Basis of astrology
-
Here's an excerpt from the V&V section I mentioned above. It comes right after a section discussing the Four Worlds.
@Visions & Voices said
"The Functional Basis of Astrology
I consider these Four Worlds to be as objective as any other categorized facts in science. Their distinctions are constitutional, even organic. They are so familiar to me that I have described them as much from personal experience as from traditional accounts. I emphasize this because I believe the Four Worlds model brings to astrology something it has never had: a clear, satisfying understanding of the mechanism of how astrology works.
Attractive as it may be to seek a physical basis for astrology, none has ever been found. Nor do I think we ever shall explain astrology with the physical sciences. It is the wrong place to look. Speaking in Qabalistic language, astrological influences are not rooted in Assiah. Rather, they exist in the World of Yetzirah.
Imagine: Astrological forces originating in that plane of existence that occultists have long insisted on calling astral! As explained above, it is “a world… of psychic realities and shifting tides, and of energies too subtle for physical sensation.”
I am certain that, in human affairs, the direct influence of astrological factors is on the psyche, especially on the field of subconsciousness. The more deeply we understand the convergence of astrological patterns with individual and collective subconscious patterns, the more easily will we understand how astrology works. The impact of celestial influences on natural phenomena (from plant growth to earthquakes) is also best understood as an effect originating in this subtle, formative layer just behind physical existence. Everything I have ever observed or intuited about astrology’s individual, collective, and natural out-workings is confirmed by this one explanation."
-
@Phoenix said
"
I was bound to be proven wrong in at least one of my statements lol. No worries, I was aiming for what I believed the OP was referring to (traditional astrology) but of course I cannot cover all aspects as I am no expert."No, you were right, even basic astronomy makes tropical astrology sound pretty ridiculous.
Some recently shared a link with me, saying that Regulus just entered Virgo
www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lutin/regulus-enters-virgo-the-_b_1114929.htmlSince Regulus is a star in Leo, my head went "hrrr?" After looking at it, I realized what was going on:
the tropical (standard) zodiac, which is based on the seasons, not the stars, is becoming increasingly inaccurate. Now, the tropical zodiac is effectively considering Regulus (part of Leo) to be Virgo. Or to put it more simply, if you lay an imaginary zodiac over the actual zodiac, Regulus from Leo in the actual zodiac now appears to be in Virgo on the imaginary zodiac. (The imaginary zodiac being the standard, tropical zodiac; the real zodiac being sidereal, based on the actual night sky).I don't know how anyone can stick to tropical astrology, after seeing something like this.
-
Thanks, this all helps. It never occurred to me that these are the stars in the planetary disk (at least that's the idea I'm getting). And the mechanism in the Astral world makes a lot of sense. But are you saying that there are ancient sources that indicate two or three extra planets? Phoenix, you're right about art coming with difficulty to me, but I do have a good deal of experience in music. If I may explain my thoughts on the matter with such a metaphor, any use of music beyond scales is an art, but it still has its basis in music theory, which has its basis in wave mechanics. Same might apply in a different way for the application of any science. I just wanted to know that the basis did exist.
-
@Ozymandius said
"It never occurred to me that these are the stars in the planetary disk (at least that's the idea I'm getting)."
Yes. The zodiac is classically defined as a band 8 degrees of latitude either side of the ecliptic. (Why 8? Because, until Pluto was discovered, all of the planets had orbital planes inclined no more than 8 degrees from that of Earth.)
"But are you saying that there are ancient sources that indicate two or three extra planets?"
No... Before even getting into that, I was questioning the basis of your statement that the ancients "had failed to note their influence." That's a very wide statement, and I was inquiring about the basis of the question before diving into it.
But, to get into it a bit... There are several possible responses.
One that many astrologers have made for decades is that psychological factors related to the outer planets tended to appear widely at about the same time the planets were discovered. I think this arguement is severely over-stated. For example, issues of discovery and freedom didn't first emerge in 1781, any more than dependency and selective perception first emerged in 1846. These are the most common, day-to-day expressions of Uranus and Neptune. OTOH it can be argued that there are trends in science and the arts that arose in new waves around the time of these discoveries, so I grant some small credence to the idea.
A second possible answer is that space is vast, and human experience is equally vast. While there might have been a sense that "something is missing," that some unknown key existed that would have made astrology better, the practical translation of that to a particular planet's operations (let alone position!) is a huge leap away. - Isn't this the course of science in general, though? How could hospitals have possibly failed to notice that hand-washing before surgery saved lives. Just because nobody had yet seen a bacterium under a microscope (providing the causal mechanism) is no reason to ignore empirical evidence. Furthermore, even after the bacteria were identified, and even after trials of hand-washing were shown to vastly reduce complications and death, hospitals that tried hand-washing then went back to ignoring it. How (one might ask) could they possibly have missed the point?
A third possible answer is that there are indications that astrologers correctly perceived the nature of the principles missing, but (absent any astronomical information to anchor it) didn't have a clue what to do about it. One of my favorite examples: Ancient Hindu astrologers, in addition to the seven planets, made early use of the North and South Lunar Nodes, which at least are astronomical actualities. But the characteristics they ascribed to these, and which especially are operative in the Vimshotarri Dasa system that consititutes most Hindu astrological prediction, are essentially the same as the traits of Uranus and Neptune. It has always seemed to me that they detected the energies of the "Rahu and Ketu periods" to be unlike those of any of the other planets... they just didn't know that there were these things out there that would later be called Uranus and Neptune.
-
Thanks, this has been a huge help!
-
@Ozymandius said
"Coming from a rationalist background, I'm having some problems reconciling astrology with what we now know about the universe. From much of Crowley's writing he advocates applying scientific vigor to the occult studies.... For instance, how do we reconcile the effects and importance of the zodiac with the fact that they are made of stars, pictures that only exist from our sun's perspective, for a cosmologically short time period? What mechanisms are proposed for the effects claimed? Why does the astronomically much more important milky way have such a lesser role than these twelve pictures? How do we determine the effects of the planets? For the inner six, we have ancient tradition, but for the recently discovered three, how were attributes allocated? "
An intelligent question!
As has been said, the important thing is not "why" or "how" it works--it just does. I have absolutely no clue how to build an internal combustion engine, however, my car starts when I put the key in the ignition. The question "why" has no bearing whatsoever on this phenomenon.
This is no excuse for being ignorant. Unfortunately, it is ignorance and stupidity that has characterized modern "Astrology" so far. Like any other branch of the Occult, Astrology attracts a large amount of unschooled idiots. Our salvation from this pool of ignorance is the Statistical Method. This phrase should be branded on the forehead of every Tropical "Astrologer." These are those who prefer to take the word of a dead Greek over the actual evidence of the heavens.
This has all been explained in a much more eloquent fashion by Mr. Eshelman. Compared to him, I am an amateur when it comes to the Celestial Science. I mention these things because they helped me overcome much of my early skepticism, a state which was exacerbated by the many claims of modern "Astrologers," the majority of whom don't know their head from Uranus.
The most significant realization that lead to my acceptance of the principles of Astrology was this: the planets do not effect but reflect human affairs. One may do well to repeat that out loud a few times.
The planets do not of themselves cause anything. Their "influence" is purely psychological. They merely reflect the state of the human Microcosm in terms of the Stellar Macrocosm, in the same way that the life of an amoeba may be said to reflect the various stages in the life cycles of Mankind.
Thank you for posing your question in a thoughtful and intelligent manner. It is much more delightful to answer questions that are posed intelligently. I hope this has been of some help.
-
93
@Mephis said
"As has been said, the important thing is not "why" or "how" it works--it just does."
Adding to this point...
I've had this exact same problem--coming across something and wondering how or why it works. For example, when I first turned my attention to the Sepher Sephiroth, I couldn't help but wonder: WHY is "father" spelled Aleph-Beth in Hebrew? Wouldn't it be Peh-Aleph-Tau-Heh-Resh? 777, miscellaneous websites, Google Translate--they all said "Father is Aleph-Beth".
Eventually I realized: Father is Aleph-Beth because Father is Aleph-Beth. That is the agreed-upon Hebrew term, so that's what it is. Nobody really knows WHY, just that that is what it is.
You ask, "Why is the Zodiac important?" So let me ask: "Why do we call it the Zodiac?" Why not StarPictures? SpaceSymbols? (or my personal favorite) SuperMagickalConnectTheDots?
The important thing to realize is...nobody really knows why things are the way they are, they just have to accept that these are the circumstances of reality. It could have been different, but it's not. After all, if we knew why the Zodiac was important, why would we bother paying attention to it? We're scientists. We need questions before we can find the answers.
93, 93/93
-
93
@Mephis said
"The planets do not of themselves cause anything. Their "influence" is purely psychological."
Also, I disagree. All stellar bodies possess a gravitational field that influences the earth. The moon's gravity, for example, is attributed to the tides. While the gravitational field of--say--Pluto might not have as noticeable or profound an effect, it still contributes to the overall state of affairs. I would liken it to the flapping of a butterfly's wings, which have no discernable impact upon its immediate surroundings, but could ultimately be the catalyst of a typhoon halfway across the world.
93, 93/93
-
I've always found that its helpful to understand that astrology is at its core- the study of external symbols and our relationship to them, how we construct the experience of what they signify using the full spectrum of our consciousness- and what this means when determining the course of our fate.
When an individual works with a chart, they are presented with a complex of consistent symbolism that they can then use to create a narrative for themselves, adjust their karma (karma as defined in dzogchen buddhism), and apply their will. Anything that outsources a person's fate to the movement of planets through constellations that aren't even relevant in 2011 is pretty silly, and its why astrology "fails" reliably by scientific conventions when the investigations and experiments begin on such shaky ground.
I'm also skeptical about so-called "statistical" evidence that I'm hearing about...
Ozymandius, I think that Ken Wilber's integral model would give proper perspective on a sound approach to working with astrology.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"No, you were right, even basic astronomy makes tropical astrology sound pretty ridiculous.
"It is my understanding that Sidereal astrology posits that the action of the stars is a result of the combined forces of the positions of the planets with the constellations, hence the change in dates to compensate for the movement of the constellations over time, whereas tropical astrology posits that the position of the planets relative to Earth is more important. The latter makes much more sense to me, given the great distance of the constellations from Earth (relative to the planets), etc. I'd say that it doesn't really matter whether "Sol in Aquarius" really means Sol is in the constellation of Aquarius... it's much more important that it's in the part of the sky that we call Aquarius.
After much experimentation, I've found tropical astrology to be incredibly accurate when practiced properly (with a proper understanding of planets, planetary aspects, signs, and everything else), whereas sidereal astrology has not given me these same results. I do not think either one is inherently "ridiculous;" they merely posit different premises. To think that astronomy invalidates tropical astrology is to misunderstand the premise of tropical astrology, in my humble opinion.
-
@Athanatos said
"It is my understanding that Sidereal astrology posits that the action of the stars is a result of the combined forces of the positions of the planets with the constellations, hence the change in dates to compensate for the movement of the constellations over time, whereas tropical astrology posits that the position of the planets relative to Earth is more important."
I'm not really sure what this sentence means. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by the words "the action of the stars," the word "constellations," the phrase "the movement of the constellations," or (the big obscurity) the phrase "relative to Earth."
"Movement of the constellations" is a strange phrase since (ignoring very tiny amounts of proper motion that amount to a few minutes of arc of many thousands of years), the constellations aren't moving. (Everything else is moving relative to the constellations.)
As for the last phrase, I'm going to assume that you aren't saying that Tropical astrology is geocentric and Sidereal astrology is not. If that's a correct guess, then you seem to be saying that the Tropical astrology somehow measures things "relative to Earth" in some other way. If you mean (for example) "relative to the surface of Earth [mot even a few feet in the air!] between the equator and the Arctic Circle" (i.e., about one third of the surface of the Earth) then you might be right; otherwise, I'm not sure what the words would mean.
"The latter makes much more sense to me, given the great distance of the constellations from Earth (relative to the planets), etc. I'd say that it doesn't really matter whether "Sol in Aquarius" really means Sol is in the constellation of Aquarius... it's much more important that it's in the part of the sky that we call Aquarius."
You've just described the basis of Sidereal astrology.
"I do not think either one is inherently "ridiculous;" they merely posit different premises."
Of course not. But, unless you're living only in a fantasy world, premises should be conformed to measurable, demonstrable fact when such facts are available. If one is ignorant of the facts, one can, perhaps, be taught; but if one knows the facts and ignores them, then that's where ridicule rightly enters the picture.
-
Didn't realize I was being so unclear, Jim... I'll try to clarify and you can tell me where I've gone wrong. If I'm fundamentally misunderstanding the universe, I'd like to know about it.
Here's my understanding of how things work:
The planets, Earth included, revolve around the Sun. The nature of this revolution causes their position in our sky to change constantly.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm not really sure what this sentence means. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by the words "the action of the stars,""
By this, I meant to say "the effect planets and other things in the sky are said to have in astrology." Venus in Capricorn acts differently than Venus in Aries. Sidereal astrology seems to posit that this is because the constellations themselves have an effect that combines with the effect of the planets to produce the effect of "Venus in Capricorn." Tropical astrology says "the constellations themselves aren't what matters, it's the position of the planets in certain parts of the sky." For example, the moon will cause a high tide in a certain part of the sky and a low tide in another part. The angle and position relative to our planet clearly matters.
@Jim Eshelman said
" the word "constellations,""
Am I wrong in assuming that Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are constellations? That would be an embarrassing mistake.
@Jim Eshelman said
"the phrase "the movement of the constellations,""
The constellations are fixed, but they are in a different position in our sky than they were thousands of years ago when tropical astrology first came into being. Thus, sidereal astrology says "hey, Venus isn't really in Capricorn, this is wrong." Tropical astrology says "it doesn't matter if Venus is really in the part of the sky where Capricorn is currently, it's the same part of the sky that we meant by Capricorn 2,000 years ago and that's what counts."
@Jim Eshelman said
" or (the big obscurity) the phrase "relative to Earth.""
Not sure how I can make this any clearer. When the moon is in certain positions "relative to Earth," the tide is either lower or higher than when it is in other positions relative to Earth. While we don't know the mechanism of astrology (we just have observations), it seems more likely to me that the planets would cause some sort of effect on Earth based on their position in our sky rather than having their effect as a result of being lined up with constellations much, much, much further away.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"Movement of the constellations" is a strange phrase since (ignoring very tiny amounts of proper motion that amount to a few minutes of arc of many thousands of years), the constellations aren't moving. (Everything else is moving relative to the constellations.)"Am I incorrect that the constellations are in different parts of our sky than they were when tropical astrology first came to be, thus the constellation Aries is not in the part of the sky we call Aries?
@Jim Eshelman said
"
As for the last phrase, I'm going to assume that you aren't saying that Tropical astrology is geocentric and Sidereal astrology is not. If that's a correct guess, then you seem to be saying that the Tropical astrology somehow measures things "relative to Earth" in some other way. If you mean (for example) "relative to the surface of Earth [mot even a few feet in the air!] between the equator and the Arctic Circle" (i.e., about one third of the surface of the Earth) then you might be right; otherwise, I'm not sure what the words would mean."Again, I'm saying that one (sidereal) posits that the effect of the planets in the part of the sky that lines up with the physical constellation is what counts, whereas the other (tropical) says that their effect comes from being in that part of the sky, not necessarily having anything to do with the physical constellations.
As far as "relative to Earth," it of course means relative to a particular position on earth. When we pull out an ephemeris and look up the position of the planets based on our latitude/longitude, that's of course the position I mean. While something may change if I go 100 miles into the air, that's really just splitting hairs about how we measure the positioning. The moon changes the tides based on certain positions relative to Earth, and that effect persists even if different altitudes affect the way it appears to be positioned.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Of course not. But, unless you're living only in a fantasy world, premises should be conformed to measurable, demonstrable fact when such facts are available. If one is ignorant of the facts, one can, perhaps, be taught; but if one knows the facts and ignores them, then that's where ridicule rightly enters the picture."
Above, am I ignorant of the facts? I'd like to make sure I have the picture straight. I wouldn't want to be living in a fantasy world.
-
@Athanatos said
"Venus in Capricorn acts differently than Venus in Aries. Sidereal astrology seems to posit that this is because the constellations themselves have an effect that combines with the effect of the planets to produce the effect of "Venus in Capricorn.""
No, it doesn't - if by "the constellations themselves" you mean "those stars visible in the sky that astronomers have labelled Capricorn." However, if you mean "because of Venus' placement in a 30°-wide lune of all space in a precession-free and inertia-free framework," they I'd agree with you.
"Tropical astrology says "the constellations themselves aren't what matters, it's the position of the planets in the sky." "
But that doesn't mean anything. What does "in the sky" mean? How is Venus against the backdrop of (one or another definition of) the "constellation Capricorn" NOT "Venus' position in the sky"?
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" the word "constellations,""Am I wrong in assuming that Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are constellations? That would be an embarrassing mistake."
Yes, but not in the way an astronomy text would reference this. It isn't the visible Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc. that you see in the sky or an astronomy text - these are human inventions with boundaries created by committee and updated periodically. They have nothing direct to do with astrology.
Sidereal astrologers use the word "constellation" differently. It means a 30°-wide segment of space formed by two great circles on the celestial sphere, intersecting each other at the north and south celestial poles and separated by 30° along the ecliptic.
These DO tend to approximate the visible conventional constellations of the same name, but are not the same. For example, some of the stars of the visible constellation Cancer fall into astrological Leo, and Egyptian stellar diagrams show these as a crescent in Leo. Visual Virgo sprawls across the area twice the size of an astrological sign, but astrological Virgo is exactly 30° wide.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"the phrase "the movement of the constellations,""The constellations are fixed, but they are in a different position in our sky than they were thousands of years ago when tropical astrology was started."
No, they're in the same parts of the sky. The only difference is that the measuring point used by Tropical astrology (the northern hemisphere's vernal equinoctial point, or VP) is in perpetual retrograde motion.
The Sidereal signs ("constellations") are measured against absolute space, i.e., positional space independent of varying factors. The Tropical signs are hitched to a moving point that is constantly walking backwards at the rate of 1° in about 72 years. This is why the Tropical zodiac is called the Moving Zodiac, and the Sidereal zodiac is called the Fixed Zodiac.
"Thus, sidereal astrology says "hey, Venus isn't really in Capricorn, this is wrong." Tropical astrology says "it doesn't matter if Venus is really in the part of the sky where Capricorn is currently, it's the same part of the sky that we meant by Capricorn 2,000 years ago and that's what counts.""
But that's just it: It isn't. It's not the same part of the sky. It's a different part of the sky. "Where Capricorn was in the sky 2,000 years ago" is now called Aquarius, for the most part.
It's exactly the same as the following: Somebody leaves LA airport in a jet, looks out the window, and says, "That's LA right below me." The mental label is, "The position of Los Angeles is straight down from the airplane." (And this gets confused with the complementary statement: "Straight down from the airplane is Los Angeles.") Five hours later, after a long nap, he looks out the window again and sees a city straight down from him, and says to the person in the next seat, "That's Los Angeles." The confused person in the next seat says, "No, that's New York City." The first person is unmoved by this arguement because, after all, Los Angeles is right under the plane. How dare his seat mate imply that Los Angeles has shifted 3,000 miles to the west!
A Siderealist, in this instance, would say that, to this traveller, "Los Angeles" is simply New York City misnamed - just as most of Tropical Leo is Sidereal Cancer misnamed. Los Angeles has an absolute location on the globe. It is the traveller who is moving, not the city; and, you can't make the new "straight down" into the old "straight down" just by giving it the old name.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" or (the big obscurity) the phrase "relative to Earth.""Not sure how I can make this any clearer. When the moon is in certain positions "relative to Earth," the tide is either lower or higher than when it is in other positions relative to Earth."
But that's based on the Moon's aspectual relationship to the Sun and (to a lesser extent) its distance from its own apogee. It isn't "positional"in either the Tropical or Sidereal models.
"While we don't know the mechanism of astrology (we just have observations), it seems more likely to me that the planets would cause some sort of effect on Earth based on their position in our sky rather than having their effect as a result of being lined up with constellations much, much, much further away."
Again, you aren't using "in our sky" in any consistent manner. (I need not even argue that it isn't relevant, just that you aren't using the words the same way from paragraph to paragraph.) For example, if high tide occurs with the Moon just entering in Capricorn this month (any definition of "Capricorn" will do for this example), high tide will NOT occur when the Moon enters Capricorn next month - it will be about three days later. It's not positional.
PS - "much, much farther away" seems to say that you are still counting on the physical stars. That is not (and never has been) the Sidereal theory. I intentionally specified lunes above to make clear that all space in a given direction, regardless of distance, is included. "Capricorn" is as much an inch in front of your nose as it is 100,000 parsecs distant.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""Movement of the constellations" is a strange phrase since (ignoring very tiny amounts of proper motion that amount to a few minutes of arc of many thousands of years), the constellations aren't moving. (Everything else is moving relative to the constellations.)"Am I incorrect that the constellations are in different parts of our sky than they were when tropical astrology first came to be, thus the constellation Aries is not in the part of the sky we call Aries?"
Yes, you are incorrect. (See above.) It's the Tropical signs that are in a different part of the sky. Sidereal Pisces didn't move. Instead, Tropical Aries has been retrograding across it. Your last phrase should be written (for more clarity), "The Tropical sign Aries is no longer in the part of the sky we call Aries."
"Again, I'm saying that one (sidereal) posits that the effect of the planets in the part of the sky that lines up with the physical constellation is what counts,"
No. That is not what Sidereal astrology posits at all. (See above.)
I'm beginning to suspect that you haven't studied the basics of this. I suggest you go to <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.solunars.com">www.solunars.com</a><!-- w --> and click on the Essays heading. Read especially the first article, and preferably the second article.
"whereas the other (tropical) says that their effect comes from being in that part of the sky, not necessarily having anything to do with the physical constellations."
The Tropical theory is that they are a certain distance from the northern hemisphere's vernal equinoctial point. It's not clear whether this means "in [some] part of the sky" in the way you mean. You are correct that it is irrelevant to any constellations (by any definition of the word).
@Jim Eshelman said
"Of course not. But, unless you're living only in a fantasy world, premises should be conformed to measurable, demonstrable fact when such facts are available. If one is ignorant of the facts, one can, perhaps, be taught; but if one knows the facts and ignores them, then that's where ridicule rightly enters the picture."
Above, am I ignorant of the facts? I'd like to make sure I have the picture straight. I wouldn't want to be living in a fantasy world."
I've done my best
Yes, you have some basic facts wrong (e.g., your concept of the Sidereal theory of the zodiac) and you appear totally ignorant of the enormous amount of research that has been done in the last 60 years. In brief, there is no reasonable doubt that (1) there is a characterologically and circumstantially relevant "twelving" of the zodiac into equal 30-degree zones, (2) the boundaries of these divisions fall where the Sidereal boundaries fall, and (3) the boundaries do NOT fall where the Tropical boundaries fall. Please see the articles referenced above.