Haha Ouranos. Actually, someone stole my expensive glasses. Will do a research round with names of suspects

Waybread, I would expand that to conjunctions with the Ascendant, Part of Fortune, MC, ruler of Ascendant and the Moon -- for as they move faster than the Sun, they are even more personal than the Sun.
Edit: I would even go so far as to pay less attention to asteroids conjunct the Sun, for everybody born the same day will have the same asteroids conjunct the Sun, whereas, Asc, Pof, MC, Moon are constantly changing and hence meeting other asteroids.

I keep breaking my head about the junk asteroids For wherever and whenever a significant asteroid shows up, there's a whole bunch of insignificant ones too. I keep thinking probabilities and uncollapsed quantum waves may be key. But I don't know enough of quantum physics to expand on that

correcting myself again: maybe i'm wrong above saying that everybody born the same day would have the same asteroids conjunct the Sun-- that's not necessarily true if the asteroids move faster than the Sun

Anyway, my discovery of the day: both Einstein and Hubble had asteroid Astrowizard conjunct their Part of Fortune! And Hawking had Astrometria conjunct his Sun and Astronomia conjunct Pallas Athena.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but I can't help but think that there are so many asteroids out there, the weird thing would be not to find several coincidences. Right?

Astrology is a subjective art. (Sorry, to any objectivists out there, but I am prepared to back up this point.)

Consequently finding asteroids that fit in an uncanny way is subjective, as well; although probably more so, given how many are out there.

We have to be judicious and selective about how we use them.

Srendna, I totally agree, but I think that them showing up in relevant spots to this extent way exceeds what statistically can be expected, especially conjunctions with rapidly changing points as Asc, MC, POF -- i wish someone would do the math

srsedna wrote:Not trying to be a jerk here, but I can't help but think that there are so many asteroids out there, the weird thing would be not to find several coincidences. Right?

If one were to go through a long list of asteroids and set them all in relation to a given chart, finding several funny coincidences indeed would hardly be surprising.

However, what I and others did here was to start with some people of great personal significance to a horoscope native. Looking up their corresponding asteroids frequently leads to astonishing results, such as a close conjunction to an important astrological factor.

Yes, there is a certain subjectivist element to this and how the whole thing would stand up to a statistical survey, frankly I have no idea. Then again, I couldn't care less.

Asteroids in birth charts put aside -- I think you won't call it subjective or a coincidence anymore when you see how asteroids show up at significant spots in transits and in lunar returns and solar returns.

Eg, asteroid Ella conjunct my lunar POF the month I sold my series to Elle. Or the name of a friend at my Ascendant the month we're spending together. Or the name of an author showing up at my lunar return the month I'm studying him. Or as said above, transiting Moon conjunct the name of someone I happen to be drawing. Or Oppenheimer having Vishnu conjunct his lunar return the month he dropped the bomb.

I'd say, Sredna, experiment with it, and have fun with it.

PS And visit the horary forum thread 'who stole my glasses?' for today's discoveries

annadeer wrote:Haha Ouranos. Actually, someone stole my expensive glasses. Will do a research round with names of suspects

Waybread, I would expand that to conjunctions with the Ascendant, Part of Fortune, MC, ruler of Ascendant and the Moon -- for as they move faster than the Sun, they are even more personal than the Sun.
Edit: I would even go so far as to pay less attention to asteroids conjunct the Sun, for everybody born the same day will have the same asteroids conjunct the Sun, whereas, Asc, Pof, MC, Moon are constantly changing and hence meeting other asteroids.

I keep breaking my head about the junk asteroids For wherever and whenever a significant asteroid shows up, there's a whole bunch of insignificant ones too. I keep thinking probabilities and uncollapsed quantum waves may be key. But I don't know enough of quantum physics to expand on that

Anna,

Referring to the highlighted part, this touches on a question pertinent not only to asteroids, but to astrology in general. Even though focussing on asteroids might actually be a good approach to try and get a handle on the paramount topic. Here's my take on this issue:

First of all, the elements we use in astrology are archetypal patterns each of which can find expression in manifest reality in a variety of ways. How asteroids are, every so often, represented by people and things that carry their names, or even correspond to the very individuals that they were named after, is impressive indeed - but it is certainly not the only way they may show themselves in our daily experience.

To fully clarify the issue, I am afraid you would need to attempt an in-depth exploration of each single one of those "insignificant" space rocks that connect to the factors of a given chart: my guess is that, in a majority of cases, you wouldn't find them so insignficant after all - if only you dig deep enough!

That being said, it is known that, for example, not every transit shows itself as straightforwardedly as we may have expected. This can sometimes simply be due to our incomplete understanding of "the language of the stars", but also, it seems to link to a question that I have personally struggled with so many times: If we take for a fact both astrology's power to reveal the blueprint underlying our experienced reality and the validity of quantum physics doing away with the Newton's predetermined universe - how can the two views be reconciled with each other?

Furthermore, what's the role our supposedly free will plays in this? The famous sentence Astra inclinant non necessitant ("the stars incline us, they do not bind us") comes to mind...

Now according to Everett's Many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, anything that could happen actually does happen - in some kind of parallel universe if not in the one that we observe. Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive; both Hillary and the Donald became president (for better and worse!); and so on.

Including astrology in the picture, do we need to rephrase this theory as: "Anything happens on some level of reality insofar it is in accordance with the astrological forces active at the time"? If, however, (with quantum mechanics' blessing) an occurrence would appear too much out of line with what the astrological configuration of the moment has in store, would we need to assume a Velikovsky like cosmic catastrophe having suddenly altered the course of the planets?

On the other hand, note that, while quantum mechanics is at odds with any strict predeterminism, it does not suggest that every possibility is equally likely to happen. In fact, it constantly talks in terms of "probabilities". So, perhaps, that's what our charts are actually indicating - whatever is likely to happen? In this case, can the probability of an event itself be derived from a chart?

Big questions, little answers - but I will be happy to try and think about all this together with you and others that might be inclined to join this kind of mind boggling discussion.

Michael

Michael, I appreciate your input and look forward to read more of your thoughts. Here in random order some thoughts that came up reading your post.


1. About the ‘astrological forces’: Dane Rudhyar’s POV has always made most sense to me: the stars are not the cause of what’s happening below, but give information about what’s happening below, in a strange way that thus far cannot be scientifically explained nor rationally understood. No causal link — hence there are not really any astrological forces, just synchronicities…

2. How to reconcile the chart as a fixed blueprint with quantum physics doing away with determinism? No opinion of my own on this, but on the one hand, not all scientists agree on it, not even Einstein, cfr the hidden variable theory. On the other hand, I always liked Dane Rudhyar’s POV: ‘The chart shows the framework within which we can exercise free will’ — so the one does not exclude the other.

3. About all the ‘junk asteroids’ showing up at personal spots without being or seeming relevant — two thoughts: A. As I said before, and as you mention too, they may represent possibilities, uncollapsed quantum waves — or they may be happening in a parallel universe — it exceeds again the limits of my knowledge to form an opinion on this — and B. Astrodienst currently lists 22,000+ asteroids, and only 7 planets, + Sun, Moon and Pluto — but if Astrodienst were to list 22,000+ planets of the billions/trillions there are in our galaxy, a whole lut of junk planets would show up too. So after all, one could argue that it’s not less reasonable to zoom in on selected asteroids than to zoom in on selected planets… And to answer your question, I don’t see how one can derive from a chart whether or not the probabilities are likely to happen.

4. I know zero about statistics, but putting all the birth chart asteroids aside, details like Ptolemaeus conjunct the Ascendant of the Webb telescope launch and Vishnu showing up at Oppenheimer’s lunar return ascendant the month of the Hiroshima bombing — what are the odds? It’s my dream some day to meet someone who can do the maths!

5. I do think that asteroids are the way to lure in scientists and philosophers to take astrology serious, for they show up so literally and right in the face and it must be possible to calculate the statistical relevance. And I do think the combo asteroids-quantumphysics would help scientists and philosophers (and us) to understand the nature of the universe better.

annadeer wrote:Michael, I appreciate your input and look forward to read more of your thoughts. Here in random order some thoughts that came up reading your post.


1. About the ‘astrological forces’: Dane Rudhyar’s POV has always made most sense to me: the stars are not the cause of what’s happening below, but give information about what’s happening below, in a strange way that thus far cannot be scientifically explained nor rationally understood. No causal link — hence there are not really any astrological forces, just synchronicities…

Anna,

I am well aware that the notion of celestial bodies actually exerting an influence has become unpopular in modern days, even though it was taken for granted by the old astrologers from Ptolemy to Kepler. It was rejected by the astrological community overall not least in a (rather useless) attempt to conform to modern science, which (at least on the surface of things) does not currently attest to any physical forces suitable to explain how such an influence might come about.

However, there is so much we don't know yet! At any rate, my own thinking is more in line with the ancients who assumed the existence of a World Soul connecting the 'above' with the 'below' via a plethora of etheric forces.

This is in no way meant to invalidate the "synchronistic view" put forth by Rudhyar and Jung (both of whom I greatly respect), but rather to complement it. The latter ties in with the qualitative view on time, whereas the beforementioned perspective evokes the image of a universal medium filling space.

2. How to reconcile the chart as a fixed blueprint with quantum physics doing away with determinism? No opinion of my own on this, but on the one hand, not all scientists agree on it, not even Einstein, cfr the hidden variable theory.

True - and actually, I haven't fully made up my mind regarding the universal validity of the Many-worlds interpretation myself. Perhaps that theory needs to at least be modified in order to take the astrological world view into account.

And yes, there are the hidden variables/implicate order theories to be taken into consideration as well.

On the other hand, I always liked Dane Rudhyar’s POV: ‘The chart shows the framework within which we can exercise free will’ — so the one does not exclude the other.

And yet, the idea of there being a framework at all sets boundaries that, at first glance, seem to have no place in the chaotic randomness of a universe based purely on quantum mechanical uncertainty, so to speak.

3. About all the ‘junk asteroids’ showing up at personal spots without being or seeming relevant — two thoughts: A. As I said before, and as you mention too, they may represent possibilities, uncollapsed quantum waves — or they may be happening in a parallel universe — it exceeds again the limits of my knowledge to form an opinion on this — and B. Astrodienst currently lists 22,000+ asteroids, and only 7 planets, + Sun, Moon and Pluto — but if Astrodienst were to list 22,000+ planets of the billions/trillions there are in our galaxy, a whole lut of junk planets would show up too.

Indeed, although the latter would be considered conjunct with their respective suns (i.e., fixed stars) as seen from Earth.

So after all, one could argue that it’s not less reasonable to zoom in on selected asteroids than to zoom in on selected planets… And to answer your question, I don’t see how one can derive from a chart whether or not the probabilities are likely to happen.

4. I know zero about statistics, but putting all the birth chart asteroids aside, details like Ptolemaeus conjunct the Ascendant of the Webb telescope launch and Vishnu showing up at Oppenheimer’s lunar return ascendant the month of the Hiroshima bombing — what are the odds? It’s my dream some day to meet someone who can do the maths!

5. I do think that asteroids are the way to lure in scientists and philosophers to take astrology serious, for they show up so literally and right in the face and it must be possible to calculate the statistical relevance. And I do think the combo asteroids-quantumphysics would help scientists and philosophers (and us) to understand the nature of the universe better.

Well, I am a bit sceptical regarding statistical analysis in general. Too many times, it tends to miss the finer aspects of what it is meant to either prove or refute. That said, if one wishes to go down that path in regards to astrology, asteroids would be the best way to go - probably .

Thank you Michel, will be pondering all your insights.

Agreed about statistics having their limitations and certainly in astrology
— and asteroids would be the only way to go, imo -- as instead of doing a survey in the style of 'how many sportsmen have Mars in sign X' one can just do the math, 'what are the odds of Vishnu showing up at Oppenheimer's ascendant in the lunar return/ Ptolemaeus showing up at the launch' etc

In the end, I am just an artist, astrologer and romantic comedy writer.
If scientists and philosophers who dedicate their lives to reflecting on quantum mechanics and free will can’t come to conclusive answers and agreements,
it’s beyond my ambition to participate in the debate — but I like reading other people’s opinions. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the process of collecting examples. And who knows, maybe one day I’ll meet a mathematician who gets it

Enjoyed your conversation and thoughts Anna and Michael!
Actually, astrologers can use asteroids to enhance their performance in their practice and at the gym!
But keeping social distancing with them like... 56 million years apart.
Finally, just saw that Halley Berry denied her boyfriend marriage proposal. Obviously, she was scared of comet-ment!

It’s my dream some day to meet someone who can do the maths!

Someone applied for the job already. His name is... God!