skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Chronobiology
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SGFoxe



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Location: Chicago, IL

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:22 am    Post subject: Chronobiology Reply with quote

The clock gene has been discovered ... it goes back 700 million years ago. Basically circadian -- light/dark sensitivity. Apparently no genomic evidence discovered so far of the 28 day lunar cycle link to 28 day menstrual cycle however. But there are clocking mechanisms for lunar cycle and annual earth/sun cycle.

The distance between chronobiology & Ebertin's cosmobiology is one small step for (wo)man but a large one for humankind -- perhaps a cosmobiologist could construct a convincing presentation -- there being genomic structures that time death -- like a fatal disease kicking in at a particular time that hypothetically is triggered by a cosmic event like an eclipse aspecting the anareta (or some such)

and presto chango the amazing randi's fortune is ours!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also find these issues interesting subjects. I believe the concept of cosmobiology can be linked with astrology. Were there astrological effects before there were humans? I don't see why not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Ireland

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Were there astrological effects before there were humans? I don't see why not.


That depends on how you define astrological effects!

Did the number 12 exist before humans?

Is Mars red, or Saturn slow (before humans perceived them as such)?

Can astrology (and therefore the astrological) exist in the absence of symbol-making animals?

Can astrology be stripped of its symbols/symbolism and still be called astrology?

Is astrology about the meaning of something, or the meaning for someone?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill poses important, deep questions. For me:
1) an infinite, eternal, universal immanent macrocosm IS
2) techniques may be invented and applied by human microcosms in order to investigate/directly experience that macrocosm (of which they themselves are an intrinsic and inseperable component)
3) one technique for investigation/experiencing of the macrocosm involves celestial phenomena; it is not the only technique for such investigation, but it is one such technique
4) to communicate meaning among people using such a technique, symbols are developed; all the people (of the particular group using that technique) agree upon the meaning of the symbols they have invented regarding that investigative technique; this body of meaningful symbols regarding that technique may be passed on from one generation of such people to another
5) a common (English language) word for one such approach to investigating the macrocosm using celestial phenomena is "astrology"

The above is pretty much how I personally look at what "astrology" and its symbols are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think I could support an entirely symbolical view of astrology. It collides with the use of hard facts like ephemerides, birthtimes and -places. Un uncomfortable amalgama, like water and oil that don't mix. If astrology would only work when we humans give planets, aspects etc meaning then I would have the feeling that it all would be a self suggestion. Dealing with a troublesome situation then would work like this: "Stress is reduced when control over a situation is increased -- and if real control is not possible, an illusion of control will do. Many experiments have shown the power of this illusion", Susan Blackmore (quoted on Rudolf Smit's website)

If I summarize Bill's questions, in short my answer would be that astrology can be stripped of the meanings humans gave to planets and their positions and still could be called astrology.

Dr. Farr's 4th point reminds me of the theory of memes (in the same article just mentioned):
"Memes are any kind of information (ideas, skills, stories) that is copied from person to person. Like genes, memes are replicators, and both compete selfishly to be copied whenever they can. It is this focus on replication that gives meme theory its explanatory power. Meme theory is still new and controversial but it successfuly explains many human attributes that are otherwise difficult to explain such as our capacity for language (Blackmore 1999, 2002)."

To me this means that someone could get rid of astrology if it could be explained by memetics alone, just like someone can leave church and become an atheist. It's difficult to shake off one's culture or belief and may even affect following generations but it is possible.

To return to SGFoxe's initial post, there is thus a clock gene, something that relates us with the circadian rythm. Perhaps there might be an astrology gene that relates us and any life form with planets, the astrology meme could then be the 'filling' and different in each culture. Just compare it with a snake. The fact is that it's an animal that moves without legs and changes it's skin once in a while. This latter issue could have given to several cultures that the snake symbolises eternal life or regeneration. In Judaism/Christianity though, the snake is a bad symbol for seducing man to disobediance of God. Whatever the symbolic meaning we give to this creature and whether which one is true or none, the natural facts remain the same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, I think that Chronobiology is a branch of Astrology as Cosmobiology it is too. It doesn't really matter the name they put to the discipline, is about Astrology and Biology, both together.

