|
Exegesis Volume 11 Issues #061-073 |
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 61
Message: 1
Re Roger's comments on Stereotype versus Archetype, #57, the test which
I believe a more useful test would be as follows but alas I have no
1. Invite a large number of people to provide birth dates of five or
ten
To prevent cheating, respondents could attend a testing centre where
This test is similar to the epidemiological test I proposed previously.
While I personally consider that signs are meaningful, I believe they
Robert Tulip
------------------------------
Message: 2
> 1. 911 - Outer Planetary Aspects [SEC=PERSONAL]
(Robert Tulip)
Sure made a pretty good match, Robert. Sakoian & Acker was
very helpful to
Perhaps those authors are actually accurate at the mainstream level.
> 2. Re: archetypes according to Bill (andre)
Thanks for responding to my wonderings, Andre. I found your explanations
> The notion of psychological drives originated in one area of psychology
Okay, just bouncing off that; the drive becomes evident in behaviour
at
> However, Clark Hull in 1943 extended the reasonable idea of primary
Whilst allowing that drives can be learned, such as the drive to use
the
> But what does one explain by positing that _everything else_ people
do
Sure. Who but academic psychologists would take such a banal proposal
> As a final note, the idea of planets as drives (or _secondary_ drives
as
Exactly. Jung's point about the psychology of antiquity is probably
the
> Ironically though, planets as secondary drives - if valid - would
have
Given that astropsychology has existed as a subculture in astrology
since
> (I must say I regret not having the time to respond to, or even read
I think the forum keeps us on our toes, intellectually. Not being
Dennis
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 62
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:49:44 +1200
Hi Robert,
> I believe a more useful test would be as follows <snip>
I fear I disagree.
> 1. Invite a large number of people to provide birth dates of five
or ten
Let N denote the "large number of people". The sample then comprises
I can only guess what you mean by "large" but for example, if N = 100
> be preferable to use people who are unfamiliar with astrology.
Agreed. Well, perhaps. Why would it matter?
> 2. Link this birth data to an aspect database to generate reports
of
Ok.
You assume of course that (a) planetary aspects have validity; (b) our
> 3. Provide the reports without any personal identifiers to each survey
Only the 5-10 supplied by the survey respondent? I assume that's
what
Yet in many ways it would be best for each respondent to have them all.
The ability to accurately reject the chart descriptions of strangers
I am still inclined though, on the basis of my research experience,
to
However, I have two far more serious problems here; both follow from
Firstly, if the respondents "know [5-10 people] very well" so that they
Secondly, _what_ is it that you think people "know...very well" about
Although I am sadly aware of the limitations of contemporary psychology,
In one of its more conservative guises (there are several others;
It is based on observations that people make attributions (reasonings)
In less conservative garb discursive psychology arrives at the same
Heaven's above! We don't need psychology to know that two people
often
So what A's description or version of B tells us about is the socialised
And saying "A's life" is not even as simple as talking about A as an
Which is why, furthermore, A's description of B on any passing occasion
Indeed, even in everyday social interaction, A doesn't usually give
a
All of this is somewhat paradoxical for astrology.
If astrology has any validity concerning peoples' deeds and actions
and
It means astrology has a choice: go "cheap" and speak in highly
So instead, to make astrology 'work' at this level we must provide it
But in fact, it just seems very improbable to me - mathematically if
you
The alternative is that astrology's validity concerns _real lives_
How does astrology get serious? About the same way as social science
There are various ways this is done: longitudinal research (a
study
Such an astrology - if successful - could only end up serving a
That's why I don't think your study would work (ie. show astrology
> 4. Analyse responses for statistical significance.
<sigh>. Well, as I attempted to point out recently, "statistical
That's why, for example, the American Psychological Association
(which
But this may be what you meant anyway! Even if you did not, it
is a
However, I think also we have not - in general - pursued Fran's original
Strangely, it is the act and practice of what we as astrologers do most
Andre.
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 63
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:53:39 +1000 (EST)
Hi Andre
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 64
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:42:40 +1000 (EST)
Some comments on Tarnas' first chapter in light of Dennis Frank's good
summary at http://exegesis.dyndns.org/pipermail/exegesis/2006-May/000036.html
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 64
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 65
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:01:51 +1200
> From: Robert Tulip
Good to see that Exegesis is now archiving again online. Thanks
for letting
> I am reading Tarnas in light of my interest in scientific astrology
Why jump to that conclusion? Perhaps you think of yourself as
christian, so
If you are interested in absorbing relevant ideas from like-minded others,
I
> The challenge of re-enchantment requires an integration of human
identity
Perhaps you are unaware that the notion of "objective scientific truth"
has
I'm inclined to agree with you that re-enchantment is preferable in
the
> In this context, I have found Heidegger's epistemology of the
theoretical
Checking back on what Tarnas wrote, looks like you are right to disagree.
> I felt some unease about Tarnas' characterisation of meaning
in terms of
Yes, the mind is natural. However, it is ever so idiosyncratic.
Therefore
> The centrality of mind can be considered as a way to interpret
the old
One is tempted to wonder what our culture would have been like had Jesus
> "The claim ... that there is a separation between science and
experience,
Yes, Robert, your point here is valid. I see this dichotomy often
addressed
Dennis Frank
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 66
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:36:08 +1200
Hi Robert
In making this reply I am conscious of the diverse nature of exegesis.
However, there is the separate question of _what_ are we testing for,
Recently, Dale, Bill, Roger, Dennis, Lois and you have discussed this
On the other hand, I'm afraid my writing here is still hardly a model
of
Four sections then:
Of narrower appeal
2. Robert's proposal for a "scientific" test of astrology.
3. The problem with significance testing.
Hopefully wider appeal...
============================================================
One of the young scientists is marine biologist Jon Copley. In
part of
A generalized version of this statement that I think _most_ scientists
Elsewhere, Copley also observes "I want [my scientific report] to be
That too nicely sums up the key challenge of science. Real science,
as
But to do that successfully requires a process tantamount to hard
Above all, if my study doesn't work (yields nothing at all), will I
have
Because of all this, scientists go through a large number of steps
Still three stages remain. The study may fail in its original
Supposing the study _does_ yield something worthwhile though, there's
If that stage goes ok, the final hurdle, the real test of the worth
of
Robert has proposed a good idea. He has stated he hasn't the
============================================================
Your hypothesis
It is a test of the general public's ability to associate aspect
If I may use an analogy, I have just built a new motor. I decide
not to
This is a perfectly reasonable test - especially because astrology as
The problem is there are critical assumptions that need to be made clear.
(1) astrological influences (AI) - in
particular planetary aspects - affect
(2) the effects AI has on people are
readily apparent to the people
(3) because of (2), astrologers' interpretations
of AI are completely
(4) peoples' impressions of each others
behaviours are completely
(5) people without training in astrology,
but given astrological
If all the assumptions are true as started, then the proposal will work
If the assumptions are less than completely true, the study suffers
That is, the study will fail, and will appear to validate the "null
(BTW, for those scientifically trained, I use the term "true" and "truth"
>From my reading of the research literature concerning astrology
Let's simplify and suppose they are each 1/2 true. In that case,
the
On the other hand, if any of these assumptions can be removed from the
Your design
That's fine. Exegesis is, intentionally or not, a peer review
group.
My suggestion that "In practical terms, I guess a small number of
In designing any study the key objective is to eliminate sources of
They could, for example, rank the reports from "most likely" to "least
Your statistical procedure
You don't mention what sample size you (or your "statistician friend")
Significance testing
I deal with this next.
============================================================
> Hence the likelihood of guessing two correct out of five birth times
The clause "a result not explainable by chance" is not correct.
People do occasionally win multi-million dollar lotteries - and consider
Scientists occasionally beat the odds and get "a result unlikely to
have
This is the sort of lottery scientists _don't_ want to win. Yet
the
Let me repeat that - scientists can and do win this lottery they don't
The point, again, is that there's no such thing as a result _impossible_
This leads to another statement:
> I was quite surprised by Andre’s comment that “statistical significance
Several points.
Statistics has no scientific basis. It is a branch of mathematics,
Incidentally, it is perhaps better statistics has a mathematical basis.
Science makes no claim to truth: instead, science constantly revises
Some mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics however _do_ think
I must also disassociate _myself_ from the comment. It is not
"Andre's
They were especially discomforted because psychology was almost uniquely
Bruce Thompson (1999, see two references at the end) is a member (of
One of his 1999 articles is titled in part "the vain pursuit of
At my university (the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand)
we
Ok, so what's wrong with NHST?
I already explained the gist of it when I mentioned lotteries.
Imagine you are about to conduct a study, and the research question
Now, because samples are just a "little piece" of the pie, there is
some
Now imagine you have got a positive result.
We _know_ because we have used a sample the result might be due to
Let me state what we now know; unfortunately, it is an 'either/or' thing.
EITHER we got the result we got because our hypothesis is correct (e.g.
Unfortunately, we DO NOT and CAN NOT know which of these answers applies.
A common mistake is to use the value of 'p' as some sort of measure
of
This is fallacious, illogical thinking. The correct statement
is " The
That is, being able to say "I would only _occasionally_ get this result
There is a further problem with the use of p. The larger the sample,
That's why, in a previous post, I noted the use of "effect size" (ES)
is
ES is a statistical measure that can be calculated directly from a
An ES of 1% is tiny and most scientists for most purposes would reject
Research validity depends on two things: ES (and related measures);
and
Because there is a large and well-established scientific and
However, I do hope it acts as a caution for those of us planning to
============================================================
> I hope these clarifications also address Andre’s other
questions about the proposal.
Partly yes, partly no. In particular, Robert with this comment
skated
I do not for a moment suppose Robert is not capable of understanding
my
Here is an overview of the points I argue here. Like Robert, Dale
and
To understand astrology's effects - that is, to produce valid, useful
It would be wonderful if astrology explained simply everything (and
this
Yet I also think it is inarguable that astrology has something to
In section two I characterised Robert's proposal as dependent on several
I have changed the first assumption to address astrology in general,
(1) astrological influences (AI) affect humans to a strong degree.
I have a series of questions (research questions, if you like) about
(1) astrological influences (AI) affect humans to a strong degree.
I assume all or most members of exegesis accept
this to be at least
The clause "a strong degree" must mean AI has
little competition from
For example, strong AI would probably mean
it affects every element of
I doubt this, because there is a large body
of social scientific
Incidentally, the claim that our natal chart
produces a distinguishable
An alternative - one I prefer - is that AI
strongly affects humans
A plausible statement produced by the latter
idea is that humans are
In what way does this influence work.
My idea (more properly Dale's),
This is a highly minimalistic conception compared
to standard astrology,
At a still richer level we find Bill's and
Roger's ideas. Indeed,
(2) the effects AI has on people are readily apparent to the people
If this proposition is completely true,
AI effects will be so well
If this is the case, the following statement
is equivalent to (2):
One way to test this is to see if the everyday
language we use
To give one perspective, sociology and network
theory note that much of
On the other hand, one will make many positive
attributions to a
Because resources appear to be a matter of
huge importance in terms
To give an example, just this year I have been
characterised by one
Both of these people are important in my social
network, yet the
To make this point a different way, the verdict
from many sources
If much of our assessment of each other - and
our language and
OTOH, we _do_ in everyday language speak of
others doing something
I conclude AI effects are _not_ readily apparent,
or are "lost" in
(3) because of (2) [because astrologers are people too], astrologers'
Again, if (2) were completely true, astrologers'
jobs would be easy.
In point of fact, astrological interpretations
and texts _are_
Yet, I find it suspicious that our interpretations
are written in
The fact is there is wide disagreement between
astrologers
Indeed, this provides a convincing reason for
the failure of many
I take it that our interpretations of AI contain
_some_ truth, but I
(4) peoples' impressions of each other are completely correct
and clear.
I have already addressed this under (2).
I suggest we have so
Rather, what we think of others is a constantly
evolving expression
I conclude peoples' impressions of each other
only partially meet
(5) people without training in astrology, but given astrological
There is, perhaps, good evidence that people
can achieve this to a
Near the beginning I quoted from Jon Copley, where he observed "nature
Andre Donnell.
============================================================
Carver, R. P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist,
Signorelli, A. (1974). Statistics: Tool or master of the psychologist.
Thompson, B. (1999). If statistical significance tests are
Thompson, B. (1999). Statistical significance test, effect size
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 68
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:49:39 +1000 (EST)
Reading Tarnas' suggestion to rename Uranus as Prometheus inspired me
to get the binoculars out tonight. http://www.rasnz.org.nz/SolarSys/UranNept.htm#Uranpath
explains how to find both Uranus and Neptune in the sky. Early this
week is best. Uranus was opposite Sun in early September, and can be readily
seen the next few nights from a clear dark spot before the moon gets close.
After that we will have to wait until mid October. From Southern Hemisphere,
Capricorn is on the left and Pisces is on the right of Aquarius.
These three are the faintest constellations in the zodiac. A reasonable
map of Aquarius is at http://www.aquarian-age.net/. Capricorn's bright
stars form a triangle with a pair of two stars at the right hand point.
This pair points along the ecliptic. Pisces has two long lines of
faint stars, one of which ends in a circle of about seven stars very close
to the current equinoctial point. (I call this circle the man, as
its five brightest stars resemble
Robert Tulip
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 69
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:29:58 +1200
Continuing my review of the book by Richard Tarnas, recall that in the
last
Perhaps it is worth allowing that his position is not confused to him.
Then he goes on to say "the precise interaction between the world transits
I do agree with Tarnas on his assumption that "each person and each
period
"The presence of an aspect between planets is regarded as indicating
a
"The forming of a major aspect between two planets is seen as coinciding
He goes on to say that rather than the signs & houses, "it was correlations
He describes the psychological shift he experienced "after I had encountered
"The physicist David Bohm recognized just this fatal constraint in the
"Whatever the field of inquiry, attempting to assess a phenomenon with
a
Tarnas moves on to a section specifically dealing with personal transits.
He reckons Uranus transits "last about three years". Given that
the per
"For example, I discovered that when Galileo made his first telescopic
It was Uranus opposing natal Uranus. He specifies three years
for this
This is great stuff from Richard Tarnas. To my knowledge, nobody
else has
Dennis Frank
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 69
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 70
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:18:54 +1300
People have differing understandings of the word `archetype' due to
Collins English Dictionary Millennium Edition (1998) gives four meanings:
The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) recognises only the 2nd and 3rd
of
In 1972 the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defined an archetype as
an "the
Putting this all together, in order to identify the essence, it looks
like
This identification of archetypes in the structure and reproduced similarity
You will observe that the original Greek meaning had a executive, ruling
It is in the number archetypes that we find the interface between
Johannes Kepler was employed as astrologer by the Holy Roman Emperor
"The bridge leading from the initially unordered data of experience
to the
Heisenberg continues: "The motion directed from the center to the outer
Kepler was following in a relatively universal ancient tradition, as
the
The sphere is traditionally represented by a circle, when symbolized
in a
The astrologer is concerned with the archetypal basis of nature because
many
There is an issue of relativity here, obviously. Are facts relative
to
The symbol of the circle with a dot in the centre has represented the
Sun
Another feature is the triplicity of structure, which to Kepler meant
(1) "The Astrologer and the Paradigm Shift", D Frank, 1992, p264.
Dennis Frank
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 71
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:22:33 +1000 (EST)
A New Science of Astrology - Cosmetrics
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 71
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 72
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:12:34 +1100 (EST)
Main events for 2007 - grateful any interpretations, arguments, comments,
corrections.
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 73
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:36:28 +1100 (EST)
I have opened a debate on science and astrology at the website Bad Astronomy
and Universe Today - Against the Mainstream
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 73
[Exegesis Top][Table
of Contents][Prior Issues][Next
Issues]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above
are copyright © 1996-2006 their respective authors.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:44:58 +1000
From: "Robert Tulip"
Subject: [e] Testing astrology [SEC=PERSONAL]
he describes where sceptics ask astrologers to guess house position
of
natal charts is badly designed.
resources to actually do this).
people they know very well, such as family and close friends. It would
be preferable to use people who are unfamiliar with astrology.
2. Link this birth data to an aspect database to generate reports of
planetary aspects, ignoring time specific issues such as house,
ascendent, and possibly even moon, and also ignoring signs.
3. Provide the reports without any personal identifiers to each survey
respondent and ask them to match the descriptions with the people.
4. Analyse responses for statistical significance.
they provide the birth dates and names and then a computer provides
the
report immediately for their response.
To take this further, it would be interesting to see if people born
under harsh aspects such as Saturn opposite Pluto suffer excess
morbidity and mortality, and conversely if people under benign aspects
such as Jupiter trine Sun live longer than average. This should
be very
easy with a large database of birth and death dates.
are likely to be much harder to test for, and house data even more
so.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:47:46 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 60
me when I was learning astrology, back in 1980. Within a year
I already
found it too superficial, so very rarely ever used it again.
You have made
a very effective case, however, letting the quotes speak for themselves.
Ordinary people are prone to correlating better with typical
interpretations, perhaps, whereas those of us who keep evolving and
responding to the cues of the archetypes in more individualistic ways
fail
to fit the Sakoian & Acker prescriptions.
most helpful in clarifying my view of the situation. Some comments
below,
but not fishing for any response this time!
> in the 1940s and 1950s. It gained currency because, I suspect,
it
> seemed inherently sensible. Primary drives (now just 'drives')
are
> based on biological needs such as for food and water. Such needs
induce
> states that are felt subjectively, though it is moot whether the
> subjective experience is part of whether one responds or not.
The "need"
> is quenched by eating, drinking, etc; hence we are said to have
> responded to a "drive" to do these things. Since the "drive"
for needs
> such as these ceased once the "need" was met, this was called "drive
> reduction theory".
times, then recedes once action is taken in response to the internal
prompting. This situation is evidently analogous to transits
to natal
planets. Arroyo's main theme was that the internal planets were
a source of
`energy'. This psychic or psychological energy was different
in archetypal
quality according to which natal planet and which transiting planet
were
involved. This energy fueled and motivated behaviour. Seems
pretty much
identical to the notion of `drives'.
> drives to that of "secondary" drives. Such drives are not biological
> but learned, and so can take potentially any form. Plausibly,
one could
> have a "need" to cast charts and read peoples' fortunes, for example.
> As with primary drives, secondary drives are satisfied by acting
in some
> way that "reduces the drive"., i.e., meets the "need".
internet, seems to me Rudhyar's expansion of drive theory is more
significant. Did the academics really fail to conceive the notion
of latent
drives? Rudhyar argued that a planet could be latent till someone
learnt to
use it (he probably actually said integrate it). He evidently
meant
planetary archetypes - I always assumed that - but nowadays I agree
that
such assumptions may be unwarranted.
> is motivated by a secondary drive of some sort? Since one can
only
> deduce the existence of secondary drives from peoples' actions, one
> learns and understands nothing new.
seriously??
> I now understand it) was one I rejected pretty quickly when I first
> encountered astrology. It seemed to me unlikely there could
be such a
> ready-made connection between astrology and psychology. Indeed,
I was
> not even sure astrology and psychology have _any_ connection.
(I am
> still not sure, as I have expressed in this forum on previous occasions.
> Certainly, it is a crucial question whether what psychologists mean
by
> peoples' behaviour and what astrologers mean by it is the same thing).
only intersection, and it is misleading. I've seen no evidence
that the
ancients conceived an internal representation of the gods/godesses
that
produced behaviour. Their theory said that people were possessed
by the
deities, which we still see in postmodern times as "God made me do
it".
> severed the circularity of secondary drive-reduction theory, and
given
> it a testable foundation in astrology.
the '80s, and some leading practitioners are actually academics, I
think the
explanation must be that the trend of the times has been experiential.
Scientific validation is regarded as beside the point, if not a wild
goose
chase.
> carefully, the many interesting posts from Bill, Dale, Dennis, Lois,
> Robert, Roger and others at present. I nearly unsub'd last
week, but on
> balance this is one 'secondary drive' that seems worth keeping).
challenged or questioned, our beliefs tend to fossilise as the years
go by.
From: andre
Subject: [e] Re: Testing Astrology - Vol 11, Issue 61
> people they know very well, such as family and close friends. It
would
somewhere between 5N and 10N.
then somewhere between 500 and 1000 charts are involved. See
below.
> planetary aspects, ignoring time specific issues such as house,
> ascendent, and possibly even moon, and also ignoring signs.
_reports_ (descriptions) of planetary aspects have high validity.
> respondent and ask them to match the descriptions with the people.
you mean, as it would be a prohibitive imposition to give every
respondent the entire 5N-10N descriptions.
would be as important as accurately picking familiars. In practical
terms, I guess a small number of reports from those unrelated to the
respondent could be included.
think this would be a large task for your respondents to get through.
Questions of commitment to the task would come into play (whereas
astrologers participating in the study such as Roger described were
presumably highly motivated).
your premise of people knowing other people well.
can detect the correct matches from a planetary aspects report, what
is
the usefulness of planetary aspect reports? That is, would it
not be
better (e.g. cheaper) for astrological clients to simply ask their
friends/family for deeper advice and guidance? What then would be the
point of having astrology as well?
each other?
one psychological finding I would bet the house on is that people
_don't_ know each other well at all!
psychology seems quite unified on this point!) this finding appears
in
the social psychologist Kelley's "attribution theory".
to 'explain' each others' behaviours. An unsurprising lack of
balance
is evident in these attributions: if someone else does something bad
it's their nature (e.g. "he's lazy"; "she just doesn't know how to
listen")
whereas if I do the same thing it's circumstances that drive me to
it
("I had a hard week and was run down"; "it was noisy and I just didn't
hear you" or "you always drone on and on about the same thing anyway").
This lack of balance is a major hint that these everyday attributions
have low validity.
conclusion. Talk occupies a different level of social reality
than
(non-verbal) behaviour. We use talk to make attributions about
ourselves and each other, to make excuses ("explain" ourselves and
others), lay blame, raise and lower status, and so on and so forth.
Talk's function is to position ourselves within the complex patterns
of
social relationships, and the properties of _everyday_ language evolve
subtleties and complexities precisely to assist our social negotiations.
Ambiguity and imprecision are not technical defects of language:
they
are the very properties that make it invaluable to our social existence
(and at the same, time these properties make technical languages -
such
as science or indeed astrology - very difficult to construct
and use
accurately for those accustomed to the variety and expressiveness of
'ordinary' language).
describe the same person (and even the same action from that person)
in
entirely contradictory ways. Ask that person for her/his 'self-view',
and you've got yet another version!
_relationship_ between A and B: the 'place' B occupies in A's
life.
individual or personality. B's place in A's life means B's place
in A's total network of relationships; A's history of experiences at
multiple levels (personal, intimate, group-based, cultural etc etc);
A's
dreams, desires, fears, and so on.
is usually simplistic, stereotyped, and uninformative. "She's
a good
mate" (even though last week I vowed never to speak to her again);
"he
likes to drive fast" (actually I only ever drove with him once, and
he
was late for an appointment). This problem bedevils many forms
of
social research (the opinion poll; the interview; the questionnaire;
etc)
- all those in fact which take only a short time to do. The research
is
_itself_ simply another occasion in an unlimited flux of occasions.
