Lindaland
  Astrology 2.0
  is there anyone else here who does NOT believe in astrology, yet actively studies it?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   is there anyone else here who does NOT believe in astrology, yet actively studies it?
woah city
Knowflake

Posts: 75
From: formerly cakes of the heart
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2009 03:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for woah city     Edit/Delete Message
maybe it's my virgo NN and saturn (hahaha i'm so funny) but i cannot quite make the leap into BELIEVING in astrology. i find about 90 some odd % of it to be accurate but i find it impossible to take EVERYTHING (natal, progressions, synastry, transits, various house systems, etc etc etc) into account, and thus, have determined that it is impossible to KNOW of its validity. it's eerie just how accurate it seems to be, but at the same time, i am constantly skeptical and try to maintain a very large mental framework AROUND astrology. what i mean by that is an open mind, beyond even what i discover which seems so accurate as to indicate its validity. i think that's the best way to learn anything, anyhow, but i seem to be always on the fence about astrology and often feel the urge to give it up. personal bias and subjective/projective thought can be so strong (and is in most people) that i wonder if anyone is even ABLE to transcend those modes of thought completely enough to be able to objectively sort through all things astrological in order to obtain real proof of its validity. know what i mean?

IP: Logged

mercuranian
Knowflake

Posts: 45
From: the 12th house
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2009 04:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mercuranian     Edit/Delete Message
as far as my natal chart goes... I have no doubts about it.

IP: Logged

MissLibra5
Knowflake

Posts: 3
From: Colorado, USA
Registered: May 2009

posted May 07, 2009 04:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for MissLibra5     Edit/Delete Message
skeptical is the best way to be. not cynical, there is a difference.

astrology has helped me learn a lot of things about myself. I view astrology as a tool to help me be more objective about myself and accept the "good" and the "bad." i do find it frustrating not to have a lot of controlled scientific studies to research but there's always the dream that one day there will be!

always question everything!

------------------
Libra*Cancer(Asc)*Leo(Moon)

i hate squares.

IP: Logged

lechien
Knowflake

Posts: 22
From: Germany
Registered: May 2009

posted May 07, 2009 06:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lechien     Edit/Delete Message
woah city, what you explain of your perspective is just like mine.

i used to refuse to believe in it, because my mother is (was) a professional astrologer and growing up with it could either make me love it or hate it. and then i thought i did not know enough of it to actually judge, so i remained neutral. i started studying it to understand the structure and see how accurate it is, and as you say, sometimes i am astonished to see how the stars can show certain aspects of our lives, and then at times not so impressed because i cannot come up with good understandings of the arrangements that applies to situations. it could be the stars, or it could be my lack of knowledge... i also enjoy coming to Lindaland and read other people's experience and how they interpret, to learn and to see how it's working and not working. curious thing.

however i watch the void course of moon closely, as my mother does, and i have found it very useful. not to let it dictate my life schedule, but i can avoid certain hours to make decisions or commit to something, and i find that i can more easily have things under control.

IP: Logged

PeaceAngel
Moderator

Posts: 377
From: peace.angel@live.com.au
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2009 07:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for PeaceAngel     Edit/Delete Message
There's a lot of different thoughts and interpretations with astrology. I think you just have to find what fits best with you. I don't agree with a lot of the interpretations that I read. And then I've read some stuff that is incredibly accurate, and not just about basic information, really personal feelings, etc. Just take what fits and works for you.

IP: Logged

comica23
Knowflake

Posts: 38
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2009 08:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for comica23     Edit/Delete Message
Well, I'm still skeptic about it when it comes to predicting everything, but I see astrology as something that helps me to achieve a better understanding of things, since its symbolism structure is based on human psychology and life.

IP: Logged

amowls*
Knowflake

Posts: 127
From: richmond va
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2009 09:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for amowls*     Edit/Delete Message
It's good to have a healthy amount of skepticism about anything.

IP: Logged

Glaucus
Knowflake

Posts: 163
From: Sacramento,California
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2009 11:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glaucus     Edit/Delete Message
I was skeptic of Astrology until June 29, 1998 after finding out my moonsign,Pisces.
I read natal astrology reports on me,and I read them to my mother to see what she thinks. She agreed that they fit me. She and I were convinced that it was cosmic form of psychology.

Astrology helped me understand myself on a deep level....especially helped me understood that I was a psychic,emotional sponge and so I tend to have feelings that I think that are mine but they are other people's. Some psychics told me before that when I am around negative people,I get their negative energy. I didn't believe them. Right in a report, it said that I am highly receptive to energy around me and that I have to avoid being around negative types.
It helped me understand that I didn't belong in the navy which was always so stressful for me. I get depressed a lot..especially when I am out to sea for no reason. I once said that bad attitudes spread like a disease. I was unlucky to be on two ships with low morale.


I have become skeptical of regular astrology in some ways.

I have changed my thinking in how I view aspects. I don't believe soft aspects are event oriented aspects. I believe that only hard aspects are event oriented aspects. I don't believe that hard aspects are necessarily challenging. I definitely don't see them as bad. However, Mars,Saturn,and the outerplanets in hard aspects can be challenging. Those are mainly the views of cosmobiologists. I prefer Cosmobiology when doing Medical Astrology,and that means that I look at hard aspects and midpoints. I don't look at houses,and I don't focus much on signs.

I want a more geometric,harmonic oriented type of Astrology. I have been influenced by Johannes Kepler who was the first to devise minor aspects and by Theodor Landscheidt who came up with golden section aspects.

I am also interested in using nodes of other objects besides the moon. Aspects to heliocentric planetary nodes were thought to be more important than aspects to the planets themselve by Grant Lewi and Carl Tobey Payne. Theodor Landscheidt pioneered the use of geocentric planetary nodes. Jeffery Wolf Green uses them in evolutionary astrology, believing that the south planetary node has to do with karmic pastlives.

I am skeptical of using tropical zodiac for people born in the southern hemisphere. I am puzzled by Australians,New Zealanders that believe in tropical zodiac Astrology. After all, tropical zodiac is northern hemisphere-based zodiac. Ptolemy adopted the tropical zodiac and comparing the zodiac signs with the seasons. He didn't know about the southern hemisphere.

I believe that using the actual constellation zodiac would be a good idea....especially for people born in southern hemisphere.

I am growing skeptical about the use of projecting stars onto the ecliptic and saying that they conjunct a planet/angle when they are not even close to being in conjunction for the stars off the ecliptic like Sirius,Fomalhaut.

I believe in the star paran system which is a star and a planet on an angle simultaneously on a certain day. I also believe in the importance of the heliacal rising and setting stars.

I believe that the tropical zodiac represents the lessons that we are here to learn on Earth

I believe the constellation zodiac represents our true selves...our connection to the stars,cosmos,and space. I feel that the more we evolve in this lifetime, the more we will identify with our constellation placements.

We don't even practice Astrology when it comes to the actual stars. We practice Planetology. The tropical zodiac is based on the seasons and not the constellations. The sidereal zodiac is based on stars, but it's not completely aligned with the constellations either because even in the sidereal zodiac system, there are 12 signs that are equal in span. There are 13 zodiac constellations that include Ophiuchus with Scorpius being very small and Virgo being the largest.


Unlike most astrologers, I don't count Pluto as a planet. I recognize it as dwarf planet. I also consider other transneptunian objects can be just as important as Pluto. I am much stronger in other transneptunian energy than Plutonian energy. I even wrote a controversial post called "Pluto Is Not THE Transformer In My Life" I am believing that astrologers have been attributing the power of the other transneptunians to Pluto. Now I am wondering if astrologers have been attributing some of Sedna's stuff to Neptune.

I believe that the discovery of the transneptunian objects is paving the way to a 21st Century Astrology.

These are the big kuiper belt objects:

Varuna was discovered in 2000
Ixion was discovered in 2001
Quaoar was discovered in 2002
Sedna was discovered in 2003
Orcus and Haumea were discovered in 2004
Eris and Makemake were discovered in 2005
2007 OR10 (codename: Snow White) discovered in 2007

As an astrologer,I have been given a hard time by skeptics of Astrology including some people that are into magick.

I have also dealt with skepticism from astrologers when it comes to asteroids and other minor planets. Astrologers can be some of the most condescending,patronizing people.

I am also bothered by the discord that is among astrologers.

I think Eris should co-rule Astrology along with Uranus. Uranus was discovered during Mercury square Eris too. I wrote all that in posts in regards to my belief that astrologers attributed Eris traits to Uranus. I even made a point that Eris is far more of a nonconformist than Uranus is because its orbit is highly eccentric and orbits well off the ecliptic into constellations that are not part of the zodiac.


I have a t-square of the following:

Moon in 3'11 Pisces in 6th
Retrograde Astrowizard(24626)in 3'14 Gemini in 9th
Skepticus(6630)in 3'10 in Sagittarius in 3rd

Transiting Lunar Nodes were in 2'54 Virgo/Pisces when I first started believing in Astrology.

as you see, the south lunar node conjuncted my Moon and the lunar nodes squared my Skepticus-Astrowizard opposition


Raymond

IP: Logged

FoxyAries
Knowflake

Posts: 21
From: Bay Area, California
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 07, 2009 02:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FoxyAries     Edit/Delete Message
I'm actually doing a very intricate research project on Astrology and its validity.
My thesis is, "Recognizing Astrology as a valid science cannot be possible unless there is research that proves it."

I am a believer, but I am open to a scientific way of thinking. I'm just open minded, period.

IP: Logged

MyVirgoMask
Knowflake

Posts: 247
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted May 07, 2009 02:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MyVirgoMask     Edit/Delete Message
I'm always skeptical. But I feel passionately about learning astrology, so I think there's always a synchronicity there as a result, all kinds of neat connecting points to keep the interest strong and keep me coming back to learn.

But I don't 'believe' in astrology.
I think in some ways it's a reflection or a mirror of parts of self, so what's there to 'believe' ?

IP: Logged

SpooL
Knowflake

Posts: 22
From: Toronto/Ottawa,Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 08, 2009 02:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpooL     Edit/Delete Message
Well I always keep an open mind on things, until my opinion is made.

I find it opens up a higher probability of what may happen. Doesn't guarantee it.

Its better to have a 80% idea of what is going to happen then not knowing.

In some cases I found that there were some placements that did the complete opposite of what they are suppose to do.

IP: Logged

lionseye***
Knowflake

Posts: 47
From: edmonton, ab. ca
Registered: May 2009

posted May 08, 2009 02:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for lionseye***     Edit/Delete Message
The thing is, there are just *so many layers* to astrology, that when one factor seems inaccurate, another factor will fit bang on, dealing with the same subject. It's not the kind of thing that you can plug everyone into a neat little hole, and I hate when novices try to do that. (although I did that myself when it was new to me)

IP: Logged

Coffee
Knowflake

Posts: 338
From: Leeds
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 08, 2009 03:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Coffee     Edit/Delete Message
Many times when I started to study, I was the same. The way I learned astrology was bad. It wasnt that it was all wrong, just so messed up with many different authorities on each different area with no "1 team" setting the standard.

If I learned astrology the normal way, I would have given it up long ago. At times it seems like people just want to give the wrong information. I imagine astrologers know more than they say, but do not show it.

Once you come to the conclusion that there is only one way to do astrology and work out what it is, you will be much better about studying. Ive got to the stage where I have my own system for doing this subject and dont need to check facts anymore. Just do it straight off.

Tested, yes. But nothing official.
Not in a place where I can say it works 100%

IP: Logged

belgz
Knowflake

Posts: 87
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 08, 2009 10:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for belgz     Edit/Delete Message
I never believe it 100 pwecent either. Some things can be very accurate but some things just dont add up. Its a hobby and its a possibility.. Thats about it!

------------------
•' •.♥♫♫´°°♫ • LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL •.♥.•♫°°´♫♫ ♥ •

•Sun• Cancer
•Moon• Gemini
•Mars• Cancer
•Mercury• Cancer
•Venus• Leo

•••Virgo Rising•••(26deg)

IP: Logged

Aya_and_baby
Knowflake

Posts: 92
From: Space (and sometimes Antwerp)
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2009 04:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Aya_and_baby     Edit/Delete Message
Hey it's good to stay sceptical about something. I study it quite actively, yet I don't take everything said about astrology lying down. I question everything, even the things I like.

Then again, "believing in" is a strong thing to say. Whether something is true or not doesn't depend on your belief in it, so I think it's perfectly okay for someone to study astrology and not believe in it.

The entire study of astrology is somewhat daunting and I myself usually only stick to natal Astrology for a guideline. I have my doubts about progressions and to a much lesser extent transits because it doesn't match with our natural ability to grow in our own personal ways; progressions suggest that we all mature at exactly the same speed. Transits are a bit more open for suggestion, but they would generally suggest the same thing because planetary orbits are roughly the same every time.

I could go on and on about the things I have trouble "believing in" in astrology, but that would mean staying here all night. One other thing I absolutely do not believe in is Vedic Astrology. This because it suggests that the stars influence us, and not only lend their names to the signs. And for a star as close as 4.9 billion lightyears away and as far as... well, eternity, I find it odd that they would be able to exert any kind of influence on our beings. It is in fact more likely that planets affect our behaviour patterns.

