Atlantis Online
December 09, 2019, 11:39:56 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Did Humans Colonize the World by Boat?
Research suggests our ancestors traveled the oceans 70,000 years ago
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/20-did-humans-colonize-the-world-by-boat
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

(XII) HISTORY - 21ST CENTURY ASTROLOGY

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: (XII) HISTORY - 21ST CENTURY ASTROLOGY  (Read 1331 times)
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2007, 06:15:29 pm »








                                              Science vis-à-vis Astrology





"Everyone will tend to be rather the same ... Alike.
(...) a race of scientists and mathematicians,
each dedicated to and all working for
the greater glory of the super-civilization."

(Edward Albee: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?)





    Modern materialism is that state of mind engendered by the hypertrophy of the mental faculties, by the invasive presence of mechanized technology, by the obsession with understanding reality by means of the skylight of "reason with a small r," and by the consequent shrinking of our existential and emotional horizons. In the modern technopoly, it has gone out of fashion to formulate synthetic judgments (Kant) be they a priori or a posteriori. Whatever is not "scientific" is not considered to be knowledge, but rather literature.

Experimental reason, which reigns as absolute master, does not seek to understand what is, but rather to describe and explain what operates. The scientific agenda is knowledge raised upon the foundation of a particular ability. It does not respond to the "why," but rather, to the "how." It jettisons important metaphysical questions, which have lost all meaning within the context of the processes of science.

The technosciences do not explore the foundations and the principles of their reality. They do not even respond to the questions raised by their own results, such as the question of physical constants (the speed of light, the charge of the electron, the constant of gravity, etc.) [15]  From a metaphysical point of view: "Scientific knowledge of nature provides (...) no effectively illuminating knowledge about nature, no ultimate knowledge." [16] 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2007, 06:19:07 pm »








Judgment is enslaved to data and to the results of empirical techniques: "Simple sciences of facts form a simple humanity of fact." [17] 

Scientific knowledge is not only burdened with "facts," it is burdened as well with its instruments of measurement and its system of experimentation. The instrumental approach was born at the beginning of the 17th century. "Before 1590, the repertoire of instruments used in the physical sciences was limited to those used for astronomical observation.

In the following hundred years one observes the introduction and use of the telescope, the microscope, the thermometer, the barometer, the air pump, the indicator of electric charge, and a number of other experimental apparatuses (...) In less than a century the physical sciences became instrument-based." [18]  This technological revolution led to the formulation of objects calculated, measured and controlled by instruments the underlying reality of which remains outside awareness.

It was analysis of the function of the steam engine which led Sadi Carnot to the formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It was use of the telescope which led Galileo to the discovery of the moons of Jupiter. It was not simply a matter of looking through the telescope; he had to adjust his way of looking to the telescope. As Bachelard puts it, "instruments are simply materialized theories." [19]  Technico-scientific practice codifies instrumental operations.

Max Horkheimer points out the dangers of the instrumentalization of reason within a technological and technocratic society: the use of technical means with the goal of maximum efficiency and without care for the ends, the reduction of human action to the rationally planned, and the unlimited extension of technical power over things and over reified individuals. [20] 

    In the 20th century mechanical physics has become probabilistic. Experiments are meant to corroborate a probability of mass. By operating on quantitative rather than qualitative elements, it presupposes the comparability of phenomena. In experimental applications the utilitarian criterion decides the cognitive design. Theories are selected according to their efficaciousness, their ability to perform, or their technological effect. Any direction capable of going beyond normalized praxis and leading to transcendental knowledge is eliminated. [21] 

Thomas Kuhn shows the incommensurability of scientific theories across the centuries and their coincidence with periods of "crisis" which precede the emergence of a new "paradigm." He describes "the development of science as a succession of traditionalist periods punctuated by non-cumulative ruptures." [22] 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2007, 06:20:54 pm »








Scientific ideology claims a monopoly on knowledge and on impersonal objectivity, as well. Scientific objectivity, in point of fact -- this subjectivity of scientists -- results from the acceptance of methods, practices, and theories adjudicated by a community of authoritative experts. Scientific research relies on institutionalized socio-cultural praxis and on the ideological consensus which it influences. It codifies itself in a system of values and collective beliefs: in the past it was the theory of the ethers, today it is the Big Bang; again in the past it was the practice of bleeding, today one touts the practices of disinfection and vaccination.

From this point of view, scientific rationality is not more "objective" than Sumerian cosmology or Bantu mythology. Like all knowledge, it is in part a fiction, a presumption on the part of the human mind, an artifact of consciousness.

    Rationalist thought rejects all propositions which have not been "proven" according to its own criteria, grounded in the presupposition that a statement must refer to a tangible, measurable reality, divorced from the impressions which are at the root of judgment. Now, this reality which serves as referent is nothing more than a supposition (William of Ockham), a simplified schema of lived experience. Hence one denies to consciousness the ability to see, to intellect the ability to think that which is worthy of being seen or thought. Each is circumscribed by technico-analytical practices performed on a fragment of reality, extirpated from the realities to which it is linked.

The course of modern science leads to a relativism which obscures any metaphysical intention. The essential disappears more and more from the preoccupations of consciousness. The neutralization of the body and the mind and above all the "decivilizing of the soul" (Robert Musil) increase the sectarianism of assertions and partial rehabilitations. In our modern factories of knowledge the organization of research imposes an excessive division of function: mediocre or insignificant results achieved with more or less dexterity are legitimized, and one imposes a superachieving technicity on the performance of meaningless tasks. All this is pointless obscurantism which separates us more and more from ourselves. [23] 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2007, 06:22:45 pm »








Science contributes to the modeling of the socio-economic environment through its technological production. [24]  Its conception of reality is by no means necessarily the most legitimate or fecund, but it is indeed the one with a hold on our way of living and perceiving.

And just what is that way of living? Here arises the suprising contradiction of our modern mentality: on the one hand one affirms the rightness of our mental representations and the necessity of upholding scientific criteria as the only valid ones, to the detriment of other forms of knowledge, because only those criteria are believed to guarantee the legitimacy of results and to satisfy the requirements of modern rationality; on the other hand, one admits quite freely that civilization -- despite all its technological benefits -- is an unmitigated disaster on the human level: our industrialized cities are intolerable places to live, suicide is on the rise among the young and the not so young, civility is in marked decline, ethical and emotional faculties are atrophying, interpersonal exchanges lose anything they had of warmth and agreeableness, ecosystems are destroyed slowly and inexorably -- all of which is simply the visible manifestation of a single event of contemporary history: the internal destruction of the human being.

So we end up with intellectual competence and political impotence at the same time: supposedly the world is thought up by phoenixes, but it is governed by incompetent idiots. It is of course quite apparent that our material production and our mental representations condition the texture of our lives. Modernity simply gets the world which it itself shapes.

    Science seems to be an activity, a functional type of knowledge, which creates objects such as particle accelerators, computers and food products and so forth, but that activity is sustained by institutions put into place in order to make it function in that manner. In its ideological dimension science has become what Christian religion and morality still seemed to be in Marx's day: the opiate of the people.

The critique of the positivistic sciences and modern technology, formulated from various perspectives by Ernst Mach, Edmund Husserl, Heidegger, Bohr, Habermas, Kuhn, Feyerabend and many others, is not intended to condemn those things, but rather to show their limitations and abuses: e.g. the relative objectivity of scientific rationality, its application to domains where it does not rightly apply at all, the intrinsic production of an ideology, called scientistic, which precludes the involvement of other types of knowledge. So the critique does not focus on science as a theory of nature, but rather on its abusive technological applications and its ideological monopoly of knowledge.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2007, 06:24:40 pm »







[1]  "There is a transcultural, transhistorical unity to astrology which runs through it like the cord runs through the pearls of a necklace." (Gilbert Durand, in L'astrologie, Antoine Faivre (dir.), collection des Cahiers de l'Hermétisme, Albin Michel, 1985, p. 201). « Text

