Unfortunately for supreme perpetrator of all things evil, Lord Voldemort couldn’t quite grasp the concept of a paradox, or (in this context) a self-fulfilling prophecy. For those who have been living under a rock or are a 60+ year old who is into recreational blogging, the plot goes as follows: Lord Mouldy Voldy receives a prophecy that his equal and opposing power will be born on a September day. Upon learning this, he goes to murder this equal, our heroic protagonist Harry Potter. Stupidly and unfittingly for a supposedly brilliant dark wizard, Voldemort attempts to murder the child and consequently creates the unintentional Horcrux and arch nemesis HP, giving him that power in the attempted murder. How did you not see this coming, Tom? Like, haven’t you seen Doctor Who?
I bring this up because we were having this debate in psychology a week or so ago, and it’s been swimming in my mind since. I’m thinking back to a moment of vulnerability, actually – when I mentioned in class, upon being asked the question, that I was somewhat a follower of Astrology. Oh, what was that? You see a red siren going off in your head? Don’t worry, I’m completely aware of the fact that there is no scientific basis for the pseudoscience itself, okay? I’m all for the scientific endeavour. I do not swear by anything, in this instance. I do, however, somewhat swear by the fact that I soon as I mention anything alternative to the current academic/scientific paradigm, an alarm of sorts goes off in peoples mind, and they may categorise me into their schema of ‘kook’ or ‘hippy’ or ‘bat-sh*t crazy’ [exaggeration for literary effect].
Now, if someone asked me recite the 12 signs on the spot, I would probably forget 2/3, just for my credibility. The debate concerning the credibility of positions of the stars/magnetic pulls etc in relation to ones personality involves this idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe I mentioned this in my previous post. In short, a person views their astrological traits according to the zodiac and consequently rises up to fulfil these qualities/traits with the preconception that these traits are already theirs to begin with.
So then, is it simply my sneaky placebo or my preconceptions of traits when I find myself connecting with individuals who are earth signs more than others? (I should say then, now, that I don’t ask someones birthdate upon initially meeting them, honest.) Or what about that time when I read out a pretty specific description of relationship contentions between two signs to a friend of mine who was, until that point, a complete skeptic and put-downer of the whole astrology thing? Even now, writing, this, I feel like I’m subjecting myself to ridicule and speculation – and that’s not a nice feeling. I kept feeling the need to verify that I’m not a horoscope reader or a textbook astrology follower at all. But as someone who is (I hope) reasonably analytical and questioning, and as someone who has found some consistencies with the whole star sign thing, is it silly of me to feel that there is some kind of sensibility to it?
Back to the SFP (title), I guess the main argument against me would be that I see the qualities of the supposed sign (being scorpio or Sagittarius or aries etc) then apply them to the individual. Personally, not so much an effective argument, as I find too many contrasting and consistent qualities which vary from sign to sign/people to people. The person who actually got me thinking about signs in the first place was my Mother. This was actually quite astounding to me at the time, as she is quite the cynic and pragmatic person. Like me, she’s no crazy mind-mapper of the signs or anything quite. But it opened up to the thought.
This post wasn’t really related to what we’re focusing on in class at the moment, but I felt the need to justify myself to a degree. Before writing this, I did some research on astrology and the fundamental philosophy encompassing it. I thought I might just jot some of the things I found down here, and if you are remotely interested, read on.
Not surprisingly, the roots of the Zodiac lie within both a religious and a historical context. The word Zodiac in its original Greek word Zodion means ‘sculptured animal figure’. Astro theology as a whole, seems to go off the basic premise that individuals are governed by everything around us. Now that seems pretty reasonable, basically the whole idea of ‘nurture’ in an individuals development. I found that this also bounces of the Buddhist philosophy of the Doctrine of Mutual Interdependence. Apparently Christ himself was a master of all 12 symbols for the elements, transcending all schemas and egotistical traits, becoming a third zodiac in himself. I imagine a similar theory could be applied to other significant religious theories, like Buddha, who moved beyond social paradigms and norms and attempted to popularise the notion of kindness, compassionate and humility, to say the least.
In conclusion, because I’m getting tired of writing, using your sign as an excuse for particular traits is probably a bit silly – they are just symbols, embodiments of the elemental energies. Technically, if we get real deep, if the qualities of your sign is based upon the time of your birth, then you may as well be all things – linear time, after all, is only illusionary and everything is actually happening simultaneously because we’re on the fourth dimension YOOOOYOOOoooOo.
My brain is getting fuzzy now and I am hungry and there is fried rice in the kitchen so until next time bye!
P§¥©H-§øûl 