Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 07:05:14 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Scientists to drill beneath oceans
http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,8063.0.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Astrology by Hand - Renowned Astrologer Robert Hand

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Astrology by Hand - Renowned Astrologer Robert Hand  (Read 1188 times)
0 Members and 51 Guests are viewing this topic.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2008, 10:05:09 am »









Horary: The “Birth Chart of an Idea,” or Something Completely Different?



Last week I began describing horary astrology and how it seems to pose a greater challenge to a “scientific” view of astrology than any other branch of astrology.

I mentioned the idea of the horary question as being the “birth chart of an idea.” Let’s look at some rules and factors that affect the asking of questions that make this idea difficult to defend.

Remember not all of these rules are held by every practitioner, and there is considerable disagreement about some of them. This is astrology after all, and astrologers are not notable for agreeing on every point.

Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2008, 10:06:17 am »









For What Time Do We Erect a Horary Chart?



Rule One: It is better to ask a question of someone else and have them cast the chart, than it is to ask of oneself and read the chart for oneself.

Well okay, is this any different from physicians not treating themselves as patients, and attorneys hiring other attorneys when they go to court? That is definitely a factor, but it is not the whole story. Having someone else read a horary chart is clearly a better idea than reading it for oneself for reasons of objectivity. But if that were the only issue then one could simply note when a question pops into ones mind, write down the time and place, and have someone else read it. But that is not the best way to do horary.

The best way is to erect the chart for the moment that one gives the question to someone else! The best charts are not the births of ideas, but charts of the moments when person A asks his or her question of person B! I have tested this thoroughly. Sometimes my clients do write down the times when they formulate questions themselves. But then they find that they cannot get to me for some time afterward. Then there is the later moment when I get the question. In every case, when I have compared the two times, it is the second one that gives the answer correctly.

Now, I am not saying that one can never ask a question for oneself. It does work sometimes, but it is nowhere near as reliable as charts for questions asked of someone else. Guido Bonatti, an astrologer of the early thirteenth century and an expert on horary, said that if an astrologer needs to ask a question, he should write down the question and give it to a friend. The friend should then take the question to another astrologer and that astrologer should erect the chart for time in which he, the second astrologer, received the question.

It is clear that horary astrology is much more effective when the question is asked of one person by another and the chart is erected for the conveying of the question to that second person. If the chart is a type of birth, then it is not the birth of the question. It is the chart of the birth of a relationship between two people that involves a question.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2008, 10:07:31 am »









Not All Questions Are Created Equal



Rule two: All questions should be questions of considerable significance. The answer should matter to the one asking the question.

Trivial questions are not allowed. It is also generally agreed that one should not ask questions in order to “test” the astrologer. There is considerable lore in horary that is designed to test whether the person asking the chart is serious or not. Almost everyone agrees that questions asked without serious intent do not usually produce charts that give a correct answer. And there are also signs within the chart that the person asking the question is not serious or is confused.

Among traditional horary astrologers, one of the techniques used is to see whether the chart accurately describes the physical appearance of the person asking the question or not. Typically, I get my questions from the same people over and over and the indications of physical appearance are not usually consistent from chart to chart of questions asked by the same person. Yet, knowing the person asking the question, I know that the question is serious and is of concern to the one asking the question. The test of physical appearance in the chart is not a useful method for me.

But another method of telling whether a client is serious and not confused about a question is even stranger from a “scientific” viewpoint. In each chart there are combinations or aspects of planets forming, and ones that are separating—getting farther apart. The aspects that are getting farther apart are supposed to describe the circumstances that have led up to question, the events which have happened in the past regarding the question. Okay, fine! But stop and think for a moment. How can a chart be the beginning, or the cause of something that has already happened? This truly strains any conventional doctrine of causation, at least any such doctrine born of philosophy after 1600. And by the way, this same distinction between separating and applying aspects is also to be found in natal astrology. Forming or applying aspects describe circumstances that occur before birth, while separating ones describe events after birth.

We will look more at horary and these issues in the weeks to come, but next week I am going to take some time out and respond to some of the letters and feedback that have been sent to me from the first weeks of this column. These have been very interesting and I think that you will find them interesting as well. Then we will get back on the main track again.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2008, 10:09:11 am »









                                                       Letters, We Get Letters





As promised last week, I am taking a couple of sessions off from the current topic to answer some issues that have been raised in letters and emails, some of which have appeared in the feedback, and some of which were sent to me directly. In this week’s installment I want to deal with the action-at-a-distance problem.

As I stated in the articles, modern science since the seventeenth century has consistently rejected action-at-a-distance between objects unless they interact by means of one of the well-established kinds of forces. At present these are four: 1) the strong forces within the atom; 2) The weak forces within the atom; 3) electrostatic or magnetic; and 4) gravitation. After Einstein, it also became necessary that the speed of interactions between objects at a distance operating under these four forces be limited to the speed of light. Instantaneous interaction came to be considered impossible.

I also mentioned that many attempts to justify astrology scientifically have consisted of efforts to demonstrate one of two things: either that one of these forces is the basis of astrological “influences,” or that some other type of “force” that may be unknown to physics but that nevertheless follows the basic rules, is responsible. This is the position that I have been challenging in my articles thus far.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2008, 10:10:28 am »









                                               Heisenberg and Non-locality





However, there is a weirdness in current quantum theory that appears to be, and in fact may be, an example of action-at-a-distance of a kind that does not entirely fit in with the traditional basis of physics. This is the problem of non-locality.

As quantum theory developed between the two world wars, it became clear that there were some things that one could not do with subatomic particles—things that were taken for granted in the physics of larger bodies. With large bodies, it is a relatively simple matter to determine the location and the momentum of a body at any given point in time. This was very important to classical physics (pre-twentieth century) because it had been argued that if one could know the location and momentum of every object in the universe, it would be possible in theory to describe exactly where every object had been in the past, and where it would be in the future. This is the basis of what is called determinism. Such being the case, anything that was not determinate, such as free will, could not exist. It has always been one of my major hee-haws that astrology gets singled out for denying free will, and here we have this monstrous instance of classical physics that goes way beyond astrology, and yet no one criticized it.

However, with subatomic particles such as photons and electrons, it became clear that in any instance one could measure the location, or the momentum, but not both at the same time. Measuring the momentum changed the location, and measuring the location required changing the momentum. After a time, it was also decided that this was not just a limitation of technique; it was inherently impossible to do both at the same time. It could not even be done in theory, although I gather there is some debate about that. This principle became known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2008, 10:14:15 am »









The Effect on Astrology



While this may seem rather distant from astrology, it had an important consequence.

It destroyed the theoretical basis of the determinism of classical physics.

It did not exactly prove freedom of the will, but it “un-disproved” it.

Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2008, 10:15:27 am »








                                 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen versus Heisenberg





Einstein and others were not happy with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So Einstein, along with Podolsky and Rosen, proposed a thought experiment. Taking a pair of subatomic particles, they proposed that the two particles be caused to collide. We will call these particles A and B. Once A and B have “bounced” off of each other, it should be possible to measure the momentum of A, on one hand, and the location of B, on the other, at some time in the future. From this, it should be possible to calculate backward and get the momentums and locations of A and B at the time of the collision, thus violating the Heisenberg Principle.

In order not to violate Heisenberg, A would have to interact with B and vice versa after the collisions so that the locations of both A and B would become undefined when the momentums of either were measured, or the momentums of both would have to become undefined when the locations of either were measured. Otherwise, the calculation of the locations and momentums backward to the moment of the collision would allow both of these to be determined at the same time, violating Heisenberg. The problem was that at those later times the two particles would not be in physical contact at all and their interactions would have to be instantaneous, operating faster than the speed of light (which is supposed to be impossible). This is what preserving Heisenberg under these conditions would require. So Einstein and the others reasoned that the Heisenberg Principle would have to be violated.

Unfortunately, when it finally became possible to perform experiments to test the idea, it turned out that the particles did follow Heisenberg. There was an instantaneous interaction, and the two particles acted either as if they were still in contact, or as if the interactions were exceeding the speed of light. It has been proposed that in fact the two particles are in contact sort of because they are actually nowhere in particular. This is known as non-locality, the idea that subatomic particles under certain conditions act as if they have no specific location. I think one can imagine the furor over this, because this allows true action-at-a-distance involving instantaneous transmission of signals, or it completely violates our notions of space.

To make a long story short, the type of interaction talked about  between subatomic particles has been proposed as a “mechanism” for all manner of subtle and occult interactions. For those who are interested in getting more info on this subject, let me refer you to Ray White’s web page.

I am not certain that I object to this, but there are two things that I would like to say about it. First of all, the interactions studied are between subatomic particles. It is not at all clear that one can generalize from subatomic particles to the behavior of human beings and other things in the macroscopic world. This is, in fact, one of the great problems in modern physics today. There seems to be two kinds of physics: Relativity Theory for the macroscopic world, and Quantum Theory for the subatomic world.

However, let us suppose for a moment that consciousness or mind does work somewhat like subatomic particles. Then I would have to say that this so revolutionizes science as we know it that the programs of the old science will have to pass away and a completely new one will have to be born. I have no problem with this, either. This is exactly the kind of gross change that must occur in science if astrology and science are ever to achieve an accord. What I have been saying here all along is that we should not be trying to explain astrology by means of science as it is, but there is no problem with trying to explain astrology by a science that has not yet come to be.

I am fascinated by the kind of science that Ray White talks about in his web page, but I think that it cannot yet be said to dominate the mainstream of physics. We shall see what happens in the near future.


http://www.stariq.com/AstrologyByHandLib.HTM
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 10:17:17 am by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2008, 09:18:42 am »









                                          My Comments on Psychological Astrology





I received a lengthy and well-thought-out letter from Glenn Perry, Ph.D., a person that we have to take very seriously because he is not only an extremely thoughtful astrologer, but is also well-known as a practicing psychologist. Most of what he said in his email to me is also contained in the slightly edited version in the feedback section of this column.

I think Glenn objected to my rather secular view of psychology as applied to astrology—that is, a psychology that is not especially connected to any spiritual or metaphysical tradition. And it is true, I agree, that most humanistic and psychological astrologers do have a rather strong metaphysical bent. Insofar as psychological astrology “transforms psychology into a more spiritual and metaphysical model,” such astrology can hardly be accused of being an attempt to make astrology conformable to the rationalism of conventional science. I have no problem with any of that.

Any astrological system that postulates, or is based on a spiritual or metaphysical view of some kind, is not part of the problem that I have been addressing, whether or not I personally agree with the spiritual or metaphysical views in question. It is only when there is a psychological astrology that attempts to make astrology a system of behavior and experience without such a spiritual or metaphysical foundation that it comes under the domain of my objections. I agree with Glenn that most practitioners of humanistic and psychological astrology do at this time operate out of some kind of spiritual foundation that is completely at variance with materialistic science.

However, the following is a statement that Glenn made that I would like to address in greater detail. Glenn wrote:

“I think the primary attribute of a psychological approach to astrology is its focus on integrating the birth chart, and thus the human potential for growth and change. Outside of this primary focus, there is probably no uniform psychological approach, although I would be willing to argue that there are probably very few psychological astrologers who are not transpersonally oriented.”

First of all, I think Glenn has given about as elegant a one-sentence definition of the psychological approach as anyone could do. I also agree that outside of that definition there are a tremendous variety of approaches. But what I want to focus on is that primary emphasis for a moment.

We can argue endlessly as to the reasons for focusing on human potential, whether or not it was to make astrology easier to fit into the mainstream of modern thought, or whether it was born out of a modern and genuine concern for development of human potential. Both, I think, are true at some level, and on the conscious level I think that the second is much more true. Yet it is this focus on the inward state and subjective state of the individual that I think constitutes the flaw of most psychological astrologies.

The pillar of the philosophy of science is the attempt to get at universal truths that exist independently of any observer. Once it was thought that there was a knowable, objectively real kind of truth—a kind of God’s-eye view of things. More recently, it has become acceptable only to try to approximate such a truth whether or not it does actually exist.

But the radical distinction between subjective and objective truth is a centerpiece of the philosophy of science. Modern third and fourth wave psychology has tried to give some legitimacy to the subjective. This is in contrast to science, which has relegated the subjective to a very inferior level of validity. Psychological astrology follows in this course.

My position, as I shall make clear, is that the entire notion of subjective versus objective has to be rethought, and any system that emphasizes the polarity in any way may be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2008, 09:20:06 am »









                                  Astrology Is Much Weirder than Generally Supposed





In the next few weeks, I am going to be suggesting that the actual foundations of astrology are not merely the result of spirit, mind or psyche operating in a realm of matter and energy, but that the universe is much more intrinsically spirit, mind or psyche than it is matter—a very ancient point of view.

