Newspaper astrology from the past

The newspaper column below was by Carl Payne Tobey, a respected American astrologer in the mid-20th century.

One of his quotes:

There is so much that has been taught that is not true, and we need its elimination because it has caused severe mental indigestion. As in other educational areas, we have had too much brainwashing in astrology.

(I like this man!!!) Click on quote for a bigger version of the illustration.

Sun Sign columns and astrology by computer.

I read "Under One Sky" recently, and noted how acclaimed experts go about writing their interpretations of a natal chart. An old saying came to mind this morning: "After the lord mayor's show comes the muck-cart". I reflected how essential that muck-cart was in days gone by.

Sun Sign columns are a much maligned area of astrology. Many astrologers consider these columns have little to do with astrology at all. Likewise, astrological reports generated by computer come under fire from "real" astrologers.

"Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of the party" - another old saying !

If a hundred people in any busy street were to be asked what they knew of astrology, I'd take a guess that around 90% of them would mention a Sun sign astrologer, or newspaper/magazine column. The remaining 10% would probably be split between those who knew nothing at all, and those who had a serious interest in the subject.

Sun sign astrology is the tip of an enormous astrological iceberg. It is the part in clear public view, the part which has kept astrology alive when it might otherwise have sunk beneath the scorn of scientists and sceptics. In my view those astrologers who delight in deriding Sun sign columns and websites do astrology in general a great disservice. A good daily column such as that written by Jonathan Cainer does not purport to "tell your fortune" for the day in question. The astrologer offers wisdom and inspiration, based on the current astrological climate. That's all. People enjoy reading a little piece of wisdom each day. This has to be true, otherwise why do newspapers continue to carry such columns ? Because they boost circulation. It has to be said though, that some Sun sign columns are decidedly better quality than others, it's the poorer ones which have been pounced upon and used as example by critics of astrology.

If some astrologers find it necessary to publicly deride Sun sign columns, that says more about THEM than about the intelligence of readers of those columns, or the competence of the astrologers who write them.

Who knows - someone whose interest was initially sparked by Sun sign columns might progress to learn astrology via a college or course, and might one day become THE astrologer who discovers a "missing link" or "golden key", or devises an infallible method of interpretation or prediction. Who knows?

Computer generated astrology reports are another bone of contention.
In my opinion these fall into two categories:

1. Those generated from a computer program, written by whomever, which was bought retail, with the specific intent of selling reports to the public (by licence - part of the program price).

2. Those written by an experienced astrologer and integrated into a computer program to produce reports, to be obtainable only from that astrologer.

The first type of report is of limited use, I've seen such a report and was disappointed by it, but would not say it was completely without value. I have had much better experience from the second type of computer report, obtained from an astrologer I respect and admire.

Nobody expects that an astrology report generated by computer could ever take the place of a consultation with an expert, or an individual report written specifically for one person. Most people nowadays are aware of what computers are, and are not, capable of. A full personal report written especially for a client, like a custom made suit, would take an expert many hours of work, for which he would expect to be paid. Most people do not have a large amount of money to spend on astrology. Computer reports have made something nearer to "real" astrology available to a much wider market. Ready-made suits did the same thing for men's tailoring . Discernment is needed when choosing the source, as with any purchase.

Sadly there are some charlatans around in every walk of life, there are always some sincere but less able individuals, too. Charlatans are easy to spot in astrology - they chase customers with bogus offers, advertise widely in magazines, they frighten clients, imply that they have secret knowledge. No reputable astrologer would ever stoop to this level.

A last thought on this topic:
I look on Sun sign astrology as a kind of pre-school astrology for the public. Computer generated reports - junior school astrology. Individually written reports or personal consultations are akin to university level astrology. There's a gap..... between junior school and university. That's a gap which each of us is capable of filling for ourselves, with a little study and research.

"Under One Sky"

"Under One Sky" is a book, brainchild of Rafael Nasser, which contains the biography of a woman who was unknown to 12 different, well-known, astrologers. Each astrologer gives their "blind" interpretation of her natal chart. Each uses their own specialised system. Systems include Vedic, Western, Mediaeval, Hellenistic, Mythological, Evolutionalry, Archetypal, Uranian, Psychological, Western Sidereal, and Light-hearted. The astrologers specify how and why they reached the concusions they did.

I've been trying to decide which of the 12 astrologers has most closely "nailed" the woman. I read her biography, once skimming over it, then for a second time in careful detail. Her biography is quite detailed - a little too wordy for my comfort, but it does provide a good "feel" of who she is. I picked out a few key points which, in my opinion, ought to come through loud and clear in an accurate interpretation. These were: first and foremost world travel. Then: academic ability, spirituality, health problems/accidents, relationship with father.

It isn't as easy as I imagined it might be to clearly see who has come closest to describing the anonymous woman. The astrologers were also quite wordy, somewhat "woolly" too in places! Finally I came to the conclusion that one of the astrologers who uses the sidereal zodiac, and one who uses the tropical delivered the best, clearest, and in my opinion most accurate reports.
No names, no pack drill (don't want to get into trouble!!)

Things I learned from this exercise:

1.Both zodiacs work, in the right hands.
2.Too many words muddy the waters, even when the writer obviously has style and flair.
3.A light touch is best.
4.Not everything is shown in a birth chart, even when experts translate.
5.Basic tropical "everyday" astrology is as accurate as the most complicated specialised type, or using a variety of different celestial bodies, or myths.

Decisions......decisions!

After reading what seems like a thousand internet articles on the sidereal/tropical debate, my brain is now reeling.

Astrologically there are too many options!!

I have a natal chart calculated using tropical zodiac.
I have a relocated chart using tropical zodiac
I have secondary progressed and directed charts (based on natal)
I have a natal chart with current/future transits
I have a progressed and directed chart with current/future transits
I have a natal chart calculated using sidereal zodiac.

I could have even more charts - Draconic, Solar Return, Lunar return, Harmonic, Midpoint.......the list goes on and on.

My instincts tell me to stick with natal plus transits, and ignore everything else - but WHICH natal ? Tropical or sidereal ?

Does it matter, if both fit me reasonably well? The same planets are arranged in the same way, only some sign emphasis is different, the overall "feel" remains the same.

Back to the coalface for more research !

Tropica/Sidereal III

Sidereal versus Tropical astrology is much too deep a subject for me to judge with my extremely limited experience. There are too many imponderables. Far greater and vastly more experienced minds than mine have failed to come to a clear finding on the issue. I can only observe, experiment and come to a conclusion which satisfies my own needs.

At present, I'm of the opinion that both zodiacs work, up to a point, using straightforward western methods at an elementary level (pre-school!) - at least in the charts of people I've known very well, and for a long time. It's as though one compensates for the failings of the other. I've wondered how could this be.

Nobody on Earth currently will still be around to see what happens when the two zodiacs drift even further apart - 3, 4, 5 signs. The answer might be more apparent in the far distant future - but by then perhaps physicists and astronomers will have uncovered the mystery behind astrology anyway.

More tropical/sidereal

Showing a rough idea of the different positions of zodiac signs within sidereal and tropical systems, the third, outer ring shows the astronomical positions. Click on picture to enlarge.

Tropical and Sidereal - the plot thickens!

I usually skim over any mention of sidereal astrology. I knew only that sidereal (Vedic) is the system of astrology used in India, and that the zodiac signs relate to a slightly different period - a variance of almost one full sign, when compared with the tropical zodiac.

I was inspired to try to discover more.

After a session of searching the internet, I've found out that the difference between sidereal and tropical is mainly in the calculation of the starting point of the zodiac.

In Western/tropical astrology the calculation of the Sun passing through the 1st degree of Aries is marked by the Spring equinox or March 21st. By extension, if one looks in a Western ephemeris it is clear that the beginning of each season is lined up with the Sun passing into each of the cardinal signs in the zodiac – Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn. The tropical zodiac, therefore, is a symbolic system based on the Sun/Earth relationship and is oriented to the seasons.

In sidereal astrology the calculation of the Sun passing through the 1st degree of Aries is marked by the Sun passing through the actual observable fixed stars making up the constellation Aries and has nothing to do with the seasons. “Sider” means “star” and therefore sidereal astrology is based on the actual astronomical positions of the planets against the backdrop of the fixed star constellations. The sidereal zodiac is not symbolic but is oriented to an observable phenomenon.

Once upon a time, around 285AD the two systems were in harmony, and gradually ever since then the two have slowly moved apart due to the precession of the equinox.

Precession of the Equinox is the age old phenomenon whereby an observer on Earth will notice that after one year, he will not realign with the exact same point in inertial space. In ancient times observers on Earth noticed that the vernal equinox aligned with the constellation Aries, then after a few thousand years with constellation Pisces. Now as many know, we are at the "dawning of the age of Aquarius." This backward procession is the precession of the equinox – whereby the equinoctial point slowly recedes through the 12 constellations of the Zodiac, completing a full cycle in around 26,000 years.

So.....which is the more accurate system for use in trying to assess human personality from an astrological chart of the time of their birth - Sun based, or Star based? "Suck it and see!" Try both and decide which works.

I understand that the differences in the two systems are more extensive that described above. Apparently in Vedic/sidereal astrology a lot of emphasis is placed on the Moon's position, and the Sun is less important. Other subtle differences in interpretation exist too.
It's not possible to do a "straight swap", by simply moving the position of natal planets to allign with the sidereal system, and use tropical interpretations. Or so it appears to me.

Even if we did make a "straight swap", the overall flavour of the chart would remain very similar. What would happen is this. Any planet at less than 24* of a sign would move into the previous sign. 24* is the current approximate difference in calculation between the two systems... this has to be approximate because there is argument about this too ! The amount difference in longitude in the two methods of calculation is known as the ayanamsa, by the way.

An easy way to do the swap-over in your head: if the planet’s degrees are less than 24 in any given sign, add 6 degrees and go back a sign. For example, if a planet is at 11 degrees Gemini then add 6 degrees and go back to Taurus. The Sidereal position would be 17 degrees Taurus. I've looked at my own chart with this in mind.

My Aquarian Sun would move into sidereal Capricorn, but Jupiter in tropical Pisces would take the Sun's place in sidereal Aquarius. Mercury in Capricorn would move into sidereal Sagittarius, Venus in Sagittarius would go to sidereal Scorpio, and so on. I have only one planet in my chart which would remain in the same sign - Mars at almost 29 Scorpio would stay there, giving me Venus at one end of Scorpio and Mars at the other end. My Aries Moon would become a sidereal Pisces Moon, Saturn likewise into Pisces. Uranus from Taurus to Aries. Neptune from Virgo to Leo, Pluto from Leo to Cancer.

Nothing so far would lead me to think that one system is more accurate than the other.
I could make a case for either, there is no glaring inaccuracy. Perhaps Mercury in Sagittarius is not quite "me" , though !

A person with a "bundle" pattern in their chart - all planets grouped in 3 or 4 signs, or even a strong stellium, might be able to asses the difference in systems with more accuracy than I am able to do.

The really glaring difference for me, would be my ascendant moving from Cancer to Gemini. Definitely inaccurate. However, my birth time could still be out by up to an hour or maybe more. I used to think I had Leo rising some years ago. Stories of my birth time varied as told by Dad, Mum, and Auntie! Dad said "teatime", Auntie said "about half past two", Mum was in no state to know, but thought "around 3 o'clock." A professional astrologer has rectified the time using details of events in my life, and came up with 2.27pm as the nearest degree he could be sure of - but he said that for sure my ascendant is Cancer.

If my birthtime had given me an ascendant just into Leo, that would fit, because sidereally it would be in Cancer, which I consider to be correct.

In my own case, then, it would all come down to time of birth. If an accurate time of birth gave me a Leo ascendant, I'd say sidereal fit me better. If an accurate birthtime gave me Cancer ascendant in tropical, then definitely tropical is the better fit. So.... as it stands at present, tropical works best for me.

Cartoons

Sadly, Bob Thaves, the originator of the Frank and Ernest cartoons, of which these are a part, died in August this year. His son Tom and team continue the good work. It's nice to see cartoons with a celestial flavour.

Astro-twins - the end.

Information on my near astrological twins has been hard to come by.

There's a slight connection between W. Brugh Joy MD (a doctor) and Baroness Rawlings (left) who used to be in nursing before her career in politics. Perhaps she too has Cancer rising. The other 3 are too diverse to see any connection from the scant information I have. I'm quite surprised to see a sportsman among them (Mike hill top left), not so surprised about the academic and the musician (no pics available).
Going back in history, born 27 January were Mozart, Lewis Carroll, Jerome Kern, and many writers, musicians, artists, pysicians, politicians and military men. Not many sportspeople. Of course, this could be said for birthdays on any day of the year - the only records available are those of "eminent" people of their time. It's a pity we can't access details of all the plumbers, carpenters, bakers, nurses, office workers, bus drivers, etc. born on that day too!

Astro-twins - encore.

Astrologers would probably laugh at my efforts to find similarities with anyone born close to my own birth date. I am well aware that even when biological twins are born within minutes of each other in exactly the same location, down to the inch, they are not always similar. Even so, I am drawn to do this, to satisfy myself, and if I can find some similarity or correspondence, however slight, I am satisfied.

In the case of Germaine Greer, the circumstances of her birth and the fact that neither of us has borne children are significant.

In the case of W.Brugh Joy MD, who also shares my ascendant and Moon positions, his current career has a broad correspondence with my own long-time interest in astrology and other mystical matters. From his own words, found on the internet, it appears he is, in nature, quite similar to myself in at least one important way.

I have discovered 4 more people born on 27 January 1939. Two of these were born in England, one in America and one in Russia.


Mike Hill, Jackson, Michigan, PGA golfer
N R Bomford, head master, Harrow School , England
Patricia Rawlings, Baroness, member of the House of Lords, England
Tigran Yegiayi Mansuryan, composer , Russia.

My study continues! If I fail to find similarities to myself, I might find them between others of our small band of 27 January 1939-ers.

Astro-twins - again.

Although I've been unable to find out more about the life history of W. Brugh Joy, my nearest astrological twin, I've been able to discover a little more about Germaine Greer, whose birthday is 2 days after mine, consequently many chart placements are closely similar.

In an excerpt on amazon.com from an unofficial biography of Germaine Greer written by Christine Wallace, titled "Germaine Greer Untamed Shrew", it is stated that when GG was born, her mother had a very difficult delivery. The baby was born bruised about the head and in a torrent of blood as the mother hemorrhaged. Germaine was an only child, mainly because of the difficult delivery. My own birth was spookily similar, my mother declined to have more children because she had been in danger of losing her life at my birth, which was followed by a serious hemorrhage.

The biography excerpt covers only GG's early childhood in a middle class family in Melbourne, Australia. Her father went to war in 1942 and returned much depleted in strength and attitude. This must have been very sad for the little girl to countenance. Her home was far from any danger from the war, however. She knew little of the war, other than visits of American servicemen to her home.

My own childhood environment doesn't follow the same pattern.
My father was a master baker, working as foreman in a large bakery in an English city port . Due to a minor health problem and the fact that he was in a "reserved occupation" he did not serve in the armed forces, only in the Home Guard. In the city where we lived , a big port on the east coast of England, the war was never far from our doorstep - literally. German bombs exploded all around our home regularly, our windows were shattered from the blasts and replaced by thick tar-paper. We narrowly escaped with our lives on more than one occasion. During the worst of this period I was sent to stay with my maternal grandparents in the country, in relative safety, some 20 miles distant. From the bedroom window there, at night we could see the fires in the city after bombing raids, never knowing whether my parents had remained safe. They did survive, and I rejoined them just before the war ended.

Whether these differing childhood experiences could account for anything, or nothing in our later lives, I know not. There is little or no similarity, later on in life, as far as I can gather, other than the fact that neither of us has ever borne a child.

Perhaps there is a very vague connection (at a stretch) regarding her obsession with feminist matters. I worked for 24 years in the UK civil service in the department which deals with employment law - The EmploymentTribunals. I was a manager on the administrative, rather than judicial side. Some of the tribunal hearings we dealt with concerned sex discrimination, sexual harrassment in the workplace, or equal pay.
I suppose I was helping, in some very small way, towards making sure that the rights of women in the workplace were not trampled underfoot. This is a far cry, though from GG's somewhat loud and exaggerated stance on feminist issues.

Is this the difference between a northern hemisphere Aquarian and a southern hemisphere Aquarian? The southern exaggeration, the loudness, the lack of any tact or diplomacy, the dogmatic droning on about men and their faults. It's almost as though northern Aquarian traits have come under a bright spotlight and magnifying glass.

I don't know. I need to look for more evidence.

A closer astrological twin

My astrological twin and me.

I have a more exact astrological twin than Germaine Greer. I discovered him via the Astrodienst website (www.astro.com) in the VIP Twins section.
W.Brugh Joy MD. Born 27 January 1939 in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, at 3pm. About 30 minutes after my own birth time. Same ascendant, same Moon, same everything except degree of ascendant and cusps.
Here's a selection of comments about him:

"Brugh Joy MD - a distinguished and respected member of the Los Angeles medical community in 1974 when he experienced a life-threatening disease that led to a spiritual transformation and writing his best-selling book Joy's Way. Since then, he has continued his explorations into healing, meditation, dreams and their interpretation, and the influence of the unconscious. His last book Avalanche: Heretical Reflections on the Dark and Light tells how his once-revered values finally crumbled under an "avalanche" of new insight into the dark and disowned portions of the human psyche."

"For more than twenty years, Brugh Joy has been a teacher of Heart Centered Transformation and Spiritual Enlightenment. His courses deal with body energy fields, healing techniques using energy transferred through the hands, and Self-discovery. His teaching includes shadow work (seeking insight into an individual's unconscious side), understanding dreams and projections, and exploring high-intensity sound, rituals, collective energy dynamics, and intuitional states of consciousness."

"One of the foremost consciousness teachers of our time. Brugh is an author and leads seminars in personal and spiritual exploration ."
............................................................
Hmmmmm - well ! Here's another Aquarian with much more academic and specialist training than yours truly. He is a physician as well as a writer and teacher. The subject matter of his books is beyond my understanding. I bought one of them a few years ago when I first discovered his data on-line. Yet his interests are a little nearer my own than could be said for Germaine Greer. He is drawn to mystical or metaphysical matters and has made a successful career involving these.

His "life-threatening disease" episode in 1974 does not coincide with anything similar in my own life, though the next year, 1975, was a turning point for me career-wise - as it probably was for him.

His quote (below) from his own website indicates that he is not unlike me in nature. I have tried in the past to find out more about the pattern of his life, but I was unsuccessful, apart from being told that he has a biological twin, who might possibly be more of a match to myself than he is. I then drew a blank.

Quote from BJ:
"Avoiding dinner parties always seemed essential to me, but my dear friends Eileen and Dick Poole assured me that only eight people would be at this very casual affair. I arrived promptly, my escape preplanned, timed so I could catch a science fiction film in Hollywood before returning to the desert and the reclusive lifestyle I preferred. Seven of us sat down to wine, a London broil, and salmon - Dick's specialties. One chair was empty. "A possible surprise," Elieen said.
I was eyeing my watch when I heard the door chime and Eileen's intimate greeting to "Carlos," the tardy mystery guest. Little did I realize who Carlos was until, at the dining room threshold, Eileen introduced Carlos Castaneda"

Not much to go on, but enough for me to recognise that Mr Joy is more astrologically akin to me than Ms Greer.

Near-miss is wide of the mark

GG left. Me above.

Astrological twins - a near-miss

An astrological shock - and a little enlightenment:


Whilst researching the net on another issue, I noticed that Germaine Greer and I share a similar birth chart.

She was born 2 days after me in the same year - but in Australia, of course.
Germaine Greer born 29 January 1939 Melbourne, Australia 6am
Me born 27 January 1939, Hull, England. 2.27pm

I found it a little disconcerting looking at someone else's chart in which most of the planets are within a degree or so of my own. Her ascendant and Moon are different. Her ascendant is Aquarius, her Moon is Taurus. My ascendant is Cancer, Moon Aries. This, of course, sends her planets into different houses from my own.

I Googled on, in order to read a little more about this woman, of whom all I knew was that she is a feminist and has written books on the topic. The more I read the more I disliked her. I do not recognise anything from what is written about her or from her own words, as being in any way similar to me.

Using what little astrological knowledge I have, I studied both charts to see why we have developed into two such different characters. You'd think there'd be some broad similarities!

Her Aquarian ascendant, importantly, accounts for her more avant garde approach to the world in general. My own Cancer ascendant inclines me to a softer, and I hope more compassionate approach. This is one big difference.

I read that Greer married in 1968, but the marriage lasted only 3 weeks. This doesn't coincide with my own experience. I first married in 1962, that marriage failed after a couple of years. There is no corresponding experience in 1968 for me, 1970 was the next time I linked with a partner, with whom I was to stay for over 30 years until his death, then married again in 2004. Greer has remained single, I understand. I have no children - I think the same applies to Greer.

Greer's attitude to the opposite sex, and her way of expressing herself are alien to me. I find her attitudes in general quite incompatible with my own. She is undoubtedly a highly intelligent woman, however, far more so than me. She has been highly educated, I wanted to be released from full-time education as quickly as possible. although I had no difficulties learning and was a bright student, I found school environment very difficult to take - too restrictive. Greer obviously did not have this difficulty.

So, what is the main astrological reason for our differences? Ascendant and midheaven and houses - her time of birth ?.

Background, environment? Perhaps the fact that she grew up in Australia, and I in a war-torn England might have some bearing on our differences ?

Germain Greer is, in one way, more stereotypical of Sun Aquarius than I am. Perhaps all the essence of her Sun is allowed freely into the outer world via her ascendant. Since moving to live in the USA my own ascendant has moved into Aquarius, yet I do not find myself in more agreement with Ms Greer because of it. I'm convinced that we are two people of entirely different natures.

Perhaps the few degrees difference in our planetary placements makes a big difference - aspects might be more or less close as a result. We are both in the same decanate of Aquarius, the first.

Could the fact that she was born in the southern hemisphere account for what I see as an enormous difference in our personalities?

There is an article here:
http://www.fallon.demon.co.uk/text-hemisouth.html
in which it is proposed that the zodiac signs should be inverted for births in the southern hemisphere - that is, an Aquarius Sun would be a Leo Sun, a Capricorn would be Cancer - complete opposite of our usual understanding.
Using this theory Greer would be Leo Sun and Leo ascendant, which might account for her fame/notoriety, but would not account for her stance on the matters she writes about, which, to me seems exaggeratedly Aquarian.
Her Moon/Uranus would be Scorpio instead of Taurus - this fits!

The inversion theory might fit Germaine Greer very well, but does it fit everybody born in the southern hemisphere I wonder ? Why isn't this theory more widely known? Why don't astrologers use it?

Yet another article here:
http://www.astrologycom.com/qual.html
This has a different version. The author proposes that in the southern hemisphere the zodiac signs retain the qualities of their archetype, but express it in slightly different ways from their counterparts in the north. A southern Aquarian might be more of an ideas person than a team player, according to this article. If the Sun sign is expressed in a subtly different way, then so perhaps is the whole chart ?
This theory may be more widely acceptable, but it's not well known as far as I'm aware.

There are more questions than answers in astrology!

The Astro-trio

In any natal chart, because Mercury and Venus are so close to the Sun, Mercury is always either in the same zodiac sign as the Sun, or no more than one sign away before or after (28 degrees). Venus can be in the same sign as the Sun or no more than 2 signs away (47 degrees). There could be rare instances where these rules appear not to apply, but they must be few and far between.

So....for example, in my own chart Sun is in Aquarius, Mercury is in Capricorn and Venus is in Sagittarius. In my husband's Sun is Aries, Mercury Pisces, Venus in Taurus. Some of my husband's immediate family have Sun, Mercury and Venus all in the same sign.

So what do I find so significant about this? I suppose it's that quite a large part of anyone's personality is defined by this mix of up to 3 consecutive zodiac signs.
One quarter of the zodiac. This must produce defineable groups. One could look on each group's similarities as the melody being played, whilst the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn play their own solo improvisations.
Uranus, Neptune and Pluto being the bass beat, the generational flavour. The melody, though, is most memorable for listeners and to the player, and therefore very important.

I am not sufficiently mathematically adept to be able to calculate how many variations (groups) of Sun/Mercury/Venus there can be. It would be interesting to study examples of each type, ignoring all other components of the charts.

Some astrologers find significance in what order the Sun, Mercury and Venus rise. I do not find their theories on this too persuasive, however - but it does relate back to my own thoughts in one way.

Would an Aquarius Sun with Mercury and Venus both in Aquarius be more Aquarian than me - yes, of course! Most cook-book interpretations of an Aquarian would be likely to apply to that person. Would an Aquarian with both Mercury and Venus in Capricorn be less adventurous, restless, or prone to travel than me? Probably. How about an Aquarian with Mercury and Venus in Pisces ? A different animal altogether - more overtly mystic and dreamy, less organised. There must be dozens of combinations of just these 3 components, with their related elements and modalities.

Complexity upon complexity - and that's a VERY basic beginning.

Astrology's future

I have read that some astrologers are of the view that at some point in the future, maybe the far future (if man survives), through advanced computer technology and the cooperation of scientists, it will become clear that astrology and the "mechanism" behind it is far more complex than anyone can currently envisage. Astrology is VERY complex now, so the mind boggles at the thought that this is but the tip of an iceberg.

I've chewed on this idea, and amalgamated it with an idea of my own which has formed after many years of interest in astrology.

When, at last, astrologers and/or scientists are able to pinpoint the "mechanism" by which the planets can affect humans and their personality, I believe that it will prove simpler, not more complex than we think. Any complexity will be due to what happens when "whatever" is mixed with the multiplicity of inherited family traits we all carry in billions and billions of combinations and proportions.
Astrologers will then need to be psychologists, biologists, and perhaps physicists too.

Cartoon

Mother Earth

A few thoughts from others on our Mother Earth. The second one is from a children's book by Joe Miller, the title of which is the first line of the piece.

The dreaded Eris

I still have a bee in my bonnet about Eris.

Having searched through message boards and websites, I've found that astrologers and astrology fans/students all seem to be agreeing that "strife and discord" is the meaning to be attributed to Eris.

I am probably more astrologically challenged than many of those making the above proposals, yet I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter. I think that astrology is something that people can sense or not sense - rather like being tone deaf or able to carry a tune. I suspect that I am one who can sense astrology, whilst I am challenged when trying to carry a tune.

Eris now lies in the zodiac sign of Aries. Aries is traditionally ruled by Mars.
From time immemorial Mars has been associated with war, aggression, and things of that nature. Astrologers have found this resonance to work well over many centuries. Any planet lying within a zodiacal sign is said to be influenced by the properties of that sign and its ruler. Eris has been in Aries for longer than most people living, and will not move into Taurus until after 2050.

Eris might have a specific connection with discord, independent of Aries, but how can anyone be sure until she moves out of that sphere of influence ?

I believe.....

So......what DO I choose to believe from the complicated and multi-faceted subject astrology has become ?

I believe that there is some connection between the position of celestial bodies in relation to to Earth, and human behaviour or personality traits. That is all.

The meanings allocated to zodiacal signs and visible planets by ancient astrologers have been tried and tested for many centuries, and still seem to resonate today to some extent.

Something IS going on, I'm sure of it, but I believe that too much has been attributed to this phenomenon by successive generations of astrologers. It is quite understandable how this has come about. Astrologers have to make a living. They have done this by drawing up horoscopes, writing books, newspaper columns, advising clients, and teaching. Each generation demands "something new" or "better", astrologers have tried to supply it. The internet has widened the audience available to astrologers, who must now vie for attention, and business. This is the way of the world.

Unless science uncovers some unknown element which might account for the mysterious way celestial bodies seem to affect human life, astrologers will continue to assume, embroider, modify, and generally mess with what must be a basic principle of interconnectedness.