Wednesday, April 04, 2012


Why are the inane "tests" used by skeptics such as James Randi et al to discredit astrology always, always going to result in showing the ancient doctrine in a bad light? Because that's the way they are set up. Whether through ignorance or design, most tests are based on nothing but Sun signs - or, even on occasions when skeptical researchers purport to present a more sophisticated test, it could never possibly encompass all there is. There's too much for the human brain to compute and interpret. We now have technology to assist, but as yet, as far as I know, there is no program specifically designed to carry out what'd be needed. There are also variables, outside matters astrological, which will influence how astrological elements manifest in each individual.

While meticulous research would help to clarify, and possibly discount some areas of ancient doctrine which tend to muddy the waters, I doubt there could ever be a cut-and-dried method capable of 100% proof.

In a 1951 publication of the American Federation of Astrologers: The 360 Degrees of the Zodiac by Adriano Carelli there's a lengthy footnote. It enumerates and calculates the enormous variety of possible combinations from which a natal chart could be composed. I posted on this topic a couple of years ago but at that time scanned the relevant page, which didn't post very clearly. This time I've copy-typed the details:
"At any given moment the sun can be in any of the 12 signs, viz: the possible combinations of the Sun with the zodiacal signs are 12. But for each position of the Sun there are three possible positions of Mercury: in the same sign as the Sun, in the sign preceding it, and in the one following it. The possible combinations of the Sun and Mercury with the 12 signs are therefore 12 x 3 =36. For each of these, five possible stations of Venus are to be reckoned with viz: either in the same sign as Sun, in any of the two preceding signs, or any of the following two: 36 x 5 = 180. The Moon, Lilith (not sure why he includes this), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto may have each of 12 different co-locations for any among the 180 combinations previously considered: 12 to the power of 8 x 180 = 77,396,705,280.

Let us now take in the positions of the six couples of houses (they cannot be taken singly, as each house is tied to the diametrically opposite one, and the respective cusps move symetrically) and consider their positions both in relation to the signs and the planets.
(Note: For houses to be considered an accurate birth time is essential)

Spacially all points on Earth's surface with equal latitude have the same system of housing, but in time the position of the cusps varies every instant of the 24 hours of the sidereal day. How many are the possible combinations dureing those 24 hours?

In relation to the signs the six couples of houses move 12 times each during the 24 hours . 12 x 6 = 72 possible combinations between houses and zodiacal signs.

In relation to the planets, each of these moves from house to house 12 times a day. As we have mentioned 11 planets

Now let us multiply 77,396,705,280 x 72 x 132: the total is 735,578,286,981,120
The author then goes on to point out that if other bodies, and the fixed stars, and sensitive points (Moon's Nodes for instance) were added, as well as the 360 degrees of the zodiac, split into decans or individually, the figures would increase to an unimaginable (for me) total.

He ends by saying "above all I have narrowed the problem down to one single geographic spot, though the tightest crammed human hive hardly holds one twohundred-and- fiftieth of the whole mankind."....


Gian Paul said...

GP: At least Carelli used his brain a bit. Had he gone a we-bit further and tried to find out about respective strengths of planets in Signs (and derivatively Houses), he could have reduces his `calculus ad absurdum` to more manageable proportions.

It`s not for nothing that astrology, as other esoterica, has an inbuilt self-protection against fools.

And someone said: There are two things which are endless: human stupidity and the Creator`s mercy...

Twilight said...

Anonymous/Gian Paul ~~

Yes, maybe so, but I think what the author was doing was using only established astrological facts, not suppositions/opinions about respective strengths - because nobody really knows for sure whether astrologers were/are right about "strengths". Carelli worked only with what's definitely there - the planets, the zodiac as given by ancient astrologers, and our accepted cycle of days, months years. Anything outside that is really only opinions (my take only, of course).

I venture also that the part about astrological houses is "iffy" because a) few people know their exact time of birth - without that, houses are useless.
b)There are so many systems for calculating houses - makes the whole astro house system a very shaky proposition with no proper foundation - again my opinion only.

Gian Paul said...

GP: I must disagree, T. If astrology is an art (which I believe it is), there are `vintage interpretations, even forecasts which I have seen myself and have been able to verify.

It`s as with Champagne or other excellent wines: some are just outstanding. If only affordable to some, it`s not the vintner`s responsibility, it`s that they are rare.

Twilight said...

anon/Gian Paul ~ We shall amicably disagree, on this occasion then.

JD said...

don't know if you have seen this; not related to astrology but Randi is Randi, we all know what he is like-

"Yes that's right, Randi frowns upon people doing science"

Twilight said...

JD ~~ Thanks - no I hadn't seen that piece. :-)

Randi has made a career of being a professional skeptic and has managed to brainwash a cult following too - something I regret far more than his own narrow views, to which he's entitled.