Astronoesis: Philosophy's Empirical Context : Astrology's Transcendental Ground

Rating:
Summary: Most substantial book yet on the basis of astrology!
Review: After reading Astronoesis, I realize that astrology will never be the same for me again -- neither will philosophy or my own life! Damiani really has created a creative synthesis by using astrology to outline philosophy and philosophy to illuminate astrology.
If there is one book you need on a lonely island, Astronoesis is the one book. It bears re-reading many, many times -- because each time something new becomes illumined and clear.
It's worth every single dollar both for its great content and also for a superb design and layout in a nice hardcover.

Rating:
Summary: Most substantial book yet on the basis of astrology!
Review: This book is an incredibly ambitious piece of work. But I kept falling asleep during it, probably because neo-platonism doesn't quite resonate for me. The metaphysics are just a bit too elaborate for my zen-ish tastes. One of these days I'll get back to it and give it what it deserves in terms of attention, but not anytime soon. I've been doing astrology for 32 years, and generally don't shy away from the intellectually demanding bits. This one was just too rarified for me. Call me stupid, graduate degrees aside. If you get my drift...

Rating:
Summary: Don't mind me - my brain cells seem to have deteriorated
Review: This book is an incredibly ambitious piece of work. But I kept falling asleep during it, probably because neo-platonism doesn't quite resonate for me. The metaphysics are just a bit too elaborate for my zen-ish tastes. One of these days I'll get back to it and give it what it deserves in terms of attention, but not anytime soon. I've been doing astrology for 32 years, and generally don't shy away from the intellectually demanding bits. This one was just too rarified for me. Call me stupid, graduate degrees aside. If you get my drift...

Rating:
Summary: Obscure
Review: This book is difficult reading. It is not particularly well written and is often dense and obscure. Though I'm no expert on Plotinus, I'm not sure that Damiani is accurate in his reading of that ancient philosopher. For example, let me quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Neo-Platonism:
"Plotinus argued that since the individual soul is one with the All-Soul, it is in essence a co-creator of the Cosmos, and therefore not really subject to the laws governing the Cosmos -- for the soul is the source and agent of those laws! Therefore, a belief in astrology was, for Plotinus, absurd, since if the soul turned to beings dependent upon its own law -- i.e., the stars and planets -- in order to know itself, then it would only end up knowing aspects of its own act, and would never return to itself in full self-consciousness. Furthermore, as we have seen, Plotinian salvation was instantly available to the soul, if only it would turn its mind to "essential being"; because of this, Plotinus saw no reason to bring the stars and planets into the picture."
It would appear then that Plotinus saw no need for astrology as an essential part of his philosophy, yet Damiani cites Plotinus as the source of his ideas on how to explain astrology in his own philosophy. It turns out that it was Porphyry who took the ideas of Plotinus and returned to the study of astrology. Maybe Damiani meant to say he was grounding himself in Porphyry and not in Plotinus?
In any case, I will continue to struggle with this book to see if I can make more sense of it. Given its obscurity and level of difficulty, I cannot recommend it for the average astrologer.

Rating:
Summary: Obscure
Review: This book is difficult reading. It is not particularly well written and is often dense and obscure. Though I'm no expert on Plotinus, I'm not sure that Damiani is accurate in his reading of that ancient philosopher. For example, let me quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Neo-Platonism:
"Plotinus argued that since the individual soul is one with the All-Soul, it is in essence a co-creator of the Cosmos, and therefore not really subject to the laws governing the Cosmos -- for the soul is the source and agent of those laws! Therefore, a belief in astrology was, for Plotinus, absurd, since if the soul turned to beings dependent upon its own law -- i.e., the stars and planets -- in order to know itself, then it would only end up knowing aspects of its own act, and would never return to itself in full self-consciousness. Furthermore, as we have seen, Plotinian salvation was instantly available to the soul, if only it would turn its mind to "essential being"; because of this, Plotinus saw no reason to bring the stars and planets into the picture."
It would appear then that Plotinus saw no need for astrology as an essential part of his philosophy, yet Damiani cites Plotinus as the source of his ideas on how to explain astrology in his own philosophy. It turns out that it was Porphyry who took the ideas of Plotinus and returned to the study of astrology. Maybe Damiani meant to say he was grounding himself in Porphyry and not in Plotinus?
In any case, I will continue to struggle with this book to see if I can make more sense of it. Given its obscurity and level of difficulty, I cannot recommend it for the average astrologer.