frequently asked questions
This area is not intended to answer specific questions about your Self Search results.
This area also cannot answer the deep philosophical questions that can sometimes be raised in the study of the Ageless Wisdom. We would encourage you to consider applying for study with the Morya Federation, or going to the Discussion Forum at the School of Esoteric Studies if you have those types of questions.
This area is not the normal Frequently Asked Questions, but a personal dialog between the author of the program, James Davis, and a fellow astrological researcher. It is included here as many of the points made in their discussion are those we believe are the questions that would be raised by individuals taking the Self Search. Lastly, if you have questions to suggest for this area please contact us.
Questions (the titles of the topics are in the order presented) :
- The Rays In Head And Heart
- The Jigsaw Program
- Astrological Research Results
- The Value Of The Ray Perspective In Astrological Research
- The Rays And The Human Condition
- Noticeable Ray Effects
- On Personality And "Personal"
- The Rays And Astrological Aspects
- The Sources Of The Teaching On The Rays
- The Seven
- Personal Experience
- Validity Of The Rays
- Quality In Astrological Research
- Counting Rays
- Head-line Versus Heart-line Rays
- The Normal Distribution Of Mercury In The Signs
- Normal Distribution Of The Sun In Signs
- A Study Of Ray 4
- Philosophy Of Validity
- Control Groups In The Seven Faces Of Man
- A Letter From Wanja With An Example Exploratory Result That Eventually Led To Her Work In Replicating The Seven Faces Of Man
- Philosophical Note
- Sidelight On The Question Of Pain And Human Progress
- On Photographs And Book Titles As Related To Character
- On Inclusiveness And Ray 2
- About Human Progress
- Religion, Revelation, And Skepticism
- Cause And Explanations
- Gauquelin's Work, A Summary
- Astrological Mechanism
- The Nature Of Astrological Effects
- On How Astrology Might Work
The Rays In Head And Heart
What are "head line rays?"
"head line" relates to odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7.
"heart line" relates to even numbers: 2, 4, 6.
Think of keywords: Will, Intelligence, Concrete Mind, Order Versus: Love, Harmony/Art, Devotion.
Head-line rays are will-mind-structure; they are relatively more "hard" rather like the tradition of Capricorn where 1-3-7 meet. They are more "masculine" and straight-line-firm. Think of Gauquelin's Saturn results for scientists. Each planet also has ray associations. Dominant force in Saturn is said to be 3, and other head-line energies also express through Saturn.
Heart-line rays are love-art-devotion; they are relatively more "soft." They are more "feminine" and curved-lined-fluid. Think of the Moon results in Gauquelin's novelists and poets. The Moon said to be ray 4.
Division between head and heart line rays is not hard and fast. So for instance, ray 4 probably has more "head" energy in it than ray 6, and ray 2. Many variations exists in individual cases. Also, in the big picture, each entity is thought to be blend of all rays. So to identify an entity (such as a planet, sign, or human) with a ray means to say which ray or rays are the most dominant at any point in its evolution.
The Jigsaw Program
Jigsaw is an excellent astrological research program. For more information see: http://www.alabe.com/jigsaw.htm.
You can do a lot of good things with the Jigsaw software, including a few types of control groups. It has good graphics and you can import data via nova or text file. It includes a seven ray type analysis feature in the software.
Astrological Research Results
Does your research support the rays?
Some of my research does support the rays. The photo studies, for instance, mapped all three points of the ray triangles rather closely. I've gotten enough positive results from various studies that the triangles have come to loom large in my thinking. Bailey says a lot about rulerships and other factors that I've not yet been able to confirm. But the triangles seem important and show up most clearly.
Were the results you reported in The Seven Faces of Man† predicted?
Yes, the major peaks were where predicted and most of the minor ones as well. In all cases, if you map the results as 7-rays graphs, you get ray 1 for ray 1, ray 2 for ray 2, etc. for all seven rays. Taken as a whole, it is mutually confirmatory. Its not as if you need special computations to see the significance, the results are visually "significant" to the eye without special calculations; obvious on the face of it, if you'll excuse the pun.
†The Seven Faces of Man is a research article written by James Davis and Robert Roosen.
They believed, "if Bailey's concept of seven astrological energies and seven character types is correct, then it also follows that there must be seven types of character visible in the face. The authors, proceeding on the hypothesis that these proposed relationships exist, were rewarded with evidence strongly supporting both the existence of astrological energies and the concept of the seven ray triangles.
Using biographical reference works containing thousands of photographs, the authors began a search for distinct personality types that might correspond to the seven rays described by Bailey." A PDF copy of their article may be found at http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3280134/1128238921/name/SevenFacesofMan.pdf
The Value Of The Ray Perspective In Astrological Research
Yes, I think there is great research potential for the seven rays. In fact, I think it may be a master key.
There are many aspects to this. For one, it underscores the importance of the seven signs which are the dominant members of the seven ray triangles: Aries, Virgo, Cancer, Scorpio, Leo, Sagittarius, Capricorn. These seven should be easier to isolate for research purposes.
Also, the seven ray topology suggests places to look, and points to unsuspected relationships. To pick two at random--the relationship of color with ray 4, or of the connection between the labyrinth-style mind and the signs Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn.
The Rays And The Human Condition
Six and four seem to dominate a lot of human culture. Ray theory states that the present humanity, as an entity is, conditioned by and evolving considerably (though not exclusively) under the influence of ray 4. That is part of the long-term rayological "why" of its experience of extreme suffering, wars, and struggle.
Most of humanity is, at present, an emotional-physical entity with not much mind active, and only a very tenuous and intermittent spiritual link. The emotional level where most of humanity is focused has a generic correspondence with ray 6. Some cosmologies count down seven planes with the 6th being the "astral" or emotional level. Its the gut-level, instinctual, and desire level of awareness and correspondent with the solar-plexus center (as the Easter system of chakaras has it). Its where most people "live." It is at this "solar-plexus" or emotional level of awareness where most people make connection with their religions.
Mars and Sagittarius are among the strongest astrological correspondences with ray 6, though the complete ray 6 triangle is Sagittarius, Virgo, Pisces. From another angle, in terms of rulership, Scorpio (Luther a Scorpio) and Aries (founder of Salvation Army an Aries) Note also that we've had 2,000 years of Piscean stimulation which further intensifies the ray 6 element in current humanity. The old world unintelligent approach to religions is Piscean and corresponds to the lower ray 6. This same energy expresses in the many fanatical-political and nationalistic causes for which people fight and die.
Noticeable Ray Effects
Rays 1 and 4 seem to have dramatic correspondences which are more noticeable?
This relates to observables and to things that are disruptive of the status quo. Conflict, pain, and suffering (ray 4) are dramatic events. The exercise of dynamic will and destruction (ray 1) are dramatic events (Hitler and Napoleon and Mussolini were using ray 1 and producing dramatic effects). Contrast this with ray 2 (wisdom, inclusiveness, goodness, right education)—perhaps not so dramatic to our eyes. Yet each ray is noticeable in various ways:
- destruction, new beginning
- expanded consciousness
- vortex of creative activity
- conflict; expressiveness; striking artistry
- independent thought and individuality
- fanaticism or intelligent dedication to a worthy objective
- reorganization, founding
On Personality And "Personal"
Is the Sun the more personal planet in this thought?
Why the hesitation?
Hesitation based on flood of questions in my mind about meanings of "personal."
Sun seems personal in sense of individual. It is a basic traditional indicator of personality. It is the circle-with-dot-symbol of ego, and ego is part of meaning of personal. The self has circle of influence, an aura, like the image of light around street lamp on misty evening. Also, the sun does seem "personal" in sense of importance as it shows up more consistently than the Moon in most of my studies.
Personal in the sense of mind, of mask of self, of identification with form, of incarnation, taking up house of body, relates to Cancer symbolism and to ray 3.
Personal in sense of "will" of individual "I" relates to Leo, to ray 1, to Sun.
Personal in sense of I as center of conscious awareness ever expanding relates to ray 2; and again to Sun, to name one...
Personal in sense of I as mind, as sharp intellect, like the Taurus intellect individuals we discussed, this relates to ray 5 in its more earthly or objective expression.
Personal to most is emotion, is desire, aspiration, hero worship—this is the ray 6 sense of personal.
The Rays And Astrological Aspects
In Esoteric Astrology:
Planets have ray correlations. Signs have ray correlations.
My current thought about aspects in general is that the rays may have some correspondences as follows:
Conjunction: ray 1 Opposition: ray 2 Trine: ray 3 Square: ray 4 Sextile: ray 6 Quintile: ray 7.
By these correspondences, a square to Scorpio would indicate conflict more intensely than would a square not involving Scorpio.
The Sources Of The Teaching On The Rays
Where do rays come from?
From the Sun.
Ray information thought to be revealed knowledge. First touched on prior to turn of century by H.P. Blavatsky. Later developed in fuller concept by Alice A. Bailey in a series of 19 books; ray relation to astrology developed in outline form in the book Esoteric Astrology by Bailey (said to be under inspiration of a Tibetan wise man). Presented as esoteric philosophy-psychology-science.
Why only seven?
Seven is ancient tradition; many forms—seven centers or chakaras, seven levels of the universe in some cosmologies, seven sacred planets of the ancients. Bailey presents seven energies as foundational in the same sense that 12 signs are foundational in astrological lore. But there is 1 and 3 and seven, and 12. So 7 is not "only" but 7 seems to be foundational or primary in a special sense; inherent in subtle structure of nature.
How can they be justified?
Should show up in research. Some of my research offers support for the rays.
Why couldn't we suggest 12 rays which would be the six axis with focus planets?
Or six polarities with seventh point as the undefined synthesis behind the whole--an interpretation sometimes given to the six pointed star. The seventh point is the implied center.
How did you get started in this study?
I began studying Bailey because I was attracted to the depth, quality, intelligence, and insights expressed. As the years passed, I began to attend carefully to the thread in the teaching concerning the seven rays—this thread is woven into a lot of other information about psychology, spiritual growth, sociology, cosmology, the nations, history, etc.
Validity Of The Rays
More generally what part of the Ray approach do you feel is reliable and which part is less reliable? Are their things in there that are useless?
I developed a computerized questionnaire to assess ray types. It was the subject of a doctoral dissertation by a Paul Dorin of Los Angeles. In general the rays topology compared well with a variety of other psychological types tests. If I recall correctly, validity and reliability was less for ray 3, but that may be me rather than ray 3 itself.
I haven't noticed that some rays work better than others. Some rays are harder to distinguish in practice. It is sometimes difficult, for instance, to distinguish 1 and 7, 3 and 5, and 2 and 6. Rays 1 and 4 seem to have dramatic correspondences which are more noticeable. I've not noticed that any of the rays are less useful.
Quality In Astrological Research
I've been thinking again (intently the last two days) about quality of data. I am visualizing a key that I sum up to myself in the phrase: "Unusualness with endurance." I read biographical entries in an encyclopedia and I notice that most of the things said about any individual are relatively general and common. There are lots of cliches about character and what person X did, and what person X did is often part of a large class, and it is not unusual. Then occasionally, one comes across a statement that is very unusual. It is extreme, striking, unique, individual. It is defining and sets the person apart in a dramatic way. The more different a statement is, the more it defines or sets that person apart from other persons. That is the nature of individuality—the expressed quality that is special.
But unusualness can be brief and therefore less significant—person "A" devotes himself to the study of color for a month and person "B" devotes much of his life to it. This is the "endurance" factor. So I have the thought of "unusualness with endurance" as criteria for selection. A database should be created composed exclusively of cases of unusualness with endurance. This would be a database of the extreme representatives of everything. Would such a database not yield the most interesting and significant astrological correlations?
Why do the Ray totals vary from one planet to another?
The ray totals for different ray graphs vary because of the way the ray triangles overlap each other and the fact that there is not a simple one to one relation of rays and signs. Each ray covers 90 degrees of arc, but the count will vary depending on how they overlap. The overlaps are shown in the list below.
The Seven Ray Triangles according to ESOTERIC ASTROLOGY by Alice A. Bailey:
RAY 1 Aries, Leo, Capricorn
RAY 2 Gemini, Virgo, Pisces
RAY 3 Cancer, Libra, Capricorn
RAY 4 Taurus, Scorpio, Sagittarius
RAY 5 Leo, Sagittarius, Aquarius
RAY 6 Virgo, Sagittarius, Pisces
RAY 7 Aries, Cancer, Capricorn
Head-line Versus Heart-line Rays
Yes, by isolating all members of a given Sun sign (as I did) from a data set you get a Mercury graph with only three bars. You can see the percent of Mercury placements in the Sun sign and in the signs before and following the Sun sign. Retrograde affects time-in-sign of all the planets, more especially in a smaller time slice.
My question of the day is, should the percent of Mercury placements in the signs before and following the Sun be random when the data is from a large slice of time? Are they random in your big control group collections?
What follows is the results of a 1750-1850 control group in the usual Sun Sign order. The first line (as all the other) says the following:
For all the Suns in Aries 15% of the Mercury's were in the previous Sun Sign and 35% of the Mercury's were in the following Sun Sign. The remainder (100%-15%-35%) were sited in Aries, the same Sun Sign as the Sun. Please note that if you were to average out these percentages you would find them equally distributed between the Previous and the Following.
I suspect we would find equivalent if not identical result if we did the same for the other century.
Previous Sun Sign Following SS
OK. So many of these Mercury differences are in the order of twice as many in one or other of the before/after signs. So this means for instance that, for events with the Sun in Aries for the period 1750-1850, we have a chance expectation of twice as many with Mercury in Pisces as with Mercury in Taurus?
Yes, when the Sun is in Aries.
The Normal Distribution Of Mercury In The Signs
Does retrograde motion of Mercury create uneven sign distributions even in large samples from a long time span?
Here is the distribution of Mercury for the 20 century. In this control group I have each day of the century represented once for a total of 36,525 dates in the group. This is surely a fair representation of the Mercury cycle on the long term. Notice the uneven distribution and the maximum in Sagittarius. Who would have thunk it? SS MER ---------- S1 7.89% S2 7.59% S3 7.49% S4 7.72% S5 8.15% S6 8.38% S7 8.78% S8 9.09% S9 9.15% S10 8.88% S11 8.59% S12 8.30%
Normal Distribution Of The Sun In Signs
For the sun I have done studies to establish the difference in the time spent year year in each sign. This is stable and there is a 2 day difference. Capricorn = 29.5 vs Cancer 31.5 days. Roughly 7% more time in Cap than in Can. If the birth rate was identical in both signs then you have a 7% error possibility. I have done a further analysis, this time, including population (birth rate) and the error become closer to 10/11%.
A Study Of Ray 4
In my last email I mentioned I was reading book with a section by Poincare and was reminded about a relation between mathematics and the 4th ray. I noticed it, as it reminded me that Bailey states that mathematics is related to ray 4.
I ran a study today using my trusty CD-rom, and keyword searching for "math*" which catches all the variations of the word. Wanted to see if there was a ray 4 signal. There was, but not significantly. Results below.
Sign Positions for: SUN
TOTAL= 193 MEAN= 16 SIGNS GRAPH SCALED BY: 0
Significance of sign distribution: CLOSE TO THAT EXPECTED FROM CHANCE Chi-Square= 12.98964
Ray Triangle Positions for: SUN
RAY TOTAL= 327 RAY MEAN= 47 RAYS GRAPH SCALED BY: 0
Significance of ray distribution: CLOSE TO THAT EXPECTED FROM CHANCE Chi-Square= 3.883792
Below is a subset of the above, t=55. These are the first 55 hits on the CD-rom. The search engine lists people with the largest number of "math" keywords, so this group is somewhat more representative of mathematics with a higher proportion of the major players in the filed .
Sign Positions for: SUN
TOTAL= 55 MEAN= 5 SIGNS GRAPH SCALED BY: 0
Significance of sign distribution: CLOSE TO THAT EXPECTED FROM CHANCE Chi-Square= 10.23636
Ray Triangle Positions for: SUN
RAY TOTAL= 93 RAY MEAN= 13 RAYS GRAPH SCALED BY: 0
Significance of ray distribution: CLOSE TO THAT EXPECTED FROM CHANCE Chi-Square= 7.634408
Philosophy Of Validity
I think I see what your are saying. But I am still missing something..
I think in relative terms about this (and most things for that matter). I don't mean to suggest that what I do is invalid and that's OK. What I mean to say is, I might design an experiment that would be more easily open to criticism than one of your designs because, for instance, you are working with ready-made databases that are easily accessed and verified, whereas what I look for necessitates the creation of databases; therefore a selectivity, and one that involves judgments and education or some knowledge or training. Harder to replicate, harder to verify, probably easier to criticize. My photo studies are an example. It requires an educated observer and judgment calls similar to matching studies. If I undertake my unusualness with endurance study, it would have some of the same limitations and not be as purely objective and as easily checkable as the type of thing you do.
I imagine that virtually all research is subject to one kind of criticism or another. Isn't it kind of like walking halfway to the wall, and half way again, and again? Soon you are at the wall—for all practical purposes you are there, but a critic can always come along and point to the space between your nose and the wall? A matter of degree. Or Maybe your control groups are larger and your samples are larger, and your methods are textbook perfect, and your nose is so close to the wall the critics will think there is no room to slip in a "but" Well, good, somebody's got to do it, and I admire your great care and knowledgeable approach.
I want to get close enough to the wall to assure myself of its design and construction--and its good enough that some open minded critics raise an eyebrow, then so much the better. I imagine that in most cases, what I do is neither valid nor invalid but approaches validity while still being subject to criticism. Who am I? Not a statistician, nor an astronomer, nor a research scientist. I'm just a guy with a liberal education that delves into astrology in a critical way and with some scientific spirit. I don't expect to convert the academic minded. Perhaps I will help to stimulate interest among some who come after us with better training, tools and financing.
Control Groups In The Seven Faces Of Man
I agree the "coincidence" does have power but only in the face of replication and also if your distribution is significantly different from an appropriate control group. Otherwise you have a satisfactory chance result which at any level of thinking is "useless" for knowledge purposes.
The 7-faces graphs are about 90% as theory predicts. The controls are random. Also, the rayological graphs are contrasting. They show peaks where predicted, they show virtually none where none are predicted. Each graph is a check against the others and functions like a control group.
A Letter From Wanja With An Example Exploratory Result That Eventually Led To Her Work In Replicating The Seven Faces Of Man
To: James Davis
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:21:25 EST-2EDT
Dear Jim and Robert,
I went through 2000 photos and every time when I looked at a photo, I said to myself - this person is either saying: "I am very sad, I want to cry" or: "I look friendly, but I'm actually very sad".
￼ This is the result:
Wanja's new ray4
Sign Positions for: SUN
TOTAL= 142 MEAN= 12 SIGNS GRAPH SCALED BY: 0
Significance of sign distribution: p<.00000001 (highly significant) Chi-Square= 68.08451
Ray Triangle Positions for: SUN
RAY TOTAL= 241 RAY MEAN= 34 RAYS GRAPH SCALED BY: 0
Significance of ray distribution: p<.00000001 (highly significant) Chi-Square= 61.27801
This surely is a peaceful way to look at reality. It surely has just as much value as the hard core realistic approach and it is less painful. :-))
With the words and concepts you send me I can see how your vision is much less hard core than mine. I make it a policy never to envy others. Therefore I do not envy you but that is not to say that your approach to life seems much softer and less painful in a lot of ways. :-))
An interesting way to think of it. I'd not thought of it much in terms of pain factor, though they say that's what Buddha did. I have noticed ecstasy. There may be a realism of earth and a realism of fire. Perhaps the realism of earth is grounding, practical, efficient for certain defined tasks. The realism of fire is direct, ecstatic, and tense with its own demands.
Sidelight On The Question Of Pain And Human Progress
I wish. If progress is dealing better with reality and acquiring some control over reality we have in my estimation progressed a little, just a little and most of it happens in medical sciences. We are still prehistoric in so many ways that what ever progress can be identified is washed out by the emerging reality of criminality at all levels. And as I said previously human pain is much more significant today should it only be because of the increased number of humans involved with pain on this planet.
It is difficult to judge the scope and depth of criminality at various epochs of history. The media magnifies darkness, while most of find few dead bodies on our doorstep. With the flashlight of modern technologies it is appears that there is increase of scorpions in the forest; I'm not sure about it. Besides, there may be extraordinary benevolent actions going on right next door which are unknown and unreported to us.
No doubt many have arrived prematurely on the crowed Earth. While I would join those who seek to reduce pain, yet I see education in it and the potential of rapid evolution.
On Photographs And Book Titles As Related To Character
Book titles are like naming a baby; someone often spends years of their life creating, and if they select descriptive names for their creations, it seems significant. It is a form of expressive behavior. I propose that a high percentage of photographs appearing in biographies are selected (either by the person themselves, or by someone who knew them) as representative. If they asked you for a photo for a biography, you would pick something that felt right? Right? There is significant nonverbal communication in photos. Sure a lot of photos are deceptive and not meaningful; same can be said for some book titles, but enough seem to be meaningfully related to personality to produce significant results. Unusualness is important here. Best way to get a feel for this is to look at the sample photos I'm sending.
On Inclusiveness And Ray 2
Real intelligence is being open to all sources.
Yes. Open to all sources in an intelligent, inclusive, eclectic, and synthesizing way also happens to be the virtue associated with the ray 2 type. The lower expression of the same energy is "..to throw together those that suit not each other." Sign wise, this is Virgo, Gemini, and Pisces. Planet wise, it is said to be Sun and Jupiter.
About Human Progress Religion, Revelation, And Skepticism
My own pondering are around the relative importance of life in the universe, the relative importance of this planet and what this means for us, different social organization throughout the planet such as religion, politics, the evolution of man (going nowhere fast),...
On the radio I heard today that, when making Gone With the Wind, they had to sneak an offending line past the censors; the line being: "Frankly, my dear, I don't given a dam." The version the censors received was "Frankly, my dear, I don't care." No problem like that today... Maybe we've made some progress? :))
Religion, Revelation, And Skepticism
The first revelations that I debunked were those of the Catholic faith. This does not mean that I do not respect others that live with "revelations" but for myself I think revelations are the creation of "con artist" in previous centuries that would not take the responsibility of their creation and wanted to give it more value than it had. A little like the preachers plugged directly into God in the 80's.
The esoteric value of religions is that the provide something to exercise debunking skills on. Most so called revelations are definitely in the realm of illusion, or to use Bailey's more technical term "glamour." There is in interesting treatment of this in a Bailey's Esoteric Psychology, Vol 2.
One fundamental thought in all this is a line from Emerson, "Every shadow points to the Sun." We measure illusion against an intuitive backdrop which is not illusion. Only by holding each supposed revelation up to the light of this backdrop can we gauge its relative merit.
Cause And Explanations
Personally I believe the right track is to look for a physical cause to an astrobiolink. Philosophy, psychology, esoterism are all very fine but highly disputable in practically all area of life and research.
As I understand exotericism/esotericism, all energy-matter relations or effects are "physical-spiritual" or, in other words, there is a single spectrum of energy-matter-spirit. At a given point in human evolution, we can apprehend some, but not all, of the causes of things (or perhaps more properly, the strata of secondary causes within the field of our current perceptual and conceptual equipment). The understanding of physics (1996), or physics (1850), or physics (2120), must form a useful but limited conceptual framework with which to gain some measure of understanding of astrological phenomena.
MY point is that if there exists a link between man and the planets it should be observable, can replicated and is physical (in the sense of physics).
As I'm sure you know, some physics can get very metaphysical. But I agree that the most needed and useful field of astrological investigation must relate to that which is observable and that which can be replicated. The phenomena for our practical focus should be physical in the sense that it can be replicated. But this phenomena does not speak directly to us about the nature of its underlying causes. The implications of our observations may far transcend our ability to fit it into the (or our) current world view in science, or psychology, or philosophy, or religion. One may find an apparently very (at the moment) satisfactory cause, only to discover later that we are looking at the surface of a much deeper level phenomena.
It should also be caused by already known force such as gravity, EM and the likes. I refuse to reinvent physics to make place for astrology.
We can advance by application of known concepts to new phenomena.
We can advance by expansion of existing concepts to accord with newly observed phenomena. We can advance by the birth of new concepts which explain newly observed phenomena.
When possible, I agree that it is useful to explain the new in terms of the known. Yet, not everthing can or should be explained on the basis of any given current world view. In general, I agree that one should build on existing knowledge. Yet revolution has its time. Perhaps the scientist of the year 2250 will view our attempt to understand the causes of things as woefully inadequate due to our primitive understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe.
If a (or the) key is that solar, planetary, and human energy fields are in resonance with the human system and specifically with the endocrine system--does that throw any light on something specific such as the geometry involved in the correspondence between scientists and Saturn in cadent houses?
If we assume that my having these thoughts and writing this paragraph has an astrological correspondence, is an energy field- endocrine concept an adequate explanation. Does my love of mountains and seashores have endocrine correspondence.
Also, does this mode of explanation exclude astrological correspondences that would not involve the human endocrine system? Earthquakes? Chemical changes in nature? Historical events without human agency? "Accidents"?
What are the current concepts in physics that you see as providing explanatory support for an astrological or astrobiological science?
Astrobiophysical in lieu of astrobiological. This last word would not reflect the "physics" part of a three science into one concept. If I had a bet to make I would go with EM to start then I would play around with gravity (not gravity a la Newton but gravity a la "gravitons".)
Conclusive evidence I do not have but a fair hypothesis as to the possible causal chain, waiting for scientific confirmation I do have. Come to think of it what you ask is a full chapter in a future book:-)
The presence of the Van Hale Belt around the planet, the fact that the earth's EM force field is sensitive to the activity of the sun. The fact that planets have EM force fields of their own. The real possibility that planets can "massage " the EM force fields of the solar system in general and the earth EM force field in particular.
The presence of an EM force field around the head (found by MIT researcher 6 years ago with a machine called the Squid see article in La Recherches no 223 July), the fact that humans subjected to varying EM force fields actually get sick suggesting the stimulation of hormones. (no reference but have read stuff on the subject of magnetism and its effects on humans) and the fact that we already know that varying degree of hormones create unusual behaviors in subject(e.i., put a woman on testosterone or a man on estrogen.)
The principal at play could very well be resonance and the transfer of information from a larger EM force field to a smaller force field (on this last item I do not have conclusive evidence please refer to physicist on this one).
To summarize the possible chain of events:
- EMFF of a planets varies following some astronomical activity (solar flare or displacement of planets in relation to other planets and the earth.
- The Earth's EMFF varies because it is linked to the planetary EMFF 3) The Human's EMFF varies because it is linked to the planets EMFF
- The hormonal secretions of the human, controlled by the brain, varies because the EMFF of the human has its origin in the nervous system more specifically the brain.
- The hormonal variation generates behavior and inner feelings. Perfect this is not, plausible I think so. It has the merit of being the best I have heard yet and also it would have been unthinkable scientifically before 1990. More fascinating is that most if not all of the above is known to.
Gauquelin's Work, A Summary
The possibility here is that we will probably find that valid scientific observation will revealed an astrobio link much less "elegant than astrologers believe in at this stage. Michel Gauquelin's work suggests exactly that even though the jury is still out on his work.
Most of the Gaquelin work is based on professional groups, psychological traits in the form of what people say about people, and the family or hereditary data. More recently there were some semi-successful results with questionnaires as reported in Francoise's journal Astro-psychological Problems. This type of data was good enough to produce the results reported: something roughly corresponding to house positions, and some evidence for astrological aspects, and all of this only with relation to the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. My sense is that the correspondence discovered are the surface of things and limited, and that the fundamental reason for this is the quality of the data (not the computations and times, but the aspects of the world focused on). I think that what astrological research needs is better data. Yes, exactly: BETTER DATA. I am interested in finding ways to get at the underlying quality of things, the motive ("cause"), of things. The problem is that the world is an illusion. We have:
Symbol (the external, the illusion; behavior/profession/words)
Meaning (the quality; closer to motive and essence)
We interpret symbol to get at meaning. We observe and attribute meaning to the observation. Finding the right or most productive focus for observations is intimately related to intelligent understanding of the symbol and meaning process that is going on within us and in relation to the world. This may seem to general and abstract to mean much in practical terms, but perhaps you'll get more of my meaning in this regard as we talk and you see the context of my thinking.
Astro-psychological Problems reports significantly higher squares and oppositions in the charts of professional. That is the planets significant by cadent pattern for the professions are also significantly more in square or opposition aspects with one of the other five bodies.
Your last sentence could very well be right. Some researcher have found that the presence of certain hormones in the body explain certain behaviors. ...some scientists think that hormonal presence or absence can modify the behavior.
Probably each thought has biochemical effects and biochemical activity can can certainly trigger psychological states. I suspect that the less sacred and more automatic aspects of our nature place us more at the mercy of effects, and that the higher and more conscious aspects of our individuality correspond more to cause. This again, is part of the meaning of symbol and meaning. I think two distinct groups of planets may correspond to this division.
The Nature Of Astrological Effects
In your first sentence you are making an assumption I would find difficult to substantiate. Contrary to astrologers I do not think that all aspect of humans are "related" to astroNOMical factors. I see the astroLOGical factor as a trigger not as a shaper.
I think there are major shapers or correspondences of human life (both exoteric and esoteric) that are non-astrological. I do not think the horoscope causes or shapes, merely that it seems to. Seeming is symbol not meaning. The cause of things are deep hidden.
On How Astrology Might Work
BTW I do not buy the Gauquelin's new born self triggered birth. It is cute but I would need a lot more substantiation to buy it. I much prefers the following.
While in the womb the baby is isolated from the earth's EMFF because of the water surrounding him. When he come out he is magnetized in much the same way a credit card is magnetized. From that point on, the baby has internalized the "information" in the EMFF which also includes planetary position and their relation to each other amongst other things.
If this is true, what do the correspondences found by Gauquelin disappear when there is a "non-natural" physical or chemical intervention by the medical supervisors of the birth? The disappearance seems to suggest that the "real" birth time/chart is hidden by medical intervention. Your thoughts?
The explanation of the impact of transits is simpler at this point and more logical. Having internalized the "information" he remains sensitive to anything that is similar. The internalized information could be seen as a magnetic map that can be triggered when planets return to original positions, oppose or square the original position.