a physical basis

[Michael Erlewine]

Well, you guys made me break my New Year’s resolution to not indulge in linear materialism in public, so let me show you how I bring this to ground. First, a little more on this gravity thing.

Gravity should not be confused with gravitational radiation. Gravitational Radiation is to gravity what light is to electromagnetism. In other words, gravity generates gravitational radiation. And while light passes freely through what has been called ‘spacetime’, gravitational radiation (which travels at the speed of light) is always a distortion of spacetime. It has been sometimes called a ‘ripple in spacetime’ or the warping of spacetime. This is why bright-light objects (like supernovae) have little gravitational effect, but darker objects (like black holes) have greater gravitational effect. Supernovae burn bright in an attempt to throw off mass, which if not achieved, result in a darker, much denser object, sometimes a neutron star, and thus gravitational waves, etc. I wrote all of this out in the early 1970s in my book “Astrophysical Directions,” which is now available in paperback on Amazon.com under the title “The Astrology of Space.”

If gravitational radiation does carry cosmic information that is not distorted (as light waves can be) AND if the entire solar system of sun and planets do function as an antennae (gravitational radiation oscillates in a cruciform fashion), then whatever nativity emerges or is born during a time when a Grand Cross or T-Square (a cross) is present in the solar system (heliocentrically, of course) somehow catches or embodies that streaming information from gravitation waves coming from great cosmic centers (galactic nucleus, etc) in those beings born under the T-Square-type aspect configuration.

Once embedded or incarnated in a being, that cosmic information in gravitational radiation is perhaps permanently present and radiates or ‘shines’ through that particular being in which it is caught. And since this may be essential information for all life on Earth, the rest of us (those not born in the aspect patterns of the cross) are somehow sensitive to this information and seek to absorb or be exposed to it as well. It could be as simple as what we call ‘charisma’ in individuals or ‘beauty’ or ‘love’. What is beauty, anyway, that it compels us to absorb it or take it in? What is in the popular song that we cannot get enough of, but listen to it, over and over? Why is one person radiant and another receptive or absorptive? What is being radiated? What is shining? These are the kind of questions that have intrigued me for the last forty years in relation to astrology.

And this is why I have written books like “StarTypes: Life-Path Partners” (paperback on Amazon.com) and others to encourage more of us to look into the stability of the heliocentric configurations, not because I am just the average crazy theoretical astrologer (which I may be), but because something is accountable for what we superficially see as beauty, magnetism, charisma, and the like. What is that stuff? How and why do we share it? What is ‘show’ business, and so on?

As astrologers, many of us struggle to lay to rest a deep yearning to better comprehend these very simple things that propel us across the face of this planet day after day, things like beauty and love. Perhaps we each turn inward at play with our particular scheme or theory. Well, anyway, this is my particular speculation, but one backed up with many years of exploration.

In capsule: I wandered into the heliocentric framework in the early 1970s. I found the large-scale aspect patterns in helio much more stable as a reference system and guide than what I had been using before, the standard geocentric patterns. The geo patterns worked for me, but not as well. In time, I better understood that the geo chart is simply a snapshot of the helio system from the vantage point of Earth embedded within that system. But the system is the ‘solar system’ and has the Sun as center.

Next, I found that beyond all of my more-fancy astrological conceptualizations was the simple fact that in the helio chart everything seemed to boil down to whether or not there was a Grand Cross or T-Square in the chart. Now, I am not talking about the isolated square aspect, but only those large-scale patterns where there is an opposition with another planet at right angles, what we call the “T-Cross” or “T-Square,” and of course their big brother the “Grand Cross.” A natal chart either has one or it doesn’t.

These individuals and events with the T-Cross appear to contain whatever cosmic information we might imagine could be carried and caught from gravity waves and, through just living their lives, these T-Square types share it with the rest of us. They somehow shine and we (those with no natal cross) absorb, receive, and interpret that information – and thus the essential dichotomy. As the old saying goes “There are just two kinds of people in the world, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’.” The T-Square types (the haves) shine, but don’t themselves know what they are, and the non-T-Square types (‘have-nots’, epitomized by the Grand Trine configuration) can witness or see this shine and interpret what the T-Square radiates.

You all have computers. Check out your helio chart and see if you are a ‘have’ or a ‘have not’, a ‘giver’ or a ‘taker’. Let me know what you find please.

[Ed_Falis]

Well, as long as you're opening that question to the masses. I have all planets in the helio chart (excluding Chiron) in one of two loose T-crosses.

[Ed_Falis]

By the way, have any of you read "Conceptual Basis" at http://www.levante.org where the author (an astrophysicist) proposes the idea of "space anisotropy" as a possible physical explanation for astrological effects?

- Ed

[Michael Erlewine]

Right you are, Ed. Here is how I chart these patterns. As an aid in reading the enclosed charts, I use the color red to indicate Squares and Oppositions and the color green for Sextiles and Trines. Basically we have green lines and red lines, which in this form of analysis are only meaningful when they link up to forum whole-chart patterns, which are Ptolemaic aspects that link one to another to reach all around the chart. I call these archetypes or StarTypes and have been using them for some forty years now.

Ed Falis Helio Chart

Ed-Falis-Helio.jpg (99.58 KiB) Viewed 931 times

In your chart, you have a red T-Cross in your helio with two focal points, Uranus and Venus. The fact that either Venus or Uranus can serve as the focal point for the T-Cross makes that combination very important – a real focus. So you have the ‘sign of the cross’ in your helio, but notice that you also have a fair amount of green lines, in particular what I call the ‘Wedge” formation, which is an Opposition with another planet at Sextile/Trine point… like a wedge.

Crudely put (to be brief here), your T-Cross (red lines) suggests you are a carrier for the gravity info we have been discussing in the previous posts, but the green lines of the Wedge (which represent sensitivity to the gravity info) suggests the ability to think and use the mind (green lines) to accomplish practical (red lines) work.. For the moment, it is not important what planets make up these patterns. Let’s look at the charts of some of the other participants in this thread, for example John Townley. Here is his helio chart.

John Townley Helio

John-Townley-Helio.jpg (111.34 KiB) Viewed 995 times

In Townley’s case, he has both archetypes present in a single chart, a T-Cross (with Venus and Mars as a focus) PLUS the Grand Trine archetype AND they are working or linked together. What does this represent? When both major archetypes are present in a single chart, I have found that this points to a very independent individual. They (in some sense) have it all and don’t need outside relationships as much as many of us do. This Independent type often doesn’t even marry or if they do, they sometimes regret it. The reason being that because they have both archetypes in a single role (the Cross and the Grand Trine), they can play either major role in a standard relationship, depending on whom they partner with. But, as mentioned, they often tend to value their own company and can sometimes appear aloof and stand-offish to others. They are just a little too self-contained for the rest of us. Now let’s look at Townley’s geocentric patterns.

John Townley Geo

John-Townley-Geo.jpg (109.85 KiB) Viewed 990 times

Here we have a much more modest pattern, what has traditionally been called the “Basket” pattern, a symbol of receptivity and accommodation. Since, to me, the geo chart patterns represent the chart of the circumstances and personality of an individual, we could say John’s personality is much more subdued and gentile than his helio. In other words, as you would get to know John, you would move from his appearance chart (geocentric) to his heliocentric chart, the chart of his more inner self, what I call the chart of one’s Dharma or Life Path. Here John’s chart is very dynamic and strong. So beneath a more ‘mental’ appearance you would find a real dynamo of a person (I am sure John will like that remark). In my own case, when I discovered my helio chart and patterns, I stopped trying to identify exclusively with my geo chart and found a new view of myself that was (for me at least) much more true of who I felt myself to be. And for the record, let’s peek at Bruce Scofield’s helio patterns:

Bruce Scofield Helio

Bruce-Scofield--Helio.jpg (116.28 KiB) Viewed 993 times

Here we have a chart with a very rough T-Cross, since Venus is rapidly moving away from holding that T-Cross open. Still, all three of you guys are carriers for cosmic ‘spice’ (to use some of jargon from the book “Dune”) or whatever we want to call the information that might be carried on gravitational waves. More important in this chart is the Mystic Rectangle pattern made up of Venus, Mercury, Pluto, and Neptune – two Trines and Two Sextiles making up an oblong box, the Mystic Rectangle.

I have found that the Mystic Rectangle is found in the charts of thinking types, in particular philosophers, spiritual thinkers, and especially psychologists. However, one of the quirks of this pattern seems to be a propensity to fall into mental syndromes, which can, at times, be hard to climb out of. And, last, just for balance, here is my own chart, which is carrying no cosmic spice.

Michael Erlewine Helio Chart

Michael-Helio.jpg (113.92 KiB) Viewed 992 times

Notice here we have the Grand Trine configuration, actually with quite a few planets participating, six out of the nine planets. I have a couple of single Square aspects, but nothing that would add up to a T-Cross. Although I don’t have any of that magic spice to share, my chart’s aversion to the T-Cross makes me naturally sensitive to the cross, and thus I can become an interpreter of that condition. In other words, I can sense and feel out the nature of the T-Cross when it appears. There are the ‘haves” and the ‘Have-nots,” and each has a role to play.

The fun of this technique is that there is something for everyone and it is utterly simple to learn. Either you have a T-Cross in your helio natal chart or you don’t… or you have both. If you are a carrier of the cosmic spice (T-Cross), then everyone wants a piece of you. If you have no T-cross (as I have none) then you are very sensitive to that spice and like a hound on a trail can always track it down and describe it – and thus be useful. Again, this is a VERY cursory introduction to what is actually a wonderful astrological technique, especially valuable in the counseling situation. For those who would like to know more, I have written many articles on this and the book “StarTypes: Life Path Partners” is in paperback on Amazon.com. Also, if you want it all done for you, check out my program "Astrology of the Heart" avalable on the PC in the Startype series at AstrologySofware.com.

[John_Townley]

That was terrific, Michael, certainly on the way to taking care of the really large picture and one’s personal connection with it. Of course, I have known and loved your heliocentric work (really the only approach that has made much sense to me) since you first published it. And however dreadfully linear the thinking, I’m happy with the gravity waves connection, as I said, even if much of what I think happens in the more local earth-centered side comes from the other more ordinary face of gravity. BTW, Svarogich’s “space anisotropy” (a hard read, esp. since it’s a translation, though a noble one, and Russians write overly densely, anyway) piece suggests a directional gravity approach (relative to the bodies involved) that an extra time dimension or two would also help facilitate. It’s also linkable to the possibility that Lagrange points (which I’ve been promoting lately) are a window on the entirety of the construction of the main traditional aspects and relative zodiacs themselves. All of these offer some more possible independent and perhaps combinable general models.

But the ideas of love and beauty, charisma and music, and more (as Michael was saying) and our general inclination to have astrology tells us something about universal truths and inclinations in itself are also important to sift out as we go. Most people get to astrology (but also science, as well) because we’re looking to better understand how those manifest both generally (as concepts to seek after) and in our personal lives and those of our clients we’d like to help. So, we find ourselves willy-nilly as seekers, analysts, and practitioners in a field that is primarily built on accreted traditions (alike despite cultural differences, similar to folk tradition or passed on craft artisanship) without the kind of deconstruction that science insists on before then reconstructing the obvious with its pieces individually investigated. That is a process we need to go through not simply to work with those in other disciplines but to clean up our own act and find its consistencies and inconsistencies. Behavioral psychology (particularly, but not solely) does this all the time in the most irritating ways, with costly experiments that often just prove the most obvious and simple facts and human traits. Yet, because the result has thus been nailed down and not just assumed, you can then rely on it and extrapolate more confidently onward to less obvious combinations and conclusions. In astrology, the point is not to prove ourselves to scientists (an insecurity long indulged in by too many astrologers seeking recognition) but to prove ourselves to ourselves, to our own satisfaction, in terms that include (but are not restricted to) scientific processes and methodologies.

Astrology can piggyback onto some of that (as I have been previously exhorting here), and perhaps a good example is in the lead article in this week’s New Scientist, on “Why Money Messes With Your Mind.” Included is one experiment that shows that just physically handling money satiates food hunger. And, being satiated with food smells makes people give less money in a charity game. And there are several more, all linking together and lighting up the shared neural pathways of food, pleasure, sexual desire, satisfaction, and money, triggered both physiologically and psychologically – for which astrology has a single, simple uniting proto-concept: Venus. Obviously, we’ve noticed those multiple connections before, long-incorporated in the language of astrology as a single entity, and here it becomes directly associated with specific neural pathways in parts of the brain. There are sets of common structure here waiting to be linked – indeed, being linked – and we’ve got a whole system through which much of it has already been done, through intuition and artisanship.

To a certain extent, one of our missions needs to be to participate in that kind of deconstruction and reintegration, to which we have something priceless to add and which cleans up and confirms our own work at the same time. It’s certainly not up there in the reaches of finding truth and beauty, but it’s starting to count and confirm the building blocks that build the edifice to receive it. When you’ve got the proper chalice well and reliably crafted, maybe then you can plop in the purer Host and it will fit better than just tossing in everything from overlapping and conflicting remnants of half-remembered rituals and hoping for results as we have to do now.

Of course, as a practitioner, you still have to do the best you can with what you’ve already got based on your own experience and motivations, as we all do. But, there is a very fertile process available here that doesn’t necessarily require a lot of expense or huge data studies of our own, simply an awareness of how and where we may step into others’ exploration of some of the things we already have formulas and assumptions for, which they may help delineate. And when you follow this process in bits and pieces, as much of medicine and the behavioral sciences have, long enough, you reconstruct your original, assumed edifice in much stronger and more elegant fashion and you get rid of its mistakes and redundancies in the process.

I think we will find that the proto-language that is part of what astrology is overlaps with and includes a lot of what clinical experiments are finding out individually in a number of other disciplines. We need to keep our eyes out for them, collect and apply…

[Michael Erlewine]

John, thanks for the post, which opens up a lot more dialog. Let me just ‘ping’ you on several of your points and let some of the others ride for now.

Connecting Locally to the Larger Picture

The local or micro connection we each have to the macro is all that keeps me in astrology. When that connection starts getting thin, I lose interest. It appears (for me) to be the only way (literally) to stay connected – local connections, like staying in your body!

The Langrangian Points

Lagrangian-Points.jpg (35.25 KiB) Viewed 949 times

Lagrange Points

These are something I too have been studying since the early 1970s. For those reading who don’t know what these points are, the Lagrange Points are five positions in an elliptical orbit in relation to two largeer bodies (the Sun and Earth, for example) where smaller objects tend to move and find stationary positions. Three of these points are in the (using this example) line connecting the Sun and Earth (L1, L2, L3), and the other two (L4, L5) are located at points that we would associate with the Sextile/Trine aspect, as shown here.

The Trojan Asteroids

AD-98.jpg (73.05 KiB) Viewed 946 times

The most famous example of the Lagrangian Points are the two groups of Trojan Asteroids, which have collected at the Sextile/Trine (60 and 120 degrees) points in relation to the Sun and Jupiter. A whole collection of objects (small asteroids) have found their way to these Lagrange points and have assembled there.

As John points out and as I have been monitoring for many years myself, this casts at least some light on our concept of the Sextile and Trine aspect configurations. For example, in the helio chart examples I used in the previous post, both John and I have strong Grand Trines. I pointed out that the Grand Trine is the most perfect configuration to avoid sending a cross (T-Cross or Grand Cross patterns) through the center of the solar system. Thus the Grand Trine represents in some fashion, the path of least resistance. Thus we have the two major archetypes, the Grand Cross and the Grand Trine configurations or StarTypes as I call them. Which segues into John’s next point.

Beauty, Beauty, Beauty…

I discovered early on that, despite my propensity for making things abstract and complex, that after many years of studying heliocentric chart patterns in many tens of thousands of charts, that it really all boiled down to whether there was a T-Cross in the helio chart or not. At the time, this was a little embarrassing, because I had planned for a lot more complicated solution than that one. A quick sidebar:

In studying Chinese, Tibetan, Indian, and of course Western astrology, I have a running joke with myself that all of these astrological systems are just complicated enough that the average bear cannot really make sense out of them and thus has to hire a professional astrologer to interpret them, thus keeping the astrologers in business. True?

Returning to the main point here: after so many years of analyzing heliocentric patterns, it was a little stunning for me to end up with a system that just anyone at all could easily use, one that required no specialist, no astrologer. Is there a T-Cross-type aspect in the helio or is there not. You can see for yourself by looking at any computer printout of a helio chart that draws in the aspects.

Many years ago I became fascinated with, aside from the superficial take on beauty and charisma (like: Wow, is that beautiful!), what is it about beauty and so on that is so attractive? And, what is attraction itself? Why are we compelled to stare at something beautiful, listen over and over to our favorite tune, and so on? Aside from the deer-in-the-headlights effect beauty has on all of us, what is the business-end of beauty and charisma?

The concept of beauty and charisma as transactions (the business of beauty) made perfect sense to me, but what is being exchanged? Whatever it is that happens through this kind of exchange, it has to be something, no matter how ethereal or refined it might be compared with simple physical measurement. For the sake of argument here, let’s just speculate that we all are sharing cosmic information of importance to us. I mean, after all, what is more transforming than the rapt attention we give to moments of awe, inspiration, beauty, and the like? What is that stuff?

In brief, then, I settled on the concept that the sign of the cross (T-Cross, Grand Cross, etc.) in the helio natal chart meant that these cross-type individuals somehow radiated or re-presented information of fascination and value to the rest of us. I didn’t just sit down and make this up in my mind. I spent many years examining a large amount of charts, drawing them out on paper before computers were available, and later creating large collections and databases of this.

And I know something about database work. After all, I (with the help of my staff) databased ALL recorded music and film, every cast member, every music track and sideman – literally millions of records, so I am no stranger to working with data. Still, I am not a statistician and never felt the need to be one. What emerged out of all of my looking at and database-ing of charts, despite my predilection for more subtle solutions, was the simple fact that those helio charts with a T-cross in them seemed to be the main purveyors of 'something', call it charisma, cosmic information or what-have-you? And I have been trying to get some of the rest of you to look at this phenomenon for these last many years.

Facts

One thing I have real trouble with in this forum is the attempt to separate the physical studies and facts we might be interested in from what some of you call the “more ethereal inclinations,” the universal truths, etc., of astrology To me these are all of one piece and neither works well without the other. They go hand in hand.

I understand, John, your interest in the scientific ‘facts’ coming from investigation, but I have yet to hear from you that you understand my interest in examining the concept of ‘facts,” like: are there different kinds of facts? Where do facts come from and at what point do we all agree something is a fact. As you point out yourself, some of the piecemeal testing of facts we leave to science to work out, just so we eventually have the proof of the pudding, etc. It is already assumed by us, and we have no interest in the chore of proving it.

But, I ask, what about those of us who acknowledge “that” process is taking place and just want to go into what I can only call the ‘future’ of some facts that are not yet agreed on as scientific facts. Let’s face it, facts form, or our concepts of them do. They don’t just come out of nowhere, but gradually emerge into our awareness until, as you point out, we find that we can depend on them. Then we say they are facts. And I have done fact-based scientific research early on in my life as a herpetologist, specializing in salamanders.

I also have worked with some of the best astrologers in the world in my lifetime, and talking closely together, we agree amongst ourselves that, despite the lack of ‘factual’ declaration on the part of scientists (they are working on it), that certain concepts we all can see are, as far as we are concerned, ‘facts’ to us. We count on them. We depend on them, and we are certain of them. They are what we might call ‘astrological’ facts.

