What exactly are the ego, superego, and id? Even though these Freudian concepts have had an enduring influence on the psychology of personality, they have always seemed rather ambiguous to me. They could mean different things depending on who you read. They didn’t seem to have any firm relationship to astrology. Many astrologers tended to identify them with certain planets or combinations of planets, but there were always a lot of approximations being made and a lot of loose ends left over. No one had a good grasp it seemed. Consequently, I tended to ignore them in favor of socially structured models of personality developed in more recent times by Maslow, Mitchel, Goleman, Gardner, and Erikson. I found that these later models fit quite nicely into a simplified structure of astrological concepts, as I have postulated in Environmental Cosmology and subsequent writings. The fit is not exact, but astrology seems to have a power to unify these various modern models and suggests how they all work together.
Recently, I’ve returned to the old stomping grounds of the ego, superego, and id, which dominated early psychoanalysis. In general, the ego is thought of as the self-conscious part of personality that makes choices. The superego is the inner voice that tells the ego whether its choices are good or bad. The id is a reservoir of raw impulses that needs to be restrained for society to exist. Much of the work of the ego (the conscious self) is to balance the drives of the id against the controls of the superego. There is certainly drama in this model, but what does it mean?
I’m going to take a different approach. Let’s not start with the psychoanalytic model and work towards astrology, as everyone seems to want to do, but instead let’s start with astrology and work toward the psychoanalytic model to see if the psychological model can be made to fit the astrology. I tend to prefer this contrary view of the world. It’s easier.
There are three major frames of reference, or environments, used in astrology: tropical signs, diurnal houses, and synodic aspects. These natural frames of reference, in their most simplified and practical terms, astrologically relate to values, skills, and beliefs respectively. These three concepts do not come from psychology, but are arrived at by distilling and reducing the astrological model down to essential meanings. This is the main thesis of Environmental Cosmology.
Values are related to what interests us and gives life meaning. Values are an inner part of the personality, which are to some extent inherited from our parents. Some values are shared with other members of our generation. It seems to me that the superego maps pretty well to values, which in astrology are the zodiacal signs.
Skills are what we do well, or hope to do well, to become a self-actualized person in our outward life. We may succeed and feel good, or we may fail and feel bad, but we are always learning as we try to improve ourselves and make a difference in some area of the world we live in. It seems to me that the ego maps to skills, which astrologically are the diurnal houses.
Beliefs are the way we try to resolve the natural conflicts between our inner urges, represented by the planets. We are fine with our beliefs until they are challenged and tested by the circumstances of the world we live in. We change many of our beliefs as we grow and develop as persons. It seems to me that the id maps to the challenges and conflicts of our beliefs, which astrologically are the framework of our planetary aspects.
So there you have it, the basics of Freudian psychoanalysis interpreted for astrologers. The superego can be thought of as values, which are the signs, the ego equates to skills, which are the houses, and the id relates to beliefs, which are the aspects.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Convergent Evolution
The greatest wonder of the scientific enterprise is that it allows us to boldly explore unknown and dangerous places with the wisdom of angels. The rod and staff of science comfort by giving us the ability to measure, stabilize, and record our observations. They are the tools that enable us to extend our trajectories through the shadowy valleys of spacetime, to prepare and protect ourselves from the harms of potential evils, and to adapt to the goodness and mercies of our environment. Science makes us aware of our choices and the impending consequences of both our actions and our inactions, for better or for worse.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Irrational Fears of Astrology in Universities
Some students at universities have an irrational fear of astrology and there can be many reasons for this, but as with anything irrational, the reasons are often unknown to the thinking mind. The unknowns are felt as apprehensions and unease. The intellect, which is at its most robust when operating in an educational institution, diligently rationalizes and packages the unease. The feelings of apprehension and fear do not go away, but are cloaked by the obscurity of mysterious labels such as “pseudoscience,” “superstition,” "magic," and "the dim past." By means of these rational conventions, the intellect associates the uneaseful feelings with mistakes and failings, which it does not tolerate. The rational mind then, of its own accord, allows the unconscious mind to project the uncomfortable feelings to some unfamiliar place or unfamiliar people, to in a sense be rid of them and remain forever ignorant.
I can share a few examples from my own experience of how this psychological mechanism can operate. Maybe some of you have experienced something similar yourself.
I once sat as a guest in a philosophy lecture on science and pseudoscience, where the topic was astrology. While describing the popularity and appeal of astrology to his students, the professor suddenly remembered that he had forgotten to mention the term exam. Abruptly, he interrupted his lecture, described instructions and warnings for the upcoming exam, and then resumed his lecture on why astrology is irrational.
Now, as I'm quite sure you all know, students fear exams. It is a natural dread among students and can be an ideal instrument with which to inflict a degree of pain. One does not need to be an expert on classical conditioning to understand that the professor's interruption associated astrology with anxiety and dread. Many of the students likely left that lecture with a new fear of astrology. And they would not be likely to know, if they were to reflect upon it, where that fear actually came from. They will likely pass that fear on to others, just as it was passed on to them, and they will not even know that they are doing so while they are doing it.
On another occasion I was in a planetarium show with a class of students. The lights went low and the theater seats rumbled as they elevated and reclined to a horizontal position. For several minutes our eyes gazed at the domed ceiling in the semi-darkness waiting for the show to begin. Once everyone was settled, however, one of the planetarium directors stepped onto the theater floor and began to passionately denounce astrology. He challenged anyone there who believed in astrology to reveal themselves and debate the issues.
Stretched out and cradled in those quadraphonic seats, reminiscent of dentists' chairs in space, one could scarcely lift ones head, let alone heave ones body into a position to see who was talking. No one was going to argue in those circumstances, as of course the producer knew. It was safer just to lie low and cozy, out of the line of expected fire. The theater was the perfect setting for a psychological reinforcement of learned helplessness and the producer used it as an effective deterrent against dissent.
To continue with another example, I was at one time enrolled in a course given by a very popular psychology professor with a class of thousands. Strangely, one day a personal letter arrived from the professor, posted from another country. When I read the letter, a briefly scribbled note, I was surprised to see that it was a warning against astrology. It said that an interest in astrology would ruin my academic advancement and my hoped-for career. That was the full extent of the note. No reasons or explanations were offered, just the professor’s own word. Students have every reason to take this sort of warning very seriously.
A further incident was even more disturbing. I had been invited as a guest to join a small philosophy class one evening in which astrology would be discussed. It was at a university that had a couple of highly vocal anti-astrology professors. As I listened to the lecture, however, I found this particular professor was quite fair to astrology. He used astrology as an example to develop a thread of ideas on how personal beliefs are formed. After his speech, he then asked the class to divide into three or four groups for discussion among themselves.
An astrologer companion who had accompanied me joined one of the groups and began to teach what astrology is really about. I watched the faces of the students. Some students showed interest, some showed puzzlement, and some reflected signs of growing irritation and hostility. I quickly intervened and turned the discussion to how confirmation bias and the Barnum (Forer) effect can operate in astrological consultations to affect personal beliefs. These were things that I expected the students would need to know.
Shortly, the professor reassembled the class. He announced that the astrology content of the class was finished and proceeded to draw an unusual figure on the board. The figure consisted of a circle with lines drawn from points on the perimeter to other points on the perimeter. This he called the "web of beliefs." It was a concept he had developed to describe the necessity of beliefs in daily life. I was very interested by this, because seemingly without knowing it, he had drawn a natal chart, and he even thought, as I did, that the lines within the circle represent beliefs.
I wondered if the professor knew what the points on the circumference were, that they were urges, represented in astrology by the planets, and that it is the interactive aspects of urges that give rise to beliefs. I wanted to ask him about it after the class. But when the class ended, many of the students gathered around him with their questions. I waited for about 20 minutes as the professor answered questions, but none of the students were leaving and as I didn't have any more time to wait, I finally left myself without speaking with him.
The next week, I learned that the university had removed the professor from the course, apparently because his tolerance of astrology. The fact that he was well liked by his students didn't seem to matter. The student who I knew in the class, who had been instrumental in setting up my invitation, was deeply affected by the professor's departure, for which he felt partly responsible.
In these examples, fear of astrology seems to be a self-perpetuating irrationality that feeds on itself. Students may not even know why they fear astrology. It is just something they learn through their feelings at a tender age. The people they learn it from had learned it themselves in a similar way at a tender age and had passed the fear on to them.
These are reasons why I wrote "The students' critical thinking guide to science and astrology.” In that essay, I tried to reach the audience of students while speaking in the kind voice of a caring teacher. I mention the rational fallacies that are often used against astrology and the need for discourse based on thoughtful evaluation. Astrology is by far the biggest and most enduring study ever undertaken of the mind grappling with environmental realities. It has a vast literature and a fascinating history of applied intellect. It has survived and evolved over millennia with each step of civilization around the world and has an active adaptation to modern life. Astrology is simply too interesting and important to be rejected and vilified out of fear and ignorance.
As a final footnote, while my essay for students was being peer-reviewed for publication, a reviewer wrote back to me that his daughter was in fact enrolled at that time in a course on critical thinking in which astrology was attacked. Even though this reviewer, who was anonymous to me, was undoubtedly a leading astrological thinker, his daughter had felt threatened and avoided any association with astrology. For university students, the stakes are high and fear is a strong motivator.
I can share a few examples from my own experience of how this psychological mechanism can operate. Maybe some of you have experienced something similar yourself.
I once sat as a guest in a philosophy lecture on science and pseudoscience, where the topic was astrology. While describing the popularity and appeal of astrology to his students, the professor suddenly remembered that he had forgotten to mention the term exam. Abruptly, he interrupted his lecture, described instructions and warnings for the upcoming exam, and then resumed his lecture on why astrology is irrational.
Now, as I'm quite sure you all know, students fear exams. It is a natural dread among students and can be an ideal instrument with which to inflict a degree of pain. One does not need to be an expert on classical conditioning to understand that the professor's interruption associated astrology with anxiety and dread. Many of the students likely left that lecture with a new fear of astrology. And they would not be likely to know, if they were to reflect upon it, where that fear actually came from. They will likely pass that fear on to others, just as it was passed on to them, and they will not even know that they are doing so while they are doing it.
On another occasion I was in a planetarium show with a class of students. The lights went low and the theater seats rumbled as they elevated and reclined to a horizontal position. For several minutes our eyes gazed at the domed ceiling in the semi-darkness waiting for the show to begin. Once everyone was settled, however, one of the planetarium directors stepped onto the theater floor and began to passionately denounce astrology. He challenged anyone there who believed in astrology to reveal themselves and debate the issues.
Stretched out and cradled in those quadraphonic seats, reminiscent of dentists' chairs in space, one could scarcely lift ones head, let alone heave ones body into a position to see who was talking. No one was going to argue in those circumstances, as of course the producer knew. It was safer just to lie low and cozy, out of the line of expected fire. The theater was the perfect setting for a psychological reinforcement of learned helplessness and the producer used it as an effective deterrent against dissent.
To continue with another example, I was at one time enrolled in a course given by a very popular psychology professor with a class of thousands. Strangely, one day a personal letter arrived from the professor, posted from another country. When I read the letter, a briefly scribbled note, I was surprised to see that it was a warning against astrology. It said that an interest in astrology would ruin my academic advancement and my hoped-for career. That was the full extent of the note. No reasons or explanations were offered, just the professor’s own word. Students have every reason to take this sort of warning very seriously.
A further incident was even more disturbing. I had been invited as a guest to join a small philosophy class one evening in which astrology would be discussed. It was at a university that had a couple of highly vocal anti-astrology professors. As I listened to the lecture, however, I found this particular professor was quite fair to astrology. He used astrology as an example to develop a thread of ideas on how personal beliefs are formed. After his speech, he then asked the class to divide into three or four groups for discussion among themselves.
An astrologer companion who had accompanied me joined one of the groups and began to teach what astrology is really about. I watched the faces of the students. Some students showed interest, some showed puzzlement, and some reflected signs of growing irritation and hostility. I quickly intervened and turned the discussion to how confirmation bias and the Barnum (Forer) effect can operate in astrological consultations to affect personal beliefs. These were things that I expected the students would need to know.
Shortly, the professor reassembled the class. He announced that the astrology content of the class was finished and proceeded to draw an unusual figure on the board. The figure consisted of a circle with lines drawn from points on the perimeter to other points on the perimeter. This he called the "web of beliefs." It was a concept he had developed to describe the necessity of beliefs in daily life. I was very interested by this, because seemingly without knowing it, he had drawn a natal chart, and he even thought, as I did, that the lines within the circle represent beliefs.
I wondered if the professor knew what the points on the circumference were, that they were urges, represented in astrology by the planets, and that it is the interactive aspects of urges that give rise to beliefs. I wanted to ask him about it after the class. But when the class ended, many of the students gathered around him with their questions. I waited for about 20 minutes as the professor answered questions, but none of the students were leaving and as I didn't have any more time to wait, I finally left myself without speaking with him.
The next week, I learned that the university had removed the professor from the course, apparently because his tolerance of astrology. The fact that he was well liked by his students didn't seem to matter. The student who I knew in the class, who had been instrumental in setting up my invitation, was deeply affected by the professor's departure, for which he felt partly responsible.
In these examples, fear of astrology seems to be a self-perpetuating irrationality that feeds on itself. Students may not even know why they fear astrology. It is just something they learn through their feelings at a tender age. The people they learn it from had learned it themselves in a similar way at a tender age and had passed the fear on to them.
These are reasons why I wrote "The students' critical thinking guide to science and astrology.” In that essay, I tried to reach the audience of students while speaking in the kind voice of a caring teacher. I mention the rational fallacies that are often used against astrology and the need for discourse based on thoughtful evaluation. Astrology is by far the biggest and most enduring study ever undertaken of the mind grappling with environmental realities. It has a vast literature and a fascinating history of applied intellect. It has survived and evolved over millennia with each step of civilization around the world and has an active adaptation to modern life. Astrology is simply too interesting and important to be rejected and vilified out of fear and ignorance.
As a final footnote, while my essay for students was being peer-reviewed for publication, a reviewer wrote back to me that his daughter was in fact enrolled at that time in a course on critical thinking in which astrology was attacked. Even though this reviewer, who was anonymous to me, was undoubtedly a leading astrological thinker, his daughter had felt threatened and avoided any association with astrology. For university students, the stakes are high and fear is a strong motivator.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Reappraisal of 1985 Carlson study finds support for astrology
*See the update* Support for astrology from the 1985 Carlson double-blind experiment.
After nearly a quarter of a century, a small group of dedicated astrologers who participated in a scientific study that reached a devastating verdict against their craft may have something to feel good about. The study, published in 1985 in the journal of scientific record, Nature (vol. 318), launched its author, Shawn Carlson, who at the time of the study was an undergraduate student at the University of California at Berkley, to instant celebrity among the community of scientific skeptics. A new assessment, however, “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests” in Journal of Scientific Exploration (vol. 23:2) by Suitbert Ertel, professor of psychology at Göttingen University, has found serious flaws in the study's analysis. In an surprising turnaround, Ertel finds that, when correctly analyzed, according to the method that Carlson initially states but then changes, the study's data actually provides support for astrology. It now appears that the reputation of the Carlson study as a definitive test against astrology is unjustified.
Suitbert Ertel is known for his analysis and criticism of statistical research on both sides of the science/astrology controversy. He is also known for his 1988 discovery, and later replications, of planetary eminence effects, which had been predicted by the late astrology researcher Michel Gauquelin. These eminence effects strongly support the traditional astrological properties of the tested planets and have presented an irrefutable conundrum for astrology skeptics.
In the introduction to his study, “A double-blind test of astrology,” Carlson states his intention to design “an experiment that would meet the tight specifications of both the scientific and astrological communities.” The main test in the study challenged the 28 astrologer participants to match the birth charts of 116 volunteer students with personality profiles from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), a standard personality questionnaire.
In Carlson’s assessment, the astrologers could not match birth charts to profiles any better than chance and therefore failed in their task. He concluded, “We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers.” In Ertel's reassessment of the study's data, however, the astrologers were able to perform the matches significantly better than chance, even though they did not perform as well as they had predicted.
Because Carlson’s study was published in a highly regarded scientific journal, it is exceptional among astrology research papers. It has stood at the pinnacle of scientific recognition and easily ranks as the most frequently cited study of its kind (500+ Google links). A major contributor to the study’s credibility was the participation of qualified astrologers, all members of the National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR), an organization that was active in astrology research.
When Carlson’s article appeared in Nature, it immediately drew fire from critics. Some of the astrologer participants protested that Carlson ignored their suggestions, contrary to his stated intention. Carlson had refused to supply the gender identities of the CPI profiles, a necessary consideration because the CPI makes crucial distinctions between male and female responses. The eminent psychologist Hans Eysenck, late author of the book Astrology: Science or Superstition, argued that the CPI explicitly states that it should be interpreted only by trained and experienced users, and the astrologers lacked the necessary training and experience. Other critics questioned whether the CPI and astrology evaluate personality in the same ways, and whether there was enough common ground for astrologers to make valid matches. Many critics have noted that the student subjects failed to recognize both their CPI profiles and their natal chart interpretations, yet the CPI was given a pass while the astrology results were declared a failure. Over time the controversy subsided with neither side being dissuaded.
Eventually, certain aspects of the Carlson study drew Ertel’s scrutiny. Normally, articles in Nature, or any scientific journal, are peer reviewed before publication. The peer review process subjects scientific beliefs and claims of fact to critical analysis by qualified experts. Yet, even though the Carlson study makes claims of scientific fact, doubts had been raised by others as to whether it had been adequately peer reviewed. Nature had published the article in the Commentary section, and this seemed to characterize it as editorial content, where peer review might be less rigorously applied. Moreover, despite the outcry over the Carlson study voiced elsewhere, Nature had never published any responses to the study and no thorough reanalysis had ever been done, and this, Ertel believed, was cause for concern.
Ertel, in his peer-reviewed reappraisal, finds the Carlson study to be flawed in test design, test power, effect size, and sample size. The design of the study violates the demands of fairness, Ertel says, and even Carlson’s own stated protocol. Instead of presenting the astrologer participants with pair choices, which is the normal format for such tests, and the format followed in an earlier well-known astrological study by Vernon Clark (1961), Carlson presented a three-choice format, an unusual method that consists of one genuine object and two selected at random. This three-choice format, Ertel notes, is less powerful than a two-choice format. Furthermore, Carlson’s random selections of the comparison objects (students of relatively the same age) produced avoidable similarities between the objects, which reduced discrimination and further elevated the three-choice problem. In fairness, he says, dissimilar objects should have been used throughout.
Ertel is also critical of Carlson’s "piecemeal" analysis of the sampled data, in which only sub-samples are examined instead of the total effects. The accepted analysis of a three-choice format, as Ertel cites from a standard textbook, is to calculate the proportion of combined first and second choices against the third choice. Carlson initially states his intention to do this but then disregards this method for no given reason. Re-analysis of the published data by using the standard procedure shows that the astrologers correctly matched CPI profiles to natal charts better than would be expected by chance with marginal significance (p = .054). This positive result, Ertel found, was replicable with even better results (p = .04) for the astrologers’ ten-point rating of profiles fit to birth charts, a test that Carlson had requested of the astrologers but the significance of which had eluded him in the end.
In Ertel’s assessment, the proper evaluation of the test data, according to research methods that are commonly accepted to be the most fair and precise, gives two significant test results in favor of the astrologer participants, although there are numerous flaws in the study that cast doubt on any reliable conclusion. “The results are regarded as insufficient to deem astrology as empirically verified,” Ertel warns, “but they are sufficient to regard Carlson’s negative verdict on astrology as untenable.”
*Update* Support for astrology from the 1985 Carlson double-blind experiment
Famous Test of Astrology is Seriously Flawed
A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments
Monday, July 6, 2009
Nostradamus 2012 End of Time
Nostradamus 2012 is a TV program about December 21, 2012 prophesies. That date, or thereabouts, is said to be the end of the Mayan calendar. The program reels through all sorts of recent natural and man-made disasters, pointing to the ticking time bomb of anticipated earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, climate change, global famine, pole shift, and other disasters that await humankind. The program attempts to support its predictions of these disasters with the writings of Nostradamus and the symbolism in some recently discovered drawings attributed to Nostradamus.
According to this program, the main event that would trigger these disasters is the alignment of the galactic center with the Capricorn solstice, hence the December 21st date. The sun would "eclipse" the galactic center at the solstice point.
I agree with the program's use of the galactic center for the accurate measurement of the 25,800 cycle historically known as "precession of the equinoxes" and the Great Year. In astrology, however, the equinoxes and solstices, as the defining points of celestial longitude, should represent a fixed frame of reference in the sky. Everything should be seen as moving within celestial longitude, including the galactic center and the constellations.
It should not be relevant which constellation is at the Aries equinox because constellations, unlike individual stars, are irrelevant in astrology. The main point of interest in the great-year cycle should be the movement of galactic center, a precise point like each of the planets, within the framework of celestial longitude. The so-called Age of Aquarius, which attempts to use constellations as aggregate bodies, is a departure from any sort of reasonable or traditional astrology.
The Nostradamus 2012 program commits the astronomical error of using the 2012 date as the critical alignment. The galactic center does not actually align with the Capricorn solstice until the year 2295. The program tries to extend the initial concept of the end of the Mayan calendar into all sorts of unrelated areas in an attempt to connect them to the major changes we currently see on our planet.
Climate change is already wreaking havoc and will continue to do so until humankind does something to stop it. It is much too big a stretch to associate the year 2012 end date of the Mayan calendar with the galactic center alignment to the Capricorn solstice, which will not happen until 2295, almost three hundred years hence.
According to this program, the main event that would trigger these disasters is the alignment of the galactic center with the Capricorn solstice, hence the December 21st date. The sun would "eclipse" the galactic center at the solstice point.
I agree with the program's use of the galactic center for the accurate measurement of the 25,800 cycle historically known as "precession of the equinoxes" and the Great Year. In astrology, however, the equinoxes and solstices, as the defining points of celestial longitude, should represent a fixed frame of reference in the sky. Everything should be seen as moving within celestial longitude, including the galactic center and the constellations.
It should not be relevant which constellation is at the Aries equinox because constellations, unlike individual stars, are irrelevant in astrology. The main point of interest in the great-year cycle should be the movement of galactic center, a precise point like each of the planets, within the framework of celestial longitude. The so-called Age of Aquarius, which attempts to use constellations as aggregate bodies, is a departure from any sort of reasonable or traditional astrology.
The Nostradamus 2012 program commits the astronomical error of using the 2012 date as the critical alignment. The galactic center does not actually align with the Capricorn solstice until the year 2295. The program tries to extend the initial concept of the end of the Mayan calendar into all sorts of unrelated areas in an attempt to connect them to the major changes we currently see on our planet.
Climate change is already wreaking havoc and will continue to do so until humankind does something to stop it. It is much too big a stretch to associate the year 2012 end date of the Mayan calendar with the galactic center alignment to the Capricorn solstice, which will not happen until 2295, almost three hundred years hence.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism
A recent newspaper carried an article, "The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism," which contrasted the different views of what the vernal equinox means to an astronomer and an astrologer. The article, posted on the newspaper's web site, drew criticism from some members of the public for taking astrology seriously and giving it credibility. I would like to attempt to clarify and amplify the astrological view.
The vernal equinox is one of two places in the sky near which the planets spend an equal amount of time above the horizon as below during the course of a day. Astronomically, the equinoxes represent points of equilibrium. Astrologically, the equinoxes represent an axis of equality. This axis of equality is to be contrasted with the axis of extremes or hierarchy, which is represented by the summer and winter solstices. These two axes are natural symmetries that define the framework of tropical signs used in Western astrology.
When the planets in their cycles cross this axis of equality, the planetary urges, acting from within individuals and collectively in society, are thought to express values of equality, as distinct from the values of hierarchy, which are represented by the solstices. There are two ways in which values of equality can be expressed. We can value cooperation and we can value competition among equals. The vernal equinox is thought to be the point where competition is most highly valued, whereas the autumnal equinox is thought to be the point where cooperation is most highly valued.
Planets near the vernal equinox tend to reflect the values of competition in our corresponding interests and desires, which are to break down old hierarchical values to create a new order, whether on the personal, social, or collective level, depending on the planet involved. Initiatives for the new order may potentially be expressed through fitness programs, performances, competitions, innovations, explorations, or any pioneering effort. As a planet passes over the vernal equinox, a new hierarchy of values begins through competition. This emerging hierarchy will later peak for that planetary urge when it arrives at the summer solstice.
The vernal equinox is one of two places in the sky near which the planets spend an equal amount of time above the horizon as below during the course of a day. Astronomically, the equinoxes represent points of equilibrium. Astrologically, the equinoxes represent an axis of equality. This axis of equality is to be contrasted with the axis of extremes or hierarchy, which is represented by the summer and winter solstices. These two axes are natural symmetries that define the framework of tropical signs used in Western astrology.
When the planets in their cycles cross this axis of equality, the planetary urges, acting from within individuals and collectively in society, are thought to express values of equality, as distinct from the values of hierarchy, which are represented by the solstices. There are two ways in which values of equality can be expressed. We can value cooperation and we can value competition among equals. The vernal equinox is thought to be the point where competition is most highly valued, whereas the autumnal equinox is thought to be the point where cooperation is most highly valued.
Planets near the vernal equinox tend to reflect the values of competition in our corresponding interests and desires, which are to break down old hierarchical values to create a new order, whether on the personal, social, or collective level, depending on the planet involved. Initiatives for the new order may potentially be expressed through fitness programs, performances, competitions, innovations, explorations, or any pioneering effort. As a planet passes over the vernal equinox, a new hierarchy of values begins through competition. This emerging hierarchy will later peak for that planetary urge when it arrives at the summer solstice.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Is there good in the recession?
Recession is not all bad and we can learn from the history of past recessions. Recessions happen because we resist change and persist with habits that have become harmful. With recession, the economic growth for certain things comes to an end and the receding economy makes us painfully aware of exposures and areas of neglect that need our attention and responsible effort.
It has often been observed that the fashion of women’s hemlines moves up and down with the economy. Over this past winter hemlines on evening wear worn by fashion leaders dramatically hit the floor. But everyday wear for most women in America today is jeans or pants and dresses and skirts are not normally seen. So what happens this time? The fashion trend seems to suggest modesty and responsibility. Does this mean that tight jeans are out and the relaxed fit is in? Will more men start wearing suits and fully brimmed hats again as in previous recessions? Long dresses and coats and big hats are not convenient for driving cars, but they are ideal for waiting at the bus stop and walking on foot. Will walking and taking public transit increase during the recession?
It has been said also that people eat healthier diets during recessions and that national health improves. This is a very good thing, and it is much overdue because so many Americans are overweight and don’t exercise enough. Better diet is adopted during recessions because more meals are prepared from scratch. Although less convenient, home cooking is more economical than serving packaged foods or dining out. As more food is prepared in the home, more attention is paid to the quality of food ingredients. Instead of high-calorie fast food with artificial ingredients, healthier, locally grown food is desired. More people are even buying seeds and planting their own gardens. The more that good meals are planned and become a relaxed social focus of the day, the more family values could improve. Can you picture Michele Obama planting a vegetable garden at the White House for her family's use? Yes, this is happening, and the President himself will be expected to pull weeds. Food is of crucial importance to health and maybe it’s good to have a real involvement in how it is grown and prepared.
One of the big questions during the current recession is whether economic stimulus should be given to the big corporations that are dramatically failing. Shouldn't these corporations be left to fail because they didn't pay attention the economic patterns and they ignored the indicators of necessary change? Didn’t the leaders of these corporations fail to keep their corporations secure? If the corporate leaders failed, then why should those leaders still receive fat bonuses, paid for by government? Aren't these the people who some Canadian politicians in the 1970s identified as "corporate welfare bums?" If these corporate leaders don’t get their bonuses and want to leave their current positions for positions elsewhere that they believe will pay them better, why not let them just leave? Isn't it only by the failure of irresponsible corporate governance and policy that the more responsible governance and policies, which are more in tune with the current economic needs, will have a chance to succeed?
Are environmental pressures are at the root of the recession? Doesn't the global economy need to urgently create and introduce now the programs and products that have been neglected, and should have been developed for sustainability? There seems to have been a profound shift away from the policies and politics of claiming and securing scarce resources, which is the old unsustainable way, to developing alternative and more sustainable resources. Why stimulate the continuation of large corporate growth when that growth is unsustainable? Why not restrict that growth and channel investment into the emergent economy of sustainable development?
Recently, there seems to be renewed interest in smaller houses and higher population densities. It appears that more people actually want tiny houses, whether they live in the city or in the country. Tiny houses are more affordable. If the community is planned accordingly, small houses could allow people to live closer to where they work, shop, and do other activities outside the home. People could walk or bicycle to these places, as well as to transportation nodes that connect then to other communities. Don't family values in the home need to be sustained by strong social networks outside the home? Moving housing closer together could strengthen social and community bonds. With the Internet and mobile phones, we have new electronic means of interacting with family, friends, and business contacts, but there’s really no substitute for actual face-to-face interactions. Isn't it better for people to be nearer to the people they would normally socialize with?
It has often been observed that the fashion of women’s hemlines moves up and down with the economy. Over this past winter hemlines on evening wear worn by fashion leaders dramatically hit the floor. But everyday wear for most women in America today is jeans or pants and dresses and skirts are not normally seen. So what happens this time? The fashion trend seems to suggest modesty and responsibility. Does this mean that tight jeans are out and the relaxed fit is in? Will more men start wearing suits and fully brimmed hats again as in previous recessions? Long dresses and coats and big hats are not convenient for driving cars, but they are ideal for waiting at the bus stop and walking on foot. Will walking and taking public transit increase during the recession?
It has been said also that people eat healthier diets during recessions and that national health improves. This is a very good thing, and it is much overdue because so many Americans are overweight and don’t exercise enough. Better diet is adopted during recessions because more meals are prepared from scratch. Although less convenient, home cooking is more economical than serving packaged foods or dining out. As more food is prepared in the home, more attention is paid to the quality of food ingredients. Instead of high-calorie fast food with artificial ingredients, healthier, locally grown food is desired. More people are even buying seeds and planting their own gardens. The more that good meals are planned and become a relaxed social focus of the day, the more family values could improve. Can you picture Michele Obama planting a vegetable garden at the White House for her family's use? Yes, this is happening, and the President himself will be expected to pull weeds. Food is of crucial importance to health and maybe it’s good to have a real involvement in how it is grown and prepared.
One of the big questions during the current recession is whether economic stimulus should be given to the big corporations that are dramatically failing. Shouldn't these corporations be left to fail because they didn't pay attention the economic patterns and they ignored the indicators of necessary change? Didn’t the leaders of these corporations fail to keep their corporations secure? If the corporate leaders failed, then why should those leaders still receive fat bonuses, paid for by government? Aren't these the people who some Canadian politicians in the 1970s identified as "corporate welfare bums?" If these corporate leaders don’t get their bonuses and want to leave their current positions for positions elsewhere that they believe will pay them better, why not let them just leave? Isn't it only by the failure of irresponsible corporate governance and policy that the more responsible governance and policies, which are more in tune with the current economic needs, will have a chance to succeed?
Are environmental pressures are at the root of the recession? Doesn't the global economy need to urgently create and introduce now the programs and products that have been neglected, and should have been developed for sustainability? There seems to have been a profound shift away from the policies and politics of claiming and securing scarce resources, which is the old unsustainable way, to developing alternative and more sustainable resources. Why stimulate the continuation of large corporate growth when that growth is unsustainable? Why not restrict that growth and channel investment into the emergent economy of sustainable development?
Recently, there seems to be renewed interest in smaller houses and higher population densities. It appears that more people actually want tiny houses, whether they live in the city or in the country. Tiny houses are more affordable. If the community is planned accordingly, small houses could allow people to live closer to where they work, shop, and do other activities outside the home. People could walk or bicycle to these places, as well as to transportation nodes that connect then to other communities. Don't family values in the home need to be sustained by strong social networks outside the home? Moving housing closer together could strengthen social and community bonds. With the Internet and mobile phones, we have new electronic means of interacting with family, friends, and business contacts, but there’s really no substitute for actual face-to-face interactions. Isn't it better for people to be nearer to the people they would normally socialize with?
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Separating astrological effects from anomalies
In a scientific exploration you might not have preconceptions, but you still make assumptions. For example you might be looking for relationships between the planets correlated to some world events like market prices and you don't care what relationships you find. There's still an assumption or hypothesis that you might find some.
What’s missing in exploration is not assumptions but theory, and this is intentional. Someone once saw something weird out there that just didn't make normal sense, and you’re going hunting for it and others like it. It doesn't bother you that it doesn't make sense.
The interesting findings you make, if they are consistent but without theory, are anomalies.
But all astrology, as it has been handed down to us with all its concepts, may be an anomaly, or maybe not. If we agree on mapping principles then we have paradigms and structure, and we can build theories, but of course these theories need to be reliable.
Let’s say we've found anomalies. Either they fit a theory (and are predictably reliable), or they are nothing.
If we don't think these anomalies we’ve found are nothing, because we've found a lot of them, then we'd better think of ways to show that the findings are reliable and predictable. Can we replicate? Can we compare to a control, either physical controls or simulated controls created by shifting the appropriate pieces of data? Can we rank the findings based on eminence, severity, affinity, etc. to see if there is a rule, mathematical function, or a constant that supports it?
If we have an astrological finding that is reliable and predictable (replicable, independent of controls, and co-varies in strength with known factors) then the finding is not an anomaly. It’s a "response," "species," "pattern" or "effect."
It is confusing to some people to say something is an "effect" when effects are taken to be direct and strong physical influences and not just statistical tendencies, and so they have problems with astrology. An effect is not the same as a theory because a theory needs to explain why the effect happens as a feature of nature.
What normally happens with unexpected effects is to embrace the weird by building theory that is consistent with our various effects and our original paradigmatic principles. The findings of these effects might never stop being weird but the effects would begin to make normal sense, at least to some people.
Astrological theory might be different than current standard physical theory, or it might be an extension of it. For example, if we live in a fractal universe, which implies patterns with a mathematical function, then we should have no problem considering such astrological concepts as synchronicity and cosmic symmetry. In a fractal universe, there could be some conceivable cause and effect relationship in astrology through the operation of fractal functionality, which may determine some behaviors, such as planetary movements, but only govern but not determine other behaviors, such as the lives of people as well as the lives of non-living and non-physical entities, which traditional astrology concerns itself with, but standard theory does not.
What’s missing in exploration is not assumptions but theory, and this is intentional. Someone once saw something weird out there that just didn't make normal sense, and you’re going hunting for it and others like it. It doesn't bother you that it doesn't make sense.
The interesting findings you make, if they are consistent but without theory, are anomalies.
But all astrology, as it has been handed down to us with all its concepts, may be an anomaly, or maybe not. If we agree on mapping principles then we have paradigms and structure, and we can build theories, but of course these theories need to be reliable.
Let’s say we've found anomalies. Either they fit a theory (and are predictably reliable), or they are nothing.
If we don't think these anomalies we’ve found are nothing, because we've found a lot of them, then we'd better think of ways to show that the findings are reliable and predictable. Can we replicate? Can we compare to a control, either physical controls or simulated controls created by shifting the appropriate pieces of data? Can we rank the findings based on eminence, severity, affinity, etc. to see if there is a rule, mathematical function, or a constant that supports it?
If we have an astrological finding that is reliable and predictable (replicable, independent of controls, and co-varies in strength with known factors) then the finding is not an anomaly. It’s a "response," "species," "pattern" or "effect."
It is confusing to some people to say something is an "effect" when effects are taken to be direct and strong physical influences and not just statistical tendencies, and so they have problems with astrology. An effect is not the same as a theory because a theory needs to explain why the effect happens as a feature of nature.
What normally happens with unexpected effects is to embrace the weird by building theory that is consistent with our various effects and our original paradigmatic principles. The findings of these effects might never stop being weird but the effects would begin to make normal sense, at least to some people.
Astrological theory might be different than current standard physical theory, or it might be an extension of it. For example, if we live in a fractal universe, which implies patterns with a mathematical function, then we should have no problem considering such astrological concepts as synchronicity and cosmic symmetry. In a fractal universe, there could be some conceivable cause and effect relationship in astrology through the operation of fractal functionality, which may determine some behaviors, such as planetary movements, but only govern but not determine other behaviors, such as the lives of people as well as the lives of non-living and non-physical entities, which traditional astrology concerns itself with, but standard theory does not.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Response to Theories of Astrology: A Comprehensive Survey
An article, "Theories of Astrology: A Comprehensive Survey" by Dean, Loptson, Kelly, et al, available on Rudolf Smit's website at http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/a-theo2.htm, is a very good overview of skeptical arguments against astrological theories and explanations. It is gratifying to see that the "ordinary explanations" it offers are stretching a lot farther and attempting to grapple with much tougher and more complex issues than what was presented in 1975's "Objections to Astrology." This is a good sign of discourse. However, a major deficiency in the article is the argument against a key astrological concept that most astrologers agree with, which is introduced by using a quote from Robert Hand.
"As Hand (1988) puts it, 'The universe is essentially a clock in which all components serve to tell what time it is. As above so below, because it is essentially one thing. ... In various forms this is the most prevalent theory at present.'"
In this instance Hand interprets the hermetic maxim ("as above, so below") as a question of time and synchronicity, even though the maxim says "as" not "when," which should suggest that this concept is more applicable to states and symmetries of behavior rather than purely temporal behaviors. In any case, the skeptical argument completely falls apart at this point by appealing directly to a common sense dismissal of the concept presented in the maxim as simply "absurd."
"But as argued by Roberts (1990:98), it is absurd to believe that the quality of time throughout billions of star systems, some possibly with planets sustaining life, is synchronous with what our solar system is doing. So the quality of time has to be localised, on which point neither Jung nor astrologers offer guidance."
Why is this belief or postulation so absurd? If this is a comprehensive survey, as the sub-title of the skeptic article claims, then we must consider the possibility of a fractal universe, as some astrologers have offered, where this is not absurd at all. In this view, inner world behaviors (microcosms) are "self-similar" (which is to say symmetrical) to outer world behaviors (macrocosms).
Fractal behaviors have been observed throughout nature and it might not be surprizing to discover that the universe as we know it behaves with some sort of fractal functionality. One might even venture to say that it would indeed be more surprizing to find that the universe as a whole does not function in this way.
The conclusion that the skeptics in their conventional wisdom have brought foreward is that "the quality of time has to be localized." This conclusion, which in their view necessarily remedies something they believe to be "absurd," is logically and scientifically unwarranted. The "explanation" offered for the hermetic maxim, which is no explanation at all, does not even scratch the surface of this prevailing and very intriguing astrological concept.
"As Hand (1988) puts it, 'The universe is essentially a clock in which all components serve to tell what time it is. As above so below, because it is essentially one thing. ... In various forms this is the most prevalent theory at present.'"
In this instance Hand interprets the hermetic maxim ("as above, so below") as a question of time and synchronicity, even though the maxim says "as" not "when," which should suggest that this concept is more applicable to states and symmetries of behavior rather than purely temporal behaviors. In any case, the skeptical argument completely falls apart at this point by appealing directly to a common sense dismissal of the concept presented in the maxim as simply "absurd."
"But as argued by Roberts (1990:98), it is absurd to believe that the quality of time throughout billions of star systems, some possibly with planets sustaining life, is synchronous with what our solar system is doing. So the quality of time has to be localised, on which point neither Jung nor astrologers offer guidance."
Why is this belief or postulation so absurd? If this is a comprehensive survey, as the sub-title of the skeptic article claims, then we must consider the possibility of a fractal universe, as some astrologers have offered, where this is not absurd at all. In this view, inner world behaviors (microcosms) are "self-similar" (which is to say symmetrical) to outer world behaviors (macrocosms).
Fractal behaviors have been observed throughout nature and it might not be surprizing to discover that the universe as we know it behaves with some sort of fractal functionality. One might even venture to say that it would indeed be more surprizing to find that the universe as a whole does not function in this way.
The conclusion that the skeptics in their conventional wisdom have brought foreward is that "the quality of time has to be localized." This conclusion, which in their view necessarily remedies something they believe to be "absurd," is logically and scientifically unwarranted. The "explanation" offered for the hermetic maxim, which is no explanation at all, does not even scratch the surface of this prevailing and very intriguing astrological concept.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Astrological properties and influence
While it can be said that people, social dynamics, and events "influence" each other through their interactions, and that planets and stars have "properties" because they are objects, it cannot not be said that planets and stars directly influence people, society, or events, because there is no direct interaction between them. However, if people and events "reflect" celestial objects by a type of symmetry as astrology purports (i.e. as above—so below), then the planetary or stellar "influence" is indirect. It comes from people and events that are influencing—or trying to influence—each other while diachronically reflecting astrological properties.
This is why it is best to think of celestial objects as having astrological properties rather than astrological influence. Being ambiguous, the latter can be construed to mean direct physical influence, animism, determinism, etc., which it is not. Thinking in terms of properties instead of influences relieves researchers of the unfortunate semantic burden of assumed causal interactions where none are claimed. Free of this burden, researchers can get on with their work, which is based on mapping principles that everyone, in principle, can agree to.
It is not so important to know how celestial objects come to have astrological properties or how symmetries operate. These are just things that are empirically observed, like any other properties or behaviors in nature. Researchers need to be circumspect in their language to infer astrological properties through symmetrically diachronic observations of people and events.
This is why it is best to think of celestial objects as having astrological properties rather than astrological influence. Being ambiguous, the latter can be construed to mean direct physical influence, animism, determinism, etc., which it is not. Thinking in terms of properties instead of influences relieves researchers of the unfortunate semantic burden of assumed causal interactions where none are claimed. Free of this burden, researchers can get on with their work, which is based on mapping principles that everyone, in principle, can agree to.
It is not so important to know how celestial objects come to have astrological properties or how symmetries operate. These are just things that are empirically observed, like any other properties or behaviors in nature. Researchers need to be circumspect in their language to infer astrological properties through symmetrically diachronic observations of people and events.
Friday, November 21, 2008
How are planetary effects different?
Recent discussions have raised the issue of how planetary characteristics in astrology fit into some sort of rational organization. Like others, I believe this represents a puzzle.
As I was writing Environmental Cosmology, I began to think of the planets differently. Planets do not directly influence us. Instead, planets have astrological properties, which we use. So the question we need to ask is, how are the astrological properties of planets discovered and what makes each planet different?
Skeptics have pointed out that planetary effects in astrology do not diminish with distance (like gravity does). They suggests that near planets should be "stronger" and far planets should be "weaker" or have no effect at all. This skeptic view assumes that the planets all exert a physical influence that is always the same, only stronger or weaker (like gravity). But in astrology the different planets have different effects. They do not operate like gravity, which is always the same effect. We can postulate that distance and speed might account for the different astrological properties. So in effect, this astrological postulation might actually take distance into account as a factor of astrological "properties," strange as that might seem.
The planets are astrologically different from each other because they have different astronomical and physical properties. They move at different speeds, so they might associate with different biological rhythms, and by extension, social rhythms. If the planets all moved at the same speed in the same cycle, then maybe they would all have the same single astrological property, but they don't move that way. To discover the astrological properties of the planets, we need to measure effects, and for this we use the astrological frames of reference: the signs, houses, and aspects, which are all based upon natural, environmental symmetries.
At this time, the best understanding I have for why the planets are astrologically different is that they have different rhythms that associate (by cosmic symmetry, or fractal symmetry, diachronic synchronicity, etc. whatever) with biological rhythms, and their astrological properties have been indirectly inferred by their observed effects.
Although ideas have been floated concerning an "octave" effect, in which the more distant planets are higher octaves of the near planets, there isn't much in this to consider in terms of pattern. Finding a pattern for planetary effects is a mystery that would be nice to resolve, but this shouldn't stop or hinder our understanding of the planets through brute observation, which is the way much of science is done anyway. Astrology just has to use indirect methods of observation.
As I was writing Environmental Cosmology, I began to think of the planets differently. Planets do not directly influence us. Instead, planets have astrological properties, which we use. So the question we need to ask is, how are the astrological properties of planets discovered and what makes each planet different?
Skeptics have pointed out that planetary effects in astrology do not diminish with distance (like gravity does). They suggests that near planets should be "stronger" and far planets should be "weaker" or have no effect at all. This skeptic view assumes that the planets all exert a physical influence that is always the same, only stronger or weaker (like gravity). But in astrology the different planets have different effects. They do not operate like gravity, which is always the same effect. We can postulate that distance and speed might account for the different astrological properties. So in effect, this astrological postulation might actually take distance into account as a factor of astrological "properties," strange as that might seem.
The planets are astrologically different from each other because they have different astronomical and physical properties. They move at different speeds, so they might associate with different biological rhythms, and by extension, social rhythms. If the planets all moved at the same speed in the same cycle, then maybe they would all have the same single astrological property, but they don't move that way. To discover the astrological properties of the planets, we need to measure effects, and for this we use the astrological frames of reference: the signs, houses, and aspects, which are all based upon natural, environmental symmetries.
At this time, the best understanding I have for why the planets are astrologically different is that they have different rhythms that associate (by cosmic symmetry, or fractal symmetry, diachronic synchronicity, etc. whatever) with biological rhythms, and their astrological properties have been indirectly inferred by their observed effects.
Although ideas have been floated concerning an "octave" effect, in which the more distant planets are higher octaves of the near planets, there isn't much in this to consider in terms of pattern. Finding a pattern for planetary effects is a mystery that would be nice to resolve, but this shouldn't stop or hinder our understanding of the planets through brute observation, which is the way much of science is done anyway. Astrology just has to use indirect methods of observation.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Why science rejects astrology
Modern science rejects astrology because astrology does not present a "causal mechanism" that the classical parts of Standard Theory would assume to operate between the celestial system and the individual. Science does not recognize the concept that astrology presents instead, which is the natural symmetry that occurs between inner and outer environments. As the ancient Hermetic maxim states: "As above, so below; as below, so above." The inner world of the individual is reflected in the symmetrical outer world of the celestial environment.
Empirical evidence of this type of symmetry is found in hologram fragments. Each fragment contains an image of the whole. Another example is the so-called "self-similarity" found in fractal geometries, where the same shapes or patterns are repeated at different scales within the fractal environment. Although they are not recognized as such, these are symmetries, and they fall into the category of what may be called "cosmic symmetry." The behaviors of microcosms are reflected in the behaviors of their macrocosms and vice versa. Within an environment, behaviors implement cosmic symmetry.
Although relatively inconspicuous compared to other symmetries, cosmic symmetry is nonetheless a feature that is found throughout nature, and this natural feature has gone unacknowledged by science for the past 400 years.
Empirical evidence of this type of symmetry is found in hologram fragments. Each fragment contains an image of the whole. Another example is the so-called "self-similarity" found in fractal geometries, where the same shapes or patterns are repeated at different scales within the fractal environment. Although they are not recognized as such, these are symmetries, and they fall into the category of what may be called "cosmic symmetry." The behaviors of microcosms are reflected in the behaviors of their macrocosms and vice versa. Within an environment, behaviors implement cosmic symmetry.
Although relatively inconspicuous compared to other symmetries, cosmic symmetry is nonetheless a feature that is found throughout nature, and this natural feature has gone unacknowledged by science for the past 400 years.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Letter to TD
Hi TD,
I've read your articles and I wonder why you want me to see them, because, as you may have already surmized, I do not support this sort of research. I do not think it is either necessary or useful to try to fit astrology into standard theory, despite the efforts of Percy Seymour and to some extent Theodore Landscheidt, and others, who BTW are not astrologers.
Standard theory is a hodge-podge with many gaps and counter-intuitive assumptions. Why should Newtonian gravity act at a distance with no causal mechanism and what is the physical mechanism whereby an electron can be both a particle and a wave? Most scientists don't bother themselves with these deeper questions because they know that the research they are doing works anyway. When it comes to astrology, why should similar questions concerning the physical or causal links between planets and individuals suddenly become so important that astrology is labeled a pseudoscience?
My friend, your intentions are good, but I think you have bought into the burden of proof fallacy. You describe various physical mechanisms that might go together in some way as a causal chain of influences to explain astrology, but there are holes in the sequence. And there are always people, skeptics like Geoffrey Dean, who will find or simply imagine more and more holes – the fallacy of many questions. Holes in a theory can be major distractions. That is why in normal science the puzzling holes and imponderable assumptions in theories are largely ignored as long as the theory works. Why then should astrology be any different?
Astrology does not work according to standard theory, because standard theory does not accept the principles of symmetry upon which astrology is built. "As above, so below" means that there is a symmetry of behavior between the microcosmic world of the individual and the macrocosmic planetary environment surrounding the individual. Astrologers just accept this. It's a feature of nature. We observe it. It just is.
There is nothing stopping astrology from being scientifically studied to get relevant results that support the goals of astrology. Michel Gauquelin and Vernon Clark, among others, have already demonstrated this. I strongly advise you to use the obvious paradigm shift to extract yourself from the rational fallacies that you are now entangled in and to follow the constructive lead of those who have gone before and found interesting things with their science.
Best wishes,
Ken
I've read your articles and I wonder why you want me to see them, because, as you may have already surmized, I do not support this sort of research. I do not think it is either necessary or useful to try to fit astrology into standard theory, despite the efforts of Percy Seymour and to some extent Theodore Landscheidt, and others, who BTW are not astrologers.
Standard theory is a hodge-podge with many gaps and counter-intuitive assumptions. Why should Newtonian gravity act at a distance with no causal mechanism and what is the physical mechanism whereby an electron can be both a particle and a wave? Most scientists don't bother themselves with these deeper questions because they know that the research they are doing works anyway. When it comes to astrology, why should similar questions concerning the physical or causal links between planets and individuals suddenly become so important that astrology is labeled a pseudoscience?
My friend, your intentions are good, but I think you have bought into the burden of proof fallacy. You describe various physical mechanisms that might go together in some way as a causal chain of influences to explain astrology, but there are holes in the sequence. And there are always people, skeptics like Geoffrey Dean, who will find or simply imagine more and more holes – the fallacy of many questions. Holes in a theory can be major distractions. That is why in normal science the puzzling holes and imponderable assumptions in theories are largely ignored as long as the theory works. Why then should astrology be any different?
Astrology does not work according to standard theory, because standard theory does not accept the principles of symmetry upon which astrology is built. "As above, so below" means that there is a symmetry of behavior between the microcosmic world of the individual and the macrocosmic planetary environment surrounding the individual. Astrologers just accept this. It's a feature of nature. We observe it. It just is.
There is nothing stopping astrology from being scientifically studied to get relevant results that support the goals of astrology. Michel Gauquelin and Vernon Clark, among others, have already demonstrated this. I strongly advise you to use the obvious paradigm shift to extract yourself from the rational fallacies that you are now entangled in and to follow the constructive lead of those who have gone before and found interesting things with their science.
Best wishes,
Ken
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Socializing the Baby
Bhavana brought her new baby to work. We gathered and adored the baby. His name is Nishant. Then Bhavana took the baby into in the breakout area near our cubicles and asked who wanted to hold the baby. Tonya took him and sat down. She has a baby of her own and she cradled Nishant in her arms. The rest of us stood by and chatted. Everyone was a bit uneasy about holding a baby.
Craig stood at the entrance to the breakout area and someone asked him if he'd hold the baby. Craig joked that he was afraid he'd drop the baby. It had been years since I'd held my own children as babies and, though it made no sense, I think I too was afraid I'd drop the baby. Strange babies move strangely.
We all stood there, chatting while Tonya coddled the baby. Eventually, the baby fussed and so back to mom. Then Dorota kindly took the baby for a while and then back to mom. The chit-chat continued, but it seemed like no one else was going to take the baby.
I gazed out the window where traffic throbbed on the city's main artery. All shapes and sizes of cars and trucks sped by. In the distance, on the lake, a large ship appeared to be completely immobile. Cloud shadows slowly swept across the city.
"Bhavana," I said, "we need to socialize the baby. We need to move the chairs into a circle." I remembered my former urban commune landlady, the late Judith Merill, talking about this. She had said that socializing the newborn was a developmental necessity. We needed to pass the baby around. Once the tables were cleared out of the way and the chairs arranged into a circle, we all sat down.
I took the baby. "Hi Nishant," I said softly, "my name is Kenneth and I was born in Saskatoon. Your mother's name is Bhavana." The baby's eyes blinked and met mine. For a moment, the baby was awestruck. "Aw, look at his face," Bhavana laughed. "Yeah," I smiled. I carefully passed the baby to Christine. For baby, it was another new face and voice. "Hi Nishant," the cheerful voice said. "You're a beautiful baby. My name is Christine and I was born in Hamilton."
And so the introductions went, one after another, as the baby was passed around the circle to William, Craig, Dorota, Olga, Tonya, Syam, and back to mom.
The baby seemed to enjoy this ride around the circle and gently floated around for a second time. On the start of the third circuit, however, he fussed, and so back to the comfort of mom.
Craig stood at the entrance to the breakout area and someone asked him if he'd hold the baby. Craig joked that he was afraid he'd drop the baby. It had been years since I'd held my own children as babies and, though it made no sense, I think I too was afraid I'd drop the baby. Strange babies move strangely.
We all stood there, chatting while Tonya coddled the baby. Eventually, the baby fussed and so back to mom. Then Dorota kindly took the baby for a while and then back to mom. The chit-chat continued, but it seemed like no one else was going to take the baby.
I gazed out the window where traffic throbbed on the city's main artery. All shapes and sizes of cars and trucks sped by. In the distance, on the lake, a large ship appeared to be completely immobile. Cloud shadows slowly swept across the city.
"Bhavana," I said, "we need to socialize the baby. We need to move the chairs into a circle." I remembered my former urban commune landlady, the late Judith Merill, talking about this. She had said that socializing the newborn was a developmental necessity. We needed to pass the baby around. Once the tables were cleared out of the way and the chairs arranged into a circle, we all sat down.
I took the baby. "Hi Nishant," I said softly, "my name is Kenneth and I was born in Saskatoon. Your mother's name is Bhavana." The baby's eyes blinked and met mine. For a moment, the baby was awestruck. "Aw, look at his face," Bhavana laughed. "Yeah," I smiled. I carefully passed the baby to Christine. For baby, it was another new face and voice. "Hi Nishant," the cheerful voice said. "You're a beautiful baby. My name is Christine and I was born in Hamilton."
And so the introductions went, one after another, as the baby was passed around the circle to William, Craig, Dorota, Olga, Tonya, Syam, and back to mom.
The baby seemed to enjoy this ride around the circle and gently floated around for a second time. On the start of the third circuit, however, he fussed, and so back to the comfort of mom.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
An Eclipse
For the better part of a year I had wrestled with the problem of why astrological matching tests did not produce results. Following the initial early promise of the Vernon Clark research (1961), the more recent matching tests had failed. My thoughts on this question eventually became part of a paper in which I reviewed the leading scientific research in astrology and attempted to assess the best methods by which astrology could be objectively evaluated.
I noted that matching tests had been done in two formats. In one format, astrologers are asked to match a set of subjects' birth charts to the subjects' questionnaire results (Carlson 1985, Nanninga 1996). In the other format, the lives of time twins (two unrelated persons with nearly identical birth charts) are tested to see if they match by using a set of predetermined criteria (Dean and Kelly 2003). I argued that the success of these matching tests depended on a level of determinism that was beyond the limits of astrological tendencies. As commonly stated in psychological astrology texts, "The stars incline; they do not compel." In my assessment, these matching tests were not sensitive enough to show significant results except, as Clark had demonstrated earlier, where the test subjects had strong differences.
In contrast to matching tests, statistical tests, as successfully pioneered by Michel Gauquelin, had shown much better results for astrology. These tests quantified a single quality or trait within a large sample of charts. I argued that the sensitivity of statistical tests, particularly to ranks of eminence or severity, as objectified by Suitbert Ertel's analysis (1988), made them more precise and useful than matching tests as a tool for researching astrology.
As I completed my paper, an interesting chain of events took place. It started when one of my peer reviewers asked me to verify my attribution of the astrological eminence hypothesis to Gauquelin. This attribution might have been confused because it was Ertel who first published objective evidence of a significant eminence effect. Ertel had used a simple yet sensitive method of citation frequency analysis to evaluate Gauquelin's entire database of athletes' birth charts. Using this same method, Ertel had also found significant evidence (1996) of athletic eminence in the astrological data used by each of the skeptic organizations that had published research on the subject, which they had gathered to support their intended denial of astrology.
The eminence effect exposed a monumental problem for the scientific skeptics. What made it much worse for them was that Gauquelin had predicted it. This effect begs for an explanation from the skeptics, which to this date they have failed to do. Furthermore, instead of initiating a scientific discourse, the discovery of the eminence effect began a period of deep silence on the part of the skeptics. The only response seems to have been that the few skeptic researchers who are still in the game have turned their attentions to matching tests.
To resolve the concern over the origin of the eminence hypothesis, I wrote to Ertel (Feb. 4), providing him with the relevant section of my paper. After a few correspondences we resolved the wording, which correctly ascribed the eminence hypothesis to Gauquelin. Upon completing this final bit of review, I quickly submitted my paper to the publisher (Feb. 6), who was waiting for my work.
With my paper safely in the hands of the publisher, I was relieved to get my life back. For over a month this paper had consumed nearly all of my free time and I needed to catch up and recharge. It wasn't until about week later that I emailed Ertel (Feb. 14) to thank him. I included a link to my paper, which by then I had posted on my web site. I hadn't thought this paper would be much worthy of his interest, so I wasn't expecting any response to it.
Coincidently during this time, I was peer-reviewing (Feb. 11-19) a lengthy technical paper by Peter Markos, which was a statistical analysis of the Moon and betting favorites. Peter used some advanced techniques, which weren't clear to me with my limited knowledge. I focused on editing, which is what I do in my professional life as a technical writer. I asked Peter for some clarifications and was ready to provide whatever help I could.
Then I remember getting out of my car at home late one evening (it was Feb 21). I was exhausted. The world was quiet. I looked at the Moon high in the clear sky above the trees. It was large, shadowy, and reddish. A planet (Saturn) was nearby. This vision held me transfixed. It was beautiful. Yet something was not right. The Moon's position told me that it was full. Then it struck me that I was seeing the culmination of a total lunar eclipse. It was only by chance that I'd seen it. I hadn't opened an ephemeris in weeks, and I hadn't heard any news of an impending eclipse. I flipped through the ephemeris and found the eclipse. It was at one degree and fifty-three minutes Virgo.
The next day (Feb 22), I heard from Peter. Unexpectedly, he had lost his job on the day of the eclipse. The eclipse was exactly conjunct, within an arc minute, to his natal Sun, which rules his 10th house (pertaining to career). He also had some Saturn and Mars activity. He wrote that he had to put his paper on hold because he needed to find a new job. I thought about my own chart. The eclipse was square, by less than two degrees of arc, to my own 10th house ruler, Mercury. I didn't think about my job so much as the paper I'd submitted. I felt that I was working the eclipse, making it work for me.
Some time later (Mar 16), Ertel emailed. He wanted to know if it was too late to suggest "improvements" to my paper. I replied that I was interested in the improvements, but I believed it was too late. More than five weeks had already passed since I'd submitted my paper. He replied back (Mar 17) that he had just completed a critical analysis of Carlson's 1985 study. The Carlson study was a matching test that I'd given an account of in my paper. Ertel offered that I might be able to cite his analysis as "unpublished" or "submitted for publication," which he planned to do shortly. He had attached his paper and I had a quick look at it. It looked interesting. But I was still very busy with my life at that point. I thanked Ertel, saying I'd read it.
That same day I mentioned Peter's paper to Ertel, saying Peter had been trying to get some expert opinion on his statistical analysis. Ertel agreed to look at it, but said he wouldn't know what his response would be until after he'd read it. Peter was grateful and sent his paper to Ertel. It seems Peter got some good feedback over the next couple of days, but he couldn't resume work on it yet because he was still looking for a job.
I must have forgotten about Ertel's paper for awhile, then suddenly (Mar 29) I remembered it. This time I went through the paper very carefully. Some parts of it were not clear to me and the English needed some work. I spent the entire weekend meticulously editing and polishing the English, and attempting to clarify troublesome sections. Ertel hadn't asked me for this work, but I instinctively did it. I sent the markup to Ertel (Mar. 31). He was grateful and responded with a new draft with astonishing speed (Apr 1). The new draft not only incorporated almost all of my suggestions but included quite a bit of further development, written during the two weeks when I'd left his paper sitting around unread. I wondered if he'd stayed up all night working on this new draft, but then realized that it had been daytime for him.
I emailed my publisher (Apr 1), asking if I could revise my paper. I had something important concerning the Carlson data. The reply came back that it was too late. I spent the entire day on Ertel's paper and sent him my second markup (Apr 2), which actually didn't look like very much this time. By now I had a headache (which later became bronchitis). After some additional small revisions, Ertel's paper was finished (Apr 4) as far as I could tell.
I noted that matching tests had been done in two formats. In one format, astrologers are asked to match a set of subjects' birth charts to the subjects' questionnaire results (Carlson 1985, Nanninga 1996). In the other format, the lives of time twins (two unrelated persons with nearly identical birth charts) are tested to see if they match by using a set of predetermined criteria (Dean and Kelly 2003). I argued that the success of these matching tests depended on a level of determinism that was beyond the limits of astrological tendencies. As commonly stated in psychological astrology texts, "The stars incline; they do not compel." In my assessment, these matching tests were not sensitive enough to show significant results except, as Clark had demonstrated earlier, where the test subjects had strong differences.
In contrast to matching tests, statistical tests, as successfully pioneered by Michel Gauquelin, had shown much better results for astrology. These tests quantified a single quality or trait within a large sample of charts. I argued that the sensitivity of statistical tests, particularly to ranks of eminence or severity, as objectified by Suitbert Ertel's analysis (1988), made them more precise and useful than matching tests as a tool for researching astrology.
As I completed my paper, an interesting chain of events took place. It started when one of my peer reviewers asked me to verify my attribution of the astrological eminence hypothesis to Gauquelin. This attribution might have been confused because it was Ertel who first published objective evidence of a significant eminence effect. Ertel had used a simple yet sensitive method of citation frequency analysis to evaluate Gauquelin's entire database of athletes' birth charts. Using this same method, Ertel had also found significant evidence (1996) of athletic eminence in the astrological data used by each of the skeptic organizations that had published research on the subject, which they had gathered to support their intended denial of astrology.
The eminence effect exposed a monumental problem for the scientific skeptics. What made it much worse for them was that Gauquelin had predicted it. This effect begs for an explanation from the skeptics, which to this date they have failed to do. Furthermore, instead of initiating a scientific discourse, the discovery of the eminence effect began a period of deep silence on the part of the skeptics. The only response seems to have been that the few skeptic researchers who are still in the game have turned their attentions to matching tests.
To resolve the concern over the origin of the eminence hypothesis, I wrote to Ertel (Feb. 4), providing him with the relevant section of my paper. After a few correspondences we resolved the wording, which correctly ascribed the eminence hypothesis to Gauquelin. Upon completing this final bit of review, I quickly submitted my paper to the publisher (Feb. 6), who was waiting for my work.
With my paper safely in the hands of the publisher, I was relieved to get my life back. For over a month this paper had consumed nearly all of my free time and I needed to catch up and recharge. It wasn't until about week later that I emailed Ertel (Feb. 14) to thank him. I included a link to my paper, which by then I had posted on my web site. I hadn't thought this paper would be much worthy of his interest, so I wasn't expecting any response to it.
Coincidently during this time, I was peer-reviewing (Feb. 11-19) a lengthy technical paper by Peter Markos, which was a statistical analysis of the Moon and betting favorites. Peter used some advanced techniques, which weren't clear to me with my limited knowledge. I focused on editing, which is what I do in my professional life as a technical writer. I asked Peter for some clarifications and was ready to provide whatever help I could.
Then I remember getting out of my car at home late one evening (it was Feb 21). I was exhausted. The world was quiet. I looked at the Moon high in the clear sky above the trees. It was large, shadowy, and reddish. A planet (Saturn) was nearby. This vision held me transfixed. It was beautiful. Yet something was not right. The Moon's position told me that it was full. Then it struck me that I was seeing the culmination of a total lunar eclipse. It was only by chance that I'd seen it. I hadn't opened an ephemeris in weeks, and I hadn't heard any news of an impending eclipse. I flipped through the ephemeris and found the eclipse. It was at one degree and fifty-three minutes Virgo.
The next day (Feb 22), I heard from Peter. Unexpectedly, he had lost his job on the day of the eclipse. The eclipse was exactly conjunct, within an arc minute, to his natal Sun, which rules his 10th house (pertaining to career). He also had some Saturn and Mars activity. He wrote that he had to put his paper on hold because he needed to find a new job. I thought about my own chart. The eclipse was square, by less than two degrees of arc, to my own 10th house ruler, Mercury. I didn't think about my job so much as the paper I'd submitted. I felt that I was working the eclipse, making it work for me.
Some time later (Mar 16), Ertel emailed. He wanted to know if it was too late to suggest "improvements" to my paper. I replied that I was interested in the improvements, but I believed it was too late. More than five weeks had already passed since I'd submitted my paper. He replied back (Mar 17) that he had just completed a critical analysis of Carlson's 1985 study. The Carlson study was a matching test that I'd given an account of in my paper. Ertel offered that I might be able to cite his analysis as "unpublished" or "submitted for publication," which he planned to do shortly. He had attached his paper and I had a quick look at it. It looked interesting. But I was still very busy with my life at that point. I thanked Ertel, saying I'd read it.
That same day I mentioned Peter's paper to Ertel, saying Peter had been trying to get some expert opinion on his statistical analysis. Ertel agreed to look at it, but said he wouldn't know what his response would be until after he'd read it. Peter was grateful and sent his paper to Ertel. It seems Peter got some good feedback over the next couple of days, but he couldn't resume work on it yet because he was still looking for a job.
I must have forgotten about Ertel's paper for awhile, then suddenly (Mar 29) I remembered it. This time I went through the paper very carefully. Some parts of it were not clear to me and the English needed some work. I spent the entire weekend meticulously editing and polishing the English, and attempting to clarify troublesome sections. Ertel hadn't asked me for this work, but I instinctively did it. I sent the markup to Ertel (Mar. 31). He was grateful and responded with a new draft with astonishing speed (Apr 1). The new draft not only incorporated almost all of my suggestions but included quite a bit of further development, written during the two weeks when I'd left his paper sitting around unread. I wondered if he'd stayed up all night working on this new draft, but then realized that it had been daytime for him.
I emailed my publisher (Apr 1), asking if I could revise my paper. I had something important concerning the Carlson data. The reply came back that it was too late. I spent the entire day on Ertel's paper and sent him my second markup (Apr 2), which actually didn't look like very much this time. By now I had a headache (which later became bronchitis). After some additional small revisions, Ertel's paper was finished (Apr 4) as far as I could tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)