IP: Logged

Glaucus
Knowflake

Posts: 163
From: Sacramento,California
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2009 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glaucus     Edit/Delete Message
I have to strongly disagree with the following

"The entire study of astrology is somewhat daunting and I myself usually only stick to natal Astrology for a guideline. I have my doubts about progressions and to a much lesser extent transits because it doesn't match with our natural ability to grow in our own personal ways; progressions suggest that we all mature at exactly the same speed."

Progressions don't suggest that we all mature at exactly the same speed. I don't get that at all. Maturity comes from people choosing to learn the lessons. It comes from taking responsibility of their lives and doing what it needs to be done. Therefore, maturity has more to do with free will. Furthermore, we all have different progressions. Winona Ryder and I were born on the same day,month,and year, but we don't have all the same exact progressions. That's because she and I were born in different places at different times. Therefore, our angles and houses are different, and so we have differences in our secondary progressions. Even if she and I were exact astrological twins, that would be no guarantee that she and I would mature at the same exact rate. She or I could slowly mature because we aren't learning the lessons that are given us. Environment could also be a factor. For instance, I grew up in a very dysfunctional domestic environment and had abusive parents as well as had special education, and that affected my maturity. I read that neurodivergents do tend to be late bloomers. I am a late bloomer in almost everything.

" Transits are a bit more open for suggestion, but they would generally suggest the same thing because planetary orbits are roughly the same every time."

I have to disagree for the same reasons that I gave for transits. The same reason can be for solar arcs too.

"I could go on and on about the things I have trouble "believing in" in astrology, but that would mean staying here all night. One other thing I absolutely do not believe in is Vedic Astrology. This because it suggests that the stars influence us, and not only lend their names to the signs. And for a star as close as 4.9 billion lightyears away and as far as... well, eternity, I find it odd that they would be able to exert any kind of influence on our beings. It is in fact more likely that planets affect our behaviour patterns."


What about Western Astrologers that use ecliptic projected stars on the ecliptic? A lot of them believe that they work like a person's Mars is conjunct Sirius or a person's Venus is conjunct Regulus.

There is also the star paran system which has to do with a planet and star being on an angle (it doesn't have to be the same angle) at the same time on the day that a person was born. Also the use of heliacal rising and heliacal setting stars. Bernadette Brady uses that system. I have her program, Starlight and her 2 books on star parans. The mythology behind the constellations,stars is used to understand them.

I prefer the paran system. I don't like projecting stars onto the ecliptic because that's all based on the Sun. We would be making the stars conform to the ways of the Sun and take away from their heritage,mythology,etc.

what does distance have to do with Astrology? A lot of people believe that Astrology works because of synchronicity like Carl Jung. Also a lot of believe that Astrology works because everything is energy. Some use quantum physics to validate Astrology like Rick Levine. I agree with those concepts, especially synchronicity. It was reading about Carl Jung that got me seriously into Astrology.


you use the same arguments that skeptics of Astrology often use to invalidate

"Astrology don't work because the planets are too far too effect us...especially very distant small Pluto"


Why aren't planets in constellations not valid? I am not talking about Sidereal Zodiac either. I am talking about the actual 13 ecliptic constellations that the Sun,Moon,and planets can appear to go into.

I could argue that planets in tropical signs aren't totally valid because they are based on northern hemisphere seasons which means that people in southern hemisphere were not accounted for. I wouldn't be surprised that Australians like belgz can be skeptical of Astrology. I would too if I was born in the Southern Hemisphere.

another thing, Vedic Astrologers don't use just the sidereal zodiac signs. They also 27 nakshatras in combination with the sidereal zodiac signs. It's a lot more complexed than just the use of the sidereal zodiac sign. They also use the 9th harmonic chart as a 2nd main chart, and they also use numerous harmonic charts. They also look at charts from using the Moon as the Ascendant like Mars in 2nd house from the Moon or Saturn in 10th house from the Moon. They mainly use transits from the Moon. They also dasa systems which are transit periods based on the planets,and those are only used in Vedic Astrology.

I studied Vedic Astrology for over a year,and I have 4 books on it.


Raymond


IP: Logged

woah city
Knowflake

Posts: 75
From: formerly cakes of the heart
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2009 05:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for woah city     Edit/Delete Message
haha, i forgot about this thread! absentminded me..

well ya know, i can't help it.. and i ALMOST retract my statement. i've been studying astrology 10 years (not intensively really till the last few though) and yes, okay, it's valid. i don't know if i can EVER fully let myself believe in anything (besides love) but this last week i've been diving into progressions and synastry and transits and horary a whole lot more and there is DEFINITELY something to it. it is 'right' and 'fits' pretty much every time, and how can that not attest to its validity? weird stuff! even while remaining as skeptical and objective as possible, it JUST WORKS.

IP: Logged

Aya_and_baby
Knowflake

Posts: 92
From: Space (and sometimes Antwerp)
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2009 05:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Aya_and_baby     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
What about Western Astrologers that use ecliptic projected stars on the ecliptic? A lot of them believe that they work like a person's Mars is conjunct Sirius or a person's Venus is conjunct Regulus.

I don't. As I already said it's how I look at astrology. I avoid all and any stars at all costs. I also have my own theory about why planets inside our solar system might have an effect while stars don't. Constellations aren't 30° wide, but the signs of the zodiac are. Always. It looks more like a pattern that is invisible where constellations just happened to be somewhat in the right place in the right time.

Also constellations are a result of our - man's - natural need to find patterns in things, and mostly used as an instrument to find your way while travelling. Before that, there were no constellations. So how can man-made patterns that astronomically have absolutely nothing to do with one another ever match up to naturally formed objects circling the sun?

I also think that whatever influence we are looking for that is activated by the planets' positions, is to be looked for closer to home. It would suggest a more logical "influence" of radiation on, for example, our atmosphere which in turn could influence our minds by chemical alterations. Like the sun's rays already do.


That being said, I've always found Jung a very fascinating figure. I've studied his studies too and what I found is that he himself was absolutely convinced that there was a thing such as synchronicity, but he could not for the life of him produce any empirical evidence for its existence. So whether or not synchronicity exists is still out there for the jury to decide. There have been quantum-physical studies on synchronicity and possibly they have more chance of creating empirical evidence. But all that aside, from a purely psychological point of view, synchronicity can be easily explained by the simple actions of our brains. We pay attention to certain things, and the events surrounding it. Like meeting someone while eating a specific dinner. One of the things you "remember" is going to be more common than the general event, but you associate it with meeting that person anyway. Just think about this now; if eating a certain dinner is more common to you than meeting that person, how big is the chance that you will be eating that same dinner again when meeting that person again, or having your eye caught by the name of the dinner? Because we associate those two things together, we will pay more attention to one thing when the other event presents itself. I always had this with the number 27. I had menstrual cycles which were 27 days; my father was 27 when I was born and my mother's father was 27 when she was born. Every time I looked at a clock, it was always 27 past. This was not because the number 27 has some sort of significance to me, it's just because I paid much more attention to it... because around that time, I'd broken up with a man whose birthday was on the 27th, and I was so heartbroken about it, I wanted everything to remind me of him.

IP: Logged

Kismet*
Knowflake

Posts: 89
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2009 05:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kismet*     Edit/Delete Message
Sometimes I just want to blow it off because I actively allow it to affect my life. However, I do find that it is all too true sometimes, which is kind of fascinating. I want to not use astrology, because I feel like I could use the time for other, more important things, and that it's a waste of time. So I believe, but sort of wish I didn't. Also, I find that it makes me feel guilty because I also believe and gravitate more toward the power that faith in God has.

IP: Logged

Glaucus
Knowflake

Posts: 163
From: Sacramento,California
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2009 05:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glaucus     Edit/Delete Message
"Also constellations are a result of our - man's - natural need to find patterns in things,"

that can be said about the tropical zodiac too though

tropical zodiac is a man-made pattern. Ptolemy adopted the tropical zodiac,basing it on the seasons. That also affected the rulerships of the signs.

also the Babylonians worked with 16 signs at one time,and they changed it to 12.

it wasn't always 12


also how do you explain the personality traits that are given to the planets that are named after Roman deities. How is that people have certain traits that reflect the positions and aspects of the planets


I also think Astrology is a misnomer because it's not using the stars but only the planets. It might as well be referred to as Planetology.

Most Astrology that people use doesn't involve the actual stars.


There is no empirical evidence for Astrology though.

That's why Astrology is widely viewed as a pseudoscience.

a lot of it can be argued to be arbitrary like the signs and houses. The houses were said to be based on errors. the oldest house system is the whole sign house system.

Raymond

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2008

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a