But on a personal level I want to see astrology proved so that I can mention my interest in it without the response of "That rubbish" that I got recently from someone who admitted to knowing nothing at all about it.

Do you envision any other acceptance short of outright scientific proof? .... I am just wondering if there might, be in your mind, another option.

I see the Big Bang theory, and parts of quantum physics, as filling a space in sciencists' minds that could otherwise only be filled by some sense of the Divine

Malcolm Ramsay wrote:

... the outcome of the experiment is dependent on the time that it occurs- e.g. the time a sample is drawn will influence its makeup

Thank you for reminding me of this, Amelia; I have no trouble reminding my conscience of the importance of timing, when it reproaches me for not getting down to things, but I don't always remember it in other contexts.

I've been struggling to reconcile my belief that the essential validity of astrology can be conclusively demonstrated, with the apparent failure of the experiments that have been done. I'd concluded that those failures could be partly explained by the resonance that astrologers report between their own issues and those of the charts they analyse; both by the disruption of that resonance when an outside researcher is the conductor and also, perhaps, by the limits it puts on personal experience. I certainly wasn't happy with that - but perhaps time is the key to it.

As an aside (though closer to the original topic than most of what I've written) a month or two ago I wouldn't have said apparent failure. I had taken it for granted that the meta-analysis of results that Dean refers to could be trusted, but then I came across this from Garry Phillipson's interview with The Researchers: "... charts will tend to be of two kinds, those that fit their owners (call these red) and those that don?t (call these black)" juxtaposed with an analogy with a pack of cards suggesting equal numbers. Until I've read that meta-analysis (currently number 673 on my mental to-do list), I have to assume their reasoning there is sounder than this, but ....

I often find myself drawing parallels between the life of the individual and the life of the race. I see Mankind's relationship with the Divine as being analogous in some ways to a child's relationship with its parents, and I think the process of rejection that has taken place over the last few centuries can be understood that way; I believe it is like the period of rejection that a child goes through in order to break out of the instinctual relationship, and develop a conscious understanding of their nature, thereby allowing a deeper relationship. And, just as there are particular times in an individual's life when certain developments take place, and fate throws up obstacles to thwart attempts to make them happen earlier, I'm sure that Mankind's development is governed by similar rules.

James said earlier:

It has forced me to really think about astrology and to refine my views. It has forced me to investigate what I had formally taken for granted and accepted without question.

Perhaps in order to get the most out of astrology, to fully appreciate the mystery, we need to approach it with the rigour that is more usually associated with science - in which case perhaps we have needed time out in the cold to develop the necessary habits of mind.

I hadn't thought of it in these terms before, but it could be as simple as that - those experiments failed simply because it wasn't yet time for the process of reconciliation to begin. But that's something I would certainly expect the sciencists* to resist!

I think I've probably given James the wrong idea of what I expect; I do think science will be transformed if the fundamental premise of astrology is proved, but only on the same sort of timescale as it was transformed in the last century by the findings of quantum physics. But on a personal level I want to see astrology proved so that I can mention my interest in it without the response of "That rubbish" that I got recently from someone who admitted to knowing nothing at all about it.


* The word 'scientist' is so well established as 'a practitioner of science' that I don't like to use it for 'someone with a scientistic mindset'. I've used 'sciencist' in my own mind for a while, but this is the first time I've used it in communication. If there is an established term, I'd like to know it, but I can't think of one.

Although consciousness-correlated physical phenomena are widely and credibly documented, their appearance and behavior display substantial departures from conventional scientific criteria. Under even the most rigorous protocols, they are only irregularly replicable, and they appear to be insensitive to most basic physical coordinates, including distance and time. Rather, their strongest correlations are with various subjective parameters, such as intention, emotional resonance, uncertainty, attitude, and meaning, and information processing at an unconscious level appears to be involved. If science, by its most basic definition, is to pursue understanding and utilization of these extraordinary processes, it will need to expand its current paradigm to acknowledge and codify a proactive role for the mind in the establishment of physical events, and to accommodate the spectrum of empirically indicated subjective correlates. The challenges of quantitative measurement and theoretical conceptualization within such a ?Science of the Subjective? are formidable, but its potential intellectual and cultural benefits could be immense, not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself.

Malcolm Ramsay wrote:I'm glad to know you're enjoying the thread Deb - it's wonderful to have somewhere to engage in this kind of dialogue. Rural Lincolnshire doesn't offer much opportunity for it and thinking too long alone is disheartening at best.

My Scorpio Sun will probably be expelled for telling you this, Woodwater - 19/11/56 11:17pm 0E17 50N46 Asc 0Virgo33. Why did you read me as earth?

not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself