From: Tyagi@HouseOfKaos.Abyss.com
Subject: A.m Tyagi Astrology 4
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 09:34:32 PST

Astrology is not a viable system of FORECAST.  One cannot
logically predict future events using it.  One cannot logically predict
future personal actions using it.  I'd even venture out on a limb
and say that it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to use an
astrological chart to describe another personality.


What I think that astrology IS good for is for REFLECTION.  It is a
symbol-system which functions AS A MIRROR.  Yes, one could use comic
books for this purpose, yet comic books would be an AWKWARD mirror.
Unless one is prepared to integrate some aspect of these comic books
into one's reflections, postulate some correspondence between them and
oneself, comic books will reflect rather poorly.  Let me give you an
example from my life:

I used to collect Dr. Strange comic books.  I found deep meaning in the
character of Stephen Strange.  I admired the artwork, the storyline, and
the premise.  I found it all to be both metaphorical of profound philosophy
(postulating an unresolvable heroism or egomania) and reflective of myself
(since I saw/see myself as both the Messiah and a deluded Fool).

I looked into these comic books.  I looked into myself.  I searched inwardly
to find out where I ended and these comic books began.  I asked myself,
how much do I really think this character describes me?  What does this
say about me as a person?  What does it say about my future?  How can I
relate the comic book world (which has some important differences from
my personal reality - i.e. I was not a surgeon, my magick is different
in form and structure, etc.) to my own world and learn something about
myself and my environment?  How much effort do I want to put into
maintaining this process?

All these questions and all this reflection would NEVER have happened if
I hadn't seen some coherent system of ideas within it to which
I could relate (in this example, the character of Stephen Strange and
his life).  There were coherent symbols which parallelled and in some
cases almost duplicated my waking experience.

I still use it for reflection every now and again.  I consider myself
a mage and, for all intents and purposes, the Sorceror Supreme of this
dimension.  Does this make me dismissable?  I think not, and I'll tell
you why...

What this system has catalyzed and what is valuable about my reflection
is that it leads to an experience of SATISFACTION.  I'm not talking
about the short-term happiness which one may derive from licking a
lollipop that vanishes as soon as the last morsel of candy dissolves.
I'm talking about long-term enjoyment of my experience in all aspects of
life.

Reflection and symbolic (mythic) perception has catalyzed what I call
'divinity'.  The enjoyment of experience which is not based on the
fulfillment of short-term desires is what I associate with the divine.
Processes or practices which lead to this reflection are what I call
'divination'.  I know that this is not the popular definition of this
term, but hey, it is an old one, look at the root.

My point is that astrology may not be a valid means of prediction (I
would even support your argument that it is not), yet it IS a valid
means of REFLECTION, especially when such reflection leads to inner
growth, personal empowerment (self-esteem and the like), and intuitive
insight (regarding oneself and/or others).

Don't go dismissing astrology as a tool for divination in THIS sense
because it does not conform to some awkward 'scientific' test for
predictability.  I claim that you and all those who like you may 
do so are throwing away a very important symbol-system because you
don't know what it can be used for.  Reflection can only be tested
subjectively.  Objective tests will never validate astrology because
it is a tool of subjective science.


With regard to 'As above, so below', unless I am mistaken, I only
said that this was the philosophy which underlies its use, not that
this justifies any claims to prediction.  This mystical relation is far
more valuable as a worldview than it is a 'fact' which buttresses
fortune-telling.  I wouldn't even claim that the worldview itself
is accurate, since generally I think that 'worldviews', on the whole,
are limited and incomplete, regardless of their content.

I have had experiences which led me to see the truth of the worldview,
yet I don't see the worldview, based on this 'truth', to be literally
accurate.  I see that it represents, metaphorically, a relation that
I can only fathom in the realms of direct experieence.  Claiming
that it either 'makes sense' (which it does not) or that it is
'accurate' (which it cannot be, by virtue of the limitations of language
itself) are ludicrous and I would not attempt this.


I hope you see now where we have crossed-purposes.  I don't intend to
dissuade you from disproving the claims of deluded 'astrologers' who
think that their symbol-systems may be considered viable objective
sciences.  I DO intend to dissuade you from applying objective tests
in an attempt to prove that astrology is not a valuable tool for 
SUBJECTIVE science (the study of the self).

Tyagi NagaSiva
Tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com