Skyscript Astrology Forum

Here is a concrete hypothetical that a friend of mine used to explain the difference between rationalism and essentialism.

Say all life on earth was wiped out, except cockroaches. After hundreds of thousands of years, a creature resembling a bird in looks and behavior developed from a cockroach. How did this happen, and is this creature a bird?

To a rationalist and evolutionist, this creature came about because the conditions made it such that it had a better chance of survival, and this creature is not a bird, but a birdlike cockroach.

To an essentialist, this creature came about to manifest the Divine Achetype of Bird out of the physical form that survived. This creature is as much a bird as the birds that were previously destroyed.

I hope that helped somewhat in clarifying my point.

Rationalism pre-dated modern science, as you know, and has always extended well beyond it.

Certainly rationalism has its merits. History points to many examples of societies where the king's word was law by divine right, the clergy burned heretics at the stake, or parents practiced child sacrifice as a way of appeasing the gods.

I think Ptolemy's project was to rationalize astrology.

I think that you are too harsh on science-- you seem to be speaking as though logical positivism were the last word in the philosophy of science. The scientists I've known don't dismiss what goes on in the English Department or over in the fine arts studio as myth! Rather, they distinguish science (as you have done) from non-scientific fields. They oftentimes appreciate their value, as when a scientist reads a novel or visits an art museum.

Interestingly, if you read the OT in Hebrew words indicating animal souls like "nefesh" and "ruach" are much in evidence. These got translated out by later interpreters.

More to the point of some scientists adhering to a particular religion, some of them teach science and do their research at church-sponsored colleges and universities. Yes, there are biologists at Brigham Young University! You can find theological writings reconciling science and beliefs about God and religion. (As in, what does Genesis mean by "six days of creation"?)

Today theology and religious studies are academic subjects. Some philosophers delve into Platonism and Neo-platonism; in which Hellenistic astrology has some roots. I am not sure where you would peg the fine and performing arts today.

Myriam Hildotter wrote:Here is a concrete hypothetical that a friend of mine used to explain the difference between rationalism and essentialism.

Say all life on earth was wiped out, except cockroaches. After hundreds of thousands of years, a creature resembling a bird in looks and behavior developed from a cockroach. How did this happen, and is this creature a bird?

To a rationalist and evolutionist, this creature came about because the conditions made it such that it had a better chance of survival, and this creature is not a bird, but a birdlike cockroach.

To an essentialist, this creature came about to manifest the Divine Achetype of Bird out of the physical form that survived. This creature is as much a bird as the birds that were previously destroyed.

I hope that helped somewhat in clarifying my point.

We better go with rationalism on this one. Nice fantasy on essentialism, though.

Myriam Hildotter wrote:I am not sure if it is a good idea to enter into the fray with this discussion, but my Ascendant is ruled by Mars in Aries, so sometimes I jump in "where angels fear to tread."

welcome to the club.

Myriam Hildotter wrote:I do not think that my views will be all that popular, but I think that maybe it might be good to put them forth.

who cares if ideas are popular.. that sounds like a 'modern' concern, lol..

Myriam Hildotter wrote: There are many problems with self-study, not the least of which is not having an authority to "keep you honest." It is helpful to have mentors to guide and challenge you. I think that one has to be EXTREMELY disciplined, more disciplined than most people are, with self-study to not just read and study what she finds interesting, and ignore the rest. Even if one is that disciplined, without outside feedback, how does one know that she has not misunderstood or misinterpreted what she has studied?

one has to have an open mind and an ongoing curiousity, something that can be missing.. being disciplined is only part of it. without the open mind to experiment thru trial and error, along with a curiousity to find what works, following others only is a good way into your own ditch. of course putting up walls between traditional and modern astrology doesn't help, especially if someone is preoccupied with only identifying with one side of this distinction. i think it is a real hindrance myself which reflects a closed mind.

Myriam Hildotter wrote:On the other hand, I am not sure where one can get a true education, particularly in the West. The traditional purpose of an education was not to have credentials that could be put up on a wall, but so that knowledge could be passed on from teacher to student, perhaps as far back as the beginning of time.

what about the value in the knowledge itself for the purpose of offering some insight or healing that might not be otherwise gotten? that seems missing in this traditional equation of yours.

Myriam Hildotter wrote:With respect to science, I do not have a difficulty with science or scientists, as such. My difficulty is with the rationalist basis behind modern science, which has found its way into astrology, even Traditional Astrology.

call it neo-traditional astrology then...

Myriam Hildotter wrote:Of course, modern science has given us much in the way of technology, and of course, the scientific method is very useful and helpful for discovering things about the *material* world. The difficulty is that these discoveries about the *material* world are taken by Western society as authoritative on teachings that are beyond the material world.

i think this is a good distinction to make. i think many people are aware of this distinction and not so foolish to think that everything one sees is everything there is. at some point one must rely on their own insight as opposed to the authority of something such as 'western society'.

Myriam Hildotter wrote:I think that astrology falls flat if we try to explain it in a manner that is consistent with modern science. Modern science can be seen as authoritative on matters that have to do with the physical world, but I think that it is important to recognize modern science's limits. Modern science, by its own rules, only concerns itself with what can be observed by the senses (including the use of technology to enhance the data received by the senses), and what can be rationally derived from sense data. The difficulty comes when the West, using modern science, generates the dogma that this is all that exists, because this is all that modern science can measure.

well said. i agree.

Myriam Hildotter wrote: Of course, modern science has given us much in the way of technology, and of course, the scientific method is very useful and helpful for discovering things about the *material* world. The difficulty is that these discoveries about the *material* world are taken by Western society as authoritative on teachings that are beyond the material world.

I think it would be more accurate to say that scientific methods are very useful and helpful for discovering things about the natural world, of which humans and other beings are a part.

I think that astrology falls flat if we try to explain it in a manner that is consistent with modern science. Modern science can be seen as authoritative on matters that have to do with the physical world, but I think that it is important to recognize modern science's limits.

Astrology already falls flat in not being very good at predicting differences between people or developments in people's lives. Astrologers also struggle with the apparent contradiction between prediction and free will, because they don't recognize limits on what's astrologically predictable, on the one hand, and don't have a clear sense of what is predictable, and why, on the other. Scientists are much more aware of the limits to what they can know. It's astrologers who basically believe that they can know, via astrology, pretty much everything they'd like to be able to know, without limits.

. . . Modern science, by its own rules, only concerns itself with what can be observed by the senses (including the use of technology to enhance the data received by the senses), and what can be rationally derived from sense data. The difficulty comes when the West, using modern science, generates the dogma that this is all that exists, because this is all that modern science can measure.

Notwithstanding your admirably careful wording I think you greatly underestimate what can be rationally derived from sense data. From your wording I take it you're aware that physicists don't observe subatomic particles but rather observe their vapor trails under certain (carefully constructed) environmental conditions. Hence they infer the existence of the particles making those trails and of different kinds of particles making different kinds of trails. Characteristics of mind are similarly unobservable and similarly inferrable from what can be observed, which is behavior. That's how cognitive development psychologists know that a qualitative shift occurs in the child's mind at age 7, a finding that's obviously relevant to Saturn opening square natal Saturn at that age for anyone who isn't blindly opposed to discovering, clarifying and correcting our understanding of astrological effects by scientific means. If on the other hand you contend that astrological effects are too elusive for even the most careful indirect observation and inference to apprehend, how then can astrologers know that predictions come true and that astrology works at all?

waybread wrote:Varuna2.

I can certainly understand an astrologer getting his back up about a scientist's criticism. It's only human nature. But as rational people, we have to get beyond a Pavlovian reaction coupled with (all too often) a woeful misunderstanding of science, scientists, and their difference from scientism.

But to "despise" scientists? This only suggests an extreme emotional over-reaction, and ignorance about science and scientists. It is easy to hate people you have never met, I suppose.

It isn't rational to suggest "an equal and opposite counterforce."

We are the mouse in bed with the elephant. The mouse doesn't have " an equal and opposite counterforce" in a world populated by elephants.

Do you imagine that the general public, let alone scientists, truly care that a bunch of astrologers say nasty things about science? Really?

Moreover, the anti-science and anti-scientist rants that I have read on this board just make us look like a bunch of dummies. Surely we can have a thoughtful critique of the astrology/science divide without resorting to schoolyard name-calling. If name-calling and some sort of tit-for-tat argument is the best that astrologers can come up with, we are in deeper trouble than I thought.

What good is hating scientists as a body going to do? It isn't going to change the dynamic. It doesn't even confer some modicum of bruised self-respect upon astrologers. Seriously.

Resentment? Let's get over it, shall we? Resentment is an understandable human emotion, but it gets the reputation of astrology absolutely nowhere.

Less educated people resent more educated people? This has been going on forever. I've gotten over this one. I highly recommend that you do, as well.

Don't pit astrology against science. It is the wrong argument.

If you typed your message on a computer or mobile device, thanks to plastics, electricity, and the Internet, thank a few scientists and engineers. If you or someone you love is on medication or had surgery that enhances your health or saved your life, thank a scientist. Do you wear any synthetic clothing? Eat any packaged frozen foods? Want your supermarket food to be inspected for pathogens? I wonder if you are fully aware of how deeply the fruits of science are embedded in your daily life.

Oh, and if you care about the environment, thank the scientists who dedicate their lives to protect it. If you care about public health for little kids, thank scientists involved in nutrition and HIV/AIDS prevention.

The scientific endeavour does have problems, which I could easily enumerate, but they don't consist of being Old Meanies towards astrologers who seem disinterested in credibility by today's professional standards. (With a few noteworthy exceptions.)

W, I do not have the time nor the inclination to address a point by point refutation of your assumptions and standard insinuations towards me based on what I wrote. I have wasted my time trying to explain something so simple.

I deleted that post because I knew before you responded that you would not understand me without me having to engage in lengthy explanations. For the record, I do not care about scientists views towards astrology, it makes absolutely no difference to me what the general attitude is towards astrology, just as it makes no difference to me what you think about me. Everytime an astrologer retaliates against the scientists in general - who also speak out against astrologers and astrology like the priests of several hundred years ago - you start blathering about how great science is and how stupid and uneducated astrologers are.

This is called: using gasoline to put out a fire.

No astrologer would feel compelled to comment negatively towards scientists if the scientists would stop commenting on the superstition of astrology.

I will not respond to you further.

To Spock: Based on what you wrote it is clear you have almost no knowledge on the personal history of Tesla, or very little such as how to spell his name, which, incidentally, the person who mispelled the name has a type of mind which sometimes results in letters being reversed while writing. Tesla knew as much about his scientific field as any scientist in his field, and even today the understanding of that field is far from complete. Tesla also studied physics ideas that were later attributed to Einstein from the almost unknown work of Ruder Boscovic. Tesla had ways of knowing things that Edison could never know. Tesla knew things in ways that someone who does not have that capacity could never understand. I deleted most of my posts in the thread but if you look at the thread titled: 'ketu and mathematics,' maybe some of the mathematician's names are still in the posts by Ken or Stefan, which you may find it interesting to compare a particular Indian Brahmin mathematician's life story (through his own beliefs and words) and his and those other's natal charts with Tesla's life story and natal chart...


To Myriam: You are a real gem. Do not lose your healthy instinct and faith amongst the rationalists - whom worship at the altar of their own cult, and who have never "tasted salt," but who have PhDs in the subject and can write complex treatises on the subject of salt, but never will they understand salt because they have never tasted it. People reject what they do not have experiential knowledge of, and this is perfectly understandable, since the alternative is blind faith (the rationalists also have blind faith and their blinders prevent them from seeing this). We cannot expect people who have never 'known' something to just believe. Rationalists are stuck between blind circular reasoning and regurgitations and blind faith - which they claim to reject.

Astrology cannot be compared with any other science of today and it is in a unique category of its own. Astrology was created or discovered or intuited through means that are impossible to the rational mind or the normal senses of our era of humans.

Astrology does cross the borders of differing realms and this is why the effects or correlations or whatever that astrology records can be measured and known in the realm of pluralism, but the source of those effects is inaccessible to the rational and normal mind of the senses of kaliyuga humans. Perhaps someone some day will not only access those other realms, but also explain the forces behind astrology in ways in which a science could be developed and understood by the rationalists who will never access it. What Zoidsoft wrote elsewhere is very true about how the breakthroughs will never happen by those who blindly follow the academic teachings and gain academic degrees and regurgitate what they learned in school, but the rational mind is the servant and a different portion of mind is the master. The academic people of kaliyuga are almost always in the servant position of knowing, but they oftentimes think they are the masters, and they also oftentimes have the regrettable habit of talking down to others.

I tried to allow a greater discourse at this forum for alternative ways of viewing the elephant of astrology, but these views and their holders inevitably try to destroy any competing views, and this is a matter that plagues us, regardless of which arena or field of knowledge it concerns. If we think of anything, including concepts such as 'human' or 'love' or 'rock' etc., and ask specialists of every branch of knowledge how they would define the same terms we will inevitably end up with very different descriptions of that thing - this is nothing unique to the field known as astrology.

Epistemology ought to be the last phase of training for every modern specialist and publicist from all appearances.

Varuna2, suit yourself. Yes, I do try to go by what people actually post, not by what they do not post. I sometimes joke that we are (mostly) amateur astrologers on these forums: not mind-readers. Yes, it is entirely simply to understand a "tit for tat" mentality among some resentful astrologers. My question is, where does this get us?

Anti-intellectualism gets us nowhere. I regret that some people with less education resent people who have more. But again, where does resentment get us? The assumption is that by virtue of having post-graduate degrees people are somehow less spiritual? Bushwa. What they are, taken very generally, is less gullible.

Spock, I agree with your recent post. I would also add (as you know) that some some science is primarily theoretical-- in the first instance.

Myriam, I think the idea that science is restricted to the senses (including the senses as enhanced through instrumentation or numerical results;) whereas there is some higher sort of knowledge that is not so restricted is a false dichotemy. If you consider thinking, brainstorming, flashes of insight, or even "sleeping on" a thorny problem, then these are part of the scientific process as well.

Moreover, who is to say on what basis we determine what is better or what is not-so-good? Gut feelings? Faith? It isn't as though, according to the essentialist universe, there is some objective template against which the truth-claims of their knowledge system can be assessed. Sure, the Platonists contrasted eternal archetypes with ephemeral phenomena, but then there are no independent criteria by which to evaluate these truth-claims.

The cockroach example is extraordinary. So far as evolutionary biologists and paleontologists know, there is a way that insects and birds evolved. Birds probably evolved from the dinosaurs. The story is incomplete but it is based upon actual fossil evidence and systematics. The essentialist argument about birds doesn't even make sense given the thousands of species of birds on the planet, ranging from humming birds to emus to geese to road-runners to penguins. What could the archetypal bird possibly look like? There is no evidence for the essentialist thesis, and plenty for the evolutionary model.

NikolaiTesla is irrelevant to a discussion of whether astrology today is a science. Tesla died in 1943, 70 years ago. Science today has moved on. Sience today is largely conducted by teams of researchers employed by universities, corporate, or government labs, not by lone geniuses engaging in high-risk electrical experiments.

It should be noted that astrology was part of the rational science project of its day in the hands of Ptolemy and his adherants. In his day astrologers were often called "mathematicians."

There has been a lot of activity since my last post. Please forgive me if I do not respond to everything that has been said in a point by point manner, but instead address some of the more general points of Spock and Waybread. I have also written some articles on these very subjects, so in the interests of saving effort, I will refer to these articles when they are helpful. I do appreciate the kind words of James and Varuna, by the way.

In traditional thought, there is a distinction between Lunar Reason and Solar Intellect. I discuss this more thoroughly in this article on my blog: http://appleseedtreeoflife.wordpress.co ... uminaries/

Inferences, sleeping on a problem, and everything else both of you described are all a part of Lunar Reason. Please do not misunderstand me, I do not think that Lunar Reason is bad or even that in the Kali Yuga, that Varuna described, it is not more necessary than ever. If you do not understand this reference, I made a humble attempt to explain the concept in this article: http://appleseedtreeoflife.wordpress.co ... -the-ages/

Waybread, you mentioned the fossil record. I really do not think that the fossil record is as complete as is popularly believed. Even if the fossil record were iron-clad, though, there is still a presumption that life was the same in the past as it is today. According to traditional teachings, the Iron Age, or Kali Yuga, did not begin until about 5,000-6,000 years ago, which is interestingly enough, at around the same time that the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that the world began. We need to be very, very careful and humble about making any judgments or assumptions about prior ages, because there is much we really don't know and that is beyond our current comprehension.

I will go back to my cockroach/bird hypothetical. I don't think it is as extraordinary as it seems at first. Think about pterodactyls. Were they dinosaurs, or were they birds? Supposedly, they were the precursors of birds, but how can that be? Weren't dinosaurs all destroyed? I am not arrogant enough to think I know the answer to these questions, but I don't think that Modern Science does either. Not really.

Waybread, you ask a very good question as to where we get our information if not from Lunar Reason. I think that this is where Tradition comes in. While I do believe that our ancestors were our superiors, intellectually and physically, that is probably a hard pill for most modern Westerners to swallow. A good start would be to at least consider them our equals and really study what they had to say, without dismissing it as "superstition". It is hard in the West, because tradition had already been broken by the time of Ptolemy and actually was broken even in Plato's time. Plato was trying to restore and preserve Traditional teachings, which were already being lost. Tradition was much better preserved in the East, and much can be learned from Eastern Tradition.

While I do believe that we still have access to intuition (in its highest form, which is Solar Intellect), few of us have the capacity to distinguish this from other types of non-sensory sources of information, or from urges from the lower psychic realms. Much of what is thought of as intuition is often lower than Lunar Reason, rather true higher Solar Intellect. For this reason, particularly in the late Iron Age, we must really test our intuition against both solid Tradition and our sense data.

As you see, I do not propose throwing out the scientific method, and I do think it of value in astrology (inasmuch as it can really be applied). I just propose that we understand and accept it for what it is and its limits.

The other main point I want to address is the issue of prediction and free will. There is Traditional teaching on this as well, which I discuss in these two articles:

http://appleseedtreeoflife.wordpress.co ... ss-and-wa/

http://internationsocietyofclassicalast ... free-will/

I hope this is helpful to the discussion.

Myriam, I mean no disrespect towards traditional belief systems, let alone you and your thoughtful posts. I hope you enjoy a good debate.

I have no difficulty with the Bible, because I take much of it as metaphorical rather than literal; and I understand much of it as history-- written from a strongly sectarian perspective in order to promote particular agendas. Taken in these ways, it would make no sense to argue whether the Bible is "true" or not, although it might make sense to critique a literal interpretation of much of it. (This was often the Gnostic take on the Bible, incidentally.)

Paleontologists would be the first to claim there is much that they don't know about the evolutionary pre-history of species. There are gaps in the fossil record as well as puzzles. Where I think they would disagree with you is about whether the gaps in the record can be taken to somehow discredit their methodology in favour of an essentialist outlook.

A seemingly staid topic like evolutionary biology is full of all kinds of in-house debates amongst the scientists about rates of change, causes of sudden change, and so on. This doesn't mean some of them use Neo-Platonism or religious scriptures as their playbook. They certainly wouldn't subscribe to an essentialist doctrine, which is utterly contrary to all of their considerable amassed and very tangible evidence.

In terms of the history of astrology, we have to be careful not to read it in such a way that we overlook contrary examples. Ptolemy is not noticeably metaphysical, though we can see where he borrowed from more metaphysical scholars of Antiquity. When Rome banned astrologers (as it did repeatedly) they were often called "mathematicians." Putting together an ephemeris or calculating cusps for a new house system does not require a metaphysical world-view though this isn't to say the Campanus or Placidus didn't have one.

In your first linked blog article you wrote, "A traditional science is a craft which applies metaphysical principles in a practical way to our material and physical lives." Well, yes and no. This isn't to deny that scientists before the Enlightenment were typically Christian (or Muslim, &c) and understood the world through those lenses. But oftentimes their scientific contributions had no necessary connection to their metaphysical world views. Examples would be improvements in navigation or star catalogues. One can sail a ship by a compass bearing or observe the stars without a necessary reference to whatever religious beliefs the discoverer might have held.

Moreover, there is no going back to some pre-Enlightenment era. We know too much.

The astrologers who have done the most work with archetypes seem to me to be Liz Greene and her associates, who are influenced by the work of Carl Jung.

Thank you, Waybread, for reading and considering my posts.

I really don't enjoy debate, to be honest, and from my experience, rarely is anything settled that way. I think we are at the point of agreeing to disagree, but there is no reason not to be friendly about it.

There is one clarification I would like to make, to keep the record clear, as it were. In no way, shape, or form, do I think that the Judeo-Christian written tradition (or any Scripture) should be read as literal, factual history.

Again, I do thank you the time you have taken to read and respond.

here is an excellent article titled "An Astrophysicist's Sympathetic
and Critical View of Astrology" that many here would enjoy reading.
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/astrol.htmla

it is taken from vic mansfields website which is still up, although he is no longer alive and was given to me on another astro website.
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/

myriam - i didn't care for your article 'nativity charts and free will'. the article comes across as extremely negative towards modern astrology.. i'm sure it works preaching to the choir at the 'international society of classical astrologers' website though. the words ethnocentric, or xenophobic come to mind, although i don't know what the word would be to describe astrologers who are determined to denigrate other astrologers based on the different methods for learning. unfortunately it spoiled some of the worthwhile ideas contained in the same article.

one of the benefits of reading your article for me was an interest in the astrology at work in queen victoria for the time of her husbands death and the years following. for anyone interested, take a close look at the primary directions and note how the lights and ascendant make contact with saturn in pisces in the time following her husbands death.

The reason I do not like "debate" is that too often, each "side" is already set in their ways, and it is just a continual conflict where each "side" continues to defend their "side," and there is no real communication involved. I do enjoy discussion where everyone is challenged and learns. There is a big difference between the two.

I would never denigrate anyone on a *personal* level. There are some very fine and sincere Modern Astrologers, who do some excellent work. I do believe that those working with Modern Astrology are working with inferior tools, however. I was a Modern Astrologer myself for a very long time, before I began learning Classical techniques. I was converted to Classical Astrology when I was shown how much richer and more accurate readings using Classical techniques were, and how much Modern methods confused things. As you are a musician, James, I am sure you understand the difference between playing a fine, well-made instrument in contrast to a playing an instrument that is not well-made. A good musician can play on an inferior instrument and still sound good, but what a difference it makes with a fine, well-crafted instrument.

Actually, I believe that my article was rather challenging to Classical Astrologers as is the Essentialist approach I am taking, for different reasons than you complain of, James. Most Classical Astrologers are working from an Aristotelian worldview, which has been passed down through Ptolemy and Arabic astrologers. Please understand that Aristotle was not a modern rationalist, nor was Ptolemy. On the other hand, they were proponents of some major departures from Ancient Tradition, which led the West on the path it is on today. The next major departure from Ancient Tradition was nominalism, which was championed by William of Ockham.

For those not familiar with the Traditional Symbolism of the Cross,* I will explain it because it is relevant to what I am saying. The Cross is the Traditional symbol of the material world, and it is embedded in the glyphs for all of the non-luminary planets. The Cross has two axes, the horizontal and the vertical. Humans are Axial Beings, in that we can move along both the vertical and horizontal axes. In the context of Essentialism, the vertical axis is Essence and the horizontal axis is Substance. Anything in manifestation must have Essence and Substance.

A metaphor for this is a statute of Venus. We know it to be Venus from the image. That is a metaphor for the Essence. The statue is made out of marble. That is a metaphor for its Substance. Without Substance, Essence can not manifest, but without Essence, there is nothing to hold Substance together. Those of you who are Modern Scientists can recognize this in subatomic theory, most likely.

The modern, substantialist worldview only recognizes Substance, or the horizontal axis. In extreme cases, the vertical axis of Essence is denied. This is really the philosophy of nominalism, which I think has evolved** to modern scientism. I think it is more common to give some lip service to the existence of the vertical axis of Essence, but give primary importance to the axis of Substance.

Most astrologers practicing in the modern era operate from a substantialist worldview, and in general, the *test* for whether methodology is sound is whether it "works." I practiced this way myself for a time. In many ways, a good, solid practice can be built upon this, particularly in the late Kali Yuga, where we are about as consolidated in substance and matter as is possible. I actually agree with Waybread, in there is no turning back the clock, but it is not because we "know too much," but the reverse, we have declined to the point where we are not capable of understanding many things our ancestors knew.

Going back to the symbol of the Cross, the modern practice of Classical Astrology is mostly substantialist, or focused on the horizontal axis of Substance. On the other hand, it is still rooted in the upward vertical axis of the pole of Essence. These roots are largely unconscious or semi-conscious, but they are still there. A deeper and more conscious understanding of the Higher Spiritual principles can very much enrich the practice, and on a personal level, it has for me. On the other hand, the practice does not change much with respect to methodology or technique. What this worldview does do is give a better understanding of the reasons for the techniques, which can be quite helpful in shifting through a broken tradition. It also give some guidance in order to have some flexibility in adapting astrology to the modern world.

The difficulty with Modern Astrology (and I am talking about techniques and methodology NOT people or practitioners), is that it is cut off from BOTH the higher movement of the vertical axis, which is our connection with Tradition AND the horizontal axis of Substance. This means it has no where to go but downwards along the vertical axis, which is BELOW the material, rather than ABOVE it! This is the difficulty with Psychological Astrology (and Modern Psychology as well, by the way). It explores the Lower Psychic regions, which are below the level of substance. What can be confusing is that the lower regions on the vertical axis can resemble the higher regions, because both move away from the material, horizontal axis of Substance.

Many Classical/Traditional Astrologers are quite dismissive of "Spiritual Astrology," for this reason I think. In the modern world, spiritual is often confused with psychic, and as I said, both spiritual and psychic are on the vertical axis. The difference is that spiritual is above the material, and psychic is below.

Another example is the difference between the use of peyote in a Traditional, ceremonial context as contrasted with the modern use of hallucinogenic drugs. On the level of Substance, these things LOOK the same, but they are very, very different! In the Traditional, ceremonial context, there is ritual, training, and long Tradition surrounding its use and how to navigate the Higher Realms. There is also Tradition in how to avoid the dangers of being pulled into the Lower Realms. Without the anchor of Tradition, ritual, and ceremony, one is far more likely to find oneself exploring the Lower Realms than the Higher ones.

I hope that this has made my position a bit clearer. I do not think I will move anyone from an entrenched position; however, at least, I think I have done my best to be clear about what I AM saying and to clear up any misunderstandings.

________

*I am not referring to the Christian Cross; although, I think that the deeper symbolism of the Cross is embedded in the Christian symbolism as well. Actually, understanding the Traditional meaning of the Cross really underscores that crucifixion as a punishment was intended as spiritual torture as well as physical torture.

**Actually, the words evolve and evolution are much more accurate than is generally understood. Evolve means to move away from the Center. It is very much understood in Tradition that evolution (moving away from the Center) has happened, is happening, and to some extent is inevitable. The difference is that from the Traditional standpoint, this is decline, not progress!