Hey. I looked up the word paradigm. Strictly, it addresses scientific frames of reference, though its use has been expanded.
The original concept suggests that a paradigm shift is something irrevocable; you leave one behind and you don’t go back. One of the examples is, a scientifically trained psychologist does [not] exorcise spirits to cure a psychotic person. That was a few paradigms ago. The thing with astrology is that it’s at once part of an earlier paradigm that has since been transcended; and part of a new one that we have not fully entered. So it exists in two frames of reference; three, really, if you count its widespread (unjustified) use in the present (such as, nearly every newspaper has a horoscope column).
When someone is playing paradigm wars and claims scientific credentials or a reverence for science, they are in one sense defending the current paradigm against a past one. It would seem to most people indefensible to consider astrology something of the future; right away, most people who have historical context think that it’s medieval or older; and most believe that it was dispensed with in the early Enlightenment (which is not true because we know Kepler and Ben Franklin did astrology; though some would cynically say they were lying about believing in it and doing it for money, which they both did).
The inclusion of astrology in a post-scientific-era reality frame is unusual because it is in part reverting to a prior system, though with new understanding. We need to account for this. It’s a little like saying to an economist that bartering is more advanced than their voodoo; which is probably true. I think that part of the paradigm exploration needs to account for the discovery of astrology in the past, its use in the past, why it was abandoned, and why it is coming back. And as Geoff Cornelius says, astrology needs to look at its failings, and I would say, its abuses of trust; this, for integrity, credulity and credibility.
xxef
3 thoughts on “”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
For years, theology and philosophy have struggled with with the fate versus free will discussion. Neither that I have seen has taken up astrology as a real question or even as an observed phenomenon.
One could profess a belief in one or the other. Astrology brings us to the place where ‘fate’ and ‘free will’ encounter one another, and engage in a relationship within consciousness. The fate piece is a reminder that the movements of the planets are predestined. We know that Saturn will make a conjunction with Chiron on a certain day. That presents us with a definite juncture but not with definite meaning. We know that when we get there, we bring some of the meaning, the power of decision and the ability to respond to environmental factors. We bring a decision about who we are, as influenced and as apart from what we know about the planets.
This is why astrology is controversial. It denies absolute adherence to God or science or logic or mysticism. The astrological perspective exists in a cosmos of its own, or you might say a holos that includes all possibilities. It requires allegiance to no perspective other than awareness of the moment and the factors that are influencing our awareness and our ability to choose; and when we’re confronted with astrology, no matter how ‘fate’ based, we always have a decision. Astrology is the demonstration, not the proof, that free will and fate are in a long relationship, and we are the mediators of that relationship within our own lives.
It implies both autonomy and also participation in the larger dance of life.
Thought provoking piece, Mr Francis.
Just a contribution on the ‘Why?’
I can’t think of any mainstream religion (apart from traditional Confucianism) that isn’t in some way pathologically obsessed with connection to “the ultimate”. It seems to me that human beings have, historically, deposited their death fears in such, flimsy “guarantors”. However, the credibility of organised religion is largely shot – even though so many desperately cling on.
The quest for meaning, seen exclusively as a quest for God, nowadays appears increasingly childish. I think that what astrology does (when done well and credibly by people like your good self, Eric) first and foremost, is make friends with the ephemeral and it helps render change as a concept, intrinsically natural. Therefore it teaches versatility skills.
Human beings need to re-contextualise themselves in their meaning-making. Astrology offers a sense of connection to transcendence, without necessarily indulging or triggering the insecurities of infantile ego. It is a meaning-making tool that is particularly well suited to contemporary human narrative, sense-making.
In an astrological cosmos, every shade of diverse ‘individual’ can hope to find a conducive and expansive home.
Explicit! That is beautiful! I won’t debate the reality, but I’ll keep it open for Understanding’s… There’s so much more that’s needing to be said.. eventually, all will be open…
Jere