Astrology is about Time, about correlations of events in time, about relationships between earth events (including mind events) and natural symmetries in the solar system environment.

It is all about synchronicity of events after all.

Sonia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Ireland

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Astrology is about Time, about correlations of events in time, about relationships between earth events (including mind events) and natural symmetries in the solar system environment.


Hi Sonia,
Here are my thoughts on the matter, for what they are worth.

It is true that astrology concerns time, or rather the experience of temporality and change. However, it is not simple to define what one means by time. Similarly, and despite this difficulty, there seems to be many different versions of 'time' (psychological time, mathematical time, space-time, 'the arrow of time', cyclic time, chronological time, etc).

As I understand it, chronobiology mainly refers to the entrainment or adaptation of living organisms to diurnal, lunar and solar rhythms of various kinds. These very rhythms are the ones used to calibrate our experience of duration, primarily because they are the most uniform and reliable recurring phenomena in the experienced environment.

Thus we are talking about clock and calendar time. These have a potentially objective universal quality, even though there are cultural variations in calendars and so on. The point is that the diurnal cycle, for example, has the same interval of duration for everyone.

On the other hand, there is the individual subjective experience of time, which is a very different matter. This includes a linear sense of duration, which can be expanded or contracted depending on one's cognitive state (bored, intensely focused on an activity, asleep, stoned, etc.). This is associated with transience, or the experience of 'time passing'.

It also includes the concept of a moment, which has no strict definition, but which we associate with the simultaneity of events in the experienced present (such as first independent breath and corresponding clock time). We also have a sense of rhythm, which relates to the recognition of pattern in the sequence of events that mark out the experience of change.

The events which are conventionally used to mark time, such as sunrise, can be given a number or quantified. So sunrise happens at the same clock time on a given day in the year at a particular place. January 27th always has the same place on the wall calendar, and each year it is identical to the next.

On the other hand, each sunrise in a given place on a particular day is actually unique, both in itself, and in how anyone might experience it. No sunrise ever repeats itself, except in the abstracted idealised form of clock time, calendar time and ephemerides.

Astrology is in my opinion not only about the experience of events 'in time', but more importantly is about unrepeatable events 'in time'. This is why astrology can never be called a science, because science only deals with repeatable phenomena, or at least places a fundamental emphasis on the criterion of reproducibility.

Chronobiology deals with repeating cycles of entrainment and adaptation, and so is quite different to astrology. Because astrology concerns qualitative experience, no two cycles are experienced the same way. You cannot repeat last year's solar return cycle. The fact that it is a cycle which will happen again next year is the least important thing about it.

Apart from anything else, astrology is not about physical planets, but about symbols derived from planets. Leaving aside the important question of where the prototypical meanings of the symbols come from, their interpretation is only possible when one takes the context into account. And the astrologer is part of the context.

All this tends to separate out astrology from the more scientific disciplines of chronobiology and cosmobiology.

The relationship between astrology and the experience of time is far more sophisticated and mysterious than any scientific or historical discipline's take on the subject. Astrologers have in a sense invented their own way of calibrating time, one which is designed to attune to qualititative and subjective aspects of the experience of change. It of course includes symbolic diurnal, lunar and solar cycles, but also those derived from the planets orbits, as well as their progressed versions which are essentially a metonymic extrapolation from the solar or lunar cycles, depending on the type of progression (one day of the cycle 'stands for' the cycle). There are even converse progressions, and other forms of directing the planets which are completely disconnected from physical celestial reality.

So I would not agree that astrology is about earthly events and natural symmetries in the solar system environment. Much of astrology is about imaginary/imaginal symmetries, whether talking about those derived from planetary cycles, or the symmetries built in to the zodiac (which itself has no physical reality). The symmetries are projected onto the heavens by humans, and are not intrinsically there, any more than Mars is intrinsically red.

