What defines a science?
Oxford says that a science is “the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
Many believe that we live in a purely linear, mechanistic universe. Therefore, something that is argued, is that a science must be linear, causal, and mechanistic. It must work like a machine; put in the value x, and you will get y. This is because those who believe that the universe abides by strict physical, mechanical laws, will choose sciences that reflect such a system.
In other words, in a strictly linear universe, only strictly linear sciences are appropriate. If a science is a framework used to study and explain the universe, then it must reflect that universe. A non-linear science would not be used to explain a linear universe — a linear science would not be used to explain a non-linear universe.
In a linear universe, a linear science would be appropriate. Conversely, in a non-linear universe, non-linear sciences would then be appropriate.
So, then, that begs the question: do we live in a purely linear, mechanistic universe? Can our universe be likened to a math equation, with strict order and logic?
The Hermetic axiom, As Above, So Below, says that the microcosm reflects the macrocosm.
(I will add that this principle is not a “hippie-dippie” view. It is absolutely grounded in reality, and can be observed by anyone who cares to look. An obvious example of this principle: every child is a product of their parents. Anything created, will reflect the creator, from procreation to artistic creation.)
If As Above, So Below is true, then in studying the microcosm — we will focus on the human body — we can learn about the macrocosm — the universe. By studying the human brain and body, we can infer truths about the universe.
Splitting the brain into two basic hemispheres — the left, linear, causal, logical brain, and the right, non-linear, perhaps even non-causal, creative brain — we can say that our Universe has two aspects to it: the linear, and the non-linear. Because our brains do not work in a purely linear fashion, we can assume that the universe does not work in a purely linear fashion either.
This leads us to another basic truth: that we live in a dualistic universe. The universe itself can always be reduced into two basic principles: masculine and feminine; light and dark; positive and negative; linear and non-linear.
Because the human brain has two sides to it, it must be inferred that the universe also has two sides to it. What are these two sides? They can be called linearity, and non-linearity.
This brings me to my point. How can we understand a dualistic universe with sciences that only use half of the story? In other words, in a universe with both yin and yang, we cannot use only yang to understand the entirety of the whole.
Mainstream science currently only has respect for the linear side of the universe. There is little representation for the non-linear aspect of life. As a matter of fact, it is met with mockery. The disrespect and disdain for the other side of the universe’s duality is, to me, a reflection of the masculine and feminine divide known as bigotry. The masculine side of life is the linear, logical side of life. This side of the duality believes it knows everything, and has a sense of superiority over the equally important non-linear reality. To rephrase what I said: mainstream science’s sneering at the non-linear sciences, including astrology, is a reflection of bigotry. The masculine (linear and logical, or mainstream science) has a disrespect for, and sense of superiority over, the feminine (non-linear and intuitive, such as astrology).
Moving forward from my previous point, and restating the whole, I will say that astrology’s value as a non-linear science is that if the universe were purely linear, we would need purely linear sciences; however, the universe is not exclusively linear, therefore, we do not need exclusively linear sciences.