The clockwork of Astrology

aldebaran

Well-known member
I wonder how astrology works for people - how they see it's background, it's clockwork.

For me, when I started grasping into, it felt naturally to imagine a holistic metaphysic, every single thing around me would be appointed, described, ruled by the Astrological Map.
Following the "as above, so below", I looked for the very formation of everything around and my perception of everything around, including the material, the thoughts, emotions, fantasies - all would be pointed somehow in the myriad of intricated astrological data.

I got surprised, however, sometimes when reading other people talking about Astrology. I realized that for many, it was often seen as we could just live our normal lives on Earth, under whatever metaphysic basis, and there was those forces there on the sky, that eventually gave their influence.

An event in life could be triggered by a transit, but the very shape of the glass and the taste of the wine, those weren't really on the Astrological Matrix.

How the clockwork seems, afterall, for you?
 

waybread

Well-known member
It's not causal, but often synchronous.

Keep in mind that each planet, sign, and house has multiple interpretations that are all consistent with their core meanings. There's no single possible response to a given planetary placement.
 

aldebaran

Well-known member
It's not causal, but often synchronous.

It's good when metaphysics start.

Synchronous how and why?

I have a very abstract enigma that I couldn't solve.

When we do astrology everything moves except the Natal Chart. Everything moves in time, the natal is fixed.
If we want to know what happens now, we look at transits and progressions for now - because time is moving! But in reference to the Natal, fixed.

If we were to define this always fixed "Natal" on Astrological terms, what it could be?
The Sun, fixed and centered point? The root as the galaxy center? Something similar to the Ascendant?
If the Sun bears who we are, identity, our very name, the Natal could relate to the Sun, once it's part of our identity?

There's always changing time and a fixed point; this combination is the basis of astrology. But what are we doing after all?

Honestly, the fact that we have contact with such amazing and interesting forces as the Sun, conscience, the Moon, emotions/mind and yet all this is somehow subsumed to time... Makes me to think if our world is somehow "distorted" in the sense that in absolute means, Time would be one more divinity (one more planet, sign, etc) like others, but only on our world Time seems so superior to everything.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Re: synchronicity, I think it's because humans, planets, and the rest of the cosmos are part of the same interactive system. By analogy, your hand and brain can be seen as discrete independent entities, yet they're part of the same body and they constantly send signals to one another.

The linear causal idea that planets cause human behaviours makes no sense to me, especially when we look at horary astrology, which goes by the moment of the question.

I take your point about the static birth chart, but really it's an artifact. With computer animations we can show a chart progressing in different ways, as well as transits.

Also in horary astrology we mentally consider whether planetary aspects are applying or separating. There's an implicit sense of movement even if the horoscope appears static to the eye.

I suppose the natal chart should be fixed, in the sense that you're born only once, at least in this lifetime. But you might find another time noteworthy. I forget who wrote this, but I once read an article by an astrologer who talked about "the river of time." He said his life changed completely after his marriage, which you might not detect from his nativity but you could certainly look at transits and progressions to a chart cast for his marriage date.

Time-wise it makes sense to compare a suite of charts that are all cast for a date relevant to a particular topic. There's no reason not to do this.

It might be useful to go back into the history of horoscopic astrology, which has been around for at least 2000 years. The horoscope has always been based upon a geocentric (or topocentric) cosmos, because that is our view of the luminaries and planets from where we stand on the earth's surface. Even after the Copernican Revolution, it still makes sense to astronomers to tell us what planets to look for in tonight's night sky. Then this varies by location. We don't look for the Southern Cross if we live in Alaska.

We don't have a view from the sun's surface. Some astrologers have developed a heliocentric astrology, but it didn't exactly catch on.

In traditional western astrology, the ascendant was more of the "me" point than the sun. The sun was more apt to symbolize one's father or monarch.

You might think about the assumed western "time's arrow" model of linear time, vs. the Hindu possibility that time is simultaneous. Then quantum physics is increasingly showing how the act of observation changes the nature of what is observed.

Also, a circular horoscope is a highly stylized model of the earth-centered cosmos. Where you stand is the AC/DC axis. As a stylized representation of the cosmos, the horoscope is a type of map. As a map, it is a form of graphic communication. The act of astrology takes place in the mind of the astrologer reading a form of graphic communication that has no necessary obligation to follow a linear model of time.

This is unlike my post, which you would read from left to right, and then top line to bottom line.

Did you see the movie Arrival? Highly recommended.

Incidentally the Greek goddess Themis was their personification of the orderly progression of time.
 

petosiris

Banned
The Earth with all its inhabitants are under constant causal planetary influence, this is made more easily perceptible with the Sun due its size and the obviousness of its seasonal changes, for the closer it approaches the zenith, the more it affects us with heat and dryness, which in turn influences the smallest particles of matter and seed.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Oh, right. I don't mean to be crude, Petosiris, but the planets rule when and how you pick your nose?

