Let me carry on where aquirata left off.

I see all branches of astrology as being both natural and divinational. ... requires us to use intuitive processing. So ultimately each chart, and every individual reading of each chart will differ according to subjective impulses,

Apart from seeming to be wanting to have the cake and eating it, the position that astrology is both natural and divinational is not consistent with the program that I see Cornelius and Gary P. espose of locating astrology firmly and fully in the divinational side of the alleged "chasm" - or should I say disjunction. I take it that the program characterises this divide as a disjunction, and would like to drive the philosophical wedge in, for the purpose of saving (some part of) astrology from the "scientific" sceptics.

I don't think that, as you've stated it Deb, your objection is successful. For if we say that in every erection of a chart (nowadays on a computer, so let us add: with a human attendant and pressing the buttons) and its interpretation that some subjective impulse is involved, then we are in the position of multiple different "readings" of some narrative, and the allegation that there cannot be any objective treatment of any text. I make the comparison with literary criticism because I think it is specious. The more apposite comparison would be to a scientific experiment which involves people looking at a measuring instrument and determining what the gauge is indicating. There may be any number of reasons why the numbers that people report would differ, e.g. 50, 50.4, 51, etc. And some of those may be subjective, e.g. one person does not feel well, another is in a hurry to be somewhere else, another is thinking about someone they just met, etc. But a well-conceived experiment considers (or rather - should) the status of the empirical observations and employ the appropriate methodology of dealing with them (i.e. statistical sampling). This is not really a "scientific" issue at all. For centuries textile buyers have appraised fabrics in the light of north-facing windows, and they have done that without the scientific concept or measurement of "colour temperature" but simply from noting that the colours of things change depending on the quality of the light, and attempting to eliminate such variances (the sun never shining from the north). The further point being that in doing so textile buyers are not attempting a scientific appraisal of fabrics, but an aesthetic one (and probably economic also).

I also think aquirata's point about divinatory systems in general correct. Why should a querant prefer astrology to some other system? Because their marketing is better than say the Gideons? Because they've paid for their advice rather than derived it themselves from the Bible in their hotel bedroom? If astrologers are intent on heading down this route to escape the scientists and rational sceptics they had better prepare for the action from established religions.

Apologize for the lack of contact lately. I am going through a complete vocational make-over, trying to hold the fort over at Wikipedia, and my wife as a school teacher is doing a job and a half (meaning I am carrying more weight at home). So that's a lot of load, which means pleasant discussions such as this one here must take a back seat. Oh, I am also working on a scientific proof of astrology (well, only a part of it, not including divinatory aspects), and that also demands some of my attention.

All in all, I am interested in taking this further, and will be back shortly to do just that.

OK, I'm finished reading this book. Although well written and intriguing, reading it has been a mixed experience for me. Cornelius makes a good case for divinatory astrology, but still I cannot believe there is no objective part in a complex symbolic system that uses rigid rules in addition to judgment, intuition or divination, or whatever the correct term is. In Phillipson's equally wonderful Astrology in the Year Zero, astrology is not only divided up as natural (scientific) and judicial (divinatory), but also as objective and subjective. These two modes of categorization are not the same according to him and Dean et al. The definition of subjective astrology in the book is astrology providing spiritual (subjective) value, and the opposite giving hard facts. The natural/judicial divide is along the way astrology works, and the objective/subjective definition is about the information or value provided by astrology.

It seems to me that Cornelius doesn't make this distinction. To him (and, I suppose, to many other people), subjective = judicial/divinatory, objective = natural/scientific. So I find it interesting that, by defining astrology as divinatory, one doesn't escape the prying eyes of scientists if the definition above is valid.

More to follow...

Hi Deb,

That is a compliment and I feel very flattered. I shall cling to those words even though I realise it probably boiled down to a matter of weight in your luggage and my book, being light, got away with it

Well, if anything, the weight argument is in favour of your book because it was judged highly valuable despite its thinness.

I don?t actually see the differences as being of complexity but of principle. Because these ?chance driven? systems all allow for the random presentation of the signs, so the onus is very heavily on the intuitive input of the caster/reader. So is horary of course, I?m not denying that; but we can?t shuffle planets about or let them fall where they will;

I'm glad I have waited for so long to answer your post. Although it was not intentional, this period of unconscious contemplation let your words sink in and gain a deeper understanding. I remember when I first read your post, my immediate response in my mind was something like what Coder put forward. If I understand you correctly, however, you are saying that other divinatory systems have no or minimal natural part, and astrology is partly natural and partly divinational , both parts being significant (I'm using your definitions). With that in mind, let me read you further since it all ties into the same question:

So ultimately each chart, and every individual reading of each chart will differ according to subjective impulses, and it?s hard to see how any objective analysis of chart work, whether its horary or any other type, will lead to scientific approval... It would be better to think that some of the components of astrological reasoning would undergo further objective analysis.

Alright, so do you think that certain components of astrology (such as diurnal positions) can be objectively tested and validated, but, when it comes to the entire phenomenon, subjectivity enters which makes objective testing impossible? If so, do you not think that further advances in scientific tools and methodology will be able to tackle this problem?

But then what happened to the Gauquelin sectors or the Mars effect? How quickly were the potential of those fields of enquiry ignored by a scientific community that doesn?t seem to be genuinely interested or willing to invest in further research?

Correct. Many competent people have put tremendous effort into this line of research. The final verdict that's been standing for the past six years is that there is a definite effect. Yet scientific orthodoxy simply ignores results and keeps parroting the p-word. This of course is part of a deeper problem, and astrology is just one of the victims of a broader social and moral decadency of our times.

At any rate, it's nice to see your picture, and I have to say that you look way too young and much too beautiful for your wisdom!

As a postscript to the 'divination' issue, let me categorically say this: that there exists an objectively verifiable part of astrology is now as clear to me as daylight. This denies the possibility of astrology being only divinatory (i.e. with no relationship to modern science), but it doesn't preclude the coexistence of them.

Does this make sense? Is this the divine will?

Hi Peter,

I?ll try and get back to some of your points next month. I?ve just returned from holiday and my feet barely touch the ground before I leave for a two week teaching engagement. But very briefly, yes, what you assumed in your post before the last was what I meant: that horary is far more tied to natural cycles than some other divinational systems. Although we might divide astrology into ?natural? or ?judicial? branches, the division is one of employment rather than origin of cause. That?s why I maintain that all branches of astrology are ?natural? and all are capable of divinational analysis. It is the ?co-existence? of spiritual meaning in natural phenomena that I am arguing, which I suppose is the belief that divine will is omnipresent and capable of being understood through the study of nature.
I also believe that much more of astrology is capable of being objectively verified than is currently the case; but I?m sceptical that astrology ?as a study? or ?as a whole? will ever be verified or accepted. Partly this is because we have elements within astrology that even we struggle to provide philosophical support for (I?m thinking here of such things as the division of terms and faces, etc), and partly because its claims are too lofty and intimidating for most scientists. History has shown that as parts of astrology become accepted as fact, those ?facts? get integrated into another science as if they were never part of the astrological tradition. So even if it were scientifically proved without a shadow of a doubt that the planetary cycles affect earthly events and human behaviour, I?m sure that some new complicated name would be invented for that accepted knowledge and astrology (as a system for making personal predictions and judgements on individual circumstances) would continue to be ridiculed in ?academic? circles. I hope I get proved wrong

Your research sounds very interesting BTW and I hope we can learn more of it soon.

Deb

Hi Deb,

I'm very glad to hear from you. You had gone missing for a few weeks, so I figured you must have been on vacation.

Thanks for confirming my interpretation of your thoughts! We are in general agreement here: the workings of the divine are all-encompassing, and, as far as material manifestation is concerned, much of it should be objectively verifiable.

You're so right about parts of astrology having been integrated into mainstream science. It is frustrating on one hand but also reassuring on the other: from modern science's point of view, nothing rational can be part of astrology since it is obviously a 'pseudoscience.' So the scientists' taking anything out of astrology and including it in science is equivalent to embracing a small part of astrology, which essentially means progress on the whole. There will come a point in my view, however, when there will be too much to embrace, and science will be content with living with an objectively verifiable astrology.

My research has reached its culmination point with the Full Moon. All the hard work is done, now it is time to interpret the results in proper context and prepare an article for publication. I'm planning to finish this phase within two weeks, and will naturally keep you posted on my progress.

So enjoy your teaching assignment, and by the conclusion of that hopefully I will have something promising and exciting to say on this subject!