In continuation from Part ONE, we carry on...
If you haven't yet read Part ONE, I'd highly recommend doing so prior to continuing with what follows below...
Previously, we explored part of the psychological dynamic at play in a subcultural program of extremist science-believers who've denied access to the expansion of their own knowledge through a dismissal of that which has not and never will conform to the models and frameworks of current-day science - with the particular example of their response to the domain of Astrology at the forefront.
And as a further background - and reminder to those who've completed Part ONE - this whole story arose out of two such individuals popping in on a previous story about astrology to assert their firms beliefs that all astrology is "nonsense."
Such approaches are common amongst those whose outlooks are defined by the belief systems herein - moreso in Part ONE: outright dismissal of that which contradicts their viewpoints, the projection of the assertion their viewpoint is the only right one, that anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool, and assertive challenges to prove them wrong through the setting of a contextual frame that guarantees their "win" due to manipulating the frame and establishing their rulesets as the standard by which one must play if they are to redeem themselves in the eyes of those who've already determined themselves self-righteous due to their identity becoming inseparable from the belief systems in which science is the almighty God that cannot be challenged in its absolute Truth.
Okay, that might have seemed a bit confusing. So let's ground the conceptual overview in a more concrete example...
To recap: Science is valuable. And, it has its limits.
Not everything can be known or understood through the lens of science. Not all phenomena of nature fit precisely into the models science has used to gotten where it has: tools for interpreting quantifiable aspects of nature and their operation through the laws of nature.
Maybe it's because some have spoken of astrology as a science, without having participated in approaching it according to conventional scientific protocol, where resistence has been met. Maybe it's because some have presented it from a less-than-professional angle, over-exaggerating claims from half-understandings, miscommunicating about astrology in ways that have watered down the potency of the deeper wisdom that comes through a more detailed exploration of its complexity, thus presenting distorted perceptions which lead some to conclude it falls into the "woo" pile...
Either way, while there might be part of astrology which can be communicated in quantifiable terms - the mathematics and physics of planet positioning and degrees of transit & aspect separation - the other half wherein the greater value lies - the art of interpretation and archetypal language through which there is to be insight gained into the patterns of nature, human psychology, and their interaction with one another - is not.
Defenders of the scientific dogma attempting to discredit astrology assert it is nonsense/woo/garbage/etc because it can not be "proven" via the scientific method. Yet, the completely miss the fact that astrology is not a provable/unprovable math problem. Nor is it a provable/unprovable theory or hypothesis. Nor is its nature as a domain of knowledge subject to the protocols of the scientific method - any more than philosophy or archetypal psychology are.
It's a completely different ballgame.
Yet extremist science-believers assert that astrology must be false because it's failed to be "proven" by science - completely fucking oblivious to the fact they're expecting that a square peg could fit into a round hole with their presumption it could be "proven" - or unproven - by science.
art credit: Jetter Green
So, many have dismissed it. Many argue science is right and entire body of wisdom passed down through centuries whose complexities will never adhere to conventional scientific models because it's a completely different type of knowledge field is wrong.
They've argued that those who "believe in" astrology are fools - projecting their own assumptions that one must believe in it if they do not automatically conform to the almighty dogmatic, dualistic viewpoint that any other approach to the subject than not believing in it is wrong. They grant no one any individual freedom to explore aspects of the subject without automatically judging them as wrong, forcing the label of "believer" upon them without even first attempting to understand the individual's relationship with the subject and whether they believe or merely engage in an exploration of the subject, neither believing nor disbelieving.
Upon the attempt to force their belief system onto others - imagine this dynamic unfolding in a debate taking place on social media, to further ground the context for ease of visualization - they pose the challenge: "prove all this is true according to MY criteria, or you're automatically wrong by default."
Manipulation at its finest.
Here, rights have been violated.
There is no friendly debate. There is no consensually entered-into argument. Only a one-sided attack, and the encouraged choice to enter a game in which they win by default of the rules they set in the manipulation of the frame.
Granted, we have by now begun uncracking some of the secrets to the science of manipulation.
This dynamic may have been here introduced through the example of a science evangelist opposing an esoteric domain like astrology. Though I'm pretty sure you can use your imagination to see different ways the same underlying dynamic play out elsewhere.
We've all played into these games thousands of times - most of the time, being completely unaware of it. If not directly upon confrontation within a face-to-face dialogue with another person or people, then silently within our own minds as we've come to points of choice as to how we shall respond to cultural programs - adhering to the protocols by which others operate and either blatantly or covertly push onto others, or disengaging from proceeding with a cultural request to submit to its sets of values and belief systems.
At one level, such dynamics are an outcome of cultural programming.
At another, they play out through the individual in a survival state - clinging to a cultural belief system as the metaphorical bat with which he may beat others over the head who threaten both his sense of dominance and the culture's 'integrity.'
The win: self-preservation of the belief system's contextual dominance.
The cost: an expansion of awareness & knowledge into the new and unknown.
art credit: Jetter Green
Now, it might have seemed that last section diverted a bit from where we started.
Yet, this is a multi-layered story.
The point is probably not what you think it is at this point.
And, we're not done yet.
Our exploration shall continue on. Though for now, that's about enough to sink your teeth into and contemplate for one sitting. Too much too fast, and it's likely to miss the gold lying in the depths.
Though if you're hungry for more and Part TWO already happens to be posted up already, feel free to continue ahead to read. If not, though you've been enjoying the first two parts, carry onto Part THREE here...
