Astrology versus scepticism

[Alicia_M]

This is something I've been wondering about - mostly today, after I read a more sceptical report on the dangers of aspartame. While I was reading it, I couldn't help agreeing because their view made more sense than what they called a case-directed approach, where one particular example is given to show that something is not right.

And there I was, just thinking "Shi**, that's exactly what we astrologers do.". I know I do sometimes, and I often tell people not to stare themselves blind at the generalisations of each sign because we all have our charts to consider and not just our sun signs. I treat every "case" as a seperate case, and that is exactly what most sceptics don't want... and I hate to say it, today while reading that article about aspartame, I agreed with them.


But I think there are more issues involved. I honestly think that natal astrology cannot be used as the be-all and end-all of our personality. For example; if two people are born on september 22, 1975 they might be similar in behaviour. But if one is born in a poor but large family and the other is an only child of a rich couple, then obviously one is going to have more chances in life than the other. And I'm not necessarily talking about the rich kid; being part of a large family, so sounded one of my very first sociology lessons, makes a child more social. I believe that for every family member you have, you can create twice as many solid social contacts. This is true in my mother; she is from a family of 9 and she is very social. Also my partner is from a family of 8 and very social (his is the birth data I used, by the way). I myself am from a family of only 2. This means - parents included - that my mother can form at least 22 solid social contacts in her life now, my boyfriend can form at least 20 and I? ... Despite being social in nature, when it comes to social contacts I must say I've so far successfully formed less solid social contacts than I should be able to.

The rich kid in question would only be able to form 6 social contacts, and I can only form 8. Unless you count the dog, and I'm very good with animals!

Back to the two people with the same charts (whether they have the same rising is out of the question for now). My boyfriend's chart doesn't show keen social abilities; in fact his 11th house is in Virgo and his mercury is in the 12th house - that would be anything but social. Yet he works in a bar and has many friends; whereas I, with my 11th house in Libra and a 1st house Sagittarius mercury (conjunct rising) know many people, but in effect am friends with hardly any of them. I suspect the rich kid will hardly have any friends at all and might possibly turn out entirely spoilt and simply not deeming people important enough to talk to, or he might become quite lonely, only talking to his parents. Maybe he would even turn out to be autistic.

This is just one theoretical example of how variables like environment and nurture influence the already present possibilities in our natal chart. But how do we explain that to a sceptic? I already mentioned that they don't like seperate cases as perfect examples and they want to see a clear line going through the whole thing; "It either works or it doesn't". When these same sceptics who condone astrology, test it, they don't consider the variables and in all fairness, to quote my (capricorn sun) cousin who is a financial advisor for one of the locally major banks; "one thing they didn't take into consideration when they assessed the crisis; and that's the panic rate of the people. When the economy goes down, panic goes up and if you didn't consider that, then you're f***ed. You can't predict panic, it's a variable.". I think something similar applies to natal astrology. When you don't consider those variables that happen after the date of the natal chart, then your assessment of that chart is going to be completely wrong.

So how to avoid this? In fact, I think Michel Gauquelin was probably on the spot when he did his famous statistics; he avoided the culture variable by only using people who lived in France. One country generally has the same culture so people born in that country are more likely to behave more similarly when they have the same planetary placements. Sadly enough, his assessment was thrown away for exactly the same reason; because they were all French people.

Then, the question begs, how will we ever prove the accuracy of astrology if those sceptics won't even let us deal with the variables that interrupt the original? It's the same with what my cousin stated; she said the crisis, on paper could have been easily avoided. If they had considered the panic rate of human beings it could have been effectively avoided. So if we're allowed to consider culture, nurture and local environment of people, we would be able to give a better reading of a chart?

[Tom_______]

Alicia,
interesting discussion for sure, but I think it is essential to realize that we need to keep the argument very clear. Mixing elements, and confusing results with cause and effect is not illustrative.

For example, the panic was a result of what transpired before the crisis. I assume she was referring to our recent crisis? Panic or not, the crisis would still exist whether or not anyone panicked! This should all have been seen in National charts and especially in Transit charts within those natal ones. Of course there IS a wider view, even astrologically. The deregulation of banks, sloppy and even deceptive home loans, and eventually the greed of selling bundles of the loans as investments all converged to create a failure of the system. The panic is the emotional result(moon?). The bank failures, shrinkage of property values, and resulting constriction of actual or perceived economy is the material or energenic result (Sun? Saturn? other?). The cause is what transpired long before!


So, perhaps nothing really stops us from dealing with the variables, rather we need to point out to the sceptics what the variables truly are?


This might suggest that in dealing with sceptics we have to pick our arguments carefully in order to teach a view that is more understandable to those people, not argue from the micro and then switch to macro, and confuse issues in so doing.

C.G. Jung was never a believer in astrology either, at first. He thought that the astrological chart was merely a Mandala, a universal symbol of one's life, and that the astrological signs were metaphors for periods of the year. He related this to an astrologer friend, and said that Aries, for instance, represents springtime to the society in general, and so affects us all through suggestion to our universal consciousness.

However, his friend pointed out that that could only be true for people in the Northern HEmisphere, not the Southern, where it would be Autumn! He also pointed out that the interpretation of the Aries personality is really the same no matter where the native is born, N.Hem or S. Hem!!
This friend of Jung's happened to also work for the Swiss office of statistics (his day job), recording deaths of the populace. So he took this opportunity to show Jung statistical graphs of decades of deaths, not only in Switzerland, but all over Europe, and compared them to graphs depicting transits of the planets with observations of when they are at angles and trines to one another. It showed a positive correlation to significant rises in death rates in general when planets were in angles to each othe, and drops in the death rates when trines were more prevalent. Jung decided to believe at least a bit more right then!
It is very important to keep the arguments we make clear and concise concerning the subjects we are testing.

Thanks for posting.

Tom______

[Alicia_M]

Just a small side note; she did say that the crisis - and yes, it is the current crisis - would have happened either way, but that not panicking would have made it less destructive. But a crisis nonetheless.

I also agree that we should at least make it more clear to those sceptics what the variables can be, mostly so that they won't go off and form an experiment without taking those variables into consideration, therefore coming up with a conclusion that is inconsistent. Like I said with the crisis, without taking the variable of human behaviour into consideration, the theory that it could have been easily dealt with, is not exactly consistent with reality either.

Psychologically speaking it IS possible to avoid all the variables, but this takes a lot of effort and time, just to recognise those variables, so you could as well say it is nigh on impossible.

And thank you for the reply, hope to see many more!

[David Smith]

There is a certain flaw in your view, I think. I just did a chart this morning, and one of the first things I noticed was "wealth." Without going further, the chart itself shows whether or not the person is born to or will acquire wealth, or any other condition. If the horsocope describes the Moment of Birth, as it surely must (and here I mean the actual physical conditions of birth,) then it must also show every other detail of the life. A careful study of the chart will reveal general conditions that need to be taken into account in counseling.

We might keep in mind that the signs show Essential dignities, which are qualities within the person or qustion that are innate, permanaent, immutable; they are part and parcel, the warp and woof of the native's inborn nature. On the other hand, such attributes as are shown by the Houses, which are Accidental dignities, tell us about the circumstantial, environmental, superposed qualities of the native (which may, however, given occurence at a very young age, be nearly identical with the essential qualities due to their deep-rootedness) that tend to be more superficial and acquired characteristics. What is seen in this view is that we can distinguish between the essential nature and the surrounding circumstances in which that nature must develop and manifest. The surroundings can be seen.

I guess I'm to old to worry about convincing anyone about anything anyway. I know astrology works and is a potent tool for understanding our being. If someone else chooses to believe otherwise out of their own ignorance...well, ignorance is bliss.

[Alicia_M]

I understand what you mean with what you said about the chart you read - most likely, seeing as you posted this 18 hours ago - the other day. From what I can read into it, you say that a chart not only shows the possibility, but also the likelyhood of whether or not this possibility can be achieved.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree there. Obviously from your response, you have the advantage of age over me, and possibly the years of astrological experience, but I have seen many charts where a possibility was shown and nothing to hold it back meaning the road was open for that possibility to be achieved - and those were charts of people much older than me and so they have had the time and should have had the possibility to achieve those possibilities in their charts. Yet looking at their lives they never have. I'd love to refer back to "astrological twins", or in this case better yet; identical twins. Very often now they are born only minutes from each other, which gives them an almost identical chart (give or take a few minutes). This is because twins often cannot be brought into this world naturally and 9 out of 10 c-sections are required. Those twins are often born in a time spanning only 2 to 3 minutes. It could be longer, but usually, especially with twins who shared their "sack", they are born very close together. Yet brought up together they often show completely different characteristics. From psychological studies we know for certain (or as close as possible to certain) that identical twins brought up seperately show very similar if not exactly the same characteristics. But those twins together have completely different characteristics despite the fact that their charts are nearly identical.

If I understand correctly, then you would suggest that also the environmental factors would be found in the chart. This would make that twins, brought up together or seperate, will have the same personality regardless. Which, in practice, isn't the case at all. In fact, twins brought up together differ from each other simply for the sake of survival. I'll not elaborate on that because it takes way too long. Perhaps, when those twins would be adopted by different people, the adoptees might be attracted by people from a very similar social background and therefore enjoy nearly identical upbringing, blissfully ignorant of one another's existence and therefore not adapting their personality to one another... eventually turning out to be nearly identical people when they finally meet. Theoretically, that could be found in the chart. But against every odd, they could be adopted by people of completely different social standings and therefore not enjoy a similar upbringing which makes that one will not get the same chances in life as the other did. In which case even that could theoretically be seen in the chart, but seeing as the rest of the chart is close to identical, it would still suggest that they would enjoy the same upbringing and be able to achieve the same possibilities. Or, as astrologers, we would have to consider the aspect that shows they have been adopted by people from different social standings in every step of the way. Which to me, doesn't only not sound logical, but seems very tedious and too far-fetched.

I think that a chart shows potential, very much. But I don't think it shows things that are already set in stone. But I suppose that is just a matter of belief of the person; I don't believe that things are set in stone. I believe that anyone can achieve anything that is to their physical or mental ability. I do, however, vastly believe that these abilities can be seen in the chart and the likelyhood of which choice those people will make, given the circumstances. One minor change in environment could change the person's judgement, making that he or she will make a completely different choice. So I think the best thing we can do, is predict what a person is most likely to do, not what they are destined to do.

As for convincing anyone, I've grown tired of trying. My circle of friends consists mostly of people who either do not know astrology or know it to the extent of periodical horoscopes or sun sign astrology. I don't consider them ignorant, at least not in a bad way. I'm the kind who would want to try to enlighten people about things they don't know, so that they can pass judgement only afterwards. Most of those friends in my social circle have told me they don't believe in astrology, but after a short explanation of what it is (or what I know it to be, because opinions can and do differ on that subject) they often seem to understand it better and will think twice before passing negative judgement on it. Perhaps it's because they are friends and probably trust me to not try to fool them into something, but it seems to do the trick every time. When I try to explain to a stranger, I often find myself hitting a brick wall. I just haven't bothered anymore. Brick walls are not nice to run into.

But of course, when one of those strangers asks me why I "believe" in astrology, I always feel compelled to give them an answer. Hence why I find the subject of astrology "versus" scepticism quite interesting.