|
|
Science versus Astrology
Basically, science’s rejection of astrology is based on ignorance. Science’s ignorance. When the astronomer Edmond Halley asked Sir Isaac Newton (essentially the “patron science of physics”) how he could possibly believe in astrology, Sir Isaac answered, “Because I have studied the matter, Sir. You have not.” And therein lies the crux of the matter. When Shakespeare made the comment of the “stars influencing our lives”, he too was mis- or un-informed. Astrology is about the planets of our solar system, not the stars! Another example of the ignorance of mainstream science is the oft-quoted astronomer’s notation of the Precession of the Equinoxes, and how this somehow makes astrology invalid. In fact, on the day this was being written, NPR’s “Star Date” had a brief, lucid explanation about the sun entering Ophiuchus -- what astronomers like to refer to as the 13th constellation of the Zodiac. In turns out that in 1930 astronomers had decided that the allegedly arbitrary division of the Zodiac into 12 equal segments of 30 degrees each was not in keeping with actual sizes of the constellations. Scorpio, for example, spans a much smaller section of sky than say Pisces. While the NPR report was well done and basically accurate, others have taken the position that because of the slow rotation of the Earth’s axis on a 25,920 year cycle, this ensures that the portion of the sky that was in Pisces four thousand years ago, is no longer the same portion of the sky now. And thus the constellations are not the same as in the days when astrology was born -- and what astrology calls Scorpio is no longer related to the constellation of Scorpio. “Science has been the great venture of modern man, but I am deeply disappointed that it has stopped short of its goal. It has become political, adhering to a materialist dialectic. The cult of calibration and measurement has dispensed with consideration of first principles and produced tons of facts tied together with bits of fragile string. The consistency and clarity, even of classical determinism, has been lost and its blundering prejudice retained. The stimulating challenge of ESP is ignored and made ridiculous; even the nineteenth-century recognition that perception was only partially based on sensation, and had components of value and image carried over from earlier experience, is set aside in obeisance to a reductionism based on a physics long since obsolete. Science, in short, is a motley of fragmented special disciplines, each encrusted with its own jargon and incomprehensible to its fellows, rallying under a common policy of objectivity -- valid enough as applied to method, but downright misleading when applied as it is and without justification to require that the world be exclusively objective and physical.” “But the notion of elements and their subdivision does not encompass the other ingredient essential to astrology -- the gods as principles or powers operating through the planets. This is where, in answer to the charge that I’m snatching pieces of the temple of astrology to serve my own purposes, I can cite my own inadequacy. The whole temple cannot be transported except it be taken in pieces. And the temple itself is not the ultimate; it too is an idol. But as an idol it is closer to life than the idol of science. That perhaps is my final plea. So I must take the gods and their correlation with the planets on faith. Let us see what this faith entails. “I . That the solar system is an organon. “II. That the organon is ‘a process machine’ having a number of distinct periodicities or rhythms. “III. That said rhythms are indicated by the planets. “IV. That the direction in which planets ‘point’ at any given time indicates, or creates, the zeitgeist of that time. “V. That the pointing of the planets produces such zeitgeist because the directions are themselves different in quality. “VI. That the planets, because of their difference of period, contribute to the different powers of persons. “VII. That a person’s birth is an introduction into this organon. A birth is an enrollment, as it were, to ‘take a course in the universe.’ The birth establishes the central stance. The motion of the planets thereafter establishes the scenario.” Young’s essay <http://www.arthuryoung.com/valueofastrology.HTML>, “On the Value of Astrology for a Science of Life” is particularly noteworthy and includes the well-reasoned argument that the biological rhythms of life are endogenous (i.e. not dependent upon known external influences), and that the planets are influencing mundane (worldly) events by other means -- perhaps geometrically, geometry being used here as a verb and not a noun. Thus mainstream science’s rejection of astrology is due to the inadequacies of mainstream science in not knowing the manner of the physical influence. Young notes, for example, that the number of rings in a clam shell are based on the new moons and not the high tides (which occur at both the new and full moon). In general, the “study of circadian (near to 24 hour) and other biological rhythms” have been found to be endogenous (produced from within; originating from internal causes). Young also claims science “does not include any first principles which predict or even accommodate life.” Again, mainstream science’s rejection of astrology is an admission of its own inadequacy. Incidentally, Young invented and developed the world’s first helicopter. What has the guy who had his hand up, done? Hmmmm...? ^_IIabcdefghi^_IIabcdefghi^_IIabcdefghi Geometry and Astrology Astrology Death and Rebirth Forward to: Applying Astrology Numerology Tarot |
|
The Library of ialexandriah2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved
|