In a section called "Activities with astrology" on the website belonging to the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP), astronomer and teacher Andrew Fraknoi complains about how he and his fellow scientists are always drawn into debates about astrology. How he finds it hard to respond politely to anybody who takes this ancient superstition seriously. He then goes on to pose what he calls "ten embarrassing questions" for astrology. As an astrology enthusiast, I found myself unable to resist the temptation of trying to answer him. I include Fraknoi’s questions, and where it seems necessary, a little also of his elaboration on the matter.
1. What is the likelihood that one-twelfth of the world's population is having the same kind of day?(Proponents of newspaper astrology columns […] claim you can learn something about your day by reading one of 12 paragraphs in the morning paper...)
This is an easy one. The question could have been left out altogether if only a little time had been devoted to investigating the principles of astrology. No astrologer of any esteem would hold that one twelfth of the world's population will have the same kind of day. I am convinced even that very few of the writers of weekly/daily horoscopes themselves would. The point of these horoscopes (based on Sun signs) is mostly entertainment, and they should be handled accordingly. The horoscopes are based on very general trends originating from the relative movement and position of the sun and the planets.
2. Why is the moment of birth, rather than conception, crucial for astrology?
This is an important question, one of not so many here worth attention.
My personal argument is this: The moment of birth rather than of conception is crucial for astrology because it deals primarily with individuality. When is it reasonable to consider a human organism to have become an "entity" of its own? A sound response seems to be at the moment the fetus is first separated from its mother, at the moment of birth. This is not to say that astrology is completely unconcerned with the moment of conception or the nine months between conception and birth. According to some traditional sources, there is a connection between the moments of conception and birth that can be expressed in astrological terms. I believe the chart erected for the moment of birth probably represents a culmination of influences that were present at the time of conception; the "resulting" individual.
When it comes to questions about genetics and heredity, I think most proponents of astrology (including myself) would say that astrology and genetics "agree". Astrologers would support this theory by pointing to the important astrological links that frequently is observed between the birth horoscopes of parents and their children, and between siblings. One is born at a point in time that to some degree harmonizes astrologically with inherited psychological and physical characteristics. It is not my belief (nor, I believe, that of most modern astrologers) that planetary radiation or magnetism is responsible for the intricate facets of personality. More about this later. In any way, it seems to me that the issue of conception versus birth presents a problem more related to the internal coherence of astrology than to the general "scientific" status of its basic idea.
3. If the mother's womb can keep out astrological influences until birth, can we do the same with a cubicle of steak?(…could we delay the action of the astrological influences by immediately surrounding the newborn with a thin cubicle of steak until the celestial signs are more auspicious?)
This question is partly an attempt to be humorous and otherwise related to the question above. I explained my view on the reasons for acknowledging the actual time of birth as the moment of importance in astrology. As for what happens thereafter, well...I doubt there is an astronomer with the nerve to attach a cubicle of steak to a woman in labour, although I'm convinced the steak served at the ASP headquarters’ restaurant (if there is one) is tender enough to safely enwrap a newborn. I don’t think we can delay astrological influences, except through a naturally delayed birth, and what happens after the physical birth is pretty much up to the parents. They might even encourage their youngsters to study science and later become worthy members of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. I should also add that whether a birth occurs later or earlier than expected is ultimately quite irrelevant to astrology.
4. If astrologers are as good as they claim, why aren't they richer?(…astrologers could amass billions by forecasting general stock-market behavior or commodity futures, and thus not have to charge their clients high fees.)
Well, there are probably enough rich astrologers anyway. Had astrology been a precise science, and more importantly uncomplicated enough to be summarized in terms of a few, irrefutable maxims, I bet the astrologers who’d venture deeply in to the subject of financial astrology indeed would become rich. Unfortunately, the astrological interpretation of trends relating to finance, stocks and business endeavours can be just as impenetrable by human intelligence as the galactic, infinite questions of time and space and the true nature of causality.
5. Are all horoscopes done before the discovery of the three outermost planets incorrect?
This is an interesting and somewhat justified question. For obvious reasons, traditional astrologers used only the Sun, Moon and the planets leading up (out) to Saturn in their observations. (With the addition of things like "fixed stars", "Arabic parts" and since the 1840s, asteroids.) Are all horoscopes erected before the discovery of the outer planets wrong? No. Only more limited. The later introduction of the outer planets into human awareness doesn’t mean they counteract or contradict wisdom gained from the "older" planets. The planets are not forces at war with one another, and should I choose to ignore some entities as relevant, I won’t be left with complete nonsense. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto represent subtle energies and states of consciousness that simply were not incorporated by the ancient astrologers. Needless to say, this doesn’t mean that they weren’t astronomical realities. Also, it doesn’t have to imply that the outer planets did not wield any astrological influence at the time in question, though it is possible and reasonable to argue for such a view. This theory would likely point to the intimate connection between astrology and the human psyche
6. Shouldn't we condemn astrology as a form of bigotry?(In a civilized society we deplore all systems that judge individuals by sex, skin color, religion, national origin, or other accidents of birth.)
Shouldn't we condemn psychology as a form of bigotry? Sociology? And most of all the science of genetics, which by all means "judge individuals by sex, skin color, religion, national origin, or other accidents of birth." If one would reply that genetics only presents impartial, scientific truth about cells and DNA, the exact same goes for astrology. Whether individuals decide to make personal judgements of people on the basis of these symbols, and the final form and outcome of these judgements, is hardly astrology's fault. Contrary to the general opinion, astrology is not a judgemental or deterministic discipline. It does not relieve people of individual responsibility; in fact it promotes and encourages it.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Shouldn’t we condemn some astronomers as bigots or at least prejudiced people? Not because they refer to astrology as an "ancient fantasy" or "ancient superstition", but owing more to their instinctive prejudice against astrologers, believing that "serious practitioners" of astrology generally are those "who have missed out on the lucrative business of syndicated columns".
7. Why do different schools of astrology disagree so strongly with each other?
Oh, do they? Astrologers may differ in method (especially concerning the choice of what is known as systems of "house division") and to some degree about the fine points of interpretation, like practitioners of any discipline, scientific or other. Not when it comes to basic principles and interpretive meanings, as the questioner seems to believe, saying "[they] disagree on which personality traits go with which cosmic phenomena". However, it seems clear that any sound idea-complex incorporates viewpoints at some variation from the standard. Every discipline undergoes constant change and revival as a result of it being challenged by new and controversial ideas.
8. If the astrological influence is carried by a known force, why do the planets dominate?(For example, the obstetrician who delivers the child turns out to have about six times the gravitational pull of Mars and about two thousand billion times its tidal force.)
9. If astrological influence is carried by an unknown force, why is it independent of distance?
Questions 8 and 9 are related and refer to a wide-ranging issue, so they may be answered together. First, the assumption that astrological influence is completely independent of distance is not entirely true. The sun and moon have far greater significance within astrology than a terribly remote planet such as Pluto. But it is true that the importance of the outer planets to astrology cannot be justified astronomically. In short, the "unknown force" that carries astrological influence is independent of distance because it simply isn’t something "flowing" from the planets. Sure, I grant that there is an intimate bond between the sun and the moon and organic life on earth. But while this may provide basic reasons for believing in the influence of the cosmos upon human beings, it is not what makes astrology in its complexity work. For one thing, there is no reason why one phase of the moon should affect personality differently than another, etc. Of course it is unlikely that Pluto (orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 2.5 billion miles from the earth) could wield any magnetic power comparable to that of a close object.
We are operating at the wrong level needed to explain the power of astrology.
Without resorting to a random supernatural explanation or that of divine intervention, I find the most appealing theoretic framework behind astrology should relate to ideas akin to those suggested by psychologist Carl Jung. He introduced the term "synchronicity" as a way to explain connections between phenomena that fail to show a traditional cause-effect relation, but still conform to an underlying pattern of meaning beyond coincidence. For Jung, the concept was vital in bringing evidence for the existence of a "collective unconscious", a reservoir of archetypes, mythic ideas and experiences common to our species. Later he changed the name to "objective psyche", also illustrative to the idea. Astrology has in essence always been a theory of mystical correspondance, "As above, so below."
The sceptic may pose the question: "Well, even if there is such a thing, doubtful as it seems, how could a collective unconscious or objective psyche make the solar system "intervene" with individual personality? Where is the connection?" Well, maybe there is none - from the "absolute" perspective of causality. But that’s where synchronicity comes in. Using the hypothesis of a collective unconscious, symbols are potent components in the shaping of the human psyche. Since synchronicity is a process which unites archetypal forces and external events, it comes to signify a "meaningful coincidence" between the birth at a particular time and the mythic, shaping images represented by the structuring of the planets along the zodiac at this very time. Synchronicity demands that we free ourselves from excessive obedience to the chains of rationality. The horoscope is a symbolical toolbox or map provided by the universe through the aid of the collective unconscious, reflecting the state of the solar system - and through projection also that of a particular individual’s psyche. Obviously this explanation won't satisfy a rigid scientist, but it doesn't matter. Astrology is seldom receptive to scientific reduction. It has more in common with the humanistic sciences.
So, the last possibility (though I would hesitate to embrace it) may be this: There is no actual influence coming from the planets that form personality. There is however a process of (collective) unconscious suggestion that somehow convinces us, deep down inside, to psychologically conform to certain archetypes lent from the heavenly symbolism embedded in astrology. And this mosaic of characteristics and dynamics of behaviour can be traced from the planetary status at birth.
10. If astrological influences don't depend on distance, why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies, and quasars?
Look again – there is an astrology of stars, and there has been for ages. Traditional astrology used a selection of "fixed stars" in their interpretation, and the procedure still has relevance. Sure there are objections to why certain stars should be used and others not, but this is ultimately a question of conscious limiting of focus to avoid complete galactic disorientation. Personally I’m not sure about the usefulness and relevance of "fixed stars", but the argument goes again: Astrology as a theory of correspondance is intertwined with human consciousness. It's not a force completely independent of human experience. A "serious" scientist may deem this incomprehensible, but the fact remains that astrology provides real insight, and sometimes to an uncanny degree.
(http://www.astroroom.com)
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें