The astrology works like a machine to do metaphors leaning in rules of rhetorical eloquence.
It is a system of symbols that, when interrelating them, produces a symbolic language.
This language is based on independent factors of the will of its interpreters.
The planets, the Earth, and their respective celestial movements are objective, and measurable beyond the will of the observer.
Those are their rules, and are normative.
For example, no astrologer can consider that Saturn is in Virgo, if is in Escorpio.
No astrologer cannot, either, judge that the Moon has to do with the long terms, or that Mercury governs the emotions, etc.
The native letter is simply an astronomical scheme of the sky seen from certain Earth place, at a certain moment.
The place and the moment are those of the birth of the being about who it is wanted to investigate, and that is the reason for which the astrologers need only the date, hour and place of a birth to make a letter native.
This is, approximately, the part of the astrology in which astronomy has interference, and only this.
For that reason, it seems mistaken that the astronomers feel that still they have authority to speak badly – of astrology.
One treats, evidently, of badly understood, since astronomy is in charge of the description of the material aspects of the universe, whereas the astrology tries to take a reading symbolic of that same universe.
Nothing that to see to each other. It is as if the owner of the press wanted to be admitted in a philosophy congress, under the argument of which the philosophy books are printed.
The machine to resemble II
Soon the interpretation comes from that letter, and here it is where the great problem begins, the true heart of everything what interests to say about the astrology, and which by all means, is for that reason most difficult.
Metaphor of the structure of the western conscience, the zodiac of 12 signs and the 10 “planets” are a “machine to interpret”, a technology to construct significant images.
This machine has its rules of construction and operation.
And the scientific mentality of the western cultured man of centuries XIX and XX rejects those rules and that method almost by instinct, since that has been become accustomed a vision of the world in very different general, in that on the one hand they are sciences, that provide objective and comprobable knowledge, and by the other are the arts, provide to please aesthetic.
The astrology is a strange discipline, that is to horse between and others, since simultaneously its method is the one of metaforizar according to rules, since a rhetorician would make medieval, whereas their conclusions appear to our eyes like affirmations objective or really comprobable.
The epistemologic short circuit that sublies here is well-known, although they are few who have studied that process to find meaning that develops the astrologers.
Nevertheless, which we postulated in this note is that that mechanism is not mistaken, but something or worse better: he is anachronistic in a very excellent sense.
The western man no longer thinks like about century XV, and is indeed why the astrology – that supposes a cosmovisión of century XV and perhaps one of century XXI to the time has been in semantic bankruptcy during last the three centuries.
Michel Foucault describes very well – as we more down see a little `copernicano turn’ in the ways know the world that were the anticipated one and only guillotine that truely killed – provisorily, seems to the astrology at the beginning of century XVII.
The machine to resemble III
Umberto Eco postulates in a long chapter of his book the limits of the interpretation that what he calls `hermetic semiosis’ is a process by which the world is interpreted as a book – or a book, like worlds. In this case, he observes the Italian semiólogo, the medical instructor of the hermetic semiosis has a “suspicious vision of the world”, and has developed an obsessive method.
“To suspect, in himself, – Eco says is not pathological: as much the detective as the scientist suspects as a matter of principle that some phenomena, evident but apparently irrelevant, can be indication of something nonevident; and on this base an unpublished hypothesis that elaborates soon they put under on approval.
But the indication is taken like so only with three conditions: that it is not possible to be explained of one more a economic way, than note towards a single cause (or towards a restricted class of possible causes) and not to an indetermine and disconforme plurality of causes, and that can form system with other indications.”
The description of Eco closes very well with which apparently an astrologer does, when he takes the signs from the sky to make his inferences.
And Eco tries, in the mentioned chapter, a demolition of the hermetic semiosis and of those who practices it. It accuses them to be maniáticos finders of `secret differed’ that never is and that, therefore, it does not exist, and to draw noneconomic and incomprobables conclusions.
An astrological era, when the astrology was an inserted discipline in a society like the Renaissance one that included/understood and knew the world through chains signatures, an erudite interpreter, for its contemporaries, of that world shared by the experience of all. It was his same erudition the one that allowed to guess him, since the world of that astrology was a world in which the events were illuminated and interpreted in agreement with a preexisting general model.
The facts illustrated the model and they only took place and sense from him, and not the other way around.
The scholar of the model – by example, of the astrological model used his erudition to put in sequence what it happened, to give him felt, to interpret it.
The truth was revealed, and the destiny already was written, and the erudition of what thing another one was similar whereupon was the one that allowed to decipher what it had happened, and what was going to happen.
However, once the world lets see itself in agreement with those assumptions, once those interpretativos models done of symbols let constitute standard, once they are forgotten and that more are not taught, safe under the form of myths and stories without apparent reference, that continue them studying and knowing it happens, on the one hand, to be a marginal one of the ideas.
Through another one, if he is truely able, it happens to be a danger, because it has a knowledge that now sublies below accepted the ways to see and to interpret the world collectively.
The astrology is in that now much more esoteric sense of which never it was. And the present astrologer is basically a poet and a rhetorician, whose repertoire is the original myths of the culture, which they seem forgotten but that they are there just, to very little distance of the surface, completely alive by the others in the structure of fairy tales, Literature, the cinema, and histories of being able, sex and death that are written in any newspaper all Mondays.
The distrust and the obsessive method of which Eco speaks, and their intelligent and ironic description of the hermetic semiosis, leave as well of side that `book of the world’ that the astrology interprets, that is to say, the native letter, yes is subject to limitations, and these come from the same structure of the astrological discipline, marked by the structure of the cosmos. This is explained when it thinks about the astrologer as if his client was a creator of small mythical stories in accordance with, who is in fact everything what is.