United Astrology Conference

[Barleywine]

Is anyone planning on attending the UAC in New Orleans in May? The preliminary slate of speakers (which I can't seem to find on their website at the moment, so maybe it's in flux) looked quite impressive. The pre-conference workshops looked only so-so, but the ISAR one on teaching astrology would interest me since I may be doing that this summer. These things tend to put you into "information overload," but I still have my notes from the 1976 NASO conference in St. Louis and they still look useful, so there are residual benefits to going beside the fun of being there. However, I don't think it's going to happen this year for me.

 

[dadsnook2000]

My own opinion

I am not going to UAC this year. The last conference was held in Boston, 30 minutes from my home --- I didn't go then. Why? For me, most of the individual presentations address astrological topics that I have already explored, utilized and discarded --- or I have found them to not be useful for my purposes. In spite of their categorization, I believe most are for beginners or early-studies students, or for those perpetual followers of astrology who never seem to make a really effort to learn and just like to be entertained.

Many of the speakers make part or all of their living off of servicing students and followers, hence they construct content that appeals to those groups and levels of capability. That is not for me. I have the CD's of the last Boston conference and have found that most of the sessions were as mediocre as I had thought they might be.

The best conferences are smaller, more regional ones in which a handful of astrology professionals form the core of the presenting group. When these conferences or speakers offer topical areas of interest, these groups will be small enough for the individual to meet, converse and gain good information to meet their needs. Local small-groups can also be goldmines for learning except when local chapters of national groups offer "professional level" seminars which cost significant monies to attend. When a couple of hours of presentations cost one $40 (US) or more, astrology starts to become expensive. Dave

 

[Barleywine]

I am not going to UAC this year. The last conference was held in Boston, 30 minutes from my home --- I didn't go then. Why? For me, most of the individual presentations address astrological topics that I have already explored, utilized and discarded --- or I have found them to not be useful for my purposes. In spite of their categorization, I believe most are for beginners or early-studies students, or for those perpetual followers of astrology who never seem to make a really effort to learn and just like to be entertained.

You, sir, are more cynical than I am, and I count myself a cynic (so I guess that's a compliment ), especially regarding anything "New-Age-y" that seems to be a staple at these conferences, and still a stock-in-trade for many of our peers. Even though I was an active part of it, I've come to view that era as a "Piscean pipe-dream" and "the False Spring." There are other reasons to attend (especially if it's close): entertainment is certainly one; the people are often delightful or bizarre - and usually both, and it can be instructive to see what the "tribe" is up to, although with internet websites and blogs that's probably a less compelling reason. I know what you're saying, though. The last national one I went to, Noel Tyl spoke and at the end he was so swarmed with swooning astro-groupies that you couldn't get near him to ask questions. The "cult of personality" is alive and well in the astrological world. I did highly value hearing Marc Edmund Jones, Dane Rudhyar and Neil Michelsen speak, though.

I consider myself more of a "practical" and "technical" astrologer than a "psychological/esoteric/spiritual" one, by a long stretch (must be the same 10th House Mars in Virgo that was my career driver). I have a fairly lean approach to chart analysis and anything I might have discarded along the way I probably never adopted in the first place, for much the same reasons you give. But that might change some as I get deeper into studying traditional methods (though I think I've already reached the point in my reading where I'll be drawing a line.)


By the way, I'm enjoying re-reading "The Engine of Destiny." Planetary pairings certainly weren't new when he wrote it, but phase relationships were a unique contribution. His polemics, though, are a bit irritating; he's like the anti-Frawley, who I understand is just as vitriolic about modern astrology as Robertson is about the traditional approach.