Excellent! Thank you for writing this all out, and don't apologize for being long-winded, I very much enjoy reading things like this.
Reflecting upon this, I'm starting to wonder if there's something weirder going on than astrology being a point somewhere in the middle of an objective↔subjective continuum... If astrology weren't strictly objective, then what do we make of Gauquelin's findings? But, on the other hand, if astrology weren't strictly subjective, then how could one get meaningful results from using conflicting house systems? (Or, further, how can one reconcile the fact that the Mars effect is strongest in the cadent IX and XII houses, where generations of astrologers have found planetary effects to be weakest?)
So I'm wondering if astrology is, at once, both objective and subjective; that is, not a point somewhere between the two, but somehow encompassing the entire continuum. What would that mean? What would that imply? I'm not sure! (In fact, I'm not even sure if I'm not just twisting myself in a rhetorical knot, here. I'll have to think it through for a while.)
Still, your point is taken. I see you have by now posted the longer piece you mentioned on your blog, and I'll take a look as time permits!
no subject
Reflecting upon this, I'm starting to wonder if there's something weirder going on than astrology being a point somewhere in the middle of an objective↔subjective continuum... If astrology weren't strictly objective, then what do we make of Gauquelin's findings? But, on the other hand, if astrology weren't strictly subjective, then how could one get meaningful results from using conflicting house systems? (Or, further, how can one reconcile the fact that the Mars effect is strongest in the cadent IX and XII houses, where generations of astrologers have found planetary effects to be weakest?)
So I'm wondering if astrology is, at once, both objective and subjective; that is, not a point somewhere between the two, but somehow encompassing the entire continuum. What would that mean? What would that imply? I'm not sure! (In fact, I'm not even sure if I'm not just twisting myself in a rhetorical knot, here. I'll have to think it through for a while.)
Still, your point is taken. I see you have by now posted the longer piece you mentioned on your blog, and I'll take a look as time permits!