Introduction to this Blog.

This blog is not intended as a substitute for my posts on the Facebook page. It has a different purpose. It is a continuation of the old Arhat Journal entries and articles (elsewhere on this site) which tend to be of a more theoretical, philosophical and academic nature than the posts on Facebook. However, all interested persons are welcome. This first posting shows the general trend of what will be posted, by myself at least, on this blog.

The material below is intended as a first draft of principles. Rewording and reworking will happen over time and I expect a great deal of additional material, which I hope will eventually lead to a book on the philosophy of astrology including both the theoretical aspects of such a philosophy and its consequences in practice.

Some Principles of a Possible Metaphysical Foundation for Astrology.

1.    Under the prevailing reductionist paradigm in which all life is seen to be the accidental and epiphenomenal result of the laws of physics astrology is impossible.

2.    Either astrologers have massively deluded themselves about the nature of their experiences or astrology represents something real and inherent in the natural order that is inconsistent with #1.

3.    Therefore, assuming that we are not massively deluded, we have to assume that the prevailing paradigm is at best incomplete and at worst fundamentally wrong.

4.    However, because science does indeed give us data that assist in the development of useful technologies, any new paradigm must include and explain the phenomena that the sciences study. A new paradigm must consist of a massive extension of the old just as relativity theory included and explained Newton’s laws.

5.    Any new paradigm must have the humility not to allow the passing of judgement on phenomena that it does not know how to deal with. Questions that are not amenable to whatever scientific method may arise must simply be confessed to be outside of the domain of that method, not unreal, invalid, or the result of delusion and/or trickery.

6.    There is an opinion that there is a reality in all things that can be said to exist. This reality is supposed to exist independently of any being that possesses consciousness, awareness, or a capacity for knowing, whether sentient beings like ourselves, entities like ancient gods or angels, or one supreme deity or functional equivalent thereof. This belief is unprovable and meaningless.

7.    The conclusion of the previous is that for there to be existence of any kind, there must be at least one knower and experiencer as well as that which is known and experienced.

8.    Let us call “that which knows” a mind, minds or Mind. It can also be called the subject or subjects which know. Let us call “that which is to be known” the object or objects which are to be known and experienced.

9.    Let us not postulate that these are inherently separate, or that the experience of self and other is anything more than a mode of knowing and experiencing. There is simply a sense in which the knower or knowers seem internal to themselves and the known seems external. And also there are clearly other entities which know (other subjects) among the entities that are to be known (objects). The separation that exists between subject and object may be nothing more than a mental device for making sense out of experience or a limitation of the mind which is the subject.

10.    Whatever else may be true, knowers and the known have equal ontological status, whatever that status may be. Consequently the mind of a subject and the entities that are experienced as external objects are equally real.

11.    The diminution of the ontological status of the experiencing mind is the result of a vast mis-assignment of principles, which in fact inhere only in mind, to the realm of objects, that is, these are principles of mind which are treated as principles of the external world of objects. For example, all philosophy, all logic and all mathematics are principles of mind not nature.

12.    “Objective” truth or reality is simply a highly shareable set of experiences in which the sharing is governed by a set of agreed upon principles, that is, there are criteria and principles according to which entities which possess mind can agree on the nature of their experiences. This is what actually comprises natural science or, to use a better term, natural philosophy.

In conclusion for this posting, I ask that we all work together toward greater understanding in these matters and that the purpose of debate will be just that, not merely winning arguments by the use of debating tactics.