The difficulty here is that I have used several of the most undefined words in the entire metaphysical tradition of the West: spirit, mind and psyche. I do plan to present definitions of these words that I am going to use in these columns. I plan to do the same with other such words, such as soul and consciousness. I do not suggest that my definitions will be the only correct ones or even the best ones, but I do want you all to know exactly what I mean when I use these words.

As I continue to develop my ideas in these columns, I want us all to keep one basic thing in mind. Astrology is not just strange; it is extremely strange indeed, and if it is true, it may require going back to some of the oldest ideas in Western philosophy and evaluating them anew.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2008, 09:21:44 am »









                                                         Back to Horary





This week, I am resuming the track that I interrupted for the last two weeks in order to answer some issues raised in letters.

When we left my discussion of horary three weeks ago, I was describing how the doctrine of applying and separating aspects in both horary and natal astrology puts a serious strain on modern notions of causality. How can a separating aspect in a chart indicate something that happened before the date of the chart if the chart is a “cause” of the outcome of the question in any modern sense?

There is another problem raised by this. Sometimes the separating aspects do not describe the past circumstances of the question. What does it mean when this is the case? That is, what does it mean for the question and its outcome? It is one indication, among several other possible such indications, that the chart is not going to answer the question! If the separating aspects do not describe the question very well, then the applying ones probably are not going to describe the future very well.

Also, the void-of-course Moon is another indication that the chart may not answer the question. And there are others.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2008, 09:23:10 am »









                                                 The Mind of the Questioner





Now why should a chart not answer a question? The usual explanation is that the question is not fully formed in the mind of the one asking the question, or that the intention of the one asking the question is not sufficiently serious. And there are other possible explanations. However, what they all boil down to is that the mind of the person asking the question has a strong effect on the chart’s ability to answer it. Notice that the mind affects the chart in this case more than the chart affects the mind! The following passage is from Guido Bonatti, a thirteenth century astrologer. In it, he describes just how important it is that the person asking the question be serious and have deep concern for the outcome of the question.

“…it is necessary that he [the one asking the question] observe this manner of asking; namely, that he ought to pray earnestly to the Lord God from whom every good draws a beginning, and that with all devotion and a contrite spirit he entreats that the Lord God grant to him that he may attain knowledge of the truth of those matters concerning which he intends to inquire.”
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2008, 09:24:40 am »









                                         The Chart as a Statement of Intention





The chart is really a declaration of the state of mind, more often the unconscious mind, of the person asking the question. The chart is a statement made in a highly symbolic language (that of astrological symbols) of the intention of the one asking the question, whether or not he or she is aware of the state of that intention. The chart is descriptive, not causal!

So if we have a statement of intention, in fact a declaration of the state of a soul, what is actually happening here? Why is there is a close correlation between the state of a soul, the ability of a chart to answer a question and the actual outcome of the question?

We could explain it by taking refuge in extreme astral determinism. This is the astrological equivalent of the determinism of classical physics mentioned some weeks ago. In astral determinism, everything that happens, every thought, every event, is the result of stellar influence. This involves the notorious denial of free will that astrology is always accused of. The problem is that very few astrologers have ever believed in it outside of some stoic philosophers of the Hellenistic and Roman times (roughly 300 BC to 100 AD).

I don’t think that we should believe in it, and I am not saying this out of some philosophical version of political correctness. I say it for a much simpler reason. It is not observably true! There is no astrological system that has ever been able to predict perfectly or even close. I have heard claims made for various systems of astrology, Hindu (also known as Vedic), Medieval, Uranian, etc. But no one has been able to demonstrate the validity of these claims either from modern or historical examples. (Yes, I know about the nadi leaves of India, etc., but these are still a rumor as far as I am concerned. And besides, most of the Hindu astrologers I have spoken with, including those from India, also do not believe in astral determinism.)
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2008, 09:26:08 am »









                                                      Astrological Polymorphism





Last week, I argued that astral determinism cannot be an explanation for the correlations seen in horary astrology. There are just too many errors made by astrologers. And I don’t think that the errors of astrologers are the result of the failure of the basic astrological idea, that is, the idea that there is a constant and reliable correlation between the motions of the heavens and events on Earth. If anyone who is open-minded looks at predictions that have failed, or even at statements about the natal chart that seem to be wrong, he or she will see that these errors are due to what I am going to call astrological polymorphism (very big words here).

Polymorphic simply means that something has many shapes or forms. Astrological symbolism has that quality. For example, the Fifth House in modern astrology can signify children, gambling, gaming, amusements in general, speculation, love affairs, creativity and self-expression. Several of these are ways of having fun. But there are still many different areas of life signified by the Fifth House.

Now suppose we have Saturn in the Fifth House. Does this mean having difficulty with children, having difficulty having children in the first place, having difficulty having fun or expressing oneself; or does it mean that all of these are done in a very disciplined and regulated manner? The answer is that it could be any or all of these things and more. How do we know which one it is, if it is going to be just one of these?

Well, to some extent we do this by cross-referencing every combination of symbols with other combinations that pertain to the same or similar issues. We look at a wide variety of factors and we attempt to deduce a possible combination of events or manifestations that express the symbolism of the chart more or less completely. But the fact remains, no matter how many factors we take into consideration, it is seldom that the components of a chart eliminate all but one possible manifestation. The single most common cause of astrological error, assuming that the astrologer is well-trained and competent, is that some combination of events and manifestations that we did not expect, but which fit the symbolism equally well with the ones that astrologer has proposed, happened instead of the one that was expected
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2008, 09:27:22 am »









                                                    Environment a Factor





Now it is assumed by a small number of astrologers that such errors are due entirely to overlooking something. The chart, properly read, they claim, could have told us exactly which manifestation to expect. I deny this. I have seen no evidence that it is always possible to determine which of a set of equally probable outcomes is going to occur. I believe that the level of awareness of the person whose chart it is can affect the type of outcome, and also there are environmental factors to take into consideration.

Take the following example: In Hindu astrology, there are planetary combinations that indicate whether a person goes about on foot, on a horse, in a sedan chair (seen many of these lately?) or on an elephant. Well most of us live in places where there are no elephants. And most of us also do not travel on foot, or horseback. Now of course I realize that these combinations are really more about determining social class from the chart than they are about the mode of transportation. To bring this into accord with our culture we might want to substitute “large limousine” for “elephant” for example. But all kidding aside, astrological manifestations are seldom literal, and different environments will cause different manifestations.

But to get back to the central point, when a dispassionate observer who is trained in astrology looks at events that come together with various astrological combinations, he or she will see that something almost always occurs that fits the symbolism very well, even when it was not exactly the first thing that might come to mind. Astrological “influences,” whatever they may be, seldom fail to manifest completely.

Now it could be charged that this only seems to be true. It could be argued that our “reasoning” is so flexible that we can always find something that fits the symbolism in the events. And I have to admit that I have seen a lot of that kind of looseness in reasoning among astrologers. But I maintain that a good astrologer uses sufficiently tight reasoning so that he or she can tell whether events are, or are not, proper manifestations of an astrological pattern. So given that events almost always do manifest astrological patterns in an appropriate way, and that there is always more than one mode of manifestation that fits the symbolism equally well, I have to say that instead of astral determinism, what we really have is a high degree of astral indeterminacy.

There is only one thing that is fated, and that is that on a certain date you will have certain transits, progressions, directions etc. in effect. This is not negotiable! But what the manifestation will be is not determined. It is affected by the level of awareness, environment and possibly even chance as well as by whatever lies behind astrological symbolism.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2008, 09:29:16 am »









                                       Evidence the Mind Is Linked to the Chart





Let’s look some more at the ideas introduced last week concerning the mind and the chart. We know a couple of things: The last aspects the Moon made in a horary chart describe energies passing away, and therefore, they should describe the past. When this is the case, we know that the applying aspects of the Moon describe what is coming with regard to the question. We also know that in general, the chart should show some kind of relationship to the chart of the person asking the question, such as a similar Ascendant or one that strongly connects to important points in the birth chart of the one asking the question, or something of the kind. Also, the chart should reveal the general nature of the question and the environment that leads up to it.

If a chart has all of these features, the astrologer can assume that the chart will answer the question and it is only up to the skill of the astrologer to answer it correctly. (This is one of those very big “only” statements!) If the chart lacks several of these confirming qualities, it is a sign that the chart will not answer the question, and, as I have said, this is due to something wrong in the mind of the questioner. The questioner may not have a clear idea of the issues involved, the questioner may be confused, the questioner may not have a very strong involvement with the issues of the question, and so forth.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy