Matters Astrological

In most essays and articles there's usually a paragraph or two, sometimes it's just a sentence, which remain etched in our memory after the rest of the article has morphed into a general impression of its subject matter. Here are two examples of this, from my own experience. I've returned to these two articles again and again; always the points made in these extracts "hit the spot" for me. It has not escaped my notice that both articles are around 15+ years old. I often find that articles from that time seem to correspond more with my own feelings about astrology. Maybe it's because Uranus was in Aquarius at the time they were written, and my Aquarius Sun finds itself in tune with them.

This from William D. Tallman's article Another Approach to Astrology

There is an astrological "mechanism", a function, if you will, by which celestial configurations are linked to terrestrial phenomena. Although it would be easy to assume that this function is of a cause-effect nature, it seems prudent to avoid doing so. The reason we know that the function exists is because it is necessary to use an ephemeris to practice astrology, which means that a knowledge of the celestial configurations is primary to the process. If this were not true, then a random sort placement of the planets, etc. would serve dependably, and if the tradition of astrology has any validity at all, this is not the case.

That we are a part of the astrological mechanism, in that the phenomenon functionally includes us, is a matter of apparency; I think we can accept that as a basic assumption. If this is true, then I would suggest that it is reasonable to expect that some people are directly aware of that function, as they are a part of it. It could well be that a close study of that awareness might yield some insights, and so I would recommend it as one avenue of investigation. We are not dealing with astrology here, we are dealing with a sensibility of the function of the mechanism itself; it is fortuitous that some of those who are sensible also possess the ability to use the astrological construct.

If we think about sensibility of the phenomenon itself as a function susceptible to internal experience, then we can easily imagine a range of sensitivity, bounded on one end by a virtual lack of any sensitivity and on the other to some degree of complete and detailed consciousness.

One thought from an article titled The Stars We Are by Richard Smoley, from the Winter 1996 issue of Gnosis magazine (no longer published, I understand).

......the elusiveness of proof for astrology suggests that planetary influences play themselves out in different ways for different people; some astrological influences may not even make themselves felt at all in your life. By pursuing your own inquiries, you'll know what effect the planets have on you.

What has remaied with me from these two extracts is something I've always felt conscious of naturally, something perhaps wired in to my own psyche - that astrology IS part of some kind of mechanism, and that there is an "astrological sensitivity" which some people have and some don't. It must be something akin to the ability to carry a tune, or an exact colour, or being ultra sensitive to light or sound. William D. Tallman does go on to say that it's possible that those died in the wool skeptics about astrology could possibly have high sensitivity to it, but due to other parts of their personality the sensitivity is turned against the subject. I'm not sure that I agree. but it's something to consider.

The sentence from Richard Smoley's piece is a simple statement about a point that is often forgotten, and underlines the fact that nobody knows us as well as we know ourselves.