What is "core" Astrology?
By Ray Murphy, Section Technique
Posted on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 22:49:07 ADT
What do we all "believe in" or know is valuable?
On the other hand, there have been many hair-brained methods put
forward which have attracted "followers" without a skeric of
evidence being supplied.
Rab> "Skeric"?! Anyone who uses a word like that deserves a response.
What things do you use or accept in astrology?
It seems that there is a core of belief or knowledge in our art and
we take it for granted that most astrologers subscribe to that
"core" but we really don't know which things are universally
accepted or practised.
Rab> These questions seems strange in a way, yet revelatory.
Would e/g a physicist, after some years of learning & practice,
suddenly turn round and query colleagues about their beliefs
and values? As if to ask: What are we actually doing here?
To which I suspect the answers would be quicker in coming,
with mutual agreements more in evidence and clearly defined.
There are some advantages to being trained to think and
produce worthwhile results in the same kind of school or
educational tradition. Astrologers invent things as they
go along, jazzily. Including schools and traditions.
There's a process ongoing in astrology, as in all worthy
studies, that's like an old washing-machine wringer: >< :
during which items all wet and unwearable become almost
dry and ready to be hung in the sun. It involves a
transformation from belief (in rumour, gossip, tales, &
fancies) to knowledge. But once through the wringer is
never adequate, and the second pass releases more of the
sweet moisture of subjective or personal knowledge that
clings to the fabric & weave that's universal. That when
dry can be worn on anyone's skin. (Dry is important,
especially in cold climates).
Of course in the eldest times there were no washing machines,
just wives & daughters who often resorted to the punishing
process of slapping and beating laundry on rocks. But since
we have evolved since then, thanks to the hardwork miracles
of sci-tech, we need not regress.
However, modern astrology is the unenviable position of
being 97% soaked, with only the cuff of a once green sleeve
showing on the nether side of those Gemini rollers. And
after many years of trying to persuade other astrologers
not to shrink from the task, to wring their faithful clothes
rather than skillful hands in a worried manner -- with minimal
success -- I'm left with the suspicion that most astrologers
would rather swim than walk. With the Sabian seal, back into
the primordial ocean of Lilliputia.
It also appears that most astrologers (a term which includes
students, dabblers and researchers) have convinced themselves
through observation that some things in astrology are proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Rab> Now there's problem right there. What is an astrologer?
Or who actually qualifies as such? And how? Because the answers
would determine where the Urania questionnaires would go.
credible people have simply stated facts and
quoted the astrological correspondences which existed in relation to
them - and the quantity of that evidence is remarkably large, but
unfortunately no one has bothered to collate a decent set of data to
demonstrate anything convincingly yet.
Rab> How do you know this to be so? Is it? One problem is
ready availability of all the tests & research that have
been undertaken. But they're out there. (Many would argue
that the Gauquelins have contributed much in this area,
but astrological research does not begin & end with them).
The time has arrived for astrologers to (collectively) gather data
to begin to show in a more convincing way, that our art is NOT a
belief system adopted by simpletons (as some skeptics and cynics
would have others believe).
Rab> You'd like to see evidence of astrology as art? I see no
dearth of that. Coffee tables of the world are alive with it.
Not to mention museums and galleries. Or is it a clever rather
than naive art you wish evidence of? That might be more difficult.
Things have dumbed down a bit since the Renaissance.
Perhaps the stumbling block is that no-one cares much about
astrology as art or belief system, irrespective of how clever
or simple it may be. When it comes to creativity and faith,
anything goes. What counts more is what works and can be used
by anybody to improve a situation. Like washing-machines can.
We can however begin to test some of our "single factors" any time
we choose - especially now that personal computers have become very
powerful.
Rab> Indeed. But first we need to learn how to do that. Properly.
But it seems the majority of "astrologers" are as afraid of facts
and scientific analysis as they are of dry clothes. (I think this
must have something to do with the right temporal lobe).
Now before we embark on some sort of project to test various
components of astrology it would be very handy indeed to identify
"What is astrology" and what things are thought to work best, and
this can only be ascertained by asking thousands of astrologers from
all over the planet.
Rab> It might be more useful, first, to find out how often
this type of thing has already been done. And the results
thereof. Survey the field before planning further research.
Otherwise it's the wheel you may be reinventing.
However, "What is astrology?" certainly ranks as a core
question. Or better, "What is good astrology?" because
there's no dearth of the bad, and this would reduce the
number of questionnaires required. (Besides, you don't
need "thousands" for a fair sample).
If the criterion for "good astrology" is just what makes
people happy, we would decrease the amount of "bad"
considerably, but then it becomes a subject not amenable
to easy or useful measures. And not a subject that I, for
one, would care to investigate. But if good astrology
involves the production of substantive and replicable
results, preferably of the statistically significant kind,
then we're in business.
So where do we start?
Rab> With things that can be tested.
So there goes 500 million asteroids (according to the most
recent count). Thank goodness.
With things that have already been tested -- replication.
(How valid are the claims of the Magi Society?)
With learning about valid tests. Otherwise how is it possible
to recognise good astrology? Or predictions of any sort.
(What has the Moscow Institute of Predictions been doing
lately?)
With the collection of study materials? Papers, reports,
articles. At least links to same.
-
[new] Bare Bones ( 4.00 / 1 ) (#2)
by Lenore on Sun May 5th, 2002 at 14:35:18 ADT
In considering "core astrology", I think we should peel off philosphical
implications and myriad techniques and focus on basic premises. There is
an order or pattern to the universe too vast to be comprehended in its
totality, but we can see resonances between seemingly unrelated
occurrences. All of art, all of science seek to cull from perceived chaos
patterns, relationships and, ultimately, meaning.
As astrologers, we follow that line of reasoning by studying the cycles of
the sun, moon and planets and corresponding events on earth and drawing
hermeneutic conclusions about their relationships and implications.
Those are the bare bones. After that, we get fancy.
Rab> Meaning IS relationship. IS pattern. IS resonance.
Astrology is one branch in the core study of Meanings,
actually a sub-branch of Geometry, for the most part,
with Time as well as Space components. Used to be that
one got to astrology only eventually, after studying
the basics -- geometry, harmony, music, etc.-- but now
it's usually the other way round. With attendant confusion.
-
|
