Moving from Soul to Language

[Timothy_Smith]

This note is meant as a transitional thought, an attempt to link the previous thread to an upcoming one (or more) on the relationship of Language to Astrology to Soul.

How does the considerations of Soul and astrology apply to the chart, to ME? So far, the answer seems to be maybe, maybe not. The two big hurdles we have to deal with here is first the perennial jolt encountered when transitioning from theoretical to practical and back again, and second, the appositeness of the ‘me’ to merit such an application. Presuming we can solve these issues, we will have to establish a coherent means of mapping the soul to the language of astrology and vice-versa.

As it happens, this last remark is our best hope of finding a key: language. Let us agree that all the definitions of Soul, while indeed diverse are nonetheless true and finite. Language, on the other hand, cannot be said to be true or false: how exactly might a comma or the letter “r” be a truth or a falsity – or an illusion? Such judgments don’t exclusively apply to language when it is used as a tool for communication. For example, if we can separate the language I’ve used to describe the truths of Soul from those truths themselves and apply the language of astrology instead, we’ll be well on our way towards finding the presence of soul in astrology.

That’s one adjustment; here’s the other: with or without the tool of astrology how might Soul apply to ME? If the answer is: it doesn’t, then trying to make astrology link the two is impossible from the outset. The other answers (that I can think of) are: it does, it can, it could possibly, and it can if the right means are actively employed to do so. (The responses: “there is no Soul” and “there is no me” while viable from certain perspectives do nothing to further the line of enquiry I’m pursuing, so I’ll set them aside for the nonce.) Furthermore, all of these answers might be in play at the same time—in fact, I think they are. To wit: The soul does NOT apply to the ego as an unreflective byproduct of natural instincts, the unconscious, and the collective consciousness. The soul can apply to the ego, or rather to the mind-body complex when the latter gains reflective consciousness and some degree of rational training, by which I mean the evolution of the will, the intellect, or the heart beyond the natural capacities and contents provided by nature, the body, and the collective. The soul could possibly initiate and aid in this evolution, but doesn’t always seem to do so—in spite of the efforts of outer and inner agents (i.e. oneself, teachers, and circumstances). Finally, and almost as a response to this latter, the soul can if the right means arise—when the explanation, initiation, feeling-tone, or catalytic event appropriate to that individual occurs, then there is an awakening to the soul. Whether that awakening is further developed is another question, and seems to reactivate all the above options all over again…and again…and again.

All this is from the viewpoint [sic] of soul in relation to the ego. How about from MY viewpoint? Well, we enter the context of the irrational pretty directly, since that’s what the ego is built upon and is nourished by. In fact it is a bit dishonest to equate the word ‘ego’ with ‘me;’ the former presumes a rational or objective meaning, the latter is the fundament of irrational and non-objective content. My viewpoint, then is quasi-solid ground of my experience, a concrete mix of ‘why me’ interspersed with sparkly bits of ‘sweeet!’ painted with a little ‘thank you god,’ and tagged with ‘god hates me anyway’ in a couple of places. And so on. Until the ‘me’ it at least partially objective, partially accessible to and influenced by the rational and civilizing faculties of consciousness, there is no question of the ‘me’ relating to anything. The irrational ‘me’ perpetually relates all contents to itself, but never itself to any other content, for it cannot perceive itself as a content amongst other contents or as truly secondary to any ‘other.’ In this state the soul’s influx is largely experienced as a ‘somehow or other’ or ‘because I deserve it’ or ‘even though I don’t deserve it,’ or just ‘WTF?’ Such marginally articulate and fundamentally irrational responses are pretty worthless as far as mapping them to any system goes. The connection to the soul may happen, it may not, and we may or may not know that it did, is, or could—much less have the capacity to assimilate or retain such a moment should it transpire. This means we cannot meaningfully reference the soul from a purely ego-centric perspective expressed as ‘me.’

