The Implications of Ophiuchus

[Greendruid]

I didn't know where to put this thread. Perhaps we need a category dedicated to more mystical things than religion usually concerns itself?

I will credit Michael with refocusing my attention on matters astrological over the [gasp] 15 years we've known each other. I had always had a passing fascination with it but the true art-form of investigating the personality traits of individuals and how those interact with others based on when and where they are born is an endlessly fascinating subject with a surprisingly high amount of use. I've never found much stock in using it to determine what your week will be like as the common snippets in newspapers engage in. However, as a tool for gauging general personality traits I find it as useful as psychology.

I will also credit Michael with drawing my attention to the possibility of a need to completely re-jig the common Western astrological system that dictates the use of 12 solar signs and 12 houses ruled by the planets. I was recently reminded of this rejigging on a pagan website and found this little article (http://www.geocities.com/astrologyconstellations/ophiuchus.htm) about the constellation Ophiuchus. Interestingly, both Michael and I would ostensibly fall into this constellation's category instead of our traditional designation as Sagittarians.

Perhaps what I find most interesting with this particular constellation is the relationship of it being that of the "snake holder" in mythology, my own fascination with snakes and my personal/spiritual relationship with many pagan gods who hold snakes as their animal guardian/representative.

The inclusion of such a different sign throws the rest of the zodiacal progression completely out of whack. People who would traditionally be designated as Cancer become Gemini. Those as Leo become Cancer, etc. It also would throw the elemental correlations completely out of whack. The traditional 12 signs break down neatly into three signs for each of fire, water, earth and air. Adding one more to this throws this system into chaos. How could this be resolved?

Some points of interest are that there are 13 moons in a year and the Celtic zodiacal system follows a 13-sign calendar, though the number of days in each is not evenly split. The sign of the Holly is only held during the three days surrounding the winter solstice and these individuals are held to have special abilities of divination.

So, any closet astrologers out there that care to wade into the fray on this topic?

[Michael]

I didn't know where to put this thread. Perhaps we need a category dedicated to more mystical things than religion usually concerns itself?
Perhaps the title of this section ought to be "Religion, Mysticism & Moral Issues" to address this shortfall?

I will also credit Michael with drawing my attention to the possibility of a need to completely re-jig the common Western astrological system that dictates the use of 12 solar signs and 12 houses ruled by the planets. I was recently reminded of this rejigging on a pagan website and found this little article (http://www.geocities.com/astrologyconstellations/ophiuchus.htm) about the constellation Ophiuchus. Interestingly, both Michael and I would ostensibly fall into this constellation's category instead of our traditional designation as Sagittarians.

Perhaps what I find most interesting with this particular constellation is the relationship of it being that of the "snake holder" in mythology, my own fascination with snakes and my personal/spiritual relationship with many pagan gods who hold snakes as their animal guardian/representative.

The inclusion of such a different sign throws the rest of the zodiacal progression completely out of whack. People who would traditionally be designated as Cancer become Gemini. Those as Leo become Cancer, etc. It also would throw the elemental correlations completely out of whack. The traditional 12 signs break down neatly into three signs for each of fire, water, earth and air. Adding one more to this throws this system into chaos. How could this be resolved?

Some points of interest are that there are 13 moons in a year and the Celtic zodiacal system follows a 13-sign calendar, though the number of days in each is not evenly split. The sign of the Holly is only held during the three days surrounding the winter solstice and these individuals are held to have special abilities of divination.

So, any closet astrologers out there that care to wade into the fray on this topic?
I have several thoughts. On the one hand, I think the 'rational evidence' is a strong argument for the inclusion of Ophiuchus as a sign. The 13 moons of a solar year is sufficient to dispel the "13 is evil" notion. The convenient symmetry of 12 factoring into 3 and 4 is all very nice, but sometimes, the world is a messy place.

On the other hand, the only way I've ever been able to accept the principles of astrology has been by completely ignoring the irrational aspect of it all. Astrology just doesn't adhere to always rational principles and thus isn't really something that is defined by rational rules. I tend to just 'accept' the ancient notions about it and leave it at that since the existing system seems to work just fine in practice.

Heck, I'm already traumatized by the astrological implications of Pluto replacing Mars as ruler of Scorpio and the discovery of Uranus. :shrug:

To be honest, I just don't know how to approach this question. :ummm:

I suppose it is possible that a similar thing happened to astrology as happened with the Tarot - in that disinformation was purposely introduced in order to attempt to maintain the mystery. In the case of the Tarot, some designations were transposed. In astrology, perhaps one sign got omitted?

As I noted above, it is very difficult to find some ground to base an opinion/viewpoint here if rationalism is out the window. :shrug:

[Donkey]

I guess my question would be, what basis for any credence do we give any form of astrology, be it 12, 13, or 3,000 signs?

[Zarquon]

In my opinion, astrology is nothing more than infantile anthropo-centrism.
I don't have the audacity to think that the human-animal is the center of the universe or that his life is dictated by the movement of non-living and unconscious celestial bodies.
And as an Indian, i have observed the devastating effect it can have when its taken seriously, so don't call it harmless, nonsense is nonsense.

[Greendruid]

Who said that astrology is anthropocentric? What is to say that all living things are not subject to the same workings of the cosmos. If anything, your limited credence to the subject reveals the source of the anthropocentrism.

[Zarquon]

what laws of physics are crystal balls, tarot cards, plamistry, etc based upon?

[Michael]

what laws of physics are crystal balls, tarot cards, plamistry, etc based upon?
It is anthrocentric because you are using human rationalism to define the universe.

Why must the universe conform to [very modern] human rules of rationality?

[Michael]

what laws of physics are crystal balls, tarot cards, plamistry, etc based upon?

None. That's what apparently makes them interesting I suppose. :shrug:

I personally have observed that natal astrology and tarot cards are quite remarkably functional. I do not presume to claim to understand how they work, nor do I offer any mystical speculations upon that topic. But I have read the Tarot and witnessed it work, so I accept it for what it is - whatever that is.

[Donkey]

None. That's what apparently makes them interesting I suppose. :shrug:

I personally have observed that natal astrology and tarot cards are quite remarkably functional. I do not presume to claim to understand how they work, nor do I offer any mystical speculations upon that topic. But I have read the Tarot and witnessed it work, so I accept it for what it is - whatever that is.
Is there any way to study or observe this sort of thing other than relying purely on anecdotal evidence?

[Zarquon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology#Astrology_and_science
http://fisa.altervista.org/list_of_186.html
http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/u-case2.htm
How is it unreasonable to demand evidence, our modern 'rules' of science are based on observation of nature, which are consistent throughout the earth, and the known universe.
Human beings view the world through a narrow prism of their senses, and what all can be verified and observed about the world through them has been revealed most successfully by science, and indeed if we ever hope to 'see' the world like other species do or if we ever hope to view the world as it 'really' is, it will be through science only.

How can you call contemporary science 'narrow'? Traditional knowledge was acquired/built by human beings as well, ones more ignorant than us, how can their view be said to hold greater validity?
This is nothing more than an appeal to tradition and emotion.

If astrology has any validity, then why isn't it used by govt.s and taught in schools?
I think I'll stick to modern science rather than ancient superstition, thank you very much.

[dilettante]

...and indeed if we ever hope to 'see' the world like other species do or if we ever hope to view the world as it 'really' is, it will be through science only.

How many other species take a scientific view of the world?
:ummm:

[Michael]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology#Astrology_and_science
http://fisa.altervista.org/list_of_186.html
http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/u-case2.htm
How is it unreasonable to demand evidence, our modern 'rules' of science are based on observation of nature, which are consistent throughout the earth, and the known universe.
Because these things have been known to defy objective rules of science.

It is still anthropocentric to demand the universe conform to our human rules of rationalism. It is quite commonly done, but that doesn't change the fact that it is anthropocentric to do it.

Human beings view the world through a narrow prism of their senses, and what all can be verified and observed about the world through them has been revealed most successfully by science, and indeed if we ever hope to 'see' the world like other species do or if we ever hope to view the world as it 'really' is, it will be through science only.
Science has a formally defined "blindside". If a theory cannot be "falsified" it cannot be studied by science.

Thus, science cannot 'disprove' it. It is similar to the concept of God.

How can you call contemporary science 'narrow'? Traditional knowledge was acquired/built by human beings as well, ones more ignorant than us, how can their view be said to hold greater validity?
This is nothing more than an appeal to tradition and emotion.
I didn't call science "narrow", but I will. ;)

Science, by definition, cannot study theories that are unfalsifiable.

If astrology has any validity, then why isn't it used by govt.s and taught in schools?
It always was - right up until the Church ruled during the middle ages - that's when astrology became illegal (devil's work).

Astrology was almost official policy for ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome.

Btw, are you aware that Sir Issac Newton was the foremost expert on astrology in the 17th century?

The world is a strange place sometimes... :shrug:

I think I'll stick to modern science rather than ancient superstition, thank you very much.
That's perfectly reasonable.

Question is, why do you feel the need to prevent others from it?

(same arguments apply to God and religion).

[Michael]

Is there any way to study or observe this sort of thing other than relying purely on anecdotal evidence?
None that I'm aware of. The method of reading astrology or the Tarot (for example) are all intuitive by nature. One cannot apply a rigorous or "rules-based" system to the method of interpretation. That just doesn't work.

Indeed, the essential function of the Tarot (for example) has nothing to do with making predictions - that is only a secondary feature of the Tarot. Besides which, I've observed that the Tarot tends to make snarky comments about being studied or challenged. If you ask the question "does God exists" one gets the Priestess almost every time (meaning, the "answer is hidden").

That being said, there has been lots of empirical studies of the planetary effects upon human behavior - primarily the sun and moon. These effects can be scientifically established.

One of the strongest pieces of "evidence" is the full moon effect that can be easily observed - police and hospitals all record significant spikes in unusual crimes/injuries when the moon is full. This is documented and objective.

So we do have considerable amount of scientific evidence that all earthly creatures are affected by the movement of planetary bodies in various ways.

[Zarquon]

How many other species take a scientific view of the world?
:ummm:
I was referring to the limits of human perspective, our limited perception vision and sound; how the human model of reality is suited to survival in a 3-D jungle, whereas a rodent's would be different, how we see through vision, whereas a dolphin uses sound for seeing in an aquatic environment; how a bacteria doesn't notice gravity at all but does feel Brownian motion(reverse being true for us), of how the model of reality our brains construct, is not the complete picture.

[The Drunk Girl]

One of the strongest pieces of "evidence" is the full moon effect that can be easily observed - police and hospitals all record significant spikes in unusual crimes/injuries when the moon is full. This is documented and objective.


I can testify to that. The old people grow crazy!:lol:

Although, I do not believe in horoscopes, Tarot cards, etc. I do think that there is a connection between the moon and what happens here on Earth, such as tides.

[SMadsen]

That being said, there has been lots of empirical studies of the planetary effects upon human behavior - primarily the sun and moon. These effects can be scientifically established.

One of the strongest pieces of "evidence" is the full moon effect that can be easily observed - police and hospitals all record significant spikes in unusual crimes/injuries when the moon is full. This is documented and objective.

So we do have considerable amount of scientific evidence that all earthly creatures are affected by the movement of planetary bodies in various ways.
That's a self-affirming and self-perpetuating myth.

There's nothing to suggest that any kind of changed behavior during full moon is not a result of predispositions solely created by various superstitions and cultural traditions. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect) a fine little Wiki on it with some references.

As for astrology, just the simple fact (http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1810/18101170.htm) that a variety of astrologies have emerged, some with entirely different elements from each other, points to origins that have very little to do with any kind of empiricism.

We humans love, or rather, we need, to look for, find and recognize patterns and make correlations between the environment and events. There's nothing wrong with that. It provides us with food and safety. But sometimes we also need to call things by their proper names. And science it ain't. Not by any standard.

[Michael]

That's a self-affirming and self-perpetuating myth.
No it is in't. It was a simple answer to a simple question.

There are significant influences on planetary creatures from extra-planetary effects.

I don't presume to explain how that works, merely to observe that it exists.

There's nothing to suggest that any kind of changed behavior during full moon is not a result of predispositions solely created by various superstitions and cultural traditions. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect) a fine little Wiki on it with some references.

As for astrology, just the simple fact (http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1810/18101170.htm) that a variety of astrologies have emerged, some with entirely different elements from each other, points to origins that have very little to do with any kind of empiricism.

We humans love, or rather, we need, to look for, find and recognize patterns and make correlations between the environment and events. There's nothing wrong with that. It provides us with food and safety. But sometimes we also need to call things by their proper names. And science it ain't. Not by any standard.
I do get annoyed when I'm criticized or attacked for a viewpoint I don't hold and haven't expressed - indeed, have gone out of my to deny.

Please cite where I stated A) that astrology can be scientifically proven, or B) that astrology is subject to empiricism.

As for the any 'blending' of astrological traditions, that is empirically irrelevant for the reasons that have been repeatedly stated in this thread. A) Astrology is not defined by empirical rationalism, and B) No one knows how/why this works. In short, you are using a rationalism-based argument and applying it to a process that isn't and doesn't make any claim to be rational. How can an irrational thing be foiled by a rational critique? :ummm:

Its like saying God can't possibly exist because we can't measure God with our scientific instruments.

That statement is not logically tenable.

[SMadsen]

No it is in't. It was a simple answer to a simple question.

There are significant influences on planetary creatures from extra-planetary effects.

I don't presume to explain how that works, merely to observe that it exists.
There is found no correlation between the fully lit moon and people's behavior other than mythologically and culturally ingrained memes that people should behave differently when the moon is fully lit. Thus, if people behave differently when the moon is full then it reinforces the entrenchment of myths and traditions that gave rise to it in the first place. And so on. Perpetually.

By the way, the part about the full moon is all I meant to respond to. I don't know about celestial bodies in general.

I do get annoyed when I'm criticized or attacked for a viewpoint I don't hold and haven't expressed - indeed, have gone out of my to deny.

Please cite where I stated A) that astrology can be scientifically proven, or B) that astrology is subject to empiricism.
I only meant for the full moon paragraph to be a response to your post. I thought the phrase "As to astrology .. " was sufficient to signal the beginning of something else. I'm sorry if it was not.

As for the any 'blending' of astrological traditions, that is empirically irrelevant for the reasons that have been repeatedly stated in this thread. A) Astrology is not defined by empirical rationalism, and B) No one knows how/why this works. In short, you are using a rationalism-based argument and applying it to a process that isn't and doesn't make any claim to be rational. How can an irrational thing be foiled by a rational critique? :ummm:

Its like saying God can't possibly exist because we can't measure God with our scientific instruments.

That statement is not logically tenable.
Gods are always made in our image. They are equipped with minds and wills. So when an answer to a causal correlation is claimed to be the will of a god, while the event can be a perfectly natural phenomenon, the cause is supernatural. Thus, there can't be measurements and there can't be facts for all practical purposes.

Astrologies do not enjoy the 'freedom' of divinity. They are bound by correlations between natural causes and effects. That means it can be measured and give rise to facts for all practical purposes.

However, it is indeed irrational, not because it can't be measured but because it shares the same kind of desire that drives things like conspiracy theories, crystalogy, acupuncture and zone therapy, all of which can be measured but all of which attract minds with certain needs, regardless of the facts that could be produced. So, as I pointed out, the origin and use of astrologies have very little to do with empiricism.

[SMadsen]

How many other species take a scientific view of the world?
:ummm:
Every species, the individuals, congregations or societies of which need to rely on experience. I reckon that is far the most species.

[dilettante]

Every species, the individuals, congregations or societies of which need to rely on experience. I reckon that is far the most species.

So relying on experience is all that's required to be 'scientific'? That seems rather broad. And, as has been noted, experience shows that people do in fact behave differently when the moon is full...

[Greendruid]

However, it is indeed irrational, not because it can't be measured but because it shares the same kind of desire that drives things like conspiracy theories, crystalogy, acupuncture and zone therapy, all of which can be measured but all of which attract minds with certain needs, regardless of the facts that could be produced. So, as I pointed out, the origin and use of astrologies have very little to do with empiricism.

Not to derail my own thread completely here :offtopic: but what makes you so arrogant as to believe that we can measure everything about any of the things you mentioned? Do you really believe that we have mastered the ability to measure everything in the universe or even on our own tiny planet?

[drgoodtrips]

I didn't know where to put this thread. Perhaps we need a category dedicated to more mystical things than religion usually concerns itself?

I will credit Michael with refocusing my attention on matters astrological over the [gasp] 15 years we've known each other. I had always had a passing fascination with it but the true art-form of investigating the personality traits of individuals and how those interact with others based on when and where they are born is an endlessly fascinating subject with a surprisingly high amount of use. I've never found much stock in using it to determine what your week will be like as the common snippets in newspapers engage in. However, as a tool for gauging general personality traits I find it as useful as psychology.

I will also credit Michael with drawing my attention to the possibility of a need to completely re-jig the common Western astrological system that dictates the use of 12 solar signs and 12 houses ruled by the planets. I was recently reminded of this rejigging on a pagan website and found this little article (http://www.geocities.com/astrologyconstellations/ophiuchus.htm) about the constellation Ophiuchus. Interestingly, both Michael and I would ostensibly fall into this constellation's category instead of our traditional designation as Sagittarians.

Perhaps what I find most interesting with this particular constellation is the relationship of it being that of the "snake holder" in mythology, my own fascination with snakes and my personal/spiritual relationship with many pagan gods who hold snakes as their animal guardian/representative.

The inclusion of such a different sign throws the rest of the zodiacal progression completely out of whack. People who would traditionally be designated as Cancer become Gemini. Those as Leo become Cancer, etc. It also would throw the elemental correlations completely out of whack. The traditional 12 signs break down neatly into three signs for each of fire, water, earth and air. Adding one more to this throws this system into chaos. How could this be resolved?

Some points of interest are that there are 13 moons in a year and the Celtic zodiacal system follows a 13-sign calendar, though the number of days in each is not evenly split. The sign of the Holly is only held during the three days surrounding the winter solstice and these individuals are held to have special abilities of divination.

So, any closet astrologers out there that care to wade into the fray on this topic?

If I read this correctly, you've found some alternative astrology to the 'standard' one, and you find that alternative astrology to be more accurate.

Why not just make up an astrology of your own, empirically, as you meet people?

For instance, if you meet someone born on May 1st and that person is a male who works as a plumber and is loud, you start out with "All people born in May are male plumbers that are loud." Then, if you meet a female born in May who is loud but works as a banker, you amend that to "All people born on May 1st are loud, male plumbers" and/or "All people born in May are loud."

Approaching it that way, you can ensure that you'll always be correct, and there would be no need for alternative astrologies.

[SMadsen]

Not to derail my own thread completely here :offtopic: but what makes you so arrogant as to believe that we can measure everything about any of the things you mentioned? Do you really believe that we have mastered the ability to measure everything in the universe or even on our own tiny planet?
If it's a natural phenomenon then it can be measured.

Whether or not we know how to measure it is irrelevant. Hence the past tense of 'can' in the phrase 'facts that could be produced', indicating a conditional ability to produce facts.

[SMadsen]

So relying on experience is all that's required to be 'scientific'? That seems rather broad.
You're right. My reply would fit better with the phrase 'empirical outlook' than 'scientific outlook' since we with science tend to refer to an entire philosophy that would require a silly amount of anthromorphicism to try to assign to any other species than us. I'm just used to think of science as a method rather than a philosophy. My bad.

And, as has been noted, experience shows that people do in fact behave differently when the moon is full...
No, observation shows that people do in fact behave differently when the moon is full.

There is a difference between experience and observation. The word 'experience' actually comes from a latin word meaning to test, not merely to observe. And testing is exactly what fails to explain physiological correlations in this case.