To my mind the biggest confounder in modern astrology (the proverbial elephant in the living room that no one is even talking about) is whether there is - or even can be - a consensus on _how_ astrology works. As a sidereal astrologer myself in the Steiner/Anthroposophy tradition, this situation frustrates me to no end. I hear tons of debating on Sidereal vs.Tropical vs. Vedic vs. Hermetic chart erecting as well as on heliocentric vs. geocentric place perspective, and I have my opinion, but that’s all it is. How to erect a chart, not to mention interpreting one depends totally on what the accepted belief is about _how Astrology works on us._ I know there are basically two completely different interpretations on what the sky is doing. One is based on the theory that celestial bodies have a direct physical “action at a distance” influence on us. The other is the sky clock model where, like a clock, the hands (or celestial bodies) don’t _make_ the time of day (or horoscope) be whatever it is, they simply _show_ what it is. Until we come to some agreed upon theory as to what’s going on, we don’t have the information we need to determine what system to use.
What an interesting observation! My apologies for the late reply, but thank you for your comment. May I ask, which interpretation do you favor, and what are your thoughts as to how astrology works on people?
@@rejectedreligion Oh boy, I hope you have a moment. I can think of good reasons to favor them both. The easiest one to favor is what I call “The Sky Clock” idea. For one thing, it more closely follows the hermetic philosophy of _As above, so below._ Also, it accommodates common sense. It’s easy to get how at the time of someone’s birth the entire universe is in a certain complicated and specific state of being. As such, the newborn, being a part of the universe, takes on an impression - a “snapshot” - of the present state of the universe in that time and place. By looking at the location and condition of the planets (like clock hands) at the moment of birth one could theoretically derive a natal chart. In fact, the planets are simply the easiest indicator. Since this idea is based on the overall state of the universe, there are probably infinitely many other indicators that could accomplish the same thing as a natal chart. Some examples in use are the I Ching and the Tarot. As for the problem of determining what the locations and aspects of the planets actually mean, this is most likely the result of thousands of years of trial and error. As for the “spooky action at a distance” interpretation where celestial bodies actually have a direct physical influence on us, theoretical physics is finding more examples of this phenomenon than they care to admit. Examples include the double slit experiment where one particle can be in two (or more) places at one time, particles are only waves of potential with no location at all until someone detects it causing “wave function” to collapse into a particle. And finally, whenever two subatomic particles begin to resonate with each other and match each other’s spins they will become “entangled”; and no matter how far they are away from each other they will always instantaneously “know” what state they are in and match each other. So, spooky action at a distance is a real phenomenon in the world of physics, and has been demonstrated in experiments thousands of times.
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great interview. Ninian's work is always welcomed.
Many thanks!
I like how close the words astrology and astronomy are. Plus, I like how the procession just fucks everything up, lol
To my mind the biggest confounder in modern astrology (the proverbial elephant in the living room that no one is even talking about) is whether there is - or even can be - a consensus on _how_ astrology works. As a sidereal astrologer myself in the Steiner/Anthroposophy tradition, this situation frustrates me to no end.
I hear tons of debating on Sidereal vs.Tropical vs. Vedic vs. Hermetic chart erecting as well as on heliocentric vs. geocentric place perspective, and I have my opinion, but that’s all it is.
How to erect a chart, not to mention interpreting one depends totally on what the accepted belief is about _how Astrology works on us._
I know there are basically two completely different interpretations on what the sky is doing. One is based on the theory that celestial bodies have a direct physical “action at a distance” influence on us. The other is the sky clock model where, like a clock, the hands (or celestial bodies) don’t _make_ the time of day (or horoscope) be whatever it is, they simply _show_ what it is.
Until we come to some agreed upon theory as to what’s going on, we don’t have the information we need to determine what system to use.
What an interesting observation! My apologies for the late reply, but thank you for your comment. May I ask, which interpretation do you favor, and what are your thoughts as to how astrology works on people?
@@rejectedreligion Oh boy, I hope you have a moment. I can think of good reasons to favor them both. The easiest one to favor is what I call “The Sky Clock” idea. For one thing, it more closely follows the hermetic philosophy of _As above, so below._ Also, it accommodates common sense. It’s easy to get how at the time of someone’s birth the entire universe is in a certain complicated and specific state of being. As such, the newborn, being a part of the universe, takes on an impression - a “snapshot” - of the present state of the universe in that time and place. By looking at the location and condition of the planets (like clock hands) at the moment of birth one could theoretically derive a natal chart. In fact, the planets are simply the easiest indicator. Since this idea is based on the overall state of the universe, there are probably infinitely many other indicators that could accomplish the same thing as a natal chart. Some examples in use are the I Ching and the Tarot. As for the problem of determining what the locations and aspects of the planets actually mean, this is most likely the result of thousands of years of trial and error.
As for the “spooky action at a distance” interpretation where celestial bodies actually have a direct physical influence on us, theoretical physics is finding more examples of this phenomenon than they care to admit. Examples include the double slit experiment where one particle can be in two (or more) places at one time, particles are only waves of potential with no location at all until someone detects it causing “wave function” to collapse into a particle. And finally, whenever two subatomic particles begin to resonate with each other and match each other’s spins they will become “entangled”; and no matter how far they are away from each other they will always instantaneously “know” what state they are in and match each other. So, spooky action at a distance is a real phenomenon in the world of physics, and has been demonstrated in experiments thousands of times.
High achieving woman 👍