[2]  The archetype in the Jungian sense is an empty form, a formative virtualness, a psychic force capable of structuring consciousness, without specific representative content: all interpretation of the archetype is merely one possible translation within a system of representations. "Archetypes are factors of formal order which structure unconscious psychic processes, 'patterns of behavior'. (...) The archetype is the form, perceivable by interior observation, of the a priori order of the psychic domain." (Carl Jung, Synchronicité et Paracelsica, French translation published by Albin Michel, 1988, p. 38 and p. 106). « Text

[3]  Will-Erich Peuckert considers this notion as the third principle of astrology, after those of time and order (in L'astrologie, French translation published by Payot, 1965, p. 251-252). « Text

[4]  Emmanuel Kant, Critique de la raison pure [=Critique of Pure Reason], French translation published by Garnier-Flammarion, 1976, p. 114-115. « Text

[5]  The formula comes from the Indonesian philosopher Ranggawarsita (19th century). cf. Denis Huisman, Dictionnaire des philosophes, Paris, P.U.F., 1984, v. 2, p. 2191. « Text

[6]  Carneades was the first to turn away from Platonism. « Text

[7]  Luigi Aurigemma, Le signe zodiacal du Scorpion dans les traditions occidentales de l'Antiquité gréco-latine à la Renaissance [= The Zodiacal Sign Scorpio in the Occidental Traditions of Greco-Latin Antiquity Up to the Renaissance], Paris, Mouton / E.H.E.S.S., 1976, p. 104. « Text

[8]  Ernst Cassirer, La philosophie des formes symboliques [=The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms], French translation published by Minuit, 1972, v. 3, p. 229. « Text

[9]  Carlos Castaneda, La Force du silence [= The Power of Silence (Further lessons of don Juan)], 1987; French translation published by Gallimard, 1988, p. 154. « Text

[10]  Martin Heidegger, Chemins qui ne mènent nulle part [=Paths Which Lead Nowhere], French translation published by Gallimard, 1962, p. 322. « Text

[11]  Martin Heidegger, Le principe de la raison [= The Principle of Reason], French translation published by Gallimard, 1962, p. 268. « Text

[12]  Martin Heidegger, op. cit., p. 254. « Text

[13]  Ernst Jünger, Le mur du temps [= The Wall of Time], French translation published by Gallimard, 1963, p. 14. « Text

[14]  Edmund Husserl, La crise des sciences européenes et la phénoménologie transcendantale [= The Crisis of European Science and Transcendental Phenomenology] (1954), French translation published by Gallimard, 1976, p. 330. « Text

[15]  Albert Einstein: "I believe in fact that a rational theory should introduce no constant that God may choose at His whim. When one has eliminated dimenionalized constants, those which remain as a result (constants without dimension) must, from this perspective, either be defined rationally (such as '"e" or "pi"), or they should not intervene in the affair at all." (in "Lettre à Max von Laue, 24 April 1950; Oeuvres choisies 5, Le Seuil, 1991, p. 113). "Their apparent existence rests upon the fact that we have not yet gone deeply enough into things." (in "Lettre à Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider, 11 May 1945; Oeuvres choisis 5, Le Seuil, 1991, p. 111). « Text

[16]  Edmund Husserl, op. cit., p. 215. « Text

[17]  Edmund Husserl, op. cit., p. 10. « Text

[18]  Thomas Kuhn, La tension essentielle [= Essential Shift], 1977; French translation published by Gallimard, 1990, p. 85. « Text

[19]  Gaston Bachelard, Le nouvel esprit scientifique [= The New Scientific Mind], P.U.F., 1966, p. 12. « Text

[20]  Max Horkheimer, Eclipse de la raison [=Eclipse of Reason], 1947; French translation by Payot, 1974. « Text

[21]  Medicine in the larger sense of the word (including surgery and psychiatry) is a characteristic example of such an abuse of power: over-medication and rejection out of hand of marginalized knowledge. « Text

[22]  Thomas Kuhn, La structure des révolutions scientifiques [= The Structure of Scientific Revolutions], 1962; 1970; French translation by Flammarion, 1983, p. 282. « Text

[23]  "The ultimate end -- civilization -- is lost from sight; the means -- modern scientific activity -- barbarizes ..." (Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, in Oeuvres philosophiques complètes, vol. 8.1, French translation by Jean-Claude Hémery, Gallimard, 1974, p. 291). « Text

[24]  Thomas Kuhn points out that the rapprochement of science and technology dates only from the end of the 19th century: "Until late in the 19th century, important technological innovations almost never came from people, institutions or social groups who contributed to the sciences." (in La tension essentielle [= Essential Shift], 1977; French translation published by Gallimard, 1990, p. 204). « Text





Patrice Guinard: Astrology: The Manifesto 1/4
(version 2.3 : 09.2002)
http://cura.free.fr/07athem1.html


http://cura.free.fr/artic-en.html
« Last Edit: September 26, 2007, 06:30:02 pm by Bianca2001 » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2007, 06:43:31 pm »








                                        The Threefold Nature of Knowledge





"The whole of being is present wherever there is true birth,
wherever an awakening happens (...) "To understand" not only
means to embrace and reunify multiplicity, but also to place the act
of knowing in a soil of experience lived as ancient and original:
less as a function of an historical antecedent brought to light
than through the relationship, itself ancient, which each soul has
with the forgotten strata, conscious or unconscious, of its own psyche."
(Françoise Bonardel: L'hermétisme)





    Astrology exists not merely because there are people who calculate horoscopes, but rather because astrological knowledge is a particular epistemological form which derives from the tridimensionality of reality and the irreducible diversity of cognitive dispositions in the human mind.


    In essence, reality impresses itself upon consciousness in three distinct modalities: as an object, as a sign, and as a state of being, which can expressed alternatively as an entity either physical, mental or psychic. On the basis of this delineation, one can infer the existence of three principle domains in the development of knowledge and three corresponding "sciences" which apply to them: the objective sciences, empirico-analytical (biochemical and physical sciences), which observe, measure, test and model material phenomena; the interpretative sciences, historico-hermeneutic (termed "social" or "humanistic"), which arise through working with the products of cultural activity and their interpretation; and the sciences of states of being, psycho-synthetic (astrology and its related disciplines), which perceive reality in relation to the totality of psychic being.[1]
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2007, 06:44:56 pm »








To each of these types of science corresponds a type of archetypal organisation, or ideational structure, worked out or made explicit through three successive phases: a phase of observation, a phase of formalization, a phase of transformation.

    1. CRYSTAL, or empirico-analytical structure, is the ideational form of the relations between objects, be they "natural" (as in the case of the physical sciences), or abstract (numbers, figures, functions and groups in mathematics). "To this realm of the object, seen as a mode of immanence, corresponds by its own right science in its theoretical aspect, which challenges reality and aims particularly at its objectness." [2] Three phases mark the scientific process:
- empirical observation and the recording of facts.
- the formulation, by means of induction, of laws which establish the modalities of variation in the diversity of objects and are organized around theories.
- experimentation and the transformation of the object with a view to establishing new interrelationships.



    The ensemble of these processes tends to explain the functioning of object reality and to subdue and transform the object in its quality of resistance to the abstract or mental. By such means scientific reality is constructed through mediation on the part of the mind. Experimentation and observation in and of themselves necessarily include the layout of physical equipment and a specific mental disposition.

The laws of physics, as a result, end up being applied by the experimentor to the reality perceived. Heisenberg emphasized that "phenomena" result from the interaction of the object experimented upon, the system of measurement, and the experimentor himself. It is theory which determines what ought to be observed.[3]

According to Bachelard, science is born precisely from the rupture with received perception and constructs itself "against Nature." A supposition of recent creation (post-Keplerian and post-Newtonian) and by nature materialist, science has as its privileged object the mineral kingdom." [4] This circumstance explains why Crystal is always in process of development, oriented towards the future, involved in an unlimited process of construction and reconstruction of reality.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2007, 06:46:04 pm »








