SunPluto wrote:

Martin Lewicki wrote:

Malcolm Ramsay wrote: It doesn't have the poetry of "As above, so below", but it baffles me how scientists can object that there is no mechanism by which astrology could work.

If you are talking horoscopic astrology, well yes, then you 'd be stretching the limits the laws of physics to absurdity to explain it.

Martin

Hello Martin

You don't know me from a bar of soap, but I sat in one of your classes many years ago and I still have the sphere that I made with the planets on it lol

Hi SP

Still got mine lol. Now it's a CD.

Martin

Martin Lewicki wrote:

Astrologers should get over themselves and quit all this special pleading - if no scientific evidence that astrology works is produced.

I'm not sure what you mean by special pleading, Martin, but I think we're probably looking at it from different angles. There are two distinct issues: on the one hand there is the problem of astrology's acceptance by a wider public, and there, I completely agree with you - without objective evidence, there is no point in trying to convince anyone who is not naturally inclined to accept it, and making vague analogies only makes us look foolish.

On the other hand there is the essentially personal issue of our confidence in our own experience, and that's the angle I've been writing from. Anyone who is concerned about the integrity of their own beliefs has to recognise the possibility of self-deception, so if scientists suggest that what we believe is incompatible with the way the physical world works, we have to deal with that in some way. For many, that means retreating from the idea that there is any physical basis to it - but that means giving up any hope of objective evidence (and my instinct is that it also means giving up part of the potential of the subject). Personally, as I said in my last post, I can't see that there's even a case to answer. But then, thinking about it, all I've actually seen is statements that astrologers can't explain how astrology works (which implies that it is somehow contrary to the laws of physics, but doesn't say it explicitly).

At least cosmologists have actual observations to follow up on theories and to modify if required.

When you can't see the wood, making ever more detailed observations of more and more trees doesn't have that much value. To my mind it's a fundamental requirement that the conclusions of a theory should not contradict the assumptions it's based on. When a chain of reasoning which is only made possible by the assumption that the same laws apply everywhere arrives at a point where those laws cannot be true ... as far as I'm concerned it's a classic case of reductio ad absurdum; calling it a Singularity and carrying on regardless merely takes them into fantasy.

On that note: one of the assumptions behind that theory is that we don't occupy a privileged position in the universe; totally reasonable at the highest level, but you only have to consider a nursery to realise that it's not safe to apply it at the level that we see. If Earth is the cradle of an infant god, perhaps the endeavours of the cosmologists will turn out to be like the time, when I was very young, when I lay in bed puzzling over the significance of the pictures of picnicking teddy bears that were repeated at regular intervals round the walls of my bedroom. If only my parents had hung over my bed a mobile programmed to reveal the secrets of the universe ....

Special pleading is when one expects recognition without having to provide the goods while others have to work to produce the goods through discipline and pear review before they get the same recognition.


Anyway, here is a thought experiment.

Does astrology work when no one is looking?

If a tree falls in the forest and diverts a stream, or an earthquake causes a landslide - but no one is around to see it or experience the consequences, would there be some kind of transit/progression etc for it.

Is astrology a product of consciousness or is it something "out there" irrespective of consciousness?

Martin

Martin wrote:

Anyway, here is a thought experiment.

Does astrology work when no one is looking?

If a tree falls in the forest and diverts a stream, or an earthquake causes a landslide - but no one is around to see it or experience the consequences, would there be some kind of transit/progression etc for it.

Is astrology a product of consciousness or is it something "out there" irrespective of consciousness?

To anyone who knows their dignities from their debilities, that?s the issue in a nutshell! It?s why I always refer this debate back to the traditional differentiation between ?natural? and ?judicial? astrology. ?Natural? astrology is supposed to operate regardless of individual perspective, like a full Moon effect ? so that tree falls. Judicial astrology requires the symbolic judgement of an astrologer. It cannot be expected to operate without someone paying attention; hence that tree doesn?t fall.
Trying to bracket natural and judicial astrology together is futile, but establishing where one begins and the other ends is near on impossible.

Many historical astrologers have tried to prove the 'natural' principles of astrology whilst claiming that the judicial branches were defective. But what they thought of as being ?natural, scientific principles? were heavily dependent upon symbolic assessment ? like the signs of the zodiac and the essential dignities, each of which can vary according to various systems - so obviously more likely to fall into the judicial camp. It?s amusing when you find authors like William Ramesey publishing huge books on electional astrology, whilst indignantly claiming that horary astrology is pure rubbish! What's natural and what's judicial? That's the rub

Martin's post reminded me of a limerick on this theme, by someone called Ronald Knox, published in 1924:

There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad

A reply was received:

Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God

As a lapsed atheist I'm a bit embarrassed how often I've used the word 'god' on this forum, but ... can there ever be no one around to see the tree fall?

Deb wrote:Martin wrote:

Anyway, here is a thought experiment.

Does astrology work when no one is looking?

If a tree falls in the forest and diverts a stream, or an earthquake causes a landslide - but no one is around to see it or experience the consequences, would there be some kind of transit/progression etc for it.

Is astrology a product of consciousness or is it something "out there" irrespective of consciousness?

To anyone who knows their dignities from their debilities, that?s the issue in a nutshell! It?s why I always refer this debate back to the traditional differentiation between ?natural? and ?judicial? astrology. ?Natural? astrology is supposed to operate regardless of individual perspective, like a full Moon effect ? so that tree falls. Judicial astrology requires the symbolic judgement of an astrologer. It cannot be expected to operate without someone paying attention; hence that tree doesn?t fall.
Trying to bracket natural and judicial astrology together is futile, but establishing where one begins and the other ends is near on impossible.

Many historical astrologers have tried to prove the 'natural' principles of astrology whilst claiming that the judicial branches were defective. But what they thought of as being ?natural, scientific principles? were heavily dependent upon symbolic assessment ? like the signs of the zodiac and the essential dignities, each of which can vary according to various systems - so obviously more likely to fall into the judicial camp. It?s amusing when you find authors like William Ramesey publishing huge books on electional astrology, whilst indignantly claiming that horary astrology is pure rubbish! What's natural and what's judicial? That's the rub

Natural astrology seems more like another name geocosmic effects. I imagine judicial astrology might have emerge from some observations geocosmic effects.

Otherwise horoscopic or judicial astrology in my view has the signature of a product of consciousness. That is, it did not exist out there until it was brought into being by a contemplating consciousness. That is astrology exists because we created it! No wonder there are so many variegated systems - some even contradictory.

So if a natural event coincided with an astrological configuration, it does so because there is a consciousness there to witness it, otherwise there would be no need for there to be a configuration for the event.

Martin

Well, I am back after my glorious trip to England. I really must find a way to get to the UK more often, it is where my soul compass points. We missed seeing you there Deb!

Thanks to the generosity of Rudolf Smit, I now have a copy of the correlation article that Dean points out as his reference for the above mention claims that I am challenging. I will go over this with a fine tooth comb to see if I am correct in my own claims?? So far, I think my astrolabe is still safe.