An Astrology Exchange/Challenge

[Aquila]

I have a friend born on March 12. She has a degree in Arts Law, but makes most of her money these days as a Belly Dancer. I wonder what contortions an Astrologer would go through to explain her career choices.

I was born on Febuary 29. Whenever I see lists of people who share that birthday, I can never see any similarities.

The simple answer is that one's date of birth tells us very little astrologically. All it does is translate into a certain degree of a Sun sign. For example March 12 would be 22 degrees Pisces, February 29 (on years when it occurs) is 10 degree Pisces. However, the other 9 "bodies" (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) plus the newly upgraded Ceres, plus the asteroids Vesta, Pallas, Juno and Chiron will all be in different signs and aspects to both the Sun, and each other, depending on the year a person is born.

As far as career goes, some astrologers have found more correlations to the position of Saturn than the Sun sign.

 

[Zep]

E=MC² is not just a few magical sciency-sounding letters and symbols that you can misappropriate for whatever else you like. It is real, hard physics with much hard evidence to support it. Misusing it indicates, at a minimum, you don't know understand the science, and at worst, you look a total prat.

Read more here, just to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

 

[Aquila]

First of all, I will be focusing on a definition of astrology as philosophy. I do not have a problem of setting it up this way, but I think it leads to severe flaws in believing astrology is useful for anything other than definitions, certainly not as a method for determining truth.

Philosophy is kind of a catch-all term these days, as it can mean anything from a way to think about thinking (such as logic or epistemology), or a way to define one's worldview (political philosophy, ethics, or economic philosophy).

Placing astrology in the first category means that as long as you stay within the rules of astrology, it works. In other words, it is a bit of a tautology. It also means you cannot assume the conclusions are true in any larger sense. For example, the rules of logic work well in and of themselves, but they do not always lead to "truth". I can state the following:

P₁ = All dogs are brown.
P₂ = Kiko the Wonder Poodle is black.

Conclusion = Kiko the Wonder Poodle is not a dog.

Clearly the conclusion is false, but the logic is sound. The problem is with the premises. Philosophy, unlike science, does not include a mechanism for self-correction. This is why astrology as a philosophy (in the first category) may not lead to conclusions that are correct.

OK.

If you put astrology in the second category (worldview), it makes perfect sense and works perfectly well. However, it is only meaningful or true to someone who already shares that worldview. For example, liberal and conservative political philosophies are almost diametrically opposite, so there are very few people who would accept all tenets from both camps (and we have a non-astrological set of psychological terms for such people). People can change over time, moving from a more liberal to more conservative perspective, or vice versa, but they generally do not see the beliefs of one camp as being compatible with the beliefs of another. In other words, worldview philosophical tenets aren't universal.

The advantage of astrology as world-view, though, to me, is that it raises my consciousness from the limitation of affiliating with any one of the pairs of opposites that we see in non-metaphysical worldviews, for example the liberal or conservative camps. Because astrology is about (supposed) hidden Natural Laws, it is somewhat similar to science, which is about demonstrable natural laws. An example of this would be the principle of karma. No one has proven karma, but in principle it is the counterpart of Newton's second law (the one about equal and opposite reaction). And because the laws of astrology are (supposedly) universal, they free us from the sort of morality derived from culturally biased religions.

You cannot simply say that astrology is just another way of saying the same thing, particularly when it directly contradicts what is a tenet of a scientific worldview.

It only contradicts the scientific worldview by being hidden or "occult", as mentioned above, but astrology actually contains the principle of science within itself. This principle is symbolized by the planet Saturn.

So, astrology as a philosophy makes sense and is fine, but it is unrealistic to believe that it is either more likely to be true than another philosophy, and it is dangerously false to believe that conclusions based on astrological methods are true, since there is no way of testing its truth value, or correcting it if it is wrong.

(my bolding)

Agreed.

 

[Aquila]

E=MC² is not just a few magical sciency-sounding letters and symbols that you can misappropriate for whatever else you like. It is real, hard physics with much hard evidence to support it. Misusing it indicates, at a minimum, you don't know understand the science, and at worst, you look a total prat.

Please quote me in context next time Zep (nice to meet you! ) I'm not just bandying it about to pretend that I understand all the details. This thread is about astrology after all, and I was talking about the sign (Pisces), which, compared to all the other signs of the Zodiac, represents, to astrologers, the connection between the material and immaterial worlds.

Read more here, just to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

Thank you for the link.

 

[Aquila]

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

Nowhere is this more apparent than in discussion of the fine arts. Heck, read any thread on Modernism in music or the visual arts on any discussion forum on the Internet! With the value of a work of art being subjective, one cannot determine universal truths from any one medium (ignoring Keats, for the moment). Art appreciation has as much to do with cultural upbringing as any inherent aesthetics, so although certain works may have broad appeal, I do not know of any that have unanimous appeal.

I hope I didn't chose the wrong word by describing astrology as an art. It is true that astrology does have aesthetic value, like visual art, but I meant it more as a process, rather than an end result.

The process of synthesizing all the elements in a horoscope is often described as an "artistic" skill, rather than a scientific one. Science is neccessary to calculate the astronomical positions of the planets, the house cusps and all the adjustments that have to be made for precession, progressing charts etc. But it is an art to combine the visual presentation of a horoscope, which symbolizes a person's/event's "karma", or all the forces which supposedly lead up to the birth/event, with trying to figure out how these influences will manifest in real life. Firstly there are several "levels" that the planetary archetypes could manifest on. Secondly, we have to combine planets, signs and houses. Thirdly we have to synthesize how all the planets are affecting each other through trines, squares, oppositions etc. And finally, but most importantly, if it is a person's chart, we have to consider their free will.

The karma/free-will question is sometimes alluded to by the analogy of a sailboat: We cannot change the direction of the wind (karma) but we can change how we set our sails.

Although this may sound a bit outrageous, art does not hold any meaning of its own, but only the meaning read into it by the audience. This ties in nicely with statements made by Rudolf Smit in his article, and Dr. Tarnas in his interview. This does not make art useless, just not equally applicable to all situations. Artistic preferences may be based on rational considerations, emotional ones, or completely irrational ones. However, artistic preferences may be informed, but not changed. In other words, I can explain to you why I like Mahler’s Symphonies, you may be abe to understand and accept why I feel this way, but you will still change the radio station when “Titan” comes on the air.

Within astrology, there is room for several styles and tastes. We can chose from Tropical or Sidereal Zodiacs, and several different House Systems (Placidus, Equal House, Campanus, Regiomanus, Campanus). We can also chose which whether we include the outer planets, Chiron of any of the thousands of asteroids out there. We can look at only major aspects or minor ones as well. Then we can progress the chart, look at Solar Returns, transits, synastry charts, composite charts or use Uranian astrology. Everyone has their preferences.

Trying to force someone to accept your taste in art is ineffective, and possibly immoral. Taste in art is very similar to taste in food, the taste may change over time, some tastes may be acquired, but it is up to the individual to determine what they do or do not like. Some people love chocolate ice cream, some don’t care one way or the other, and some actively dislike it (poor things). Feeding them chocolate sorbet while saying, “Try this one, you will like this one!” isn’t likely to change their mind, and will most likely be seen as offensive. Drowning them in cocoa-infested confections is abusive. This is why when an astrologer appears on this board saying “Try my Tropical calculations/gelato del cioccolato!”, he or she is rarely met with broad approval.

I think the cooking metaphors end here, because the one thing that astrology does claim to be is holistic, rather than a refined chocolate sorbetty sort of concoction. I think this is why so many women are attracted to it as both therapy and sometimes medicine, despite its unscientific principles; science has gone astray and lost its holistic roots. For example, take anti-biotics. When they were first discovered they were a miracle cure, but look at what has happened now - their overuse has caused the evolution of drug-resistant super bacteria. Similarly, overuse of many drugs which were once life-savers, has now just made people lazy, so they refuse to change their eating habits and lifestyles. The artistic side of astrology (as explained above) which is really a sort of unprofessional counseling, sometimes seems much more attractive to people than scientific protocols, because astrology claims to address the :"whole" person - emotions and "spirit" included, instead of just the physical body.

So to conclude, calling astrology an art form is probably more accurate than calling it anything else, but keep that in mind when trying to convince someone of its value. Telling them once is fine, telling them repeatedly is the work of a Jackson Pollock aficionado.

The same might be said for drug adverts during prime-time TV news breaks. Most people are fed up with them and just push the mute button. So called "holistic" alternatives like astrology, and even psychics and what skeptics call woo, have, I think, become popular precisely because people feel a need for something more holistic, and artistic in their lives.

 

[Hokulele]

The advantage of astrology as world-view, though, to me, is that it raises my consciousness from the limitation of affiliating with any one of the pairs of opposites that we see in non-metaphysical worldviews, for example the liberal or conservative camps.

Sure, so do many other metaphysical worldviews. Astrology isn't special in that sense.

Because astrology is about (supposed) hidden Natural Laws, it is somewhat similar to science, which is about demonstrable natural laws. An example of this would be the principle of karma. No one has proven karma, but in principle it is the counterpart of Newton's second law (the one about equal and opposite reaction). And because the laws of astrology are (supposedly) universal, they free us from the sort of morality derived from culturally biased religions.

Astrology is not at all similar to science. I and others have pointed out those differences repeatedly. For one, since astrology is untestable, it is unfalsifiable, and by Popper's standards, it is not like science. By stating that karma is "in principle" the "counterpart of Newton's second law", you are falling into the error of the law of correspondence that JoeTheJuggler mentioned earlier.

If there were universal laws of astrology, everyone would agree upon what they are (much like everyone agrees that the law of gravity means "what goes up, must come down"). Since it appears that very few people agree on what they are, or even on their very existence, Dr. Tarnas included, how can these be laws?

It only contradicts the scientific worldview by being hidden or "occult", as mentioned above, but astrology actually contains the principle of science within itself. This principle is symbolized by the planet Saturn.

No, astrology uses "sciencey" language, it does not and cannot contain the "principle of science itself", as the main principle of science is the fact that it is not subject to interpretation. As I have shown with a quote from the Tarnas interview, he claims that astrology must be subject to interpretation. In addition, as I explained, science inherently is self-correcting. Astrology is not. You agreed with this yourself.

(my bolding)

Agreed.

Much like Dr. Tarnas' embracing of the Gauquelin data, in spite of his claim that astrology is untestable, you are trying to have it both ways by acting as if astrology is a philosophy, but yet still can make claims outside of the philosophical realm. Hence my earlier suggestion to "Stop doing that."

 

[Zep]

Please quote me in context next time Zep (nice to meet you! ) I'm not just bandying it about to pretend that I understand all the details. This thread is about astrology after all, and I was talking about the sign (Pisces), which, compared to all the other signs of the Zodiac, represents, to astrologers, the connection between the material and immaterial worlds.

If you don't understand what you are referring to, please don't even try to pretend it is useful for your own astrological / philosophical purposes. That is likely to give you an instant one-way trip to Pratville in Ignore County.

I was referring to this:

The two fishes of the astrological Pisces glyph are connected but swimming in opposite directions and symbolize the "spiritual"/immaterial world and the material world, both contained within the "water" consciousness. I see a striking analogy to E=mc2. Just substitute light for one fish, matter for the other, and Energy for the water.

 

[dafydd]

Please quote me in context next time Zep (nice to meet you! ) I'm not just bandying it about to pretend that I understand all the details. This thread is about astrology after all, and I was talking about the sign (Pisces), which, compared to all the other signs of the Zodiac, represents, to astrologers, the connection between the material and immaterial worlds.



Thank you for the link.

Which immaterial worlds? I have no idea what you mean.You're backsliding into woo again,I thought we had convinced you that astrology is bunk.Pisces can mean what it likes to astrologers,there is still no connection with reality.

 

[Garrette]

...but I'm not surprised that astrologers, who tend to be more artistically inclined than interested in statistics,

I have come to despise this sort of statement that is both empty and undeservedly braggadocious. While it is certainly not true of all, it is in my own extensive experience quite true of most, that true astrology believers adopt only the trappings of artfulness as opposed to its substance. They reject statistics, math, and science yet reject art just as firmly. The difference is that they acknowledge their rejection of science while claiming to embrace art. In truth, they know little of art, have not studied its history or forms beyond a few chapter headings and shallow web pages, and think if they say "I feel..." and nod toward some unnamed mysterious beyond that they are artful. It is, to me, just as saddening and maddening as watching dowsers claim they are gold miners.

Conversely, many--though of course not all--statisticians, scientists, and the like, are quite conversant in art. They may not share likes and dislikes but they can engage in intelligent discourse upon it.

A believer in astrology may be a truly educated, informed, and insightful person, but that will be in spite of the belief and not because of it, and while I have no science to back it up (which I willingly admit), I would wager a fair sum that any reliable science would demonstrate the opposite of what Aquila expects. Die hard astrology believers know, on average, far less of art than die hard astrology debunkers.

 

[Aquila]

Which immaterial worlds?

Ideas, imagination, thoughts.

 

[dafydd]

Ideas, imagination, thoughts.

I refuse to believe that the planets and stars have any direct influence,thinking about them will affect your thoughts but that's it.

 

[malbui]

Ideas, imagination, thoughts.

I'm happy to accept that astrologers tend to have active imaginations as making up all that old garbage for centuries isn't easy. I tried writing a satirical horoscope for a student paper back in the day and ran out of inspiration after about four months.

 

[Aquila]

If there were universal laws of astrology, everyone would agree upon what they are (much like everyone agrees that the law of gravity means "what goes up, must come down"). Since it appears that very few people agree on what they are, or even on their very existence, Dr. Tarnas included, how can these be laws?

Before we go any further, I'd like to clarify that when I say astrology, I am really talking about what is known as "esoteric" astrology, which in turn is based on kaballah, which supposedly is a "map" of consciousness. And consciousness contains everything - it is the universe/"God", time, space, nothingness, eternity, thoughts, memories, the physical world.

I know that different cultures have different mystical beliefs, but within the mystical belief known as kaballah, there are definite principles represented by the spheres on the Tree Of Life, which correspond to the "planets" (bodies) of astrology, and secondary modes of expression for those principles, represented by the signs of the Zodiac. Together, these describe how our consciousness works, and have done for thousands of years. The subconsious mind, for example was understood way before Freud "discovered" it a hundred years or so years ago, and the mental processes of concentration, discrimination, analysis, etc. were all described by the planets and signs.

Not every astrologer has studied the kaballah, or the tarot, which is a synthesis of these principles, put into picture form, and formulated in the 1200s. But most astrologers, if they have studied any occult sources of the subject, give the same associations to specific planets or signs. For example, Mercury is the planet of the intellect, and the signs that it rules, Gemini and Virgo, are highly mental signs. The difference between them is that Gemini rules discrimintion, whereas Virgo rules analysis. I don't think that anyone could confuse Venus and Mars or Jupiter and Saturn - although it's unfortunate that Tarnas didn't describe them very well in the video. As mentioned before, I would have described their symbolism more distinctly.

No, astrology uses "sciencey" language, it does not and cannot contain the "principle of science itself", as the main principle of science is the fact that it is not subject to interpretation...

Maybe I'm not explaining it properly. On the Tree Of Life, there are 3 pillars - a right or pillar of mercy, a left pillar of severity, and a central pillar of mildness. The right hand pillar is the "immaterial" world of light, inspiration, desires, and BELIEF and the left hand pillar is matter, justice and intellect. The scientific method uses our intellects to observe the material world and form theories about laws. It has nothing to do with belief, or personal desires. Scientists might be inspired with certain ideas, but the actual process of science is very much to do with this left hand pillar, which is topped by the sphere represented by Saturn.

Ask any astrologer which planet most represents your sentence "science....is not subject to interpretation" - it's Saturn. The rings around Saturn, by some sychronistic law of nature, represent this limitation of science to strict justice. The language of (esoteric) astrology is not trying to be "better" than science (if that is your concern), it is just, as a philosophy, assigning science to its place in the larger picture.

Much like Dr. Tarnas' embracing of the Gauquelin data, in spite of his claim that astrology is untestable, you are trying to have it both ways by acting as if astrology is a philosophy, but yet still can make claims outside of the philosophical realm. Hence my earlier suggestion to "Stop doing that."

OK, I've stopped!

 

[Zep]

Someone summed it up neatly for me ages ago: Astrology is as real as anything in Disney comic books and movies. People who give it any credence at all have the same level of belief that Mickey Mouse is a real rodent who is black-and-white and 6ft tall, and ducks wear waistcoats and sailor-suits and squawk in English. And if you think that's right silly, Aquila, look to your own...

 

[Aquila]

.but I'm not surprised that astrologers, who tend to be more artistically inclined than interested in statistics,

I have come to despise this sort of statement that is both empty and undeservedly braggadocious.

Sorry, I didin't mean it at all braggadociously. It's just an observation from the astrologers that I know, who just do not have the education in mathematics to do statistics.

 

[Zep]

Aquila, trying to justify your own "philosophy" using other philosophical paradigms that have already been shown to be useless must surely be the height of silliness. And then using this unjustified philosophy to try to re-establish those useless paradigms on which it is based is...bonkers, frankly.

You are not so much enjoying your hobby as suffering from it.

 

[Hokulele]

Before we go any further, I'd like to clarify that when I say astrology, I am really talking about what is known as "esoteric" astrology, which in turn is based on kaballah, which supposedly is a "map" of consciousness. And consciousness contains everything - it is the universe/"God", time, space, nothingness, eternity, thoughts, memories, the physical world.

OK.

I know that different cultures have different mystical beliefs, but within the mystical belief known as kaballah, there are definite principles represented by the spheres on the Tree Of Life, which correspond to the "planets" (bodies) of astrology, and secondary modes of expression for those principles, represented by the signs of the Zodiac.

OK.

Together, these describe how our consciousness works, and have done for thousands of years.

Really? Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or is it more confirmation bias and wishful thinking? See, once again you are trying to make scientific claims based on non-scientific principles.

The subconsious mind, for example was understood way before Freud "discovered" it a hundred years or so years ago, and the mental processes of concentration, discrimination, analysis, etc. were all described by the planets and signs.

They were also described other ways that did not require interpretation or fudging timelines.

Not every astrologer has studied the kaballah, or the tarot, which is a synthesis of these principles, put into picture form, and formulated in the 1200s. But most astrologers, if they have studied any occult sources of the subject, give the same associations to specific planets or signs. For example, Mercury is the planet of the intellect, and the signs that it rules, Gemini and Virgo, are highly mental signs. The difference between them is that Gemini rules discrimintion, whereas Virgo rules analysis. I don't think that anyone could confuse Venus and Mars or Jupiter and Saturn - although it's unfortunate that Tarnas didn't describe them very well in the video. As mentioned before, I would have described their symbolism more distinctly.

Again, this is only true for the branches you have claimed to study and for only one or two occult sources. If you look outside to other cultures, there are different meanings for the planets. Heck, half of the cultures outside of the Arabic sphere of influence have completely different groupings/meanings to the stars. Once again, you are assuming that the meaning you assign to the planets are the "true" meanings. If you grew up believing that red was associated with blood, and blood is associated with life (rather than war, conflict, or death), you may have assigned a verry different meaning to Mars and its influence. These are simply cultural overlays that do not mean the same thing to everyone. (Have some chocolate frozen yogurt! Really, you will love it!)

Maybe I'm not explaining it properly. On the Tree Of Life, there are 3 pillars - a right or pillar of mercy, a left pillar of severity, and a central pillar of mildness. The right hand pillar is the "immaterial" world of light, inspiration, desires, and BELIEF and the left hand pillar is matter, justice and intellect. The scientific method uses our intellects to observe the material world and form theories about laws. It has nothing to do with belief, or personal desires. Scientists might be inspired with certain ideas, but the actual process of science is very much to do with this left hand pillar, which is topped by the sphere represented by Saturn.

Why is it topped by Saturn? As far as I can tell, it is because someone lost in the mists of time said it was, and every work that built on what that one someone said happens to agree (tautology).

Ask any astrologer which planet most represents your sentence "science....is not subject to interpretation" - it's Saturn. The rings around Saturn, by some sychronistic law of nature, represent this limitation of science to strict justice. The language of (esoteric) astrology is not trying to be "better" than science (if that is your concern), it is just, as a philosophy, assigning science to its place in the larger picture.

And, as a philosophy, it is unable to have its premises tested, so you have no real idea if this is what it really means, or if this is simply what one person thought it meant, and everyone else in your branch of astrology has accepted that. It is no more accurate than stating that all dogs are brown, and everything else follows from that.

OK, I've stopped!

So you have said before, but you are still doing it. Pardon me if I remain skeptical of this.

 

[Pixel42]

Not every astrologer has studied the kaballah, or the tarot, which is a synthesis of these principles, put into picture form, and formulated in the 1200s.

http://www.skepdic.com/tarot.html

The modern tarot deck has been traced back to 15th-century Italy and a trick-taking game called "triumphs" (tarots in French; Decker 1996). [...]

The oldest playing cards date back to 10th-century China, but the four suits of tarot and modern playing cards probably originated with a 14th-century Muslim deck (Decker).

 

[dafydd]

Aquila,you have mentioned karma a couple of times.I have never seen any evidence of the existence of karma,do you have any?

 

[dafydd]

. But most astrologers, if they have studied any occult sources of the subject, give the same associations to specific planets or signs. For example, Mercury is the planet of the intellect, and the signs that it rules, Gemini and Virgo, are highly mental signs.

The occult only exists in deluded imaginations,and Mercury is a lump of rock orbiting the sun,it has bugger all to do with intellect.You said you were going to stop.