Without having read Bohm's book, what seems lacking or incomplete in the hologram concept, as briefly described here, is the idea of consciousness, a pulse of intention behind everything that allows for what is often frowned upon in modern thought ? cosmic purpose

The radical dimension to Bohm's thinking is that he does suggest consciousness is included. You might find it worthwhile to actually read the book. There are also some very interesting discussion between Bohm and Krishnamurti on just these themes in some other books.

I should state I dont think this is a discussion anyone can 'win' in the conventional sense. I am really not interested in point scoring or debating points here. I simply wanted to point out that what Dave suggested is not axiomatic for everyone involved in astrology.

Mark

I don't think anyone's yet mentioned Will Keepin? His article 'Astrology and the New Physics' focuses on Bohm, and is one of the best attempts to link astrology and quantum theory/chaos theory I know of. It was originally in Mountain Astrologer Aug/Sept 95, is online here:

http://technovate.org/web/articles/astr ... ysics.html

and has also been republished with minor changes in the latest (Oct/Nov 09) Mountain Astrologer , along with an update entitled 'Indra's Net and Astrology'.

As you are no doubt aware there are spiritual traditions that are not creationist in the sense of a clear cut monotheistic or even polytheistic perspective. Buddhism, Jainism and classical Daoism seem examples to me. As a Buddhist myself I dont see a conflict between the notion of a cosmos without a supreme creator god and the possibility of astrology working. If I shared your viewpoint I obviously wouldn't be on this forum!

A non-theistic monistic perspective allows us to see all phenomena as integrally interconnected. I personally relate to the ideas of David Bohm in his book 'Wholeness and Implicate Order'. His theory of everything relates the universe to a giant hologram. As with holograms if you take a small part of the cosmos it can represent the larger image in microcosm. To me this fits well with Hermetic ideas of as above below and the microcosm mirroring the macrocosm. At the same time I am open to the existence of other realms of existence beyond the human and animal as well as rebirth so I dont go along with the reductionist materialism of western Darwinian thinking.

In fact it seems to me astrology throws up its own problems for monotheists. Not least the ongoing philosophical dilemma of free will vs determisim and the problem of evil.

Of course these are enormous issues which have stimulated discussion for millennia. However, I felt your comment deserved some kind of response.

Have you read What Do Astrologers Believe? by Nicholas Campion? I think you might be surprised to see the diversity of viewpoints held by practicising astrologers surveyed by Campion in his research.

Mark

Mark, I probably should have said that creation is just that...CREATION, i.e. a product of intelligent design.
I was really implying atheism here and not those beliefs that are other than Occidental monotheistic systems.
As I get more and more into understanding the Sabian Symbols, [and all astrological knowledge] I see them as an ordered systematic influence of 'spiritual' law/understanding that is of a conscious intelligent design.

Perhaps I should have said that I don't see how an Astrologer could be an Atheist [or even Agnostic]...[and I've no doubt that one will surface here at this forum and voice his protests over this statement.]
If you've read my posts on how I found Kabbalistic Astrology and the Sabian Symbols to be mutually validating then you understand that Capricorn 30* represents "God" in some sense...and it has a Sabian
Symbol that represents a "GodHead"....
I spent some time studying and employing various Buddhist practices...including Zen.
I found I like my beliefs personified and have become something of a Mystic Gnostic Christian with a Hindu base core of belief...so you might ask am I monotheistic or polytheistic?
My answer is YES!

I wrote:

Without having read Bohm's book, what seems lacking or incomplete in the hologram concept, as briefly described here . . .

I was aiming for how we think about the concept, not really what the concept consists of. I'm too uninformed about the concept itself to discuss it. What interested me was the sense of division (oh, that dryness again), of how we like to look at concepts, view them and choose them according to our personal tastes. We stand apart from our ideas. I was attempting to compare that to a deep-seated ? and most often mute ? yearning to unite with a source and guiding consciousness, which is apparently easier with an image with human qualities. The wet proddings of religion rather than the dry categorizations of acquired knowledge. Of course, theological structures and personal religious opinions conceal the foundational longing and create just as much division.

The thread title states our predicament in three words: 'Astrology and Astronomy'. That's the handicap we work with, and seem satisfied with. The point I was leading to (unknowingly at first) was that of one-and-the-same sky, not a material sky and a symbolic sky. Astrologers can be in two places at once ? except it's really only one place. . . . That's the religious push underlying astrology ? much to the chagrin of many in our fancy new, progressive, secular society.

Garry,
Thanks for the link.

To anyone whose curriousity has been piqued by the subject of Manicheanism...I found this link...it's quite interesting.
It seems that at one time it was figured to be the worlds largest religion in terms of adherants...and so little is known of it presently.
It is said that Parsifal [and his mother] were Manichean. Of additional and objective interest is that Parsifal [Parsival et. al. spellings] was known as, "He who reads the Starry Script".

...here's the link to more on Manichenism...

http://www.hermetic.com/sabazius/mani.htm

the subject of Manicheanism

Although the subject of Manichaeism is fascinating and the veneration of light is very attractive and appears to have a sense of pureness, I tend to be very cautious with Manichaeism because it can make us prone to anti-Semitism. The dualistic character divides not only the elements into light and darkness but can also be extended to humans, those who have received the light and those who haven't, or refuse to accept this belief. The idea of the soul being imprisoned in the body is also a very old concept and makes people to reject the body and anything connected with the physical.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Anti-Semitism is thus seen to be at bottom a form of Manichaeism; It explains
the course of the world by the struggle of the principle of Good with the
principle of Evil. Between these two principles no reconciliation is
conceivable; one of them must triumph and the other be annihilated.

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listse ... 08804.html
also more here

I was unaware of what Sartre wrote. Is a difference of of such a point indicitive of Anti-Semitism? Then isn't Christainanity Anti-Semetic by the same reasoning?
The only sects I know of that are anti anything are those that prescribe death to adherents of other beliefs.
I know little of Manicheanism but have found myself drawn to understand it as of late...per my above hypothesis. I am in continuous study although a bit preoccupied with other ideas/projects as of late.
I appreciate your observations, knowledge and input. It can only serve my enlightenment.
I do see the Zorastrain influence so far...which I find especially interresting considering the Zorastrian priests are the ones who persecuted Mani so specifically.

Historically, Christianity has been virulently anti-Semitic - though we're wandering off-topic here. Most Christians today seem to put it down to reading the gospels out of context. Still, there's no denying it.

Any decent history book, chestnuts like Martin Luther's Of the Jews and Their Lies, which Hitler used as a blueprint for the holocaust, the Justinian laws way back when, and it goes on and on and on and on.

I don't believe Christianity needs to be anti-semitic, though, and there has been huge improvement since the second world war. Anti-semitism would seem to fly in the face of stated Christian principles and ethics.

Also, the only occidental monotheism I'm aware of is Christianity, and even that's fairly split. Orthodox Christianity follows Greek thought more than Roman, and you can definitely see the western/middle eastern split between them.

Both Judaism and Islam are firmly middle-eastern.

Having lived in both societies, there is a huge difference between the two.

I can see your line of reason.
Yet, I was raised [here in America] primarily Quaker [We are taught to repect all individual spiritual inspiration] and susequently found my beliefs through a synthesism of Hindu and esoteric/occult Christain beliefs [Essene & Gnostic...among others] which rely heavily on early Judaic scripture, the Torah and Kabbalistic interpretation...I believe there is a common middle ground to be found in "The Mix".
There seems to be "Truth" in all sects which honor "The Light"...of which Judaism, Christianity, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Sufism, Sihkism et.al. are of that ilk....and here in the 'States' we have our indigenous rites, most notably the 'Sun Rites' of the Hopi and the Zuni ...Manicheanism, so far as I have ascertained, is in that "Ilk" also.
The rub is in seperating the "Wheat from the chaff"...I like to say that "The Devil is in [or,... has gotten into...] the details."

...also, Freuds' "Moses And Monotheism" is a must read as per understanding the "Light" worship origins of Judaism.

hi.
I think that both are at their places but yes both are related.

I'm not very well-read in Sartre either but I was reminded of it because at home I have a small booklet in which anti-Semitism is explained and how it can be recognized, one of the features was said to be Manichaeism and Sartre was mentioned in the book.

Like Olivia says, in history anti-Semitic Christianity can be traced everywere. One of the most infamous examples the concept of 'the Jews' having murdered 'the Christ' (the so called 'Jewish deicide' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide . And indeed Christianity doesn't need to be anti-Semitic. A more widespread acceptance of Judaeism by Christians came after WWII.

Another problem that occurs is that if Manichaeism could be said to make a dualist division between good and evil people too easily, the people who want to combat Manichaeism might do it so fanatically that their fight in fact resembles this same dualist principle of good against evil.

For example the Cathars in 13th century Southern France were heavily persecuted and massacred for their (alleged) Manichaeism, this would make their persecutors not better than them. And nowadays the tiny group (only some tenthousands) of Zoroastrians in Iran are having a real hard time. And somewhere I read that when Buddhism spread to Mongolia the regional shamanist religion was suppressed by the Buddhist as an alleged worship of devils.

So nothing is entirely black and white and a dualism like light-dark, +/-, male-female seems okay to me when they are well balanced and seen as rather complementary instead of the one (light) being better than the other (darkness). We need both sides, darkness for sleep and the lenghtening and shortening of days is necessary for some plants to flower in certain periods etc. etc.

To end with a link to astrology I'm reminded of the idea that in older days people believed that the planet Saturn was ascribed to the Jewish people and the Sun to the Christians, Venus to the Muslims (I believe, not sure of it). I guess all peoples and individuals all have more or less of all planets 'in' them.

Hello Eddy,

Eddy wrote: To end with a link to astrology I'm reminded of the idea that in older days people believed that the planet Saturn was ascribed to the Jewish people and the Sun to the Christians, Venus to the Muslims (I believe, not sure of it). I guess all peoples and individuals all have more or less of all planets 'in' them.

Mercury to Christians, because Catholic religion (the only variant during Middle Ages) is the religion of scholars

margherita