MIND IN THE COSMOS
A couple of days ago I was watching, fascinated, the film 'Dangerous Knowledge', re-screened on BBC2. It concerned the obsessions of mathematicians and the consequences for their sanity.
Georg Cantor spent his life trying to get a mathematical handle on (of all things) infinity. He got to the point where he was even adding 'infinities' together and making them jump through conceptual hoops. It drove him mad.
With a south node in Aquarius I must be careful where I send my thoughts!... but it did get me pondering. A number of questions arose in my mind which may or may not make much sense, but here they are for what they are worth.
Cantor was tantalised by the number of possible points on the circumference of a circle ( and we astrologers deal with circles Great and small all the time.) Take a circle, draw radii from its centre to the edge until there is no room left on that edge - and the area will be black with lines - and you have a finite construction. But as soon as you widen that circumference, the original radii will of course fan out, leaving spaces on the new perimeter! So the number of radii in a circle is infinite, assuming the potential circumference is infinitely far away.
My question is - why start from the centre? Wherever the outer limit of any Great Circle is (and if it is Infinity, so be it, because it is beyond the conception of a finite mind) it can be completed with as many nano-nano points as it has room for, and then they can form the origin of radii to the circle's centre.
Maybe a silly thought, but let's play with ideas!
This whole conundrum arises because mankind insists on dividing things. So another question is, why assume division is appropriate? Why not try the other assumption that some phenomena function as unified Wholes?
As Astrologers we work with wholes in the form of Ideas that are grouped in twelve sections of a circular heaven. The Great Circle is the Ecliptic, and the 12 sections are what we call the Zodiac. These can be subdivided (yes!) into 144 subsets known as the Dwads; and there are a number of differing great-circular frameworks that place these Ideas in different contexts of human life and earthly existence. We also deal in Degrees - 360 of them in each circle - and in minutes - 60 to each degree; and degrees themselves carry individual meanings. But small as these are, detailed as they become, they are still Wholes, and we don't need to mess with them too much! We also work with the geometry of the circle to assess the harmony or lack of it between zodiacal Ideas that are focussed by the presence of a planet, or the Moon, or a key spatial node such as the Ascendant, the Midheaven, or the Nodes of the Moon (there are others.) But there is little to be gained in understanding by straying beyond the kind of geometries that would produce recognisable music on a taut string. So beyond 12ths or 24ths not many 'aspects' are used; 11ths are, but odd geometry is tricky to understand and work with. So why not work with Wholes elsewhere instead of constantly dividing? Maybe lines spread out into membranes? surfaces into mobius loops and toroids? Waves, particles, strings and superstrings all fall into this category, I daresay. And as astrology is more wave-like and rhythmic and musical than particulate, my feeling is that it is in this category of cosmic phenomena that the astrologer and the physicist/chemist/cosmologist will eventually meet.
And then there's Pi.
Following on from that last argument, why are folks not content with the elegant fraction, 22/7, and forever going on about Pi not resolving to a neat decimal place?
1/3 doesn't either - it's 1.3333333333333 on into good old infinity again, and yet we recognise a third of something when we see it. It doesn't have a fuzzy edge that wafts us away into hyperspace (unless you insist on examining the quantum conditions around your slice of short-cake - in which case there may be no hope for you.)
I say, let's get back to fractions. Decimals are all very handy but they do throw up this infinity problem again, as does any BaseN arithmetic. Yes it's very entertaining, and people spend their lives pushing Primes and ratios and divisions to their impossible limits - but where is understanding in all of this? (Except to recognise, forcefully, our own limitations as an incarnate family!) Look at Phi. Beautiful. Not because it's 1:1.61803...(etc) but because of the proportion itself that is built organically into so many living and wonderfully architectural things.
Somewhere in all this maths and cosmology there has to be the place where Mind Is. When you have knocked around the worls for 65 years as I and many of you have, and spent 40 or so of them as an astrologer, healer, and and general mixer with friends unseen, you know the spiritual dimensions are a reality, that they interpenetrate the apparent world, and Science will always fail until it allows for that reality in testing its own propositions. It tends on the whole not to. I've met quite a few scientists in various fields and even if they profess a belief in spirituality, or in God, I don't really see this in their work. It gets parked just outside while they go in the lab for the day to study multi-dimensional theory. One day the penny will drop, and some bright young person will get the most deserved Nobel Prize in history.
This ubiquitous Mind - consciousness - meaning - purpose - is ultimately the basis for our Astrology. The Universe is permeated with it. It is our Matrix. We are the Cinderella of Science. Look - astrologers recognised millennia ago the 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions' that is integral to modern Chaos Theory. Astrology is likewise fractal in its nature (numbers 12 and 60 being key to our work with the intelligent cosmos.) We are manifest Thought.
I have a paper that I wrote a few years back, on the properties of the Circle and muliple dimensions, that I may put up here later on if I can get the diagrams to go on the blog with it. Watch this space.
That'll do for now. Have to get tea at some point this evening!
Posts
