I was raised astrologically.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Not religiously, thank God! But it’s still been a spiritual burden.

As a kid I just accepted it. Later, I became skeptical towards it. For example, my father has this book titled The Secret Language of Birthdays, and he swears by it. Now the motto of people born on my birthday, according to the book, is “Perhaps there is no coincidence” (my translation back from Dutch). When I was a skeptic, then, I used to add: “And perhaps the fact that the book says that is no coincidence”, i.e., perhaps astrology is true.

Excusing myself with such skepticism, I then delved ‘deeply’ into astrology and the like—even numerology… (I still like the symbols of all those systems, though.) I eventually pulled myself away from all that because it felt like a bottomless pit.

For a while I still retained my skepticism, though without using it as an excuse to spend time on such things. Now however I’ve decided to reject all that. But I do not want to do so with a closed mind. Therefore I will give astrology (as exemplar of such systems) one more chance.

What I consider the most sophisticated version of astrology is the view that the macrocosm simply reflects the microcosm, and that by studying the macrocosm, therefore, one can learn things about the microcosm. However, like all versions of astrology, what this version seems to say is that the configuration of the macrocosm at the time of the microcosm’s birth reflects the personality of the microcosm. If this is correct, my big question is: What’s so important about the time of birth?

Of course, one’s birth is a quite important event in one’s life, but isn’t one’s conception, for example, at least as important? Does a man not have a personality on the day before, if everything goes right, he is born? His personality suddenly materialises out of nothing the moment he is born? Or is this not how it works? Please enlighten me! :laughing:

2

I just corrected a very important typo:

[W]hat this version seems to say is that the configuration of the macrocosm at the time of the microcosm’s birth reflects the personality of the microcosm.
The last word first accidentally said “macrocosm”.

3

Eh,

Is it so bad to have a narrative growing up? I don’t think so. What I think is unfortunate, in like with Kant’s “Was ist Aufklärung?” is a narrative which continues to bind us irrationally after we have reached the point of being able to choose the path upon which we ought set ourselves. In such a view, there is nothing wrong with being a Jew, a Catholic, a Buddhist, other religious conception but rather the fault lies in being a guilty such-and-such where the duties demanded by the system in which one was raised conflict with the duties the realized individual in question is compelled to engage in.

The Brechtian Communism, the ill-defined Campbellianism (expressed in Tolkeinesque language), the culturally obligated but not heartfelt (of my parents) Confucianism, and the Greco-Roman Classicism (commensurate with the Brechtian Nietzchean-Marxist fusion) they both settled on as a point of agreement, much less the broader American-Judeo-Christian culture in which I was raised (complete with a Jewish Ghetto in the older sense of the word, an area where a lot of Jews live) didn’t hurt me in any way, shape, or form. It has enriched my life and given me several different languages in which I can express the demands of my heart as well as the feelings of my brain. That is a fantastic thing!

Astrology is every bit as false as any of those notions and, given the cultural cache which it enjoys, I can only imagine that it also allows for a coherent language in which one can express their passions. Given my love of all things Chinese, I know it is hard to believe that I reject the Feng Shui Daoism of Chinese astrology. But that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t thrilled to explain to a recent love interest that as a female, her being a yin fire rabbit was deeply auspicious considering my own yang water dog sign. Bullshit? Of course! But it provided a language in which I could tell this girl that I not only like smashing her, but I could see a future between us.

Astrology is untrue, sure. But, like other modes of cultural discourse, it provides a common language whereby we can express elements of ourselves which are otherwise ritually proscribed.

So, embrace the language your father taught you and use it to communicate your passions. Clumsy and ill-defined it may be, but given centuries of its application there is no reason why you can’t capitalize on the ambiguity built into the system to express your feelings using a method which is deemed acceptable by the broader culture – or at least not creepy.

What I’m say is, unless you can pull off the suave Latin lover (and despite the occupation, Dutch ain’t Spanish – accept your Germanic heritage and Northern European-ness) it is better to be more reserved than overt in matters of the passions (unless you can, in fact, rock it, in which case, more power to you but be honest with yourself) and astrology may provide a language in which you can say what you feel without putting all your cards on the table, so to speak.

4

I think what Xunzian is saying is that, yes (for instance), Greek/Roman mythology is a unique (and interesting) window into our Western European cultural background. We can refer to Venus and Mars and Hermes for their romantic flavor–but ultimately it’s bullshit. Same for our Judeo-Christian background. But rather than running away from your (bullshit) background, I think it’s best to find something to run to.

And I’ve been confused as well by Astrology’s preoccupation with birth rather than our conception. Birth is traumatic, but we are defined by our conception and what happens next. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves–and we are the result of our history, and our genes. And therein lies not only our faults but our strengths. (I added the last…)

5

A beautiful post, Xunzian, though I would not say that astrology is “of course” bullshit; rather, it is probably bullshit. I wanted to give people the chance to provide arguments for it, but apparently nobody can or will. Anyway, thanks.

6

Can an argument be made for astrology as a religion? Well, to be technical, I suppose it could just as well as any argument can be made for any religion. It all depends on how you take the arguments.

I always thought astrology was supposed to be about effect, hence ongoing as you go through many birth moments throughout your life. Whether it begins at conception or at your actual birth is not as meaningful in that respect, though of course it is important. I don’t see the alignment of stars and planets as fixing one’s personality in place so much as providing a certain energy of place for it. Composition of place has proven to be a great mystical node for contemplation and meditation as well.

Astrology had great attraction for the Neoplatonist mystics and magi, but the whole system they created was actually one of the mind in conjunction with what they gleaned from ancient texts, art, alchemy, and so on. The astrology of other peoples and other times might appear wholly different. I think it’s the energy of the study that counts, then, not whether it is absolutely true or false or provable in fact.

7

I’m incapable of commenting on astrology intelligently.
My wife on the other hand is quite well versed.
I have seriously strong doubts that she will post though…but I’ll ask.

8

Well, I asked.
She won’t post, but she did respond.
I’ll try my best to stay accurate to her response.

In summary, it was something like this.

The reason for birth, and not conception, is that prior to birth the infant feels all of what the mother feels.
If the heartbeat raises in the mother; so too in the infant.
If the mother becomes ill; so too the infant receives this.
Even mood is conveyed nearly identical to the mother into the infant inside.
But when the baby comes out into the word and takes air of it’s own for the first time, not air from it’s mother, then it is owning it’s experience independently for the first time.
It reacts to the external world in shock and interest in it’s own merit and manner; independent of the mother’s reactions.
From this standpoint, she says, birth is more important on what kind of person this is.
She added; this isn’t exclusive to astrology.

So there’s the response from the gal that knows more on this than I do.

9

What is of greatest value is also the most neglected aspect of the whole “astrological mode of seeing and understanding”. Let’s clarify this long history of self-neglect by observing two distinct meanings in the term “astrology”:

  1. The meaning we get via the hypothesis that by making certain observations about stars or other omens, accurate and useful predictions about world events or individual personalities may be made. In many ways, this is cogruent with the very utilitarian infantilism of seeing “magic” as something dependent on a selection of secret utterances or actions which, if followed correctly, are supposed to mechanically have some desired effect. In both cases, we see an attempt to “enslave” or employ shreds of higher philosophical learning, methods, and mechanisms for some form of personal gain, advantage over one’s fellows, in a very practical manner - without consideration for what any of this is. This astrologist is a fundamentalist, he looks for books and traditions to enshrine as “true”.

  2. The science of union between the micro and macrocosm, and the direct observation of God at work - without any “dirty” ulterior motive, so to speak. When such an astrologist “looks up” the picture he sees is radically different compared to what the scientific positivist supposes he ought to see (astrology or not, it is supposed that all people ought to see the thing the same). We might imagine it as the difference between being struck and inflammed wholly by the meaning of a passage of text, to the point of not being able to eat or sleep, versus the autistic numbering and counting of the individual letters and punctuations, but without the slightest comprehension of what is being said in our passage.

Certainly (1) is an excellent specialty or side-dish for stage entertainers, but what of the much neglected second category? Is it not exactly the INCOMPREHENSIBLY grand premise of complete causal union between the inner world of a human being and the universe at large that escapes the notice of those who become diverted into astrological entertainment? And a person will wonder, why is it that we just as often find “astrologist (2)” peering into the telescope, as into the microscope?

It is not difficult to prevent the confusion once one is aware of its natural boundaries, by simply asking the question “And how does this illuminate my Beloved?” whenever faced by an astrological proposition. Thus a large chunk of it will immediately be caused to fall away, but the remaining crumbs may yet prove inspirational, and only a spark is needed to begin the Self-destruction pyre.

