Thank you Michael, for naming this the subject of the hour, and recognizing its inward-physical-manifestation direction despite your inclination to go in the opposite direction. I also think, even if we are only trying to get more specific, we still have a “lens” problem and that is language, as I have said repeatedly, the gateway to the mind (or between minds). Definitions of what we are trying to investigate vary, from person to person, culture to culture, and generation to generation. We lack agreed frameworks on which to hang our investigations, such as they might be, and the result is we muddle around a lot without much progress. We tend to liken some of the more metaphorical conclusions of quantum physics (on the small side) and cosmology (on the large side) to astrological concepts and then just leave it there, as if that were sufficient, without connecting any real, hard dots. Yet another Tao Of Physics
is just treading water…
Michael was also right to write earlier in the thread and again now that a lot of what we’ve been saying is a repeat of what was discussed in the 1980s ACT gatherings, lots of generalities and theories of possible causalities, but ultimately no place to proceed with it. Not that things haven’t changed some since then. The sciences themselves have changed greatly, with fractals, chaos theory, string theory and multiverses and lots more, in both physical and biological sciences (hey, Larmackism is creeping back!) all crowding for attention and seeming to border on astrological observations (or is it the other way round?). But still, we eagerly debate their implications without getting down to brass tacks, as before. I say “as before” advisedly, as back then I actually dragged George Salley, one of NASA’s best early AI developers (he did the Viking Lander software), into the midst of an esteemed group of astrological software developers (who shall remain unnamed) to make some suggestions where we could go to adopt leading edge programming, especially expert systems and AI. After much general discussion, George said OK, enough talk, let’s sit down and “write some code.” I never heard such deafening silence and confusion. After an afternoon of drawing a complete blank from everyone, he went home the next day, nothing accomplished, a major opportunity missed. But, that’s what happens when you talk only from what might or ought to be without getting down to some (any) specifics and working back to generalities and see if they fit.
In the spirit of clarification and getting down to writing some code, I suggest we spontaneously break into some separate sub-threads (as almost happened early on, but without much follow-up on anything but this “physical basis” thread). I particularly note that Ray and Bruce both have some very specific research projects underway that address both details and new methodologies of handling them. I’d love to hear more from each. And they are not alone. In the twenty-odd years since the last ACT gatherings, a lot of people inside and outside astrology have been quietly publishing research involving hard, specific data that we should be aware of and look more closely at. Like, for one, Bernie Taylor’s marvelous Biological Time
(q.v. at http://www.astrococktail.com/biotime.html
) which gathers an amazing amount of funded research in official science that obviously links to astrology. Know of any other current gems we should be looking at that we’re missing? For a couple of decades there were often-surfacing, outside-world studies from the likes of Arnold Lieber to A. L. Brown, not to mention the Gauquelins (actually in the field), ranging from behavioral anomalies to lunar cycles of colloidal silver – but rather like studies of recreational drugs, the research slipped back into the woodwork to avoid unwanted attention from the likes of CSICOP and our own fringies.
One could break it up in several ways. Discussions of particular experiments or studies would be fascinating. So would thoughts on what would be useful places to study that might yield more fruitful results, along with better methodologies to apply to them so we would be speaking interdisciplinary language, in the interest of better articulating the “somewhat disembodied state of mind” (thanks, Michael!) we tend initially to bring to the subject. Current efforts within various subsets of the environmental sciences are probably fertile ground to look for such.
What say you, folks? Any place we should look for specifics to latch on to? Anybody we should be looking at publishing in other fields? Who’s doing the grunt work elsewhere which might (if properly repurposed) lend credence to our grander theories already expressed here? If there is new and palpable interface (however unheralded) between astrology and the sciences, where is it? And if not, where should it be encouraged, who to call and what to do to make it happen in real terms? I’m ready to take notes…