Minderwiz
That does seem a possible way forward. How would the results be interpreted?
The Outer Planets
Bernice
I have a published article by N. Kollerstrom dated 1976. He used the method published by Agnes Fyfe "Concerning the variability of the iron-silver filterpaper picture" (1967). It appears that the principle findings show the immediate effect of a conjunction and it's duration. These differ according to the bodies involved. Saturn conjunctions (i.e. example = Sat + Mars) are of greater duration than that of the Moon (i.e example = Moon + Mars).
Apparently several people have tried these experiments, from the 1920s through to the 1960s - not always using the exact same 'formula' as L. Kolisko - but always they had a 'result'.
Hopefully one or more other members may have more information about this.
Otherwise, I was thinking that if we had several charts (10 ?), perhaps of businesses, countries, organizations etc. where we have knowledge of their history, then perhaps some method could be devised to see what, if any, similarilty of correlation there might be with progressed (or transit) conjuctions. This is so obvious an approach, but I can't say I've ever read anything that has done such a comparison.
Bee
Apparently several people have tried these experiments, from the 1920s through to the 1960s - not always using the exact same 'formula' as L. Kolisko - but always they had a 'result'.
Hopefully one or more other members may have more information about this.
A chemical record of a celestial event would physically 'prove' an effect on this planet. I think that might be a worthwhile investigation all by itself. It would also be interesting to discover if aspects like oppositions, squares & trines would also yield a result.
Otherwise, I was thinking that if we had several charts (10 ?), perhaps of businesses, countries, organizations etc. where we have knowledge of their history, then perhaps some method could be devised to see what, if any, similarilty of correlation there might be with progressed (or transit) conjuctions. This is so obvious an approach, but I can't say I've ever read anything that has done such a comparison.
Bee
dadsnook2000
For Bernice
Thanks for that information. The experiments of salt-metals and filter paper to observe the effects of conjunctions is very interesting. Eugen Kolisko and Lili Kolisko worked with Rudolph Steiner --- I am working with some of his material relative to exploring some spiritual applications. I've asked a friend who is into that area of inquiry for further information. One can also Google the Kiliskos and find material.
This is very interesting. Again, thanks. Dave
Thanks for that information. The experiments of salt-metals and filter paper to observe the effects of conjunctions is very interesting. Eugen Kolisko and Lili Kolisko worked with Rudolph Steiner --- I am working with some of his material relative to exploring some spiritual applications. I've asked a friend who is into that area of inquiry for further information. One can also Google the Kiliskos and find material.
This is very interesting. Again, thanks. Dave
Sue Ward
Suggestions
Hello, I'm a new member and will try not to put my foot in it. I've followed this thread with interest and would like to thank Minderwiz for his excellent summaries of my research - it's no mean feat.
The following comments are just my opinion based on many years of hard study, I realise that I've omitted explanations, but I'm trying to be brief.
Nick Kollerstrom published a small book on his experiments with planetary metals, in the 80s, I think. Along with Bee's suggestion, I'd like to draw your attention to Alchemy which, with astrology, forms part of the Hermetica. One of the problems we experience now is a profound lack of information partly caused by the separation of astrology from the Hermetics. We have difficulty 'thinking' in the right way in order to truly understand the art we try to practise. We have joined up the dots in the wrong order through misunderstandings and assumptions and are left with an unrecognisable picture. So, to apply the methods of the alchemists would certainly provide great insight. Some years ago, I made a study of colour and the planets - which is a similar proposal to Bee's - and found that the alchemists (philosophers) were able, in their terms, to prove the existence and virtue of the planets. I also referred to crystalline structures of colour.
One other area of interest in your attempts to find truth or falsity in the new planets, is that of light and optics and I refer you to Al Kindi "On the Stellar Rays". Creation relies wholly on light for its existence, hence light=life. Simply put, if there is no light, there is no life. The new planets give no light - Uranus very, very little occasionally - therefore they have no life, virtue. The discovery of Uranus was a triumph for the development of optical devices, it was almost completely ignored by astrologers and not for no reason. Astrology cannot work in any of its current manifestations without the principle and symbolism of light - or can it? Some may argue that we do see their light through telescopes, but does the brain receive those images in the same way as by the naked eye? Does that mean the same thing symbolically?
I suggest that the first question in your quest might be "Should the new planets be included in the astrological scheme? If so, why?" For this to be answered, you'll need to go back to first principles and away from personal experience - the commonly used symbolism of these planets cannot be applied because it doesn't exist in first principles.
It would be a shame if this thread were to falter, although it is most often the case.
Sue Ward
Hello, I'm a new member and will try not to put my foot in it. I've followed this thread with interest and would like to thank Minderwiz for his excellent summaries of my research - it's no mean feat.
The following comments are just my opinion based on many years of hard study, I realise that I've omitted explanations, but I'm trying to be brief.
Nick Kollerstrom published a small book on his experiments with planetary metals, in the 80s, I think. Along with Bee's suggestion, I'd like to draw your attention to Alchemy which, with astrology, forms part of the Hermetica. One of the problems we experience now is a profound lack of information partly caused by the separation of astrology from the Hermetics. We have difficulty 'thinking' in the right way in order to truly understand the art we try to practise. We have joined up the dots in the wrong order through misunderstandings and assumptions and are left with an unrecognisable picture. So, to apply the methods of the alchemists would certainly provide great insight. Some years ago, I made a study of colour and the planets - which is a similar proposal to Bee's - and found that the alchemists (philosophers) were able, in their terms, to prove the existence and virtue of the planets. I also referred to crystalline structures of colour.
One other area of interest in your attempts to find truth or falsity in the new planets, is that of light and optics and I refer you to Al Kindi "On the Stellar Rays". Creation relies wholly on light for its existence, hence light=life. Simply put, if there is no light, there is no life. The new planets give no light - Uranus very, very little occasionally - therefore they have no life, virtue. The discovery of Uranus was a triumph for the development of optical devices, it was almost completely ignored by astrologers and not for no reason. Astrology cannot work in any of its current manifestations without the principle and symbolism of light - or can it? Some may argue that we do see their light through telescopes, but does the brain receive those images in the same way as by the naked eye? Does that mean the same thing symbolically?
I suggest that the first question in your quest might be "Should the new planets be included in the astrological scheme? If so, why?" For this to be answered, you'll need to go back to first principles and away from personal experience - the commonly used symbolism of these planets cannot be applied because it doesn't exist in first principles.
It would be a shame if this thread were to falter, although it is most often the case.
Sue Ward
dadsnook2000
Relative to Sue Ward's post
"I suggest that the first question in your quest might be "Should the new planets be included in the astrological scheme? If so, why?" For this to be answered, you'll need to go back to first principles and away from personal experience - the commonly used symbolism of these planets cannot be applied because it doesn't exist in first principles."
True or not, we do have to recognize the work of many astrologers and the work of Richard Tarnas in particular, in documenting the congruence of outer planet cycle-pairings with recorded history up until the current decade in which the general meanings of the outer planets (as understood and used by most astrologers) fit quite nicely and completely with social, financial, military, political, medical cycles of peak activity.
The fact that this relationship exists clearly and strongly cannot be ignored. It might mean that first principles have to examined again in the light of this evidence.
We might wish to consider the many examples of finding rocks from Mars on the continent of Antarctica, of basic building blocks for life in comets, the many gravitational and energy frequency forces that impinge on Earth and which exceed by many magnitudes the effects of just our Sun and other solar system bodies. We live in a universe of unimaginable energy (light being a small sliver of that energy spectrum) and energy sources. It would seem that we are, as individuals, very limited antennas for receiving this energy. Whether "limited" or "selective" is hard to say, but we are flooded with many forms of light.
My choice is to be open to possibilities, to explore ideas, to experiment. Dave
"I suggest that the first question in your quest might be "Should the new planets be included in the astrological scheme? If so, why?" For this to be answered, you'll need to go back to first principles and away from personal experience - the commonly used symbolism of these planets cannot be applied because it doesn't exist in first principles."
True or not, we do have to recognize the work of many astrologers and the work of Richard Tarnas in particular, in documenting the congruence of outer planet cycle-pairings with recorded history up until the current decade in which the general meanings of the outer planets (as understood and used by most astrologers) fit quite nicely and completely with social, financial, military, political, medical cycles of peak activity.
The fact that this relationship exists clearly and strongly cannot be ignored. It might mean that first principles have to examined again in the light of this evidence.
We might wish to consider the many examples of finding rocks from Mars on the continent of Antarctica, of basic building blocks for life in comets, the many gravitational and energy frequency forces that impinge on Earth and which exceed by many magnitudes the effects of just our Sun and other solar system bodies. We live in a universe of unimaginable energy (light being a small sliver of that energy spectrum) and energy sources. It would seem that we are, as individuals, very limited antennas for receiving this energy. Whether "limited" or "selective" is hard to say, but we are flooded with many forms of light.
My choice is to be open to possibilities, to explore ideas, to experiment. Dave
Minderwiz
Welcome Sue and thanks for your kind compliments.
Dave's right, light is only a part of the energy spectrum but as Astrology was always seen to be based on light, I think the burden of proof that other energy forms are relevant lies with those propounding them.
Dave's right, light is only a part of the energy spectrum but as Astrology was always seen to be based on light, I think the burden of proof that other energy forms are relevant lies with those propounding them.
Sue Ward
First principles
"The fact that this relationship exists clearly and strongly cannot be ignored. It might mean that first principles have to examined again in the light of this evidence." [Dadsnook]
Ok, so let's define these first principles. What do you mean when you use this phrase?
"The fact that this relationship exists clearly and strongly cannot be ignored. It might mean that first principles have to examined again in the light of this evidence." [Dadsnook]
Ok, so let's define these first principles. What do you mean when you use this phrase?
Sue Ward
"Welcome Sue and thanks for your kind compliments.
Dave's right, light is only a part of the energy spectrum but as Astrology was always seen to be based on light, I think the burden of proof that other energy forms are relevant lies with those propounding them." [Minderwiz]
Thank you for your welcome. It's a long time since I contributed on a forum, but I hope that I can contribute something useful.
The burden of proof has always fallen upon those who have de-constructed the astrological system (from the TS astrologers onwards), unfortunately, to my knowledge, they have never taken up this challenge coherently or in astrological terms.
One of the problems, and I mentioned this in a previous post, is of language: broadly speaking we have two distinct 'astrologies' - Traditional and Modern each having different approaches, perspectives and goals. It has been mentioned that Uranus means sudden, unexpected events; in the Tradition this is shown by a mutual application. There is no point in raising this as an issue because most Modern astrologers don'[t know what a mutual application is. Even when they do, their definition of 'application' is very different.
I'm not dissing Modern astrologers, simply pointing out one of the myriad problems in a discussion like this. It is why I've suggested returning to first principles.
Dave's right, light is only a part of the energy spectrum but as Astrology was always seen to be based on light, I think the burden of proof that other energy forms are relevant lies with those propounding them." [Minderwiz]
Thank you for your welcome. It's a long time since I contributed on a forum, but I hope that I can contribute something useful.
The burden of proof has always fallen upon those who have de-constructed the astrological system (from the TS astrologers onwards), unfortunately, to my knowledge, they have never taken up this challenge coherently or in astrological terms.
One of the problems, and I mentioned this in a previous post, is of language: broadly speaking we have two distinct 'astrologies' - Traditional and Modern each having different approaches, perspectives and goals. It has been mentioned that Uranus means sudden, unexpected events; in the Tradition this is shown by a mutual application. There is no point in raising this as an issue because most Modern astrologers don'[t know what a mutual application is. Even when they do, their definition of 'application' is very different.
I'm not dissing Modern astrologers, simply pointing out one of the myriad problems in a discussion like this. It is why I've suggested returning to first principles.
dadsnook2000
Reply to Sue Ward
I have been enjoying a severe summer cold, and have returned home from our summer place in Maine.
In our pursuit of defining first principles, a good place to start, we need to keep in mind where we might be headed for. Astrology is as complex as "man" himself/herself becuase it is a seeking of relationships and meanings of the one to the comos about us. If that is accepted than we have to expect that our discussion will encounter "branches" in our directions of inquiry.
First principles will lead us, then, to sets of second principles or disagreements over what is "in" what is "out". So, I'll propose a few principles that we might, as a group, consider acceptable.
** We human individuals are connected through our physical selves to the universe around us (taking "universe" as a collective body) through the materials in our bodies, through our reaction to the Sun's light and spectrum of energies, through our response to the Moon's motions, and through our less-measurable physical reactions to the other members of our solar system and the starry skies.
** We humans also seem to be influenced in our awareness and thoughts in varying degrees by the cosmos (again, taking cosmos as a collective) depending upon our family and cultural conditioning, education, individual inclinations and curiousity, sense of spirituality and wonderment about our interactions with the environment we see, sense, and do not understand.
Being what we are, seeking order and meaning in our lives, we have a proclivity to name and associate perceived and imagined things in our lives. Part of this process has been to name the more noticible objects in our sky and associate their appearance, motion and cycles to ourselves. In doing so, we might feel that we are defining some first principles.
1) Life and the Cosmos works in cycles. Some of those cycles we can relate to such as the Earth's daily rotational cycle, the Sun's yearly and seasonal cycle, the Moon's cycles, as well as planetary cycles. (Planetary cycles here being taken to include a greater or lesser number of bodies to be definded later).
2) Certain cycles appear to have relevance to us when we break them down into parts. "Twelveness" for example works well when related to some aspects of astrology such as the Sun's declination cycle where that cycle (as a sine wave depiction) is related to the seasons. We have adopted and applied that cycle division to houses as well. At this stage, I only want to point out that in cycles, "twelvess" seems useful. "Eightness" is another useful cycle division that is used with the Moon. We might want to explore 360-ness as well. But, the point is, "cycles" have caught our attention and we see importance in them.
3) Astrological bodies, we call them planets even though they include non-planets, have individual influences upon us. In making this statement, this linear text is limited in that it cannot show the other accompanying sets of principles at the same time that are required to support this statement.
Neverless, planets have influences that a cultural consensus recognizes in terms of core descriptions. Some relate them to archetypes, some to myths and legends of ancient cultures. Whatever their source, they have common recognized core influences -- each of them.
4) These influences have been applied to the health and physical viability of people in how they live and experience physicality, in how they interact with other people, in how they think, in how they raise families, in how governmet is carried out, and in many other areas of application. What this priciple is about, then, is "commonality" among men. We all tend to follow these cycles and influences in some way, to make progress when the cycles are with us, to struggle and make less headway at other times.
This "commonality" of influences from astrological bodies and their cycles then seems to serve as some kind of personal schedule of action on both an individual basis and in a more common way for a collective influence.
5) In our world, we all seem to have our personal differences from each other. In our attempts to understand commonality and difference in relation to planets and cycles, we have come to see that "uniquess" is related to the point within these broad cycles that we were born, and the location where we were born. We have tested and accepted that this is a truism.
From this, we have to accept that we have common influences as part of a greater communal group as well as individual cycles and influences as part of our individualism. This then is a principle that says we both act on our own cycles and that we interact with other peoples cycles.
****** I will interupt myself here and will continue later. Dave *****
I have been enjoying a severe summer cold, and have returned home from our summer place in Maine.
In our pursuit of defining first principles, a good place to start, we need to keep in mind where we might be headed for. Astrology is as complex as "man" himself/herself becuase it is a seeking of relationships and meanings of the one to the comos about us. If that is accepted than we have to expect that our discussion will encounter "branches" in our directions of inquiry.
First principles will lead us, then, to sets of second principles or disagreements over what is "in" what is "out". So, I'll propose a few principles that we might, as a group, consider acceptable.
** We human individuals are connected through our physical selves to the universe around us (taking "universe" as a collective body) through the materials in our bodies, through our reaction to the Sun's light and spectrum of energies, through our response to the Moon's motions, and through our less-measurable physical reactions to the other members of our solar system and the starry skies.
** We humans also seem to be influenced in our awareness and thoughts in varying degrees by the cosmos (again, taking cosmos as a collective) depending upon our family and cultural conditioning, education, individual inclinations and curiousity, sense of spirituality and wonderment about our interactions with the environment we see, sense, and do not understand.
Being what we are, seeking order and meaning in our lives, we have a proclivity to name and associate perceived and imagined things in our lives. Part of this process has been to name the more noticible objects in our sky and associate their appearance, motion and cycles to ourselves. In doing so, we might feel that we are defining some first principles.
1) Life and the Cosmos works in cycles. Some of those cycles we can relate to such as the Earth's daily rotational cycle, the Sun's yearly and seasonal cycle, the Moon's cycles, as well as planetary cycles. (Planetary cycles here being taken to include a greater or lesser number of bodies to be definded later).
2) Certain cycles appear to have relevance to us when we break them down into parts. "Twelveness" for example works well when related to some aspects of astrology such as the Sun's declination cycle where that cycle (as a sine wave depiction) is related to the seasons. We have adopted and applied that cycle division to houses as well. At this stage, I only want to point out that in cycles, "twelvess" seems useful. "Eightness" is another useful cycle division that is used with the Moon. We might want to explore 360-ness as well. But, the point is, "cycles" have caught our attention and we see importance in them.
3) Astrological bodies, we call them planets even though they include non-planets, have individual influences upon us. In making this statement, this linear text is limited in that it cannot show the other accompanying sets of principles at the same time that are required to support this statement.
Neverless, planets have influences that a cultural consensus recognizes in terms of core descriptions. Some relate them to archetypes, some to myths and legends of ancient cultures. Whatever their source, they have common recognized core influences -- each of them.
4) These influences have been applied to the health and physical viability of people in how they live and experience physicality, in how they interact with other people, in how they think, in how they raise families, in how governmet is carried out, and in many other areas of application. What this priciple is about, then, is "commonality" among men. We all tend to follow these cycles and influences in some way, to make progress when the cycles are with us, to struggle and make less headway at other times.
This "commonality" of influences from astrological bodies and their cycles then seems to serve as some kind of personal schedule of action on both an individual basis and in a more common way for a collective influence.
5) In our world, we all seem to have our personal differences from each other. In our attempts to understand commonality and difference in relation to planets and cycles, we have come to see that "uniquess" is related to the point within these broad cycles that we were born, and the location where we were born. We have tested and accepted that this is a truism.
From this, we have to accept that we have common influences as part of a greater communal group as well as individual cycles and influences as part of our individualism. This then is a principle that says we both act on our own cycles and that we interact with other peoples cycles.
****** I will interupt myself here and will continue later. Dave *****
Sue Ward
First principles
Before you continue, Dave, I didn't mean first principles in general terms, but specifically in astrological terms, that is, if Uranus is to be included in the astrological scheme. Although that question hasn't been answered, but it is a difficult question and we can put it aside for now if you like.
Before you continue, Dave, I didn't mean first principles in general terms, but specifically in astrological terms, that is, if Uranus is to be included in the astrological scheme. Although that question hasn't been answered, but it is a difficult question and we can put it aside for now if you like.
