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

[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.