by Astrology and science: two visions, one reality
For my mouth will speak the truth, and wickedness is detestable to my lips
Proverbs, 8:7
Some time ago, I replied to an exhaustive exposition criticising (Latin contra) astrology, motivated by the need to assert the supremacy of the scientific perspective over any notion rooted in the faiths and superstitions of the Dark Ages, as per the detractors’ claims. However, a response in the heat of the moment manifests an irrational attachment; such an opinion lacks probative value and holds no weight as an unsubstantiated verdict, ultimately hindering the comprehension of the phenomenon. Consequently, I decided to produce an equally comprehensive intervention, albeit concise for exhibition requirements, while addressing the principal arguments of the detractors and the so-called astrological debunkers.
The mention of Aquinas’s work in this discourse serves as a joking counterpoint. Thomas Aquinas authored his weighty treatise in Italy during the pontificate of Urban IV around 1261 at the behest of Saint Raymond of Pennafort, a Dominican friar. The latter aspired to convert Jews and Muslims to Catholicism. In contemporary times, astrologers appear akin to the Gentiles of yore, somewhat infidels, failing to adapt to the changed orientation of dominant thought. The present discussion attempts to reverse the terms of the issue by casting men and women of science in the guise of Gentiles. Once again, it is worth reiterating that this approach is not intended to be polemical, as it does not contradict scientific thinking. Like other branches of esoteric knowledge, astrology strives to reconcile the observer’s consciousness with the phenomenal experience. This framework provides ample room for making choices based on one’s attitudes without causing divisions: two systems, one reality.
The constellations
It is commonly acknowledged that constellations are conventions, which is true. In Western astrology, astrologers initially established constellations as mnemonic devices, representing them in animal form, except the one inanimate sign of Libra. To clarify, the pareidolia that debunkers refer to, the phenomenon of the mind creating perceived images from random stimuli, is irrelevant in this context. Astrologers assigned animal symbolism to the stars and affixed lines to them, which allowed for the creation of a skeletal framework upon which to imagine the figure.
The geocentric coordinate system
It is erroneous to assume that the heliocentric nature of the solar system and its peripheral position in the known universe invalidates the principles of astrology. Such assumptions fail to consider that astrology is inherently geocentric (heliocentric astrology exists as a separate entity, but that’s another matter). Ancient beliefs adhered to a worldview that perceived human beings and the external world as participating in a unified reality; this unity was manifested individually through the individual ego’s consciousness.
Consequently, it was natural for human beings to hold an anthropocentric vision that centralised their existence, where the cosmos symbolised their creative principle through its “dance.” This is no longer the case; today, the focus has shifted towards practical and objective experiences, but the validity of the astrological axiom remains.
The precession of the equinoxes
Debunking astrology because of the precession of the equinoxes is an absolute classic. Precession and nutation movements of the Earth’s axis are responsible for shifting the current constellations from their initial reference. This shift occurs at a rate of approximately one degree every 72 years. Consequently, individuals initially considered to be born under the Taurus zodiac sign are now believed to be born under Aries. However, this is only a problem if one assumes that the Western horoscope is based on the sidereal zodiac, which is not the case. Instead, the Western horoscope is based on the tropical zodiac, which measures two successive passes of the Sun on the vernal point or zero degrees of Aries. The vernal point is the point of origin where the equator’s projection on the celestial sphere intersects with the ecliptic or the Sun’s apparent annual path. In other words, the zodiac operates on a seasonal basis, with the zodiac signs representing the alternation of the natural cycle symbolically expressed in the circle of animals. Since the sidereal year is slightly longer due to the precession movement, it leads to a phase shift between the two reference systems over time.
There is also a sidereal astrology, but its focus is not on the constellations but on the phase shift of zodiac signs, which defines the so-called ‘eras of humanity’ and other things that are not the subject of this discussion. Concerning the Ophiuchus constellation, the debunker’s position is correct; even astrologers are mistaken [1].
Final thoughts on the scientific aspects
The physical characteristics of the universe, such as its three-dimensional nature, the spacing of stars, or the perspective that would radically change on Alpha Centauri, etc., lack probative value in the context of astrology. As previously noted, astrology is not understood as a scientific investigation of the processes that govern the observable universe but rather as an inquiry into the interaction between the phenomenon and the observer’s consciousness. The latter plays a critical role in authoring a cosmic vision that would otherwise be meaningless, thereby suggesting a unifying process between the universe and human consciousness. From this perspective, astrology is not a purely material and distinctive science but rather a symbolic one, in which elements of our unitary consciousness are integral to interpreting astrological dynamics. Consequently, speaking of the influence of stars or constellations is improper, as astrology reflects a symbolic reality that is only apparently separated from the knower.
Predictivity
The issue of astrology predictivity demands attention on two distinct levels. The critic is justified in pointing out that, confronted with numerous daily events and a more or less precise forecast, an individual may develop a bias towards choosing the most suitable prediction. In such cases, the mental processes follow the dynamics of a mathematical attractor, tending towards a point that satisfies the condition of maximum inertia or satisfaction. However, this analysis is based on a flawed approach, resulting from a distorted and, in some cases, superstitious use of astrology by the practitioners or self-proclaimed ones. Additionally, it is worth noting that daily horoscopes, whether online or in print, lack substance in their predictive statements.
The question presented in this second passage, which pertains to the philosophical value of astrology, surpasses the sheer astrological implications. The assumption that astrology can accurately predict the future implies that human beings exist in a state of absolute necessity and dependency on their fate, precluding the possibility of any action beyond what has been predetermined at birth. Conversely, assigning a certain degree of freedom to individual intervention in events implies the ability to act spontaneously in response to decisions, provided that they fall within the limits imposed by genetics, cultural beliefs, or family orientations. However, these arguments fail to address the crucial role of consciousness in shaping events. Without a consciousness that translates the data of our perceptions, events lose their intrinsic meaning. Thus, the purpose of astrology is not to predict the future but to ensure that individuals “happen” to events, ascribing to them a function that enables them to participate in what is taking place. In essence, horoscopes reveal the union between an individual’s interiority, which interprets reality from a unique perspective, and external events that become meaningful owing to conscious intervention.
Therefore, the discipline of astrology offers insights into the potential of individuals and the environment, enabling individuals to make informed decisions and avoid false paths. The primary objective of astrology is to provide individuals with a comprehensive understanding of their potential, thereby giving their lives complete meaning. In response to whether astrology can be used to predict the future accurately, it can be said that, with Western astrology tools, it is possible to predict the potential development of an event for the client but not the event itself. However, presenting such predictions as unavoidable objective circumstances without providing clients with the necessary tools to recognise the event as a natural part of their being and their evolutionary process is not only useless but also harmful.
The character
Speaking of personality, it is inevitable that the Forer effect, also known as “confirmation bias,” acts as an attractor, as previously discussed. However, this phenomenon can lead to misleading results when presenting subjects with a range of linguistic elements that are both broad and contradictory, ultimately forcing them to narrow down their selection to find a match to their self-image.
For example, it is commonplace for individuals to assign certain traits to specific zodiac signs. However, it is essential to consider that the causes of these traits are diverse. For instance, Capricorn is conventionally associated with ambition. Still, the trait of ambition is not exclusive to this sign. Even individuals born under Leo or Cancer can display ambition depending on the underlying conditions. Rather than relying on the formulaic approach of “where there is Capricorn, there is ambition,” it is crucial to examine the symbol’s origins and verify that certain conditions can give rise to a specific type of ambition that aligns with the sign’s characteristics.
For instance, Capricorn’s seasonal symbolism portrays such individuals as expressing a trait that prioritizes the essence of things over their formal expression. Thus, any ambition demonstrated by individuals born under this sign tends to be directed towards elevation, distinct from the self-centred ambition often seen in Leos. As such, it is vital to examine the symbolic meanings that underlie a theme and incorporate them into the theme itself.
These examples assume that astrologers are willing to say anything to justify their compensation and that astrology is based solely on the zodiac signs. While it is possible for self-styled astrologers to focus on the superstitious aspect and for newspaper colleagues to adapt to a mass cultural model, such practices have nothing to do with astrology. Not to mention that the astrological scheme features a diverse range of classic interpretative tools, such as houses, planets, aspects, and others, which symbolically reflect the psychophysical elements that shape a person’s sphere of existence.
[1] Critics of astrology often argue that astrologers claim that there are only twelve constellations on the ecliptic, while in reality, there are thirteen. This is because certain media sources have recently highlighted the addition of Ophiuchus, a constellation located between the signs of Scorpio and Sagittarius. However, Ophiuchus is not a new discovery, as it was mentioned in the works of Marcus Manilius, who stated that those born under its auspices were protected from snake bites (Astronomica, I, 338). The tropical zodiac divides the ecliptic into twelve equally sized sectors that are independent of the actual constellations. Some individuals who are unaware of the symbolic foundation of astrology may seek to “modernise” the zodiac by including a thirteenth sign, possibly to counter criticisms. Here, we refer to the fact that the astrologer makes a mistake in recognising an instance not part of astrological thought.
Leave a Reply