I began my study of astrology in 1971. Over the course of the last 40 years, I have seen many notions come and go in the world of astrology. I have seen the rise in personal computing transform our craft in ways both good and ill. During these 40 years, I have seen some lame concepts crash and burn. And I have seen other ridiculous ideas continue to persevere.
To me the greatest modern failing of astrology is the capitulation to astronomy. I contend that astronomical significance does not guarantee astrological significance. Simply put, if some celestial body rotates around the Sun, it is presumptuous to assume that an astrological meaning is automatic. To give a concrete example, let me raise the topic of the asteroids. The number of known asteroids exceeds 10,000, but how do we know what they mean? Typically, someone will try to correlate the name of an asteroid with the known mythology associated with the name. Perhaps, they will study observances of that asteroid through the different signs of the zodiac or through the houses in many sample charts. But I've rarely seen that done at all.
I earned my bachelor's degree at Drake University. According to Jacob Schwartz, there are two asteroids named after Drake, Draconia and Ekard. One could easily think that one or the other of those two asteroids could suggest a clue why I opted to leave Oregon to go to college in the Midwest. But those two asteroids in my chart tell me nothing. Looking at my college education, I have my degree in statistics. My mindset is colored by statistical analysis. Hence my aforementioned attitudes about significance.
Much of the capitulation to the realm of astronomy can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the San Diego astrological community. The late Neil Michelsen was a brilliant, brilliant man. Neil was the cornerstone of the San Diego astrologers. He was a wonderful mathematician, a skilled astronomer, an intelligent computer scientist and a powerful businessman. He loved astrology. Yet despite his brilliance, he never really understood the artistic/symbolic side of astrology. Some wags have suggested that Neil could not read a chart even if Zipporah Dobyns sat on his lap and whispered the answers in his ear. Astrology is a lot like both economics and jurisprudence. Often there is no consistently right answer. Varying opinions are weighed and argued. Neil felt that any and all astronomical views could be converted to astrology. And I disagree.
The "true" node was one of Neil Michelsen's ideas. When I took up astrology in 1971, the mean node was all we had to use. The "true" node was released to the world with the publication of Neil's American Ephemeris in 1979. I liked the concept and converted to using it. Then in 1982, I acquired my first computer and astrological software. But this program was capable of only using the mean node. So I quit using the true node, and my readings got better. In the horoscopes of many people, the difference between the mean and true nodes is scant, but in my horoscope, the difference is profound. The two are a degree and a half apart--and in different signs.
My advice to all astrologers is to think for yourself. If you are faced with a choice of alternatives, try them all. Use the one that works best for you. Then you will attract clients whose horoscopes resonate with your chosen methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment