2-17-98 PLATO'S DILEMMA

At one time astrology was known as the queen of the sciences, because it provided a technology capable of resolving much of its credibility with scholars and layman alike. Nevertheless, fascination and curiosity about the subject never waned. People sensed that there was something to this so-called science, even if they could no longer grasp what was now missing.

With the advent of The Art of Multi-Dimensional Living, a new spiritual science expressed in the language of astrology, and secondarily, an astrology based in this spiritual science, it is now possible to restore astrology to its rightful place as queen of the sciences. Let us observe this queen in action.

One philosophic dispute which survives in full force even today is that between Plato and his star pupil Aristotle. It revolves around the question of Ideal Forms, or Universal Archetypes, and how and where they exist. Plato postulates a separate realm where universals reside -- universals like the color green, the number seven, or an ethical quality such as the Good. Aristotle, on the other hand, suggests that universals can reside only in their instances or in particular objects.

Plato's dilemma is that he knows universals are the source of particulars, but he can't adequately demonstrate this cosmological fact. In a sense, Aristotle is also right: a universal property without reference to an object is without significance.

Only a true science of the stars, like The Art of Multi-Dimensional Living, can take us out of this intellectual quagmire. The planet Mercury, for example, signifies certain universal properties: youthfulness, flexibility, adaptability, communication skills, keen intellect, skill in bartering, etc. These properties only gain significance when related to some object, preferably a sentient one.

Score one for Aristotle. The functioning of Mercury also dictates, however, at least if the science of the stars can be shown to be true, which, I suggest, The Art of Multi-Dimensional Living can more than adequately demonstrate, that a universal, like itself, totally determines the particulars of an individual's nature and surroundings. Score one for Plato! Universals do indeed structure instances and, thus, need to be thought of as residing in a higher and separate realm. In this sense, Plato is much closer to the truth than Aristotle. Aristotle has part of the truth, but Plato has the whole truth, it's just that he cannot adequately demonstrate it, since the real science of the stars was already lost during his time.

Thus, in the case of Joe Smith, if the Sun governs his field of physical health, all his disease symptoms will be those of the disease of heat (governed by the Sun). The universal form will dictate all of the particulars or instances. At the same times, the significations of the Sun will gain meaning through their association with Joe Smith's life circumstances. Both Aristotle and Plato are right, but Plato is much closer to the total truth.