Fortunately, we are more than the ego; we do have conscious faculties and unconscious instincts, which are at least somewhat benign—and of course we have the light of the soul itself in there somewhere. This light allows us to glimpse the fact that the ‘me’ is the matrix of pleasure, pain and indifference, and see that it is falsely claiming centrality as well as ownership of the various faculties of the psyche. In fact, these faculties are neither owned by the ego, nor necessarily its servant, though it will persist in trying to possess both. Thus when we attend to where we put our attention, and actively take ownership of that act, an attunement to the soul is possible—with or without various additional aids, like a teacher, good geo-political situation, and access to helpful ideas.

But where is the soul?? What does it ‘look like’ from within the psyche? As far as I know there are only two durable answers to this question: experience (a lot of experience), and language. How do we get the former? By various natural and artificial means—through the arts, philosophy, meditation, prayer, nature, and transformative moments in our life. Assuming, of course, that we are both open-minded and discriminating with respect to our immediate experience. By “immediate” I mean those contents of awareness that are directly available to the psyche, and not those which are held at one or more removes from ourselves.

Most verbs and all prepositions mediate our attention: “I believe in God” is quite different than “I believe God” and that again is different from just “God.” “I am trying to find myself” deepens into “I’m finding myself” and becomes immediate only as “myself” One characteristic of such immediacy is that it provides one content per customer: when one is eating rice, one only eats rice, as the saying goes—one does not eat rice and wonder about the meaning of eating rice, nor even marvel at the experience of just eating rice, nor plan one’s journaling about it, and so forth. So: we see the soul through immediate presence, and the more we see the more self-standing the moment becomes: we don’t seek to integrate it, share it with others or connect it to other moments in our own life experience. This is why we like falling in love—it offers the opportunity to feel something immediately. BUT falling in love is not a soul-experience, it is an archetypal experience, thanks to that pesky “in” which is part of the experience and its expression.

And this leads us naturally to the issue of language, and its amazing power. Language doesn’t merely allow us to give names to vague contents of consciousness, it brings with it a matrix of viable and necessary relationships which are codified in the grammar and syntax of any language. This is especially true of languages that are closed and well-defined—languages such as astrology, geometry, (single language) linguistics, and the so-called dead languages, especially Classical Greek and Sanskrit. As soon as we consider astrology a language on par with more commonly named languages, we’re half-way home—all languages have a partial capacity to be translated into other languages (else we’d never know of more than one, and couldn’t call that one a ‘language’).

Now astrology as we most often encounter and use it is obviously unneeded by science, or modern language and is apparently far less precise than either of these in providing us access to the ‘real world’ of our experience. However, there is another view of astrology, the one expressed by Plato in Book VII of the Republic (529 b-c):

“It is reasonable,” said he. “And now that you agree with me, Socrates, I proceed in my commendation of astronomy, which you formerly reproved as unreasonable. For it is evident, I conceive, to everyone, that this discipline compels the soul to look to that which is above, and from the things here conducts it thither.”
...
“You seem to me,” said I, “to have formed with yourself no ignoble opinion of the discipline respecting things above, what it is: for you seem to think, that if anyone contemplates the various bodies in the firmament, and, by earnestly looking up, apprehends everything, you think that he has intelligence of these things; and does not merely see them with his eyes; and perhaps you judge right and I foolishly. [b] For I, on the other hand am not able to conceive, that any other discipline can make the soul look upwards, but that which respects being, and that which is invisible; and if a man undertakes to learn anything of sensible objects, whether he gape upwards or bellow downwards, never shall I say that he learns; for I aver he has no science of these things, nor shall I say that his soul looks upwards, but downwards, even though he should learn lying on his back, either at land or at sea.”

So this is Astrology as the essential act of Living Number, as a language that ranges from the practical, through psychological, occult, mystical all the way to the philosophical. Astrology so understood gives birth to mathematics and language(s), and contains the laws of symbolism.

