I've always felt fairly confident, from personal experience, observation and a little bit of Aquarian logic, that astrological traits flow through families, but it seems that when subjected to rigorous testing the theory doesn't hold up. Michel Gauquelin carried out exhaustive research in the 1960s and 70s without finding anything as conclusive as astrologers might have expected.
I have a copy of Gauquelin's book "Planetary Heredity". It's not easy reading! Here's what he had concluded by Chapter 9:
"For the convenience of the reader, let me summarize the main findings. My investigations of over 25,000 deliveries have found that children tend to be born when the same significant celestial body (the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn) is in the same diurnal zone (rise culmination, or outside) as it was at the birth of their parents. There is no effect for the Sun or other planets, or for astrological signs, aspects and houses. The effect is not influenced by sex, duration of labor or birth order. It is increased if both parents share the same diurnal positions. It tends to disappear if the birth is artificially induced. The effect is not large, but is reproducible and statistically highly significant."
So "something is going on", but not exactly as previously surmised. I just wonder though, if going up close with a powerful microscope, as Monsieur Gauquelin did so efficiently, doesn't blind us to the bigger picture. If you examine an oil painting up close with a magnifying glass, you do not see what the painting portrays, you see only random, meaningless brush strokes.
Astrologer C.E.O. Carter points out in his Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology :
"However, it cannot be doubted that any part of the nativity may represent an inherited trait, and the examination of the nativities of members of the same family confirms this. In a case known to the writer, the father and his three sons, and six out of ten grandchildren, had Saturn in either Aries or Cancer! It is also frequently found that the same sign is prominent in the great majority of the horoscopes of a family, containing, as a rule, one of the Lights, or the ascendant."
I can't help thinking that there's something else - something important that we just don't know yet, which needs to be included in the equation, before scientists like M. Gauquelin can get a clear view of the big picture.
I have a copy of Gauquelin's book "Planetary Heredity". It's not easy reading! Here's what he had concluded by Chapter 9:
"For the convenience of the reader, let me summarize the main findings. My investigations of over 25,000 deliveries have found that children tend to be born when the same significant celestial body (the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn) is in the same diurnal zone (rise culmination, or outside) as it was at the birth of their parents. There is no effect for the Sun or other planets, or for astrological signs, aspects and houses. The effect is not influenced by sex, duration of labor or birth order. It is increased if both parents share the same diurnal positions. It tends to disappear if the birth is artificially induced. The effect is not large, but is reproducible and statistically highly significant."
So "something is going on", but not exactly as previously surmised. I just wonder though, if going up close with a powerful microscope, as Monsieur Gauquelin did so efficiently, doesn't blind us to the bigger picture. If you examine an oil painting up close with a magnifying glass, you do not see what the painting portrays, you see only random, meaningless brush strokes.
Astrologer C.E.O. Carter points out in his Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology :
"However, it cannot be doubted that any part of the nativity may represent an inherited trait, and the examination of the nativities of members of the same family confirms this. In a case known to the writer, the father and his three sons, and six out of ten grandchildren, had Saturn in either Aries or Cancer! It is also frequently found that the same sign is prominent in the great majority of the horoscopes of a family, containing, as a rule, one of the Lights, or the ascendant."
I can't help thinking that there's something else - something important that we just don't know yet, which needs to be included in the equation, before scientists like M. Gauquelin can get a clear view of the big picture.
7 comments:
Hello !
Very interesting blog.
It has been a plesure to read you.
I wish you the best.
Reno
"...it seems that when subjected to rigorous testing the theory doesn't hold up."
I am right there with you with the astrology / genetics connection, which I see as incredibly strong. Even though astrology is part of the holographic universe that has a foot in other dimensions as well as this one, I still think that this could be a “theory” that has weight which could be demonstrated using the scientific method. Perhaps we need to look at different variables.
So glad I found your blog, being interested in all things of the spirit! Very interesting about heredity and astrology. I'm sure true, considering most related studies, such as numerology, always show a correlation.
Interesting post!
I'm also interested in analyzing the astrological family patterns.
I've written an article about an interesting case found on my activity:
http://www.ciuboda.com/post/family-patterns-ceres-grand-cross/80
Damn Receipt - Thank you - and thanks for your visit.
Melody
Yes! Since Gauquelin's time computers and technology generally have improved in leaps and bounds.
It should be possible for researchers to work with much wider ranging data - including great grandparents, and beyond. The main problem would be lack of birth times, I guess.
Yours Truly
Hello!
Thank you for visiting. That's a good point. I don't understand mumerology, but it makes sense that correlations would show up there too.
Dan
Hi there. Your article (as linked) is fascinating! Thank you for letting me know of it. Amazing, and highly unlikely to be coincidence!
Though by no means proven, I've tended to see that elements tend to run in families, through the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant. My family are all Water signs and I am the lone Earth Sign; this explains a lot about why I always felt like the odd one out of the bunch. My mother's family is full of Water, too, especially Cancer (my Dad is a Cancer); the exceptions are the two "rebels" of the family: My aunt will Earth Sun and Moon and my uncle with Air Sun and Moon.
My Dad's family (his planets are all clustered in Cancer and Libra with only Mercury in Leo) also has this strong focus on Water and Air, though both my Aunts have Earth Ascendants (I seem to get along better with members of my family that have a strong earth placement).
In my immediate family, we all have Water or Earth Suns and Fire or Air Moons. I also share a Leo Moon with my mother. The Ascendants are all Water or Air too (the most prominent signs), except for my Capricorn Rising.
My cousin's daughter was born Saturday, and is a Virgo Sun, Taurus Moon with Scorpio Rising. Her father is Sun in Taurus, Moon in Pisces and her mother is Sun in Capricorn Moon in Cancer (unkown ascendants). I find it rare in family charts to see kids who are elementally different to their parents.
Also, I have seen many charts where the Mother shares the moon sign with one of her children or it is in the same element (also, kids with moon signs that share the same planetary ruler). In my immediate family, the exception is my brother, but his Aquarius Moon opposes (by sign, not degree) both mine and my Mom's! So it's not completely unrelated. My other brother has a Sag Moon.
Hello RCSL
Many thanks for your interesting comment.
Yes, I agree that it seems likely that elemental links do run through families. I've felt for a long time that the elements in astrology are really and truly the key to almost everything.
If we could just find out why they are as they are.....
I think I recall reading somewhere that the elemental pattern in astrology is related to some kind of wave (magnetic?) formation.
I must find the reference again and do a blog about it. :-)
Post a Comment