posted June 05, 2009 07:34 PM
I saw this piece. It talks about how astrology works. It talks about astrology works in a symbolic way as well as how much astronomy actually figures into Astrology. There is a lot of diversity in Astrology.
ON THE NATURE OF ASTROLOGY
Introduction by Bill Sheeran
Astrology is based on an abstraction from a physical system, in the same way that a map is an abstraction from the territory which it represents. Astronomy uses quite similar abstractions, however, astrologers use their maps in a very different way from astronomers. They (the maps) acquire a degree of autonomy (courtesy of the astrologer) and take a left turn which breaks the congruent relationship with their source (the physical system). This is fine. Astrology is what it is and astrologers do what they do. But if one then tries to rationalise astrology by invoking the normal congruency which exists between a map and its territory, one gets lost. It doesn't exist any longer once the map is used for astrological purposes.
With astronomy, the map bears fairly close relationship with the territory it purports to represent. With astrology, the map is definitely 100% not the territory. The map comes from the celestial sphere. The territory is a worldly context. The fact that astrologers find their maps useful in relation to worldly contexts does not mean that they can then postulate an extrapolation back onto the source of those maps -- the celestial sphere -- and proclaim a direct astrological connection between the physical solar system and those worldy contexts. This can be confusing, as there are actual direct connections between the solar system and worldly contexts -- it does get warmer in the summer, etc. It is debatable whether these can be called astrological, and most would be happy to see them as literal or mechanistically based earth-sky connections.
This raises a question about the spread of subforms within the overall astrological landscape, and the mix of the physical and symbolic associated with those subforms. At one extreme one might place solar system astronomy -- pure, physical level, causally mediated astrology (it gets warmer in the summer, etc.) -- and at the other astral divination -- totally subjective and symbolic. All the rest -- natal chart interpretation, horary, weather prediction, financial astrology, etc. -- have their place in this strange landscape. Astrology is a genus which contains several related species.
In order to model astrology one has to decide first at what level one wishes to start and cut the research method cloth accordingly. One also needs to be aware that whatever models emerge, they do not necessarily elucidate what makes the other species tick. There are major differences between elephants and dolphins, though both are mammals and share common ground.
What Juan says here is a threat to no one, no matter how they like their astrology cooked. Astrology is what it is, and astrologers do what they do. However, astrologers are inclined to misperceive, and therefore to misrepresent to others astrology's actual nature. Juan isn't suggesting that anything should necessarily be changed other than this misperception. The implications of Juan's point do not necessarily impinge on how astrologers practice.
However, they do impinge on the efforts to understand astrology's nature, and raise awkward questions for those who attempt to rationalise astrology using the physicality of the solar system and constellations - what I call the literalist approach. In fact they raise awkward issues for anyone seeking to model astrology, but especially for those enamoured of mechanistic causation.
I think that at the genus level, Juan's point is crucially significant and I'm very grateful to him for stating it so well. I personally think that it provides a useful starting point from which one can begin to construct models. In fact, it really sits as a cornerstone already in place, waiting for the building work to begin.
http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts/notes/theory.html
Raymond