| Writers'
Guidelines | Archives | Articles
| Book Reviews
Humanity and the Stars:
A Critique of Astronomy, Astrology and their 'Phoney War' - David Porter
Excerpt from Astrology Quarterly Autumn 2003 Vol 73 No 4
I came into Astrology in the early seventies anticipating its imminent
rebirth as a Scientific and academically acceptable discipline: I was
naive in my expectations of the attitudes of both Astrologers and Scientists.
Astrologers gave a lukewarm response to Recent Advances(21), Geoffrey
Dean's opus summarising the (largely negative) results of research to
date, and in 1975 the Humanist magazine published its notorious attack
on Astrology, signed by 186 Scientists, and accompanied by a horoscope
set for 4 am. EST, 23 November 1907, New York(22).
Sagan's Objections
One Scientist who refused to sign was the American Astronomer Carl Sagan.
In his excellent but flawed book The Demon-Haunted World(23) he
explains that he felt the tone of the statement was authoritarian.
Instead Sagan lists a number of specific 'valid criticisms of astrology':
"its acceptance of precession of the equinoxes in announcing an 'Age of
Aquarius' and its rejection of precession of equinoxes in casting horoscopes;
its neglect of atmospheric refraction; its list of supposedly significant
celestial objects that is mainly limited to naked eye objects known to
Ptolemy in the second century, and that ignores an enormous variety of
new astronomical objects discovered since (where is the astrology of near-Earth
asteroids?); inconsistent requirements for detailed information on the
time as compared to the latitude and longitude of birth; the failure of
astrology to pass the identical twin test; the major differences in horoscopes
cast from the same birth information by different astrologers; and the
absence of demonstrated correlation between horoscopes and such psychological
tests as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory."
To his specific criticisms I will attempt a reply.
-
The "acceptance of precession of the equinoxes in announcing an
'Age of Aquarius' and its rejection of precession … in casting horoscopes".
At least Sagan does not repeat the oft-rehearsed canard that Astrologers
will say a body is in say, Aries, whereas it is really observed in
the constellation of Pisces. Hipparchus, in the 2nd Century BC, is
usually credited with discovering precession, the 26000 year cycle
of the equinoxes backwards through the fixed star constellations.
Long before Astronomy and Astrology became separate subjects, the
Western tradition adopted a Tropical zodiac, tied to the Equinox and
Solstice points, which is used consistently by most Astrologers in
the West. Although the 'Age of Aquarius' has been much hyped, the
Astrological Ages generated by precession are given significance by
a minority of Mundane Astrologers looking at the trends of world history.
(Astrologers following the tradition of the Indian sub-continent do
use a Sidereal zodiac.)
-
The "neglect of atmospheric refraction;" A modern Astrologer erecting
a chart for a particular location will consistently calculate planetary
positions as seen from the centre of the Earth, and will ignore the
discrepancies due to atmospheric refraction and due to parallax; this
is no problem in ordinary work. These details will deserve consideration
if the objective is to emulate observations of the stars for historical
research or to determine the observability of eclipses.
-
The "list of … significant celestial objects [is] … mainly limited
to … objects known to Ptolemy" To the naked-eye objects listed by
Ptolemy most Astrologers will add only the bodies which have been
classified as major planets by Astronomers. There is
some broad sense in this: there is a strong resonance between the
major planets' orbits, manifested by Bode's law, so that if the more
distant or smaller planets have little direct influence their positions
may correspond to harmonics in the effective bodies' cycles. Sensible
Astrologers tend to use mainly Ptolemy's bodies because newly discovered
objects do not have the centuries of interpretative tradition. Ironically
it often those Astrologers who make the biggest use of the asteroids,
and often clutter the chart with more information than can be considered
and tested consistently, who are the biggest embarrassment to those
who would like to put Astrology on a more 'Scientific' footing.
-
"Inconsistent requirements for detailed information on the time as
compared to the latitude and longitude of birth." This is a fair point:
Astrologers often do pursue unnecessary precision: when a birth time
is only known to the nearest five minutes, (better than many birth
times we work with,) geographic latitude and longitude to the nearest
degree may be sufficient. However some epochs used, (lunations for
instance,) are known more precisely, so it may well be good practice
to get into the habit of consistent use of as much precision as is
available.
-
"The failure of Astrology to pass the identical twin test." I am
not certain what exactly Sagan means by the 'identical twin test,'
unless he means that Astrologers face the same problems with fraternal
twins born a few minutes apart as they do with genetically identical
twins. Twins do present an important challenge to Astrology, which
I will discuss later.
-
"The major differences in horoscopes cast from the same birth information
by different Astrologers;" these may reflect different schools within
Astrology, using different house systems, different orbs for major
aspects, differences in consideration given to minor aspects, and
the use of factors other than traditional major planets. There is
actually often a high level of consistency of interpretation between
Astrologers from the same broad school, but ironically such a consistent
interpretation will often fall short of explaining the core of an
client's character: it is often the intuition which an individual
Astrologer will add to the cookbook approach of his or her school
which will furnish the key insight into the personality. It is also
often our experience that Astrologers coming from different traditions
can produce interpretations which are equally valid and compliment
each other in a full picture of the individual.
- "The absence of demonstrated correlation between horoscopes and ...
psychological tests;" I have not specifically come across the 'Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory' in the critical literature but I
know there is a range of opinions among psychologists as to the value
of such tests. I also get the impression that questionnaires perform
as patchily as Astrology in these matching experiments. Hans Eysenck,
a pioneer of personality tests, has a controversial reputation even
among Psychologists, but he has championed Astrology, or at least the
admissibility of Gauquelin's research(24).
Nine Real Problems
At this point I am reminded of a cartoon in a children's comic, in which
an irate gardener reproves a small boy shown holding a catapult. "I'll
teach you to shoot stones at my greenhouse;" "Thanks, mister," he responds,
"I keep missing!" Partly in the spirit of that joke, I would like to teach
sceptics to attack Astrology. Raising the level of the debate might also
help Astrologers to focus on some serious issues at the heart of their
art.
In lieu of Sagan's criticisms I offer a list of real questions for Astrology;
in the spirit of a favourite slogan of the Humanists, I will not claim
to have any of the answers, I am merely suggesting asking the right questions!
-
This first question we could best describe this as the 'Hitler'
problem. Adolf Hitler was born on the evening of the 20 April 1889,
with the Sun in Taurus (not in Aries, despite the dating of some Sun-sign
columns) and Libra on the Ascendant. Though both signs are ruled by
Venus, Astrologers would not have predicted he would be pleasant and
cuddlesome: this ruling planet is strongly afflicted by both traditional
malefics Mars and Saturn. Thousands of people, however, must have
been born under the same broad configuration: they may have been not
very nice to know, but they didn't all turn out to be Hitlers! Astrologers
may try to explain exceptional Evil, (or exceptional saintliness -
the 'Mother Theresa problem?') by appealing to very precise techniques
- the exact configuration of fixed stars, Arabian parts, asteroids
- but unless they use such techniques in routine work for 'ordinary'
people they will not be able to claim any expertise in handling these
techniques, and they will not convince any sceptics.
-
The 'Titanic' problem. When a large number of people are involved
in the same disaster, or other dramatic event, should we really expect
powerful directions in all their individual charts? (If this were
the case, would this not be the conclusive proof of Astrology we were
seeking?) Astrologers often appeal to the doctrine of 'subsumption';
when individuals embark on a voyage they surrender their individuality
and merge their destiny into that symbolised by the chart of the ship's
launch, and that of the captain. The problem is that we spend so much
of our lives 'subsumed' by the charts of others - the drivers of buses
and trains, the bosses of organisations where we have to work, even
the presidents of groups where we come and talk - that we might ask
how much point there is to personal Astrology anyway?
-
The 'Birth Time' problem. Astrology cannot be done fully or
properly without a chart erected for a particular time. Some Astrologers
prefer to work with a horoscope which has been 'rectified' to fit
life's events. Others will erect a chart for the time as given, and
will often get meaningful results, even if there has been an error
in transmission and the correct time is subsequently proffered. Those
who follow Gauquelin and want to put Astrology on a Scientific foundation,
might argue that even an accurately recorded birth time would be rendered
invalid if there has been any medical intervention(25). Rationalists
would expect only one correct birth time; however we might note that
Princess Diana seems to have joined John Lennon, as a British icon
with at least two strongly argued and 'workable' times of birth.
-
'Nature v Nurture'. The innate character as shown in the
chart needs to be interpreted according to what used to be called
the native's station in life - the issue of a Duke might expect a
different fortune to the child of a Dustman. However many 'environmental'
factors - restricted education, say, or a deprived home - can themselves
be read in the chart, as afflictions in the third or fourth house.
Children can be brought up in the same household, and yet parts of
their horoscopes signifying home life and parents can differ dramatically.
This may, psychological Astrologers will argue, indicate different
subjective impressions of a shared reality, but traditional Astrologers
will continue to seek objective interpretations.
-
We are now equipped to look at the problem of Twins. As well
as identical twins, and fraternal twins (genetically no closer than
ordinary siblings,) Astrology is also interested in 'time twins',
unrelated persons born at almost the same time. Astrology could explain
remarkable coincidences reported in the careers of time twins; (however
some of the anecdotal evidence has been discredited.) To explain personality
differences between time twins in terms of circumstances of upbringing
return us to the Nature-Nurture debate. To use the minutiae of technique
to differentiate the charts of twins born a couple of minutes apart
is to restate the 'Hitler' problem. And if Gauquelin is right one
non-identical twin might elect its birth time and induce the birth
of its sibling. The most convincing approach may be to show how each
twin will exhibit a different potential within the chart, (one for
example being the extrovert Mars rising in Leo, while the other is
the reflective twelfth house Cancer Moon.) However if twins are able
to choose which parts of their horoscopes to manifest, how deterministically
can Astrology predict for the rest of us?
-
Also twins may of different sexes, which brings us to the Gender
question. Since well before Ptolemy's day, Mediterranean and European
civilisation has been dominated by the Patriarchy; understandably
the Astrology which has come down to us reflects this. (Thus, for
example, the traditional assignment of Houses to the parents: in classical
times the Fourth house indicated Parents, and the Father as the more
important Parent: so for a question specifically referring to the
Mother one looks to the Tenth as the Seventh from the Fourth!) However
in the West nowadays Astrology does seem to appeal more to women;
this may well reflect the strongly masculine character perceived in
Scientific rationalism and in authoritarian Religion, both of which
have condemned Astrology. Certainly some Feminists have seen Astrology
as embodying a more intuitive way of understanding the world, a tradition,
often seen as Lunar rather than Solar, handed down from ancient Matriarchs.
In Astrological symbolism, female figures are outnumbered, among the
planets only the Moon and Venus are seen as women (though the gender
of the Sun and Moon varies between cultures.) The balance is redressed
by Feminist Astrologers who use the Asteroids, most of which are named
after females. In a parallel to the debate in society as to what extent
psychological gender differences are inborn or socially conditioned,
Astrology has to question whether charts should be interpreted differently
for men and for women: whether for instance the Sun and Mars in a
woman's chart should symbolise the men in her life, or whether today's
Woman is fully capable of expressing everything herself.
-
The gender question provides a bridge from these technical problems
in chart interpretation to some broader philosophical dilemmas facing
the Astrological movement as a whole (although the technical issues
do have a philosophical dimension.) One question we have already touched
on is this: Is Astrology True, in a factual, objective, demonstrable
sense with provable predictions? If, as some traditional Astrologers
maintain, there are universal rules, applicable in every case, ought
not Astrology to stand up rather better than it does, when examined
statistically? If, on the other hand, Astrological readings are only
true in individual cases, interpreted using a large measure of intuition,
then is Astrological truth only subjective for the client/querent
at the 'moment in time'? Does it help people to know the truth, or
are they better served by a myth? If Astrological truth is a 'myth',
is it the right sort of myth: life-enhancing, individuating, giving
security, or is it false fatalism, life-contradicting? An Astrological
consultation may be compared with a Tarot reading or the I Ching,
however, alone among the divinatory arts Astrology uses as its significators
Heavenly bodies which are moving whether you consult them or not!
-
Do Astrologers want to be part of the modern world? The basic question
of the effect of planetary cycles on the biosphere and on human psychology
could be resolved by Scientists if they were minded: traditional Astrology
comprises a pre-Scientific attitude to the Cosmos. We can compare
herbalism, a pre-Scientific system which probably included much nonsense;
however some extracts from some plants can relieve some ailments,
that has been established Scientifically! Those Astrologers who use
only the Ptolemaic planets and strictly adhere to Mediaeval authorities
may keep their 'purity', but if they prevail will it not suit opponents
of Astrology to argue that Astrologers are living in the past? In
modern times the economic basis of Society and its relationship with
Nature have changed drastically: in many ways there is more distance
between our world and that of William Lilly as there was between Lilly's
world and that of Ptolemy. Even if the correlations between stars
and human behaviour observed by the ancients were correct, they would
need serious amendment to interpret them in a way relevant to modern
man and woman. Some Astrologers see such modernisation symbolised
by the incorporation of the newly discovered planets. If they then
latch onto concepts like the Galactic Centre and the De Kuiper Belt,
or if they include terminology from Freudian or Jungian psychology,
unless they proceed with careful rigour they could be accused of introducing
pseudoscience in an attempt to sound modern, and of compromising the
Tradition without providing a satisfactory replacement.
-
Lastly, as a third facet of the philosophical questions, should Astrology
try to prove itself in the material world?, or should it offer
Humanity an escape route from worldly concerns? I have never
made a living out of Astrology myself, or any other 'fringe' art;
however investigating and criticising Astrology does afford me some
relief from an unstimulating work situation. For those perhaps lucky
few who are comfortably off, and basking in the public status of Astrologer,
to claim they are enhancing the spiritual may seem hypocritical, not
only to those to whom all Astrology is bunkum. A minority may have
been helped towards a more spiritual path, but as far as Astrology's
public face is concerned, whether it is newspaper Sunsign columns
or chart consultants, the main preoccupations of the punters remain
the very worldly ones of money and relationships. Astrology, with
its unproven claims that distant planets can effect events on Earth,
is part of the everyday world, and as long as we retain a free market
in ideas, and enough people believe or are prepared to hedge their
bets, Astrology will survive. One could argue that the real
fringe subject, which needs public funding while claiming that the
majority of the objects it studies can have no immediate influence
on the concerns of Humanity, and which has an appeal for 'geeks' and
'anoraks' who are prepared to isolate themselves for long periods
from 'normal' human contact, is Astronomy!
Astronomy and Science
One of my favourite horoscopes is that for the discovery of the planet
Pluto, noticed by Clyde Tombaugh when comparing photographic plates at
Flagstaff Arizona on the 18 February 1930. Tombaugh wrote(26) that he
knew he "had better look at my watch and note the time. Estimating my
delay at about three minutes, it would place the moment of discovery very
close to four o'clock"
The Moon, which applies to aspect Pluto, is located in Scorpio, the sign
most Astrologers now associate with the new planet. The Sun, ruler of
the chart, is close to the cusp of the associated eighth house. The planet
Mercury is exactly setting, and Pluto would usurp Mercury's status as
the Solar System's smallest planet, although this would not be known for
decades. Pluto was far too light to account for supposed perturbations
in the orbit of Neptune which led to its discovery, only 6 degrees away
from its Astronomically predicted position.
The planet was supposedly named after Tombaugh's little daughter's favourite
cartoon character; as this happened to be the name of another Roman God
it fitted in nicely. Perhaps we should be grateful her favourite 'toon
wasn't Goofy!
Pluto is so distant that the dim sunlight reflected from it takes four
hours to return to Earth. The nearest fixed stars are even more remote,
more than four light years away. 'The midwife at the foot of the bed has
more gravitational pull on the neonate,' exclaim Scientists seeking a
simple causal explanation. Richard Dawkins in his Richard Dimbleby lecture(27)
correctly reminded us of the immensity of Astronomical dimensions while
misquoting Astrological terminology.
Professor Dawkins, I understand, dismisses belief systems such as Religion
and Astrology as 'viruses' of the mind. A biological virus is a naked
piece of DNA - genetic material - which can exist only parasitically:
viruses have an important role in the story of genetic evolution, but,
as we think mostly of their role as a cause of disease the term 'virus'
is pejorative.
I readily accept Evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life,
and I do not find it incompatible with 'Natural' Astrology.
Life is about rhythm: the beating of the heart, breathing in and out,
a daily cycle of waking and sleeping, an annual cycle of fertility. In
an environment rich in cycles of heat and light, of varying gravitational
and electromagnetic fields, all directly or indirectly caused by planetary
motion, it is entirely understandable that organisms would have evolved
sensitivities to these cycles, to regulate the rhythms of their life-processes.
Also land creatures could well have retained a sensitivity to lunar cycles
from aquatic ancestors, for whom awareness of the tidal rhythms would
of course be very 'adaptive.' An honest Science would not deny our participation
in the Universe(28): our physiological and social rhythms are driven by
the apparent motions of the heavens(29).
I am also happy to accept Dawkins' theory of 'memes', that ideas and
thoughts can reproduce and evolve in the same way that biochemical genes
can, but in the aeons before electronic computers arrived, thinking systems
could only exist within living brains (or on documents as the creations
of living brains). The survivability of a 'meme' is then dependent on
the survivability of the 'host:' parasitism slides over into symbiosis.
The question then is not the objective truth of unprovable beliefs,
but whether they improve the believer's survival chances: (it has been
suggested that some features of the so-called 'near-death experience'
have evolved in order to counter organisms' fear of dying). Most believers
will insist that their beliefs do give them comfort and thus help them
survive in the world; however some aspects of some Religions do seem from
the outside very dysfunctional to the individual and to society. However
it does seem to follow from Dawkins' argument that we should ask not whether
Astrology is true but whether it is useful.
Unlike rationalist Science, Astrology operates on a level of non-exclusive
logic: thus one Zodiac or one house system being right doesn't have to
make the others wrong. Astrologers in their internal feuding often forget
this!
For a modern Astrologer to see the horoscope as working in a mechanically
deterministic way, along the lines of a Newtonian mechanistic universe,
is as anachronistic in today's relativistic and chaos-ridden world as
it would be to try to perpetuate the moral and metaphysical hierarchy
which dominated the mediaeval mind.
Pagans are happy to respect each other's gods: exclusivist logic, perhaps
introduced to Greek philosophy by Aristotle, has led to dogmatic Christianity
and authoritarian modern Science, equally unwilling to look at alternatives.
Toleration ought to be a strength of our Astrology. There is a need to
show toleration, to the Sunsign Astrologers, to the 'psychologisers',
to the 'scientificisers', to those of different Religious beliefs and
no Religious beliefs. However do we have to tolerate lapses from common
sense?
Richard Dawkins is right to lament the lack of understanding of Science,
among the general public, but also among those educated in the Arts and
Humanities; I only wish he would learn a little more about Astrology before
he attacked it!
In medieval times 'Astronomia', comprising what was then known about
Astronomy and Astrology, was one of the 'Liberal Arts' taught at University.
Educated people generally knew what was then known about the stars, and
also shared a common language to explain human psychology (we still use
words like 'Mercurial' or 'Saturnine'). Even if any correlation with actual
planets' positions was no more than chance (and Gauquelin suggests otherwise)
Astrology gave us a psychological system more elegant, and more comprehensive,
than any derived in modern times by Freud, Jung, Eysenck or anybody else.
The mantle of the 'authority of Heaven', which Astrologers take on when
counselling, also falls on Astronomers, who are not necessarily trained
in metaphysics. Hence the adulation given to Einstein, hence Steven Hawking's
throwaway remarks(30) about the 'mind of God.'
The Astronomical bodies are our raw material, and it behoves us to try
to keep up with what is known Scientifically. Occasionally Astronomers
who actually watch the stars will come up with an interesting horoscope
from which something can be learned. In return I am sure, if they will
listen, there are still truths they can learn from Astrology.
Notes and References:
- Astrology Quarterly,
Vol 49 No 4, Winter 1975, p114
- See Jeremiah 10:2 : 'Thus saith the LORD, Learn not
the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven;
for the heathen are dismayed at them.' Isaiah 47:13 : '... Let now the
astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up,
and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.'
- For example Psalm 19:1-2: 'The heavens declare the
glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day
uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.' or Job 38:31-33:
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands
of Orion?... Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the
dominion thereof in the earth?
- see C.B.F.Walker in History and Astrology - Clio
and Urania Confer Ed Annabella Kitson, Unwin Hyman Ltd, 1989
- see Chronology of the Ancient World by E J
Bickermann, Thames & Hudson also The Dawn of Astronomy by J Norman Lockyer,
p248
- The Jewish War by Josephus, Penguin 1981,
p359
- Josephus, op cit, p 361
- This is not the same thing as an exact conjunction
in celestial longitude; the calculation has to allow for atmospheric
aberration and oblique ascension. see The Star of Bethlehem Mystery
by David Hughes, Corgi Books, 1981
- Since I gave these talks Michael Molnar has drawn
our attention to the lunar occultation of Jupiter on 17 April 6 BCE.
See the Independent, 22 December 2000.
- Cycles of Heaven by Guy Lyon Playfair and Scott
Hill, Souvenir Press, 1978, Pan Books 1979, pp 210, 238
- See Nick Kollestrom in Clio and Urania op cit
- In a sense this notion has been revived by those modern
Cosmologists who argue the 'Anthropic Principle': impressed by the improbability
of the coincidences which allow the existence of Intelligent Life, they
feel this: of the many possible Universes which might exist, this is
the one we know about because it is the one which allows us to exist,
and that in this sense man is still the measure of all things. It is
further argued that the Cosmos has evolved Intelligent Life as its way
of becoming self-aware; this was recently echoed by Simon Posner's citing
a character in the Babylon 5 TV series: "The Universe is alive and souls
are part of that life ... We are the Universe trying to learn about
itself." Astrology Quarterly, Vol 73 No 2, Spring 2003, p28.
- see Prophecy and Power by Patrick Curry, 1989
- L'Influence des Astres by M.Gauquelin, Denoel,
1955 Playfair & Hill op cit, pp281
- 'The Case for Astrology by J A West, Viking 1991,
Arcana 1992, pp280
- The planet Venus, not significantly linked with any
profession, was effective in this part of the study.
- We may have difficulties replicating Gauquelin's research.
According to the Independent, 20 May 2003, 'Women who give birth
naturally [are] now in the minority'. Medical intervention such as induction
to start the process, forceps delivery & Caesarean section, now affect
55% of births in the UK.
- Playfair & Hill, op cit p238
- 'The Living Clock' John D Palmer Oxford UP 2002 p124.
- How the Moon Affects You, Arnold L Lieber MD
& Jerome Agel Hastings House 1996 p 34-6
- Recent Advances in Natal Astrology - A Critical
Review 1900-76 by Geoffrey Dean, Analogic 1977, see reviews by Denis
Elwell: Astrological Journal Vol XX No 2, Spring 1978, pp90 and by Ron
Davison: Astrology Quarterly Vol 52 No 2, Summer 1978, pp70
- see 'An Anti-Astrology Signature' by Geoffrey Cornelius,
Astrology Quarterly, Vol 52 No 3, Autumn 1978, p88
also The Moment of Astrology by Geoffrey Cornelius, Arkana 1994,
p22-43 When I showed the chart to an audience of Humanists, they speculated
who in the secular movement would be arrogant enough to use his/her
own chart (10th house Jupiter in Leo!) Unless and until the 'Humanist'
comes clean on why they chose this particular map, it is perfectly legitimate
to see it as a signature both of the attack on Astrology, and of Astrology
as seen by its opponents. (The near partile Mercury-Jupiter square is
symbolic of a woolly-mindedness which can exist both in Astrology and
in uninformed attacks.) John Frawley (in the 'Astrologer's Apprentice',
Issue 7, pp5) notes the links between this chart and the noon chart
of Richard Dawkins!
- The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan, 1996,
Headline Book Publishing, pp285-6
- Rebel With a Cause by H J Eysenck, 1990
- Research has shown that the Supra Chiamistic Nucleus
(SCN), a biological clock in the hypothalamus, recalibrated by sunrise
and nightfall, is 'working in the foetus ... always in time with the
mother;' this implies that our internal clocks work independently from
the moment of birth, whatever the circumstances of birth. (see the Independent
magazine, 25 January 1997, 'A Hard Day's Sleep' by Verlyn Klinkenborg.
)
- Out of the Darkness by Clyde Tombaugh & Patrick
Moore. data are 4 p.m. Mountain Standard Time 7 hr W, 18 Feb 1930, Flagstaff
35N12 111W38 28
- 27. broadcast 12 November 1996
- However, as Arnold L Lieber laments, "There is clear
prejudice against work showing the Moon's influence on daily life. ...
Science has always opposed the credulous acceptance of superstition
... this attitude has been extended by some to a refusal to examine
any 'non-scientific' belief." A L Lieber op cit p47
- One could suggest further that the 'subconscious'
mind, being less 'disconnected' from the body than the consciousness
of modern man, would also be aware, via the body, of celestial rhythms.
Jung saw the unconscious as a counterpoint to consciousness: using cyclic
rather than linear time, 'synchronicity' rather than causality, symbolism
instead of rational logic, aware of the collective rather than concerned
with the individual. Such an unconscious could facilitate what Jung
called the 'secret mutual connivance' between an Astrologer and the
Heavens. See G Cornelius op cit especially p264-293 for an elaboration
of Jungian Astrology.
- A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings,
Bantam Books, 1988
Writers' Guidelines | Archives
| Articles | Book
Reviews |
|
|