Then what is the nature of their causality? It's not gravity or electromagnetism: we know that much.
 

petosiris

Banned
Oh, right. I don't mean to be crude, Petosiris, but the planets rule when and how you pick your nose?

Then what is the nature of their causality? It's not gravity or electromagnetism: we know that much.

In the case of the Sun, its obvious effluence is heat and dryness. The tropical zodiac also has observable nature through the four seasons, and the four elements that attend them. The Moon and the five planets have other observed emanations (of heat, moisture, dryness and cold) traditionally, derived mainly from rationalistic conjecture and experience.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Look, petosiris, science aside. The Aristotelian qualities (hot, cold, moist, dry) are so general that they contain multitudes. They don't explain horary.

Then how does the hot, cold, wet, or dry stuff get from, say, Saturn or Jupiter to influence "the smallest particles of matter"?

The ancient astrologers at least had an explanation having to do with gods, who presumably could do most anything.
 

petosiris

Banned
Look, petosiris, science aside. The Aristotelian qualities (hot, cold, moist, dry) are so general that they contain multitudes. They don't explain horary.

Then how does the hot, cold, wet, or dry stuff get from, say, Saturn or Jupiter to influence "the smallest particles of matter"?

The ancient astrologers at least had an explanation having to do with gods, who presumably could do most anything.

In the same way that it influences larger events like the climate and the weather, it could influence the recombination and mutation of DNA at the time of conception. I don't believe astrology is able to influence minute particulars in this way though, as in your example with the nose and horary.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Oh, right. I don't mean to be crude, Petosiris, but the planets rule when and how you pick your nose?

Then what is the nature of their causality? It's not gravity or electromagnetism: we know that much.

Which planet rules nose-picking? Probably an asteroid.
 
Last edited:

Therese

Well-known member
Then astrology is useless by itself.


The problem with causality is that it's an abstraction.

Hume takes an interesting position (in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) when he points out that in real life no two events are exactly the same. When we make a connection between a cause and a situation it supposedly brings about, our mind is biased to focus on the similarities and to minimize or disregard the differences between this event and a previous one supposedly produced by the same cause(s). What we can actually tell is that certain things are frequently conjoined, but not that they are causally connected.

"But there is nothing in a number of instances, different from every single instance, which is supposed to be exactly similar; except only, that after a repetition of similar instances, the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and to believe that it will exist. This connexion, therefore, which we feel in the mind, this customary transition of the imagination from one object to its usual attendant, is the sentiment or impression from which we form the idea of power or necessary connexion. " [76]

Whenever astrology is represented as a causal "science", it always gets "debunked". Not because astrology doesn't work, but because of how causality works.
 

david starling

Well-known member
The patterns we perceive when using astrology, each in our own way, trigger a type of psychic ability. That's why astrology works. It affects our brain chemistry. Very addictive! :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

aldebaran

Well-known member
Hume takes an interesting position (in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding)

I admire your chose of bringing the snooker argument. It's a keypoint in history of North European philosophy, as you probably know this argument per se inspired the 500 pages of "Critic of Pure Reason" of Kant.

We could say, with dramaticism, that this snooker scene put an end on Astrology. And Metaphysics, in a lot of the world.

People don't know that when they are arrogant and skeptical against Astrology, they are basing, historically and episthemologically, their arrogance on this very argument.

For a long time I admired it, but nowadays I see it as a naive sophism. It was convincing by saying what people wanted to hear.

If we consider the world as an observation and calculum of different visible objects just like we imagine Newton and Galileu used to do, the argument works perfectly.
But when I say "I'll bring you a glass of water", we clearly know that we are causing something. So, causes does exist!

Kant will argument that there's a strictly separation of "inside the mind" and "out, by the senses" and causes only exist inside the mind; never we are able to see a "cause" in anything outside - it works well for the paradigm of Newton/Galileu proceedments, but on real life we are always dealing with causes inside and outside.

It's a very naive point of view if you don't believe the key to comprehend the world is understanding Newton/Galileu works.
On that time, many people were so amazed by Newton/Galileu that they really believed this was the path.
It lead to XIX's century positivism. And naturally, to huge critics against Tesla, Einstein and so on.

The physics changed.
Changing the metaphysics in societies that herited from Christianism the notion that dogma is social security, is much more difficult.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
How does this render astrology useless?

It means astrology is bunk, which is an idea I am not fond of.

Any metaphorical interpretation of astrology does not suit me, since I personally would do something else (like cold reading) if waybread was proven to be correct.

Either it works or it doesn't.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What if the planets don't influence anything at all, are not causative
Then astrology is useless by itself.
How does this render astrology useless?
It means astrology is bunk, which is an idea I am not fond of.
Any metaphorical interpretation of astrology does not suit me, since

I personally would do something else (like cold reading)
if waybread was proven to be correct.

Either it works or it doesn't.
Whenever astrology is represented as a causal "science", it always gets "debunked".
Not because astrology doesn't work, but because of how causality works.
How does astrology work without causes then?
Good question :smile:
 
Top