Back to the Future

[Kyle_Pierce]

I've just rediscovered a great blast from the past on the Matrix Interviews page, which includes quotes from 19 astrologers. Its original title was "The State of Astrology: Where Are We Headed?" This question of what’s in store for astrology was asked of some of the top U.S. astrologers by Michael Erlewine in the spring of 1986.

Okay, I realize you can just go there and read the interview for yourself, but this is a good opportunity to take a look, from whatever perspective we've gained in almost 23 years, at where we were, where we are, and once again, where we're going.

I'm posting this in the science & astrology section because I've picked out a few choice quotes on that particular subject. These interviews certainly touched on other subjects worthy of similar treatment, but I have to start with this one. And, considering that John Townley started off the first discussion in this section, he gets to go first:

John Townley: “I’d say that astrology has come to pretty much of a dead halt. I don’t think it is going to go anywhere until it gets back to the level of establishing for itself a general field theory – a base on which it is all based. What we’re dealing with is selected and often sporadic and erratic phenomena that work often enough to make it stimulating and make us know that there is something there. But there is no concrete or theoretical basis as there is for any other science. Until we have that, we are going to keep going around making the wrong experiments... The reason is that since we don’t really know what we are testing, we’re going to fail every time we try to test it..."

Axel Harvey: “Astrology has got its own rules, and it has got to go ahead and develop according to its own rules. It is just cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face if we always take a defensive and angry position about science. I think we have to keep working on and refining our theories, get more facts, and keep on working. I think it’s a lonely thing. It isn’t going to make any headlines or anything.”

Mary Downing: "…Certain ideas that are coming out of the scientific community indicate that the mass mind is now looking at the true physical interaction of cycles in the world we live in. I think that there is a need to study strictly mundane reactions on a cyclical level. I think that we have the tools, particularly computers, to analyze large amounts of data. I think there’s enough evidence to indicate recurrent cycles in both biology and economics, so we could do very decent work and come out with some real ideas, and some real data to show what it is that we are actually dealing with. I think our major problem has always been that we have a collection of tools and we don’t know why they work. I think that we are at the beginning of an era when we can find out what the underlying mechanism of astrology really is."

Robert Hand: "...what we really ought to be doing is removing the opprobrium from being an astrologer - astrologically. This is going to require basically two things: One is a deeper degree of symbolic insight into the symbolism of astrology – looking at, but not borrowing heavily from other symbol systems. The other of course is real life scientific astrological research; which is being done. However, there’s a general fear that it will invalidate the astrology we know. And it probably will, but I don’t think it will invalidate the principle idea."


I will offer some thoughts of my own on this subject soon enough, but wanted first of all to just open up the possibility that others might find this a good opportunity as well. So your observations are most welcome.

[Kyle_Pierce]

I can't help but respond to those hopeful quotes from a couple of decades ago, about the potential value of research efforts, despite the disillusionment that has become all too familiar since then. In order to find a fresh perspective on what it means to do astrological research, I think it's vital to rethink our assumptions and come to grips with basic research issues that have been mostly overlooked. I encourage and invite you to visit my blog, where I'm presenting what I believe are central problems to be dealt with:

http://matrixpierce.wordpress.com/

I've entitled it Astrological Research Goes Native. What I mean by this is to convey the same idea I've advocated for years: that before you can make sense of anything as a researcher, you have to "go native" and discover from the inside out what astrological knowledge is like. Going the other way around, by building a new astrology in the image of modern science, is plainly not a research strategy I would recommend.

Just to give you a taste of what I'm blogging about: One distinction that has often been drawn between studies is whether they are tests of astrology or of astrologers. That is, whether they are attempting to isolate astrological causes and effects as such, or to focus on how astrology works in practice. But when an astrological hypothesis is being derived from actual chart work with individual cases, this distinction may not be useful or even applicable. In this situation, it becomes clear that the stating of the hypothesis is itself a critical test of one's astrological thinking and intuition. At this point, a new perspective on the endless stalemates of 20th-century research begins to dawn.

I will gradually expand on all this in my blog and other posts. This is intended for practitioners at least as much as for researchers. I believe that any thinking astrologer with a healthy curiosity would have good reason to consider the issues I'm raising.