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

[Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Glenn

> 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, 

I'm not offering my ideas to the list as "proof" of
astrology, and never have.  I suggest that
understanding the type of astrology which was
practiced in this era will perhaps bring about a
greater understanding of the possible provenance of
the document.

I'm not asking you to believe anything I believe about
the effectiveness of astrology; I'm an astrologer, you
are not.  You are under no obligation to believe in
astrology because you are talking to an astrologer. 
Smile.  I was asking you rather to examine the
calculations involved in casting a chart.  You and I
both know that they are documented.  These
calculations account for a spherical earth.  Since it
seems you do not believe me, I suggested you perform
the calculations yourself and acquaint yourself with
the shape they delineate.

    
> > Regardless of distances to planets calculated by
> > then-current astronomy throughout history, the
> 
> 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?

I'm sorry, Glenn, but I don't know where you got this
"modern" idea; however, I freely admit I have studied
primarily medieval and Renassiance astrology, not
modern astrology, and those are my areas of
concentration.  I'm not aware of any astrologers from
medieval or Renaissance times who put emphasis on the
"closest planet" in interpreting an astrologial chart,
but if you can cite them in context, I know I would be
fascinated to learn more.  Forgive me for being
technical, but you raise a technical point.  We tend
to use the Lord of the Ascendant, the Lords of the
houses significant to the question, the essential and
accidental dignity of the planets, the reception
between planets, antiscia between planets, the
perfection of aspects between planets, translation and
collection of light, Moon Void of Course or otherwise,
but the factor you mention is new to me.    

If you had much
> > experience in the art of interpretation,

I hope you did not take this in a way it was not
intended.  I am speaking of language interpretation,
which follows specific principles, including
discerning the figurative or literal intent of the
author.

That's the thing about interpretation--it varies from
one person to the next.  And popular interpretations
vary from one era to the next.  So yes, I concede that
there may have been times when a literal
interpretation was possibly preferred by some or even
most, but speaking as an astrologer, I would find it
difficult to imagine the "flat earth" interpretation
falling from an individual astrologer's lips; my
argument rests on the calculations involved in raising
a chart.  

An astrologer who did not know that Paris and Hamburg
would have a different ascending degree on the same
day at the same time would be an astrologer who made a
lot of mistakes.  His repeat business would suffer,
because his predictions would be erratic and
unreliable.  That is why I stated earlier that an
astrologer who believed in a flat earth (no difference
in ascending degrees between locations of different
longitude) would not be able to maintain himself as an
astrologer, and was not worthy of the name.
 
> > 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.

I don't mean to pick on you Glenn, but I think you
just did what you implied what I was doing:  mixing
the beliefs of different historical periods.  So, are
we talking about what the Hebrews believed about
Satan, or what the medieval ecclesiastics did? 
Different times, different beliefs.  

But the point I wish to emphasize is that although
some ecclesiastics may have described a flat earth at
various times, that does not mean that astrologers
believed them; neither does it mean that "people"
equated astrologers with the church, or belief in a
flat earth with astrologers.  Those are the claims
that I would like to see more sources about.  

I will look forward to discussing a few more of your
points in another post; for now, this message has
become lengthy enough.

Warmly,

Pam

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


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list