Compare and Contrast The Different Models of Fate, Free Will, and
Astrological Determinis
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
Edmond H. Wollmann
Kepler University: Astrology in Ancient Civilizations
Masters in Astrological Counseling Program, Demetra George advising
First term, September 4, 2000
Throughout the history of the world of astrological knowledge and
otherwise, the debate about fate vs. free will has been intense and
complex. In this work the assertion is made that we have always had
the resolution, and that no two individuals clarified this resolution
more completely than Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. The resolution
has been overlooked because of the missing and important blending of
psychological awareness and advance that has been achieved over the
last 50 years in psychology and sociology through research. Discussed
are the successful blending of these as well as ancient astrological
paradigms that allows us to understand not only the mechanical
resolution to this contradiction, but the psychological notions that
allow that resolution through understanding as well.
The Babylonians believed that certain disturbances in the heavens that
were irregular, such as the comets or meteors showers, were indicative
of divine intervention interfering with or disrupting nature, but that
by purifications or other rituals of human will they could secure
greater blessings (Cumont, page 17). Stoic astrological perspectives
(Cumont, 40) conceived the world as a great organism, with destiny
connected with an infinite succession of causes, with the regularity
of the celestial configurations as indicative of this destiny.
Fatalism is one of the major principles that promoters of astrology
imposed on the world because of the irrefutable observational evidence
of celestial regularity, leading to an assumed philosophic derivation
of this fate from necessity, and emanating from the awareness of
divine plan (Cumont, 85). From the Alexandrine period and all through
the Hellenic period, astrology accelerated the concept of fate and
slowly eroded the concept of responsibility associated with free will.
(1) At the same time this fostered the usurpation of that
responsibility by governmental control, an acceleration of the
subjective values of good and evil, and the discounting of the natural
state as the inherently positive state. Augustus made a political
argument of destiny using astrology, claiming that it was his evidence
of his importance in the "new era" in bringing peace after civil wars
because of the sign Capricorn's symbolism of the rise of the sun after
winter solstice (Barton, 40,41). Underlying these approaches of
astrological determinism and free will then, are psychological
justifications for the adherence to one or the other side of the
dimension of choice or lack thereof. Modern psychological and physics
theory evidences the same philosophic paradox as being central to
resolving scientific predictive uncertainty and anomaly (2). Modern
psychological theory and modern theoretical physics offer the best
evidence yet that the obvious paradox of fate vs. free will is not an
either/or situation, nor obvious. But that the extent to which each is
observed is as much dependent upon the awareness of the participant as
the awareness of the observer, and therefore variable in the extent to
which fate or free will is experienced or perceived as such.
Early in the 20th century a debate of free will verses determinism was
unknowingly resolved by the works of Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr
through solid evidence of both. Now unlike the Babylonians, the
disturbances are at the quantum level and the disruption is the order.
The contradiction and paradox felt by these two men as the result of
their own work in their theories of quantum mechanics and relativity
reflects this fate/free will contradiction and resolution in one. The
concept of momentum becomes a powerful component of discerning
probabilities in prediction, a key element of the construct called
fate. Are these real or perceived developments? In psychological
theories of infant development the concept of primacy (3) is crucial
to an understanding of the momentum of the psyche.
Insofar as children's fates are shaped by their experiences in the
world, it seems reasonable to conclude that their earliest
experiences, the paths they first travel down, will be the most
significant for their later development. This idea is called primacy.
Plato expresses this understanding: "And in the beginning you know, is
always the most important part, especially in dealing with anything
young and tender. That is the time when the character is being molded
and easily takes any impress one may wish to stamp on it." (1945:68)
But is that impression the dictator of fate? Whether the psyche
dictates the physical is also the crux of this dilemma. The persona is
the effect of the psyche. (4) In this way then we know that at the
very least the persona has a momentum that can be traced to its
physical beginning. In the passages from the Corpus Hermeticum we read
in Poimandres number 3;(5)
Number 3. The divine man enters into the physical universe and he and
nature fall in love and join....man is thus divine and mortal."
Thus this joining is indicative of the beginning of the primacy
psychologically, which coincides with the development of horoscopic
astrology (the specificity of delineating the persona). But the
philosophic question arises; does the addition of a state necessarily
include a separation from previous states? Or is the separation only
in terms of subjective perceptions which alter the observations? Is
this a scientific question of observation or a psychological notion?
The ancients had different names for the components, the resolutions,
the evidence, and the results. But the issue was still the same: How
to reconcile the apparent paradox and contradiction of evidence of
both fate and free will interpreted likewise in similar events.
In the Iamblichus -- De Mysteriis (6) the concept of negotiation with
that believed separate is explained with guidelines on the
transcendence of the physical order:
But neither are all things comprehended in the nature of fate, but
there is another principle of the soul, which is superior to all
nature and generation, and through which we are all capable of being
united to the Gods, of transcending [p. 310] the mundane order, and of
participating in eternal life, and the energy of the super celestial
Gods. Through this principle, therefore, we are able to liberate
ourselves from fate. For when the more excellent parts of us energize,
and the soul is elevated to natures better than itself, then it is
entirely separated from things which detain it in generation, departs
from subordinate natures, exchanges the present for another life, and
gives itself to another order of things, entirely abandoning the
former order with which it was connected.
The philosophical problem that we see developing through the ages, is
the increasing separation between the physical and conceptual or
spiritual and material constructs. (7) In the ancient world the
orderly physical component that impinges itself upon the persona, or
Heiarmene,(
are directives of the Gods, and become less and less a
part of the consciousness of the collective or personal individual
will. In modern psychology it is recognized that Learned Helplessness
(9) IS a perception. It follows then, that the rise in governmental
control paralleled the rise in the perception of fate and destiny as
the individual increasingly gave more power to the government to take
responsibility for individual (or collective) free will. Therefore,
the doctrines of fate vs. free will vacillate in validity depending
upon perceived effectiveness of the individual. Agnoia overrides
Pronoia.(10)
From the psychological point of view, self-esteem levels are critical
to beliefs of effectiveness (11) and vice-versa, hence a removal of
the belief in the ability to control one's environment affects
self-esteem. Affecting self esteem or the disbelief in it (or the
belief in control) increases learned helplessness and beliefs in fate.
Therefore, the Persian era of dominance (12) brought not only the
proposed conflict between good and evil (a false choice tool to
control collective self-esteem), but increased doctrines of fate.
Astrology in the Roman world then moved to strategic effectiveness for
political control, rather than its origins as omens from the gods and
goddesses of the movement of consciousness.
This same paradox asserts itself in physics.
Two belief systems associated with free will and deterministic
perspectives;
1) The behavior of atoms is governed entirely by physical law.
2) Humans have free will.(13)
These statements are irreconcilable. Number 1 implies that whatever an
atom does, it has to do. However, if I choose to move my arm the atoms
had this choice via me. Therefore, if 1 is true, my arm had to move,
if 2 is true, atoms have free will. One or the other must be logically
rejected in a non-paradoxical and logically coherent reality.
Plato answered this argument. Plato's theory of forms asserts that the
thing is not the construct the expresses it. The form can exist
somewhere else; "the man who truly worships the stars does not need to
enquire what fate they weave for him, he is lifted above the reach of
fate in his communion. By becoming one with the stars, he becomes one
with his own fate." (14) By derivation the self moves and chooses to
move the atoms in the arm.
Aristotle fails in this argument. Aristotle's perspective was that
without the form the thing could not exist. The essential nature of
the thing is the form. The form is the formal cause. What it was made
of was the material cause. The efficient cause is what made it. (15)
From the free will perspective, the essential form must be one with
the efficient.
In general the quantum theory asserts that (at the sub-atomic level):
"the atomic world is full of murkiness and chaos. A particle such as
an electron does not appear to follow a meaningful, well-defined
trajectory at all. One moment it is found here, and the next there.
Not only electrons, but all known subatomic particles-even whole
atoms-cannot be pinned down to a specific motion. Scrutinized in
detail, the concrete matter of daily experience dissolves in a
maelstrom of fleeting, ghostly images. Uncertainty is the fundamental
ingredient of the quantum theory. It leads directly to the consequence
of unpredictability. Does every event have a cause? Few would deny
it... The cause-effect chain has been used to argue for the existence
of God-the first cause of everything. The quantum factor, however,
apparently breaks the chain by allowing effects to occur that have no
cause."(16)
This side of the coin represents one side of the current accepted
scientific paradigm, that of chaos theory and unpredictability (free
will). This view was held by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, who accepted
and believed that atomic uncertainty was reflected in and was
intrinsic to nature.
In contrast to Bohr, Albert Einstein's perspective represents the
other side of the paradigmatic coin;
"God does not play dice", is one of his famous quotes. "Many ordinary
systems, such as the stock market or the weather, are also
unpredictable. But that is only because of our ignorance. (17) If we
had complete knowledge of all the forces concerned, we could (in
principle at least) anticipate every twist and turn."
Again we see the ancient paradox asserted with the same parameters as
outlined by Chaldean oracles rephrased in modern linguistics.
Psychological advance is the key to resolving and explaining this
paradox. The issue is not whether destiny or free will is one or the
other cosmological truth, but to what degree each truth exists and for
what psychological reason each construct is embraced (1
. The reasons
for the creation of the emphasized end of either dimension, relate to
the belief in self-efficacy and the level at which awareness of the
unconscious is perceived. Each reality is a world unto itself. The
psyche of the observer determines perceptions, and hence the reality
of fate vs. free will.
"People always speak of man and his psychology as though there were
nothing "but" that psychology. In the same way one always talks of
"reality" as though it were the only one. Reality is simply what works
in a human soul and not what is assumed by certain people to work
there, and about which prejudiced generalizations are wont to be made.
Even when this is done in a scientific spirit, it should not be
forgotten that science is not the SUMMA of life, that it is actually
only one of the psychological attitudes, only one of the forms of
human thought."(19)
Hence, one construct. This assertion by Jung can be supported by the
work on parallel universes by Hugh Everett (1957) that proposes that
all the possible alternative quantum worlds are equally real, and
exist in parallel with one another.
"Whenever a measurement is performed to determine, for example,
whether the (Schrodinger's) cat is alive or dead, the universe divides
into two, one containing a live cat, and the other a dead one. Both
worlds are equally real, and both contain human observers. Each set of
inhabitants, however, perceives only their own branch of the
universe." (20)
The concept of the all being one, of being and becoming asserted by
Heracleitus (500 B.C.E.) and the ideas of forms existing in an other
worldly state asserted by Plato, allow for this psychological
awareness of the self-created versions of reality that both physics
and psychology reinforce with viability. The effects that are physical
are created by the observer. Hence, astrology, like all other
paradigms, has no inherent evidence that lends credence to either fate
or freewill, and postulates are created to justify and rationalize the
level of empowerment and esteem on the part of the observer who
creates their own self-reinforcing astrological version. Astrology
flourishes or declines dependent upon the societal precepts held
regarding its ability to reinforce or detract from self-efficacy. In
this parallel universe of reality, the ability for and belief in the
power to alter the course of events through self will and action, is
dictated by the psychological level of empowerment either collectively
or individually of the observer who employs astrological methods.
Hence, when Manilius tells us in Book 3 with the perspective of the
Stoic philosophy that; "Fate rules the world, all things stand fixed
by its immutable laws, and the long ages are assigned a predestined
course of events."(21) he tells us only of his level of Learned
helplessness and level of individual self esteem within the constructs
of the society that evoked the socially acceptable conventions that
agree with that perspective.
His fate then, becomes the distinct observable effect of his own
unrecognized choice.
1) Cumont, 86.
2) In normal science, anomalies (free will significators) are rejected
in order to further articulate the paradigm, see Kuhn reference.
3) "The Development of Children" second edition, Michael and Sheila
Cole, Part II, Infancy, Primacy, page 244.
4) ...a person's unique pattern of traits (Guilford, 1959, p. 5).,
...the dynamic organization within the individual of those
psychosocial systems that determine his characteristic behavior and
thought (Allport, 1961, p. 2
. ...the most adequate conceptualization
of a person's behavior in all its detail (McClelland, 1951, p. 69).
5) Ascent and Descent of the Soul Quotes, page 1 Kepler symposium
August 23, 2000, Seattle University.
6) Ascent and Descent of the Soul Quotes, pages 4, 5, Kepler symposium
August 23, 2000, Seattle University.
7) This coincides with the diminishing feminine worship of the goddess
seen in the decline in the trust of the environs, a critical element
to a balanced psyche, and the overemphasis of the masculine god. Which
then accelerates the placing of power outside of the self.
8) Ascent and Descent of the Soul Quotes, page 6 Kepler symposium
August 23, 2000, Seattle University.
9) People's perception that their behavior does not matter because of
their inability to affect events; as a consequence, they lose the
desire to act and become passive. See, "The Development of Children."
10) Agnoia is ignorance, the result of the undeveloped consciousness.
Pronoia, is providence, the kind of fate which the enlightened
consciousness perceives as he or she navigates between what is known
to be alterable and that which is not, or heimarmene (Kepler symposium
notes, August 2000).
11) "The Development of Children", The Social Relations of Early
Childhood, esteem considerations, Harter, 1983.
12) Outline presentation by Rob Hand and Demetra George, Kepler
symposium notes, August 19, 2000.
13) "Philosophy, The Power of Ideas" second edition, Bruder, Kenneth
and Moore, Noel Brooke (1993), Part 1, Metaphysics and Epistemology:
Existence and Knowledge, The First Philosophers, page 35-37.
14) "The Origins of Astrology", The World of The Stars, development
leading up to the Epinomis, page 99.
15) Lecture on 4 causes, Kepler symposium, "Philosophy, The Power of
Ideas" second edition, Bruder, Kenneth and Moore, Noel Brooke (1993),
Part 1, Metaphysics and Epistemology: Existence and Knowledge, The
First Philosophers, page 35-37.
16) "The Experience Of Philosophy" second edition, Daniel
Kolak-Raymond Martin, Part seven: Reality, Reality and Modern Science:
Paul Davies, pg 342.
17) The revisitation of Anangke, Ascent and Descent of the Soul,
Kepler symposium notes, page 6, "Some Important Words Concerning
Fate."
1
"The physicist has no need of the flow of time or the now in the
world of physics. Indeed the theory of relativity rules out a
universal present for all observers. If there is any meaning at all to
these concepts (and many philosophers, such as McTaggart, deny that
there is) then it would seem to belong to psychology rather than
physics." Paul Davies on Time
19) Carl Gustave Jung Collected works, The Type Problem in Classical
and Medieval thought, Vol 6, page 41.
20) "The Experience Of Philosophy" second edition, Daniel
Kolak-Raymond Martin, Part seven: Reality, Reality and Modern Science:
Paul Davies, pg 350.
21) "A History of Horoscopic Astrology", Goold interpretation of
Manilius, page 25.
References
Barton, Tamsyn (1994). Ancient Astrology. London: Routledge.
Bruder, Kenneth and Moore, Noel Brooke (1993). Philosophy, The
Power of Ideas. California: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Campion, Nicholas (2000). "Babylonian Astrology: Its Origin and
Legacy in Europe" (Campion, extracted from Astronomies Across
Cultures).
Cole, Sheila R., and Michael (1993). The Development of Children.
Second edition. New York: Scientific American Books.
Culinau, Peter. (1999). "Astrology", Encyclopedia of Religion.
Cumont, Franz. (1912). Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and
Romans. New York: Dover.
Hand, Robert. (2000). Chronology of the Astrology of the Middle
East and West by Period. Virginia: ARHAT.
Holden, James Herschel. (1996). A History of Horoscopic Astrology.
Arizona: AFA.
Hoskin, Michael. (1999). The Cambridge Concise History of
Astronomy. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Carl Gustave Jung, (1971) Collected works, The Type Problem in
Classical and Medieval thought, Vol 6, page 41.
Kolak, Daniel and Martin, Raymond. The Experience of Philosophy.
Second edition. California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Kuhn, Thomas S., (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Second edition, enlarged. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lindsay, Jack. (1971) The Origins of Astrology. London: Frederick
Muller Ltd.
Patterson, Gordon M. (2000). Essentials of Ancient History. New
Jersey: Research & Education Association.
Tester, Jim. (1987). A History of Western Astrology. New
Hampshire: Boydell Press.
"The Soul of the nobler nature holds good against its surroundings--it
is more apt to change them than to be changed, so that often it
improves the environment and, where it must make concession, at least
keeps its innocence." Plotinus, The Enneads
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting
http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks
http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
