Taking a Crack at the Planets

[sdi]

You know me, I can only make sense of things by attempting to work forward from first principles: large lists of random associations don't make any sense to me. As I start to dig a little deeper into astrology, here's an attempt at the planets:

Planet	Principle
Saturn	contraction
Jupiter	expansion
Mars	conflict
Sol	emission
Venus	harmony
Mercury	mediation
Luna	reception

Of particular note, these form three orthogonal poles: Jupiter/Saturn (up/down), Mars/Venus (left/right), Sol/Luna (forward/back), with Mercury sitting in the center between them all. I'm not yet certain of Uranus/Neptune, except that I suspect they form a forth orthogonal pole of some kind (future/past?).

Comments

[tunesmyth]

Nice! I like where you’re going with this.

I'm not yet certain of Uranus/Neptune, except that I suspect they form a forth orthogonal pole of some kind (future/past?).

You might try “individuation/unity” on for size and see how it suits you.

[sdi]

You might try “individuation/unity” on for size and see how it suits you.

That's what I've read, but it confuses me, since isn't that simply Mars/Venus (e.g. separation and marriage)? Ah well, more meditation never hurts...

[tunesmyth]

I do not see individuation as the same as separation. Think of a soul refining its own form as a sculptor does a sculpture. Certainly separation is one form that could take, as in Michelangelo tapping away at a block of marble. Then again, if the medium is plaster, then it may be an additive process, starting with a torso blob, and then adding on limbs, digits, and finer details. Either way, the sculpture gains its own unique identity through individuation.

[sdi]

Hrm! Thanks for that, I'd never considered it that way.

So you're talking about something like an imminence/transcendance or substantiation/potentialization sort of dichotomy? One side brings into concrete manifestation, the other side brings out of it?

[sdi]

Actually, I've been thinking about this all night and I think you're actually getting at something very simple—we deal with it in computer programming all the time! For example, at the pure abstract potential end of the spectrum, you might have something like a Universal Turing Machine, which is a theoretical construct that can do literally anything—it is the algorithm that contains all algorithms—but in practice, is useless until you actually make one and write a program for it. At the pure concrete end of the spectrum, you might have a picture of a maze: it's a thing that exists, but it only has one and exactly one form. Somewhere in the middle, you might have a maze-drawing algorithm: it contains the potential for all mazes within it, but it isn't actually a maze, and further it no longer has the potential for all the other things an algorithm might do (like determine if a picture is a cat, or brush teeth, or whatever)—but in exchange, you can follow the algorithm step-by-step and get a picture of a maze! So there's a sliding scale there: from the abstract, undifferentiated, high potential, low efficacy to the concrete, differentiated, low potential, high efficacy.

If so, I think the terminology everyone uses to describe this axis is pretty confusing! Without thinking too carefully about it, I'd call Neptune "abstraction" and Uranus "concretion." I can absolutely see this as being a separate axis from the others, since you can have both concrete conflict and abstract conflict, say, or concrete contraction and abstract contraction, or whatever. In that case I'd put Neptune in the future (unformed potential) and Uranus in the past (unchangeable particulars).

All that said, I think I need to ponder this more, preferably when I'm a bit more awake...

[boccaderlupo]

There are many connections that can be drawn between coding (I have a very, very limited background) and Neoplatonic theory (again, a limited background), for what it's worth. Was actually in the process of trying to write a coherent post about this, but it basically boils down to the idea of inherited behavior, and emanation from The One and the henads down through all the planes. The idea of the Universal Turing Machine and the distinction between the potential and the realized (Being vs. Becoming) is also a strong one...

Axé

[sdi]

I, too, have been trying to put together a post at it... but I've been realizing that the requisite knowledge requires years of attainment, so it's very hard to describe the concepts for the layman. I think I need a better understanding of other models (for example, my knowledge of Western occultism is pretty lacking, though I'm working on that) before I can attempt to bridge the gap by analogy.

This is also complicated by the many different facets involved. Above I talked about potential vs. realization; another concept of interest is Kolmogorov complexity, which is a way of defining the nature of Order (small Kolmogorov complexity) vs. Chaos (large Kolmogorov complexity).

Another example is Stephen Wolfram's quixotic Wolfram Physics Project, which strikes me as a concrete way of redeveloping and exploring Neoplatonism using the tools of discrete mathematics.

(And, tying these together, Wolfram's also talked a lot in A New Kind of Science about how the boundary of Order and Chaos is where everything interesting in computer science happens; he's using mathematical terminology, but there's a certain mythic quality to it to my ears.)

I have a lot more pondering on this to do before I can really attempt to communicate bits of it, but even though occultists and the spiritually-minded like to denigrate computer programming (and not without reason), I'm quite certain there's value there for them.

[boccaderlupo]

These sound truly fascinating and I shall check them out.

Yes, if you were to look at the 211 propositions of Proclus in Elements of Theology--in the raw, sans commentary--they could almost work as a kind of code for procession from The One.

Excellent.

[tunesmyth]

Fascinating! To be honest, I've never really engaged the symbolism of Neptune and Uranus in any deep way. I (think) I see where you're coming from, and there is definitely something to the idea of characterizing things as more Neptunian or Uranian in terms of concretion or abstraction. The already created maze written on a sheet of paper is concretized Uranus, and also as limited in scope as can be. And the Universal Turing Machine that can not only create any maze but anything at all, in order to be functional at all, is so unlimited in scope that it must literally encompass the entire universe (and for all we know, this is precisely what the universe actually is).

May I as well suggest another kind of framing? Perhaps Neptune as Unity also represents the universal laws at the center of all things, the abstractions that underpin everything. And Uranus as Individuation is singular will and the desire to express itself in the world, which is to say, stretch or transcend the existing order.

Which means that, while not in any way rejecting your placement of Neptune in the future and Uranus in the past, it also seems quite natural to me to do the opposite! Neptune's royal road up through the planes to ever-increasingly unity reveals the laws underpinning all manifestation-- laws that all manifestations keep reflections of in their particular forms, and thus existed before the forms became manifest: thus Neptune represents the past. Meanwhile, Uranus's royal road leads down through the universal laws but gain ultimate expression by the will to choose one's own form, a goal oriented endeavor with its eyes always forward toward more specifically chosen forms of concretion/manifestation: thus Uranus represents the future.

One aspect of the Unity of Neptune is its universal viewpoint, and one aspect of the Individuation of Uranus is its unique singular viewpoint. In Geomantic terms, Uranus is Right Witness: the singular viewpoint of the world seen from one party's unique experience. And Neptune is the Judge: all viewpoints merging together, in harmony with the true way of the universe by way of tautology.

Perhaps this even has an expression in purely physical terms, with Uranus the only planet to spin perpendicular to the orbital plane, and thus literally with its own unique viewpoint on the solar system; whereas Neptune is the planet with the most storms in the solar system, and so no specific features with any staying power ever emerging from the neverending brownian motion of elemental forces.

[sdi]

And the Universal Turing Machine [...], in order to be functional at all, is so unlimited in scope that it must literally encompass the entire universe (and for all we know, this is precisely what the universe actually is).

In fact, there's a well-accepted hypothesis, called the Church-Turing thesis, that essentially says the universe is equivalent to a Universal Turing Machine. (Sometimes I find it amusing how computer scientists have reinvented their own metaphysics from first principles!)


May I as well suggest another kind of framing?

Of course you may, and thank you for doing so! But I'm going to need some time to ingest it; I think you're using a way of looking at things that is foreign to my understanding, and I'm not sure I comprehend what you're saying. (But I'm also not sure where the points of contention are; that is, I'm not sure where your model and mine overlap or not. So I'm not yet sure what I'm missing and what questions to ask!)


Perhaps this even has an expression in purely physical terms, with Uranus the only planet to spin perpendicular to the orbital plane, [...]

On this point, however, I'm fully agreed: I'm certain that the physical manifestation of the planets is in accord with their nature, though I must confess I'm still trying to understand these. (I've talked about a few that I'm certain about! It's also notable that the benefics are the brightest stars in the sky, that Mars is intensely red, that Jupiter is massive, and—yes—that Uranus is sideways! But there's so much more to process and understand... all I can say is that, wasteful or not, I'm grateful to NASA for the Voyager program, or we'd have so much less to go on!)

[sdi]

I get what you're saying now. I think the long and short of it is that there's a chicken-and-egg problem here: Neptune begets Uranus (since one needs axioms before one can get conclusions), but Uranus begets Neptune (since one need examples to build theories from). Put another way, we can identify a "yang" pole and a "yin" pole easily enough, but yin precedes yang just as yang precedes yin—neither can be said to come "first!" So my past/future analogy confounds more than it clarifies.

One wonders if future and past are even meaningfully distinguished. For example, "north" and "south" have no meaning in any absolute sense, but rather only in relation to each other. Just like some cultures (e.g. Europe) orient themselves relative to "north" and others (e.g. China) orient themselves relative to "south," perhaps some beings orient themselves forwards in time, while others orient themselves backwards in time. These are equivalent, in the sense that it doesn't matter which direction is "up" on your map as long as you know which direction you're facing!

Perhaps the soul's choice of coordinates is what occultists mean when they talk about "involution" and "evolution?" I'll have to consider this further.