In a post on another thread you mentioned that you felt it was very important to realise that astrology is not about celestial influences. I agree with you completely on that. The study of celestial influences is called astronomy, or astrophysics, or maybe geophysics, and maybe it also includes chronobiology, or is a mixture of all these. Whatever, its not called astrology, which has a completely different purpose to those other subjects.

On the other hand, the way astrologers talk about their subject is full of the language of causal influences, even from those who would also agree with your comment. It's very difficult to not slip into talking about 'the energy of Saturn', or 'the effect of Mars' or 'the influence of Mercury'.

Although this is commonly an unconscious metaphorical use of language, it is not always so. Some astrologers feel far more comfortable with the celestial mechanical model of astrology than any other. Whatever, it can be very confusing for the novice, who usually comes to astrology educated to some degree in the mechanics of the solar system, who know about gravitational planetary influences, that the moon pulls the tides, and so on. It is natural to assume that astrology must be some sort of extension of this way of looking at the influence of the heavens on earthly experience.

From this perspective, chronobiology and cosmobiology have a comforting ring to them, as they seem to be covering the same territory as astrology. This simply isn't the case, and I think it is important to distinguish between the terms, as names carry power.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the topic.

All the best (and your English is very good, by the way!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Bill,

thank you for your long and detailed post, I certainly found it very interesting.

I agree with you that we should be able to distinguish terms and differentiate disciplines in their specialized areas, as in the case of medicine, psychiatry, biological psychiatry, neuropsychiatry and neurology. These different specialties are medicine-based, and in the same way I think that chronobiology, cosmobiology and whatever similar new specialized areas with new names are in fact also astrology-based.

Let me explain you why I consider this like that... I agree that whilst chronobiology studies uniform and recurring cycles, astrology specializes more in irrepetible and unique cycles (ie. the birth chart), this is very true, however astrology is much more than that, it also studies recurring cycles and its correlations with human and social developments, see as example the big cycles of the exterior planets which are recurring in time once and again on very different and long periods through time. Each of these periods are of course irrepetible in their own quality but the recurring cycle is also a reality studied by astrologers from all times, say a Uranus-Neptune cycle as example.

Once biological clocks are synchronized to extraterrestrial environment this is astrology in whatever specialization of study or branch of astrology whatever they can call it for to properly analyze it. I think is really time for to take a step ahead in the true nature and understanding of astrology for to understand is true complexity of application and relation with many similar disciplines considered scientific today.

I consider Astrology to be a science because it is based in real and measurable facts, not only in anecdotal experience. Gauquelin et al. demonstrated it. Another completely different issue is the challenge that astrology represents to ortodox science as it is a too sophisticated, complex, individualized and subtle science that is almost impossible to measure and replicate astrological facts in a systematized way.

I put as example my natal Moon in Cancer. Scientists cannot isolate this factor alone in a systematized study (ie. statistical study) because the quality of my Moon in Cancer is combined with other factors as its house position and the aspects that it makes, all of that altering the quality of the radix Moon in this particular sign. In my case I have my natal Uranus making an exact square to my natal Moon which dramatically alters the traditional meaning of the nature of my Moon in Cancer and its overall quality.

It's because this high complexity of chart factors interconnected ones to others that current scientific methods fails to measure astrological facts. Not mention how each person reacts individually to these factors -- maybe in a long future we have a much more developed scientific methodology that can take into account the deep complexity of these combinations but even then there will always be an element of subjectivity on analysing these just as in the case of psychological testing.

But as conclusion I am of the opinion that astrology is a natural science, a rich and highly sophisticaded one outside the mechanical model of the Universe.

Thanks for exchanging your opinions,

Sonia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill wrote:

On the other hand, the way astrologers talk about their subject is full of the language of causal influences, even from those who would also agree with your comment. It's very difficult to not slip into talking about 'the energy of Saturn', or 'the effect of Mars' or 'the influence of Mercury'.


BTW this kind of astrological jargon it could be right for the XII century but is completely ridiculous for the XXI century, with astrologers and astrological institutions using this jargon is completely normal that Astrology keeps seen as a completely crazy and marginal discipline by most in society today.

It's time to update very basic concepts I think.

Sonia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

soniah wrote:
Bill wrote:

On the other hand, the way astrologers talk about their subject is full of the language of causal influences, even from those who would also agree with your comment. It's very difficult to not slip into talking about 'the energy of Saturn', or 'the effect of Mars' or 'the influence of Mercury'.


BTW this kind of astrological jargon it could be right for the XII century but is completely ridiculous for the XXI century, with astrologers and astrological institutions using this jargon is completely normal that Astrology keeps seen as a completely crazy and marginal discipline by most in society today.

It's time to update very basic concepts I think.

Sonia

I often wonder what's so objectionable about any possible causal/physical relationship between the planets as material things and humans? It seems that this objection has a rather 'religious' origin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy, it has nothing to do with religion, I am not religious by the way.

It's standard astronomy knowledge that planets aren't source of energy.

To perpetuate ancient superstitions doesn't help to build an accurate and modern understanding of Astrology, instead it keeps it in the darkness of the middle ages.

It's important to re-think the fundamentals of astrology and I personally think that astrological institutions have a responsibility on this.

I recommend this book as a good basic introduction to the subject:

http://www.theoryofastrology.com/cosmology/book.htm

Sonia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PFN



Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 393
Location: Ouro Preto, Brasil

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Eddy. I tend to agree with you, still I do not think this (religious tone) to be bad at all. Astrology does give room for a "spiritual", faithfull thinking. Also, it's more logical to accept that there is no causal link to it (as bizarre as it may sound to use 'logical' here) than the contrary.

Speaking for myself, I find a middle ground to be healthier. Without the scientific drive, we could not hope to see reliable researches on the subject, and even with inconclusive results, I tend to think these help us gather knowledge about astrology. It does take a leap of faith to believe in a art that does not have any way to be proved that we could envision any time soon (and likely, ever). But it would be arrogant to state it is this or that, as of now there is no theory attaching it to empirical finds and vice versa, but that could be just a 'yet'.

From a sociological standpoint, it is easier and more correct to just let it slip in religious ground than trying to bring it to the scientific enviroment. And again for me, astrology is "a gate to God", but that's me.
_________________
Paulo Felipe Noronha


Last edited by PFN on Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1360

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
To perpetuate ancient superstitions doesn't help to build an accurate and modern understanding of Astrology, instead it keeps it in the darkness of the middle ages.


I wrote an answer to this and then erased. Maybe someone with more patience or sense of amusement will answer to the smugness but I don´t have the energy.
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Bill



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Ireland

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Sonia,
Quote:
I agree that whilst chronobiology studies uniform and recurring cycles, astrology specializes more in irrepetible and unique cycles (ie. the birth chart), this is very true, however astrology is much more than that, it also studies recurring cycles and its correlations with human and social developments


For me there is a difference between observing correlations of physical celestial cycles with terrestrial rhythms in Nature, and correlating symbolic cycles with rhythmic cultural shifts in order to interpret meaning and significance in relation to cultural dynamics. On the other hand, I would see the correlations between physical celestial cycles and terrestrial rhythms or human experience as a source for a metaphorical extension to the target domain of astrological symbolism. Thus there is no physical correlation between Mars and violent events, but there is an imaginal one.

Chronobiology is not concerned with meaning at all, and neither is any other scientific discipline. The sun or the moon don’t mean anything to a chronobiologist, and have no symbolic significance. I tend to set the boundaries of what constitutes ‘the astrological’ in these terms. For me it is a symbol system first and foremost. Of course, others may see it differently.

Quote:

Once biological clocks are synchronized to extraterrestrial environment this is astrology in whatever specialization of study or branch of astrology whatever they can call it for to properly analyze it.


Well OK, if that’s how you choose to define astrology. If that is the case, then the synchronization of the lunar and tidal cycles is astrology too. The implication here is that planetary influences are in fact a central feature of astrology, as you define it.

As for myself, I draw a line between celestial influences on human behaviour, which are a real subject for objective study by science, and correlations made between astrological symbols and worldly contexts with the view to illuminating meaning, which is something that happens outside of scientific ways of conceptualising reality.

Quote:

I consider Astrology to be a science because it is based in real and measurable facts, not only in anecdotal experience. Gauquelin et al. demonstrated it.


If you restrict the definition of astrology to what has been demonstrated by the Gauquelin results, you will have a very impoverished astrology indeed. Out goes the whole of Chinese astrology, and most of western and Indian astrology. In my opinion, astrology is entirely about the anecdotal, which is why it is so refractory to statistical validation.

When taking a look at any astrology text book, or observing how an astrologer works with astrological tools, the only thing that vaguely approaches scientific status is the information in the ephemeris, and even that is idealised. The given planet positions are projected onto the ecliptic, and do not for the most part represent where the planets are in objective terms. The rest of astrology – zodiac signs, houses, aspects, and all the rest constitute a conceptual system which has no scientific basis in reality.

Astrology and science are categorically separate in my opinion (one which all scientists would agree with).

Astrology is scientifically untrue, as scientists keep telling us, but it isn’t astrologically untrue. Astrological facts, such as the observed retrograde movements of planets which have had significance projected onto them, do not actually happen in objective reality, and yet form the basis for true astrological interpretations.

In other words, astrology makes use of phenomenologically true, but scientifically untrue facts. These phenomenologically based observations then acquire symbolic meanings which form part of astrology’s conceptual system. Another example is the phenomenological fact that Mars has a reddish colour for humans. Scientifically, there is no intrinsic colour to Mars, only reflected electromagnetic radiation which our visual system renders as the qualitative experience of redness. Mars is a shade of grey for dogs. However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that much of the prototypical meanings imaginally projected onto Mars and used in astrology have a basis in the observed red colour of the planet.

At the very least, this implies that astrological symbolism and concepts have a strong subjective human dimension, which again tends to rule it out of the science frame (as it is ideally defined).

For many, the epistemological version of ‘the gospel truth’ is scientific in character. However, scientific truths only refer to what can be investigated scientifically. There are no scientifically true moral outlooks, for example, nor are there any scientifically true definitions of what constitutes a powerful art work or piece of music. These all have a subjective aspect to them, and the best that can be expected is some sort of general inter-subjective consensus one way or another. In essence, modern science has nothing much to say about qualities. This was not the case for the scientific thinking which characterised the period during which western astrology developed. In those days, the four elements for example were scientifically true, and heaviness (a quality) was due to an excess of the earth element. An astrologer might also have said that the redness of a tomato indicated the fruit was governed by Mars. This is no longer true scientifically, but remains true astrologically.

Quote:

It's because this high complexity of chart factors interconnected ones to others that current scientific methods fails to measure astrological facts.


One problem is that specific meanings are not intrinsic to symbols. On the other hand, Pi is specifically 3.142 … and NaCl is sodium chloride; always, not sometimes. One can have identical horoscopes for several events occurring at the same time and place – a wedding, a horse race, a business opening, and a person being born. The context, as understood by the astrologer, determines how one approaches the interpretation. What does Uranus square the Moon in Cancer mean for a horse race, and is this the same as for another context such as the birth of a person? Well, as far as astrological practice is concerned, the answer to this question is no, the symbolism does not mean the same thing in the two cases.

The meaning of the horoscope is emergent. In other words, it arises as the astrologer interprets the information astrologically in relation to the context. Prior to the astrologer engaging in the interpretation process, the horoscope actually has no intrinsic meaning. This is a different situation from science, in which data is considered to hold within itself the conclusions to be drawn. The scientist plays no role in the emergence of the conclusion, other than being the detached observer who rationally draws out the conclusion embedded in the data. In contrast, astrologers are totally involved in the interpretation of a horoscope, and are very much engaged participants in the astrological process.

Much of the complexity experienced in astrology has to do with the nature of the contexts which provide the subject matter for astrological investigation. The structural form of western astrology is actually quite simple, essentially a schematic geometrical format containing highly regular dynamic elements (e.g. the planets). This is completely linear in character. On the other hand, the contexts to which astrology is applied are highly complex, non-linear, and have their own internal dynamics, as would be the case of an individual’s life, whether or not there will be a famine in the Sudan, and so on. Astrology illuminates these contexts, or so I believe. Famines are usually caused by wars or extreme meteorological scenarios, not by Saturn transits to a nation state’s Moon position in the horoscope. In order for an astrologer to do good work, there has to be a good understanding of the context.

Quote:

I am of the opinion that astrology is a natural science, a rich and highly sophisticaded one outside the mechanical model of the Universe.


Astrology was a scientific subject in the pre-modern era, but it simply is not a scientific subject in the modern era, and will never be while the definition of science revolves around the quest for an objective, mind-independent modelling of external reality dedicated to generating absolute truths which mirror a god’s-eye view of things. In my opinion, astrology is part of the humanities, not the sciences. Its functional value is not dependent on establishing objective or absolute truths; that’s not what astrology is for. It is a mistake to judge astrology according to scientific criteria.

I agree that astrology lies outside the mechanical model of the universe, but in that case how can it be equated with chronobiology, which lies inside the mechanistic conceptual field?

While I do not agree that astrology is a science, I do believe that it can be illuminated in terms of scientific understanding. I’m particularly interested in what the cognitive sciences have to say in this regard, as this is the branch of science which, among other things, studies conceptual systems, how they are generated, and how they are used. As I said above, I see astrology as a conceptual system. The kind of issues which interest myself include such questions as why astrologers think it makes sense that the meaning of a symbol changes when it moves from one zodiac sign to another, given that zodiac signs have no objective reality.

Cognitive science provides answers to these kinds of questions. However, it means that one first has to see astrology as a human affair, rather than something which is objectively embedded in Nature and which operates as part of its universal laws.

Not many astrologers seem to look at it that way; their eyes are more focused on the heavens, metaphorically speaking. For me though, astrology is very much to do with illuminating what is happening here on Earth. The heavens are used as a device, a partial source of symbolism (the rest being supplied by the human imagination) drawn from features in the environment used to calibrate or structure time, and then applied to illuminating patterns associated with the experience of change (patterns in the sequence of events which have move to the foreground of attention) – i.e. the subjective experience of time.

Obviously there are many different ways of conceiving what astrology is. One just has to look at history to see this is the case, never mind listening to what individual astrologers’ opinions on the matter are. It is not uncommon to try to weave astrology into the world views which dominate a culture at any particular time. Astrology seems to be very flexible in that regard, as it has survived several major ‘paradigm shifts’ in its time. However, I think that efforts to integrate astrology into science have minimal chances of success, if for no other reason than modern science evolved in ways which were almost specifically designed to exclude the essence of what astrology is largely all about. In other words, the exploration of patterns and rhythms in the subjective, qualitative experience of events and event processes in life, using a purposefully motivated conceptual system which provides additional information that can be used to complement analytical reasoning and common sense in relation to a given context.

I think it is very important that astrologers engage in dialogue about these things. Not because I believe that there is a right way to conceive astrology – to me that makes no more sense than to say there is a right way to conceive art - but because I believe that the diversity of opinions both mirrors and reveals something about the nature of astrology itself. I have my opinions, for sure, and they reflect who I am and my experience both as a scientist and an astrologer. I don’t expect anyone else’s to overlap with them to any great extent, and I also don’t think one’s opinions on the nature of astrology reveal much, if anything, about one’s ability as a practitioner. In the end, that is the most important factor.

All the best
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Ireland

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I often wonder what's so objectionable about any possible causal/physical relationship between the planets as material things and humans? It seems that this objection has a rather 'religious' origin.


Hi Eddy,
There’s nothing objectionable about that per se – it’s a subject of scientific enquiry.

What I often wonder is how anyone who practices astrology could possibly think that what they are doing is based on the physical mechanics of the solar system. It seems that this is most likely a side effect of the repression of the natural human religious instinct, and is about as likely in reality as a virgin birth. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated