Talk:Astrology/Archive 2

An Astrology Website

Hi I would like to remove the post that I previously made about a website on astrology because I was misinformed. I thought that because the people who developed the website used the same software as Wikipedia that it was part of Wikipedia. I have been informed that the source code used by Wikipedia is public domain and therefore anybody can use it, which is why that website was so similar in format to Wikipedia. The people in the website that I previously mentioned do not want their site advertised on Wikipedia because of many of the very negative remarks that people on Wikipedia have made about astrology and me in the past. Regards,--TracyRenee 14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be part of wikipedia, but an independent wiki. --Hob Gadling 14:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Maybe he's labelling religion as superstition because it's superstition. Are you seriously contending otherwise?

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

He is not damaging Wikipedia, he is improving its acuracy.

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Astrology category is also under target!

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): The art and science of Astrology has been around for at least 5,000 years. Any learned person who studies the topic of Astrology with integrity discovers its validity. In fact, the new physics of "hyperdimensional space" and "string theory" put even more wind into the sails of Astrology.

How about the tenth planet?

They recently discovered a tenth planet. See http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905.html for details. What is the symbol for this planet going to be? How about revising all the horoscopes and such in light of this discovery?

Or how about further proof of its irrelevance? Hey sorry. Marskell 22:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, if you knew me, you'd realize that by asking this question I was mocking the whole Astrology concept. Kicking the anthill, if you will. All in good fun. :)

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): Which 10th planet are you referring? Sedna? Varuna? Ixion? Zena? I brake for Transpluto/Persephone.

External links to Astrology Schools

Why does this article have a section with external linkls to Astrology schools? This looks like advertising Spam to me and is against Wikipedia policy. I suggest it is deleted. Lumos3 16:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. And I think the section has WAY too many websites listed, not only schools, and some of them are apparently exploiting this article as a free advertisement area. If others agree on this, I will be happy to clean them out mercilessly. --BorgQueen 17:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The links to these three schools were already interspersed with the various bits of Spam in the external links section, so I created a new section specifically for the schools to differentiate them from the Spam. These are three highly respected schools in the astrological community and there is no reason to remove them. They are not trade schools, and the curriculum in all three of them deals largely with the history of astrology, which is something that is not generally covered with any depth in other institutions. Plus there is already a precedent set in every other page on Wikipedia that deals with specialized fields, and there are listings of the various schools which specialize in those particular fields on each one. A few examples of this on Wikipedia can be seen in the Astronomy article, the article on Medicine, and even the article on Art.

That issue aside, it does seem like there is an awful lot of Spam in this article that should be cleared, but it seems like some sort of criteria should be established for what constitutes a legitimate external link first. Right? --Chris Brennan 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

External Link SPAM removal

Following discusion on the possible removal of links to schools lets make a list of criteria for what external links can be kept:

Here's my straw man proposal.

1. Astrology and its history - keep all as long as they fit this heading
2. Schools - max of 3 most repected worldwide
3. Validity and usefulness - keep all as long as they fit this heading
4. Astrology in relation to other thought systems - keep all as long as they fit this heading
5. The astrologer's tools - How is this different to free calcualtion?
6. Horoscope calculation - Only to free sites and only the 3 most respected in each branch of Astrology

Lumos3 13:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed links to www.doublesign.com from Free natal reports/Western astrology and Chinese astrology subsection, since doublesign astrology has its own subsection anyway. And, Chris, let us know how you think about the criteria Lumos3 proposed. I have no particular objection yet. --BorgQueen 14:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The only main change that I would make to the proposal is that I don't see any reason to limit the number of schools to three, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, and as long as any schools added are not primarily tradeschools. The reason that I say this is because I am not entirely familiar with all of the other schools outside of the english speaking world, although I know that there may be several major ones. Plus, the tradeschool limitation alone should be enough to seriously limit the number of applicable schools. Also, I was wondering if you were purposing that we combine the Astrologer's Tools, and Horoscope Calculation sections Lumos? --Chris Brennan 21:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Astrology and days of the week

I don't think the English days of the week were named after the Sun, the Moon and the five planets at all. Sure, Sunday, Monday and Saturday, but I was under the impression that the other days' names came from Norse mythology (Friday <- Frige, the Norse goddess of beauty). thefamouseccles 01:56, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Answer: This is like saying the Norse people didn't have astrology. Of course the days of the week are named after the Sun, Moon and planets. Your "impression" is in error. Check the facts.

Judicial astrology

Theodore7 ‘ s edits on Judicial astrology would be suited to a place in the history of astrology or as an article in their own right but it is a huge POV imbalance to the introduction of the main astrology article to try and include them here as if they are the central form of astrology. Lumos3 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: As a scholar and a judicial astrologer, I am versed in the current practice and historical practice of judicial astrology. Therefore, I am qualified to present factual data on this page. I also find your edits quite POV considering that you submit that sentences on the history of astrology do not belong on the Astrology page. What is your argument for such a stance? Keeping names like Kepler, Copernicus and links off the Astrology page that the student or intersted party may find useful? Moreover, if you knew something about tropical and sidereal zodiac tehniques, you would know that this "argument" is not really one at all considering it is only about the precession of the equinoxes and nothing else. Judicial astrologers know the difference between the "seasons" and the uneven constellations and the rate of precession. This is not a valid argument but just a technical matter. What I consider a "huge POV imbalance" is the entries of non-astrological trained persons who introduce non-astrological POVs into the introduction of astrology on Wikipedia. Judicial Astrology IS the central form of astrology and is not connected with "sun-sign" astrology. You would already know this if you knew what Judicial Astrology really is and has been since the dawn of mankind. Teddy 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: The main Astrology article has to be an introduction to the entire subject in all cultures including Western tropical & sidereal, Chinese, Jyotish, Mesoamerican, Tibetan, and Kabbalistic astrology and no doubt many more. An encyclopaedia needs to give a new reader to the subject a view across its whole field and not just that which you consider to be the truth. You are trying to sell the reader a belief that Judicial astrology is superior to all others and this wont do in the main article. There is now a stub for Judicial astrology which needs to be expanded. Please put your material on it in there. Lumos3 09:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Judicial astrology is practiced by all cultures and includes tropical, sidereal techniques, and Chinese, Jyotish, Mesoamerican, Tibetan, and Kabbalistic cultures. Your view of Judicial Astrology as stated here is not correct in that you state that it is "superior" when it is CENTRAL and the Origin of all astrologial practice - including Jyotish. Please review your own perspective here. There are plenty of links on the Astrology page that can lead to the branches of Judicial Astrology, which include Jyotish, which is a branch of sidereal practice - a technique - not a philosophy - of Judicial astrology. Teddy 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply Please cite published works which support your view of judicial astrology. I have never seen it described in the way you do and your point of view, even if true, seems to be a minority one amongst astrologers. Wikipedia cannot be a place to argue a point of view no matter how right you believe it to be. Once your view is held by most astrologers then Wikipedia can give it the prominence you believe it deserves. Lumos3 20:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): For thousands of years before psychological or character analysis Astrology, it was a divinatory system. See: The Moment of Astrology: Origins in Divination by Geoffrey Cornelius; A History of Western Astrology by Jim Tester; Ancient Astrology by Tamsyn Barton; and The Great Year: Astrology, Millenarianism and History in the Western Tradition by Nicholas Campion.

Thanks, it appears that at least someone other than me has read up on judicial astrology; since some mistakenly believe that if they haven't "heard of it" then it does not exist. Appreciate the intelligence, and knowledge here - and the sources, thanks.Theo 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the Astrology article

"Astrology and astronomy were once the same discipline and many famous astronomers practiced as astrologers."

This is a myth Theo. Astronomy is the observation of the movements of celestial bodies, while astrology is the interpretation of those movements. There is a big difference. While the two subjects were obviously complimentary to one another at one point in time, and the growth of one was largely dependant on the needs of the other, this does not mean that they were the same exact thing. Yes, most astronomers were also practicing astrologers to some degree or another prior to the 17th century, but astrologers have been relying on ephemerides and tables for over 2,500 years now in order to cast birth charts for people who had been born years earlier. The minute that astrologers began to rely more on ephemerides which were produced by astronomers, was the moment that the two studies began to diverge. The period that these ephemerides began to be compiled due to advances in astronomy was the same period that birth charts begin to appear. This marks the divergence of these two subjects.

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): A factor that makes chart interpretation effective are accurate planetary positions in the chart. Historically, Astrologers have moved Astronomy forward, because of their concern to improve the accuracy of their charts. For Astrologers to rely on ephemerides meant a reliance on the effort of prior Astrologers/Astronomers - not a divorce between Astronomy and Astrology.

"Astrologers maintain that the cosmos of which the Earth is a part, runs in cycles and definite patterns that have been observed for thousands of years to have effects on the Earth. In fact, those practicing astrology learn at the start that astrology is a very serious study of cycles and mathematical patterns in time. They apply mathematical aspects such as the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, and opposition to form complex calculations between celestial objects in their movements amongst the constellations relative to the Earth's position and the regions of time and space where a person is born to forecast potential future events. Free will is a given in true astrological practice, but is within the principles of universal laws - not outside of it."

The vast majority of astrologers in the world today don't believe that the planets and stars literally "effect" anything per se. The general consensus seems to be that it is more of a matter of synchronicity, or that the planets are mysteriously reflecting circumstances without there being any direct causal influence. Also, not all traditions of astrology use the major 'Ptolemaic aspects' of cojunction, sextile, square, etc. In modern Indian astrology they only use the whole sign opposition and certain special aspects for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Then of course you have other traditions of astrology which don't use aspects at all, so its misleading to imply that all astrologers use aspects. Also, you talk about "their movements amongst the constellations" which is only applicable to sidereal astrology, and not to tropical western astrology since Ptolemy established the vernal point as the primary reference point in the 2nd century. Also I object to this rather subjective statement that "Free will is a given in true astrological practice" because this is an issue that is constantly debated within the astrological community itself, and to state that 'only true astrology' in not fatalistic is completely biased. Different astrologers have different opinions about the subject, and who are you to say that the only real astrology is that which is free-will oriented? This is what I am talking about when I say that this is not NPOV.

"Judicial Astrology, the oldest form of classical astrology is an applied science not to be confused with "sun-sign astrology" - the popularized entertainment form of astrology that spread in North America in the early 20th Century."

What does this mean? Judicial astrology is simply a demarcation to separate the specific interpretive art of astrology from what was termed "natural astrology" in the classical and Medieval period. Sun sign astrology would still fall under the heading of Judicial astrology though because it is an attempt to ascribe meaning to the position of a celestial body at a person's birth. While it is true that this is an extremely simplified form of tropical natal astrology and that it doesn't accurately represent horoscopic astrology, that does not mean that it does not have some basis in it to some degree.

"True classical scientific astrologers, do not separate from the science of astronomy, the scientific study of outer space and the applied sciences of astrology."

I'm currently studying Hellenistic and Vedic astrology which originated in the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE respectively, and I can attest to the fact that this is not an accurate statement to make. I suspect that this notion originated with a misreading of Ptolemy by some modern astrologers, but even he separates his books on astronomy and astrology. Even within his major treatise on astrology he makes a distinction between the calculations that are needed in astrology and the actual interpretive part of the subject.

"Known as "judges of the heavens" - judicial astrologers rank among the most well-known astronomers, mathematicians and medical doctors in human history..."

I have never once heard this term "judges of heaven" used by any astrologers either modern or ancient and I seriously doubt the applicability of that title to astrologers in general and to this article in particular.

"...and include such names as Hippocrates, Copernicus, Nostradamus, Brahe, Johann Kepler, Galileo, William Lilly and Isaac Newton..."

While it is true that Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo were all astrologers in addition to being astronomers, and actually still have birth charts cast by them as well as some delineations, it is not an accurate statement to make that Newton was an astrologer. While he was clearly into alchemy and he would have had to of known a bit about astrology in order to carry out certain alchemical experiments, this does not mean that he was actually an astrologer and we have no evidence to substantiate that claim. It actually appears that he was quite hostile to natal astrology, although he appears to have believed in some quasi-astrological sort of things due to his Christian beliefs, such as comments being warnings from God. This is accepted by all historians of astrology at this point. For example, see Nick Campion's book Astrology, History and Apocalypse.

"Claudius Ptolemy, the Second Century A.D. judicial astrologer who is considered the father of western astrology"

This is just flat out inaccurate. This is a myth that has been prevailent in the 20th century astrological community due to lack of resources and general education on the history of the subject. The history of astrology is something that has just started to become available over the last 50 years or so due to the work of many scholars inside and outside of the astrological community. Prior to the 90's only a few Hellenistic astrological texts were available in English, Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos being the main text that has been almost always been available at various points in time since the 2nd century. Due to this availability, and also Ptolomy's status as a towering figure in the ancient world, this myth arose that he was the founder of horoscopic astrology. Over the past 20 years many Hellenistic texts have been translated and many of the more educated, academic astrologers have been reading through them and trying to understand the basis of the tradition. One result of this that became immediately apparent that Ptolemy was not the "father of western astrology". Actually, it is quite obvious if you read the Tetrabiblos because he cites other authors, albeit scantily. Plus there are several texts on horoscopic astrology that were written by authors prior to Ptolemy which still survive to this day. Dorotheus of Sidon is one example.

"declared that prediction of events was only possible through the union of two factors: first, correct mathematical calculations of the positions and motions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. Second, a prophetic spirit derived from God by which their configurations can be correctly interpreted by certain inspired human beings known as judicial astrologers."

You appear to actually be drawing on material from Nostradamus, but attributing it to Ptolemy. I’ve read Ptolemy and from what I can tell he said nothing of the sort.

"Today, judicial astrologers are rare due to the false popularization of sun-sign astrology"

Actually, there is quite a large astrological community in the world today and it appears to be growing. In light of that, I find this to be a peculiar statement.

"It is said that nothing forecasted by a judicial astrologer should ever be taken lightly due to the seriousness and many years of practice to become a judicial astrologer. The average span of learning and astrological practice is over 20 years to reach the qualification level of judicial astrologer."

Ahem...

"Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry - mathematical techniques invented by judicial astrologers."

I would like to see a source to back this up.

"Serious astrologers maintain that those who practice astrology without years of experience are not astrologers - but merely students."

I don’t buy this.

Conclusion: I really don't like psuedo-skeptics. The way I see it, a true skeptic is someone who is even skeptical of their own skepticism and thus they are more able to approach any subject from a truly neutral perspective. Psuedo-skeptics tend to just attack things right away due to prejudices and misconceptions about subjects. Its really annoying when someone is just attacking you all the time and making stupid assumptions because they haven't taken the time to research the subject that they despise so much. I think that this is even worse though, because this is essentially the exact same thing except that its focused in a more defensive manner. I think that this is even more destructive though. Although I can see that from your perspective you are trying to defend astrology, in actuality you are doing more harm than good because you are doing it in a way that is very hostile and inaccurate in places, and ultimately you are giving astrologers a bad rap because of this kind of aggressive behavior. I don't know if you are going through bad transits right now or what, but please, stop this madness and work with us here instead of trying to fight everyone. It would be much more productive and we could accomplish so many things. Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) transferd from Theo's talk page by 202.156.6.54 07:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I've got no problem debating astrology with you, or anyone else. However, I do have a problem with what you term "aggressive behavior" and suggest you park it right there. If you are able to write intelligently on the subject page and on Talk Pages, then ok, I have no problem talking, debating, or reaching consensus, respectfully; however, not everyone is on your level: some are less knowledge, others equal to yours, and others have more knowledge. I would not call this "madness." Also, I am quite able to defend astrology and have done so before. I suggest that if you want to work together, that you first get to know a person before making such remarks - because that is taken as being "aggressive behavior." Writing with clarity, and being direct is not aggressive - but calling names, and then acting as if you are "working" to be productive doesn't fly right. So, if you would like to do so then remember that you are dealing with a professional astrologer here; experienced, and knowledgable. I would appreciate it if you would note this and cease the name-calling; because that is not productive. Thanks.Theo 10:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A "professional astrologer" OK, but one that just happens to be a BAD writer! Your sentences are so incredibly muddled that I can barely follow them! You might want to (re)enroll in a freshman composition course in a local college or university -- you need it for sure! 205.188.117.66 04:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering some of the lot here with relatively little astrological experience who repeatedly "edit" this page from other writers; it is no WONDER that the sentences are "incredibly muddled". Try noticing THAT first before re-enrolling some of us in a freshman composition course.Theo 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, just to prove my point, you have again used a semicolon incorrectly (a comma should have been used) and the period should go INSIDE of the quotation marks, as in << "incredibly muddled." >> HaHa, this is FUN 'Mr. Professional Writer!' You just keep digging yourself deeper into this pit and certainly shouldn't be adding to articles if you can't use written language in the correct fashion, however 'great' and 'wise' an astrologer you claim to be. --205.188.117.66 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Get real. If you have to write such a large paragraph on a semicolon versus a comma, you need a life.

Ptolemy

"Claudius Ptolemy, the Second Century A.D. a judicial astrologer who is considered the father of western astrology, declared that prediction of events was only possible through the union of two factors: first, correct mathematical calculations of the positions and motions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. Second, a prophetic spirit derived from God by which their configurations can be correctly interpreted by certain inspired human beings known as judicial astrologers."

Fine. If you want to work with us here and reach a consensus about the article respectfully, as you say you do, then why don't you take the first step. Either retract this statement about Ptolemy and stop trying to post it in this article, or please provide a quote from the Tetrabiblos to support it. I have the Ashmand, Robbins and Schmidt translations of the work, as well as the text in its original Greek, so it should be quite easy for you to prove that this is legitimate. Right? --Chris Brennan 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chris, sorry, been busy. Yes, it is quite easy to prove. I've read all of Ptolemy's works. As a student of astrology yourself; you should have already read - The Centiloquy: or, "Hundred Aphorisms of Claudius Ptolemy, the fruit of his four books. It should be rather easy for you to find. The very first rule reads - "JUDGMENT must be regulated by thyself, as well as by the science; for it is not possible that particular forms of events should be declared by any person, however scientific; since the understanding conceives only a certain general idea of some sensible event, and not its particular form. It is, therefore, necessary for him who practices herein to adopt inference. They only who are inspired by the Deity can predict particulars." Refer to the first rule of the Centiloquy. Theo 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Centiloquy is attributed to Ptolemy. That doesn't mean that he actually was the author. In fact, modern scholars agree that he was not the author of that work. In the ancient world it wasn't looked down upon to attribute some other famous author's name to your own work, but rather, sometimes that was how you drew attention to and gave prestige to what would otherwise be an obscure work. The highly respected historian of sciences and head of the department of the history of mathematics at Brown University, David Pingree, writes in his work From Astral Omens To Astrology, From Babylon To Bikaner that "Ahmad ibn Yusuf's Kitab al-thamara or Καρπός, known in its Latin version as the Centiloquium, and attributed falsely, already by Ahmad, to Ptolemy..." Another historian, James Holden, agrees and writes in his book A History of Horoscopic Astrology that "A collection of 100 astrological aphorisms called Karpos 'fruit' in Greek and Centiloquium 'Hundred Sayings' in Latin was attributed to Claudius Ptolemy in the Middle Ages. It is certainly not his..." Even in my edition of the Centiloquium, which was published recently by contemporary traditional astrologers at RenaissanceAstrology.com, the pubisher Christopher Warnock writes in the preface: "The first complete Latin translation from Arabic was done in 1136 and as many as 10 different versions existing in manuscript form. It was traditionally accepted as the work of Ptolemy, though modern scholarship has established that the probable author was the 10th century Arabic astrologer Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf."

As you often attempt to say to me, I "Suggest you do more reading and study." --Chris Brennan 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chris, you know, you own tone here does not support working together whatsoever. If you are to engage in discussion, then please do so as a student of the subject. Moreover, at your age, your tone implies that you are equal in knowledge, and experience as a professional in his 40s. Perhaps you assume my own knowledge. Astrologers never assume. Suggest you ask first. I never, ever, wrote, nor even implied, by such a tone, to astrologers older, more knowlegable, and experienced than me - even in my 20s. So, in the hope of learning, it would be wise to re-consider your heady attitude in this light, and return to objectivity, and open discussion, rather than heated debate over such a matter. By your above statement, you are saying Ptolemy did not write the very aphorisms that contains the "fruit of his works?" Remember, his own name - Claudius Ptolemy, is included in the title. How can you imply that then he did not state, nor write them? I suggest you re-read Centiloquy, and see that it is obviously written by Ptolemy. This should be rather simple to do; since not only his writing style, but the astrological information of the times of Ptolemy show without doubt that the old man surely did write the aphorisms. His other works use the same astrological tone, style, and formation. He clearly produced the work. It was common practice of aging astrologers to do this at the end of their lives, and was penned by Ptolemy. In addtion, as a student, you should know that you are going to find the same kind of arguments amonst "intepreters" in several editions. But, have you read the Almagast, and the four books, of which the Centiloquy is part? It reads as Ptolemy writes throughout all his other works, and reads the same. Many of his works were translated in the 10th century and beyond, some of the best done by Placidus de Tito.

Lastly, he was not, by far, the only astrologer to state the same rule concerning the conduct, and practice, of astrologers - correct mathematical calculations of the stars and planets, and divine inspiration - to forecast. This came from the reading and understanding of The Secrets of the Book of Enoch, and the Gnostic texts, particularly, the Pistis Sophia. Astrology & the use of divine insipration has always been practiced specifically by judicial astrologers in Egypt, Perisa, Israel, and throughout the ancient world by the Magi, or Magus of many cultures. The two rules have always been central to serious astrology. The study of the stars is the study of God's ways and astrology is the language the ancients used to read by. It is the first rule of judicial astrology, and Ptolemy re-stated what astrologers of yore have always maintained. I have no problem with it. Who I am to challenge that? I do not dare to. God the Creator made all the stars, and planets. So, it makes pure sense to me. No astrologer can truly predict particular events without divine inspiration integrated with mathematical calulcations. This is to certify whatever has been given to the one seeking to gain knowledge of future matters. Thousands upon thousands of astrological/alchemical texts are rife with theology.Theo 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On Positive Discussion

A note here: if there is to be positive discussion on the Astrology Page; it is requested that not only one person consider what are NPOV edits; however minor - to be "messing" with a page, as recently happened. Wikipedia is a community resource, and not the realm of a clique. The Talk page is used for discussion, and not for hostile exchanges. Suggest a much more, positive, and open-minded direction take place. If one cannot do this; then it is wise to refrain from considering one page as the domain of an exclusive group. ThanksTheo 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

BAD BAD punctuation -- I mean...WOW! The ideas are there, but they just aren't put together 'correctly' at all. Learn the difference betwixt a comma and a semicolon and others might take you seriously. Did you happen to step foot in an 8th grade classroom...ever? You can't be a native speaker of English; if English is your 2nd or 3rd language, I completely understand, but jeez dude PLEASE learn the difference between a comma and semicolon 'cause it really hurts me (and probably others) to read your writing! --205.188.117.66 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is an excellent example of what I mean. I suggest you take the time to decide if you are going to acknowledge the source information on the Talk Page; or play copy-editor. I consider your insults rather childish - even for a 21-year-old. Moreover, your attempt to debase and demean English usage, at best, immature. Lastly, your own sentence, "Jeez dude" and the usage " 'cause" is not exactly what I would call the use of proper English, Mr. Brennan. Take your own advice.Theo 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in complete honesty, that isn't me. --Chris Brennan 04:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Ptolemy: see the Talk Page. Again, I ask you. How is it possible for Claudius Ptolemy to rise from the dead; transport himself to the 10th century, and steal the hundred aphorisms with his own name in the title from a 10th century Arab astrologer? How is this possible?Theo 05:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I just said on my talk page-

Theo, I think that I was very clear about this in my post when I said that

The Centiloquy is attributed to Ptolemy. That doesn't mean that he actually was the author. In fact, modern scholars agree that he was not the author of that work. In the ancient world it wasn't looked down upon to attribute some other famous author's name to your own work, but rather, sometimes that was how you drew attention to and gave prestige to what would otherwise be an obscure work. The highly respected historian of sciences and head of the department of the history of mathematics at Brown University, David Pingree, writes in his work From Astral Omens To Astrology, From Babylon To Bikaner that "Ahmad ibn Yusuf's Kitab al-thamara or Καρπός, known in its Latin version as the Centiloquium, and attributed falsely, already by Ahmad, to Ptolemy..." Another historian, James Holden, agrees and writes in his book A History of Horoscopic Astrology that "A collection of 100 astrological aphorisms called Karpos 'fruit' in Greek and Centiloquium 'Hundred Sayings' in Latin was attributed to Claudius Ptolemy in the Middle Ages. It is certainly not his..." Even in my edition of the Centiloquium, which was published recently by contemporary traditional astrologers at RenaissanceAstrology.com, the pubisher Christopher Warnock writes in the preface: "The first complete Latin translation from Arabic was done in 1136 and as many as 10 different versions existing in manuscript form. It was traditionally accepted as the work of Ptolemy, though modern scholarship has established that the probable author was the 10th century Arabic astrologer Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf."

In other words, Ptolemy didn't write the Centiloquy. It was written by an Arab astrologer named Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf in the 10th century, and he attributed it to Ptolemy so that people would read it and so that his work would gain notoriety. This was common practice, and there are many other examples of other authors doing this with astrological works in the Middle Ages. This isn't some personal opinion of mine or something. This is something that is agreed by text editors and historians that have examined the texts and the original manuscripts, and I quoted those people directly.

Further more, if Ptolemy had written the Centiloquy, then it probably would have been a part of the Tetrabiblos, or there at least would have been some mention of it in the numerous astrological texts between the 2nd and 9th centuries which drew on Ptolemy's work and cited large portions of it. But there are none. --Chris Brennan 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, the problem with that is that Ptolemy was a prolific writer. He also penned the Almagest as well. Moreover, all of Ptolemy's writings were translated into Arabic; then re-translated into Latin. This has caused much confusion among the writings and sayings attributed to whom. But, if one actually reads Ptolemy, his writing style, his use of astrological principles, and his sayings: it is very hard to attibute the Centiloquy to Abu Jafar. For instance, the sources cited above which "claim" Ptolemy did not write his hundred aphorisms often use Moxon's Mathematical Dictionary, and will attibute some of the aphorisms to Hermes Trismegistus; which is inaccurate. Moreover, the Centiloquy is called the "fruit of his four work" - meaning they are from his Tetrabiblos. What seems to throw some off is that some of the aphorisms deal with parts of what is considered to be horary questions. Lastly, the point is that the two standards of astrological prediction are maintained by ancient astrologers. Even Nostradamus cited the astrological standard for prediction in his 16th century book of prophecies.Theo 06:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I was just about to post this before you posted yours. I might as well anyways. --- Furthermore, as far as internal textual evidence goes, there are certain things which clearly show that this could not be the work of Ptolemy. For example, several of the aphorisms make explicit references to Horary astrology, which is not something that Ptolemy addressed at all in the Tetrabiblos. One of the reasons for this, among others, is that interrogational astrology (ie. horary) was not developed until the 2nd and 3rd centuries and this development occurred in India within the Hindu tradition. (See Pingree, 1996, pg. 21) Horary was not a part of the mainstream tradition of Hellenistic astrology from which Ptolemy and his contemporaries were drawing on, and it did not become integrated into the western tradition of horoscopic astrology until the Middle Ages when the various Arab and Persian astrologers undertook a synthesis of the Indian, Persian and Hellenistic traditions. So you see, even the internal evidence in the text itself with the references to horary show that this could not have been the work of Claudius Ptolemy. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. There are practices of horary that go back before the time of Christ. It often is a mistake to consider that this practice did not take place until the Hellenistic tradition was matured - mainstreamed. Actually, the practice is quite older than this. Several versions of horary practice is as old as astrology itself. Some questions were used with runes, for example, in Celtic tradition; while the Chinese used a version of what we now call the I-Ching - so, horary practice is quite ancient. The Greeks were not the only culture using it. Horary usage was common, even in the Second Century of Ptolemy, but in that particular cultural tradition. One of the things Arab & Persian astrologers of later centuries did was imploy much better calulation methods - using Ptolemy's work as a standard. I do not doubt that attributions may actually be a question - considering the amount of "borrowing" from others - but, I would give Ptolemy the benefit of the doubt - seeing that these were around 800 years before the birth of Abu Jafar and considering the copius amount of translations of Ptolemy's work. Read his writing in Centiloquy and see if he uses the same syntax in his other works.Theo 06:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently working at Project Hindsight where we are translating all of the existing Greek and Latin astrological texts which date from the 2nd century BCE to around the 7th century CE, and I am very familiar with all them. I can confidently say that Horary astrology was not practiced in this Hellenistic tradition from reading the texts with my own eyes, and this view is backed up by numerous historians and astrologers. I don't think that it is accurate to say that there is "no proof" of this. If you are asserting that horary was practiced during Ptolemy's time and before, then please cite any of the Hellenistic texts that you think would support this view and I will gladly pull out the text and take a look at it. I have all of them at my disposal. --Chris Brennan 06:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've been following the work of Project Hindsight for years now and am familar with its good work. Though, I do assert that horary practice pre-dates Hellenistic practice. It is quite old, and many cultures practiced it. Traditions from African, to Native American, to Celtic. They all have forms of this method of divination. Theo 00:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, if you are asserting that horary was practiced during Ptolemy's time and before, then please cite any of the Hellenistic texts that you think would support this view and I will gladly pull out the text and take a look at it. I have all of them at my disposal. --Chris Brennan 00:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest you stick with the Hellenistic texts then. Chris, suggest you realize that the Greeks were not the only culture practicing astrology, nor its methods, including horary. The Greeks were only ONE of many cultures practicing the ancient science. Try referring to Babylonian, Hebrew, Chaldean, and Eygptian materials as well. Include the oral traditions of the African tradition, and that of native Americans, for example. Read the Secrets of the Book of Enoch, for one, - that pre-dates the Hellenistic texts, and is a treasure trove of astrological information related to the Deity. It's common knowledge. Runes, I-Ching, palm-reading, etc., all are forms of horary practice. The Delphic Oracle for the Greeks used a form of Scrying, etc. All horary traditions are out there for you to study. Suggest you use your own access to the Internet to just look them up.

Horary practices: of Palmistry, Phrenology, Numerology,Tasseomancy, Geomancy, Dream Interpretation, (read Daniel in the Holy Scriptures) Physiognomy; Scrying (w/ many forms) and the methods of the African Ifa Religion & Culture. There are many more varied horary practices throughout the Earth. The Greeks were not the only ones. It may happen to be the one you are involved in right now; and I've studied it as well; but suggest a more general, and comprehensive study of divintory methods; many, related to astrology. Sometimes, western students of astrology often become pinned in studying western-related forms of astrology - such as those of the Hellenistic period. However, when I instruct, this tradition is only one of several traditions taught. I consider it to be a more broad study, and gives students of astrology a wider view of the variety of horary forms practiced throughout the world.Theo 01:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you now saying that the Hellenistic astrologers didn't practice horary astrology? --Chris Brennan 03:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Where, in my above response, Chris, did I state that Hellenistic astrologers did not practice horary astrology? You know, it would be mature of you to engage in serious discussion, rather than this pithy stuff you are chucking out, ok? Get real and stop wasting time here. Re-read the above passage.Theo 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then if you are still asserting that horary astrology was practiced by astrologers during and before Ptolemy's time, then why haven't you provided a quote for me to follow up on yet? I asked twice already, and it should be a pretty easy thing for you to do if it was as widespread as you say. Right? --Chris Brennan 04:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me right? A quote? I just gave you a very brief outline of horary practices - that INCLUDE - Hellenistic astrology. So, you've heard of them? I have not heard your response. Listen Chris, you are a student of astrology. I am an experienced, professional, consulting astrologer, ok? Find your own quotes if you are going to play games. If you have ALL the texts available to you regarding Hellenistic - then you should easily be able to find others. I've named several in our discussions. Conduct a search yourself. Plenty of search engines out there. Follow up on your own. Do you OWN homework, Chris. There's plenty of material. Plenty. I did when I was your age. And it was a lot harder too. No Internet. I'm busy enough as it is with clients. And Chris, You should try to be better than that. Be honest in your studies. Stop treating astrology as one monothelic body - remember - the west is only ONE point on the compass. You've got East, North, and South too. Not just WESTERN ASTROLOGY. Ok? Astrology has a rich GLOBAL history Chris, and is not restricted solely to Western traditions. Perhaps you are a bit too involved in Hellenistic astrology. Tunnel vision can seriously harm your astrological skills and abilities. Would advise adding many more views, a wider perspective. Remember, the world is round. If you have actually studied astrological history, you would not be posing such "questions" here. Get real. Then I can work with you. Otherwise, give it a break - I'm too busy. If you are serious, and cease gearing for monolethic-view "debates" of astrology from a single "Hellenistic" POV, then perhaps more can be accomplished. In the answer above, I stated several forms of horary practices, among several cultures - you just jump over them, and come back with another "request" for "quote." Come on. Theo 04:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really need to find any quotes actually. I know horary astrology wasn't practiced during and before Ptolemy's time in the Hellenistic tradition as you are asserting, because I've actually read the texts. Its your job to prove your assertions by citing some Hellenistic astrologers, but you haven't done that. The obvious reason for this is either that you can't quote these mythical horary texts because you aren't familiar with them, or because they don't exist. So which is it? --Chris Brennan 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? My "job?" I don't think so. Listen, continue your studies Chris. You cite them - since you have them ALL. Since you are the expert here. I guess you said it with your "obvious" reasons. Listen, play games with someone else. Obviously, you are not being serious. I don't have the time for student snobbery. Yeah, they don't exist, ok? I guess you have spoken on the subject and that's that. The Hellenistic tradition is the only view of astrology, ok. And no other cultures practiced it. Only the Greeks saw the constellations. No one on earth saw them; nor practiced astrology. Sure. Ok. Now, can I go back to work? Jeez.Theo 04:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There you go again with the personal attacks instead of proof of your assertions. Thats fine though. Yeah, I guess if you don't want to make any attempt to actually prove the validity what you are saying then that is the end of it. Fine by me. --Chris Brennan 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing "personal" about it. I am too serious, and experienced to be falling into you "quote" traps. You just jump over things like they do not apply. I am not a child. If you want to discuss as a educated person, then do so. Or "debate" astrology on your own time. I don't have to prove the "validity" of anything to you. I've cited many examples. I suggest you find out more about the subject you would like to practice professionally someday. You should be studying the subject rather than debating it. At 21, you haven't gained the knowledge nor experience to be so absolute in your astrology. Suggest you go back to the basics. Try reading Margaret Hone. Start there.Theo 05:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Theodore7. Your repeated attempts to insert the same large edit into the main astrology article are being reversed by a number of people. This means there is no consensus that your edits improve or build on the article. The ethic in Wikipedia is to find consensus. This means you need to find a way of expressing your views on Wikipedia that everyone here finds acceptable. I have inserted some of your material on the history of astrology page where it fills a gap in 20th century history. I suggest that you edit the judicial astrology page and begin a dialogue there on what exactly is meant by the term. Lumos3 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lumos, there's no problem having a Disputed Tag on the Astrology page - but please do not assume that these are "repeated attempts." I have the same right as an Wikipedian to add to the encyclopedic information. Consensus only works when those who are versed in any particular subject matter enters into positive discussion on the subject; rather than "attempts" by some to add highly detracting, and negatively-directed POV into the subject matter. As for the other page, I already have started this process. And, one more note: I am engaging in dialogue.Theo 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)