I introduce part four of the Astrology Challenge – my attempt to see if any astrologer can explain how the ancients worked out all those detailed rules astrologers use. Featured astrologer today is Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum, the Research Director of the National Council for Geocosmic Research.
Reading Greenbaum’s reply I was reminded of the phrase, “be careful what you ask for”. I’m sure her replies were genuine and meant something to her, but I have to say that even with a dictionary I couldn’t ascertain meaning from large parts of it. I have reproduced some of her reply and commented on it below, not to ridicule, but to illustrate the rather special way of thinking being employed here. She certainly makes things much more complicated than they need to be:
I sense that perhaps you have an underlying question that you have not yet fully articulated.
Er, you sense wrong, the question was actually quite simple and fully articulated. (I thought I had articulated my question pretty well, but that’s just me.)
If I may borrow a page from Aristotle, I don’t think your question has reached its final form – you have not quite linked eidos with telos. Or, to say it from a hermeneutic perspective, you are still at the literal stage in your investigations.
Eh? (Here I am reminded of the admonition, write to express not to impress. Again maybe that’s just me.)
In fact, I (and many others in fields from mythology to fiction) would take issue with your assertion that the imagined is “highly unlikely” to be ‘right’ or ‘true.’
Aha, I finally understood something. She believes the stuff the ancients just made up, could be true.
As I’m sure you are aware, even science would now acknowledge that there are other paradigms than the scientific one; even science recognizes that it is no longer the sole custodian of truth, as post modernity impacts on all epistemological levels.
But what other methods are as consistent and reliable as science, for revealing the truth? Anybody? (Sound of crickets.)
…suggest a paradigm which requires a totally different set of questions to be asked about astrology and the nature of reality itself.
Translation – your questions should be designed so as not to require evidence in support of the answers.
Reading Greenbaum’s reply I realize that some people will never be persuaded by any kind of reasoned thought. It’s depressing, but instructive.
I realize this dismissal of Greenbaum’s reply is a little one-sided. I could have replied to her, questioning and debating each point and getting her responses, and then I would perhaps have had more of her side of the story. But my purpose was not to badger these people – I provided a link to this blog where she could leave comments if she wished. Clearly she doesn’t wish to. I was honest about my question to her, and I gave her the opportunity to answer it any way she wished. That was, I believe, her best shot. I don’t think I need to comment further.
Tomorrow I will give you a brief look at the reading lists the astrologers gave me.