Furthermore, we don’t need to have science’s blessing on these mutually agreed-upon facts, because facts are only a convention and our local consensus is enough for us. In other words, we have achieved consensus among our peers and part of our job as astrologers is to help birth facts as we see them. I have had extensive discussions with some of the best thinkers in the astrological world (at least in my opinion), including Dane Rudhyar, Charles Jayne, Theodor Landscheidt, Robert Schmidt, Roger Elliot, Charles Harvey, John Addey, and many others… and of course John Townley. I can’t remember in any of those conversations trying to stick to the science description of facts. Who has the time? Life is short. The simple ‘fact’ is: in practice we don’t do it.

Instead, we have our own concept of what we as astrologers consider as working facts, concepts we each can see and agree upon, call it ‘facts 102’, the next generation. It never has been an issue, but we assumed that we were busy birthing concepts and experiences that we considered as facts, albeit ‘astrological’ facts.

So, John, I am a little confused about who we are addressing here. We are talking in this forum about the physical basis for astrology, but to me that is not as simple as sticking to the facts as science sees them. I would like to discuss the physical basis of astrology, including both what science calls facts and what astrologers, as a group, can agree to as facts.

Facts form, and we can feel that form (in some cases) before they become a final fact of science. So that is the kind of facts I am interested in spending my time on. Let me know your view on these two types of facts, please.

[John_Townley]

That’s a lot to address, Michael, but here’s a simple attempt:

Connecting Locally to the Larger Picture

Seeing and experiencing (and discovering new) connections are pretty much what keeps all of us in the game, not only in astrology. Theory never brought to ground gets boring and leaves one feeling lost, indeed – although pacing the ground without some theory makes you feel lost as well – powerless and pointless. A healthy combination is seems to be what keeps people going in general, regardless of whether it’s real or imagined.

Lagrange Points

Lagrange points, don’t you just love ‘em? They’re one of those totally obvious but overlooked links between astrological principles and scientific observations, though the stepwise linkage needs to be fleshed out for either side to be happy. Fundamentally, geometrical combinations of or derived from three tend to be stable, and from two unstable, which tends to work at all kinds of levels from cosmic construction to an erector set. And, of course, instability is both more troublesome and more interesting, if only because it constantly moves against a more secure background, and hence becomes foreground, which explains a lot. It gets your attention, just because you’re evolved to pay attention to change and motion, which both threatens and provides opportunity. For economy’s sake, more on Lagrange thoughts at http://www.astrococktail.com/Lagrangepoints.html

Beauty, Beauty, Beauty…

Beauty (of the artistic sort) is more than just interesting change or variation, and it has always had everybody on the ropes to define. Science’s latest struggles to explain art and music away through raw evolution are briefly outlined in a feature story in this week’s Newsweek. They’re trying, but nobody’s really buying. To a certain extent (when it’s in the eye of the beholder) it’s a reworking or variation (motion) within repeatedly experienced (and thus stable) patterns in your environment. Hence, there’s no accounting for taste, as it leans on your own personal experience, much of which is shared by many, some of which only by a few. Thus, everybody likes a great sunset, but not everyone can relate to modern jazz. It’s highly dependent on shared and agreed-upon recognition, as is any language (back to that theme).

Facts

Which brings us up to what facts really are, and what levels of them we need to expect to deal with, as you are asking. Facts, like words and their definitions, are simply repeated and agreed-upon observations, at least useful facts are (like useful words). You may be the only one to have observed something unique, and only once, and although it may be a fact in the abstract, without either individual or social context, it has no use. Repeat the event a few time, add some other observers and it gradually emerges into awareness and we eventually get a word for it. Or, the “we” who have jointly experienced it do, and we know what the word means.

As you say, astrologers (others as well) have a whole vocabulary of “facts” that we work with and agree upon that others don’t recognize, both for lack of previous sharing and because of their fundamental structure as well. Whereas much of practical and especially scientific language uses words to narrow meaning as much as possible, we use inclusive uber-concepts (prototaxons would be a good word) like Saturn or Aries, each of which embraces many sets of specifics with a shared gestalt and then we overlap them like Venn diagrams until they often describe quite specific situations in ways other languages/vocabularies do not. Coming from the modern humanist tradition (not so very rigorous in itself), Richard Tarnas in Cosmos And Psyche finds it a stretch to embrace the idea and thinks it radical, though he seems at a loss to really understand it, inferring innate cosmic Intelligence, and mislabeling the concepts as archetypes, a much more limited and already-taken word (my comments on that at http://www.astrococktail.com/cosmosandpsyche.html ), but we have no difficulty speaking and understanding the lingo. Of course, what’s more amazing (to Tarnas, and quite beyond most scientists’ admission) is that these prototaxons in combination actually describe real sets of events in synch with the movements of the planets associated with them.

Well, after all these years, I’m equally amazed at that part, which is why I’m still in astrology. How this vocabulary evolved (through our simple experience of its disparate parts, matching one event and quality to another) to match the obviously-beautiful shapes and motions of the heavens is a thing of both great mystery and beauty of itself. And, every time I see a little piece of that puzzle put together, from the most abstract to the most specific, I get a thrill. The search for the physical basis doesn’t mean just aggregating a lot of detail that some particular scientist might like or understand (though that’s part), but putting them all together so that it makes sense, top to bottom, to everybody. And, as when any sets of cultures with different experiences, approaches, and languages meet, a lot of it is about translation and combination so that all the applicable observations and models, one conversation at a time, eventually combine and fit. Flexibility and readiness to re-conceive at any level are the key to progress for all the players.

On top of it all, as with most areas of life, the tools and discoveries are still being uncovered to do this with, on all sides, without which ultimate progress can’t be made, any more than medicine could have made its greatest leaps without the microscope or physics without the cloud chamber. Everybody is beginning to think a little bit differently, both in the abstract and experimentally, and in the middle of it all are, essentially, the facts…

Hope that touches a little of it…

[Michael Erlewine]

The ‘facts’ as conventionally described are the final precipitate of all scientific inquiry, the ultimate talisman for the Psychometrists of astrology, which is what those of us who are interested in the latest astrophysical evidence are apparently into, ascribing astrological meaning to the breadcrumbs that fall from the astronomer’s table – fact-based meaning.

We assume since we cannot (or have not) gained the credentials to ourselves be astrophysicists and astronomers, that the main road of inquiry (our goal) is for us to wait for the resulting facts of science to gradually appear, so that we can attach our astrological spin to them, as in: astrology is simply cultural astronomy. Hopefully, we are something more than that.

But even the scientific facts are hardly cold or hard, at least in the world of astrophysics. Witness the ongoing history of the quasar or the quantum theory that predated modern quantum mechanics. ‘Facts’ too it seems are subject to whatever revision our mind puts them through. In the long view, almost no facts are completely sacrosanct from a change in view, should it come about. Facts change as our mind changes its view. Academics can and do change their minds, which leads me to my point.

It is the mind that is the ‘decider’, to borrow a phrase from George W. Bush. And the mind can be said to surround the facts like the sugar solution surrounds and precipitates sugar crystals. Beyond the plain facts is the solution out of which or from which the facts eventually emerge and are awarded ‘facticity’ by scientific consensus. This much we have gone over in this thread.

And, since astrology has yet to be reduced to scientific facts, much of what passes for astrology is concerned with areas that might be termed (to be kind) pre-factual, that is: they may eventually be accepted as facts, but right now, they are not considered facts by science, and that is an understatement. Astrologers themselves are not in agreement among themselves as to what should be considered astrological facts.

And yet the coin of the astrological realm is based on all the kinds of concepts that astrologers, by consensus, consider facts, the so-called ‘facts’ of astrology – astrological facts. And we can agree that astrological facts do not meet the standard of scientific facts, at least not yet. Therefore, somewhere between the hard scientific fact and the soft astrological fact is an interface or borderland, a shoreline where the two kinds of facts come together and meet.

And from what I read here and elsewhere, this shoreline is (at this point) not very well defined by astrologers. In other words, there are all kinds of concepts put forth by astrologers as ‘facts’, varying from something scientists might deign to perhaps look at, to those all of us would agree are a little kooky… or are ‘way kooky’. The only significant book or paper that has tried to organize this mess (look it straight in the eye) is Geoffrey Dean’s book “Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review,” which was published way back in 1977. And since that book was received by many astrologers with almost open-faced horror, no one has dared touch the subject again.

Instead, we have embroidered the same old conversations about the Moon and lunar activity, etc. that we enjoyed forty years ago with whatever new inklings that may have emerged from scientific or quasi-scientific studies. And on the more spiritual side, the earlier wave of esoteric astrology from authors like Madam Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner, and Alice Bailey has quietly fallen into disuse. The effect of the "Esoteric Astrology" of Blavatsky and friends wave deserves a few more comments here.

I am all for astrology being grounded in scientific fact, but while we wait, I am not interested in excluding other avenues of inquiry, including those not based on the hard facts of science. As an ardent student of esoteric astrology myself, I will admit that the earlier attempts of writers like Alice Bailey, Rudolf Steiner, and Madam Blavatsky, what has been called “Esoteric Buddhism,” is little more than those author's personal take on what are fundamentally Buddhist teachings. This is not to denigrate them, but to make clear that most of their work (as relates to Asian thought) is but a first pass, a ‘through a glass, darkly” look at the Tibetan Buddhist teachings, or worse.

It is no wonder that these author’s mental translation of Eastern concepts into Western views is distorted, in particular when it comes to the concepts of Self or Ego, which don’t have the same meaning in Tibet that they do in the West. Blavatsky, Steiner, and Bailey quite naturally attached the same value for the Self (or ego) to the Tibetan works they were reading and studying that we hold today in modern society, with the result that many of the Tibetan concepts were very much distorted. Talk about lost in translation!

It has taken us some time to recover from the mis-take by these authors of the actual Tibetan concepts. It happens that astrology is an integral part of the Tibetan Buddhist teachings, where it is considered one of the ‘relative truths’, a true pathway for individual spiritual development. We very much need to separate and discard the conceptual mistakes made by the Esoteric Buddhists (Blavatsky, etc.), but retain the actual Buddhist teachings on astrology, as they represent one of the few extant authentic astrological lineages.

What is my point here? My point is that the various Theosophical musings don’t really represent the mystery or esoteric tradition in astrology that predated them, and these mystery traditions were to a great extent sidelined or obscured by the “Esoteric Buddism” movement, basically as Eastern concepts began to move into Western minds. As a group, the Esoteric Buddhists got it partly wrong, distorted the Tibetan teachings, and now some astrologers want to discard esoteric astrology altogether, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. And then in the late 20th Century we went deer-in-the-headlights on science, and so on. Something has been lost in the process that relates to astrology as also a mystic tradition.

What needs to happen now, in my view, which is my way of saying that it is already happening, is the revival of astrology as one of the key mystery traditions, in particular as a shamanistic profession, with the shaman as counselor and a pathfinder to the mind. Many astrologers agree with me on this. However, for that to be true, we actually need to know what we are talking about, to ourselves know the path of the mind, and to, so to speak, shaman-ize or find our shamanistic roots.

We strive to find a physical basis for astrology and cling to the idea that scientific acceptance of astrology may be just around the corner, when what is really important is that astrology be found useful to society and to ourselves. It is the ‘use’ to which astrology can be put that will decide our future. Is it useful? The answer is “Yes, it is useful,” and that usefulness is not tied to scientific acceptance or rejection.

Astrology is useful and astrologers are useful, not as scientists, but as counselors and, yes, shamans too. We should not continue to ignore our shamanistic and oracular roots. The fact is that most astrology today is administered one-to-one by counseling astrologers or their views are written out and this same counsel is administered through computer reports, and so on. The concept of ministering or administering is not incidental, but rather is essential here. The astrologer as shaman or shamanka is one of the keys to a modern astrology and not just some throwback to a previous era.

I know that this may not be the thread in which to discuss this, but those of you posting here are just the folks I would like to hear from on this topic. John and Bruce, I don’t know how you consider yourselves in this light, but from your writing I always have been interested in your spiritual sides, whatever you might call it, since it seems we all read from the same book of science results anyway. It is hard for me to believe that astrologers who do any amount of counseling are not aware of their shamanic function and (at the same time) of the oracular nature of astrology itself.

Do you see this shamanic or mystery-tradition side of astrology as important and how do you see yourselves supporting it?

[John_Townley]

Although the shamanistic aspect of astrology – or, more properly, astrologers and that aspect of their practice – isn’t really the subject here (there is an astro-shamanism discussion area), it is a good idea to separate that out from what might be this forum’s exploration of synthesizing currently-developing science and currently-developing astrology. There has been a continuing undertone of disrespect and misunderstanding of each area toward the other that is neither productive nor necessary. Geoffrey Dean was, indeed, the first to make a really heroic effort to explore a rapprochement between science and astrology in his landmark book (I got my first formula for calculating the Angles on an HP calculator from it!), didn’t find one then and still hasn’t (go immediately and see his updated work on same at http://rudolfhsmit.nl/index.html ). Ultimately, it hasn’t made much of a dent on two sides that don’t understand each other, don’t really want to, and yet claim to. Maybe we can explore some new paths here to avoid all the dead ends already enthused-over.

I have often chided astrologers who would cozy up to science (particularly the social sciences) in the interest of getting greater recognition, even to the point of selling out, and “Jungian” astrologers would be on my short list there. I equally distance myself from the likes of CSICOP and professional skeptics whose bottom line is that science is a fully-written and closed book, into which astrology just doesn’t fit.

Astrologers, in personal consulting practice, have always been at the center of this stage, giving guidance based on various forms of belief in the correspondence of human affairs with planetary position and movement. In Classical and even Renaissance times they were even at the heart of a universal theory of how the world was constructed, which included medicine, and other sciences and arts, all of a piece. Beginning in the 17th century, changes in the understanding of physics, chemistry, and math and the development of instruments to expand the physical windows on the world temporarily has wrecked that universal outlook, and astrology with it, and medicine only barely made it out alive by first buying into chemistry (with Paracelsus) and then the miracles of the microscope. The fortuitous technology to keep astrology in the evolving fold never arrived, partially because its claims are so much greater and harder to extract from those new, first-generation physical tools.

I bring in the parallel with medicine, because of the rise of the use of the term shamanism in application to astrology and other divinatory and revelatory arts. Until the last couple of decades, shamans were strictly part of primitive and primarily oral (that’s important) Siberian culture, with the label broadly used to cover other traditions of medicine men and witch doctors. Now, especially in the wake of Joseph Campbell, anybody that claims to be something in the order of a life coach, by whatever method, is calling himself a shaman. Of course, the real Western cultural shamans of the last century or so have been the doctor with his little black bag, the priest or minister, and the psychiatrist. And most modern astrologers tend to be an alternative version of one of those, with a different story, but without portfolio.

Of course, there is the Tibetan mystic tradition that you are a part of which was largely and inaccurately co-opted by Theosophy, Steinerism, and the like, which you can explain better than I. Regardless of the details, using astrology as a traditional form of wisdom to help better understand the human condition and counsel those in need of getting a better handle on their existence is what it is and will remain so. Those who do it well, regardless of technique, and in so doing help people get in touch with themselves (or whatever), are the heart of the profession, surrounded by a host of charlatans. The same goes for many of the other divinatory arts which also draw on forms of human symbolism and understanding mixed with the always-astonishing (because unexplained) occasional astonishing accuracy as well as general good advice.

As a practitioner, I tend to those who need guidance with a combination of all I think I know and have experienced from looking at charts and the people who went along with them. In conjunction I use all possible skills of basic counseling, the occasional bit of showmanship (selective techniques of the charlatan here, like the placebo in medicine, are perfectly acceptable tools in a good cause), combined with as much referential material as I can collect on resources to draw on in the usual areas of inquiry (sex, jobs, organization, human relations) as applied to the details of the client’s life. I could only have written Planets In Love, for instance, because I also spent three years as managing editor at Sexology Today in daily contact with the leading sexual medicine doctors and psychologists of the day. Every practitioner has his own style, and mine is on the materialistic and skeptical side, so I say I’m giving good advice and a form of life weather forecasting which should be mixed and constantly reset with a large dose of daily reality. I’m good at it, but for me it’s just part of gathering information on the larger picture to figure out how it all works. I’m not trying to transmit a lineage (that’s my music part, elsewhere), just working on the building, so to speak.

What I am not is a shaman, simply because that’s not the path I was put on. Not because I’m either a skeptic or a believer, but because of two very specific (and suspiciously Tibetan-looking) visions I had quite early on that among other things laid out science and religion as branches of the same tree and for me to go there, for life. Apostolic Studios didn’t get that name just for its twelve tracks (and it wasn’t Christian, either, just a start). So, in final answer to your question, the shamanistic element is fine by me, and it is certainly a major part of the key appeal of astrology for most people, and at the heart of the matter, much of its reason for being, though not specifically my path.

My take on science and astrology, on this forum, is that they both need to find truly common ground, lacking so far for both social and technical reasons, instead of competing for legitimacy, in order to accomplish what the ideal of both science and religion is, and that is find out the truth, what is actually there, what actually happens, by whatever means necessary to dig up to accomplish it.

[Michael Erlewine]

Thanks John and a good post, just what I was looking for! I have only one topic (amazing in itself!) to comment on, and that concerns shamanism. I have studied it via the works on comparative religions (Eliade, etc.) many years ago, and I have worked with actual practitioners both from the Asian persuasion and in the Western tradition.

What I am trying to accomplish here is not to confirm or bless what pretends to pass for shamanism on the fringe of the astrological world (which is a joke), but to engage and remind astrologers as to what shamanism is all about, and how it differs from other spiritual approaches and organized religion. I won’t repeat it all here, but in a nutshell:

Shamanism is a natural function of all societies, not just Siberian or rural societies. It exists by definition, and not by avocation. Briefly, every organized society pretty much by definition is conventional. In any conventional society, there are those individuals whose personal trip or development results in their finding themselves outside these conventions, at least for a while. They either become kooks of one kind or another (some go crazy), or they manage to stabilize and rejoin society, but retaining what they learned from their isolation experience or whatever you want to call it.

Because of their unusual experiences, they can appreciate and recognize others who are kind of falling through society’s cracks and, if their compassion quotient is high enough, they feel an obligation to somehow help out. Aside from all of the ridiculous claims by astrologers to be shamans, etc., which I dismiss as you do, I would like to see some discussion on whatever legitimate shamanistic function astrologers play in society.

I fear I may appear as just another crazy astrologer with tunnel vision on a topic, but I assure you I am also very pragmatic about these things. There is usually a reason for my ‘madness’. Just as you and I like to check out the scientific basis for astrology (which carcass has been kind of picked over in my opinion), so I was hoping to get some astrologers like yourself (pragmatic ones!) interested in reforming or validating what remains of the early mystic or mystery traditions within astrology. I mean, astrology is not all number crunching or endless counting. Astrologers have a legitimate history of being outriders to society, even if they appeared at court. Our knowledge (such as it is) is not commonplace in society.

I know I can holler “We are all shamans!” in a crowd of astrologers and get a round of applause, but what I am looking for is to engage some of you in serious discussion. And, in fact, the post you just wrote was helpful. And… this is off-topic ... I am not above trying to point out that there may be some other roads we could go down in this “physical basis of astrology,” other than the ones we have been going down (at least as I remember) for forty years or more.