From Tyagi@HouseOfKaos.Abyss.com  Sun Feb 20 18:34:17 1994
From: Tyagi@HouseOfKaos.Abyss.com
To: ceci@lysator.liu.se
Subject: A.m Tyagi Astrology 3
Lines: 85
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 09:33:37 PST
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)

From: Tyagi Nagasiva
To: Alt.magick
Date: 9207.01
Re: Astrology


Every NATAL chart is comparable to other NATAL charts.  If you
want to begin at birth, then you can, but this will not compare well
with those charts which begin at conception.  Also, each chart is
different by virtue not only of its time but also of its LOCATION.
Minor differences are sometimes difficult to ascertain and I know very
little about how one would determine the particulars.

Twins are born very close together and so THEIR PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION
upon birth is fairly identical.  They are affected by differing influences
>from that point and so they will have different (yet similar) personalities.
This is born out by twin studies which show similarities among twins as
opposed to those who are born on the same day in different locations.
Again, I think that this is all more or less worthless when compared to
the process of self-reflection in assessing its value.


Some limitations of my understanding of astrology:

I don't know how a humanistic astrologer would explain any differences
which existed between those born in the same room at the same time
(i.e. two mothers, not twins) aside from genetics or by stating that
a natal chart is one's 'dealt hand' and what we experience and do with
ourselves in life depends upon how we play our cards.


I don't know how the particulars regarding location are worked into the chart.


'As above, so below' is definitely verifiable, though not, perhaps
in strictly materialist terms.  One would simply undertake the techniques
suggested by modern mystics and could eventually experience the unity
of the cosmos.  


If the ascendant doesn't seem right somehow and there is a possibility for 
error, alternatives are considered and minor adjustments are made based on 
other elements of the chart.

It must seem right to the person who is doing the chart in relation to both
the rest of the chart and (especially if one is doing a chart for oneself)
to one's reflections.  "Does 'Leo rising, emphasizing a money-grabbing
nature' fit for this ascetic monk?  Hmmmmm, perhaps she is substituting
material wealth for 'spiritual' wealth and this is accurate?"

Associations are not objective knowns.  Look at Tarot if you want a
better example of this.  One can use any symbol-system for a lengthy
duration and derive important reflections from it.  The tried-and-true
versions have their advantages, yet any symbol-system will work if one
is diligent.

Astrology is a discipline in which one takes what
are called 'objective facts' (the configuration of cosmologic entities)
and from this derives 'subjective facts' through a process of self-reflection.

Astrology is a symbol-system which, if you WORK WITH IT, will
provide a useful reflection of your own personality.

'Evidence' is obtained in the use just like any tool.



Astrology is a subjective science.  One could approach modern objectivist 
science and reduce it to shreds also, but this does none a service.


There are countless worldviews within which to approach
astrology which do not involve strict materialism, every one of them
viable.  Your own preference (that reflected by modern Science) is
limited and the descriptions which you have been given you dismiss
as 'unduly complex'.  What this amounts to is sticking one's head in
the sand and saying that 'the universe must be described in terms
of sand to make any sense whatsoever'.  While your own perspective
may be coherent, that doesn't make it the only model which is 'viable'
in an absolute sense.  Viability is subjectively determined.  There
is no absolute test for it.


Tyagi NagaSiva
Tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com