I am working on a machine learning astrology project that will help understand what predictive power of astrology, or where does this power lie. I also read the fascinating book Moment of Astrology by Cornelius, Geoffrey. Cornelius’ main point is that we cannot prove or disprove astrology it is a matter of interpretation. Even more than that, it is the interpretative power of the astrology.

WHA?

This is not such as strange thing to say, I have blogged here before about the hermeneutics of suspicion and the rise of interpretative based disciplines like psychology, in the 20th century. These are fields filled with symptoms and interpretations not empirical facts. So the idea that interpretation is a mode of understanding as valid as empirical understanding – exists – although it may be unpopular.

How else can we understand things?

Well, I have been doing a lot of work with system and family constellations and somatics (Tai Chi, Yoga), and we also know things with our body. We know things through our senses, through the ways our bodies feel. Susan Sontag wrote her essay, Against Interpretation, with a call towards an erotics of art, to experience art, rather than interpret art. I would probably call this a somatics of art – feeling art as an embodied experience.

Feeling art as an erotic experience would be, for me, something like feeling the inspiration of art. The generative power of art. Something like cryptokitties would be a true erotic experience since cryptokitties can actually generate themselves. It is alive in some way. Eros for me is about life force, not only sensing. Perhaps it is sensing with generative potential.

Anyway – interpretation for me is about creating your own language that you can use to interpret something into your own personal cognitive frame. This then becomes your story. I sort of think of this like creating your own list of correspondences, which for me is a mapping between different worlds. Like what color is the plant rosemary, what note is it. Are some correspondences more correct than others, are some interpretations more correct than others?

For me interpretation is really a world building exercise and an individuation exercise. What is the purpose of interpretation. In psychology it is in order to help – so the right interpretation(s) is the one that helps.

Parmenides left this mode of truth out from his list of predicative, veridical, existential. To Illustrate:

When I say Socrates is a man. Is it socrates is defined as a man, socrates is truly a man, or socrates as a man exists in the world.

Lets add some other modes:

Socrates is a man (feels good) somatic

Socrates is a man (works, lets me get something done, help someone) – we can call this the care or technical (see below)

Socrates is a man (is good to my sense perceptions) aesthetic

Socrates is a man (inspires me) erotic

My delta in writing this blog post is that care is technical. Technology is about taking care of things/solutioning. (It does not always do that and sometimes causes more harm than care). Is taking care, healing, the same as solutioning? No. But they are related – how.