a physical basis

[Kyle_Pierce]

Michael, you have provided some valuable clarity, and a creative response to the lyrics of the David Byrne song:

"Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to"

I think we agree that as astrologers we can't afford to remain in an attitude of submissiveness to the factual fetishes of scientific authority. It seems to me that astrology would be better described as a proto-science; historically, this has certainly been the place and the role of astrology, and I believe this is also true generally.

To me, astrology will always be a proto-science at heart, regardless of how far it goes in the direction that the exact sciences have taken. I see no reason not to embrace this way of identifying our discipline with the very roots of the human quest for knowledge. Yes, we can recognize new and vast networks of connections between our astrological understanding of the universe and the concrete findings of the exact sciences. But we have to walk our own path, and there are good reasons that astrology has a distinct identity. It is not an exact science -- not yet, as they say, but this "not yet" feels very much like an enduring state of things -- and I frankly have no problem with that.

This might sound strange coming from an astrological researcher but I think it is crucial to clear up a serious misconception about astrological findings in general. As I see it, this misconception is that in the absence of statistical anomalies, we are forced to conclude that all astrology is bunk, period. Astrological research cannot seem to escape the attitude that astrology makes miraculous claims and must therefore produce verifiable and repeatable anomalies or else remain a pariah among proper scientific disciplines. It seems like a masochistic game for astrology to pretend it's something it isn't.

Almost from the beginning, my primary research interest was in gaining a better understanding of the underpinnings of astrological practice. I have been surprised and pleased to discover that statistical methods can actually be applied to solving practical issues, and be useful for refining intuitive talents and skills. This doesn't mean that I am going to start acting as if astrology were an exact science. It only means that there are some new connections between astrology and the statistical sciences yet to be revealed, which is mostly what I'm working on these days.

[Bruce_Scofield]

Re: Michael's comment:

"My point here is that those hard-rock scientists among us should cut the more psychic individuals some slack and grow up enough to allow that (call it psychic, paranormal, or whatever) is not only acceptable, but required in these times and needs to be encouraged, not debunked."

At least in my experience, the hard-rock scientists are so busy solving tiny problems that they don't have any time to stand in the way of research and investigation into spiritual realms. Some of them do hold to ideas that would fall into this general category, but they treat them as side interests. The problem people are the so-called skeptics, the self-appointed pitbulls of science who are way more likely to be magicians or magazine writers than actual scientists. These people, who believe in scientism, have the podium and they pursue an agressive agenda to get their views into the school systems. Partly due to their noise, and partly due to the fact that proving astrology is not perceived as an immediate need by nearly everyone in society, there is no funding for astrological research. Without funding nothing happens. I'd guess that the total amount of funding granted to astrological research by institutions in the 20th century amounts to the cost of running one average sized science lab for a couple of days. Astrologers are thus left with nothing but a consulting practice to pay the bills.

That being said, I think if people interested in astrology really want to figure out what it is (and not settle for unresolvable Neoplatonic mush) they will have to first define it in terms that the scientific community can understand. And it should probably be framed in the context of a systems type of model. Astrology is a mapping technique for dynamical systems (my proposed definition), and by building on this angle perhaps some inroads into understanding personality and even consciousness could be made that is not now possible in the context of the standard areas of inquiry. I certainly don't think any linear approaches, like rays coming from the planets, or spiritual/acausal approaches, like Jung's synchronicity, are perspectives in which to frame a scientific study of the subject.

[Michael Erlewine]

My Rosicrucian teacher used to point out the difference between the two main varieties of peaches, the “Cling” and the “Freestone,” and that while you had to pretty much pry the pit from the flesh with the former, the latter just pops out. Well the quasi-scientific skeptics that Bruce speaks of are for me perfect examples of the “Cling” variety and I found out early-on that it was no fun trying to pry them out of their grip on materialism, a la “No wine before its time.”

Even though many of my astrological friends were devoted to converting the skeptics, I found that I felt a lot better if I just stopped bashing my head against that wall, and instead turned to identifying what I could for myself within astrology. Even today I don’t much like the caricature of myself I have to assume to even remotely get into such a discussion with these types. I can’t do it with a straight face. Common sense tells me to let them ripen in their own time.

Instead, I have for many years just let the skeptics pass without challenge for the most part, preferring an Aikido approach, to that of Judo. It seems to me that I am not alone and I see a vast network of individuals forming who are more interested in sharing spiritual knowledge than in hunting out the skeptics. The kind of facts the skeptics cling to have (by definition) no real future for me as I view the personality (in general) as but the exoskeleton of the soul, something soon to be discarded.

To me it no longer seems credible or necessary to imagine that one day the skeptics will see the light and be converted. I foresee this debate ending more in a whimper than with a bang, as it probably will be easier to let the skeptics wear themselves out of existence and pass like kidney stones than to rob them (pry them out) from their cradle of pseudo-science.

I was raised and trained in the natural sciences, yet don’t recognize myself in these skeptics. Science to me was and is a clarifying agent that always manages to inject a whiff of impermanence into any airtight concepts I might have accumulated and be carrying around and expose them for what they are.

My approach to the problem that Bruce Scofield so eloquently describes takes another tack or approach. I find the fault of astrology’s not being able to communicate itself to science to fall more on myself, and through guilt by association on modern astrology. In my own case, I gradually understood that the problem was not so much society’s inability to appreciate astrologers as an inability on my part to live up to a standard that would command society’s respect.

The teachers I have worked with command instant respect from anyone they meet, not because they are imposing and above it all, but rather because they are so approachable, inclusive, and clear minded – good examples. That is, in my case, the goal I aspire to. I believe astrologers really have something of a shamanistic role to play and that we need to clarify our minds for this purpose. If we can do that, we will be perceived for what we now aspire to, and be more embraced by our society. We might make some money too!

[Bruce_Scofield]

Michael said "the problem was not so much society’s inability to appreciate astrologers as an inability on my part to live up to a standard that would command society’s respect."

This is very true. Probably the greatest problem for astrology as a field unto itself has been the tendency of many of its adherents to pose, make bad predictions and generally promote garbage. A history of astrology in the Renaissance shows that the charlatans probably did more damage to astrology than all other problems combined.

So if astrologers lived up to a standard that would command society's respect, I would bet that would compensate for things like a lack of a mechanism or other uncertainties in the subject (which are surely no worse than those found in other fields, especially medicine).

But how to do this? I've long argued and worked for higher certifying standards, but this has never been popular in a field that allows almost anything to be considered research and in which anyone can call themselves an astrologer. I suspect that at the present, perhaps only 1% of those claiming to be astrologers are actually as qualified to practice astrology at a comparable as their peers in psychotherapy or chiropractic. It is idealistic to think that somehow society will not lump astrologers together not matter how good or bad individuals are. The field needs to become professionalized and there should be clear distinctions between astrology as a subject in itself (what Kepler College does), research (of which there is little), and practice (which is unregulated, except in a few circumstances). The only thing close to this is the NCGR program which is respectable and does its work quietly, but it now has to compete with ISAR's more recent efforts to hold its position in the little pond of astrology.

I suspect that, unless the entire field of astrology can come to some agreement on what constitutes professionalism (and not just who can sell themselves and their products the best) that gets respect, state and local laws will force this upon us.

So yes, Michael is right, we need to be damn good, but an individual is inevitably linked to the group, which in this case is not so good. And I haven't even mentioned what is happening in the name of astrology on the internet.

[Michael Erlewine]

Well folks, I believe with the discussion turning toward certification and what-not, were have indeed hit on a nerve.

I very much understand Bruce Scofield’s post on ways we have tried to elevate astrology to the level of whatever it is that society demands that might earn their respect. And while movement in that direction can be helpful, my own feeling is that we need something more than just imitating academic institutions.

In fact, I personally find it sad to see astrologers parading around in caps and gowns, and at the same time declaring that anyone without this or that degree that they have cannot speak here or there or do this or that. Give me a break!

The essence of astrology has always been spiritual in nature. I was recently at the UAC convention in Denver last May where some 1500 astrologers gathered. And while there were a very eclectic bunch of folk at the convention, my own take is that almost every astrologer there would give up almost everything else before they would sacrifice their claim to have some kind of spiritual basis. We identify with and value our spiritual nature.

Spiritual credentials are hard to test, and ending up as a bunch of priests and nuns is not on any astrologer’s short list that I know of. And I am afraid that academia as I have come to know it from exposure to it in Ann Arbor, Michigan where I grew up is at least as filled with infighting as anything astrologers do – politics to the death. That is not really us, either.

Education? I am all for teaching classes and did it myself for many years. I even had my own school of astrology, complete with diplomas. I also wrote two books, some 1100 pages of lessons, on “How to Use Astrology,” so I am not looking down on that kind of teaching. Yet it only can go so far, at least in my experience.

As for astrology as a predictive science (like predicting the stock market) I have written about this many times and the gist of my view is: we can’t do it. If we could, we would have made a lot of money, which I see no signs of. I have had the good fortune to be friends with some of the finest researchers in our field, astrologers like Michel Gauquelin, Thomas Shanks, and others. The sum of what they told me is that we have more or less drawn a blank. What does that tell us?

A good astrologer cannot be measured by how erudite they are or how many degrees they hold. Scholarship is fine, but it alone does not make a good astrologer. I have always found it interesting that astrology can be for some so complex (an intricate algebra of life), and yet in the hands of others as simple as an oracle that allows the universe to speak to us. How do we measure that? Or are we to winnow out anything oracular, spontaneous, or mystic in astrology, and judge it only by its measurements – a calculus? Which is the baby and which the bathwater, and who should make that decision?

No, as far as I can see, we are stuck with the wild and crazy bunch that we are. As I have mentioned until readers must by now be tired of, I feel the only real new avenue for development is the development of our mind, our awareness, and that is usually grouped in with the spiritual side of astrology.

Bruce Scofield writes:

“So if astrologers lived up to a standard that would command society's respect, I would bet that would compensate for things like a lack of a mechanism or other uncertainties in the subject (which are surely no worse than those found in other fields, especially medicine).”

Now this is my favorite part of his post, and I will expand on it somewhat. If we were able to become more of the kind, compassionate, and loving beings we aspire to, the world would indeed beat a path to our door. And the only way I know to discover those attributes already deep within us is to develop our awareness of them, the awareness that we are, at the last, all of us, kind, loving, and compassionate. But we have to each realize that and that takes awareness, and it may take some work on our part to develop that awareness.

Yes, astrology needs to become more ‘professional’, but in this profession I suggest that means to be more in touch with our own inner nature, the true nature of our own mind, so that any contact with our clients (using whatever astrological techniques make sense to us) might help to unite them with the surrounding cosmos, help them to find the missing link between themselves and the great mystery of life we all share. We can do that.

[John_Townley]

So many tempting threads developing out of this one, but to reply to several:

Astrological politics – there is none like it, short of the early days of archaeology and paleontology. Big frogs and small ponds at high volumes. As a wounded survivor of the great Northeast self-destruction of the Boston area and New York groups of the early 1970s (Isabel Hickey, Mary Barry, Al Morrison, etc.), I can only hope never to return there, one reason I stay away from conventions. And the sincere and noble attempt at setting standards and tests is of course useless when there aren’t any to go by. It’s still the Wild West, and even though I got into some considerable trouble saying so way back when http://www.astrologysoftware.com/commun ... son_show=9 it still hasn’t changed much. The best you can say for credentials (especially now that anybody can publish) is that you have a somewhat accomplished and sincere, thoughtful, and broadly-informed stance. Well-meaning helps, too, but may not be essential at all times…


Minds vs. matter – I’ve long been on the systems theory side, so to speak, and a great deal of what even Theosophy speaks of as finer material (mental and spiritual planes) has structure and is quantifiable after a fashion. There was a moment of accord in the 19th century when both sides were talking about a law of conservation of information, which I think everybody still agrees on but have redefined away from each other, one towards general ineffability and the other toward the event horizon of black holes and the like.. Our ability to make definitions is highly limited by our current changing language (just try translating a classical spiritual text and see how difficult it is), so the gist tends to be extremely personal and at the best locally social and cultural. The same goes for what you are investigating. It’s different out there in deep space and the macrocosm, but it seems to have settled enough locally in this system to explore and describe temporarily. One can just go up there and experience it directly, wordless, in a personal visionary experience, but bringing anyone else along, which I think essential, is the challenge. Mathematics might do it, but it requires all participants to speak that language, not an easy request.

Practical matters – But if you’re going to get more practical mundane science to approach astrology, it will certainly never be academe. I rather think that when the business community discovers it (which will be in advertising and marketing, now that huge swathes of birth data are already to be had there, the ultimate identity theft), the money and research will follow. Already there’s been a court case in Europe http://www.astrologysoftware.com/commun ... son_show=9 that hints of what’s to come. Lots of rights issues when it reaches human resources and medicine. We’re going to see some sorting-out before long, as there’s nothing like money to dress up a wandering minstrel in professional-looking gear…

[Bruce_Scofield]

That's a great flashback to the 80's - http://www.astrologysoftware.com/commun ... son_show=9 - well worth looking at.
One thing that is obvious is that astrology as a field operates in a bubble and those inside it can't agree on what the hell it is. But its just a subject area, though a diverse one with great explanatory power.

There is a need to recognize that, like other fields of inquiry or practice, that there is more than one astrology. I argue that there should be a scientific astrology and it should have stiff requirements, like a truly peer-reviewed journal. Arguments should be welcome - not the silly hand-holding that goes on in the field now. This is how you get science and astrology on the same page. There should also be a history of astrology, a lot of which is being done at Kepler College already. There is a psychological astrology and practitioners should be held to some standards for the sake of the public. There is a pop astrology and this should be labeled as such. Etc., etc.....

There is a great need to distinguish between astrology as a subject, a practice, a vocation or a hobby. Amateurism, the province of the financially unchallenged, is good, but it should not be directing the entire field.

I have no argument with the spiritual side of astrology, I practice this myself. But I don't think a spiritual side is necessarily limited to astrology alone - other disciplines, like physics or philosophy, have an angle on this as well. Some practical types would say spiritual astrology is an option, not a given. You could say that for modern cosmology as well. Being good cosmic citizens is wonderful, and a world in which this is accepted, even honored, is a world I'd like to live in. I seem, however, to be living in a world populated by domesticated primates driven mostly by tribalism and rank, and these factors even drive a lot of what goes on in the spiritual communities.

So, if we could agree that there is a branch of astrology that should deal with what science is all about, i.e. the application of a quantification method to observable phenomena, then let's talk about it. If we want to talk about how astrology can't be a science, then we have to dig into what is a science first, then what is the purpose of knowledge making, what is astrology (if we get there again, its become circular), what is the purpose of life, etc.

[Michael Erlewine]

Bruce: That link you gave did not seem to be complete. I could not get it to work.

Well, I understand what both you and Townley write. After all, the three of us are from a similar vintage. We probably cut our teeth on trying to show materialists how to expand their horizons. I am mostly chiming in because you guys are here.


If astrology's spiritual component is not much different from that of physics, etc., than that leaves us with the ‘physical’ aspect of astrology to discuss. However, since there are no agreed-upon physical results for astrology, that leaves us with very, very little to discuss, in one sense.


I have already pointed out that for me astrology’s spiritual or psychological heart is what most distinguishes it from other disciplines. That fact that astrology uses the results of astronomy and astrophysics as a touchstone to connect to cultural or spiritual meanings is pretty well established, at least in our community. As astrologers, we tend to use whatever is “out there” to point within us, to whatever is “in here” that is analogous or identical. To me that is what I mean by “spiritual.”


Wanting to have a more academic and formal discussion sounds good, and in the posts above here have been plenty of suggestions (at least by me) that this would involve examining how a spiritual discipline (which historically is more or less ‘fact free’) interfaces with a scientific discussion which is all about facts. Where is the boundary between the two and what does its shoreline look like?


I was hoping to get some discussion on what is a fact, how are facts formed or found, how to they hold up or last, and how do some facts manage to morph or segue into a whole new theory. The way we have looked at the world, scientifically speaking, has also morphed and changed with the times. Are there spiritual ‘facts’ too?

I look forward to what you folks come up with, but I am for-the-most-part interested in the nether side of facts, that place from which facts come or are discovered.

[Ray_Murphy]

John Townley wrote at the start of the thread:

[....] here's the burning question: what is the physical basis for astrology? On this planetary scale, what mechanisms, set of forces, or other agents connect and keep events at the macro scale in synch with those at the meso or micro scales. When they get out of synch, what nudges them back into synch?

I've concluded that the physical basis of tropical astrology is not mechanical or electronic or anything else "physical", but rather an inbuilt knowledge of the solar system by humans and probably all living things, and that there is no need for any living thing to continually receive "ephemeris-updates" via such things as microwave or ultra-low frequency transmissions from planets.

I think that this core knowledge of the solar system is sub-consciously increased by observable astronomical phenomena, such as Sun and Moon positions (and therefore also the earth) according to the intelligence and needs of the species involved - and more so when humans, particularly astrologers deliberately meditate on the future or ardently try to read horoscopes accurately.

This concept precludes the possibility of countries and non-living things having horoscopes, but their charts can still "work" because those countries or things are automatically attached to Event Charts - many of them in my opinion, which if true, could explain why it has been so hard to make ONE chart fit for the U.S.A. Personally I think that events like the American Declaration of Independence should stand alone as an event and NOT be called a horoscope for the whole union. I think that the Declaration should also be treated as a 'Transit-event' to earlier event charts or natal charts - perhaps even centuries earlier.

Getting back to John's question about things being "nudged" back into synch". I would expect that besides our own automatic modification of our actions according to transits, all the humans and perhaps many other living things also give us a nudge - because when they look at us or see us in action, they actually see our horoscope in a crude form - and not just our physical body. If this is actually happening it might explain why so many transit events seem fated.

[Bruce_Scofield]

Ray talks about astrology operating on some non-material level. This raises the question as to whether astrology can be defined/described by the four known forces or is there something else that is presently undetected. I'm inclined to think it can be explained by light/magnetism and gravity - of which I already said something.

Michael said: "plenty of suggestions (at least by me) that this would involve examining how a spiritual discipline (which historically is more or less ‘fact free’) interfaces with a scientific discussion which is all about facts. Where is the boundary between the two and what does its shoreline look like?"

This is a big issue in science now. Steven J Gould argued that science and religion (which implies spirituality) were completely separate domains. Some scientists argue that religion is wishful thinking and others that faith is backed up by science. The debate on astrology during the Renaissance was won by religion - both subjects have the ability to explain away the other in the context of its domain, mostly because religion was more deeply entrenched in society and it has more shaming/guilting power over the individual.

There may be several kinds of spirituality that need to be considered. I tend to see astrology as a higher extension of the Mercury function through Uranus - a way of grasping the larger rules of the road, a means of high level navigation, the insight to participate in the program consciously. Spirituality as its usually defined I see as an extension of the Moon function, i.e. Neptune, the urge to negate the self, to merge, become a part of something greater. Another type of "spirituality" might be ritual magic, shamanism, healing - Pluto building on Mars.

So to know how science and spirituality contact each other, if they do, we need to define some terms.