Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Index:

I heard that the tropical zodiac is based on the seasons, would this require a different zodiac or interpretation based on if you were born in the northern v. southern hemisphere?

While there is a lot of astrology that is related to the seasons (e.g., 0° Aries always marks the start of spring in the northern hemisphere and Aries is given “spring-like” characteristics like energetic and initiative), the overall phenomena are global. By this, I mean that during spring and summer in the northern hemisphere, the global average temperature is higher and given the greater land mass and terrestrial life in the northern hemisphere, there is a global theme of the proliferation of life. During the winter and fall in the northern hemisphere, the global average temperature is lower and the average theme regarding life is decline, death, and coldness.

If at some point in the future when the tectonic plates shift to place most of the Earth’s landmass in the southern hemisphere, this might change astrology. However, I believe this is an equally speculative thought experiment to asking what would astrology become if we terraformed Mars and someone was born there.

As an aside regarding personal experiments, countless astrologers I know in Australia and South America have found no need to adjust their interpretations due to the reversal of the seasons.

First, what need to be recognized is while the zodiac signs are named after zodiacal constellations, they are not the zodiacal constellations themselves. Zodiacal signs are an idealized division of the Sun’s path in 12 even section.

This is referring to a well-accounted for phenomenon called precession.

Aren’t the constellation shifted from what they were when the tropical zodiac was constructed?

I use Regiomontanus because it is a division of the sky based on the celestial equator. The celestial equator can be at most 23 and a half degrees off the ecliptic, so it limits the level of distortion you get when dividing the ecliptic at extreme latitudes (unlike Campanus which divides the prime vertical). I also appreciate that it adheres to the principles of diurnal motion (unlike whole sign houses). What I mean by this, is that a planet will always go from the 12th, to the 11th, to the 10th, all the way to the 1st house. A planet can never go backwards through the houses. This is why the houses are numbered as they are. A planet in the 1st house is 1st to rise, a planet in the 2nd house is 2nd to rise, etc. Whole sign houses does not adhere to this principle and allows a planet to go from the 11th house back to the 12th house under certain conditions. Lastly, I do not focus on arguments surrounding chart details (e.g., if someone feels their chart is better explained with whole sign or not) or with citing traditional authors because that can be subjective and it is easy to argue both sides. I don not think it is productive. I am thankful to Wade Caves for teaching me much of this.

Why do you use Regiomontanus as your house system? Why do you not use whole sign houses?

why don’t we have proof of house gravity works yet?

Why hasn’t astrology been statistically proven yet?

What’s the difference between going to an astrologer and having a program just tell me things?

SOLAR CHARTS - This is the technique used to usually write horoscopes, such as those in the newspaper. No birth time is necessary. You place the Sun on the ascendant and in this way it gives the Sun’s perspective of current transits. Common phenomenon that are analyzed are the sign and house of New Moons, Full Moons, and eclipses. Additionally, the location of outer planets like Jupiter through Pluto and where planets go retrograde are significant.

“The trick to any reading may be not simply to accommodate or minimize failure but to see how stumbles and blunders and confusions and errors are part of what makes a system work, part of what makes it intelligent.” — ELIZABETH WILSON

CHAPTER 1

            Thank you for joining my reading of Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View by Richard Tarnas. It is a fundamental astrological text, cited as a must-read alongside Dane Rudhyar and Demetra George. Such a large text can be daunting, so I want to invite people at all levels of their astrological study to read it with me and process our shared experience of the text together. We will read one chapter a month and I will write a review of each chapter as I go. My reviews will be available in the monthly newsletter. I am hoping that others are inspired to read along with me. Readers will be encouraged to participate in a book club meeting before Washington State Astrologers Association lectures each month. 

            Tarnas starts with a history of the “modern self.” As context, his previous book was, The Passion of the Western Mind, which presents a historical review of the development of the “self” within the West. The Copernicus Revolution led to a unique confidence in human’s ability to obtain direct, accurate, and objective knowledge of the world. What sets the “modern mind” apart is its tendency to assert a separation between subject and object, self and world. This “disenchants the world;” it objectifies and denies the world a capacity to intend, signify, and express its meaning. Disenchantment of the world views the natural world as context to be shaped and a resource to be exploited for human benefit. The human self obtains a sense of freedom and autonomous subjectivity that it can shape and determine its own existence. The price for human autonomy is paid for by the experience of human alienation from the world. 

            A paradigm shift out of the reductive values that encourage exploitative, utilitarian perspectives requires a coherent cosmology. Without a cosmology, the starting point of the Western mind, the Copernican revolution that sees the cosmos as purposeless, remains untouched. Arguing all meaning and purpose perceived in the universe is a human projection is itself the absolute privileging of the human as the ultimate anthropocentric projection and human self-aggrandizement since the human is exclusively the source of all meaning and purpose. Any attempt to de-anthropomorphize reality is itself an anthropocentric act.

            His perspective that any paradigm shift requires a new, coherent cosmology to be successful is appealing. I wonder about the value of astrology, in presenting a new cosmology, to fields like feminism or queer studies in their attempts to create paradigm shifts. His assertion that man makes himself meaningful subject and the world meaningless object seems to presume man already was separate from the world. I am curious what would follow if one were to suggest the world – as man – disenchants itself. The world objectifies, alienates, and denies itself a capacity to intend or signify. In turn, humans’ relation to the world is one of self-responsibility since humans are of-the-world. Overall, this chapter packs a philosophically-dense punch; I encourage readers to trudge through as it gets lighter in the following chapters. 

CHAPTER 2

            Tarnas begins by furthering his argument against the assumption that all meaning and purpose in the universe is a human projection. He refers to this assumption as the disenchantment of the world. However, disenchantment is itself another reflection of a historically situated imperative and unconsciousness; it is not neutral and objective. Disenchantment is itself another form of enchantment. 

            While disenchantment was useful to differentiate the self from the world, it has served its purpose and is now problematic. Following the archetype of the hero’s journey where the hero turns inward to be born again and then ascends towards divinity, Copernicus’ revolution marked the great ascent of the modern self. Depth psychology marked the great descent and turn inwards. The production of an unconscious is effectively produced with the creation of the modern self , just as light creates a shadow. Depth psychology came to the fore because the unconscious needed to be theorized, explored, and integrated. Depth psychology emerged in a disenchanted world and, much like astrology, was charged with having a lack of objective, empirically measurable results. Its essential focus was on meanings that could never be quantified. Its insights were said to be only relevant to the psyche – the subjective aspect of things – not the world itself. No matter how subjectively convincing depth psychology was, its discoveries could not reveal anything with certainty about actual reality. Confined to subjective universe, it could only reveal things seen as expressions of human psyche and spirituality. 

           Tarnas refers to Jung’s idea of synchronicity within depth psychology and its implications as a response to the isolation of depth psychology to the subjective, psychic world. Synchronicity refers to the coincidence of meaning between inner states and simultaneous external events. According to Jung, synchronicity seemed to bring forth a healing moment towards psychological wholeness for patients. This healing was mediated by an unexpected integration of inner and outer realities. Strange synchronicities are so peculiar that they imply a larger background of meaning and purpose, not mere chance. He gives various great examples of this and synchronicities helping patients heal by puncturing a hole in their rationalism and breaking through the intellectual resistance blocking their psychological development.  

            The mechanism behind synchronies is archetypal in nature. The archetypal quality seen in the outside world suggests it cannot be localized only in a subjective, internal reality. Tarnas turns to astrology as a public and pervasive expression of synchronicity rather than private and exceptional. His research, which he presents in this book, finds the order of planets to be synchronously correlated with human affairs in way that is intelligible and meaningful. Here’s the rub: If astrology is in any sense valid, it suggests the universe has the capacity for expressing and supporting meaning and purpose intrinsically. This places the very foundations of the modern world view into question. He argues that astrology is not concretely predictive, but archetypally predictive, a nuance modern science cannot adequately measure due in part to the multivalent nature of archetypes. Overall, I find Tarnas’ tempered argument about archetypes convincing. If you are finding all this philosophy and theory dense, push through this chapter. Next chapter is all about astrology!