|Exegesis Volume 2 Issue #45
Exegesis Digest Fri, 03 Oct 1997
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:47:26 +0200
From: Peder Karlsson
Subject: To climb a mountain
My name is Peder Karlsson. I am 34 years old, a musician and composer who lives in Stockholm, Sweden.
It was a fascinating experience for me to realize that astrology "works". This happened some years ago. I have studied astrology for myself for about 15 years.
Our knowledge of the correlation between the cycles of the planets and the cycles in the life of an individual, as understood through the subject of astrology, can never be complete. This is my belief.
We discover a new mountain, learn about it, climb it, and then we find another mountain. There will always be an endless amount of mountains to climb. And our view of the world changes with our new discoveries.
Astrology is subject to change, along with people's world-views, something that I would like to discuss.
Here are some "headlines", after which follows some speculation around these issues: (This may be considered a long posting to this mailing list. I am sorry. Please also have patience with my imperfect English.)
* when new symbols are incorporated with the astrological framework, the "old" symbols change. As does our views of the aspects of life that these symbols are connected with.
* What does the birth chart stand for? What would a chart drawn at the moment of conception stand for? A couple of thousand years ago, when astrology began to develop, people did not know, as we do today, about chromosomes, DNA etcetera. We have even taken pictures of "sperm meeting ovum". People today have access to this knowledge and can be assumed to have a different attitude to life than people had a couple of thousand years ago. Since we know that life starts at the moment of conception, and not at birth, some kind of distinction must be made what it is, symbolically, that has its beginning at birth.
* The cultures who started the development of astrology had a two-dimensional world-view (or am I wrong?). To them the earth was flat. The stellar objects were above or below the horizon. We have today a three-dimensional world-view. But we draw charts the same way as they did two thousand years ago. The horoscope is a three-dimensional reality projected onto a two-dimensional paper. Can astrology be "up to date" in this respect - is there a way to present the astrological symbols in three dimensions? I also have a feeling that a "complete" astrology would have to incorporate the whole sphere surrounding us, and not simply the zodiac.
* Through science, the sum of our physical knowledge of the universe is increasing rapidly. New research in various fields is increasing our knowledge of the world (even though one may say that it seems that a lot of research of disputable value is done - that is: it does not necessarily increase human wisdom). Astrology, which deals with inner meaning rather than vital statistics, does not (and should not) change as quickly. However, my impression is that astrology has yet to live up to the sum of human knowledge.
(the following repeats what I tried to express above)
A very interesting aspect of the subject of astrology is that the development of the subject itself reflects the development of human consciousness. Changes in our physical knowledge of the world is followed by a reformulation of astrology. An obvious example is the recent discovery of the physically observable bodies Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, and the changes of astrology and humanity's view of the world that accompanied those discoveries. One thing this tells us (or should tell us) is that the subject of astrology changes along with our world-view.
Before Neptune was discovered, Jupiter was considered to be the only ruler of both Sagittarius and Pisces (which means that the Jupiter energy had a connection with Sagittarius and Pisces in our collective world-view). Today Neptune is considered at least co-ruler of Pisces, which gives the Pisces energy and the 12th house activities a completely new dimension. Before the discovery of Neptune, there was no chance for even the most sensitive and wise of astrologers to experience, be aware of (or conceptualize), the existence of such a factor as Neptune. Since we are now aware of both Jupiter's and Neptune's existence, we can, in a way that was not accessible to our ancestors, disguish between Jupiter's domains and Neptune's domains. The symbolical values of Sagittarius, Pisces and Jupiter must change with the discovery of Neptune. One can never take "old truths" for granted. What is "true" is subject to change. Jupiter is not the same now as he was a thousand years ago. At least not from our perspective. Astrology always operates from one's own perspective. When the perspective changes, the truths and the symbols get new values, new meanings.
Another (quite speculative) example of change of perspective:
What changes will take place within the subject of astrology when we can build space ships that are safe enough to take pregnant women to the Moon? The babies born there will not have the "Moon" in their birth chart. The Earth will be their "Moon". Will the Earth in this case (their Moon) have the same astrological value as our Moon? (You can be sure that at least some people would like to have babies on the Moon - Ricki Lake would die to have them in her talk show!)
The difference between the birth chart and a chart that would be drawn at the moment of the conception is interesting. The moment when the ovum chooses a spermatozo with which she will become one - the primary cell, which is a unique entity carrying the potential to become an individual new life. For obvious practical reasons, astrologers do not draw such charts! To do that, one would need quite sophisticated cameras etcetera, and one would quite probably change or interfere with the circumstances surrounding the conception. For example it is quite probable that the participants lose interest in pursuing the activities required for creating new life, if they are subject to such observation :-)
As the quantum physicist Heisenberg found: "The observer changes the observed", thus leading to the conclusion that there is always an amount of uncertainty about quantum level activities. (In astrological terms - what he says is that we need Neptunian attitudes in order to understand Plutonian phenomenons, or that Neptune sets a limit to our understanding of Plutonian things.) The foetus lives in a Neptunian world, and its reality is hidden to us, and will always be, no matter how far we will get with scientific understanding of what is happening "in there". The nucleus, the primary cell, carries a typical Plutonian significance. It is a seed, that potentially may become an Individual Something.
To me it is quite probable that it is God's will that we shall not (yet) know all truths surrounding the creation of new life. We are not ready, or wise enough, to incorporate such insights.
Even if we cannot delineate a "conception chart" with any desirable accuracy, one may speculate what meaning it would have. Maybe the birth chart symbolizes the Way to Individuation, while the "conception chart" symbolizes the Way to Unification. When born, one takes the first step towards individuality. It is the first moment when one is on one's own and also the first moment when one experiences the world through one's own senses only. The primary cell lives under very Neptunian circumstances - in water, the primordial sea, through its environment, completely dependant upon its environment, "hospitalized". Everything that it experiences is hidden to us, unaccessible. A two-week foetus looks quite similar to all other species, is thus undistinguished from, still unified with, the Whole. It is individual, but its individuality is mostly potential.The Way to Unification is hidden to us. One may find it by learning Neptunian lessons, maybe. Through Individuation, we lose contact with the Way to Unification, but we get a chance to find our own independent Way.
I also want to say that I believe in the existence of a God, a superior force with a direction and a plan. We are given pieces of the Truth, clues, in portions that are not bigger than we can handle. There is always a limit to what we can understand. It is good to think about that every once in a while. There is NO WAY that we can know everything of any particular thing. One has to be very humble when pursuing any kind of activity that includes "a look behind the curtain", an interpretation of the truths underlying our actions. Some people, me included, call this: "interpretation of God's will". Since we are curious, this is something that we have to do, but with caution. This is my humble opinion.
In my humble opinion, it is necessary that students of astrology (even distinguished astrologers like Stephen Arroyo and Liz Greene are students of astrology), have to realize that the subject of astrology has yet to live up to the sum of human knowledge, as it is today. Science deals with cause and effect, and with measureable quantities. Science observes what can be observed from the outside, for example: "Peder blushes". A purely scientific person is content with the conclusion that Peder blushes because there is an increased amount of blood in his cheeks. To know, and to gain deeper understanding, why Peder blushes, one has to ask him. One must get information about the "inside", through some sort of dialogue. One must be interested in the qualitative dimensions of life. A good astrologer has this interest, and has a developed sensitivity that makes him/her able to tune in to inner truths. But no astrologer, however experienced, can be quite sure what exactly is going on "in there".
I have always felt that both a "dialogue" with the inside, as well as some verification from the observable outside is not only good, but essential, if one wants to get the whole picture of what is happening to an entity. If one takes pride in how accurate one can interpret inner truths, one is definitely likely to be prone to self-deception. Inner truths must be checked from the outside, and vice versa. It is not good for humanity that the world is divided between those who study the outside and those who study the inside. Both speak derogatory about the other. Science deals with the outside and astrology with the inside. And both ways are equally important to understand the world. I get so tired each time I hear, or read, someone who is "into astrology" (Stephen Arroyo et al included) who talks about how "bad" science is. The world today tends to overvalue the materialistic and the rational approaches to life, and undervalue the spiritual and the emotional, which is bad, but an opposite situation would also be disastrous.
And I believe that much of the frustration among astrologers towards science stems from this situation: Science discovers more and more about the physical/rational, while the spiritually inclined part of the world has problems keeping up the pace. For example: Science has found many "new" heavenly bodies, but astrologers don't know very much yet about the symbolical meanings behind all these bodies. There is a lot of speculation, but little real knowledge and direct experience. For a scientist, it is enough to find out about the physical dimensions of a stellar body, whereas an astrologer must contemplate its deeper meaning. And the latter may take 50 or 100 years. Astrologers should be proud that their knowledge lasts longer than the average type of scientific knowledge, and "stay cool" during this turmoil in cultural values that is taking place now. I believe that it will take at least another 100 years or so before astrologers have managed to incorporate all these little bodies with the "old, big ones" into a system that makes sense. To me it makes very little sense to focus on Lilith's position in a birth chart, than to focus on the Sun and the Moon. On the other hand, the new bodies need focus in order to be understood.
I have to stop now before I overload all your hard-disks with more speculative rubbish!
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 2 Issue 45
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.