Minderwiz
Thanks ravenest and Dave for those observations.
Both your views and the traditional answer seem to have very strong shared views of reality. Nature does not distinguish between the material and the spiritual - Nature has a consciousness and forms a whole of which humanity is a part. The only difference is that of the scale of 'creation'.
Reading Dave's explanation put me in mind of one of Isaac Asimov's novels - 'Foundation's Edge' in which he posited the existence not only of a planetary consciousness involving all matter but the possible extension of this to a galactic consciousness - a galaxy that is alive and a whole, of which humanity is an integral (and important) part.
In such a galaxy, universe, or creation - observing the behaviour of one part can tell us much about the whole or about the 'reactions' of other parts - the analogy of a doctor observing symptoms in one part of the body to diagnose the condition of the body as a whole is perhaps not a good one but I think it gives the gist (and a better gist if you take a holistic approach).
Dave used the phrase 'physically viewable' and from the earliest times it was observed (viewable) phenomena that constituted the 'mechanism' by which the Astrologer recognised the signs and then went on to interpret or to divine.
Modern followers of the Western Traditional Approach still insist that 'physically viewable' means viewable by the naked eye - the outer planets,(apart from Uranus under certain conditions), dwarf planets, asteroids and many other objects are only viewable using a telescope - and for many a very powerful telescope at that. Not all Astrologers have Mount Palomar in their back yards - so the next question, around the 'how' is:
Is visibility the only criterion for the 'how' Astrology works (besides the presence of an Astrologer)?
and if so;
Does the need for a very high power telescope remove or reduce the 'power and influence' that should be assigned to those planets, etc. that can't be seen by the naked eye?
Now I know Dave's (and virtually all modern Astrologers) answer to the latter is 'No' and I guess that his/their defence would be the 'experience' of Astrologers who use them.
In other words is the experience of seeing (rather than reading a table or computer screen) a nescessary part of an Astrologer's work
Both your views and the traditional answer seem to have very strong shared views of reality. Nature does not distinguish between the material and the spiritual - Nature has a consciousness and forms a whole of which humanity is a part. The only difference is that of the scale of 'creation'.
Reading Dave's explanation put me in mind of one of Isaac Asimov's novels - 'Foundation's Edge' in which he posited the existence not only of a planetary consciousness involving all matter but the possible extension of this to a galactic consciousness - a galaxy that is alive and a whole, of which humanity is an integral (and important) part.
In such a galaxy, universe, or creation - observing the behaviour of one part can tell us much about the whole or about the 'reactions' of other parts - the analogy of a doctor observing symptoms in one part of the body to diagnose the condition of the body as a whole is perhaps not a good one but I think it gives the gist (and a better gist if you take a holistic approach).
Dave used the phrase 'physically viewable' and from the earliest times it was observed (viewable) phenomena that constituted the 'mechanism' by which the Astrologer recognised the signs and then went on to interpret or to divine.
Modern followers of the Western Traditional Approach still insist that 'physically viewable' means viewable by the naked eye - the outer planets,(apart from Uranus under certain conditions), dwarf planets, asteroids and many other objects are only viewable using a telescope - and for many a very powerful telescope at that. Not all Astrologers have Mount Palomar in their back yards - so the next question, around the 'how' is:
Is visibility the only criterion for the 'how' Astrology works (besides the presence of an Astrologer)?
and if so;
Does the need for a very high power telescope remove or reduce the 'power and influence' that should be assigned to those planets, etc. that can't be seen by the naked eye?
Now I know Dave's (and virtually all modern Astrologers) answer to the latter is 'No' and I guess that his/their defence would be the 'experience' of Astrologers who use them.
In other words is the experience of seeing (rather than reading a table or computer screen) a nescessary part of an Astrologer's work