Hi Mr. Caigan,

Thanks for taking the trouble to address me and provide for me and
others who may be ignorant of your position with so much reference
data for examination. I'll try to minimize the irritation. That said....

> Khem Caigan:
>>>> 
>>>> Horary, electional, architectural, medical, telesmatic, musical,
>>>> magical, alchemical, daemonic astrology - the 'bones and sinews'
>>>> - the eventual and operative as opposed to the purely psychological
>>>> and speculative side of astrology - all of astrology "from the
>>>> neck down" - was committed to its deathbed and walled off by legal
>>>> strictures.
>>>> 
>>>> And there it *largely* remains to this day, still throbbing away
>>>> insistently like Poe's telltale heart.

nagasiva yronwode:
>> That generalization does not hold for folk magic, whatever ceremonial
>> magicians and those deriving their magical practices from this worthy
>> traditional milieu may find to be 'walled off'. Talismanic astrology, for
>> example, remedial magical astrology, at least, are to be found within
>> the North American occult maelstrom in my experience. I'm not an
>> astrologer, so please pardon my lack of familiarity with all these terms.

Khem Caigan:
> I say *largely*, drawing attention to the overwhelming disparity in
> numbers between those who practice Popular Astrology and those who
> practice Electional/Daemonic talismatics.

Excellent, so i am guessing you're referring to your 'telesmatic' in the above,
yet i cannot be sure because you again refer to 'Telesmatic' re Star Demons.
As i said, i'm not an astrologer, though i've studied it, and what i'd seen
called 'telesmatic' was basically psychologized gods or conceived will-
designations (servitors, etc.) employed to influence the world and serve
a particular purpose. I'm not yet sure i know what 'Telesmatic Astrology' is.

> Folk talismatics are likewise in the minority in comparison with
> the productions of Popular Astrologers,

Amongst magicians? Ok. I *have* seen professional astrologers
diagnosing and evaluating the condition of a particular client, and
then offering remedial advice, but i don't really know what you mean
by 'Popular Astrologers' yet.

> and the astrological
> preparations in Folk talismatics are nowhere near as exacting or
> complicated as those employed by Electional / Daemonic Astrologers

Here we enter the territory (Electional Astrology for example, or maybe
Horary Astrology) about which i am somewhat out of my depth. I'm
being exposed to these ideas occasionally (as with occasional
reference to the work of Christopher Warnock, but only minimally.

> (it's really a case of comparing 'apples-and-oranges'), who are
> again in the minority with regard to Folk Practitioners as well as
> Popular / Psychological Astrologers.

Ok, so I'll guess that you are *equating* Popular and Psychological
Astrologers (your terms).

> I don't consider myself a "ceremonial magician", by-the-way. ...

David Mattichak was talking about Hermetic magicians and 
Golden Dawn members.

>> One of the intellectually hobbling aspects of astrology (a discipline of
>> divination for which i have some great degree of admiration), is that
>> it has stagnated or been relegated to the status of religious dogma
>> and rather painted itself into a proverbial dustbin through doctrines
>> and mnemonics provided *static* endorsement in relation to a system
>> of observation (the natural world, astronomic) that is constantly in flux.
>> 
>> 'Standardizing' a series of constellation-related 'signs', for example,
>> along an annual temporal band when in fact by precession of the
>> equinoces this matching is gradually shifting backwards presents
>> several challenges which i hope will not be insurmountable to those
>> interested in preserving astrology as more than character analysis.
> 
> We've had this discussion before on the old Yahoo! Ritual Magic
> Discussion List to no good purpose, Nagasiva,

I'm very sorry if i have had it with you and learned nothing from your
previous exposition. I'll try to keep up here, if so.

> and the information
> below is mostly of interest to practicing astrologers <and pre-19th
> CEV ones, at that>, ... it is necessary
> to address this sort of confusion for the sake of all of the other
> non-astrologers out there besides yourself, because there are a
> number of very common misconceptions in your text above.

I'm not sure you address my primary point, which is that what you've
described uses but *is cut completely free from astronomy*. That is,
I was saying it was completely understandable why there would be
criticism, why it would be drawn, and severe, when the original
system (real astrology) makes use of the actual constellations,
but its modern version does not.

Your admission here:
> The Sign of Aries /is not/ the Constellation of Aries. Like the other
> Signs, the Sign of Aries is a 30 Degree arc along the path of the Sun.

was precisely what i was trying to get at. Thank you for your correction
if i gave the wrong impression or misspoke regarding the methodology
of astrology (as i said, i challenge that it is in FACT astrology if it isn't
actually using stars; planetology? planetoseasonomancy? You tell me!).

You have in fact confirmed what i was saying is an outstanding problem
at least of appearance in regards the discipline.

I think if you look back into my post you'll find in the text you clipped out
that i wasn't criticizing the methodology, but the impression provided by
astrologers (even by its very name) that this relates to THE STARS. The
fact that it is called "Aries" and that Aries is in fact a constellation means
something to astronomers and those who want a coherent system of
divination no matter what is being done to effect it.

Isn't it your impression (no offense intended) that this disconnect from
the constellations is a hand-waving gesture because the dogmatizing of
the methodology has led to problems of active practice? If not, please
explain for me why there ISN'T a connection retained between the
seasons and the constellations as precession affects the matching.
All that would need take place would be the precessional shift of labels
every 1200 years.

I'm sorry if i am overlooking anything in particular in the voluminous
reference set that you are providing to me. I may eventually have the
time to survey it and come to a better understanding of how astrology
is performed, and maybe by my glancing through all of this you have
given i'll glean a little more this time if i have, as you said, misunderstood.

Were you able to simply explain what i am asking about above without
intervening references i might more easily be able to at least comprehend
the argument you seek to bring to the fore when astronomers and those
who aren't so familiar with astrology consider these "anomalies".

I did in fact myself compare alchemy, so maybe that's why you mention it:
> =============
> Below are some examples that demonstrate the Elemental /
> Humoural basis of Alchemy ....

I think i also missed your point in including these. Are you saying that you
think that what was described in a literal sense as 'constructing the
Philosopher's Stone' or 'turning Lead into Gold' was or is a LITERAL process?

Are you aware of experiments conducted to confirm (and failing) alchemical
experiments? Were they all done by inept magicians, or unbelievers? I'm
taking wild stabs in the dark about your implications here. Help me out.
Since I *do* class alchemy as a type of magic but do not find astrology
qualifies please excuse my weighting on this matter with queries here.


> Once you have identified an author as a Reductionist and repaired
> their schemata by re-introducing the Complimentary Qualities that
> they have subtracted from the Four Elements, the Correspondences
> sort themselves out nicely.

Agreed that a composite symbol-system may be associated to natural
events, human experiences, etc. I would presume that others might
also be constructed which would be alternatives based on my research
so far, such that what is in use might be called 'arbitrary'.

> I don't see any evidence of pre-1800s astrological magic becoming
> stagnant or dogmatic - the handful of practitioners out there are
> an artistic and innovative bunch, and (for the most part) we are
> happy to discuss our procedures and results with others. ...

My point about that was primarily that the signs were presented,
and that they weren't revised to accord with the linkage to
constellations which had previously obtained. Do you agree that
this is what has occurred, or do you think something else took place?

Again, i apologize and won't take any more time in challenging the
expectation that scientists should accept astrological apology due
to the disparity in dividing off background stars from astrology. If
no one but me sees the problem in this, i'll chalk it up to my lack
of education as an intermediate practitioner of magic rather than
as an academic *or* an astrologer.

I even made a case that those who were part of the institutions of
learning should take a greater degree of TIME to understand what
they might find awkward or confusing. I don't think i find what you
are telling me or referring me to confusing, have run across a good
deal of it previously (amounting to an advocation for a confluence of
symbolism, but attuned to a constellatory naming-convention), and
so i'm hoping that i can make some headway in also coming to
understand why we should expect astronomers and scientists
to agree that what you are describing is best named 'astrology'. :D

Kind regards,

nagasiva yronwode, Director
Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology (YIPPIE!)
A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit
[log in to unmask]