"...our greatest progress in planetary astronomy came precisely during the periods when astrology was most part of the cultural zietgeist - the Hellenistic era, the high Middle Ages, and the Renaissance." 1 to quote Richard Tarnas. In this new millennium, a re-vision is required, to heal the split and discern the new unity. The whole subject is deeply gender-polarised in our culture, so that (usually) only a small proportion of men attend astrology meetings, while only a far smaller proportion of women attend astronomy groups. Astronomers are guided by the three immortal laws of planetary motion found by Johannes Kepler, while astrologers are more concerned with the three new celestial aspects he discovered (concerning the division of the circle by five and ten, aspects that don't 'fit' into the zodiac). An educated person ought, I suggest, to take an equal interest in both of these. After the times of Kepler and Galileo, astronomers went on to develop their sternly logical, left-brain approach to the majesty of the heavens - 'Once there were creatures of light leaping across the firmament, and the pattern of their movement filled the heavens. But the creatures soon fled and in their place appeared great spheres of crystal which turned within each other, their song vibrating through all the strings of the world. These harmonies were too lovely to last. A clock was ticking in the pale hands of God, and already it was too late. Yes. The wheels of the mechanism began to turn…' 2 - so that astrology was banished from the universities of Europe.3 But now, all of the gruelling, positional-astronomy calculations have vanished into the computer, and who can remember them any more? A more imaginative approach is called for, to bring some healing into our fragmented society. We are all suffering from the 'objective' approach of the male, deductive-empirical 'astronomy,' which looks at that which is out there, millions of miles away, and which receives the state funding, even though hardly anyone can understand it any more. On the other hand, there is the more 'subjective' feminine, intuitive-spiritual astrology, concerning what is fated here, as a baby is born, which ordinary people do tend to prefer hearing about. It used to be the 'royal art' but it has now sold out into newspaper sun-sign columns. We need a coming together of these two sides, letting an electric current flow between inner and outer, fact and intuition. Surely a blossoming of our culture could take place, if only this 'sacred marriage' could happen4. The 'logia' or 'logos' of the word 'astro-logy' is supposed to be the very principle of rationality; and 'rational' ought properly to mean, having a proper ratio of proportion, as in the trine aspect for example (one-third of a circle, 120°) which in this sense is 'rational' and as opposed to the 'irrational' which is discord. For such a dialogue to take place one would need to hold onto proper definitions of language, where 'rational' would not need to mean, for example, having a mechanical explanation. A dialogue on this subject took place between the eminent British philosopher Rupert Sheldrake and two of his colleagues. It is good to hear a modern philosopher discussing this major fault-line running through our culture. Let's dip into it. Sheldrake: 'Oddly enough, even professional astronomers often don't know that much about the sky as we actually experience it, although they've got a lot of equations about the life cycle of stars, about the nature of pulsars, and other strange mysteries in the heavens. I was having dinner a couple of years ago with a professor of astronomy in Britain. We went out after dinner. It was a beautiful starlit night. There was a group of stars I didn't know and I said, 'What are those stars?' He said, 'Oh I haven't a clue, don't ask me' He learned astronomy from books, from computer models, not from looking at the sky... 'By contrast with the astronomers, astrologers have retained a sense of the heavens as meaningful, related to what happens on earth, but astrology has become detached from the actual sky. There's no point asking the average astrologer if you see a bright star in the sky or planet, 'What's that?' Most of them don't look at the sky any more than other people. Its all done from computer programs and books. I was particularly struck, in 1987, by the massive supernova in the southern hemisphere, the biggest since the one observed by Galileo and Kepler in 1604, which played a major part in the scientific revolution. All through history these supernova - exploding stars in the sky - have been regarded as major omens of the greatest importance. I asked my astrologer friends 'What do you make of this?' The answer was they didn't make anything whatever of it because it wasn't in the ephemeris or in their Macintosh computer program. Astronomers on the other hand took great interest, but saw it with no meaning. I think a great move forward will happen when astronomy and astrology link up again [Hear, hear!]. 'I think much good will come from recovering a sense of the life of the heavens. We are coming so see the Earth, Gaia, as alive. I think we also have to take seriously the idea that the sun is alive and conscious. If one wants a scientific rationale for this, it comes ready to hand through the discoveries of modern solar physics. We now know that the Sun has a complex system of magnetic fields, reversing its polarity every eleven years, associated with the sunspot cycle. With this underlying rhythm of magnetic polar reversals are a whole series of resonant and harmonic patterns of magnetic and electromagnetic change - global patterns over the surface of the sun of a fractal nature; patterns within patterns, highly turbulent, chaotic, sensitive, varied and complex. As electromagnetic patterns within our brains seem to be the interface between the mind and the nervous system, here we have a parallel in the physical behaviour of the sun. Its perfectly possible that the sun has a mind which interfaces with 'The solar system itself is an organism. This is largely what astrology has concerned itself with. We also recognise that the sun is part of a galaxy, the Milky Way, which includes all the stars we see in the night sky. Like other galaxies, our own has a galactic centre, a nucleus, of unknown nature which emits enormous amounts of radiation. We could think of galaxies as organisms as well...” By way of advocating an experiential approach, he added: ' ... in order to contact extra-terrestrial intelligences, it may help to direct these efforts towards particular parts of the heavens. There are traditional beliefs about the qualities of particular stars, and these might provide a guide as to what to expect. Regulus, for example, in the constellation Leo, was considered a star of good omen. Looking at it, going into an altered state having invoked its spirit, making the appropriate prayers and preparations, could result in a form of directed mind travel that would go beyond random journeying. This would be a new frontier for space exploration that can be done on a very low budget. It could open up a great range of possibilities.... 'We can start nearer home with the sun, of course. At sunrise and sunset in many traditions people have communicated with the sun. In India a traditional part of the daily ritual is to greet the sun as it rises in the morning, in order to form a conscious relationship with it.' Ralph Abraham (a chaos theorist and psychedelic mathematician) commented: 'I think we should reconsider the moon. The lunar sphere, among the nine celestial spheres, is somehow the most important to us, as it's the membrane for our kind of life. The traditional idea was that everything inside the lunar sphere decays and dies, and everything outside the lunar sphere is eternal. The moon was somehow always seen as the boundary of mortal life. Furthermore, everyone loves to look at it, and probably love and the emotional structure of the human and mammalian system has evolved by moonlight. The moon might be our likeliest possibilty for actually having a conversation and renewing our contact with the living and intelligent universe. Sheldrake: 'I myself don't expect the moon to have a great deal of intelligence or life. It's the most inert heavenly body we know. Venus, on the other hand, is a turbulent system with plenty of scope for chaotic perturbations and shifting systems of order. Jupiter has this extraordinarily turbulent surface. Saturn has delicately poised and no doubt oscillatory rings, many of them sensitive enough to pick up fleeting changes and act as interfaces between the physical and mental realms. The moon seems rather lacking in all of these respects. Abraham: 'Okay, maybe the moon is dumb. I'm not willing to concede that, but I see some people would rather put their money on a different number...' The debate concluded with Sheldrake advocating a workshop: 'This is a fascinating research project and can be done for next to nothing by networks of people sharing their results. This information, channeled from different stars and communicated in this way, could help to bring about a new synthesis of astrology and astronomy. A weekend workshop of astronomy for astrologers would be an elementary beginning.' 5 One must regret that this merry group of philosophers will meet no more, due to the demise of one of its members, Terence Mackenna (We cite him, from this same work, in Chapter 6). Perhaps the message from this trialogue debate is summed up by the words of Gary Zukav: 'There is not one planet that lacks a level of active consciousness, some of which is akin to our human form, and some of which does not come close to our form, but remains consciousness as we understand it6.' The Sun has now gone past its sunspot maximum, when, as Sheldrake remarked, its huge, North-South magnetic field flipped over. This is, by any standards, an awesome event, and we are the first generation to be able to understand it, as least in some degree. The magnetic field of Earth, for comparison, reverses every ten thousand years or so. If a spokesperson could communicate that this was, as it were, the biology of the pulsating heart-centre of the solar system that we were discovering, then she would be able to hold the attention of viewers more readily. She wouldn't just be talking about dry 'facts' but about their inner meaning. I went to a RAS talk on the subject which had some marvellous video-sequences of the solar corona erupting, and of the granulated solar surface moving around as the Sun rotated. Chapter One considers some words of Galileo concerning in what manner the Sun was alive, how it was animate. Astronomers have now discovered the marvellous four-stage systole-diastole process of the sun's 22-year cycle, but they are not able to apprehend its significance: only the astrologers can do that. I have been collecting astrological material concerning Galileo, now published in a special dedicated issue of Cosmos and Culture7 and this expands upon the chapter contained here. Galileo's generation of mathematici or astronomers were the last to take for granted that their profession was supported, i.e. they were paid, for doing horoscopes. No figure in the history of science has been more censored in this regard, and evidence for his belief and practice of astrology has been edited out of all of his biographies! But today we want to find a more integrated approach to this vivid, polemical character.
In our lifetime there have been maybe two astronomers that the public cared about: Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan. But now, partly due to losing their Royal Greenwich Observatory in 1999, due to a swing from Margaret Thatcher's handbag, its hard for British astronomers to find any narrative that concerns the public. As their instruments grow more powerful, so their focus becomes ever more distant, then they become upset when the public prefer astrologers. I now and then attend astronomy lectures, without greatly understanding them, and am not here recommending belief in the cosmology which they assume. But, there is one modern cosmologist I am keen on and that is Halton Arp; I did a review of a recent powerful book of his and Rupert Sheldrake put it on his website8. At 27° Sagittarius, at the center of our galaxy, in Arp's view, there is a white hole - not a black hole: the majestic Milky Way galaxy is mysteriously emerging from its centre and is not spiralling inwards like water going down a plughole, towards the oblivion of a 'black hole'. Persons into Arp's views tend not to be astronomers, but people of more alternative, aesthetic or metaphysical persuasion. There are plenty of enthusiastic web-discussions of Arp's views - as could be said of no other modern astronomer! Fred Hoyle endorsed Arp's views, especially in his final, posthumous work. The question of whether it is worth getting out of bed in the morning could depend on whether there is a Black Hole or a White Hole at our galactic center. (N.B., My natal Mars is conjunct the Galactic Centre, which could be why I get going on this issue). Empirically, astronomers cannot detect which way all the stars of our galaxy are moving, whether they are spiralling towards or away from the Galactic Centre, its too slow, so it's down to your personal choice. My suggestion here is, don't believe the experts (NB, this is probably my Sun-Uranus opposition kicking in here). Are we all in a huge vortex being pulled inexorably towards a centre of nothingness? Er, no. The Hubble telescope has produced wonderful pictures of galaxies, and if one shows these to ordinary people, and ask them, they tend to see the galaxies as growing out from the nucleus of a centre. Astronomers and physicists, with their fixed, materialistic dogmas about what matter is able to do, have a dreary, hope-killing vision, of dust condensing randomly out from space to somehow form galaxies, while a dark seed of nothingness grows at its centre.
The Galactic Centre (as we'll see in Chapter 6) was more closely defined and pointed to by the ancient constellations than any other spot in the heavens - without anyone knowing it was there! The Arrow of the Archer points straight at it, the Sting of the Scorpion curls around it, and the Foot of Ophiucus hovers just above it. If astronomers want the public to sit up and listen, then my suggestion would be that they engage a spokesperson who can in some degree apprehend the more mythic or 'astrological' realities behind the phenomena, because these exist in a more permanent manner than the transient facts and images which the astronomers deal with. She would more engage the interests of the public. Humour me, reader, by imagining a late-night TV program, which wants to set up a dialogue between these two sides. The astronomers issue a statement that they will be happy to participate, provided only that the astrological group's members do not write Sun-sign columns. The astrologers reply, that they too will be glad to join in such a debate, provided the members of the astronomical society do not accept military contracts. Neither side is able to comply, a climb-down takes place, and the debate begins … Or, let's picture a couple in love, who are having some difficulty in communication. Cliff, a celestial mechanist, likes going out in skywatching evenings with a telescope. He says things like, 'Yes, Uranus' perturbation by Neptune is larger than any other in the solar system. It's their 2:1 resonance, y'know.' She, Elouise, is thinking, 'Oh no, do I have to listen to this stuff?' She says things like, 'My progressed Moon is reaching your Saturn so we'd better watch out!' Brad would like to correct her views with 'cold logic' and 'hard facts', but something tells him that, with too much of these, her beauty might all fade away. Can they stay together, have they got any hope? This book aims to assist them, in enjoying some conversations together. References
1) Richard Tarnas, interview in The Mountain Astrologer Dec 1995 p.25. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