Moreover, the research introduces a third party (the surveyor), which
is
itself a social relationship.
description of B _at all_ except in response to some third party C
(a
surveyor; a friend; a colleague; a therapist; ...). At this point,
what
A says to C about B is _itself_ a reflection of the relationship A
has
to that third party. Thus, what A says to C will usually be very
different from what A says to D, and again to E, and so on.
motivations and achievements - as opposed to our verbal accounts of
ourselves - it nevertheless has to express itself in descriptions that
(necessarily) correlate to those verbal accounts. The less the
correlation to the client's (or their friend's) various versions and
descriptions, the less successful (truthful) the experience is.
The
client simply can't relate.
simplistic terms that 'work' because they accurately reflect the instant
social stereotypes ("mate", "fast driver", "lazy", "poor listener")
we
all use in the countless and _brief_ moments of everyday social
interaction. By brief I mean when A has occasion to speak to
C about B,
the 'moment' for this exchange of gossip might last as little as 30
seconds. There is little scope for peering deep into the well
of human
nature.
with a palette of ready-made, easily swallowed phrases. The more
embedded the phrases are in the culture and time in which the client
lives, the more successful the astrological report. It works
because it
is instantly recognisable to the citizens of that culture, society
and
time; and because stereotyped descriptions are sufficiently flexible
that a large subset of them are valid for everyone. Who hasn't
"been a
hard worker" or "felt highly motivated" or "regretted hurting a
soulmate" at some time in their lives?
like - that astrology's validity or truth should happen to coincide
with
that verbal/social layer in which we lead our pretend lives.
The
imprecision, ambiguity, and variability of our verbalised accounts
simply has no possible corollary in the relatively 'timeless' periods
astrology employs (unless we want to instate all 15,000 asteroids???).
(deeper aspects of lives), and in that case it needs to get serious.
I'm not saying it hasn't already done this at times. But it has
not
done so sufficiently or consistently enough...
does serious research (when it does), by studying the life as a whole.
That means all (or some pretty good chunk of) the versions and
descriptions of the person, across weeks, months or years and across
many situations and many relationships.
performed over time, which might include participant or non-participant
observation; diary methods etc); and biographical methods (e.g. Dale
Huckeby's work) are two major approaches.
_radical_ function for clients, because it would provide descriptions
that work yet that friends, colleagues, family, and even the clients
themselves _don't_ quickly recognise.
'works').
significance" has little meaning (if by that you mean a significant
'p'
value), especially when it arises out of a large sample.
fixes standards for publication of psychological research) now demands
research psychologists at least _report_ something called 'effect size'
alongside significance. Further, researchers are encouraged to _prefer_
effect size.
trivial matter...
...
As a final comment, I applaud the intention behind your suggested
research designs. I also appreciate your attempt to analyse the
weaknesses of many of the 'scientific studies' of astrology.
I share
your misgivings; that the researchers are simply going about the whole
matter in the wrong way. That's the view I prefer, rather than
- I
think - the view of most astrologers that science simply _can't_ measure
the truth that's in astrology.
intentions behind exegesis sufficiently far. We have, for the
most part,
not defined _what it is_ astrology actually addresses about the person,
because most of us have far too many unexamined assumptions about the
meaning and use of language, the client-astrologer relationship in
the
context of all the client's and astrologer's _other_ relationships,
the
meanings, implications and uses to which the client puts the astrologers'
statements, and so on and so on.
often and most naturally that we know and think least about.
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Testing Astrology - Reply to Andre
Many thanks for your comments in Exegesis #62. I fear
you have misunderstood the astrology test I proposed in #61.
The aim is to find a phenomenon within astrology which is amenable
to statistical testing, in similar way to Gauquelin’s demonstration of
planetary effects. My hypothesis is that aspects are more likely
to be detectable in statistical tests than other phenomena such as signs
and houses.
The proposed test is designed to test this hypothesis by finding
out if the general public will associate
(A) character descriptions derived solely from astrological
aspect interpretations
with
(B) individuals they know well who were born when those aspects
occurred
when all other identifying data is removed.
Apart from Sakoian and Acker’s Astrologer’s Handbook, discussed
here previously, a possible source for aspect interpretation might be http://www.skyscript.co.uk
or similar, subject to permission. Sites such as www.astrology.com
or www.astro.com might wish to run this test with their own software, although
such public tests would need to be followed by strictly designed scientific
studies.
The hypothesis is that when a respondent is given five personality
profiles based solely on aspect interpretation derived from dates of birth
of persons they know well, the respondent will match the profiles with
the people at a rate better than chance. This would demonstrate that
astrological interpretation of planetary aspects has an empirical basis.
My discussion with a statistician friend provide the following
points.
Statistics tells us, for n=5, if I have a code randomly ordering
the numbers one to five – eg 34152 - there is one chance in 120 that you
will guess the number correctly, as there are 120 ways to order five numbers
(5x4x3x2x1). This whole problem is well known in probability theory
as the "matching" problem. The formula for any N, is given below.
For the case with n= 5, the probabilities are:
Prob (5 matches) = 1/120
Pr (4 matches) = 0
Pr (3 matches) = 1/12
Pr (2 matches) = 1/6
Pr (1 match) = 3/8
Pr (0 matches) = 44 / 120
Hence the likelihood of guessing two correct out of five birth
times based solely on aspect data is one in six (16.6%). If the test
found that more than one in six people consistently guessed two correct,
it would be a result not explainable by chance, validating astrological
theory about aspects.
The implications for Andre’s comments are that it is necessary
to restrict the test to people known well by the respondent, as they would
have no way to guess the profile of people they do not know. All
we want is a consistent guessing performance better than chance.
Stripping out signs and houses will certainly introduce error - for example
a strongly aspected ascendent would not be identified in this protocol.
The reason it would be better to use people unfamiliar with
astrology is to prevent the (stupid) sceptical rejoinder to Gauquelin that
French parents could have connived with doctors to write down an auspicious
birth time for their child. If this aspect test were done online
by www.astro.com or similar site it would be scientifically invalid as
astrologers could ‘game’ the result.
I was quite surprised by Andre’s comment that “statistical significance
has little meaning (if by that you mean a significant 'p' value), especially
when it arises out of a large sample.” This comment seems at
face value to contradict the scientific basis of statistics.
I hope these clarifications also address Andre’s other questions
about the proposal.
A similar test was the subject of controversy at the recent
British Association Festival of Science, where telepathy was apparently
proven by having people guess which of four close friends was calling on
the telephone, with results not explicable by chance. Rupert Sheldrake
has speculated about a quantum level basis for this result. It is detailed
at http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/Events/FestivalofScience/FestivalNews/Telepathy+thru+txt.htm
Robert Tulip
------------------------------
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Tarnas - Cosmos & Psyche
I am reading Tarnas in light of my interest in scientific astrology
drawing from Jung, Yeats and Heidegger, against a prism of Christian eschatology.
I believe the interface Tarnas addresses between astrology and theology
is an immensely fruitful topic worthy of rational discussion.
Tarnas draws a picture of the modern world view as seeking to
elevate the human mind to a status of conferring all meaning and purpose,
and he finds in this autonomous project the seeds of alienation.
To some extent this cultural critique is a modern version of Saint Paul's
Letter to the Romans, and of Paul's complaint in verse 1:20 that the imperial
culture worshipped the creature rather than the creator. Eg Tarnas
says on page 32 "the encompassing [Copernican] cosmological context in
which all human activity takes place has eliminated any enduring ground
of transcendent values - spiritual, moral, aesthetic."
For Tarnas to ground modern failings in the Copernican paradigm
does not entirely ring true to me, as the idolatry of disenchantment long
predates modernity.Tarnas himself notes this in his presentation of fall
and progress as the rival mythic frameworks of the West. It is important
to deconstruct the scientific paradigm, and Tarnas does this well, but
he should acknowledge that the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ were
just as disenchanted as any modern scientist, despite their magical idols.
The challenge of re-enchantment requires an integration of human
identity with the cosmos. Of course, this is the project of Christianity
with its messianic vision of the unity of the human and the divine in Christ,
and its claim that meaning requires connection to the source (eg John 15).
Clearly Christianity carries so much cultural baggage that Tarnas cannot
use it as a framework, preferring instead to argue for a relativistic pluralism.
However, pluralism needs to be bounded by recognition that re-enchantment
cannot go back to a magical worldview, but must recognise objective scientific
truth as a new context for thought.
In this context, I have found Heidegger's epistemology of the
theoretical and the practical as two equal ways of viewing the world helpful.
Theory is science, and is objective and de-centred, while practice is based
on the human sense of meaning derived from use, and is essentially geocentric.
I discussed this in my MA - see below for an extract from section
6.4 Worldhood. Humanity lives in the interface between theory and
practice. So I disagree with Tarnas claim (p28) that Heidegger remains
captured by Copernicus. As I have mentioned previously, this is a
topic I plan to write on further, especially regarding the potential of
Heidegger's ideas to provide a ground for an astrological critique of the
modern world view through his idea of the practical and his critique of
Descartes. This relates to the point I recently made here regarding
the centrality of human perspective to our concepts of meaning and truth.
I felt some unease about Tarnas' characterisation of meaning
in terms of the dichotomy between ensoulment and alienation. While
I agree with his views on the necessity of ensoulment, my concern derives
from my view that the human mind can properly be described as the place
where the universe reflects upon itself. The contrast Tarnas draws
between a primal sense of meaning inherent in the world and a modern sense
of meaning conferred by science seems to me to remain somewhat confused
regarding the necessary link between mind and meaning. The mind is
a natural thing, evolved from stardust, but unique among all known matter
in its capacity to represent matter as knowledge. If the human mind
is where the universe reflects itself, this representational power of the
human mind is the sole locus of meaning. If humanity did not exist,
it is not clear that meaning or purpose could exist, unless some other
complex entity able to think about concepts evolved somewhere. To
me
this unique factor of consciousness as the source of meaning
in the universe is not properly addressed by Tarnas.
The centrality of mind can be considered as a way to interpret
the old Christian idea that we are the image of God. The theologian
Wolfhardt Pannenberg put it in terms of the Christian trinity - that without
the Son, the Father would not be a father, or in other words, if there
were no Son (ie no humanity on earth), the father as creator would not
be a source of meaning and purpose. I view this in evolutionary terms
(noting Tarnas' swipe at Dawkins idea of the selfish gene) - by defining
God as the niche of the world, the end point towards which humanity should
aim to achieve secular fulfilment.
Here is an extract about Heidegger's views on Copernicus from
my MA thesis, Section 6.4, available at
http://www.geocities.com/rtulip2005/Tulip_Heidegger_MA/6_Ethics_of_Place.htm.
"The claim ... that there is a separation between science and
experience, marks Heidegger's departure from positivism.[62] There
are several examples given in Being and Time to illustrate the contrast
between the scientific objectivism of Being present-at-hand and the existential
reality of Being ready to hand, all of which illuminate the paradigmatic
ethical dimension of his thought and his critique of positivism.
