 |
Ben Dykes's Medieval Astrology
Practicing and Translating Medieval Astrology
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bendykes
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 17
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Glenn Perry's attack on traditional astrology |
 |
|
I’m sure many readers of this blog are NCGR members, and have read Glenn Perry’s really awful, smug, error-ridden, and mean “critique” of traditional astrology. I put “critique” in scare quotes because any knowledgeable person reading the article will know that Perry knows almost nothing about traditional astrology. Anyway, the purpose of this post is to point you to Chris Brennan’s response to Perry on his Apotelesmatics blog. I am working on my own response, which should be up in a few days.
Ordinarily I would not put much effort into responding to a modern critic of traditional methods, but Perry’s article stands out for its length (18 pages), prominence (NCGR), and ability to confuse uninformed readers with its numerous errors and slurs. All traditional astrologers who care about our Art and appreciate the recent upsurge of interest in it, should take a close look at it and use this as an opportunity to make our case for traditional methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ken Johnson
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Santa Fe, NM
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Ben!
Mr. Perry's latest diatribe is not surprising. He has always been foremost among those who would make astrology a mere subsidiary of psychotherapy.
He seems to envision astrology as something of an orphan stepchild, running to catch up with her Big Daddy Psychology but still dragging her smelly garment of folk magic behind her.
I remember James Hillman writing (though I don't have the exact quote) that the term "psychology," as currently used to describe the study of the human soul, was first used by the Protestant reformer Melanchthon, who (according to Holden's entry on him) was an avid student of astrology.
Before Mr. Perry waxes too eloquent about relegating us to the status of third-rate therapists, he may wish to pause and remember that horoscopic astrology was already 1700 years old when an astrologer first coined the term "psychology."
Once again, Ben, much thanks to you -- and to Chris Brennan as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bendykes
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ken,
In a couple of days (maybe by Friday night) I will post my response, which will be rather lengthy. But I wanted to mention that your mention of a Big Daddy will be relevant in my response, as I think Perry himself has some Mommy-Daddy issues too--in ways I don't think he realizes.
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bonnie
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 2
Location: Colorado, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| At every astrology conference I've attended where Glenn Perry was present, he actually seemed to be an embedded debunker; he appears to see astrology strictly as a psychological model, and fights tooth and nail against any suggestion that it might be something more. I've also gotten the idea that the primary reason he persists in seeking leadership roles within astrological organizations is so that he can police and corral the membership into his own circumscribed ways of thinking about astrology, thereby helping to save the world from a medieval plague. I agree with you, Ben -- issues! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Johnson
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Santa Fe, NM
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bonnie is absolutely right. I all too vividly remember Glenn's contribution (wince) as the self-styled mentor of the astrological ethics committee at ISAR of 2000. He kept pounding the psychological pulpit to the effect that all forms of prediction should be banned forever, and that all astrologers should be required to go back to school for an MA in counseling psychology. Despite the fact that almost no one agreed with him, he refused to back down or give an inch.
This is not an astrologer, but a psychologist with a sadly misguided interest in astrology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | He seems to envision astrology as something of an orphan stepchild, running to catch up with her Big Daddy Psychology but still dragging her smelly garment of folk magic behind her. |
The truth of the matter is that our present culture has been called "the psychological society." To us psychology and humanism only seems like big things, but that is only because, in my opinion, we have misplaced the measuring stick. A husky boy seems large to his companions until he puts on his father's coat. Then he may appear merely ridiculous. If the psychological and humanistic explanations of life and death, joy and pain seem impressive to us, it is because we have forgotten or never known how much larger the ancient metaphysical explanations are. Little do we heed the prophetic words of the ancients;
«And even as they did not like to retain God [i.e. an Intelligent Designer] in their knowledge [i.e. in their science], God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;»
The fact that psychologists are trying to help people often keeps us from asking whether they really know how to help. We think it's bad manners to ask a man who is trying to help us if he really knows what he's doing. Of course, it's not just manners that prevent us from questioning psychology. It's also faith--the kind of faith that makes us believe that school teachers are doing what is best for our children. Or the kind of faith that tells you that the man in the clerical collar won't knock you down and steal your wallet. Just the same, we ought to be asking if psychologists really do know how to help. A good deal of research suggests that psychology is ineffective. And there is evidence pointing to the conclusion that psychology is actually harmful.
Already in 1952 Hans Eysenck of the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, discovered that neurotic people who do not receive therapy are just as likely to recover as those who do. He also noted in his conclusions that Psychotherapy no more effective than the simple passage of time. Additional studies by other researchers reveal similar results. Dr. Eugene Levitt of the Indiana University School of Medicine found that disturbed children who were not treated recovered at the same rate as disturbed children who were. Yet more truth is revealed in the results of the extensive Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. The researchers found that uncounseled juvenile delinquents had a lower rate of further trouble than counseled ones. Other studies have shown that untrained lay people do jsut as well as psychiatrists or clinical psychologists in treating patients. And the Rosenham studies indicated that mental hospital staff could not even tell normal people from genuinely disturbed ones. It is possible to go on with the list. It is quite a long one. But I hope this is sufficient to make the point that when psychologists rush in to help, they are not particularly successful.
Stanislav Andreski, a British sociologist, makes that point clear in comparing psychology and sociology to other professions. He notes that when a profession is based on well-established knowledge, there ought to be a connection between the number of practitioners and the results achieved:
"Thus, in a country which has an abundance of telecommunication engineers, the provision of telephonic facilities will normally be better than in a country which has only a few specialists of this kind. The levels of mortality will be lower in countries or regions where there are many doctors and nurses than in places where they are few and far between. Accounts will be more generally and efficiently kept in countries with many trained accountants than where they are scarce."
And what are the benefits produced by psychology and sociology? Professor Andreski continues:
"So, we should find that in countries, regions, institutions or sectors where the services of psychologists are widely used, families are more enduring, bonds between the spouses, siblings, parents and children stronger and warmer, relations between colleagues more harmonious, the treatment of recipients of aid better, vandals, criminals and drug addicts fewer, than in places or groups which do not avail themselves of the psychologists' skills. On this basis we could infer that the blessed country of harmony and peace is of course the United States; and that it ought to have been becoming more and more so during the last quarter of the century in step with the growth in numbers of sociologists, psychologists, and political scientists."
But this is not what has happened. On the contrary, things appear to be getting worse. Streets are unsafe. Families are in tatters. Suicide cuts off young lives. And when the psychological society attempts to deal with such problems, it often seems to make them worse. The introduction of suicide prevention centers in cities, for instance, is followed by a rise of suicide. Marriage counseling often leads to divorce. And common-sense observation tells us that the introduction of widespread public sex education has done nothing to check the increase of unwanted pregnancies, promiscuity, and venereal disease. There is evidence, rather, that such programs encourage premature sexuality with its attendant problems.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the prescription may be causing the disease.
"If we saw," writes Andreski, "that whenever a fire brigade comes, the flames become even fiercer, we might well begin to wonder what it is that they are squirting, and whether they are not by any chance pouring oil on to the fire."
My first attempts at astrology was via psychological astrology and when I left the west and travelled and worked in the other 2/3 of this world I quickly found out that its application was worth about as much as teats on a boar hog!It's worthless judgments is what turned me in the early 90's to Classical and medieval astrology because it re-acquainted me with the world of object reasoning and judgment instead of the flowery world of subjective "potential" evaluation that has 0 basis in reality!
Our transformation into a psychological society has brought with it a new set of values. They are shallow and selfish values for the most part, and they are the ruling values. But that is not the worst side of the situation. The disturbing thing is the very effective suppression of alternatives as is brought out so well in all of Perry's articles!
It is the traditional or classical belief that it is the sacred things that give meaning to the rest of life. The effect of suppressing the sacred vision has not been to make life more sunny and rational but to make it more absurd. Psychologists have a habit of reductionism, of saying "this is nothing but this." Think of behaviorism, which tells us that all behavior, no matter how worthy it may appear, is nothing but a chain of conditioned responses. Or Freudian psychology, which claims that we are nothing but a system of psychic pumps, valves, and drains. Or physiological psychology, which says that behavior is nothing but electrical impulses leaping across synapses.
Notice that in all cases, the "this" we end up with seems considerably less than the "this" we started off with. Psychological thinking is reductionist in the full sense of the word. It reduces or makes smaller. It is always in the business of ripping the curtain aside so that we may see that the Wizard [behind the curtain] is only a little man. This approach amounts to saying that there is nothing behind things, or very little.
Popular psychological astrology will often appear as a psychic liberator--an intoxicating, vine-clad Bacchus. This, I believe, is a mistake, the kind made by people who really know very little about psychology, and even less about astrology. If you are looking for new worlds to explore, you had best look beyond psychology. It has the illusion of depth, but then so do facing mirrors, and I am afraid psychology is very much like one of those hall of mirrors you find in an amusement park. You get to see different facets and reflections of yourself, but that is all you see. A hall of mirrors is in reality only a room, and sooner or later you will want to find your way out. You will want to find a door.
Classical and medieval astrology does not mix well with psychology. When you try to mix them, you often end up with a watered-down astrology instead of a astrological based psychology.
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Johnson
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Santa Fe, NM
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Steven, though I don't quite share the perception that psychology and traditional astrology can't be usefully combined. The problem arises when the moderns try to bend the rules of astrology in order to "fit" with psychology, whereas in fact it ought to be done the other way around. To regard the entire birth chart as a portrait of the internal or psychological being -- rather than the whole human person -- can only lead to a gigantic muddle.
In Ptolemy (III.18 and III.19) we find a description of the human psyche based upon a consideration of Mercury and the Moon. He calls it "Qualities of the Soul," which is a fairly acceptable synonym for "psychology." This same doctrine is followed by most later writers. Some of the Arabs, notably Abu 'Ali, include the Ascendant and its ruler as principal players. At least one Latin writer, Montulmo, develops Ptolemy's ideas at great length. The same basic concept of Moon and Mercury as indicators of psychology can also be found in early Jyotish.
[Quick historical digression: Although this concept goes back to the very beginnings of horoscopic astrology in India, the Hindu writers definitely didn't get it from Ptolemy, which suggests that there must have been at least one other early Hellenistic version, now lost to us. While early Jyotish is close to the mainstream of Hellenistic astrology, it is neither Dorothean nor Ptolemaic in character. The Tetrabiblos seems to have been unknown in India till c. 1025 CE, when al-Biruni commissioned a Sanskrit translation which he bestowed as a gift upon the notables who had hosted him during his journey to India. End of digression.]
My point is that traditional astrology already has the building blocks necessary to deal with psychological issues -- while avoiding the trap of turning the entire birth chart into an internalized psychological portrait. In its long history, astrology has seen many dominant intellectual paradigms come and go, and it has adjusted to all of them. The new dominant paradigm of psychology is just another drop in the bucket, and we can handle it -- easily.
Personally, I find the original Moon-Mercury concept of Ptolemy a bit "thin" when considering the psychological dimensions of a chart. I like to follow Abu 'Ali in adding the Ascendant and its ruler as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ken,
I wish I had the time to invest in explaining myself better. First it was not my intent to say that "psychology and traditional astrology can't be usefully combined." When I said, "Classical and medieval astrology does not mix well with psychology." I was in substance pointing to the exact same things that Ben so eloquently states in his remarks concerning Glenn Perry's assumptions! It would perhaps have been more accurate for me to say, "Classical and medieval astrology does not mix well with <modern> psychology!" Because what has in fact happened is that modern psychological "astrologers" promote is a watered down corruption of the truth! However I must impress that I did state "instead of" an astrological based psychology, which I do very much believe exists for the same reasons and philosophocal foundations that Ben has outlined in his rebuttal!
Because I have not read Glenn Perry's article, I cannot comment on it, nor can I simply comment on those who are rejoining Perry's article! However I did feel the need to speak about the feableness of modern psychology which is Perry's foundations! That I did and stand on every word I wrote! <g> Ben hits the nail squarely on the head and I can only applaud his comments and evaluation as one who has also studied the philosophers that he refers to!
Best regards,
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skar mkhan
Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I remember James Hillman writing (though I don't have the exact quote) that the term "psychology," as currently used to describe the study of the human soul, was first used by the Protestant reformer Melanchthon, who (according to Holden's entry on him) was an avid student of astrology.
|
Thanks for this Ken! I ran out to google up Melanchton and psychology:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Krstic/marulic.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martien Hermes
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ben, and readers
Big kudos to you for your fine reply.
I would like to add something to your comments on Perry's article, which to me explains the problem modern astrologers have in giving traditional astrology its due place.
I think there are three fields of knowledge – and also three fields of excellence – in astrology.
First we have astrology itself, as a worldview, stating and defining the paradigm(s) that are fundamental to its precepts, methods and techniques. It is the ‘why?’ of astrology. Basically it says the heavens are the Logos of God, either in speaking (Cosmic Soul), or in writing (the Christian view). This is knowledgebase #1.
Second we have horoscopy itself, which is applied astrology as a worldview. What is stated in the first field of knowledge, is applied and worked out in the astrological instrument, the horoscope. Methods, techniques and doctrines follow from the first field of knowledge, that explain the rationale behind the applied astrology. This is the second field. The ‘how’ of astrology, what do you do with it? This is knowledgebase #2.
The third field, which is a modern one, is consultation skills. As we find no instructions at all in ancient texts on how to deal with the people who have astrological readings, this field of expertise developed in the wake of modern astrology. It was sorely needed! Client centered astrology is of course a much needed skill in addition to being a good reader of charts. Communication skills enhance effective astrology, which itself is also a language. It also addresses ethics: ‘must you really delineate and say everything you see in a chart?’ ‘Is it wise to talk about matters of life and death in a chart to a client?’ et cetera. This field of kwnoledge can be further enhanced with therapy based on astrological findings or chartreading. This is knowledgebase #3.
Okay, now here’s the problem. I have found that many modern astrologers exchange this third body of knowledge with the first one, i.e. they confuse consultation skills, and the philosophies behind it, and the psychological dynamics of it, as being the worldview of astrology, that inspires horoscopy.
This means that ancient cosmology (of knowledgebase #1) is replaced with secular humanistic psychological themes. Cosmos becomes psyche, which is a much more narrow field of knowledge, and self-contradictory. Many a modern astrologer is annoyed with traditional astrology as it refers mostly to knowledgebase #1 and #2, while the forte of modern astrology is mainly knowledgebase #3.
Hence their confusion.
Kind regards
Martien Hermes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
