice him to other country on false promise, Italy?)
capture and brutally kill him for his opinion.  What did I miss, that Church
influence was not important?  You tell me that you're going to kill me
because I state an opinion in that differs with you, no matter where I'm at,
and this isn't considered an important influence?  Isn't this the Salmon
Rushdi equation, and if you see this why shouldn't you understand that the
the Catholic Church maintained a choke-hold equivalent to the radical view
of Islam held today by many believers?  Don't live in this time if you don't
study this time.  Choose your decade or successions of decades, and study
them instead.  Things obviously changed in the next 30 years, so your
example is not a good one.

> I am sorry you have been having differences with list
> members that have been taken personally on either
> side.  Please observe that I have not resorted to the
> use of demeaning epithets in referring to you or
> anyone else.  I have requested evidence of your
> claims.  I propose a challenge, not an insult.

I too am sorry that members choose certain stances.  It is not my doing, or
I would change it.  It's a sad thing.  And I hope that I have risen to your
challenge in my own way.  Our conversation would be aided by the use of
specific time indicators, because I am aware of the changes that happen over
time.  Give me a specific year, and I can rally all that pertains to that
year and those that surround it.  Broad time spectrums are a modern concept,
something that serves little in the understanding of history.

GC

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