|
|
Annwn Home :
Wyrd
: Reflections in Wyrd
Part Two - Science or Not?
Bottom |
Part 1 |
Part 2 |
Part 3
The "only true way"
This tendency to want definition and proof, known as science, is not always a bad
thing but it's not necessarily appropriate in astrology. It also leads skeptics to
criticise an ancient tool which has no real scientificproof. In spite
of this, astrologers are convinced that their discipline works, and so it does: particularly
if one lets go of trying to define it in exoteric terms and sees it as an esoteric
matter - a mirror of the inside.
Astronomers can sit safely in the knowledge that what
they have learnt is true, and can be proved, while it is difficult to quantify the
intangible spiritual approach.
Wherever humans have tried to lay down foundations and "spritual truths",
the unfortunate result is often cries of "mine is the only true way, follow me or die!"
with the resultant religious chaos... With wyrd, of course, a reflection of this is
when scientists destroy and perform unethical experimentation in the cause of
"knowledge" - without understanding, or caring, that some things do not need to be
practised... The question of who is right, astrologer or scientist, can easily have the
same effect - chaos, which is a pity since neither discipline really wants to do
anything other than be what it is; it's people who twist it into a tool to demonstrate
their own "power".
Power
I place "power" in inverted commans, since power is actually the ability to do work.
Yet most perceive power as the ability to get others to do their work for them. It's
their way of showing that they are somehow "better" than others... yet nobody is truly
better. We all share the same threads, so it might be more useful to forget about
trying to prove something that's not worth proving and then aim for real
power which starts from within and is never misused against other people.
In this context, it is better to let go of the whole principle of trying to "prove"
astrology and getting on with what every astrologer knows works in any case. That way,
the satisfaction comes from inside, rather than from fighting against others in a
twisted battle for the "true faith". Astrology works because of the wyrd and because
we believe in it, not because we have rules and proofs. It works because we have a sixth
sense, an intuition that many find uncomfortable and for which nobody has found a gland!
If we take the wyrd perspective that there are many paths, and that they are not all
the same, then we come a little closer to understanding that everyone has a right to
think as they will.
Trying to persuade the "heathen scientist" to encompass the "true faith of astrology"
is as much of an abuse, under those circumstances, as it is for the "heathen
scientist" to condemn the "crazy astrologer" for his or her approach without knowing
anything at all about it. However, an open minded discussion with opposing parties
willing to listen and learn is not abuse: in fact, it empowers (in the real
sense) all concerned, allowing them to grow. What remains at the root is that if it
works for us, as astrologers, we should use it. If it doesn't work for others, the
others usually have something that works for them. It's better to believe we are right
and take comfort from that than to become worked up because others do something else.
From this perspective, then, the astrologer needs to concentrate on learning his own
skills and improving them, rather than wasting energy complaining about that which
does not match his or her belief. The scientist might think about doing the same.
A common wyrd
Astrology and astronomy share a common wyrd, or root - it's just that their
practitioners, over time, took different choices and made two paths of wyrd. It's
fruitless to approach them the same way. It's also unfair to criticize one because it
doesn't match the ideas of the other. It is not comparing like with like; yet there
are similarities. Astronomy, for example, is based on the logical collection
of facts and figures after careful observation of what is outside and factually
existent, and astrology is based on intuitive interpretation, after careful
observation, of a selection of actual planetary placements which reflect what is
inside and essentially existent. Their disciplines and principles are
different: though the level of discipline required to study either is equal. Yet, as
has just been illustrated, some of the methods are the same and they examine the same
areas from a different perspective.
I firmly maintain that knowing a little astronomy is a fine way of understanding both
the different viewpoint and being able to visualise what happens in the night sky with
astrology. The two disciplines started together and should not be kept in separate
boxes: nor can they be, in a very real sense, because the wyrd threads through them
both in like quantities and they are interwoven. Part of what is occurring as we
approach the 21st century is a desire to somehow reconcile the two and make something
from this marriage which is greater than both combined.
Of course, the debate will go on forever because there are scientists and astrologers
alike who are convinced that they hold the only key. They're both wrong
because they both hold the key: it's just that they unlock different locks on
the same door! Both disciplines, together, make a more whole image, but we're a long
way from being able to integrate them fully, just as we're a long way from really being
able to integrate and accept different belief systems... Yet, if the end result is some
kind of personal understanding, it really doesn't matter how someone gets there and
variety is part of human existence.
Perhaps more importantly, what's difficult is when one's own discipline is criticized;
after all, astrology is very dear to astrologers who have spent forever learning its
lessons. Under such circumstances, it is incredibly hard to just accept "to each their
own", but when we do, we understand quite how much we are committed to our own views
and that's the true gift of believing in our choices. That's a twist which not everyone
is able to see. But when we do:
Click; the key turns.
Top |
Part 1 |
Part 2 |
Part 3
Annwn Home :
Wyrd
Reflections in Wyrd Part Two Science
or Not?
This page created 07 Mar 1997
Last update 14 Nov 2003
© 1997-2007 White Raven
The Wild Wyrd World
Annwn, the Wild Wyrd Web Site
Affordable
Astrology Reports Raven's Roads: Travels, Motorcycles and Writing
Markeroni, the Gentle Art of
Landmark-Snarfing
|