It's always a fun(ish) read when the skeptics come out to play on an astrology forum. I came across an example of this in an exchange at Skyscript -"Comments by a skeptic", posts between 31 October and November 16, after which the moderator had locked the thread to avoid further argumentative input.
I do understand, but disagree with the argument skeptics drag out, on a regular basis, proposing that what astrologers and tarot readers deal with (illustrations on a deck of cards, and positions of Sun, Moon and planets in the sky) can be interpreted in so many different ways, therefore interpretations must be suspect. There is some latitude, for sure, but it's not that wide a latitude.
Each tarot card has a fairly narrow scope of interpretation, as has each planet and zodiac sign. In tarot the reader is strictly bound by the cards drawn, and for my taste, the fewer cards the better - it cuts out that accusation of too many potential interpretations of a larger spread. Three cards offer pretty strict boundaries, context has to depend on the question posed.
In astrology the same applies. There is some latitude, but not much. Neptune, for instance, does not indicate anything connected to violence. Mars cannot be said to indicate art. Mercury isn't an indicator of physical energy, etc. The zodiac signs do have a variety of keywords, but all of related "flavour".
The full natal chart has so many possibilities of combinations that, yes, interpretation can get a little confusing, but each individual part of the chart has very limited interpretation. Again, if astrological interpretation is restricted to absolute basics, it's easier to see astrology working, without peripheral stuff to interfere, and play into the skeptics' arguments.
Always, always, astrology depends on the movement and cycles of the planets, with data from an ephemeris - which is not arbitrary or interchangeable with anything, it's a rock solid basis. Stuff simply cannot be made up to suit the occasion.
For me, this particular type of argument against astrology, and tarot, fails miserably.
I do understand, but disagree with the argument skeptics drag out, on a regular basis, proposing that what astrologers and tarot readers deal with (illustrations on a deck of cards, and positions of Sun, Moon and planets in the sky) can be interpreted in so many different ways, therefore interpretations must be suspect. There is some latitude, for sure, but it's not that wide a latitude.
Each tarot card has a fairly narrow scope of interpretation, as has each planet and zodiac sign. In tarot the reader is strictly bound by the cards drawn, and for my taste, the fewer cards the better - it cuts out that accusation of too many potential interpretations of a larger spread. Three cards offer pretty strict boundaries, context has to depend on the question posed.
In astrology the same applies. There is some latitude, but not much. Neptune, for instance, does not indicate anything connected to violence. Mars cannot be said to indicate art. Mercury isn't an indicator of physical energy, etc. The zodiac signs do have a variety of keywords, but all of related "flavour".
The full natal chart has so many possibilities of combinations that, yes, interpretation can get a little confusing, but each individual part of the chart has very limited interpretation. Again, if astrological interpretation is restricted to absolute basics, it's easier to see astrology working, without peripheral stuff to interfere, and play into the skeptics' arguments.
Always, always, astrology depends on the movement and cycles of the planets, with data from an ephemeris - which is not arbitrary or interchangeable with anything, it's a rock solid basis. Stuff simply cannot be made up to suit the occasion.
For me, this particular type of argument against astrology, and tarot, fails miserably.
2 comments:
Hi,
I know you do an artsy thang on Fridays and was wondering if you would consider looking at the chart of Edward Steichen sometime.
There's a show of 200 of his celeb and fashion photos in Toronto Canada right now and it got me wondering about his 'stars'.
Enjoy your meanderings.
Thanx,
Hi Anon - Yes, I'd be glad to.
I have a post already in the can for tomorrow, but I'll look into Edward Steichen's details and do a post for sometime the next few days - doesn't have to be on a Friday. I'll pop it in asap. Thanks for the suggestion. :-)
Post a Comment