-WL

10

Dear WL,

I’ve never taken meaning # 1 seriously. As for # 2, the question remains what the significance of the time (and sometimes place) of birth is. I don’t find the Stumps’ wife’s answer convincing, though I thank them both for sharing it. Is it something like a ‘zero point’? For if there is a ‘synchronicity’ between the micro- and macrocosm, we could take any other event in people’s lives as the zero point. For instance, their thousandth day out of the womb; or maybe (for women) the day of their first menstruation. I think the latter example is better, by the way, because not all people develop at the same rate. Then again, I think one’s birth is indeed rather like a woman’s first menstruation. What do you think?

In any case, if one’s birth is simply the ‘zero point’, what astrology in the second sense does is not analyse people’s personalities by the hand of the macrocosm, but compare people by the hand of it. For the current configuration of the macrocosm reflects my current configuration as well as the former’s configuration at my birth reflected my configuration at my birth. A personal zero point is necessary only because all people’s charts would otherwise be the same (except for things like ‘rising signs’, which would then only be the same for people in the same place on earth).

I welcome anyone to point out flaws in my logic.

Regards,

Sauwelios

P.S.: The last time you posted in one of my threads, I responded very late, so I’m not sure if you ever noticed: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2149637#p2149637.

11

As for me, I have not qualified myself as “astrologist (2)”. To me the selection of “point zero” seems to be just a matter of practical convenience, perhaps because doing it this way makes all those interesting predictions possible. It is, perhaps, the bare minimum required. However, I’m aware of examples in astrology(2) that consider the exact time of conception, and even a certain point about two weeks prior to the event which is recognized by those in the know as something quite formative and significant. In general, the law upon which these methods build themselves is the hidden realization that life on Earth is much more dependent upon the immense objects and events in the outer firmaments than on anything “down to earth”; but the individual interpretations and mappings made by this astrologist(2) or that one are always their particular outlook, of course dependent on their family, training, insight, and yes, their own astrological predilections!

In the oldest traditions, closest to the Golden Age, we see an outright obsession with the correct time and place for everything, and there is the astrological arrangement of daily food intake, architecture, patterns worn on clothing at given times of day and so on down to the smallest detail- all of these determined not by referring to a thick book of 613 fixed rules, but by what I would call a an all-consuming lust for union with the pattern and order of the universe as it actually is at the particular moment. Not as an obtrusive compulsion, but as a joyful offering, stemming from gratitude, this art was the mark of the cultivated man and woman. Personally observed, felt, intuited by most of the initiated (well-built old houses always included a small observatory) there it was, astrology(2) as a popular idea, and as something else too, when the stellar order revealed itself directly to the worthy few.

But that was yesterday, and today much of this has been lost. Yet in modern times, we too have advantages. For instance by having our eyes accustomed to a vast number of contradictory philosophies produced by contradictory races of people, we can reflect upon these things in a unique way, which in time causes the hubbub of the day-to-day to fade into the background as we consider, for example, the creators of the Antikythera mechanism; and see with new eyes their obsession with incredible astrological accuracy. The men who built it were not hobbyists or tinkerers, and the giddy archeologist will always badly misconstrue the ancients, by assuming that they were simply fundamentalist believers of this or that religious error, which the scientist supposes must have spurned the creation of such artifacts. On the contrary, belief would as usual have only spawned trash, self-serving fiction - arbitrary presuppositions as for instance do fill our own modern world. Are we sufficiently prepared now to admit that it was actually faith (faithfulness, accuracy, truth, duty) and not error, that ordained these instruments of the ancients, whether they are small mechanical devices or cunningly exact astrological pyramid complexes and city-observatories on a grand scale, that continue to be discovered around the world? And with that, do we admit the possibility and the historical existence of an independently valid, non-positivistic form of science, knowledge, art and meaning?

-WL

12

Your logic is impeccable, I think. You still haven’t answered to the point I brought up earlier… and that’s the question of effect. I always thought that it was the effect of the positions of the astrological bodies and configurations that mattered. That is why I brought up the possibility that a person could have many “births” so to speak. The notion of synchronicity is new to me, and I don’t really understand it too well. I find it rather intriguing and would like to know more about how it works. It does seem kind of awesome to think about the way such an amazing and complex symmetry of forces energetic and material came together at the exact moment of a person’s birth and somehow acted as an influence in some mysterious way. I suppose astrology is a way of trying to figure out what that influence is exactly at certain moments in time, but to this day I just know whether anyone has ever got it right for sure.

13

I think this falls under WL’s astrology (1)…

14

I was just wondering if you ever considered astrology as effectional and not just a matter of synchronicity or reflectiveness. Can they be distinguished, or is it just a matter of speculation no matter what anyone makes of it? I always felt that there was something to the special energy and time period of each sign of the zodiac – you know, the energy of the bull during the Age of Taurus; the lion during the Age of Leo; and the fish during our present Age of Pisces with Christianity and the symbol of the fish and all like that.

15

When I was a kid, I did not distinguish between (1) and (2).

I think synchronicity just works as follows. I will use an example. The father of a colleague of mine whom I appreciated was terminally ill. One day, when I had almost arrived at the office, I wondered whether his father was still alive. At the office, I was told that he had died that day. My explanation is this. His father’s illness was a process that was going on. But I had at some point taken cognizance of that illness. Thenceforth, there were two processes: the real illness that was developing in his father’s body, and the virtual illness that was developing in my subconscious. These two processes ran more or less synchronously. In my view, that’s all synchronicity means.

Well, I think that’s bullshit.

16

I’m not sure what that means. I always thought astrology was interesting, but more as a cute pseudo-science than anything to take seriously, until I heard someone speaking of the sign ages. Then it gained energy in my mind.

That kind of thing has happened to me many times. I never really thought much about it. In your case you knew the guy was dying, so it was natural to ask and it could easily have been a coincidence. Still, if your mind was reading energy telepathically, that could indicate that you are psychic; but I don’t think you can use this incident as proof of that.

I don’t know. Look at the ascendance of the fish in Christian mythology for the long time that it lasted, and now look at what’s happening to fish and that energy. It’s pretty weird. I don’t know how Aquarius will present, though. It could well be new age flakiness, but there are energies in the world that are very amazing; and learning about ways to account for it certainly can’t hurt and might help wrap your mind around it. I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about these things, but I enjoy subjects like these when they present themselves for discussion. Even if astrology were a crock, the symbology and the different ways of thinking about it are fun to learn about.

I should add. I don’t think astrology is a total crock, but it doesn’t interest me enough to hunt down the best and most reliable sources for its study. It does have a long history as a serious subject, and it became part of the basis for a whole mystical and magical system for the Renaissance Neoplatonists. It has its place in some of the world’s greatest art and literature as well. But I would never make a religion out of it or pour my religious energy into it the way some people have and still do. Like the Tarot it has a certain New Age or hippie cache, and both the Tarot and astrology, and occult stuff like the Ouija board, give people a hook or a symbology and a language by which to talk about things in an entertaining and interesting way. How seriously they want to take it is up to each individual person, but I think they have more of a place in art and literature and pop-pseudo-science than they do in either real science or religion. This is how I would normally think of Nietzsche’s more outlandish stuff, but that and the theosophical occult stuff helped fuel the crazed Nazi energy, so I guess I have to take it seriously for that reason. But even so, they are still just artefacts of pseudo-politicizing, scientizing, historicizing, and so on. It shows how dangerous normally faddish ideas can be when taken over by mob psychology and fascist ideologues.

17

Can you please tell me some things about Sirius, the dog star?

I’ve been looking at the brightest star for a long time without knowing anyting about it.

Does that star have anything to do with your beliefs, then or now?

18

It means I did not reject (1) (see WL’s post).

As you could have guessed if you hadn’t known, I think telepathy is bullshit, too. You’re really quite unbelievable: have you understood nothing about this thread?

19

Not now, and then I only knew the name Sirius from Tintin. I didn’t know what it meant.

Some say Sirius is related to the non-Sephira Daäth in Qabalah. Nietzsche used Sirius instead of the moon in a note reminiscent of TSZ “The Vision and the Enigma”. Yesod, the sphere of the moon, is the mirror image of Daäth on the Qabalistic ‘Tree of Life’, if you mirror it vertically in the middle Sephira, Tiphareth.

20

Sauw, I’ve asked you a couple of questions which you have to this point not answered. So it is not clear at all what exactly it is that you are skeptical about or what you take to be the main gist or purpose of astrology. Personally, I have no problem with that since astrology per se is not a major concern of mine. But if you wish to include it in your personality types schema, you should be able to express yourself clearly on this subject, that’s all.

It doesn’t matter what you think about telepathy. The truth is still the truth. One thing I understand about this thread: you are very parsimonious and elliptical in your expression, hence my questions. I hope you are not afraid to be more forthcoming and elaborative on this subject due to its rather unscientific nature. There is a kind of logic and math to astrology, but I suppose it’s the interpretation that gets a bit iffy and can be suffused with a fluffy new age mentality. Also, there is no way astrology can serve as a springboard to psychic and spiritual transformation as long as its twisted and forced into that paleo-Nietzschean and caste system stuff. Raising consciousness involves moving from passion to compassion and then on from there.