PS - To add: 'enchantment' is non-negotiable.

There?s some very interesting views in this thread. I particularly enjoyed your first post Andrew, but I?m struggling to capture a way to expand what you say in an intelligent manner. My viewpoint is rooted in the acceptance that all living matter is invested with creativity, and that creativity gives us an inherent potential to recognise meaning that lies outside our own personal experience. As a traditional astrologer who is very aware of the rituals I employ, I?m comfortable with the notion that the astrologer conducts the orchestra in astrology. But it goes beyond the feeling that it is only through me that my astrology becomes activated and has a meaning; I also accept that the universe is activating and interpreting me - if the power lies in the creativity energy that we all share, it is everywhere ? outside as well as inside (above as well as below). And that would give astrology something that we can best describe as objective reality; and yet at the same time I realise there is nothing truly objective about any of it. I think I might need another 10 years to develop this in a way that makes sense to anyone, including myself.

With regard to Kenneth?s comment:

After all, science is genuinely enchanting to those who value it.

I can quite agree with what Kirk and TS have written, and yet it seems to me that one of the valuable points of the article is its reminder to cherish the feeling of enchantment wherever and whenever we find it. Those who work in the sciences and are genuinely enchanted by the marvels of science are getting it right. No one becomes a genius without a true appreciation of their subject; and yes, I do believe enchantment can be experienced anywhere, as much within science as without it.

As Curry explains, disenchantment isn?t about knowing everything, it lies in the belief that everything could be available if we were inclined to pursue it, reducing the value of the sought-after prize. All of our most enchanting myths, legends and fables put the hero through obstacles and the need to overcome impossible tasks, where the disenchanted will give up along the way.

The problem is that most of us devalue the marvels that surround us in our everyday environment. For example, in a bygone age the tale of two individuals standing at different parts of the country, yet able to communicate at will, would have described them as magicians, and any tools they used would have been described as powerful amulets or valuable artefacts. Nowadays I wouldn?t have a mobile phone if you paid me ? they are everywhere and a constant interruption to focus. But I still marvel at the fact that our ability to communicate so freely over continents, even in mediums such as this, is awe-inspiring and a constant reminder of the ?magical? creative source that drives mankind to apply ingenuity to surmount the odds.

The point I am making is that I don?t believe we can lay the blame for disenchantment at the evolution of science, the motivation of science, or at those who seek to understand, explain, or even rationalise. Disenchantment, for me, is all about losing the urge to do battle with one thing for the sake of another worth fighting for, or to fail to appreciate the full value of something purely for what it is, or to lose the sense of inspiration that something once gave us. It?s a human problem, and sometimes just the natural consequence of growing bigger than the thing we once looked up to. Where it lingers it is stifling to creativity, so the problem of being disenchanted is as pertinent to scientists (or anyone else for that matter) as it is to astrologers. But it can?t be avoided by the refusal to analyse or understand, because if there is one thing enchantment persuades us to do, it?s to look at something more closely.

Hence no one, not even astrologers, can hope for a state of permanent enchantment, unless they suspend their own mental and emotional growth. But if the subject that enchants you is big enough, mysterious enough and fascinating enough, you can live a lifetime in it. I think astrology is one of those subjects.

I may have come across as being anti-science. I want to clarify that that is not the case. However, I have acquired an unfair and unrealistic bias against the rational mind which I must discard.

Scientific studies can, and do, lead to moments of enchantment. Kenneth?s telescope and dinosaur examples demonstrated that well. I think of the logical and rational mind as a tool which we need, but the tool at times is dissolved, dislocated, released, in order for something larger to come through. It?s an ongoing exchange of focus, erratic and unpredictable. Scientists and astrologers, and everyone else on Earth, often suffer from the same affliction: too much Saturn, too many boundaries. The idea of enchantment gives me the feeling of shifting, flux, movement, and of distance. Above all, I see enchantment as a moment which takes us beyond ourselves. The following is something that grabbed my thoughts today and which looks at movement through and away from the birth chart. It may be way off topic; hopefully it ties in as well as I believe it does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my previous post I quoted Thomas Moore on play and eros. We all have heard that play is good. The 5th house popped into my mind today: the house of play, pleasure, romance?it sounds to me like a house of enchantment. Venus has her Joy there. The other day I wrote that Venus is often associated with enchantment. (Never be rude to an enchantress, if you know what?s good for you.) The 5th house trines the Ascendant, so what about the other house that trines that point?

The 9th is the house of religion, philosophy, dreams and visions, and astrology. It?s the house of this topic thread. It?s the house of the Sun?s joy. The tarot card ?The Sun? is usually illustrated with one or two children, which gives us a symbol of simplicity, essence, living in the present moment and yet growing into some future state which already exists deep within. Now imagine the birth chart drawn with an arrow on the Ascendant, and the 5th and 9th house trines flowing toward it from either side and shooting out through the arrow and away from the limited confines of the chart. The pleasure of the 5th and the philosophy of the 9th lead us out of our daily routines and habitual perceptions and into a larger space.

We can also consider the sextiles to the Ascendant of Jupiter?s Joy in the 11th and the Moon?s Joy in the 3rd. They also give me a sense of outward movement through the Ascendant and away from the chart, but possibly not as strongly as with the 5th and 9th trines.

The Joys of Saturn in the 12th and Mars in the 6th are dissociate to the Ascendant and don?t allow us through that gate. That?s not to say that they are entirely bad and hindering, but this could shed some light on ?malefic?. However, Saturn may keep the scientist?s nose buried in the things he is weighing and measuring, and a Saturn overdose could be keeping the astrologer?s face in a book looking for the correct rules and authoritative voices which have passed down to us through time. Mars is possibly too much ?Me?, too much action produced by and for personal experience, to allow us to travel much further beyond ourselves.

And Mercury, the trickster, mischievous imp, symbol of logical processes, and traditional planet of astrology, has its Joy at the gateway. Enchanting!

Yes it is. I like the imagery of the arrow shot to illustrate the flow of light from the ascendant.

I liked it too, Kirk. The trines and sextiles to the Ascendant and the planets which joy in those houses. Very interesting, and dare I say "rational" Made a lot of sense to me since I have Sun in 9th ruling 5th.

However

Scientists and astrologers, and everyone else on Earth, often suffer from the same affliction: too much Saturn, too many boundaries.

Too much Saturn? You can never have too much Saturn, imo. My favourite planet

A bias against science by astrologers may be just as counterproductive as a bias against astrology by scientists. I think there is much common ground to be discovered. While I think it is necessary for astrology to occasionally retreat into the less objective world of myth and enchantment, it is also necessary to occasionally find ways to rationally objectify the myths and enchantments.

As I mentioned earlier, I?ve developed my own thinking in this subject more along the psychological lines of projection and identification as a process, instead of enchantment, but I?m trying to adapt here. I am generally in agreement with what Kirk said:

I think of the logical and rational mind as a tool which we need, but the tool at times is dissolved, dislocated, released, in order for something larger to come through.

Sometimes, however, it goes the other way. Enchantment itself can become limiting and it is rationality that brings awareness of something larger. The following is based on a true story.

When an American marine biologist first came to the archipelago on Canada?s west coast, she came to study the enchanting songs of the orcas. After some time living in this enchanting world she notices that the baby wild salmon are being decimated by sea lice. After some investigation by netting fish and counting sea lice, she traces the sea lice problem to the new commercial fish farms. The sea lice are spreading to the wild salmon and the population is plummeting. She knows that while everything flows down from the mountains, the salmon are the only thing taking life and fertility back up the mountains, for the eagles, bears, Douglas firs, and other abundant life on shore. Motivated by her disenchantment and the vision that flows from her rationality, she directs her research towards saving the enchanted archipelago with a renewed purpose.

If the marine biologist had been content just to live in the enchanted world she found, she might have been oblivious to the subtle failures in the ecosystem that would eventually lead to its collapse.

As Deb said earlier, enchantment is not a permanent state. I would go so far as to suggest that enchantment is transitional and ephemeral. I believe enchantment and disenchantment are both necessary for growth and development and associate enchantment with the normal developmental processes of transits and progressions. The types of things that enchant are more a question of signs, which I equate with values. Different people have different values and are enchanted by different things.

KennethM

Hello Kenneth,

?A bias against science by astrologers may be just as counterproductive as a bias against astrology by scientists.?

I agree.

?Sometimes, however, it goes the other way. Enchantment itself can become limiting and it is rationality that brings awareness of something larger.?

Looking at this story from a slightly different perspective, it appears to me what limited the experience of enchantment was the narrowing of focus down to the operational practical functioning details of reality, the scrutinizing of the smaller details of this enchanting world which gave rise to disenchantment and her motivation to do something about it.

A transition from a human ?being? in the larger moment of enchantment who, through focusing in on the smaller details identified the threat within it and was therefore motivated into doing something about it ? and in her 'doing' is endeavouring to sustain, preserve, conserve, save the larger enchantment.

Will she ever experience that same enchantment she felt as when she first experienced that world? Perhaps not. But I?d suggest it?s this initial experience of enchantment ? to preserve or save it - which acts as the motivation for what follows.

And new enchantments open up as new worlds, new discoveries within that world, occur along the way. The transition from the larger realm of ?being? to within the practical limitations of ?doing? ? the doing prompted by the experience of being.

I?d suggest expansion (enchantment), contraction (disenchantment), expansion (enchantment).

That it is the contractions, the disenchantments, or the actions, or the 'doing' which are negotiated in the hope of arriving at a place of being (enchantment) ... yet if caught up in the constant act of 'doing', enchantment easily passes by, unnoticed.

Enchantment being one of those things you either feel or you don't, but to experience it usually requires a pause in action - including the act of rationalizing/analysing/negotiating - for appreciation.

Warm wishes,
TS.

When I was young, what enchanted me was the type of thing that enchanted the Upanishads: smoke, a firefly, ... but what was the meaning of it all? Now I can be enchanted and have meaning at the same time.

I find Einstein's famous equation ( e = mc^2 as programmers write it ) enchanting. But in actual fact it is just a variation of the general equation for a straight line in the system of cartesian coordinates which we all learn in 1st grade (or Year 11? 12? if you're in the UK), namely y = ax + b. In Einstein, we have b = 0, and a = c^2.

In plain words, Einstein's equation says the energy within some matter is proportional to its mass. That's not difficult to grasp: no mass, no energy to get from it; the more mass there is, the more energy can be liberated. It's a simple proportionality. But what makes it enchanting is this: the scaling factor is light. Specifically, (the speed of) light times (the speed of) light. Or Light! That's the same light that's in smoke, that makes a firefly glow, ...

Does it work? Sure, there's 2 nuked cities to show so. Is it true? I don't know of any experimental verification of this mathematically derived equation to compare with say the empirical verification of anti-matter, which was first derived mathematically by Dirac and latter verified as true. Curiously, Tesla disagreed with Einstein over where the energy in matter actually came from: for Tesla it was the space between the atoms. Which is to say, take care which gods you worship.