Perhaps the best example of the contrast between the ready-to-hand and
the present-at-hand is Heidegger's discussion of the relationship between
the earth and the sun. The correct scientific view, which understands the
earth as a cosmic speck within a stellar system on an outer arm of the
Milky Way galaxy, is the only truth in terms of the present at hand. In
terms of the ready-to-hand [the practical] however, the pre-Copernican
view that the sun goes round the earth is just as true. As Heidegger
puts it,
"the sun, whose light and warmth are in everyday use, has its
own places - sunrise, midday, sunset, midnight . . . . Here we have something
which is ready-to-hand with uniform constancy. . . . The house has
its sunny side and its shady side; the way it is divided up into rooms
is oriented towards these, and so is the arrangement within them, according
to their character as equipment. Churches and graves, for instance,
are laid out according to the rising and the setting of the sun - the regions
of life and death, which are determinative for Dasein [existence] itself
with regard to its ownmost possibilities of Being in the world".[63]
In terms of human access, the sky is not principally an
object of study for climatologists and a hindrance for astronomers, it
is "the vaulting path of the sun, the course of the changing moon, the
wandering glitter of the stars, the year's seasons and their changes, the
light and dusk of day, the gloom and glow of night, the drifting clouds
and blue depth of the ether".[64] For farming,[65] or
for the laying out of churches and graves,[66] it is irrelevant that
the earth "actually" goes round the sun. The same distinction applies to
other practical concerns;
“the south wind may be meteorologically accessible as something
which just occurs, but it is never present-at-hand directly in such a way
as this . . . On the contrary, only by the circumspection with which one
takes account of things in farming is the south wind discovered in its
Being”.[67] “The botanist's plants are not the 'flowers in
the hedgerow', the 'source' which the geographer establishes for a river
is not the 'springhead in the dale'".[68]
These examples show how the Being of the same entity can be
understood from the divergent perspectives of the scientific and the existential,
each of which is meaningful. For the scientific theory that only
the present-at-hand qualifies as true knowledge, the 'springhead in the
dale' is not however acceptable as a description of the source of the river.
As merely ready-to-hand, a dale is no more than a subjective æsthetic
perception and not something that can be expressed in terms of mathematics
and geometry. Heidegger contrasts the perspectives of the cartographer
and the lover of nature, suggesting it may even be that an extreme version
of the cartographic representational understanding of knowledge would attribute
more reality to the map designation than to the actual place. In
the case of the flowers in the hedgerow, whose being is disclosed in the
whiff of scent or the flash of colour, the scholars criticised by Heidegger
would understand them according to the
catalogue, and any moods the flowers may have inspired in us
are dismissed as merely subjective and without truth value. We can
only know the flower as present at hand once it has been dissected or pressed
and the Latin name has been determined; while it remains an unruly wild
object and no more than a source of delight for children, its Being has
not yet been adequately clarified. "
Robert Tulip
------------------------------
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] re-enchantment
> Subject: [e] Tarnas - Cosmos & Psyche
>
> Some comments on Tarnas' first chapter in light of Dennis Frank's
good
> summary at
> http://exegesis.dyndns.org/pipermail/exegesis/2006-May/000036.html
us know, Robert, and thanks for providing the facility Fran.
> drawing from Jung, Yeats and Heidegger, against a prism of Christian
> eschatology. I believe the interface Tarnas addresses between
astrology
> and theology is an immensely fruitful topic worthy of rational discussion.
>
> Tarnas draws a picture of the modern world view as seeking
to elevate the
> human mind to a status of conferring all meaning and purpose, and
he finds
> in this autonomous project the seeds of alienation. To some
extent this
> cultural critique is a modern version of Saint Paul's Letter to the
> Romans, and of Paul's complaint in verse 1:20 that the imperial culture
> worshipped the creature rather than the creator. Eg Tarnas
says on page
> 32 "the encompassing [Copernican] cosmological context in which all
human
> activity takes place has eliminated any enduring ground of transcendent
> values - spiritual, moral, aesthetic."
>
> For Tarnas to ground modern failings in the Copernican paradigm
does not
> entirely ring true to me, as the idolatry of disenchantment long
predates
> modernity.Tarnas himself notes this in his presentation of fall and
> progress as the rival mythic frameworks of the West. It is
important to
> deconstruct the scientific paradigm, and Tarnas does this well, but
he
> should acknowledge that the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ were
just
> as disenchanted as any modern scientist, despite their magical idols.
assume those soldiers were not, and also assume that only christians
are
enchanted. Historians say that the most popular religion in the
roman army
was mithraism. Did they use idols like the plastic figures of
christ used
by catholics? Dunno. I'm inclined to agree with you that
they probably
actually were disenchanted, simply because most soldiers are pragmatic
enough to follow orders. Thus they would have officially worshiped
the
state deity - the Emperor Augustus.
can recommend another book I am currently reading. "The Fall:
The evidence
for a Golden Age, 6,000 years of insanity, and the dawning of a new
era",
Steve Taylor 2005. If you remain attached to christianity, it
would
probably be too much of a stretch to encompass, but if like me you
are more
interested in learning how things got this way please be assured this
is
worth checking out. The author is careful to cite ample evidence
and
provides comprehensive coverage of the topic rather than the mere new-age
speculation and fancy that one usually finds in books with this sort
of
title.
> with the cosmos. Of course, this is the project of Christianity
with its
> messianic vision of the unity of the human and the divine in Christ,
and
> its claim that meaning requires connection to the source (eg John
15).
> Clearly Christianity carries so much cultural baggage that Tarnas
cannot
> use it as a framework, preferring instead to argue for a relativistic
> pluralism. However, pluralism needs to be bounded by recognition
that
> re-enchantment cannot go back to a magical worldview, but must recognise
> objective scientific truth as a new context for thought.
been thoroughly discredited. Although it was Nobel-prize winning
physicists
(Heisenberg, Pauli etc) who first realised it back in the wake of the
quantum revolution (1920s), it was only in the 1980s that it became
widely
known to those of us who read leading-edge science writing. It
is true that
because the subject matter is the interface between world and mind
a
multi-disciplinary view of physics and psychology is required, which
eliminates almost all practising scientists. Only those inclined
to venture
into scientific philosophy have explored and reported on this cultural
field. I personally reported extensively on it in various chapters
of my
book "The Astrologer and the Paradigm Shift", 1992. Also in Exegesis
this
subject has been discussed extensively in past years.
context of whatever is currently consensually recognised as true, and
that
science largely catalyses any such consensus and via the media makes
it an
authoritative component of culture. I agree with your unstated
assumption,
Robert, that a magical world-view is usually more problematic than
helpful.
However this stance tends to deny or repress recognition of magical
aspects
of reality. Mustn't forget that Lyall Watson's best-seller "Supernature"
not to mention all his subsequent books report the various instances
of
magic in nature. Famous scientists rarely acknowledge natural
magic, so we
ought not to forget it when it happens. Then there's the fact
that all
astrologers hold magical world-views (in the opinion of scientists).
> and the practical as two equal ways of viewing the world helpful.
Theory
> is science, and is objective and de-centred, while practice is based
on
> the human sense of meaning derived from use, and is essentially
> geocentric. I discussed this in my MA - see below for
an extract from
> section 6.4 Worldhood. Humanity lives in the interface between
theory and
> practice. So I disagree with Tarnas claim (p28) that Heidegger
remains
> captured by Copernicus. As I have mentioned previously, this
is a topic I
> plan to write on further, especially regarding the potential of
> Heidegger's ideas to provide a ground for an astrological critique
of the
> modern world view through his idea of the practical and his critique
of
> Descartes. This relates to the point I recently made here regarding
the
> centrality of human perspective to our concepts of meaning and truth.
> the dichotomy between ensoulment and alienation. While I agree
with his
> views on the necessity of ensoulment, my concern derives from my
view that
> the human mind can properly be described as the place where the universe
> reflects upon itself. The contrast Tarnas draws between a primal
sense of
> meaning inherent in the world and a modern sense of meaning conferred
by
> science seems to me to remain somewhat confused regarding the necessary
> link between mind and meaning. The mind is a natural thing,
evolved from
> stardust, but unique among all known matter in its capacity to represent
> matter as knowledge. If the human mind is where the universe
reflects
> itself, this representational power of the human mind is the sole
locus of
> meaning. If humanity did not exist, it is not clear that meaning
or
> purpose could exist, unless some other complex entity able to think
about
> concepts evolved somewhere. To me
> this unique factor of consciousness as the source of meaning in the
> universe is not properly addressed by Tarnas.
it is better to recognise a natural polarity in culture between individual
minds (subjective meaning) and the group mind (relatively objective
meaning). A universal mind may exist, which christians may prefer
to
correlate with their god. I'm inclined to suspect that there
is a universal
spirit, but I doubt if I could experientially distinguish between it
and a
planetary spirit (this planet, I mean) which I'd call Gaia. Regardless,
we
may receive wisdom &/or spiritual support from such a source and
experience
it as meaningful. This meaning derives from a source exterior
to both
psyche and society. Many people see nature as a source of meaning,
and
hunter-gatherer tribes have always done so. Given that this was
the
original social matrix of the entire human race, nature has to be recognised
as the most inflential source of meaning ever. Local gods of
various
historical cultures have a minimal influence in comparison, even those
who
have gained multi-national adherents globally in the 2 most recent
millennia.
> Christian idea that we are the image of God. The theologian
Wolfhardt
> Pannenberg put it in terms of the Christian trinity - that without
the
> Son, the Father would not be a father, or in other words, if there
were no
> Son (ie no humanity on earth), the father as creator would not be
a source
> of meaning and purpose. I view this in evolutionary terms (noting
Tarnas'
> swipe at Dawkins idea of the selfish gene) - by defining God as the
niche
> of the world, the end point towards which humanity should aim to
achieve
> secular fulfilment.
been a christian. Unfortunately, he was a jew, but maybe it never
really
mattered. Yes, the idea promoted by the ancient christians that
we are the
image of god is quite amusing once you learn from modern psychology
that it
is actually the other way around. I don't see any merit in that
jealous
jewish god that he called his father, mainly because it spent the prior
couple of millennia persuading it's chosen tribe to commit genocide
against
all the indigenous people of the `promised land'. This while
claiming to
have a commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Seems a mistake to
promote such a
hypocrite as "the end point towards which humanity should aim".
Strikes me
there is enough hypocrisy around already, we hardly need to cultivate
more.
> marks Heidegger's departure from positivism.[62] There are
several
> examples given in Being and Time to illustrate the contrast between
the
> scientific objectivism of Being present-at-hand and the existential
> reality of Being ready to hand <snip>
"The botanist's plants are not the 'flowers in the hedgerow', the 'source'
which the geographer establishes for a river is not the 'springhead
in the
dale'".[68]
> These examples show how the Being of the same entity can be
understood
> from the divergent perspectives of the scientific and the existential,
> each of which is meaningful. For the scientific theory that
only the
> present-at-hand qualifies as true knowledge, the 'springhead in the
dale'
> is not however acceptable as a description of the source of the river.
As
> merely ready-to-hand, a dale is no more than a subjective æsthetic
> perception and not something that can be expressed in terms of mathematics
> and geometry. Heidegger contrasts the perspectives of
the cartographer
> and the lover of nature, suggesting it may even be that an extreme
version
> of the cartographic representational understanding of knowledge would
> attribute more reality to the map designation than to the actual
place.
> In the case of the flowers in the hedgerow, whose being is disclosed
in
> the whiff of scent or the flash of colour, the scholars criticised
by
> Heidegger would understand them according to the
> catalogue, and any moods the flowers may have inspired in us are
dismissed
> as merely subjective and without truth value. We can only know
the flower
> as present at hand once it has been dissected or pressed and the
Latin
> name has been determined; while it remains an unruly wild object
and no
> more than a source of delight for children, its Being has not yet
been
> adequately clarified. "
>
> Robert Tulip
in popular scientific philosophy, but I've forgotten who originally
made the
point that "the map is not the territory" even though my most recent
encounter with it was in the last week or two. A google search
would
probably find the origin, but really the principle matters more.
Somehow,
in people's heads, reality becomes defined by the model (map) they
believe
represents reality. Scientists are as inclined to fall victim
to this
psychological process as ordinary people. One of the main benefits
of
postmodernism is that it show people how to escape any such mental
prison
they have been occupying since their indoctrination in the education
system,
by relativising their understanding of reality.
From: andre
Subject: [e] What's astrology about? [reply to Robert, was Testing astrology]
Many here don't see the need for astrology to be tested, and certainly
not "scientifically" tested. For them, this exchange is of no
interest.
which lies at the heart of the deeper problem of _what sort of
information astrology provides_.
question in various ways. I and others have also done so in the
past.
I also think the question lies at the core of exegesis. Therefore,
I
attempt to discuss this in part of this post, and to do so less
technically and more clearly than I did in my previous reply.
I hope
that part of the post will be more widely relevant to the exegesis
group and purpose. Some may be tempted to skip straight to the
last
section then, and I encourage this.
clarity, especially in the last and perhaps most important section.
In
part, this is because I've been only able to find about a half hour
to
an hour each day. I apologise if the result appears disjointed.
----------------------------
1. A preamble about scientific research. Here I discuss some
of the
problems scientists face when they try to do science.
-------------------------------------
4. What does an astrology chart tell us? How does that
relate to what
we "know" about ourselves and others in everyday life? How does
what we
think we know either clarify or distort astrology's potential - or
both?
1. A short preamble about science
============================================================
There's a very nice picture of the scientific life in the book "science,
not art. ten scientists' diaries" [2003, Jon Turney (Ed.), Calouste
Galbunkian Foundation, UK]. The scientists are characterised
on the
back cover as "a young generation of outstanding scientists, many of
them Royal Society Research Fellows". The editor characterises
them
more modestly as "ten exceptionally interesting young researchers".
Regardless of characterisation, I find the book gives a simple, honest
account that certainly strikes many chords for me.
his diary he writes - in regard to global warming - "Although policy
makers understandably want clear answers to environmental questions,
nature seldom obliges in providing them." (p.83).
would readily agree with is "Although scientists understandably want
clear answers, nature seldom obliges". I believe one could easily
substitute "astrologers" for scientists, and the statement would still
be true.
unequivocal, avoiding Mark Twain's definition of science as the
wholesale return of conjecture from a trifling investment of fact."
(p.84).
it is practiced everyday, has to take risks in order to answer
worthwhile questions, questions that make significant advances in our
knowledge and/or understanding.
soul-searching. Does my study actually address the question I
think it
does? Are the measurements I propose the right ones? What's my
evidence
that the measurements are reliable and valid? Have I identified and
accounted for all the threats and weaknesses to the study? Can I get
a
sufficiently good sample? Are the analytical techniques adequate? Can
I
get the resources to solve the logistical problems?
taken resources away that could have been used by someone else with
a
better study?
(although as one gains experience and practice, many of the steps are
able to short-cutted). The great majority of ideas for an experiment
or
study are rejected after a few moments thought. Supposing the
idea
passes that stage, an informal chat with colleagues or mentors usually
disposes of many more. That stage passed, there are ethics and
grants
committees. They scrutinise the proposal hard: its theory,
its
practicality, its logistics, its ethics, its _value_. At the
end of all
this - given support and (usually inadequate) funds - one may be able
to
actually do the study.
expectation. That's often ok, as something else interesting may
be
found instead (i.e., as I stated several posts ago, "research is often
full of surprises"). Still, it may fail to disclose anything
new or
interesting at all.
the publication (peer-review) hurdle, in which peer researchers with
strong backgrounds in the area scrutinise the goal, the methods, the
data and findings, and the conclusions, seeking out the weaknesses
and
strengths. Again, the goal is to uncover whether there is something
of
value.
the work, is whether other scientists find it adequate enough to build
on in their own work. Here's another quote from "Science not
art", this
time from Yadvinder Malhi: "We have a paper published today in
Ecological Applications....The paper passes into the world unheralded.
It is only over the years as people read it and respond to it - or
not -
that its significance will be judged." (p.38).
resource to conduct it. That means someone else might do it; perhaps
someone on exegesis. He has, furthermore, framed it within
the context of scientific research. To me, this means he has implicitly
invited the usual process of scientific scrutiny. This is what
I have
done.
2. Robert's proposal
============================================================
Robert, thanks for the clarification of your proposal. This is
exactly
what my response was about. My intention was _not_ to stop the
idea,
but to give feedback that would enable the idea to be strengthened
and
improved. Your response shows you have done this.
------------------------
I now see your hypothesis is different from what I first thought.
interpretations with people they know well. This then is not
a test of
astrology, but a test of non-astrologers' ability to perceive a
connection between astrological aspect descriptions - rendered in words
- and their own opinions or knowledge of "individuals they know well".
Thus, it is "the general public" you would be testing.
test whether it works as specified, but whether the general public
thinks it works as specified.
usually defined and practiced is _about people_ , and therefore people
need to be part of any study. However, it is a somewhat dilute
and
indirect approach that reduces the "study power" considerably.
More
about "study power" in my comment about design (next subheading).
I come back to this in section 4, but let me write them down here:
humans to a strong degree.
around them
valid and accurate.
correct and clear.
reports, are easily able to correctly match the two different
perspectives provided by their own correct and clear picture of the
person (2, 4) with the completely valid and accurate information
provided by planetary aspects (3).
splendidly, as will many thousands of other potential studies.
By "work",
I mean "demonstrate an empirical basis to astrology". Such studies
would also easily clarify many of the questions and ambiguities that
currently arouse disagreement among astrologers.
accordingly. Indeed, there is a "weakest link" problem here.
If one of
the assumptions is not true, or two of them are only slightly true,
the
result is that the study will only produce findings at the same level
as
chance.
hypothesis" of being wrong.
as synonyms for "valid" and "validity").
(most of the studies have failed), from my knowledge as an astrologer,
and from my knowledge and experience in discursive and social
psychological research, I believe none of these assumptions to be 100%
true. I believe some of them to be quite close to 0%.
effect of the chain of causes is that the hypothesised correlation
will
be diluted to 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2= 1/32. This means a
study of
considerable sensitivity and considerable ability to reject "noise"
is
needed.
design (or improved) - practically that could only be the last four
-
the study's "power" is increased.
------------------
I think I understood your design quite well, but there was an ambiguity
for me. It was whether each respondent should review _all_ the
reports,
or just those of the people familiar to them. You may have noticed
I
eventually assumed you might mean the latter. You have clarified
that
you did.
It is often the case something crystal-clear to the writer is not as
clear to the readers. The process of dialogue improves quality.
reports from those unrelated to the respondent could be included."
was a serious suggestion.
error or ambiguity from the design, and optimise the ability of the
study to show the sought relationship can or cannot be found.
One of
the terms we use in research is "the power of the study". If
respondents in your scenario could consistently _reject_ the false
reports this would add to the weight of any evidence produced.
likely" to be one of the people they know well. A "non-parametric"
test would be a suitable statistic for this version of your idea.
The result is twice the "power" for the same number of respondents.
(This sort of design-work is a critical step for most scientific
researchers, who are chronically under-funded and need to use the fewest
participants/smallest samples possible).
--------------------------------------
I have tutored 2nd and 3rd year undergraduates in statistics, and the
test you propose looks fine. Coincidentally, it has a mathematical
relationship to a statistical property of small groups which forms
the
core of a critique I have developed of some 40 years of
minority-influence research!
would consider adequate for the statistical power of the test.
-----------------------------
3. The problem with significance testing
============================================================
> based solely on aspect data is one in six (16.6%). If the test
found
> that more than one in six people consistently guessed two correct,
it
> would be a result not explainable by chance, validating astrological
> theory about aspects.
Unfortunately, _any_ result is explainable by chance. That's
why it's
called "chance"!
this a good thing.
occurred by chance", otherwise known as "a statistically significant
result". Unfortunately, just as people can win lotteries even
though
the odds are millions to one against, so can scientists obtain support
for their ideas even though the odds are - well - usually they're set
at
about 20 to one against.
usual significance theshold of p = .05 equates to the 20 to one against
I just quoted. It means that the researcher has one chance in
20 of
getting the observed pattern _just because of a fluke in the data_.
want to win _regularly_ - at the rate of one time in 20!
by chance.
> has little meaning (if by that you mean a significant 'p' value),
> especially when it arises out of a large sample.” This
comment seems
> at face value to contradict the scientific basis of statistics.
albeit a highly useful one in many areas of science. (For example,
note
the title of Signorelli's paper: "Statistics: Tool or master of the
psychologist?").
facts and theories in the light of new discoveries, which are themselves
the products of creative questioning. As such, science is described
as
"progressive" (it thinks it is constantly getting closer to the truth)
but "tentative" (it can never be sure it has got there).
mathematics can make claims to truth. This is especially true
of the
Platonist claims of those such as Roger Penrose, for whom mathematics
is
not an invention or construction, but an entirely objective, universal
truth.
comment", but a recommendation by the APA circa 1994, following some
decades of concern expressed by eminent statistical psychologists such
as Carver and Cohen [references at the end], who were discomforted
by
the logical fallacy of "null hypothesis significance testing" (NHST).
caught up in the fallacy: most other branches of science were
quite
clear about the pitfalls of NHST, or had better methods of
theory-testing in any case. My opinion FWIW is that psychology
was
seduced into heavy reliance on NHST as part of its "mission" to achieve
credit as a "hard science", and part of its competition with rivals
social sciences such as sociology.
quite some eminence I would add) of the "APA Task Force on Statistical
Inference".
pseudo-objectivity". In it, Thompson writes "(a) effect sizes
are not
being reported, notwithstanding the admonitions of the 1994 American
Psychological Association (APA) _Publication Manual_ and (b) using
statistical significance tests does not (and cannot) make scientists
(or
their science) objective." (p.191).
teach statistical significance testing at 2nd year undergraduate level.
At third year undergrad level we teach what's _wrong_ with it, to the
accompaniment of much groaning from students! I imagine much
the same
pattern is repeated at universities world-wide.
is such one must use "sampling". For example, 'what colours are
the
safest for vehicles on the road', for which a practical sample might
be
crash statistics in the year 2000; or 'fish stocks of the species X
are
depleted' for which the sample might be 'fishing returns on September
23,
2006, within such and such patch of ocean'. In the case of Robert's
study, the sample might be 'the first 100 respondents to a public appeal'.
chance the sample does NOT fairly reflect the whole pie. By chance,
one
chose the one square mile of ocean where there were too many (or too
few)
fish. By chance respondents in Robert's design pick 1, 2, 3 or
5
matches _more_ often (or _less_ often) than expected.
chance. We can even quantify the level of rarity of our result.
For
example, if our "observed p = 0.01" (1/100), we know that _chance_
produces a result exactly like the one we got one time in every hundred.
planetary aspects produce effects easily recognised by non-astrologers)
OR we got the result we got because that's what chance does, one time
in
every hundred.
the 'significance of the finding': "The chances were 100 to one
against
this happening by chance, therefore I'm 99% sure of my result".
chances are one in 100 this could happen by chance. I _don't
know_
whether I've got the chance result (lottery win) in this case".
by chance" does NOT enable one to say "I couldn't have got this result
by chance" or - as Robert put it - "a result not explainable by chance".
the easier it is to obtain a 'significant result'. This is because
if
there is any tendency favouring one's hypothesis at all in the data
-
even though the tendency might be a chance effect - a sufficiently
large
sample will tend to find it. The smaller the tendency, the larger
the
sample needed.
now advoated. ES is a direct measure of the tendency, for example
in
a given astrological study it would tell us the size of the astrological
effect.
sample just as p can. Unlike p, ES does not change with sample
size.
such a result immediately. Yet with a sufficiently large sample
(e.g.
hundreds or thousands) an ES of that sort could well yield a "highly
significant p".
replication. The ability of other researchers to perform the
same or
similar studies and get similar results is considered "scientific
support". It is not, however, ever considered "proof", because
chance
can never be eliminated as a possible source of findings (or indeed
non-findings).
mathematical literature bearing on the fallacy of NHST, concerning
which
I have given a few references - and because this discussion is surely
peripheral to exegesis - I will not discuss this matter further.
perform scientific - and especially statistical - studies into astrology.
4. What does an astrology chart tell us? [etc]
============================================================
right over the main part of my response, although I consider the
clarified hypothesis may have been some sort of answer.
"other questions" - quite the contrary - therefore I was being obscure,
or simply coming from too specialised a field for the remarks to seem
plausible. (If that is the case, I would point out astrology
too is a
highly specialised field).
others, I believe astrology has a causal basis. Somehow, the
positions
and movements of the planets affect human beings. At the same
time,
human beings occupy an environment - a complex, dynamic network of
causes. Human beings also affect human beings. As such,
humans have
developed patterns of thought and language and behaviour that make
us
superbly well adapted to that environment - in _all_ its aspects.
Our
thought, language, and stories are _holistic_ responses to that
environment and the lives we lead within it. As such, it is extremely
difficult to disentangle any _one_ influence or cause from our
environment, in terms of its impact on our lives. This is a lesson
social scientists have learned from hard, sorry experience.
interpretations for our clients - we need to discriminate between those
aspects of our lives where astrology _has_ those effects, and where
it
does not.
would have to include the physical aspects of our environment, to be
a
complete explanation of _us_). Unless a "grand theory" of some
kind can
be developed, I reject this possibility. There is simply too
much
evidence from too many areas of human experience and thought that we
are
indeed complex creatures with intricate, multi-faceted relationships
to
our universe.
contribute to our understanding. This can't happen though, if
we don't
adequately understand our task.
causal assumptions. Whether or not Robert agrees with my analysis,
the
points will serve the purpose of this section quite well.
rather than just planetary aspects.
(2) the effects AI has on people are readily apparent to the
people
around them
(3) because of (2), astrologers' interpretations of AI are completely
valid and accurate.
(4) peoples' impressions of each other are completely correct
and clear.
(5) people without training in astrology, but given astrological
reports, are easily able to correctly match the two different
perspectives provided by their own correct and clear picture of the
person (2, 4) with the valid and accurate picture provided by astrology
(3).
these.
partly true. But exactly how true? And in what way?
other types of influence. It's "strong" because only one or two
other
sources of influence are comparable.
our behaviour, at every moment, and does so at least as or more strongly
than e.g. our job stress, the state of our marriage, our socioeconomic
status, our social networks, our genetics.
knowledge that demonstrates we are subject to many influences.
AI must
therefore be only one among many, _unless_ we can construct a "grand
theory" in which all these other influences can be derived from AI.
I
don't dismiss this possibility, but astrologers have much work to do
before we could even consider making such a claim.
"character" or "personality" for each individual lies closest to
personality psychology. Currently, the best models in psychology
have
determined there are _five_ independent "big factors". However,
overall
the best these models do is explain about 10% of human behaviour.
This
suggests about 90% of our behaviour is explainable by influences that
are not stable and internal (as implied by the notions of character
or
personality).
"sometimes"., e.g. at crisis points indicated by (say) hard-angle
transits. I think many astrologers would find this idea palatable.
Dale Huckeby has produced serious biographical evidence of this.
"affected by AI at moments of astrological crisis, which at that time
usually dominate other influences present in our environment (social,
cultural, personal etc). The astrological crisis interacts with
other
influences though. The interaction partly determines the outcome.,
i.e.
astrology alone does not fully explain what happens afterward.".
is that the effect is purely a _timing_ effect, with some different
_qualities_ arising out of the different lengths of each planet's cycle.
which contains a highly enriched descriptive language that (currently)
combines human feeling, behaviour, and motivation.
Roger's are particularly interesting as he points to astrological
effects that cannot easily be described in words.
around them.
known (though most people would not be aware of their source in
astrological causation), they would feature strongly in everyday
language and metaphor.
the ways in which we perceive and judge each other in everyday life
are highly compatible with the effects of AI. The structure,
logic, and
flow of everyday language and metaphor should be highly suited to
astrological description. In a sense, this constitutes an "intuitive
model of human nature" that people would pretty much all tend to "know",
arising directly from our everyday social experience of each other.
about each other is based on competing intuitive models. This
is a
similar argument to that I used in (1).
the way we judge each other is based in the resources that flow between
us, along person to person ties. Resources range over money,
attention
and recognition, care and support, social success, and so on.
As such,
people are perceived differently according to the contributions they
make. Parents, for example, provide their young children with
both
positive resources (food, attention, support) and negative resources
(punishment, boundary-setting, refusual of particular types of clothes,
foods, technology). As such, parents are typically perceived
in highly
ambivalent terms by their children.
_friend_ who supplies largely positive resources. Others, with
whom we
have ambivalent resource ties, we tend to view in far less glowing
or
ambialent terms.
of survival and success, a great deal of our perception of others is
based on these ties, and the resources that flow along them.
person who knows me well (a French physicist I am inclined to describe
as "completely charming" for a reason about to become clear) as "a
very,
very good driver" because of my ability to negotiate metal roads without
making her sick (she is prone to car-sickness, and often suffers from
it
when "my husband is driving"). Yet, another person who knows
me equally
well describes me as a terrible driver.
pictures they have of this one aspect of my behaviour are contradictory.
(Incidentally, FWIW, I used to race cars at club level and in
competition. I have Mars in Aries in the 3rd house, Trine Uranus
in Leo.
Some - not me - might consider that a reasonably apt description of
a
car racer, astrologically).
within the social sciences and particularly psychology, is that peoples'
views of each other are highly subjective and highly inaccurate.
One
lives with people, but knowing someone in ways conditioned by all the
variety and complexity of one's _own_ nature is not the same as "knowing"
someone in an "objective" way.
attributions - are dependent on matters that seem unrelated to AI (or
are only depedent quite indirectly, if we advocate a "grand theory"
of
astrology), then I think most AI effects will tend to be "blotted out"
by these blunt criteria of everyday judgment.
inexplicable, irrational, crazy. Maybe _this_ is a clue, because
it
might correspond to the "astrological crises" mentioned above.
But note
the framing of our observations when this sort of thing happens:
"he's
just gone completely weird"; "I just don't understand her anymore".
These are not insightful descriptions of another, but an expression
of
disappointment at the loss of previously dependable relationships ties.
the noise of the unsophisticated, egocentric, inaccurate ways we
normally think about each other.
interpretations of AI are completely valid and accurate.
The metaphors and idioms of everyday life - the intuitive model I
referred to - would be easily connected to the appropriate planets,
signs, aspects and so on. There would be little disagreement
between
astrologers, or between astrologies in different cultures.
expressed in everyday language and grounded in everyday human metaphor.
They almost _must_ be this way, in order to be easily understandable
by
our clients.
such plain language. It _could_ mean we have interpreted AI correctly,
and then cleverly translated it into everyday metaphor so that our
clients can easily understand their charts. Or, it means we see
others
more or less exactly the same way our clients do: subjectively
and
inaccurately. By speaking the same language as our clients, we
give
ourselves a patina of credibility.
concerning techniques (the different schools of astrology, the debates
such as "midpoints" versus "traditional aspects") and interpretations.
This suggests astrologers interpretations of AI cannot be completely
valid and accurate, because if they were there would be more or less
universal agreement among us.
scientific studies into astrology. It might be that astrological
influence exists, but that the quality of our interpretations is
extremely poor: so poor that most studies fail.
fear not very much.
_many_ different criteria with which we judge each other, necessitated
by the very complex social and technological environments we occupy,
that peoples' assessments _cannot_ be completely correct and clear.
If
they were, there would be almost no scope for different people to have
different views of the same person.
of our _relationships_ with them on many, many different levels.
They
are "correct and clear" for the moment and in the context in which
they
arise, but they are not adequate as accurate, general summations of
people in any objective sense.
this assumption, if at all.
reports, are easily able to correctly match the two different
perspectives provided by their own correct and clear picture of the
person (2, 4) with the valid and accurate picture provided by astrology
(3).
high degree, given the motivation to do so. The problem is whether
people can do this if the quality of the two perspectives (assumptions
2-4) is poor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may seem to make an awfully big meal of Robert's very simple proposal.
But if it's "science" we want to do, this is all part of the process.
seldom obliges [with clear answers]". To this I would add, if
we don't
get answers from nature, it's not nature's problem. It's because
_we_
haven't asked the right questions. That's what the process of
thinking
through and questioning our assumptions is all about. After all,
who do
we think we are anyway?
References
============================================================
Harvard Education Review, 48, 378-399.
49, 997-1003.
American Psychologist, October 1974, 774-777.
broken/misused, what practices should supplement or replace
them? Theory & Psychology, 9, 191-196.
reporting, and the vain pursuit of pseudo-objectivity. Theory &
Psychology, 9, 191-196.
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Finding Uranus with Binoculars
Da Vinci's famous drawing. The passage of the equinox past
it over the next century is suggestive of the human hubris at the cusp
between the ages.) Aquarius is the patch of faint stars between Capricorn
and Pisces. Just north of the ecliptic in Aquarius is a small group
of three stars forming an obtuse angle of about 135 degrees. Due
south of this group, right on the ecliptic, is another star, in a straight
line from the Capricorn pair. With binoculars Uranus can be seen
fractionally south of this star, number 374 on the rasnz chart linked above.
From a very dark spot Uranus is now just visible to the naked eye - at
the limits of human perception.
Wanting to reply to comments from Andre, Dennis and Dale, but
must wait to consider further.
Just to add though, on Tarnas's suggestion re Prometheus in
Cosmos and Psyche, he links the astrological interpretation of the planet
Uranus to all the positive and innovative dimensions of the Prometheus
myth, but leaves out the punishment inflicted by Zeus for hubris.
Prometheus was chained to Mount Caucasus where a vulture ate his liver
every day. He was a titan, not a god, and was punished for imagining
himself above his station when he stole fire from Olympus for man.
The planets are properly named after gods, not titans. Tarnas provides
a seductive case for Prometheus, but ignores basic stumbling blocks.
Ouranos as the sky father of Saturn is a bigger, deeper and more eternal
archetype than Prometheus, who represents the very human ambition that
Tarnas criticises in relation to the modern enlightenment.
------------------------------
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] cosmos & psyche 8
installment it seemed evident that Tarnas doesn't realise what a horoscope
actually is: the diagram of an event. Defining it as a
representation of a
moment in time is only half the definition. It represents a place,
not just
a moment. His confusion arose because he understands that the
planetary
positions in the chart are located with respect to earth rather than
to the
local horizon.
Maybe he justifies it by his choice of house division. Some house
division
rationales discount space in favour of time. Equal house is the
most
flagrant such system. It defines houses as merely equal divisions
of the
ecliptic like the signs of the zodiac. Such a preference for
an entirely
mathematical approach doesn't really excuse getting it wrong, but it
does
explain his confusion. Nor does he account for parting company
with Rudhyar
on this basic point, which makes one wonder if he is even aware that
he did
so.
and the natal chart at any given moment constitutes the individual's
current
personal transits." Such verbal short-hand is normal amongst
astrologers
communicating amongst themselves, but it is never wise to use in-house
jargon in a public-relations context. Action requires output
of energy, and
interaction requires energy exchange. Most astrologers would
agree that the
planets do not exchange energy with the natal chart. They would
be more
likely to say that the planets exchange energy with the native, perhaps.
How many planets have you exchanged energy with lately? Astrologers
would
be fools to make such a claim in a p.r. context, because any opponent
scientist in a debate would immediately ask for proof of such an assertion,
unless the journalist beat them to it. Or else they wouldn't
bother, merely
declaring "We know that isn't true." So how could Tarnas have
phrased his
point effectively? Well, he could have said "the precise phase
relations
between the current positions of the planets and their positions in
the
birth-chart identify the individual's current personal transits."
of time is informed by multiple archetypal forces in dynamic interplay."
He
introduces the concept of "archetypal complex" to "signify a coherent
field
of archetypally connected meanings, experiences, and psychological
tendencies - expressed in perceptions, emotions, images, attitudes,
beliefs,
fantasies, and memories, as well as in synchronistic external events
and
historical and cultural phenomena - all of which appear to be informed
by a
dominant archetypal principle or combination of such principles.
An
archetypal complex can be conceived of as the experiential equivalent
of a
force field or a magnetic field in physics, producing an integrated
pattern
or gestalt out of many diverse particulars. Any given archetypal
complex
always contains problematic and pathological shadow tendencies intertwined
with more salutary, fruitful, and creative ones, all of which inhere
*in
potentia* in each complex."
distinct mutual activation and interaction of the corresponding planetary
archetypes." Excellent to see this: I challenge any reader
to find this
correct description in any other astrology text (apart from mine).
He
defines aspects as "significant alignments or geometrical relationships"
measured along the ecliptic. "This was for Kepler the most fundamental
and
empirically validated principle in astrology." He quotes Kepler:
"Experience, more than anything else, gives credibility to the effectiveness
of aspects. This is so clear that it can be denied only by those
who
themselves have not tried them." So there. Safe where the
Inquisition
could not reach him, the Emperor Rudolf's poodle barked defiance.
with a significant mutual activation of the two corresponding archetypes,
and the nature or vector of that interaction reflects which specific
aspect
has been formed." This description is good in differentiating
the relation
between the planets from the interaction of the archetypes, to make
it clear
that the outer phenomenon is mirrored by a synchronous inner phenomenon.
The term `vector' is not defined by Tarnas, and I doubt readers will
glean
anything from it. I would further draw to the reader's attention
that
Tarnas merely implies that a third archetype is involved in the interaction:
the aspect. This flaw cannot be glossed over. If Tarnas
doesn't know that
the aspect meaning derives from division of the circle by the numbers
1, 2 ,
3, 4 & 6, someone had better tell him. Is he really unaware
that these are
number archetypes?? The effect of the particular aspect on the
archetypal
interaction is of primary significance due to the input from its number
archetype.
involving the major planetary aspects in natal charts, personal transits,
and world transits that seemed to represent the fundamental core of
the
astrological perspective". Given that these 3 are all based on
aspects,
this seems a pretty back-handed way of acknowledging the influence
of the
number archetypes. I suppose one must conclude Tarnas has yet
to notice the
underlying common factor or intuit their origin, or read where Jung
introduced them.
what was in effect a critical mass" of correlations "which produced
in my
basic intellectual orientation a gestalt switch or paradigm shift,
as Kuhn
well described such a change: in this case, a fundamental shift
from a
starting assumption of randomness to the assumption of a potential
underlying order. The correlations I came upon in my early years
of
research were compelling enough on their own terms to move me tentatively
from my initial skeptical dismissal of astrology and to set in motion
a
fuller investigation. But without the more profound epistemological
shift
from the assumption of a cosmic process that is fundamentally random
and
meaningless to the assumption of a potential subtle orderedness, I
would
never have glimpsed most of the evidence I have set forth in the following
chapters."
modern scientific paradigm: "Randomness is... assumed to be a
fundamental
but inexplicable and unanalyzable feature of nature, and indeed ultimately
of all existence." However, "what is randomness in one context
may reveal
itself as simple orders of necessity in another broader context...
It should
therefore be clear how important it is to be open to fundamentally
new
notions of general order, if science is not to be blind to the very
important but complex and subtle orders that escape the coarse mesh
of the
`net' on current ways of thinking."
methodology that is based on the firm underlying assumption that the
phenomenon does not exist has proved itself to be a singularly inadequate
strategy, at once self-fulfilling and self-limiting."
He says "the first set of correlations I observed that alerted me to
the
potential importance of personal transits" were produced by transiting
Uranus, in "periods in which those individuals underwent major biographical
shifts having an underlying character of sudden change, creative awakening,
and unexpected disruption of established life structures: psychological
turning points and breakthroughs, radical changes in philosophical
perspective, periods of intensified innovation and discovery, acts
of
rebellion against various personal or societal constraints, and the
like."
annum increment of Uranus is 4 degrees, this suggests a fairly generous
orb.
discoveries between October 1609 and March 1610 and then quickly wrote
and
published *Siderius Nuncius* (The Starry Messenger), which heralded
the
truth of the Copernican theory and caused a sensation in European
intellectual circles, he had the identical personal Uranus transit
that Rene
Descartes had in 1637 when he published his equally epoch-making *Discourse
on Method*, the manifesto of modern reason and the foundational work
of
modern philosophy. Moreover, this also happened to be same transit
Isaac
Newton had in 1687 when he published the *Principia*, the foundational
work
of modern science."
transit as "the period during which transiting Uranus is within 5 degrees
of
exact opposition alignment with its own natal position, the usual range,
or
orb, within which I observed archetypal correlations in hard-aspect
personal
transits of the outer planets." Galileo, Descartes & Newton
"all completed
their revolutionary works when the transit was at its mathematical
peak,
within 1 to 2 degrees of exact alignment, something that with this
transit
occurs altogether for approximately twelve months in the course of
an entire
lifetime."
made this discovery.
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] defining archetypes, historical context
variations in usage in modern times. Since it is crucial to progress
in
astrology, we must define the term.
(1) a perfect or typical specimen, (2) an original model or pattern;
prototype, (3) one of the inherited mental images postulated by Jung
as the
content of the collective unconscious, (4) a constantly recurring symbol
or
motif in literature, painting, etc.
these, but adds another as well: (1) the original pattern or
model from
which copies are made; a prototype, (2) an assumed ideal pattern
of the
fundamental structure of each great division of organized beings, of
which
the various species are considered as modifications, (3) a pervasive
idea,
image, or symbol that forms part of the collective unconscious.
It cites
usage by philosophers Francis Bacon (1605) and John Locke (1690), and
the
historian Macaulay (1849), but the concept derives from Plato.
original pattern or model", from the Greek roots: arche (beginning,
government) and typos (a model). This is the only meaning given,
is the
first given by the Oxford, and it corresponds to Plato's meaning of
`ideal
forms' that are separate from nature `in the mind of God'. Elsewhere
I have
seen the Greek root arche defined as `first principle', which seems
even
more to the point.
the creator was believed to use archetypes as template for the creation
of
natural forms. The concept remains viable, since we recognise
the generic
forms of things, so we are able to produce modern equivalent descriptions.
An archetype that manifests in nature is an originating principle
- a
creative agent that produces a formative effect. "An archetype
is a
pattern-forming principle which is continually reproduced in nature.
Each
has a constant essential nature which manifests frequently in life,
becoming
a key factor in the collective development of humanity." (1)
of natural forms may seem to be at variance with a common understanding
derived from Jungian psychology, that the archetypes are to be found
in the
collective unconscious. This is due to an over-simplification
by Jung's
followers, as Jung's own writings verify that he identified some archetypes
as manifesting in nature. I find it more helpful to recognise
that
archetypes fall into 3 categories: those that emerge from the
collective
unconscious and can be identified in individual behaviour and human
types,
those that shape natural forms, and those that emerge both in nature
and
also in the human psyche. The planetary archetypes, for instance,
belong to
the latter category.
connotation (government) as well as the originating and modelling
connotations. Archetypes make things happen, they produce tangible
results; the pattern or template reproduces the form. "Archetypes
are
abstract principles which seem to be informational, to lie in the realm
of
potential, but often manifest as qualitative components of the manifested
forms of nature, and the most evident of these are the number archetypes."
(2)
mathematics and metaphysics. Each one of these has a unique quality,
yet it is an integral part of the intellectual system of mathematics.
Mathematicians train themselves to ignore the qualitative dimension
of a
number, and merely use it for counting. Numerologists project
qualities
onto a number that are mere personal fantasies, because they think
that
finding out how numbers actually operate as archetypes is too hard.
That's
why the descriptions of any number vary according to which numerologist
is
describing them. It is in the structure of time cycles and in
the structure
of our orientation to the environment that the number archetypes are
most
relevant to contemporary astrological theory.
Rudolf II and discovered the laws of planetary motion. Previously
everyone
had always thought the planets moved in circles, but he proved their
orbits
were ellipses. Plato described the archetypes as `Ideas in the
mind of God'
(it his worth recalling that his god was neither Christian nor Jewish)
and
Kepler agreed. Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg both won
Nobel prizes
in physics for their role in the development of quantum theory.
Heisenberg
wrote "archetypes are consequences or evidences of a general order
of the
cosmos, embracing matter and spirit alike." (3) He also published
a
commentary on what Pauli wrote on the subject, with respect to both
Pauli's
collaboration with Jung and Pauli's investigation of Kepler's references
to
the archetypes.
Ideas is seen by Pauli in certain primeval images pre-existing in the
soul,
the archetypes discussed by Kepler and also by modem psychology.
These
primeval images - here Pauli is largely in agreement with the views
of
Jung - should not be located in consciousness or related to specific
rationally formulable ideas. It is a question, rather, of forms
belonging
to the unconscious region of the human soul... This view of natural
knowledge is notoriously derived in its essentials from Plato, and
it
penetrated into Christian thought by way of neo-Platonism (Plotinus,
Proclus). Pauli seeks to clarify it by pointing out that even
Kepler's
conversion to the Copernican theory, which marks the beginning of modern
natural science, was decisively affected by certain primeval images
or
archetypes. He cites this passage from Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum:
"The image of the triune God is in the sphere, namely of the Father
in the
center, of the Son in the outer surface and of the Holy Ghost in the
uniformity of connection between point and intervening space or
surroundings."" (4)
surface is, for Kepler, the emblem of creation. This symbol,
most
intimately associated with the Holy Trinity and described by Jung as
a
mandala, finds an imperfect realization, for Kepler, in the physical
world:
the sun in the center of the system of planets... Pauli believes
that to
Kepler the persuasiveness of the Copernican system is due primarily
to its
correspondence with the symbol described and only secondarily to the
data of
experience." (4)
following quotation demonstrates. "From Greece to Mesopotamia,
and perhaps
among the Vedic Hindus as well, an idea of circularity governed early
conjectures about the universe. It agreed with what was seen,
and extended
itself to what was not. The starry heavens could be watched circling,
the
ring of the horizon met the eye on all sides. At an early period
the earth
came to be pictured as a disc." The ocean, sometimes personified as
a giant
serpent, surrounded "the circular land-mass on which humanity lives".'
It
was called the rebel in Hebrew, oecumene in Greek, orbis terrarum (circle
of
land) in Latin. Proverbs 8:27-31 describes how God 'drew a circle
on the
face of the deep', and a surviving 5th century Babylonian map shows
the
world as circular; a disc of land surrounded by the ring of the earthly
ocean, and surrounding that the ring of heaven with its zodiacal gods.
(5)
diagram, just as the circular horizon is the earthly analogue of the
heavenly sphere of the cosmos. The circle archetype clearly has
had a
profound influence on human consciousness. Even today the horizon
is
experienced as a circle, with the observer at its centre. Science
cannot
prove this, but it is nonetheless universally accepted as fact, and
illustrates the point that some of the most fundamental aspects of
nature
that we experience are not accessible to scientific description.
of the archetypes appear to have a formative influence on consciousness.
Some seem to manifest in particular structural components of the human
psyche. They certainly account for most of the common qualitative
variations in nature. To understand these essential primary informational
components of nature, one must bypass the tattered clichés of
the
traditional scientific description. For instance, scientists
generally
claim astrology is invalid because it uses a geocentric frame of reference
based on a belief that the universe revolves around a fixed flat horizon.
This certainly was the generally held belief throughout most of history,
until the Enlightenment. And for very good reason, as Heisenberg explains:
"Immediate experience teaches that the earth at rest and that the sun
goes
around it. In the more precise terms of our own day, we might
even say that
the word 'rest' is defined by the statement that the earth is at rest,
and
that we call every body at rest that no longer moves relative to the
earth.
If the word 'rest' is understood in this fashion - and it generally
is so
understood - then Ptolemy was right and Copernicus wrong." (6)
common experience, or are they decrees handed down from on high by
a
scientific priesthood? It used to be the latter, but the winds
of change
are blowing. If we all see a flat earth bounded by a circular
horizon, it
may well be the case that our psyche has been structured according
to this
common perception. Our experience of cosmic cycles would then
be relative
to this constant generic frame of reference. If evolution has
given us this
view of the environment, the horoscope as model of the psyche seems
a viable
proposition.
for astrologers for at least several centuries. To scientists
it represents
the hydrogen atom. To the Chinese it has since ancient times
represented
the cosmos - earth is the central dot and heaven is the surrounding
circle.
In the theory of holism this symbol is generalised to represent the
holistic
relation between part and whole. This points to the archetype
underlying
the symbol. Kepler retained the form of the archetype in agreeing
with
Copernicus that the Sun, not the Earth was at the centre of the planetary
orbits. Our perception of self in relation to earth is from a
centre to a
surrounding circle of the horizon which bounds our arena of social
interaction, so the same archetype is involved. Whether this
be essentially
3-dimensional or 2-dimensional may not be an issue, because it may
manifest
in either way depending on context and perception. There may
also be a
reciprocal relativity involved in the way the archetype operates, in
that
sometimes the part is in the centre and sometimes the whole, but that
may
just be a consequence of usage of the symbol as model.
Christian trinitarian divinity. His correlation of the link between
part
and whole with the holy spirit seems appropriate, inasmuch as something
holistic and indefinable mediates a bond via which they connect and
interact. Each planetary orbit is unitary as an ellipse, with
an inherent
bipolar sub-structure consequent of the dual focii. The number
archetypes
1 and 2 are thus evident in the structure (whether or not we make any
subjective choice to correlate them with sun and planet). The
number
archetype 3 is detectable in the gravitational bond that creates the
elliptical orbit. Gravity is the physical term for what maintains
the
planetary orbits; it does not explain their relative proportions,
nor their
form. We are therefore at liberty to postulate that the form
and relative
proportions of the orbits are created by the number archetypes, operating
to
compose a coordinated, entrained combination.
(2) ibid. p52.
(3) "Quantum Questions", ed. K Wilber, 1984, p162.
(4) ibid. p66.
(5) This and the following 2 paragraphs are copied from my book
p54, and
the source of the quote is "The Ancient Wisdom" G Ashe, 1977, p74/5.
(6) "Quantum Questions", ed. K Wilber, 1984, p40.
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] A New Science of Astrology
Astrology is sometimes condemned as ‘pseudo-science’ on grounds
of lack of evidence. A scientific evidence-based approach to astrology
can respond to this criticism. I have recently produced planetary
movement charts which illustrate the scientific basis of the astrological
theory of the aspect, and provide an almanac of the positions of the planets
in the sky, including for example the present interplay between Mercury
and Jupiter in the evenings. Analysis of these charts in geometric
terms requires a new science, which I call cosmetrics, meaning measurement
of the cosmos. These charts illustrate on a page all the conjunctions,
sextiles, squares, trines and oppositions in a given two year period, and
are available from me on request, covering periods from 1999 to 2008.
My scientific interest is to make statistical assessment of this empirical
information, analyzing it for sensitivity relations with events on earth,
and for correspondence to archetypal claims of
astrology.
The first available chart contains most aspect data from 2001
to 2003. It illustrates the fiery doom-laden five month conjunction
between Mars and Pluto from 23 March 2001 until 19 August 2001, brewing
a storm before the 11 September attacks. The second chart, from now
until 2008, illustrates the times ahead. 2007 has grand trines on 5 March,
30 May and 10 December, grand squares on 1 May and 21 July, a conjunction
of Venus, Saturn, Sun and Mercury opposite Neptune on 15 August, and finally,
on 20 December, Pluto, Jupiter, Mercury and the Sun come together in opposition
to Mars. The almanac is an excellent method to know when and
where planets are visible, notably Uranus’ current position at midheaven
in the evening.
The broader purpose of this work is to legitimize the geocentric
perspective as a scientific field within astronomy which contains its own
evidence for analysis, and to tap the wealth of understanding arising from
study of the relations between the planets. Cosmos and Psyche by
Richard Tarnas advances this topic immensely and contains much valuable
analysis, but uses a humanistic approach which does not address the scientific
problem, as this paper begins to. Tarnas presents the example of
Uranus and Pluto, claiming their conjunction about every 130 years, most
recently over twelve years around 1966, unifies the archetypal energies
of innovation and transformation. Taking Tarnas further, the sextile
of Uranus and Pluto through the 1990s is another form of harmonic relation
between these planetary energies, as are the square on 25 June 2012 and
trine on 15 June 2027 leading to their next opposition on 23 September
2046.
Epidemiological data provides a possible reference source for
the statistical study of astrology. I would be interested to obtain
a spreadsheet list with records of all births and deaths in a locality
or nation over a long period, to study against planetary cycles.
The question would be whether the position of planets correlated to any
cycles of birth and death rates, such as whether people born under a certain
aspect, eg Jupiter conjunct Sun or Saturn conjunct Pluto, have life expectancy
different from average, and whether any aspects correlate to higher or
lower birth or death rates overall. This desk study would be easy
to conduct given data availability. It would indicate whether astrological
claims of cosmic sympathy might have empirical grounds.
The planetary chart (available from me on request) shows paths
of all the planets spiraling through time around the central sun with all
aspects marked as different coloured bars connecting the planets.
It has a similar cosmetric structure as the DNA double helix. A three
dimensional model would illustrate the similarity even better. I
claim this is evidence of the fractal relation between genetics and astrology,
arising from two facts: (i) that the planetary helix is the ecological
niche for the earth; and (ii) that genes have cumulatively adapted to the
cycles of the planetary helix over the four billion years of life.
Statistical findings that planetary aspects correspond to events on earth
would provide scientific evidence for the mathematical conceptual logic
underpinning this data.
The mathematics is based in gravity harmonics. A harmonic
is a wave that results from the division or multiplication of a wave frequency
into two, three or more equal parts or multiples, most notably in music
but apparent in all wave physics. In mathematical terms, all
mass has gravitational effect on all other mass, although this dwindles
towards zero with distance and size. In purely formal mathematical
logic, the gravity connecting any two entities can never equal zero, because
all mass has finite attraction. All particles are in gravitational relations
to all other particles, originating from the big bang.
The mathematics of gravity harmonics can model the solar system
as a gravity well, paying special note to planetary aspects. The planets
occupy an intermediate niche on the cosmic scale, having regular ‘tidal’
relations with earth which can be mapped as the harmonic field of the planetary
helix. The planetary chart illustrates the gravitational vectors
connecting earth with each planet. These vectors oscillate according
to mutual cycles, and can be considered as waves due to the steady orbital
patterns of planetary motion. The wave-like relations between the
planets produce the sinusoidal structure of outer planetary aspects, illustrated
in a third chart I have made.
Within a stable planetary system such as ours, gravity can be
modeled for analysis using the harmonic wave structures of music. In music,
natural harmonics of wave physics produce cycles of fifths, complex harmonies
of thirds and sevenths, and eventually the natural scale. For the
planets, the conjunction can be compared to a unison of planetary energies.
Continuing the musical analogy, the sextile is the second, the square the
minor third, the trine the major third, and the opposition the perfect
fifth.
99.8% of the mass of the solar system is in the sun, with the
remaining 0.2% forming the planets etc. The solar system, four light
years from the nearest neighbour stars Alpha and Epsilon Centauri, is comparable
in isolation to a small coin one hundred metres from the nearest other
coin. Gravitational relations between planets are small but regular, enough,
for example, to enable discovery of Neptune and Pluto. Planetary
gravitational effects on us are much smaller than the gravity of earth
itself and the moon and sun, but more than a distant star because they
are part of the same isolated physical system as earth. These planetary
effects are amplified by their constant regular cyclic patterns.
Ffor example the twenty year Jupiter-Saturn cycle has happened 200 million
times since the dawn of life, presenting an important part of the cosmic
niche to which our genes have cumulatively adapted.
Robert Tulip
18 October 2006
------------------------------
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Main events for 2007
16 Jan: Saturn Trine Mars-Pluto conjunction
15 Feb: Jupiter Square Venus-Uranus-Mercury conjunction
10 March: Grand Trine: Jupiter-Venus-Saturn
4 April: T-Square: Mars-Neptune Square Venus Square Saturn;
Jupiter Square Uranus-Mercury
10 May: T-Square - Jupiter-Pluto square Mars-Uranus square Venus;
Saturn Square Mercury-Sun
11 June: T-Square: Jupiter/Pluto - Uranus - Sun; Grand Trine:
Jupiter/Pluto - Mars - Saturn
11 July: Pluto Trine Venus-Saturn
31 July: Grand Square: Jupiter Venus/Saturn Mars Neptune
24 August: Sun/Mercury/Venus/Saturn conjunction - Trine Pluto
and opposite Neptune
18 September: Grand Square: Uranus Sun Mars Pluto
11 October: Grand Trine Mars Mercury Uranus; Pluto Trine Venus/Saturn
4 November: Grand Trine Mars Sun Uranus
16 December: Grand Trine Mars Venus Uranus
25 December: Grand Conjunction: Pluto Jupiter Sun Mercury -
opposite Mars, Trine Saturn, Square Uranus
My recent work has included finishing reading the brilliant
Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas (I promise to write a review here!),
further work on the excel almanac I described in my last note and which
is the source for the above dates (but which you all ignored!!), and reading
the Google Daily emails for Science Astrology. The sad thing from
these google reports is how widely astrology is seen as a term of abuse
having zero intellectual merit - but today an amazing report from http://insurancehotline.com/carcarmahome.html#
that shows "why, and which drivers, based on their Astrological signs get
more tickets or have more accidents." Summary is at http://www.insurancehotline.com/romanov/romanov54b.pdf.
As per my previous comments, this report shows that insurance is a rich
data mine for astrology. I suggest the actuaries should also look at outer
planet aspects to test the rigour of Tarnas's numerous anecdotes.
Wishing you all a very pleasant Christmas and a happy new year
for 2007.
Robert Tulip
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Science and astrology debate
You can find it at http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17
Comments welcome, here or there
Robert Tulip