And once again comes the question: why should I care, even if by some mischance all these statements are true?? I should—and do—care because the primary act of the individual soul is the synthesis of existence and essence, which is to say, it illumines both our inner and outer life (existence) and provides a viewpoint that at transcends and participates in both (essence). Soul is what we seek—for it is naught but seeking itself—and in the end it is soul itself that is the pathway to itself. Whether we start with the most impersonal language of astrology or with the most subjective and intimate, we will miss the point if we merely seek to reach the other end: what we are after is the illuminating intelligence which informs both and is their only viable connection. We need both extremes, however, to weave a soul-catcher: each time we have an insight into the intersection between our experience and a self-evident truth, that insight becomes part of our body of light, part of the rational fabric with which the soul is clothed.

And what exists at these intersections is their common language, for that is the nature of language itself—to provide a medium for meanings and transformations of meanings. In this context astrology is a simple yet powerfully multivalent language: her terms are living but finite, her grammar is clear, her syntax contained, and her meaning immediately is conascent with experience. So whither hence? Well, on one hand, we simply do what we’ve always been doing: ‘read charts’—after all, using a language is a great way to learn it and keep it alive in oneself. On the other hand, a better knowledge of the underlying structure of the language--and of languages per se--will us help not only speak correctly, but also to do a better job of translating the meanings embedded in astrology into the vernacular of our lives.

[Ray Mardyks]

I have found the "soul" astrologically in the stars and constellations. This is beyond and "off" the tropical and sidereal zodiac(s) and transcendent to the solar system (ego). The constellations can be worked with as "soul" archetypes in contrast to the archetypes of the ego reflected in the planets of the solar system.

[Timothy_Smith]

Hi there, Ray

Interesting observation--it seems to me that there are several viable models of mapping the soul to the horoscope, even as there are many different understandings of both the soul in itself, and the chart in itself. ...so, I'm wondering about your definition/understanding of soul--and what an example of working with the constellations in this context. (It seems to me that you might well have laid out your views on this in a different thread--if so, please point me in that direction!).

For myself, I see the soul as a dynamic evolving force, a kind of interface between becoming and being. Since the former is always in motion, the soul is imaged in the cosmos by that which (to us) is in motion: namely the planets in motion; since the latter is always still, the soul is imaged in the cosmos by that which (again to us) is still: the stars. In the language of NeoPlatonism, the Soul participates in Nous through Ideas, and the impression of that participation is reflected into Nature as the Fixed Stars and the Constellations--and the Soul expresses its own functions through, well, functions--the planets as functions of a star. Now, when these planets are taken to be stationary or fixed, as is the case in the natal chart, there is a further stepping down of their role and significance: and here I would agree with you that they contribute to the more rational faculties of the ego.

Oh, and I mean to offer some applications of this view fairly soon--as soon as time allows, that is.
Tim

[Robert_Schmidt]

I would like to say something about Timothy’s response to Ray Mardyks here. It is a somewhat scary thought, but I think I find myself on a convergent course with Timothy on this issue.(We must be doing something wrong!) I think that I am confirming his position with what follows, but it is up to Timothy to correct me if am I mistaken in this.

I would like to approach this issue from the perspective of Book Lamda of the Metaphysics, which in this case I think is consistent with Platonic thinking, but takes it one step further. The issue is that of the unmoved mover, or first cause(s) of all motion and change in the world: if there is one or more than one; and if more than one, how many?

Aristotle first argues in chapter 7 that the only way an unmoved mover can move something else without itself being moved is by being an object of love or desire. In chapter 8, Aristotle begins by mentioning that the Platonist hold that the Ideas (which might constitute the ultimate unmoved movers) are numbers, and that there are ten primary numbers. But he criticizes the Platonists for not giving a better reason for why there are just ten. Whereupon he somewhat strangely launches into an astronomical discussion:of how many separate uniform circular motions are necessary in order to account for the apparent composite motion of each of the seven planets.

Aristotle first mentions the view of Eudoxus that each planet shares in the motion of the Same (the diurnal motion) and in a common motion of the Other (a motion around the middle of the zodiac). One more motion apiece is adduced for each of the lights to account for its inclination to the ecliptic, (It is worth noting that Aristotle considers the Sun to have latitude. See the posting I made under the 3-zodiacs topic.) Two more motions each for the remaining five, presumably one for its inclination to the ecliptic and another to account for its retrogradation. This makes twelve additional motions in all. I believe that for the founders of Hellenistic astrology this was the rational motivation for the introduction of domicile (“sign”) rulerships of the seven planets. The rational good(s) that motivate each planet, out of the desire for which they move as they move, are found in the normalized zodiacal constellations.

Aristotle then passes on to the view of Callipus, who introduced seven more motions, making a total of nineteen (no more for Jupiter and Saturn, two more each for the two lights, and one more each for the remaining three planet). At the moment I will pass over the potential astrological meaning of this transitional step.

Aristotle then presents his own view, which is based on the hypothesis that the motions of all the heavenly spheres must act together in a mechanical fashion (like some modern clockwork mechanism). In all he comes up with fifty-five uniform circular motions to account for the apparent motions of all the traditional seven planets. Here it is important to note that fifty-five is the sum of the first ten numbers. We now see why he introduced this account with the question of why there should be just ten primary numbers, as the Platonists held. Each member of each eidetic assemblage that constitutes the first ten numbers is one of the primary Platonic Ideas. Thus, the planets move the way they move out of a love or desire for these Ideas, one of which corresponds to each of the uniform circular motions into which the apparent motion of each planet may be resolved.

Where might each of this Ideas be found? After certain considerations, Aristotle states that we might want to reduce the fifty-five motions to forty-seven—that is, by subtracting eight. This is close to forty-eight, the traditional number of constellations.. So we may suppose that each of the primary Ideas is somehow related to one of the constellations. But why forty-seven instead of forty-eight. This is because the forty-seven represent the relative rational goods that motivate the seven planets, each of the planets being related thereby to a given number of constellations. But all the planets share in the diurnal motion, or the motion of the Same. And this motion concerns a love or desire for the Absolute Good, or the Good itself, desired by all the planets. Where might this Idea be found? It would be in the constellation of the Little Bear (or Little Dipper), that contains the axial or pole star, which controls the diurnal motions itself. Thus, when we subtract this singular constellation from the forty-eight, we come to forty-seven constellations that contain, or are images of, the relative rational goods in accordance with which the planets move.

As for the remaining seven motions that one might wish to subtract from the fifty-five to get forty-seven, I will at the moment only mention that the Little Bear itself contains seven stars.

What I have presented here is also my response to a question posed by Ko Hashiguichi on the 3-Zodiacs Forum, regarding whether in some sense the traditional seven planets are in some way prior to number.

However, I also wish to point out that, if the basic Platonic Ideas are somehow located or imaged in the constellations, and if the planets move the way they do out of love or desire for these Ideas, then this is a way in which the planets (possessing soul if they have the faculty of desire) relate to Nous insofar as the Ideas are “in” Nous. Here is where I find some confluence with Timothy.

One final point (and this is addressed to Mr. Mardyks): If we think of the primary Platonic Ideas as being associated with the constellations in the manner I have tried to outline, we should not think of the constellations as representing Jungian archetypes. A Platonic Idea is not the same as a Jungian archetype, the claims of Rick Tarnas notwithstanding.

Robert Schmidt

[Timothy_Smith]

Well, Robert as usual you introduce subtleties and complications coupled with new (to me) information. Thanks for all that. And yes, I see our harmonicas converging on this point at least. (the odds of such an event by now should be in our favor!) To wit: it seems to me that the Platonic Ideas are imaged in—or rather as the Stars, and are governed by various acts of Number indicated variously in their constellational groups. I also see that the planets are possessed of a specific desire—the desire for the Good, and at once relate to these images of the Ideas via their faculties of Sense & Fantasy, while also relating directly to the Ideas via the faculties of Reason & Intuition. … And as you say, the Jungian archetypes (which he himself specifies to be “of the imagination”) are a far, far distant echo of the Platonic Ideas.

Also, thanks for taking time to lay out Aristotle’s views on the reason behind picking the number 10 for the Ideas. Frankly, his sequence of observations—I hesitate to call it reasoning—makes as much sense as anything else I’ve read. All these dudes mention a Number of Idea(s) but they’re rather close-mouthed on what they actually are, and why they use the number they do. There may well have been a restriction on what they could talk about coming from the Mystery Schools, but that explanation doesn’t serve us very well nowadays.

For myself, I’m content to consider that Number inheres in the Nous, as do the Ideas, and that therefore there must be a Number of Ideas, as well as an Idea of Number—and that latter, the Idea of Number must be perfect. If, from this one considers “10” to be a perfect number, well, then Bob’s your uncle! It seems to me that various numbers really do serve in this capacity, and give rise (in part) to the various philosophic views of the absolute we so often encounter: that it’s Zero, that it’s One, that it’s Infinite, that it’s Not-Two (non-dual), that it’s Two, Three, and so forth, including my favorite: that it’s 3/2 (Egyptians, Kashmir Shaivites, Plotinus).

Furthermore so long as we find ourselves ‘here’ and consider some ‘there,’ we will always have the difficulty of whether we start from where we are, or from that (perhaps) ‘other.’ While I appreciate the inherent arrogance and absurdity of starting ‘there,’ I find a similar problem when starting from ‘here.’ Namely, if we really are in a realm of flux—and we are—then cataloguing our betters must of necessity be ever-changing and a disordered nameless flow from our perspective if we are to be accurate and honest. This may be true, but then why are we still talking? If it is untrue, then conjuring a bit of ‘as if’ about the immanence of Being into Becoming is as good a working model as any other.

So, I will ever start from the ‘there’ as more stable and oddly accessible than ‘here.’ From this perspective the problem of where the numbers of the planets, signs of the zodiac, etc. diminishes somewhat: when the Idea of Number = 12, the manifestation of that Idea is the Zodiac; when the Idea of Number = 7, the manifestation of that Idea is the Chaldean 7, and so on. That all numbers, say between 1 and 12 are not easily mapped here is not the issue: we are hardly the prime example of a perfect world; thus the local Nature Principle only reflects a few Numbers into our sky & world. So far, it’s kept us adequately busy and confused, so perhaps we don’t need the rest of them just yet!

It occurs to me that one issue here is the uncommon use of the same terms. I wish I knew how to post a diagram here; failing that, here’s a suggestion. Taking Plato’s Divided Line as referencing the four gnostic faculties of the soul, let us consider where this line falls for Messers Plotinus and Jung. I suggest that these latter gentlemen, fully aware of Plato, built on what he did, rather than duplicate his work; Plotinus building a superstructure, and Jung working in the basement, as it were. Thus:

Plotinus’ Nous
.............Soul = Plato’s Being
.............................Becoming = Jung’s Irrational
.............................................Rational Psyche

Spreading these out we get:
Plotinus faculties of Nous
a Nous contemplating One
b Nous Contemplating Itself = Ideas
c Nous generating Soul
d Soul participating in Nous --> Plato’s A Intuition
.......................................faculties B Reason
....................................of the soul C Perception
..................................................D Fantasy -> Jung’s a’ Sensation
................................................................faculties b’ Intuition
.................................................................of the c’ Thinking
................................................................psyche d’ Feeling

Plugging in the Cosmos from above:
a Nous/One = ?
b Nous/Nous = Ideas & Number
c Nous/Soul = Ideas plus Number
d Soul/Nous = Ratio of Ideas by Number = Primum Mobile

Soul’s
A Intuition = principle of Fixed Stars, Constellations
B Reason = principles of 7 Chaldeans as specific functions
C Perception = manifestation of the above as Bodies of Light
D Fantasy = significance of the above as Symbols

Psyche’s
a’ Sensation = re-creation of Symbols
b’ Intuition = insight into Symbols
c’ Thinking = analysis, query into ego
d’ Feeling = experience of ego

well, I don’t know where this takes us, but I hope it does move things along another inch!
Timothy Smith