any former astrologers here?
- Thread starter idunno
- Start date
-
- Tags
- astrologers
Spektator
Is that right?
I don't know that I'm a former astrologer, but for a year I wrote the astrology column for my University newspaper. However, the column title clearly stated that "The horoscope readings provided in this column are not necessarily accurate since the writer is just making them all up."
Is anyone here aware of the history of astrology? Why it evolved, how ancient civilizations used it as a type of "road map" of earthly life? Is anyone here aware of how astrology has transformed over the centuries, how, on one hand, it has been bastardized, its original meaning all but forgotten as other fields of human endeavor have matured and overshadowed the orginal uses to which astrology was put? Is anyone here familiar with the crop of modern 20th century astrologers who tried to re-kindle astrology? Who tried to reformulate it so a modern person could understand it?
The modern formulation of astrology is not what people think. It is not stupid newpaper horoscopes, that are simply throwbacks of a quack Medieval astrology. It is an attempt to find an holistic interpretation of a person's life. It is a symbolism to interpret the stages of growth and change through which all living things, including people, undergo: starting at conception, through birth, growth, maturation and finally death. It is a symbolism for understanding cycles and wholes. In this sense it is akin to a type of mathematical formalism.
It is not meant to be a predictive empirical thing (those who practice it as such are fools as much as those who go to astrologers for such "predictions").
Astrology is meant to be a classification system, similar to the biological classification system. Astrology is meant to be a classification system of the stages things go through in their life cycles.
Even then, I am still not sure if we need it. I think it is dispensible as a formal system, once the intent of the system is understood. Natural language itself is the better tool for describing the types of phenomena the modern astrological formalism attempts to classify.
The utility of modern astrology lies in its ability to introduce us to the ideas of cycles and wholes, and the appreciation that, by classifying things in this manner, we get a broader appreciation that all things, not just our bodies, but our minds, our cultures, and the universe itself move through these cycles of birth, growth and decay.
Understanding real astrology will enhance one's appreciation of how seemingly unrelated phenomena share a common structure. Kind of like a fractal. It will give one a more unified view of the world.
Don
The modern formulation of astrology is not what people think. It is not stupid newpaper horoscopes, that are simply throwbacks of a quack Medieval astrology. It is an attempt to find an holistic interpretation of a person's life. It is a symbolism to interpret the stages of growth and change through which all living things, including people, undergo: starting at conception, through birth, growth, maturation and finally death. It is a symbolism for understanding cycles and wholes. In this sense it is akin to a type of mathematical formalism.
It is not meant to be a predictive empirical thing (those who practice it as such are fools as much as those who go to astrologers for such "predictions").
Astrology is meant to be a classification system, similar to the biological classification system. Astrology is meant to be a classification system of the stages things go through in their life cycles.
Even then, I am still not sure if we need it. I think it is dispensible as a formal system, once the intent of the system is understood. Natural language itself is the better tool for describing the types of phenomena the modern astrological formalism attempts to classify.
The utility of modern astrology lies in its ability to introduce us to the ideas of cycles and wholes, and the appreciation that, by classifying things in this manner, we get a broader appreciation that all things, not just our bodies, but our minds, our cultures, and the universe itself move through these cycles of birth, growth and decay.
Understanding real astrology will enhance one's appreciation of how seemingly unrelated phenomena share a common structure. Kind of like a fractal. It will give one a more unified view of the world.
Don
In other words, astrology is merely the process of attaching a narrative to link two series of unrelated, random elements? I'd agree with that.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Oh well, makes a change from "quantum", I suppose.
haha, thats funny. A change from quantum.
And its interesting you would bring up the idea of "unrelated events", although the idea of astrology being a narrative is I think probably accurate.
I'm all ears if you would like to explain to me the nature of how things are related or unrelated in this thing we call "reality".
No, astrology is a point of view. Things are born, they grow, they die. Its a philosophical position that puts this notion in the center of the inductive scheme, makes it axiomatic, if you will.
It is ok to use induction, isnt it? I mean, Einstein did it. It was OK when he did it, but not when someone called "as astrologer" does it?
I would point out that these are ideas that are now gaining serious traction in cosmology, with the birth of universes (you up on brane theory?). We now talk about the birth and evolution of the elements, of stars and galaxies. These are ideas unthinkable in Hubble's time. I mean, thats why Einstein made the cosmological constant, right? To generate a model of a static unchanging universe. Hello, Einstein, that was Einstein!
Of course, the idea of the "cell cycle" has been around since the 1800s.
So, yeah, I agree that calling this philosophical postion "astrology" may be superfulous. But the point is, when you go beating up on the newspaper astrology, its like beating up a baby. So what? What have you accomplished? That act reveals no appreciation of why astrology was the first formal system of thought to evolve in human cultures. The ancient peoples had an intuitive insight that is still valid today. We are rediscovering these things in our own terms and in our own way. I would suggest that seeing the connection will make your intellect richer. And I personally get no satisfaction on beating up on stupid people. Everyone has reasons for believing what they believe, and I think it's more useful to focus on that.
haha, quantum. you guys crack me up.
Don
And its interesting you would bring up the idea of "unrelated events", although the idea of astrology being a narrative is I think probably accurate.
I'm all ears if you would like to explain to me the nature of how things are related or unrelated in this thing we call "reality".
No, astrology is a point of view. Things are born, they grow, they die. Its a philosophical position that puts this notion in the center of the inductive scheme, makes it axiomatic, if you will.
It is ok to use induction, isnt it? I mean, Einstein did it. It was OK when he did it, but not when someone called "as astrologer" does it?
I would point out that these are ideas that are now gaining serious traction in cosmology, with the birth of universes (you up on brane theory?). We now talk about the birth and evolution of the elements, of stars and galaxies. These are ideas unthinkable in Hubble's time. I mean, thats why Einstein made the cosmological constant, right? To generate a model of a static unchanging universe. Hello, Einstein, that was Einstein!
Of course, the idea of the "cell cycle" has been around since the 1800s.
So, yeah, I agree that calling this philosophical postion "astrology" may be superfulous. But the point is, when you go beating up on the newspaper astrology, its like beating up a baby. So what? What have you accomplished? That act reveals no appreciation of why astrology was the first formal system of thought to evolve in human cultures. The ancient peoples had an intuitive insight that is still valid today. We are rediscovering these things in our own terms and in our own way. I would suggest that seeing the connection will make your intellect richer. And I personally get no satisfaction on beating up on stupid people. Everyone has reasons for believing what they believe, and I think it's more useful to focus on that.
haha, quantum. you guys crack me up.
Don
So why not give it a different name? If it's so unlike the newspaper columns and your average chart/life plan thing, why not call it something else? Seems a little foolish to give a philosophy the same name as an already debunked subject.
Let me see if I understand you right: people are born, they grow, and they die. We see similar cycles in the stars. You've decided there must be a link between the two.
Is that the jist of it?
And what of the theory that astrology grew out of people watching the stars and the moon to predict changes in the seasons for harvesting, flooding, etc.?
Yeah, right, Ersby. Thats what I am saying. I really doubt we need to retain the hubris of the astrological symbolism. As our knowledge of natural phenomenon has grown, we can just describe each type of cycle in its own terms.
Well, yeah, there is a link. Just like whales and humans have a similar form, and recognizing that revealed relationships that were previously unsuspected. Likewise, if we recognize that humans (e.g. living organisms) and stars have a similar "temporal form" (for lack of a better term), then that begins to suggests relationships that we might not have previously suspected.
I mean seriously, history and time are serious issues in physics. They are very open ended at present. Recognizing that so-called "dead" matter also undergoes growth cycles is kind of significant in the context of time and irreverisibility in physics.
Your last point is what I was talking about about knowing the history of astrological thinking. You're exactly right, that is where astrology came from. It was early man's way of systematizing his experience.
Over history, it transformed here in the West into something that any intelligent person will make fun of. All I am saying is that, if you appreciate the origin of astrological thinking, you can see that those original insights about cycles, seasons, and so forth, are quite valid.
To me, its an issue of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Popular astrology is the bathwater. Knowing why humans originally did astrology is the baby.
Thats all. I just think it is respectful to give things their due. Many of our Western sciences grew from astrology. Sometimes, going back to the origin of something helps us appreciate what we have now.
thanks for the conversation.
Don
Well, yeah, there is a link. Just like whales and humans have a similar form, and recognizing that revealed relationships that were previously unsuspected. Likewise, if we recognize that humans (e.g. living organisms) and stars have a similar "temporal form" (for lack of a better term), then that begins to suggests relationships that we might not have previously suspected.
I mean seriously, history and time are serious issues in physics. They are very open ended at present. Recognizing that so-called "dead" matter also undergoes growth cycles is kind of significant in the context of time and irreverisibility in physics.
Your last point is what I was talking about about knowing the history of astrological thinking. You're exactly right, that is where astrology came from. It was early man's way of systematizing his experience.
Over history, it transformed here in the West into something that any intelligent person will make fun of. All I am saying is that, if you appreciate the origin of astrological thinking, you can see that those original insights about cycles, seasons, and so forth, are quite valid.
To me, its an issue of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Popular astrology is the bathwater. Knowing why humans originally did astrology is the baby.
Thats all. I just think it is respectful to give things their due. Many of our Western sciences grew from astrology. Sometimes, going back to the origin of something helps us appreciate what we have now.
thanks for the conversation.
Don
It seems to me that you've drawn a line in the sand and said to yourself "this is where things started". You agree that astrology grew out of weather forecasting, so why not say that many of our western sciences grew from weather forecasting? I'd say that astrology is a dead end that grew out of the need of ancient people to predict seasons/weather/etc. Just my opinion, of course.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Yes, it is important to know how things are related, but that is only half the issue. The other half is knowing how things are un-related, un-like each other. The birth of a child and the birth of a star are both beginnings, but they involve slightly different processes. In order to be able to compare the two meaningfully, you first need to know about those differences. Thus, I am not sure what good it does to emphasize the importance of the relatedness of things without equally promoting their unrelatedness. I think that on the whole, the sciences do a good job of promoting both, and so I do not see an urgent need for people to be reminded of the relatedness of things. However, I would very much like to know if you have reasons to think differently.