It must be concluded that astrology is not easily captured by statistic's coarse nets but rather should be perceived in relation to our interiority. Astrology moves in the realm of a more subtle reality, far from that studied by natural science. The latter refuses ambiguity - a rejection which is patent in classical physics. But, as will later be discussed, even as quantum physics reveals dualities such as that of the wave and the particle, the act of measurement leads to the manifestation of a unique, well defined event. Modern science finds its roots in the rupture with the use of ambivalent logic like that manifested in astrology and in the myths of archaic thought. However, in the most profound core of our psyche, we feel the presence of contradicting forces. Most of the astrological texts underline this ambivalence in the interpretation of symbols. To take an example from Sun sign astrology, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former president of the republic, well embodied the qualities associated with his sign, Aquarius. From the moment he took office, he was an innovator, walking down the Champs-Elysées, visiting prisoners, meeting with refuse collectors, and spending time with ordinary people in their homes. But the values of his opposing sign, that of Leo, were also very apparent in Giscard d'Estaing. For example, he admired Louis XV and the tradition of the royal hunt. He reintroduced the ancient custom of the kings of France, insisting that no one sit opposite him during meals. And of course, one might refer to the former president's admiration for Bokassa's diamonds. Such contradictory aspects of an individual cannot be rendered by statistics which separate opposing terms and refuses to include the aspects of one term in another. The science of statistics allows the unveiling of real phenomena but remains limited to the objects of natural science in which the notion of the soul has disappeared. If it were to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the stars tend to determine the destinies of high level athletes or the distinct characteristics of twins, scientists would be obliged to take these phenomena into account and integrate them into an already existing or new discipline. In any case, it would be wise to avoid a new anti-astrology a priori like that once mounted against Kepler's idea that the Moon influenced tides or Newton's theory of remote forces which was reminiscent of alchemy. If, as with Kepler and Newton, the studies of Fuzeau-Braesh and Ertel were confirmed, entire sections of the scientific corpus would be cast in doubt, thus making way for progress. However, in no way would such discoveries give astrology a scientific label. At best, astrology would renew science. I will return to this last possibility in an ensuing discussion of Kepler. Fortunately, the long refined methodology of science allows us to see our world more and more clearly, even permitting us to withdraw our projections. Whatever may evolve, astrology will remain astrology, constantly returning to that subtle and infinite reality even if the Mars Effect and the twin studies fall into the realm of science.
In fact, the fine-spun reality of astrology is that of the symbol. The proponents of a scientific astrology often decry such an affirmation, declaring: "What? You say that astrology is merely symbolic?" An inherent scorn for the symbol is revealed in their offended protest. And so, something which, in the history of our own culture and in many contemporary non-western cultures, constitutes a reality as real as material reality, is downgraded to a blatantly inferior standing. It is this rejection of the symbol which explains the current exclusion of astrology by universities and cultured circles. If, in today's word, astrology gains no acceptance as an authentic field of study, this resistance is not simply due to the shameless exploitation of astrology which can be observed throughout the media. Astrology's low standing is more likely a result of the devaluation of the symbol over the past two centuries. Obscured and diluted, the science of the symbol has become so very enigmatic that it has lost its original sense and finds itself applied to myriad elements such as traffic lights, logos, mathematical signs and dream images. Hence today's difficulty in differentiating between the aspects of astrology which fall into the field of natural science and the true nature of astrology which is that of the symbol, existing on a transcendental and metaphysical plane of essences.
Unfortunately, the social sciences disparage astrology and limit their study to the perspectives of sociology, history and ethnology. Nonetheless, rather than abandoning astrology to horoscope charlatans, it is of interest to examine the causes for the field's current resurgence. In other words, instead of letting astrology become a belief and feeding the sterile debates between science and parascience, it seems of greater interest to explore astrology's own reality. While astrology cannot be a natural science, it can no better be a science like psychology. The false conception of astrology as the equivalent of psychology is abetted by the insistence on psychology which pervades contemporary culture. Fundamental examples of such a tendency may be found in seminal works like The Astrology of the Personality and From Psychoanalysis to Astrology. Astrologers are thus led to the false belief that astrology supplies conceptual or practical tools that may be used in "astrotherapy". In reality, astrology provides no conceptual tool like that generated, for example, by the founders of psychoanalysis.
Author: Alain Negre
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment