I just read the chapter on the 1960's and how that period shares similarities with the time of the French Revolution; namely, major Uranus-Pluto aspects. Tarnas identifies Uranus with Promethius, and Pluto with Dionysus. So, basically, we have the liberation and illumination of hidden, libidinous, primal and ecstatic forces, and, correspondingly, the intensification and compelling into action of progressive and less-restrictive ideologies. Very cool.
I really admire how Laszlo grounded his theory in the scientific framwork while still clearly having a spiritual vision, but without all the spiritual buzzwords that whirl around. He is involved in many practical projects and have been for a long time. It's great to see that there is someone actually doing something.
I'd guees that 500 page-godzilla requires a bit more than two weeks, especially since you might wanna make sure the astrohistorical correlations are right before you swallow the thesis of taking astroloy seriously. I havn't read the book myself, still reading "the passion of the western mind".
But I saw Richard speak at the Eranos conferance in switzerland just one month ago, which was entitled "Jung, Cosmology, and the Transformation of the Modern Self". Not much astrology then, more about the "modern self" in the context of Jung, since Eranos is very inspired by Jung.
That would that I got a clarification of what the concept of synchronicity means. He's a great visionary but the talk/seminar was a bit too abstract for my taste. Ervin Laszlo gave a talk on the future of humanity and was basically saying that we're facing a crossroad/chaos point were we'll either degrade or evolve.
I read books the same way, so I relate with you on that. I think the book you are suggesting is a bit pseudoscience. How about Evil in Modern Thought or The Lucifer Effect?
rather than pedantically characterizing it as pseudoscience, I think I'd refer to the work Tarnas is trying to do as a recontextualization of science itself. he is trying to show how the modern self has become fractured as a result of positivism. then he is trying to heal the fracture.
While I agree that positivism is a bit philistine, but I am not convinced that it is entirely invalid. I can be pedantic; you, semantic. Why most science be seen through a metaphorical lense, when the truth is perfectly simple. Saturn-Pluto alignment has little or nothing to do with the recent wars that the world has undergone.
'Our psyche is set up in accord with the structure of the universe, and what happens in the macrocosm likewise happens in the infinitesimal and most subjective reaches of the psyche.' --Carl Jung <--- I tend to agree!
How can there be a separation between our minds (and as a result our behaviors) and the cosmos itself? To think that there is seems more of an assumption than the reverse.
I'm not denying the connection between our minds and the universe. the both follow the same physical laws. However, I don't the connection between our minds and the cosmos is more than the connection between my jeans and the cosmos. I don't deny a connection, I deny an influence.
I see where you're going, I'd just say that the psyche is unlike your jeans because the psyche is part of a living organism. as such, it functions as a sort of universe in microcosm, containing within it far more than the denim of your pants.
@Aukikco I'm not familiar with Tarnas' position, but there is a clear division among astrologers on this point. My own theory is that the law at work is Correspondence, or Synchronicity, and not Causality. Too many people assume Astrology asserts we are controlled or influenced by the planets. Most of the sophisticated astrological writing I've seen is from astrologers who support the correspondence theory; that the planets merely reflect us, describing in bold the processes within ourselves.
If our psyche is in fact set up to accord with the structure of the universe, then why would the book's focus deal with astrology? Our solar system is utterly insignificant, as is our galaxy.
*I would agree that our psyche follow the same physical laws as the cosmos.*
Astrology did have an influence over the formation of myths that survive to this day, but as we grew up as a species we over came/are overcoming such ideas. Astrology evolved to astronomy; alchemy, chemistry. Just because we have some bad memes in our past, doesn't mean they are valid or beneficial.
i don't see any of these memes as inherently 'good' or 'bad.' i just see them as in vogue or out of vogue. i do not see the human being as being capable of "overcoming" myth, though he may form myths more in line with his own and the world's nature.
Form a consequential outlook, memes can be good and bad. If a myth is inline with reality, is it still a myth?
Myth - A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:
my definition of myth (also Jung's, Campbell's, Alan Watt's, etc.): a story or metaphor in terms of which we understand ourselves and the world we live in. who decides what memes are good or bad but another meme? there is no way to step outside to judge...
That wasn't the type of myth I was talking about, sorry for the confusion. I hope the American Heritage Dictionary is to your liking.
I don't think that the "goodness" or "badness" of a meme can be judged in absolute and objective terms. Why must one step outside the meme pool to observe the consequence of a meme?
because when the observation itself is always done within the context of another meme, it's judgments are biased and, at best, superficial. i do like the utility of Dawkins' word... but his insistance on seeing nature (biological and mental) as an all out war for survival may not be as universally applicable as he thinks. cooperation, symbiosis, and compassion are just as, if not more important than, surival of the fittest individual or idea.
so in other words, instead of seeing undesirable memes as bad, we might see them as in need of greater context. there is no ultimate context, though, so it is very difficult to say one meme is better or worse than another. there is no "best" way to think.
"if a myth is in line with reality, is it still a myth?" I think what we've learned about nature has shown us that reality is not something we could reach or describe in a single way. reality is more dynamic than that. we can only participate with its creative unfolding. we cannot stand outside of it and "know" it like we know our own names and birthdates, etc.
Is not the purpose of sciences and philosophy to understand morality? Perhaps I should have said, "As a myth becomes more aligned with reality, should it still be considered a myth?" I see a clear disinction from scientific theory and from myth, using the AHD's definition.
scientific theory is still mythopoeic as far as I am concerned. we could argue about this all day, but I think in the end it all depends on whether or not we are willing to accept the authority of a scientist claiming to have the ultimate truth. i see such theories as "natural selection" and the "big bang" as scientifically supported metaphors that describe some process in nature.
the key is that they are metaphorical descriptions and NOT the truth itself. i don't know that the truth itself can be translated into propositional form, which is the only way science can do its work.
i also disagree that alchemy evovled into chemistry and that astrology evolved into astronomy. or at least I disagree that the development is that simple. alchemy may have more to do with modern psychology (at least the archetypal schools) than with chemistry. same goes for astrology.
I just read the chapter on the 1960's and how that period shares similarities with the time of the French Revolution; namely, major Uranus-Pluto aspects. Tarnas identifies Uranus with Promethius, and Pluto with Dionysus. So, basically, we have the liberation and illumination of hidden, libidinous, primal and ecstatic forces, and, correspondingly, the intensification and compelling into action of progressive and less-restrictive ideologies. Very cool.
Silenus6 1 year ago
you should definitely apply to ciis. (i work there, got my phd there)
rja958 3 years ago
Thats where Tarnas works right? That'd be nice to meet him
guitaoist 3 years ago
This guy probably have Virgo Rising.
AstroMen2911 4 years ago
I really admire how Laszlo grounded his theory in the scientific framwork while still clearly having a spiritual vision, but without all the spiritual buzzwords that whirl around. He is involved in many practical projects and have been for a long time. It's great to see that there is someone actually doing something.
nastied 4 years ago
there are a couple videos of Laszlo on YouTube. I enjoy his approach as well.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I'd guees that 500 page-godzilla requires a bit more than two weeks, especially since you might wanna make sure the astrohistorical correlations are right before you swallow the thesis of taking astroloy seriously. I havn't read the book myself, still reading "the passion of the western mind".
nastied 4 years ago
But I saw Richard speak at the Eranos conferance in switzerland just one month ago, which was entitled "Jung, Cosmology, and the Transformation of the Modern Self". Not much astrology then, more about the "modern self" in the context of Jung, since Eranos is very inspired by Jung.
I enjoy your videos
nastied 4 years ago
thanks! learn anything interesting at the talk? I'd love to see him speak. I wish I could find some recorded lectures online.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
That would that I got a clarification of what the concept of synchronicity means. He's a great visionary but the talk/seminar was a bit too abstract for my taste. Ervin Laszlo gave a talk on the future of humanity and was basically saying that we're facing a crossroad/chaos point were we'll either degrade or evolve.
nastied 4 years ago
i am clearly an intellectual hussy.
CityzenJane 4 years ago
I read books the same way, so I relate with you on that. I think the book you are suggesting is a bit pseudoscience. How about Evil in Modern Thought or The Lucifer Effect?
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
rather than pedantically characterizing it as pseudoscience, I think I'd refer to the work Tarnas is trying to do as a recontextualization of science itself. he is trying to show how the modern self has become fractured as a result of positivism. then he is trying to heal the fracture.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
While I agree that positivism is a bit philistine, but I am not convinced that it is entirely invalid. I can be pedantic; you, semantic. Why most science be seen through a metaphorical lense, when the truth is perfectly simple. Saturn-Pluto alignment has little or nothing to do with the recent wars that the world has undergone.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
'Our psyche is set up in accord with the structure of the universe, and what happens in the macrocosm likewise happens in the infinitesimal and most subjective reaches of the psyche.' --Carl Jung <--- I tend to agree!
redliterocket4 4 years ago
How can there be a separation between our minds (and as a result our behaviors) and the cosmos itself? To think that there is seems more of an assumption than the reverse.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I'm not denying the connection between our minds and the universe. the both follow the same physical laws. However, I don't the connection between our minds and the cosmos is more than the connection between my jeans and the cosmos. I don't deny a connection, I deny an influence.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
I see where you're going, I'd just say that the psyche is unlike your jeans because the psyche is part of a living organism. as such, it functions as a sort of universe in microcosm, containing within it far more than the denim of your pants.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
from what i've understood from cosmos and psyche, tarnas is underlining the existence of a correlation, not necessarily causality.
Aukikco 3 years ago
@Aukikco I'm not familiar with Tarnas' position, but there is a clear division among astrologers on this point. My own theory is that the law at work is Correspondence, or Synchronicity, and not Causality. Too many people assume Astrology asserts we are controlled or influenced by the planets. Most of the sophisticated astrological writing I've seen is from astrologers who support the correspondence theory; that the planets merely reflect us, describing in bold the processes within ourselves.
Silenus6 1 year ago
If our psyche is in fact set up to accord with the structure of the universe, then why would the book's focus deal with astrology? Our solar system is utterly insignificant, as is our galaxy.
*I would agree that our psyche follow the same physical laws as the cosmos.*
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
have you watched the movie "Zeitgeist" here on youtube or google?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Yes I have seen it.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
because astrology concerns the relationship between the structure of the cosmos and the structure of the psyche.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Astrology did have an influence over the formation of myths that survive to this day, but as we grew up as a species we over came/are overcoming such ideas. Astrology evolved to astronomy; alchemy, chemistry. Just because we have some bad memes in our past, doesn't mean they are valid or beneficial.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
i don't see any of these memes as inherently 'good' or 'bad.' i just see them as in vogue or out of vogue. i do not see the human being as being capable of "overcoming" myth, though he may form myths more in line with his own and the world's nature.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Form a consequential outlook, memes can be good and bad. If a myth is inline with reality, is it still a myth?
Myth - A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
*from
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
my definition of myth (also Jung's, Campbell's, Alan Watt's, etc.): a story or metaphor in terms of which we understand ourselves and the world we live in. who decides what memes are good or bad but another meme? there is no way to step outside to judge...
redliterocket4 4 years ago
That wasn't the type of myth I was talking about, sorry for the confusion. I hope the American Heritage Dictionary is to your liking.
I don't think that the "goodness" or "badness" of a meme can be judged in absolute and objective terms. Why must one step outside the meme pool to observe the consequence of a meme?
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
because when the observation itself is always done within the context of another meme, it's judgments are biased and, at best, superficial. i do like the utility of Dawkins' word... but his insistance on seeing nature (biological and mental) as an all out war for survival may not be as universally applicable as he thinks. cooperation, symbiosis, and compassion are just as, if not more important than, surival of the fittest individual or idea.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
so in other words, instead of seeing undesirable memes as bad, we might see them as in need of greater context. there is no ultimate context, though, so it is very difficult to say one meme is better or worse than another. there is no "best" way to think.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
"if a myth is in line with reality, is it still a myth?" I think what we've learned about nature has shown us that reality is not something we could reach or describe in a single way. reality is more dynamic than that. we can only participate with its creative unfolding. we cannot stand outside of it and "know" it like we know our own names and birthdates, etc.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Is not the purpose of sciences and philosophy to understand morality? Perhaps I should have said, "As a myth becomes more aligned with reality, should it still be considered a myth?" I see a clear disinction from scientific theory and from myth, using the AHD's definition.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
Not morality, I'm sorry that's another debate I'm in. I meant to say reality.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
scientific theory is still mythopoeic as far as I am concerned. we could argue about this all day, but I think in the end it all depends on whether or not we are willing to accept the authority of a scientist claiming to have the ultimate truth. i see such theories as "natural selection" and the "big bang" as scientifically supported metaphors that describe some process in nature.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
the key is that they are metaphorical descriptions and NOT the truth itself. i don't know that the truth itself can be translated into propositional form, which is the only way science can do its work.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
i also disagree that alchemy evovled into chemistry and that astrology evolved into astronomy. or at least I disagree that the development is that simple. alchemy may have more to do with modern psychology (at least the archetypal schools) than with chemistry. same goes for astrology.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
and I haven't read either of those books (yet). have you?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
No, but they are both in my stack of books.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago