OK, here are my comments on the Rufolf Smit article, Hokulele.
My first reaction to the article was that it is rather dated – Smit wrote it in 1993, with one quote from as far back as 1982 (that’s 28 years ago!) This is in comparison to the more contemporary view given in the Tarnas video which was recorded in 2008.
In the "Argument" section, Smit quotes Kelly et al (1989) ;arguments used by astrologers to underpin their belief in astrology. Those arguments, followed by Kelly et al's comments in parentheses, are briefly as follows:.
1. Astrology has great antiquity and durability (so has murder).
2. Astrology is found in many cultures (so is belief in a flat earth).
3. Many great scholars have believed in it (many others have not).
4. Astrology is based on observation (its complexity defies observation).
5. Extraterrestrial influences exist (none are relevant to astrology).
6. Astrology has been proved by research (not true).
7. Non-astrologers are not qualified to judge (so who judges murder?).
8. Astrology is not science but art/philosophy (not a reason for belief).
9. Astrology works (the evidence suggests otherwise).
“Astrologers know most of these arguments only from hearsay and have not thoroughly thought them through.”
I think that it is hyperbole to compare astrology to murder, but agree that these arguments are all controversial. Re #9, Smit says:
"But the most important argument is the last: Astrology works! Because it is here where personal experience comes in, which for the average astrologer is a thousand times more persuasive than the results of scientific studies into astrology.”
Yes, I can see Smit’s point here and unfortunately many astrologers I meet on the internet still feel this way. I like to see them as trapped in the “astrology bubble” and that is why I think it is so important that astrologers start talking to scientists to “wake up” from this delusion of thinking that inner experience is evidence.
Under the Philosphy section, Smit says “For them, as it was for me, astrology is an ideology, a philosophy of life. And believe me, to relinguish astrology is about the same as losing one's purpose in life.”
As mentioned in the other thread, I too am going through a mental crisis in giving up my former world view.
As for my “Moment Supreme”, Smit’s description “ And lo and behold, to their unspeakable astonishment, their horoscope analysis seemed to correctly describe not only their inner being but also the circumstances in their life”
does not exactly ring true for me. I had already done an academic course in psychology before first reading a computer-generated report on my horoscope and was somewhat skeptical. Although the delineations vaguely rang true, I was quite aware of wanting it to sound right, because I just paid 7 pounds sterling (as I remember – I sent up for it from Women’s Own magazine and I think that the astrologer might have been Jonathan Cainer in his early days) and I didn’t want to feel that I had wasted money. What peeked my interest more than my “personal planets” however were the “generational” outer planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, because after reading some astrology books about them, I thought they did describe my generation quite well (Pluto in Leo) as compared to my parents generation (Pluto in Cancer). This was something which was observable and out there in reality rather than an inner subjective experience. My parents had lived through WWII and I hadn't. My generation seemed obsessed with rock music, especially playing the guitar, whereas my parents' music was more gentle, disciplined, with the lyrics have more traditional values. This was something people could see, hear, and agree on, not just a subjective impression.
To add a more general comment about why so many of my generation (I was born in the 1950s) might have been attracted to astrology - I think it was peer pressure! When I became interested in kaballah I felt quite pressured by the secrecy and intrigue of the organization running the study course. When I look back on it now I wonder why I ever put my trust in such group of people. I honestly thought that they held the secrets of the universe. People were observed and judged and told things like "you are not ready for this stage of "the work". I think Rudolf Smit might enjoy doing a critique of organizations like this which are based on a mixture of religion, the occult and Freemasonry.
I do not agree with this sentence from Smit “They feel how their lives and those of others are governed by the planets in their personal horoscopes, wherein simply everything is written -- their character, relationships, destiny, everything.”
This is a very stereotyped and prejudiced assessment of a large group of people who were interested in astrology. Only a very small percentage of people I knew believed in “destiny”. ONe useful thing that I learned from kaballah was the principle of free will – the same principle recently espoused in the book “The Secret”, along with the Law of Attraction which has been around since the Emerald Tablet days of Hermeticism. I learned how our self-consciousness plants seeds in our subconsciousness (the High Priestess of tarot, Moon in astrology) and this was not all that different from the ideas of Freud that I had learned in my "regular" academic psychology course at college.
In Smit’s “Stopwatch” section, For many astrologers, in particular for the more esoterically inclined, astrology is the embodiment of the principle that "all is one and one is all". Such astrologers feel part of a greater whole, the all. Believe me, it is a wonderful feeling. For skeptics it may be easy to dismiss this all-ness, this feeling, but then they most likely have not had that feeling.”
To me, it’s not even a feeling any more – it’s a logical, intellectual conclusion that everything is connected. We discussed this in the other thread – how what science calls systems are ultimately all connected – heat, wind, weather, oceans, butterflies flapping their wings etc.
In the Inconsistencies section, Smit says “Astrologers are masters at making persons fit their horoscopes.”
Yes, they are. You can do anything in hindsight.
In the The Home Computers section it was interesting to see that Smit had software in the 1970s which could do research. I’m therefore wondering why all astrologers haven’t got the latest version of this software which would disprove all their hypotheses about astrological prediction. Something fishy going on here.
In “Tool for Helping” Smit says “Nevertheless a small but increasing number of astrologers have accepted that astrology is not a source of factual knowledge. Instead they hold that astrology is a remarkable inspirational source for helping their fellow human beings. That is, they hold that the horoscope is a wonderful tool for promoting therapy by conversation”
We discussed this last time I was on the forum a year or so ago. Yes, astrology is attractive to many people (mostly women) as a form of therapy. It doesn’t really matter if the horoscope is correct (just as long as the astrologer does not predict anything negative). It’s mainly a stimulus for starting a conversation and letting the “client” work through issues. Some astrologers have studied psychology, and some even have counseling licenses, although the way I see it, if someone has been through the academic system to become a professional therapist, I doubt very much that they would advertise their interest in astrology. It might come up in a formal therapy session, but would never be used as a substitute for the accepted and legal protocols of professional counseling.
To sum up, I agree with Smit’s conclusion: “Nevertheless a small but increasing number of astrologers have accepted that astrology is not a source of factual knowledge. Instead they hold that astrology is a remarkable inspirational source for helping their fellow human beings. That is, they hold that the horoscope is a wonderful tool for promoting therapy by conversation”.
