Copyright © 2005 Jonathan Dee Astrology is viewed with great enthusiasm by its adherents, but with an equal amount of cynicism by those of a more conventional line of thinking. Of course, astrology as a subject is pretty conventional itself - it has to be, since it is the oldest continuous form of human knowledge (that ought to set the cat among the pigeons), predating everything with the possible exception of prostitution and mathematics. In fact, astrologers of the past had more than a passing acquaintance with both these pursuits, too. In essence, astrology is the study of cosmic cycles. Indeed, the very word “cosmos” means the necessary order of things, while its opposite “chaos” seems only to occur in the complications and stresses of human life. Not in the “Majestic Clockwork” of planetary movements, as Isaac Newton would have put it. In fact, an astrologer tries to put a bit of “cosmos” to explain away “chaos”, being a firm believer in the system underlying all things. It is generally agreed that, in some form or another, life, the universe and everything have a consistent, underlying framework. A blueprint, as it were, of the way things are, and indeed, the way things have to be. Physicists, biologists, psychologists and mathematicians, as much as astrologers, have logical systems that are applied again and again. Something as familiar now as it was in the days of old Sir Isaac Newton, formulator of the theory of gravitation, co-creator of calculus and as a sideline, one of the fathers of modern astronomy, who regarded his life’s work as sifting through the Book of Revelations in search of prophetic clues as to the will of God and the direction of future events. In fact, the great man thought of himself as an alchemist and astrologer, and applied as much scientific method to these disciplines as to his more widely known interests in gravity and light. This is an important point. Here we are, in the early 21st century, in a world whose system and order we have well and truly stuffed by our own greed and stupidity, still trying to find an underlying framework by which it all makes sense. Physics seemingly has it sussed already, whether it’s Newtonian, the Theory of Relativity, or Quantum - the universe is satisfactorily explained at great length and detail. It’s a pity, really, that the three can be mutually contradictory. Never mind, though; we know it’s there - the explanation can be found if only one is clever enough. If, once again, we return to Newton, it can be seen that, with him, the path divides into two. On the one hand, the wide road of “respectable” science, - astronomy, physics, mathematics et al. On the other, the ‘crooked’ way of the “occult” arts - astrology, palmistry and the subtle influences of the universe. Newton himself would have seen no contradiction, but there were many who did. Robert Boyle, a far more sceptical genius (Boyle’s Law of the Expansion of Gases) once mocked Newton for going to the trouble of drawing up an accurate horoscope. Newton, asserting essential Virgoan dignity, replied with a classic line that all astrologers - me included - have used ever since: “Sir, I have studied the subject, you have not!”. Let’s face it; then, as now, it’s easy to pour scorn, especially when faced with the “cure-all” recipes and advice of the daily horoscopes columns. The point is well taken, but I would be tempted to reply with the same, well-worn Newtonian riposte. |
