'Your Horoscope' columns - a warning and a rant

Minderwiz

I don't often have rants on this forum but the thread on the zodiac that have recently been posted lead me to one. Those thread have been a way of getting good information out to members of the forum and I applaud them.

My problem is that the offending articles that gave rise to them see Astrology as little more than Sun signs and their characteristics. Both Dave and I have criticised these in the past because they give a distorted and oversimplified view of Astrology - I now have come to the conclusion that they are actually harmful to Astrology.

It might be argued that any prediction is better than no prediction but a prediction based on such generalised information can at best be accurate at random and will probably hold for only a small proportion of the group for which it was intended. At worst it will lead to a recognition of the obvious discrepancy between reality and the forecast and thus a dismissal of Astrology as meaningful.

Perhaps even worse than believing or not believing in these columns is the view of many of their readers, that they are 'a bit of fun'.

These columns also give ammunition to journalists and other critics of Astrology - a rod to beat us with, these columns are silly and they allow critics to make fun of Astrology

Astrology is thus no longer a noble art, it is a small bit of entertainment that can be quickly read over breakfast and laughed at by its critics. For an art that used to be taught in universities, that is a shameful situation.

What is worse is that these columns are written by (or more likely fronted by) professional Astrologers who use them as a 'nice little earner' from the press. It is rare that a science (in the true sense of the word) is brought into public ridicule by the mercenary actions of it's own members.

Please try and spread the word to your friends that such columns are to be treated as rubbish and do not represent Astrology, either in it's traditional or it's modern incarnations.

And please also tell them that seeing themselves as Virgoes, or Capricorns, or Geminis, etc is not good - Astrology is far richer than Sun signs.

Rant over
 

dadsnook2000

Should we . . .?

Should we consider having a discussion here on this forum about banning threads that strictly focus on Sun Sign astrology. Perhaps we might think about having to talk about the Sun only in connection with another planet or a house or an aspect ---- anything except the Sun in a Sign as a simplistic discussion topic. Any thoughts on this? Dave
 

Minderwiz

Well much as we might like to, I don't think that proposal is a runner :)

And even if we could, one effect might be to prevent the very people we would like to reach coming to the forum. People whose only contact with Astrology is the daily 'Horoscope' cannot be blamed for their lack of understanding and in many ways I welcome their posts because it gives us an opportunity to explain what Astrology is really about - I see us as a learning forum as well as a place to exchange ideas and ask questions (which themselves facilitate learning).

The inertia of virtually a century of a steady drip feed of this drivel is going to be very hard to change unless Astrologers themselves pass some self denying ordinance and refuse to write the columns.

We can do our little bit though and getting members and indeed guests (who read the posts but are unable to post themselves) to realise that there's so much more to Astrology and perhaps give them the incentive to learn about 'real astrology' themselves.

So if a question is asked that is simply sun sign based, let's use it as a hook to bring in the relationships that you mentioned above and indeed help them realise that there's another 6 planets to consider (or if you insist another 8 planets plus dwarves, asteroids, centaurs, etc :) )

That's not going to be easy, I've seen posts by several members who really do know better describing themselves as Geminis or whatever in posts to do with Mercury Rx, eclipses or whatever.

We all get the question at some point "what sign are you?" I now answer:

'STOP'
 

saillas

amen...

i want to hug you...
 

Grigori

Of course sun-sign astrology is the lifeblood of more traditional methods. Without it astrological practice would have virtually died decades ago and there would be next to no one learning, talking or caring about any astrology. It maintains public interest and awareness and is a gentle feeder for those who may eventually study or approach more serious astrologers. Wanting to ignore it is tantamount to banning backyard cricket and insisting only tournament level has any value. Doing so cuts off interest as well as the next generation of players who start in their backyard as children and grow into the professional minority in adulthood.

Thank the gods the Australan Cricket Board is meeting our children where they are at, and encouraging them to develop in new ways. I'd hate to imagine a future where we have only former international greats and elitists complaining about the death of the profession due to noninterest from the kids of today.
 

Grigori

Minderwiz said:
The inertia of virtually a century of a steady drip feed of this drivel is going to be very hard to change unless Astrologers themselves pass some self denying ordinance and refuse to write the columns.

I would hope astrologers would not follow this advice, as it would mean that the columns will remain, and will be written by "the work experience kid"

There is a local newspaper astrologer I have a lot of respect for. She pitches each signs column at a level suitable for the general public, but within each paragraph discusses variation on the theme and specific ideas about what you may see bases on the specifics or planets and aspects in your full chart. Also along with the 12 paragraphs, each week she gives an article on a specific aspect or event that is happening, and how it may touch individuals charts.

I consider her someone who is more than an astrologer selling out for commercial interests, she is someone who has a gift for sharing her profession with the public and a true teacher. If there were more astrologers with such skills, the weekly column could be a very different experience.
 

KariRoad

nota bene

Minderwiz said:
Perhaps even worse than believing or not believing in these columns is the view of many of their readers, that they are 'a bit of fun'.
"Father" Wm. Saunders:

Please note that just reading a horoscope in the newspaper or the message inside the fortune cookie, and having a laugh is not a mortal sin; however, taking such a horoscope seriously or paying for some astrologer's advice is.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0109.html

I'd laugh, but it hurts. Mortal sin? Oh my old bones, spare me these fools!
 

AmethystEyes

Kind of random but you know how there are key chains, jewelry, etc with sun signs, I was thinking recently that I want some sort of symbol made that represents the combo of my/or one's Rising/Sun/Moon. Would be much more personal and cool :D
 

Minderwiz

Grigori said:
Of course sun-sign astrology is the lifeblood of more traditional methods. Without it astrological practice would have virtually died decades ago and there would be next to no one learning, talking or caring about any astrology. It maintains public interest and awareness and is a gentle feeder for those who may eventually study or approach more serious astrologers. Wanting to ignore it is tantamount to banning backyard cricket and insisting only tournament level has any value. Doing so cuts off interest as well as the next generation of players who start in their backyard as children and grow into the professional minority in adulthood.

Well Astrological practice DID die to all intents and purposes between the early eighteenth and late nineteenth centuries. It was 'revived' by the Theosophists who significantly altered it, injected a little Eastern mysticism and used it as a guide to the New Age. Indeed it was this revival that eventually led to the newspaper columns, not the other way around.

I like your analogy with Australian Cricket, but consider the situation where cricket becomes identified with the one day game and not the four or five day variety. Australia work hard on their one day game and become the best in the world at it but over time this leads to the neglect of the five day game because young cricketers see the one day variety as the one they want to play - eventually you end up with a good bunch of one day cricketers who cannot play a Test Series without losing hopelessly three times out of five matches. The one day game can actually damage the five day game unless you take clear and coordinated action to stop that happening.

My fear for Astrology is that however well intentioned it was (and I'm sure your friend works hard on her columns) the effect of sun sign columns is exactly the same as concentrating on the one day game to the detriment of the five day game.

To use a different analogy, it's like writing a column on health matters that suggests that if you feel unwell you should take an aspirin and go to bed or that all illnesses can be cured by taking some antibiotics. There's a grain of truth in both of those statements but if the 'remedies' were followed in practice they would often end up in disaster.

Incidentally, the proportion of Horoscope column readers who visit professional Astrologers is vanishingly small. Your friend's articles will do at least as much good in this respect and will give her the opportunity to bring in some real astrology into the bargain.

I actually did write a Horoscope column, as part of my first Astrology qualification, and it's not easy to do. It does require some real knowledge of Astrology and it does allow some current Astrological issues to be incorporated - such as planet/sign ingresses, transiting planet aspects and eclipses. However for practical and predictive purposes it is useless.

The approach operates on the basis of a house system measured from the Sun (rather than the Ascendant) and a chart that contains no planets at all. All the Houses are whole signs. Now whilst whole sign houses are widely used in Astrology, I've never come across a system that measures them from the Sun, EXCEPT in this context. The primary House system (however calculated) is measured from the Ascendant, which is the key point in Astrology (followed by the MC). The Ascendant plays no role at all in Horoscope columns, unless you cast the chart assuming that everyone was born at sunrise (clearly not the case but the only circumstances in which it actually is a Horoscope).

So for example, if the Sun was in Capricorn when you were born, Today I might be writing about possible future money problems based on Mars just having entered Aquarius - the second solar house from Capricorn. Lots of 'Capricorns' might worry about this but for most of them, this ingress would have nothing to do with a change in their material resources over the next couple of months.

My point is that these columns DON'T bring in the clients for Astrologers, they are misleading and even those Astrologers who want to use them to generate interest in Astrology won't end up doing so. Generating an interest is not enough, that interest needs developing into an understanding and a quest for further knowledge - in Astrology that is sadly not being done by Horoscope columns.

I used to share your point of view and I'm sure your friend does as well and is operating from the best of intentions. Ask her what would happen if she suggested to her newspaper that she wrote an article a week and dropped the 'Horoscopes'? Over a couple of years she could write over 100 articles that could build into a brief course and back numbers of which might be downloadable from the net. Now that COULD have a real effect. I just wonder if the Newspaper would dare to take it on.

I was thinking more of those well known Astrologers who syndicate their columns to many papers and magazines, sometimes internationally when I made my comment about 'mercenary' Astrologers. I actually saw a TV program which featured one of these Astrologers in a different context and he actually used the term 'real Astrology' for what he practised, compared to his Horoscope column for which he was more well known.