Friday, May 20, 2011

Horaries about the News?

Not infrequently I get asked to horaries about topics in the news like Obama's re-election, or the outcome of a celebrity scandal.

Ok, I wouldn't like to say that this sort of horary was impossible, because Lilly used to do political horary questions. However, the problem is that unless you are personally and viscerally involved in a situation asking a horary about it lacks serious emotional punch. The further you get from a question that affects you personally and directly, the closer it gets to idle curiosity and the less "juicy" and focused the chart is.

The other problem is that with a binary question (guilty or not guilty) you can guess, get it right (?) and fool yourself in to thinking you predicted it. This is a common problem with presidential and other political election horaries. Really you need to be able to get multiple factors correctly predicted in a chart to be able to say that you nailed it.

Part of my problem, too, is that I am a professional horary astrologer. I am typically doing 2 sometimes 3 horaries a day. I find any reading exhausting because I have to really tune in on the situation and I have client who is paying for an accurate prediction. I don't do "freebies" or horaries for fun anymore than most people go into to work on Saturday and put in a few hours for their beloved boss and company for free, "just for the fun of it!"

I do get asked occasionally by the media for this sort of prediction. They like it, it's flashy, it's a topic in the headlines. From my standpoint it's a bit too dangerous because there is too much on the line. I don't feel that an astrological prediction will be judged fairly. The standard modern world view of atheistic/materialism KNOWS that astrology can't work, so an astrological prediction is judged on a much higher and more rigorous standard than say, economics, which is awful at prediction but rests on a more acceptable theoretical basis, so its errors are excused.

Plus when I make a prediction I am not only putting my own competence on the line, often to be judged unfairly, but the very efficacy of traditional astrology itself. If a particular prediction isn't 110% then not only am I fraud, but so is astrology itself.

So, I wouldn't want to say that this sort of prediction is impossible or wrong, but personally, I don't do 'em!


M.C. said...

You definitely have that right; Likewise, when we succeed in an act of Magick, obtaining the precise result desired in the specific manner desired, it is ruled out as coincidence. Yet when no immediately tangible result manifests, its "See? I told you Magick isn't real, those other 31 times it seemed to work were just coincidence"

Anonymous said...

The same is true for long range weather forecasting. I have seen astrometeorologists like Carolyn Egan, Ken Paone and Ed Ring in New Zealand have astounding success with their predictions. I just smile when the 'real' meteorologists say, 'there's really no way to know when major and storms and hurricanes will erupt and where they will make landfall'. They're wrong.
ps...I just started the Natal Renaissance Astrology Course and it looks super. I recommend it to anyone who may be considering it and still hasn't decided.

Unknown said...

This is also an excellent argument as to why we shouldn't have to (or try to) "prove" our respective arts to those who are already convinced that they're bogus. We might be more accurate than their investor, their weatherman, or their shrink, but damned if our errors don't "prove" that our successes are all lucky guesses, regardless of the proportion of one to the other.