The Scrying Game
An Irregular Feature
This Edition brought to you by Maurice McCann
I would like to take up Garry Phillipson's invitation to comment and discuss points he raised on prediction in the previous issue of Transit.
As Garry has pointed out it is very difficult building up a collection of predictions in order to test which techniques worked best. Most astrologers are a bit shy about publishing them before the event, and with good reason.
The branch of astrology dealing mainly with prediction is horary, it's true that other branches are used, but I would like to make a few comments on horary before approaching the others.
Olivia
Barclay once wrote about the proliferation of inaccurate information in
an article in the AA Journal entitled "Zadkiel Debunked!"1
In Zadkiel's abridged version of Lilly's Christian Astrology she
checked and confirmed that he had "changed rules, invented aphorisms,
he even reverses the significators of male and female (Zadkiel page 190,
Lilly page 302) he omits much, sometimes right in the middle of a sentence
or narrative". Furthermore she wrote, "It is sad to think of horary astrologers
all over the world trying to give an honest answer without honest information".
This applies not only to horary but equally as well to all other branches
of astrology where astrologers are using wrong tools and are blithely
unaware of it.
Nevertheless,
even though Olivia Barclay pointed out this state of affairs, confusion
within horary, besides all other branches, continues today. Rules such
as the void Moon, Via Combusta, besiegement, collection and translation
of light, frustration, prohibition and refranation etc are little understood,
even by the professed experts. To the best of my knowledge there has been
next to no discussion on any of these, except perhaps the void moon, in
any of the magazines publishing horary articles. Yet this does not prevent
astrologers from claiming to make accurate predictions, contrary to what
Olivia Barclay thought about "an honest answer without honest information".
Yet this tendency to get things wrong is part of being human. People prefer to believe the myth rather than the truth. There are a number of things that modern astrologers believe concerning astrology that are unashamedly inaccurate, (Kepler's quintiles) confused, (orbs) or simply ignored because they are too difficult to learn. Isn't it amazing how many of the techniques used today are so simplistic? Why are there no complicated techniques in astrology?
As for other branches where prediction is involved, how do we know that other writers have not muddied the waters as Zadkiel did with horary? Well folks, they have! Make no mistake about it. It's up to the astrological community to do something about it now.
Also, how do we know what we are being taught today has not already been tampered with by previous authors or even by recent ones? As far as I can see none of the schools of natal astrology has attempted to do anything about this. Everything is accepted without question and then passed on to the students without explanation.
Wouldn't it make more sense to study the fundamentals of astrology first in order to check that blatant inaccuracies have been eliminated? How can we tell the barefaced inaccuracies from the accuracies if we don't know what they are? Wouldn't it be better to really understand our astrology and its techniques before attempting to make predictions? How can we predict if we don't know whether the techniques really are genuine or not?
If someone were to make a correct prediction based on incomplete information or wrong techniques, it doesn't seem to matter as far as the majority of astrologers are concerned. The apparent fact that they got the right answer would override all other considerations, they got it right - that's what's important! How they got the answer would have no bearing on the issue. If someone were to get a prediction right, or appear to get it right, then as far as the majority of astrologers is concerned that's good enough, it's seen as verifying the veracity of astrology!
I believe that Garry has made a valid point regarding some kind of "Prediction Database", but who will maintain it? It would require a team of dedicated people willing to put in the hours of checking and double-checking every feature of prediction. They would need a thorough knowledge of the techniques involved in the art of prediction, and there are not many of those around.
Personally, I believe the reason why nothing is done to clean up astrology is because nobody is really interested. Astrology is not a serious subject. In all the years I have been involved I have rarely met a serious astrologer, or any other kind of astrologer, who would go out of their way to rectify the wrongs or attempt to improve astrology's image.
Finally, my prediction for the future is that nothing will change; the sad truth is, it's business as usual.
1. The Astrological Journal. Autumn 1981. pp. 216-218. This was at a time when Christian Astrology was in the hands of the few and unavailable to the majority. Astrologers relied mainly on Zadkiel's book for what they thought was correct information.
.
Click on titles to see articles
Home***Chelsea sold to Russians by Claire Simms***Data Section by David Fisher***Birthday Blair by Claire Simms***Musings of a Yorkshire Astrologer by David Fisher***The Scrying Game An Irregular Feature This Edition brought to you by Maurice McCann ***Lilly Plaque Update by Anthony Demetris***Submissions to Transit***AA Website