  2. CODE, or historico-hermeneutic structure (linguistic, semiotic, socio-historical) is the ideational form of relations between signs within the context of a received socio-cultural network. Ferdinand de Saussure defined language as a system of signs, a social product, a code relatively independent of individual manifestations at the level of "parole" [word]. A linguistic unit has no reality independent of its relation to the whole: it is defined in the same instance by the place it occupies within the relational network of the language in question and by its distinctiveness from similar units in that network.[5]



Three phases mark the process of cultural investigation:

- the collection and recording of available data (linguistic data, archives and documents of historical, sociological or ethnologic nature, and a variety of other cultural information.
- delineation of the elements collected and their comparison in relation to differences in meaning.
- the reorganization of those elements by means of their respective functions, and the interpretation of documents on the basis of that reorganization.

    This process does not aim to explain a phenomenon, but rather to describe it and to interpret the data, which is to say, to elucidate the meaning of the diverse products of culture through the use of interpretative models which have been constructed. Code is extracted from the past, identified by forms which are recognized or discovered anew, and it is open to all new efforts at formalization and to any information capable of modifying its structures.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2007, 06:48:05 pm »








3. MATRIX, or psycho-synthetic structure (astrological), is the ideational form applied to relations between states of being. It reveals the organization of potential reality, which is potential, intangible, invisible, unconscious.

Paul Valéry wrote in 1938: "Beneath any symbolic expression, beneath all knowledge and all feeling, lies a source of energy, its point of issue and the three or four forms that this energy can take, either independently or in association, and the three or four differentiated outflowings emerging from that source oppose it, react upon the outflow, etc." [6]

Impressionistic awarenesses [impressionaux] are not psychic states, but rather "minimal" forms, of archetypal nature, limited in number, which innervate those states. Following the examples of Crystal and Code, three phases form the psycho-synthetic process:

- visualization, by means of "abstract observation" (Peirce), of the circular organisation of the psyche and the interdependence of its elements.

- the assignment by abductive reasoning of archetypal forms and their symbology.

- the integration of possibility by the distribution of units and perspectives.

    Charles Peirce specified in his writings the necessary and logical existence of a faculty of abstract observation which assures the coherence of perceived reality and allows one "to discover what should be and not simply what is in the real world." [7] To this mode of perceiving reality corresponds reasoning by abduction, capable of identifying a reality which is unverifiable in terms of physical data.

Abduction is distinguished from deduction, a mode of reasoning appropriate to formal logic (Aristotle, Leibnitz, etc.) and from induction, appropriate for the scientific model of experimentation. The rigor of the logician testifies in favor of the insistence by certain spiritualist thinkers on the preservation of what they call "symbolic imagination" (Henry Corbin).

The astrological process no longer seeks to explain a phenomenon, neither to interpret data, but rather to understand an underlying reality, in so far as phenomena and cultural data have their source in the psyche. Matrix is at once present and outside of time: it aligns itself with the present moment while at the same time it carries forward a pre-existent and permanent foundation.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2007, 06:49:41 pm »








Wilhelm Dilthey, in his Kantian project of building a general anthropology, does not admit the aspect "psychic" in association with the concept "socio-historical," and he is content to put the explaining of Nature into opposition with the comprehension (Verstehen) of psychic life by means of lived experience (Erlebnis). [8]

Now, there exist three levels: the explanation of the physical world, the interpretation of the cultural world, and the understanding of the psychic world. Likewise there exist three languages, i.e. three abstract modes of declination and mental abstraction of reality: the living languages, which permit communication and the transmission of ideas, the language of mathematics, which operates essentially on numbers and serves to highlight the variability of objects, and astrological language, the structures of which symbolize the transformations of the psyche.[9]

    Astrology is the gateway to a structural comprehension of the psyche. Astrological understanding differs from the explanation of the physical sciences and from the interpretation of the humanistic sciences. To understand, in the astrological sense, is not to demonstrate, but rather to reveal or show.

No hermeneutic or philosophical method, no analytical or statistical technique, can represent astrology without diminishing it. Matrix-based thinking has as its goal not to render uniform the enormous diversity of mental representations, but rather to preserve the organization of the multiplicity which exists beyond the representations themselves. It consists of thinking severally about the many.

Astrology cannot be defined in any domain but its own: the egalitarian domain of the qualitative potentialization of psychic reality.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2007, 06:51:19 pm »








A number of contemporary astrologers, armed with statistics and scientific rationality, are mistaken about the nature of astrological knowledge and err also in their hope for a "justification" of their practices by the scientific community. Statistics offer nothing but partial "results," in the final analysis: "There can be no question of 'proving' astrology by those means; 'proof' ... emerges from the domain of physical fact, whereas astrology operates upon structures." [10]

This inappropriate extension to astrology of the methods which are appropriate for the physical sciences stems from a faulty understanding of the nature of astrology and of physical reality itself. One does not measure lunarity (lunar influence) in the same way one measures barometric pressure. Affectivity and consciousness cannot be "explained" in mechanistic terms. Instrumentational methods and astro-statistical schemas do no more for the substance of astrological knowledge than charts of encephalographic variations do for approaching the knowledge of dreams or the physiological transformations which result from certain yoga postures. If planetary influences exist at the physical or macrophysical level, they do not derive from astrology, but rather from cosmobiology.[11]

Contrary to the opinion commonly held and preemptorily affirmed, astrology is a serious body of knowledge: all knowledge about the human ultimately derives from the psyche, as Jung pointed out in his works, and disregard of this essential truth is the stumbling-block of modern research, if not its complete negation. So it is that academic psychology wanders in the desert of experimental theory, when it does not go lost on the sea of Freudian therapy.

    At present there exists no model of causal explanation for astrology, and none of the physical theories proposed to date is really satisfactory: we may cite the elemental model of Ptolemy, a result of ideas of an astro-meteorological nature, the theory of stellar rays of Al-Kindi, and Kepler's model of harmonics.

Even if it is likely, in the end, that science should discover a geo- or bio-magnetic explanation for the planet-wide integration of nervous system, cellular or molecular rhythms in living matter, that explanation would not serve to explain the psychic-astral transformations which operate at a different level of reality, nor could it legitimize any particular, definitive application in our understanding of natal issues and collective cycles.

Likewise, neurobiology does not illuminate us with regard to the phenomena of consciousness. This autonomy of astrology vis-à-vis scientific fields does not imply that it is "anti-scientific", contrary to what scientists claim to be the case.[12]
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2007, 06:53:04 pm »








                                             A Structural Model for Astrology





"We do not intend to designate thereby a collection
of fully formed and immutable structures,
but rather a group of matrices from the basis of which
emerge structures that all relate to a single whole."
(Claude Lévi-Strauss: L'homme nu)




    The demise of traditional ontology has been the cause of a widespread disenchantment of the world (Max Weber, Alexandre Koyré). The decline of global concepts such as "Nature" and "Cosmos" have prepared the emergence of Structure.

What has been lost along the way in that substitution is the interdependence between man and his environment in a world that has become acosmic due to the abolition of any similarity between the microcosm and the "macanthrope" (Paracelsus). This circumstance has arisen from rejection of the notion of a universal harmony within which everything is interconnected and "inter-expressive," and from the intrusion of an antinomy, one might say an antipathy, between the visible and the invisible, where the latter is debunked. It is up to the modern world to come to terms with this new conceptual avatar.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2007, 06:54:50 pm »








The notion of structure, beginning with the received idea of a general organization of elements forming a totality, has been enriched and modified by its passage through disciplines as different from each other as are ethnology and mathematics, biology and sociology, linguistics and psychoanalysis.

Structure interprets reality as a web of relationships among an unlimited number of elements; furthermore it supposes that none of these "anonymous" elements in and of itself has a direct and individual relationship to the whole. In this supposition, Structure becomes acosmic.

Michel Serres defines the concept of structure in contradistinction to the concept of model, which is an illustration or realization of structure: "A structure is an operational ensemble of indeterminate meaning ... grouping elements, in whatever number, the content of which is not specified, and relationships, finite in number, unspecified with regard to their nature, but the function of which is defined, as well as certain operative results with regard to the elements.

By supposing, then, that one specifies in a determined way the content of the elements and the nature of the relationships in question, one obtains a model (a paradigm) of the structure: which latter is thus the formal analogue of all the concrete models which it organizes." [13]

    From its beginnings, astrology has met with various structures (the Zodiac of the Babylonians in the 5th century B.C., the Septenary and the system of Houses devised by the Greeks, etc.), but by reason of the practical considerations to which they lead, emphasis has been placed on models, to their detriment.

Consequently, it is important to reorient thinking on these matters, from which proceed all attempts at formalization. I designate the four cardinal structures of astrology, which appeared as early as the time of the Greeks, by the terms Planetaries [French: Planétaire] (or, the ordered ensemble of the Planets), Dominion (or, the structured ensemble of the Houses), Cyclics [French: Cyclade] (or, the structured ensemble of the Cycles, Aspects and Planetary Ages), and, to be quite sure, Zodiac (or, the structured ensemble of the zodiacal signs).
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2007, 06:56:49 pm »








These structures derive from an archetype which seems to be universal: that of the four modes of the differentiation of reality by consciousness. The Kantian naturalist Jakob von Uexküll (1864-1944), a precursor of ethnology, identifies by the term "milieu" (Umwelt) the result of a specific division of reality through perception: each organism creates its milieu and constructs its experience as a function of the initial conditions of its own perception. [14]

Moreover, ethnologists have recognized the existence of four fundamental notions in pre-literate societies, four primordial categories of mind which lie at the source of cultural activity and social organization: (1) undifferentiated higher powers or mana, (2) the physical arenas under their possession, (3) the instances of their manifestation, and (4) their ordered distribution among human beings, who constitute the beings and objects of Nature. [15] In this view, then, reality is a continuum which perception differentiates in four specific modes.

The study of animal behavior has enabled the realization that each species, and each individual as well, follows its own path. The study of human culture has demonstrated that it also follows a quaternary logic.

    The "permanent frameworks of mental life" [16] result from an intuitive conception of what one can call conditioning milieux, these being Energy, Space, Time and Structure, which the Greeks designated by the terms kratos, topos, kaïros and cosmos.

As a consequence, any manifestation of reality induces specific transformations of perception in the fields of energy (differentiation of forces), of space (differentiation of locale), of time (differentiation of moments and of phases), and of structure (differentiation of forms, or what is more, the coordination of forces, locales and moments). Each object is a complex agency of a given combination of force/structure and space/moment.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2007, 06:58:13 pm »








Physics maintains this concept by means of its four fundamental notions: mass (the measure of quantity of matter), length (measure of physical size), time (measure of duration) and temperature (measure of molecular motion and of the organization of matter). Mathematics as well, however, with its repertoire of numbers, geometric figures, analytical functions and algebraic groups offers analogies to the energetic, spatial, temporal and structural concepts of physics. Hence Crystal is a more developed representation of a primordial, original and archetypal predisposition.

    A similar quadripartite division may be observed in the organization of languages: verbs (which indicate action, transformation, or stability); nouns (which designate an object, substance or person and localize them in a certain sense); adjective and adverbs (which indicate quality or conditions of a situation temporally variable in nature); and syntactical terms such as prepositions, conjunctions and pronouns (which organize discourse, establish relationships between elements and characterize speech contexts).

    Crystal, Code and Matrix obey the same structural laws. In point of fact, the four conditioning milieux generate, with regard to astrology, an equivalent fourfold distribution, by means of (1) energetic polarization, (2) spatial organization into houses, (3) temporal periodisation, and (4) structural differentiation. Hence we have the Planets, the Houses, the Cycles and the Signs of astrology's structure.

The planet is to astrology what the number is to mathematics, and what the verb is to language; the astrological house is the functional equivalent of geometrical figures in mathematics or the noun in a language.

Similarly, signs, cycles, houses and planets, unequally distributed in a natal chart, each figure into their own psychic-astral perspective, their own world, in which they reflect the relationships they maintain with the external world.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy