Kevin's Watch

I am not a believer in astrological prediction. I don't read my horoscope in the paper and neither do I look to predict my future in the stars. But the fact remains that throughout the course of history many people have taken the 'science' of astrology very seriously - and many of the 'movers and shakers' of the world have made few or no descisions before consultation of augeries or astrologies of somekind or another. It seems to me that if we are ever to get into the minds of these people a serious study of astrology - not as a believer but as a 'tool' to bring ones thinking into line with those who one would study - would not be time wasted.

Say for example we want to get an understanding of Dr Dee. How could one ever really get to grips with this charachter unless one were to immerese oneself in the very system of beliefs and superstitions that formed the very mental 'background' on which these people 'chalked thier thoughts'.

In the spirit of this idea a few years ago I decided to cast a horoscope in the manner that it would have been done in Dee's time and found it to be an incredibly involved and intricate process. To my shame I gave up the project before it's completion - I did not have the year or so of free time that I judge it would take to come even close to an understanding of the complex system I found myself floundering in - but the idea still remains.

What insights might be gained by an qualified historian who was really to take the trouble to put himself right into the mindset of people like Dee and his ilk.

Another interesting topic, Peter, you certainly are spreading the net of inquiry wide in recent times

My interest is less in historic astrology than in its modern manifestation. I found my way to it through my questioning of the unquestioning (almost religious) attitude with which science is held in contemporary Western society.

What I learnt is that modern astrology is closer to an 'art' than a science and as such is closer to being 'holistic' rather than a purely rational and logical system. This is what I was looking for; the idea that there are different kinds of 'knowledge' and that there are many ways of exploring and discovering 'knowledge'. Another example of such a system would have been Alchemy (which is why Jung found it so rich when it came to describing his psychological ideas).

A book I really like is; Astrology, Science and Culture (link to excerpt of chapter 8: Science and Astrology), by Roy Willis and Patrick Curry, in it (p.105) they give a description of an approach to knowledge called metis (which is in contrast to the Platonic idea of episteme and Aristotle's idea of phronesis):

'.... metis or cunning wisdom. More a 'mode of action' or 'attitude of mind' than a concept...

It is characterised by suppleness of thought and action, the ability to see through and disregard conventions, to embrace paradox, and to respond quickly and appropriately to changing circumstances and particulars...

It operates with a particular twist, the unexpressed premise that both reality and language cannot be understood (or manipulated) in straightforward "rational" terms but must be approached by subtlety, indirection, and even cunning' (Raphals 1992: 5).

I don't know if this concept applies to historic astrology but it might be worth keeping in mind as you study the life of someone like Dr Dee.

Here are another couple of links that are more or less related to this idea: one is the Shamanism thread started by Fist and Faith and the other is a link to Paul Feyerabend a philosopher of science who put forward ideas that expand (and in places contradict) the thought of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Enjoy!

u.

I think you're right, u. John Dee was, first and foremost, an Alchemist. What that actually entails is kinda complicated. On one hand, that would make him something of a scientific authority of the day, on the other, he would have been a mystic and many scientific concepts (and the zodiac) would have been riff with symbolism. As a result, certain procedures are not necessarily meant to be taken literally, but are meant to convey a different meaning to those who do not rely on the Black Sun for illumination.

Orlion wrote:but are meant to convey a different meaning to those who do not rely on the Black Sun for illumination.

By Godwin's Law! you lose the argument. (I think )

u.

ussusimiel wrote:

Orlion wrote:but are meant to convey a different meaning to those who do not rely on the Black Sun for illumination.

By Godwin's Law! you lose the argument. (I think )

u.

That's it! I'm releasing the Green Lion to eat the True Sun!

Thanks u. for the links - re the 'net casting', two weeks of holiday to burn up with no plans to go anyplace and the mind turns to "those medicines that are advised for Melancholy (in the anatomy of that disease), of mummies made medicine and the profits of dust-sifting". I love the idea of going out and getting knowledge from other than the conventional scources. Shamenism is another area that sends shivers down my spine. I believe its roots go so far back into our antiquity that great knowledge of the 140,000+ years of human history that are closed to us could be brought back by a close study of its practice and meaning,

Alchemist/astrologist/occultist - I don't think in Dee's time the divisions would have had the same significance as they would today. He was versed in allof these areas and they would have been to him as our 'science' is to us today. Certainly the texts of the day would have been multi-layered in their levels of meaning - but I don't think Dee would yet have been furnished with the mental scafolding (gosh that sounds terrible but I hope you can get the point I'm trying to get at) to sepparate out the 'rational scientific' from the 'mystical symbolic' in his thinking. For him thaey would all have been of a 'oneness' and hence the idea of trying to imerse oneself in the 'science' of the day in order to get a clearer insight into his world.