ProtoQuant.com

VI.  A Major Contribution of Astrology and Its Social Status

In this respect though, Astrology is a Science insofar as it entertains the feeling that, if the reference frame is moving, it is somehow moving with all the information contained in the very beginning. We might say that the existence of this beginning and its relation to the origin of the reference frame is, by itself, a realization. However, by refusing the status of a Science, Astrology is not capable to quantify that information in some way in order to work with it in a logical manner according to the rules of Mathematics. In all honesty, the Physics does not quantify the information content of a reference frame either, not because it is not able to do this, but because there is the veiled opinion that this fact is unnecessary in description of the phenomena. The idea here, of astrological signature, is that a reference frame is defined as working tool once we know a whole lot about it, not just its essential tracts. We need to know all the things necessary in order to properly describe the physical objects in their extension, their interconnections and motions to the extent where we can use them practically. On one hand this is what Astrology misses, both for itself and when compared to Positive Sciences. On the other hand, this is what Physics misses too when looked upon from the perspective of its own evolution and achievements. Regarding what Astrology misses for itself, one can say that it cannot advance too much over what it was centuries ago (simply piling up popular science records on astronomical and astrophysical facts does not mean advance). Regarding the comparison with Positive Sciences, it is clear that these can define a (whatever small) chunk of results of a practical use, i.e. to be regulated by money for the benefit of society at large, according to the rules of supply and demand. This fact earned them a certain social status. Astrology simply cannot do this, which is the main reason for its rejection from among Sciences. One of the accusations against Astrology is that the only part of mankind practically benefiting from it is that of astrologers. The benefit is objectively uncontrollable (we do not speak about the honesty of an astrologer here!), and this has large implications, deep down the road being the endangerment of the very roots of the society itself as it is today. It is not by pure chance that Astrology has been banned from Academy at the time it has been banned in 18th century and not earlier: that was the period when the human values started being selected and regulated by money! As for the Physics, describing the interconnections of the bodies to the extent where we can use them practically, i.e. with that detached objectivity that imposed reducing everything to motion, does not seem to be enough. As a matter of fact it gives a sense of dissatisfaction when going into deeper considerations. For instance, what is usually labeled as ‘law of nature’ may prove a thing utterly subjective when critically analyzed. However Physics – as well as all Positive Sciences – earned their social status exclusively by talking about “laws of Mother Nature”. How then the two – Physics and Astrology – can complement each other?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11