Skyscript Astrology Forum

Keren, thank you for your insight. I agree. The principle of Integral is to include diversity, not rise past it.

I think astrology as a whole system is highly evolved in wisdom and complexity. I view AQAL as Ken Wilber's objective to simplify Complexity of accumulative knowledge and wisdom and, most importantly, project a vision for the future. I view AQAL as very limited compared to astrology, for example. I continue to add to AQAL some of the radial, polarization, multidimensional aspects of ancient wisdom. Even the astrological chart (not astrology in total) is flattened. I haven't found the space and time to do a complete mapping yet and still hope to.

I also have ideas about Spiral Dynamics and astrology. I'm looking at the astrological elements and cardinalities as ways to explain the evolution through and up the spiral. Look at the spiral as more than a linear progression. A point of the spiral line is not just "seeing" the previous and the next point. In fact, the mathematics of spirals (the Golden Rectangle) describes a multidimensional process (across the spiral path). I suspect astrology (including the esoteric narrative) could provide specific insight into the HOW of Conscious Evolution.

More later when I have the time to map it (and figure out how to embed graphics in these comments. :-)

Hi Keren

I absolutely agree that astrology works perfectly on its own. As do Wilber?s ideas. And I also agree that in trying to squish them together, much subtlety and depth is lost.

The same with languages, each language has its unique voice, which should never be lost.

But still, I had several reasons to merge those models.

The first was that those models all seem to ?cover the whole? so to speak. I have no evidence of that, it is just that it they made much sense to me. And as there is just one whole, I thought they all had to be expressions of that same whole.

The second was that I wanted to understand the AQAL and Altitude model better. And the best way for me is to use another model that I understand already better (in this case the Zodiac) to compare it with. And while doing that, there were just to many similarities to ignore.

And the third is that I really love to look at things from a distance to see how they fit together, to search for an overall model.

I absolutely see the downside of that. Much nuance is lost. Each model has its own logic and reasoning that does not fit into the overall model.

But sometimes it makes me question that logic and reasoning and I make some new assumptions. Sometimes I have to let those assumptions go, but other times they bring me some steps further.

It is just my attempt to understand the world.

I read a couple of books by Ken Wilber a good while back - Up from Eden and The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes. I'm not too familiar with his more recent work. However, I do distinctly remember getting the impression from my contact with his writings that Wilber has/had a particularly jaundiced view of astrology.

This of course does not mean there is no point in considering astrology in the light of his ideas (or vice versa).

As far as I recall, the main issue around which Wilber's critique of all things 'New Age' revolved was what he calls the pre/trans fallacy. In essence, Wilber identifies pre-rational, rational and trans-rational states, perspectives or experiences. The first and the last of these are non-rational, and therefore can easily become conflated.

Wilber would see pre-rational experience as pre-personal, and associated with mythical religion as opposed to trans-rational mystical religion, nature as opposed to cosmos, instinct as opposed to intuition, body as opposed to soul, and so on. (see http://www.integralworld.net/fallacy.html).

As far as Wilber is concerned development ideally moves from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational. Moving from rational to pre-rational Wilber would see as a regressive shift back 'to infantile states'.

He associates much New Age thinking with this regressive shift, almost as an anti-rational reaction. He thinks that C.G.Jung's work has influenced a confusion between pre-rational and trans-rational states, while Freud's work implies that trans-rational states are equally regressive as pre-rational states and basically symptomatic of neurosis.

Wilber seems to see astrology in the light of this fallacy. It was, or maybe still is, a major area of disagreement between himself and Stanislav Grof, as well as Grof's colleague Richard Tarnas.

As I say, this doesn't prevent one considering astrology in the light of Wilber's ideas; it could well be argued that when it comes to astrology, he may not know what he is talking about.

However, unless Wilber's stance has changed or evolved, one should perhaps be careful if one wishes to clarify further the connections between his theories and astrology by engaging in discussion either with him or his followers and adherents!

All the best,

Bill

Bill, thanks for the references on Ken Wilber's perspective. I guess I was googling AQAL/Astrology when I should have been googling Ken Wilber/Astrology. Found much discussion "about" him... nothing yet from him.

Yes, the argument is very ancient due to the lack of understanding of the possibilities of transrational. All ancient religions have always fallen short of the mystics' understanding of the original insights/experience about consciousness. The social/political context of a level distorts and activates both positive and negative value memes. But this is what the Integral theory is all about: understanding the value of each level. Of course, understanding requires resolving the preceived paradox of the positive/negative dialogue--called the Shadow. That dialogue polarizes, finally, into the dualitiy of Good vrs Evil.

I have done my charting and think I have found a mash-up between AQAL and the astrological wheel. I'm working on some narrative to explain how it works. Stay tuned!

Found much discussion "about" him... nothing yet from him.

Hi Kenan,
I haven't listened to this - it's a 20 minute interview with Ken Wilber entitled Divination, Astrology And The Pre-Trans Fallacy which you can listen to on the site or download as an audio file.

http://diydharma.org/divination-astrolo ... ken-wilber

All the best

Bill

Kenan wrote:

All ancient religions have always fallen short of the mystics' understanding of the original insights/experience about consciousness

Could you expand what you mean by this? Perhaps I have misunderstood you but are you suggesting ancient religions and profound consciousness changing experiences are incompatible? Or are you just making the point that the insights of the founders of ancient religions are lost in wider dissemination?

Bill wrote:

Hi Kenan,
I haven't listened to this - it's a 20 minute interview with Ken Wilber entitled Divination, Astrology And The Pre-Trans Fallacy which you can listen to on the site or download as an audio file. http://diydharma.org/divination-astrolo ... ken-wilber

Thanks Bill,

Very interesting. Up to now I had only read Ken Wilber's No Boundary some years ago. Your summary of Ken Wilber's views on astrology and divination seems very accurate judging from the talk. Its clear Wilber has never seriously studied astrology but has decided to accept the research of the sceptics that it cannot accurately predict events. My initial reaction is he is pushing his theory too far. If he has stated that activities like astrology and divination does not necessarily link a person to a deeper level of spiritual experience I wouldn't have any difficulty in accepting his position. However, to state that astrology and divination doesn't work in a predictive sense doesn't tally with my own experience. Still, I am intrigued to understand his ideas further.

I have to confess I still haven't read any of the books of Richard Tarnas. This discussion has motivated me to follow this up. Do any of his books touch on these themes especially? Equally, could you suggest any follow up reading by Stanislav Grof?

Mark

Mark:

Reference to what I said:
All ancient religions have always fallen short of the mystics' understanding of the original insights/experience about consciousness.

What do I mean from that?

First, I did not say ancient Religions are "incompatible" with conscious experiences or changes. The institutions and their teachings fall short for a large majority of their "followers".

I agree with Wilber's explanation in the audio interview that, briefly, in my words, many "believers" grasp the religion's concepts at the level they are capable of. For example, fundamentalist grasp it as "real" rather than as a metaphor. (I'm not quite satisfied with Wilber's "literal or as if" explanation. I'll deal with that at a later time.) On the other hand,"Those that have eyes to see and ears to hear" get a more transrational understanding.

Let's look at it from a cognitive perspective. A developing infant tries to make "sense" of the wonderful world of sense stimulating phenomenon. The rational mind makes use of prevailing metaphors, religious teachings, and plays the "fitting game" to adapt to the world. Basic survival skills. The child's success is judged by the level of comfort, both physically, psychologically, and spiritually that they are able to attain.

So, a child's experience becomes an understanding which is "formed" and remembered as a narrative: my story, my persona, my self, my world view. That narrative/metaphor/religion can be somewhat creatively individualized OR it can be "adopted" in total as is... which most likely will become "indigestible", as Fritz Perls would say, and cause all kinds of "dis-ease".

By the way, that "fitting game", is not just played in Thinking (re: Jung's Quaternio). We are not all equal in how we balance our cognitive abilities. (Also reference Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences.) Notice that fundamentalists often base their beliefs on their "feeling" experience or some other favored, out of balance, cognitive modality.

That is the kind of issue Integral theory addresses.

This cognitive skill, the fitting game, in individual humans can "mature" in order, complexity, and creative adaptation,"out of the box". Society's level of evolvement is a very large part, a big "box", that can be at various levels of "rigidity" that severely limits an individual's progress. Example, our scientific materialism.

So, back to the astrology issue. All world views, religions, ancient wisdom,Theories of Everything, that came before our time will not "fit" perfectly in the context of our present cultural paradigms/memes. But we can "evolve" them to enlighten many areas of our concerns.

This is what I understand is the intention of Ken Wilber and his Integral Theory perspective. I suspect that's why Wilber might seem argumentative in the presence of astrological fundamentalist. :-)

But if we continue to obsess over the controversy of what is "real" and what is "memorex", we will be severely limited in our evolution. We'll have to take this conversation to the quantum theory, the "ultimate opensource" level, to deal with that. :-)

I have to confess I still haven't read any of the books of Richard Tarnas. This discussion has motivated me to follow this up. Do any of his books touch on these themes especially? Equally, could you suggest any follow up reading by Stanislav Grof?

Hi Mark,
I'm afraid I can't be of much help to you in that regard.

I did read Tarnas's book The Passion of the Western Mind several years ago, and thought it was interesting enough - a good book. It didn't really expand on astrology that much, and if my memory serves me well, what he did say related to the correlation between historical cycles of change and the rhythms of the outer planets (but don't quote me on that!).

Whatever, astrology was not by any means central to that work, which could be broadly described as a survey of the evolution of western culture from a certain perspective. It has an accessible style and sold very well. I wouldn't call it a must-read book, at least not in your case.

I never read his second book, but I think that may have gone into astrological ideas and perspectives in more depth. I think it was less well received.

Personally, my interest in astrology leads me in different directions than those trodden by Richard Tarnas, so I'm not really qualified to recommend one way or the other. Rightly or wrongly, I have him penciled into the circle of depth psychology/archetypal astrology (C.G.Jung, James Hillman, etc.). An interesting area, but not one that I am especially focused on any more.

As for Stan Grof, I came across him about 25 years ago. At the time he was publishing books on holotropic breathing techniques; the altered states of consciousness they provoke, and their therapeutic value, particularly in relation dealing with the psycho-emotional consequences of the birth trauma. However, the book which I bought, and which was co-written with his partner, was called something like 'Coping with Spiritual Emergencies'. It was prompted by their experiences working in California, when they were getting clients who totally freaked out during holotropic breathing, from meditating too much, or from whatever other spiritual practices that resulted in becoming 'stuck' in an altered state.

I bought the book because I was getting one or two clients who had similar problems, and the contents included advice for counsellors, therapists and so on. (Some of the recommendations I remember - 'carry several large stones in pockets; jump up and down on the ground; eat meat' .... actually I reckon they probably would work! With my clients it was more likely to be: "Stop eating the psilocybin mushrooms!". )

I do know that Tarnas in effect introduced Grof to astrology and particularly what Grof called 'transit astrology', and its potential use as a means of identifying times of trauma, etc. I'm not sure if Grof has written much by himself on the subject, except perhaps to defend his interest in it. I think astrology was very much part of Tarnas's contribution to their combined efforts in the field of transpersonal psychology and so on at their institute in California.

I'm pretty sure that Grof's work and Wilber's work overlap in certain areas, but are hinged on points of disagreement. For example, Grof is especially interested in the embryonic phase of development and the birthing process, but I think (I could be wrong) Wilber starts his developmental 'model' at the new born state and sees these processes as irrelevant in that regard. I think they also have different perspectives on the psychology around knowledge of inevitable death, 'the death urge', and so on. Maybe their positions have moved closer to each other over the years - I don't know.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

All the best,

Bill

Hi Kenan, Annemieke and Bill,

I'm enjoying the discussion, thanks for the warm welcome =]

Kenan:

Even the astrological chart (not astrology in total) is flattened.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the graphical representation of the birthchart on a piece of paper, which does not show the full 3-D picture of the sky?

I'm looking at the astrological elements and cardinalities as ways to explain the evolution through and up the spiral.... I suspect astrology (including the esoteric narrative) could provide specific insight into the HOW of Conscious Evolution.

A very interesting idea, one which also struck me when I first read Wilber. It's not something I'm working on consciously, but it's "on the back burner" of my mind so to speak! Very interested to see how it can be developed!


Annemieke,

I wanted to understand the AQAL and Altitude model better. And the best way for me is to use another model that I understand already better (in this case the Zodiac) to compare it with.

Absolutely! In essence I already use the principles of astrology to understand AQAL, because the language and concepts of traditional astrology are such a big part of my way of understanding the world.

Interestingly, I found his work to be very compatible with classical astrology. Wilber's stated aim is after all to integrate all the "breakthroughs" of modern science into a coherent model or "answer to life, the universe and everything". I guess because classical astrology is in effect the distillation of thousands of years' worth of human wisdom - It makes great sense to me that the distillation of wisdom (from whichever sources) all point in the same direction!

And the third is that I really love to look at things from a distance to see how they fit together, to search for an overall model.

Again, I fully agree! Big thumbs up to this. If only there was more of this in the world =]

Bill:

He associates much New Age thinking with this regressive shift, almost as an anti-rational reaction.

A good point in being careful when mentioning astrology with other followers of Wilber. As usual it's a massive shame that so many people dismiss all astrology out of hand. Maybe someone should tell Wilber about traditional astrology, which is most definitely NOT part of the New Age! =]



Given the discussion has now turned to books/further reading, I would add The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt to the list. His work is also a synthesis of many "advances" in modern science, particularly evolutionary biology and psychology. It's not a textbook but an exploration and explanation of his own research in trying to determine what happiness is and how it can be achieved by an average (Western) person.

I think that the main difference in how I approach these ideas is that I operate on a more subconscious level, preferring to absorb information and let it "mix" over time (Mercury in Pisces of course!).

Just as a frivolous aside, Kenan has already told us his Mercury is in Scorpio, so that's two water sign Mercuries on this thread. Mine is also 1st house, interestingly enough! If you're ok with sharing the info, what about Annemieke and Bill?

Keren

Thanks for your reply Bill.
Very useful. I know a lot of astrologers regard Tarnas very highly. From a quick browse of The Passion of The Western Mind his work seems to be essentially a popularisation of classical western philosophy. His later book Cosmos and Psyche does seem intriguing though. I will need to take a deeper look. People like Grof and Wilber are very influential figures in Transpersonal Psychotherapy movement which is where I had first heard of them back in the mid 1990's.

Kenan wrote:

Reference to what I said:
All ancient religions have always fallen short of the mystics' understanding of the original insights/experience about consciousness.

What do I mean from that?

First, I did not say ancient Religions are "incompatible" with conscious experiences or changes. The institutions and their teachings fall short for a large majority of their "followers".
That is undeniably true. Moreover, spiritual movements like everything else have a growth-decay cycle.
So, back to the astrology issue. All world views, religions, ancient wisdom, Theories of Everything, that came before our time will not "fit" perfectly in the context of our present cultural paradigms/memes. But we can "evolve" them to enlighten many areas of our concerns.

A good example of this is the way traditionally patriarchal religions have had to adapt to the rising position of women in society. This has been seen in both Christianity and Buddhism. Moreover, it seems the growth of Neo-Paganism is as much about contemporary social concerns rather than just a literal transmission of ancient spirituality. It could be argued the Protestant Reformation was a response to existing trends such as increasing literacy, a more democratic spirit as well as economic changes breaking down medieval feudalism. However, I don?t see spiritual experience as ?evolutionary? in historical terms. While our social conventions have changed dramatically core spiritual experiences seem to be a constant over the last few thousand years.

Keren wrote:

Maybe someone should tell Wilber about traditional astrology, which is most definitely NOT part of the New Age!

Listening to Ken Wilber in the talk it seems clear he has little time for an astrology or divination system that attempts exact prediction. If anything he favours a purely psychological astrology that applies general astrological symbolism. He sees systems attempting exact prediction as just as much of a Pre-Trans Fallacy as the New Age movement. In that sense traditional astrology is probably in the same camp for Wilber as Biblical literalism.

Bill wrote:As far as Wilber is concerned development ideally moves from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational. Moving from rational to pre-rational Wilber would see as a regressive shift back 'to infantile states'.

I think Wilber?s pre/trans fallacy is a great way to differentiate between different kind of non-rational states. But personally I think that going from rational to pre-rational does not have to mean it is regressive. I think it can also go from trans-rational to pre-rational. It would just be on a different level. Sort of a development in a spiral movement, or going through the zodiac again and again.

kenan wrote:But if we continue to obsess over the controversy of what is "real" and what is "memorex", we will be severely limited in our evolution. We'll have to take this conversation to the quantum theory, the "ultimate opensource" level, to deal with that. :-)

Sounds good this ?ultimate opensource?. We can search for patterns from different resources to see how they might relate.

Mark wrote:My initial reaction is he is pushing his theory too far.

In a way I also think he pushes his theory to far. But I also think that had its value. If he would have taken to many concepts from other sources to soon, it might have kept him from (as I see it) rather revolutionary insights. But the downside might be that he gets caught in his own vision.

kerenhappuch wrote:I think that the main difference in how I approach these ideas is that I operate on a more subconscious level, preferring to absorb information and let it "mix" over time (Mercury in Pisces of course!).

Yes, I can see that with Mercury in Pisces. I sort of have the same with a conjunction of Mercury with the Moon. But I guess I don?t have the patience to let it mix over time. Uranus is standing in between :-)

Sorry for the gap in my post. I had plans to actually delineate my view of how AQAL and Astrology might integrate. Just don't have time to do that right now. So, I want to share with the group my basic idea and see if we can collaborate.

My basic interest is how both system might address the issue of evolution of consciousness both individually and collectively. For example, can the complexity of astrology revel more specifics about the process of transformation that the simplicity of AQAL doesn't address.

First, I had to rearrange AQAL to give it more dynamic polarity. The results shown in this graphic seems to work for me. The AstroWheel is a display of Houses, not signs. The color triangles and squares represent the angular relationship as in astrology. Hence, transformation through resolution of opposites/squares and the benefits of trines and sextiles.
(AQAL is blue/green and astrlogy is black.) What do you think? Do we really need to flip the AstroWheel to a mirror image? One clue to me (from Jung) is that the Ascendant represents the Self but the 5th represents the Ego or personna: I in the context of We.

Then if this works out, I would like to work on how astrological transformation might work up the Spiral of Spiral Dynamics in this next dimensional drawing:
One more graphic. This is my chart over AQAL:
As Dave Letterman would say, "Is this anything" :-)

At least you guys can "see" how I see the TOE.