DWill, your assertion that “what was scientifically valid was exhausted” is completely untrue, and masks the religious dimension of the modern scientific faith in evidence alone for which Harrison is such an acolyte.DWill wrote:Astrology left a legacy to astronomy in the form of accurate observations of the planets and stars. Alchemy was a forerunner of chemistry. But in each case, what was scientifically valid was exhausted. Because for so many centuries astrology was a ruling practice, there is an effort by some not to let a grand esoteric tradition die. So we see attempts to prove a kernel of truth amid many beliefs that are conceded to be unreal.
The religious dimension in this debate was identified by Kepler, the great astronomer at the cusp of modernity who discovered the elliptical shape of planetary orbits, when Kepler said that studies of past wisdom should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, in the first known use of this famous phrase.
Astrology assumes there is a complex mysterious relationship between the other planets of the solar system and regular patterns of life on earth, due to their all being part of a larger harmonic system. Expressed in those terms the hypothesis is a necessary truth, but efforts to validate it have failed, indicating that the strength of this overall system harmonic is swamped by immediate terrestrial factors.
Nonetheless the systemic patterns exist as a signature of time, and the astrological argument is that keying into these patterns enables us to better understand our real identity. This opinion is anathematised as fatalistic and magical by the modern cult of evidence.
To further explain why I am focussing on this aspect of Harrison’s opinions about thinking, I should explain that the example of astrology illustrates the tension between modern philosophical traditions in Europe and the USA. While astrology is anathema and taboo across the entire world university system, I find it interesting that its relational theory of human identity finds an echo in European existential philosophical traditions.
In particular, Martin Heidegger, paradoxically celebrated and reviled as the greatest and worst philosopher of the last century, held as his core axiom that care is the meaning of being. This means that human identity is inherently relational, that meaning emerges from social values, and that our concept of world is primarily a social construction rather than an objective collection of empirical facts.
In all these opinions Heidegger indicated something of a throwback to Kepler’s sympathy for older worldviews, even while the broad cultural loathing towards astrology meant that Heidegger did not investigate the astronomical roots of his relational paradigm. However, a primary theme in Heidegger’s epistemology is the deconstruction of the dominant scientific Cartesian theory of human identity as an isolated subject who relates to the world by measuring facts. Rather, Heidegger had a sense that our values, our sense of care and concern, are ultimately grounded in who we are as relational beings, and that this social sense of being with others is a necessary theme in philosophy.
My interest in Heidegger in my MA Honours Thesis on The Place of Ethics in Heidegger’s Ontology was actually prompted by my undergraduate interest in the relation between astrology and science, in terms of Heidegger’s foundational theme of relational epistemology as a core to analysing human spirituality. In exploring these themes I gradually came to understand the furious hostility towards relational epistemology which a book such as Harrison’s exhibits.
The debate between religion and science which Harrison promotes requires cultural understanding of these traditions. Understanding is hindered by the simple polemics and straw man arguments which many supporters of science use to denigrate religious worship and faith. Understanding can actually be advanced by recognising that older cultural traditions that are overtly irrational on the surface may contain a deeper kernel of truth within the dross.