raphaelsephemerishowdoesastrologywork-

7/26/2019 RaphaelsEphemerisHowDoesAstrologyWork-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/raphaelsephemerishowdoesastrologywork- 1/32



How Does Astrology Work?

By James Lynn Page

The Ancient View

The Psychological View

The ‘Evidence’ from Science

Published by W. Foulsham & Co. Ltd., The Old Barrel Store, Drayman’s Lane,

Marlow, Bucks. SL9 2FF. Copyright © 2016 Raphael. This document may be

reproduced and distributed without permission on the condition that

acknowledgement is given to its author.

1



The Ancient View

Whatever is not "scientific" is not considered to be

knowledge, but rather literature. Experimental reason,

which reigns as absolute master, does not seek to

understand what is, but rather to describe and explain what operates. The scientific agenda ... does not respond to the

"why," but rather, to the "how." It jettisons important

metaphysical questions, which have lost all meaning within

the context of the processes of science. Patrice Guinard1

Contemporary, orthodox scientists are fond of pointing out how

astrology simply cannot work. The basic view is that astrologers

are in thrall to some nonsense, Bronze Age superstition that theyshould have abandoned thousands of years ago:

● The 'stars' can clearly have no causal influence on human

life - there is no evidence for such a mechanism.

● We are not fated by the positions of the planets in the sky,

for we have free will.

● You cannot divide humanity into only twelve personality

types - this much should be obvious.

1 Astrology: The Manifesto, 1 of 4 (version 2.3 : 09.2002) http://cura.free.fr/07athem1.html

2



● The constellations, in any case, are not where they used to

be.

These are the standard objections to astrology, all of them,

however, based on a caricature, on a misunderstanding of what

this subject truly represents. Critics of the birth chart (a

snapshot of the heavens based on a person’s time, date and place

of birth) are also wont to assume that this circular, symbolicdiagram is meaningless, and the interpretation of it without

point. (I have even heard it said that astrologers – because the

chart lacks any substance – are telling their clients simply what

the client wants to hear, and this must be the reason for any

success they have. This cynical view would make all astrologers

essentially dishonest and all their clients gullible fools.)

Occasionally, sceptical scientists go out of their way to belittle

the subject. As the eminent American astrologer Robert Hand writes:

‘There must be a reason why scientists … take the time

and energy to denounce astrology. What prevents these

obviously intelligent people from adequately

researching the subject they wish to condemn? The

answer, I think, is that astrology threatens the

conceptual structure through which they are

accustomed to view the world. Astrology can't be right;

for if it were, then the metaphysical basis on which

3



most scientists operate today would be wrong.

Conversely, if the basis on which most scientists found

their structure is right, then astrology must be absurd.’ 2

The standard view of the world given to us by materialism

(which is essentially our current scientific paradigm) is that we

live in a Universe containing separate, material objects where

even Nature itself lacks any consciousness. In some ways, this

even appears self-evident when we look at the world – my brain,

and apparently my consciousness, is ‘contained’ by my physical

vehicle - and likewise yours. We all seems to be ‘islands’ locked

in our own private Selves. The view that has been fostered ever

since the Age of Reason and the advent of Galileo, Newton, and

finally Darwin, is that the Universe is essentially mechanistic,

and if we want to know how things function, all we have to do is

break them down into their component parts. Hence we – too -

are essentially machines: nothing more than an assemblage of body parts which, together with our clever brains, are simply a

random product of evolution, from original, inorganic life in the

primeval soup. Life everywhere – within and without, both

cosmos and the human Mind - has no ultimate Meaning. The

world is just one great process of genetic reproduction fighting

for survival. And on this showing, our entire existence is really

nothing more than biology and blind chance. Any greater

meaning we want to ascribe to our lives, or to impute to the

world, is scientifically redundant. Any overall sense of ultimate

2 Hand, ‘On Creating a Science of Astrology’ in Essays on Astrology, Para Research 1982

4



Purpose (in the wider context) is thus self-deception. Meaning is

just something we invent.

However, as philosopher and astrologer Dr. Richard Tarnas asks

in his scholarly work, Cosmos and Psyche:

‘Is it not an act of extraordinary human hubris –

literally a hubris of cosmic proportions – to assume

that the exclusive source of all meaning and purpose is

ultimately centered in the human mind, which is

therefore absolutely unique and special and in this

sense superior to the entire cosmos? To presume that

the universe utterly lacks what we human beings, the

offspring and expression of that universe,

conspicuously possess?’ 3

In order to understand how astrology works I think we need tolook at reality in a rather different way. Hand’s ‘conceptual

structure through which [scientists] are accustomed to view the

world’ can easily be found wanting. That is, it never occurs to

astrology sceptics that their way of looking at the universe may

be far too narrow. For one, recent developments in Quantum

Physics have exploded this myth of a world of discrete, separate

objects (including us). Even the notion (taken mostly for

granted) that our Consciousness (our memories, feelings,

intuitions, beliefs) is simply a product of the electricity and

chemistry of our brains has no real scientific basis:

3 Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche, Plume Books, 2007.

5



‘Scientific materialism …. says that only things made of matter are real (like the brain).[But] is an image of a

gorgeous sunset, the pain of headache or the taste of

chocolate identical to a mere electrical signal? What

about the emotion of being in love? Is that, too, just a

chemical reaction in your head? How can three-pounds

of pinkish-grey matter give rise to the sonnets of

Shakespeare, Beethoven’s symphonies or the genius

that was Plato, Aristotle, Isaac Newton and Einstein?

Your brain has essentially the same chemical

composition as your kidneys, so - in short - how can

Mind come from meat?’4

In any case, physicists have known for about a hundred years

that the world is not made of matter; rather, reality is composedof a field of energy - pure potential, in fact. Matter as we

experience it is mostly empty space! It is now common for

physicists to talk of an immaterial ‘quantum field’ (like the

electromagnetic field) where all matter – you and I included -

are localised ‘concentrations’ of this field. (Einstein, for

example, called all matter ‘congealed electricity’.) But the field is

essentially one of Mind, and many prominent scientists

(Eddington, Jeans, Whitehead) along with contemporaryphysicists (Stapp, Herbert, Wolf, Goswami, Dyson) have referred

4 James Lynn Page, The New Positive Thinking: Science, Spirit and the Power of Eternal Now, Perrault, 2015.

6



to the Universe or Nature as being constituted of this

all-pervading, self-organising Mind:

‘There is no matter as such. All matter originates and

exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle

of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute

solar system of the atom together. We must assume

behind this force the existence of a conscious and

intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.’ 5

So if everything in Nature contains intelligent, ‘mind like’

qualities, we live – to all intents and purposes – in a conscious

Universe. (Again, modern physicists are coming to this

conclusion.) Astrologers have know it for millenia, of course.

Astrology takes the view that ‘in here and out there’ must be

intimately related in some manner – that our physical lives on

earth must reflect the state of the cosmos. One is reminded here,too, of the old Hermetic axiom contained in the Emerald Tablet:

‘that which is above is like that which is below’. But what isn’t

usually remembered is that this correspondence is said to be so

that the miracle of ‘the One’ can be achieved. That is, so that our

diverse nature can at last be whole, our sense of division healed,

so we can re-connect to our Source, to our original undivided

Self. The connection between man and Cosmos is the very real

mystery at the heart of the Emerald Tablet.

5 Max Planck, (physicist) ‘The Nature of Matter’, speech at Florence, Italy, 1944.

7



As already noted, astrologers insist that we live in a meaningfuland purposeful Universe. The idea that the Universe is essentially

a gigantic interconnected field of energy, an intelligence even,

dates back to the ancient world. In ancient Greece, the Father of

Western Philosophy, Plato, indicated that ever since the creation

of the world, there has existed a transcendent realm of Forms, or

Ideas, that are the true author of everything we see in our

material world.

With these terms, ‘Idea’ and ‘Form’, Plato was attempting to

convey the notion of an authentic Reality or Universal Principle

behind the world of matter and appearance, and the objects

which comprise it. We can rarely ever know these Universal

Principles, or Archetypes, but we do experience their

manifestations in the everyday world. Archetypal Beauty, for

example, we find in someone who captivates us with their

loveliness; a horse is an imperfect copy of the Archetypal Horse– which belongs to a transcendent Reality. In these two

examples, the beautiful person and the horse are carriers of the

Archetypal Idea – for this is how they derive their

characteristics. In this Archetypal world, everything is endowed

with an Intelligent soul, which permeates the ‘real’ phenomenal

world.

‘God desired that all things should be good and nothing

bad … when he was framing the universe, he put

intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be

the creator of a work which was by nature fairest and

8



best. Wherefore … we may say that the world became a

living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence

by the providence of God.’ 6

This concept has since been referred to as the World Soul. Just

like the zodiac, the sun, moon and planets, it makes the world

animate. As Plato put it:

‘Now when the Creator had framed the soul according

to his will, he formed within her the corporeal universe,

and brought the two together, and united them centre

to centre. The soul, interfused everywhere from the

centre to the circumference of heaven ... began a divine

beginning of never ceasing and rational life enduring

throughout all time.’ 7

This concept of an abstract realm of Platonic Forms underlies much of what we’re used to in modern astrology

when we talk about signs and planets.

6 Plato, Timaeus , translated by Benjamin Jowett (1817–1893), NY: C. Scribner’s & Sons, 1871

7 Plato, Timaeus , translated by Benjamin Jowett (1817–1893), NY: C. Scribner’s & Sons, 1871

9



The Psychological View

Astrology is not mere superstition but contains some

psychological facts ... which are of considerable

importance. Astrology has actually nothing to do with

the stars but is the 5000-year-old psychology of

antiquity and the Middle Ages. C.G. Jung8

To the Renaissance Platonists nature was

permeated by life, divinity, and numinous mystery, a

vital expression of the World Soul and the living powers

of creation. David Fideler9

According to this latter quote, the Universe is essentially a living being, and we are its embodiment, its physical and spiritual

manifestation. It might be thought, were one to read the work of

the sceptics or material scientists of today, that we’d long ago

done away with such fanciful notions about the world. But this is

not so, in fact; the concept of the Conscious Universe has

returned through the work of some modern academics, notably

physicist Amit Goswami, whose book The Self Aware Universe is

a signal example. (The subtitle, ‘How Consciousness Creates the

8 Jung (letter to L. Oswald, Dec. 8, 1928) Letters , Vol. 1, 1973 9 Fideler, The Soul Of The Cosmos (p.138. New York: Harmony Books,

1991)

10



Material world’, basically says it all.) Similarly, the work of the

twentieth century Swiss psychologist and mythographer Carl

Jung (d. 1961) developed a psychological approach to the World

Soul which was re-conceptualised as the Collective Unconscious.

(Indeed it is similar to Plato’s theory of Archetypal Ideas.):

‘Whereas the personal unconscious consists for the most part of

"complexes", the content of the collective unconscious is made

up essentially of "archetypes". The concept of the archetype,

which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective

unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the

psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere.

Mythological research calls them 'motifs' … My thesis, then, is

as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is

of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the

only empirical psyche … there exists a second psychic system of

a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical

in all individuals.’10

To distinguish the Collective Unconscious from the Personal we

can picture each individual ego as islands amidst a vast watery

expanse. Just below the water line is the Personal Unconscious

(that which the individual has developed in this lifetime.)

However, there will be a land mass far beneath each island (the

ocean bed, essentially) and this connects us all as One. Here,

individual differences are obliterated: at a very deep level we are

10 Jung, C. G., The Archetypes And The Collective Unconscious (Collected Works Vol. 9, Part 1, 2nd ed.,), Princeton University Press, 1968.

11



all alike, for we spring from the same source. This is the

Collective Unconscious - the universal, subterranean realm of

psychic life which contains what Jung calls ‘definite forms’ that

are present at all times and in all places.

This is easy to see when we look at world myth – all myths from

all cultures have spontaneously produced the same motifs and

themes, irrespective of geographical or temporal differences. The

archetypes are best understood when we associate with them a

particular image – the archetypal Mother, Father, Youth, Wise

Old Man, Hero, Maiden, Lover, Student, Teacher. The point is

that all these archetypal figures exist in some form or other on

the astrological birth chart– they may be Universal, in that they

pre-exist in the cosmos, but your particular experience of them

will manifest in a way specific to the configurations of your

chart. Thus the Universal archetypes (the planets and signs on

your birth chart) are living beings (as Plato would have put it)

which express themselves through your consciousness. Astrology

is the blueprint for greater Consciousness; indeed, a kind of

shorthand for its emergence.

When we examine the rudimentary architecture of astrology

(aside from the elements of Fire, Earth, Air and Water) what we

find are numbers. There is an invisible set of rules to the

Universe that scientists now call ‘laws of nature’ or what

physicist Heinz Pagels called the ‘cosmic code’. For the Greek

mystic Pythagoras in the sixth century BC, Number was central

to this hidden order, and the key to unlocking its underlying

patterns. Moreover, numbers are not simply invented for the

12



purpose of mathematical calculation, they are already embedded

in Nature, or ‘number is all things’, as Pythagoras put it:

‘Pythagoras’ ... predilection for mathematical studies led him to

trace the origin of all things to number, this theory being

suggested, or at all events confirmed, by the observation of

various numerical relations, or analogies to them, in the

phenomena of the universe … [The] Pythagoreans … regarded

the principles of numbers as the absolute principles of things;

keeping true to the common maxim of the ancient philosophy,

that like takes cognisance of like.’11

As noted, numerology plays a major part in astrology, for

example with particular relevance to the aspects and harmonics.

This basically reveals that numbers have archetypal qualities -

they mean something. According to Charles Kent Dominey, ‘Jung

saw a certain kinship between archetypes and numbers in so far

as both were autonomous entities which could manifestthemselves as a priori patterns of order … Jung asks if there are

as yet undiscovered qualities in numbers and, because of their

archetypal character, what sorts of influences the archetypes and

numbers exert on one another.’12

As for how numbers and archetypes may influence one another

(to paraphrase Dominey) we can see a definite effect on every

11 Smith, William, Dictionary Of Greek And Roman Biography And Mythology, 1870. (p. 620).

12 Dominey, ‘Archetype And Idea: Some Points Of Correspondence Between Jung's Theory of Archetypes and Plato's Theory Of Forms’ (With Special Reference to Platonic Ontology and Epistemology), Diploma Thesis: C. G. Jung Institute, Zurich 1977.

13



birth chart - for isn’t this like an astrological aspect between

two planets? One archetype (planet) is brought into relationship

with another via number - or their angular distance from each

other.

‘Archetypes are by definition, factors and motifs that

arrange the psychic elements into certain images,

characterised as archetypal, but in such a way that they

can be recognised only from the effects they produce ... They exist pre-consciously, and presumably, they form

the structural dominants of the psyche in general ... As

a priori conditioning factors they represent a special,

psychological instance of the biological "pattern of

behaviour," which gives all living organisms their

specific qualities.’ 13

We can also see relevance to astrology in these ideas - the whole

point being that 'a priori conditioning factors' are there from the

moment of birth. Specific modes of behaviour are built into our

psyche, so that we can say - in one sense - all Capricorns are

alike, and so is everyone with Scorpio on the ascendant, or

Neptune on the MC. Jung mentions psychic elements as

archetypal 'images' - again we have a correspondence with the

symbols found in astrology. Jungian Archetypes like the Self, Anima and Shadow correspond roughly to the Sun, Moon and

Saturn on a birth chart. (Or those archetypal images might be

13 Jung, Collected Works vol. 11., Rp, 149n.

14



universal motifs like Aries the Ram, Taurus the Bull, or Gemini

the Twins etc.)

Here, however, with these ‘given’ predispositions at

birth, we run into the unsavoury matter of fatedness,

as if there are forces at work doing a great deal of

cosmic string-pulling (more of which, later). Plus, it is

the criticism of the sceptic that symbols are not to be

trusted – that they can mean whatever one wants them to. But in astrology, this is not the case - the

symbolic realm is something to be interpreted and read

carefully. As the NeoPlatonist thinker Plotinus once put

it: ‘All teems with symbol; the wise man is the man

who in any one thing can read another.’14

Essentially, astrology requires a certain amount of intuition, a

natural sense and facility for hermeneutics and symbolism.

(Astrology has been called – appropriately - a language of

Consciousness.) It should come as no surprise, then, that Jung

himself not only understood but made use of astrology, and was

ever thoughtful of how it should be approached:

‘While studying astrology I have applied it to concrete cases

many times. ... The experiment is most suggestive to a versatile

mind, unreliable in the hands of the unimaginative, and

14 Plotinus, The First Ennead (Ii.3.7), c. AD 250.

15



dangerous in the hands of a fool, as those intuitive methods

always are. ... It is an apt tool only when used intelligently.’ 15

But from where do archetypes arise? The archetype itself, wrote

Jung, is ‘transcendental and thus relatively beyond the

categories of number, space, and time. That means, it

approximates to oneness and immutability. Owing to the

liberation from the categories of consciousness the archetype

can be the basis of meaningful coincidence.’16

By this phrase 'liberation from the categories of consciousness'

Jung means that archetypes are not the property of a human

mind - they are not mere inventions which we then project onto

the world. Rather, they have a quasi-reality of their own and

they work through us. They are essentially objective facts, or

(like numbers and sun-signs) archetypal entities waiting to be

discovered. But what does Jung mean by ‘meaningful

coincidence’? Here we find Jung’s semi-mystical theory ofSynchronicity which – in his own words - is ‘the simultaneous

occurrence of two significant but not causally connected events.’

As one commentator explained:

‘The [events] are related by Meaning … It may be something you

dreamt last night, some current issue playing on your mind, or a

specific piece of information (a name, a date, a brand of car) and

these psychological factors are somehow mirrored – in a very

15 Jung (letter to Robert L. Kroon, 15 Nov., 1958) Letters , Vol. 2, 1951-1961, (pp. 463-464).

16 Jung (letter to Robert L. Kroon, 15 Nov., 1958) Letters , Vol. 2, 1951-1961, (pp. 463-464).

16



eerie sense - in everyday occurrences. There is a correspondence

between two (or more) events in a symbolic manner. 17

But the important thing to note is that one event (the dream,

say) did not cause the other eerie replication to happen. In Jung’s

phrase, Synchronicities are acausal – they reflect one another.

Jung explained astrology thus:

‘Astrology is of particular interest to the psychologist,

since it contains a sort of psychological experience

which we call projected – this means that we find the

psychological facts as it were in the constellations. This

originally gave rise to the idea that these factors derive

from the stars, whereas they are merely in a relation of

synchronicity with them. I admit that this is a very

curious fact which throws a peculiar light on the

structure of the human mind. 18

The idea of acausal correspondence is thus crucial to our

understanding of astrology and how it works. As Jung put it,

astrology has ‘nothing to do with the stars’ in terms of causal

mechanism. Rather, some third factor (which is just how Jung

put it) somehow unites Outer and Inner, Cosmos and Psyche,

Heavens and Natal Chart, in a way one can barely start to

17 Page, James Lynn, The New Positive Thinking: Science, Spirirt and

the Power of Eternal Now, Perrault, 2015.

18 Jung, in a letter to Prof. B.V. Raman, 1947

17



comprehend. The synchronicity between the ‘planets’ on a birth

chart and the life of an individual is not something, I believe,

any one of us is in a position to explain. It’s there, even if we

don’t know how it works. There are some mysteries, apparently,

which the Universe does not yield to mere mortals. For the

sceptic, however (whom I shall answer in the next chapter),

mystery is the enemy, an opponent that must be subjugated with

their favoured bludgeoning tool – reductive science. If they

cannot extract narrowly rational answers from the stuff of theUniverse, then the matter is dropped due to lack of evidence. It

has been said that if the only tool you have in your toolbox is a

hammer, you go around treating everything as if it were a nail.

18



The ‘Evidence’ from Science

We should take astrology seriously. No, I don't mean

we should believe in it. I am talking about fighting it

seriously instead of humouring it as a piece of harmless

fun. Richard Dawkins

Rationalist thought rejects all propositions which

have not been "proven" according to its own criteria,

grounded in the presupposition that a statement must

refer to a tangible, measurable reality, divorced from

the impressions which are at the root of judgement

[and] … lived experience. Hence one denies to

consciousness the ability to see, to intellect the ability

to think that which is worthy of being seen or thought

... The course of modern science leads to a relativism

which obscures any metaphysical intention. The

essential disappears more and more from the

preoccupations of consciousness. Patrice Guinard 19

Sceptics are interesting lot, and they usually have plenty of

harsh words for both astrology and astrologers. The

19 Astrology: The Manifesto 1/4 (version 2.3 : 09.2002)http://cura.free.fr/07athem1.html

19



phenomenon of taking others to task because of their strange

beliefs usually indicates a hidden agenda on the part of the

sceptic. We can see this plainly in the above quote by Richard

Dawkins: astrology is to be ‘fought seriously’ - it is up to people

like him to disabuse people of their ridiculous ideas, and science

is the only reliable method. Rationalists and philosophical

materialists are often so vocal in their denunciations of

astrology, you would think it some insidious disease of the mind

that must be stamped out. (Which is probably how RichardDawkins sees it.)

Astrologer Robert Hand once suggested that this cultural unease

about ‘horoscopes’ comes from a world-view that insists that

each of us are separate from the world we perceive, wrapped up

in our own skin, the point where our personal universe

supposedly ends. Therefore, any ‘influence’ from the ‘the stars’

must be an erroneous belief. But even pioneers in the new

physics have come to the conclusion that this separateness, this

demarcation between subject and object, is an insufficient

world-view in light of certain experiments in particle physics.

We interact with, or participate (John Wheeler) in it, at a very

fundamental level.

So let the fun begin. On his website, astrologer Bob Marks quotes

a psychologist, Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. on ‘Why Astrology is Bunk’.

And yes, we get the predictable responses. According to Sandbek:

20



‘Astrology has contributed nothing to our knowledge of the world, the planets or to human behavior. Information given by

astrologers is worse than psycho-babble.’20

This is in the nature of a generalised denunciation – but it all

depends on what one means by ‘knowledge’. In fact, astrology

contributes a great deal of knowledge when it comes to getting

people to understand themselves and the fundamental

(unconscious) forces at work in their lives. It is used every day incounselling sessions which help to shed light on all manner of

individual problems. The above quote is also another cheap way

of saying astrology is just an unfounded belief without

substance. If this is really so, it’s curious that many trained

academics (with honours degrees) should also be astrologers. If

it really is superstitious nonsense, you’d think all these clever

people would have seen it for what it truly is (and rejected it)

long ago. And yet they continue as astrologers. (It’s ironic thatpsychologists themselves are often accused of ‘psycho babble’,

but let us move on.)

‘Astrology only ‘works’ because the pigeon paying the money

has the complete attention from someone who is attentive,

warm, and apparently sincere. It’s called the halo effect.

Astrology readings are so vague as to be meaningless. Read one

to a room full of people and people with different signs will tell you it belongs to them.’

21

20 http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm 21 http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm

21



I have heard this accusation more than once and it’s one of the worst thought out criticisms I’ve ever encountered. For one, not

all astrologers work directly in consultation with a client – some

charts are done ‘blindly’, i.e., without even having met the

client, in the form of a written reading that might be delivered

later in person or just mailed in the post. (Indeed, this is the way

I myself often work. Here, of course, there can be no question of

saying the ‘right thing’ or the ‘halo effect’ - the astrologer

working this way needs to be accurate if their reputation is to

remain intact.) Clearly, Sandbek knows nothing about

astrologers and their clients. In a similar vein, according to the

online Paranormal-Encyclopedia, ‘astrological readings’ tend to

be made up of:

- Generalized character assessments that would apply to

most people, e.g. "You are family-oriented", "You are

mindful of your financial situation", etc.

- Double meanings that are almost always correct because

they cover all possibilities, e.g. "You like to be decisive but

sometimes you find it hard to make decisions."

- Obvious advice that applies universally, e.g. "Work hard

and rewards will come."

- Vague references which could be interpreted in manydifferent ways.

22



-

Most importantly, things the subject wants to hear, e.g."This is a positive time for romance".

22

The above is simply a lowly caricature of the astrologer and their

clients, and the worst kind of propagandist ad hominem attack.

Not only have I yet to come across an astrologer who would

stoop to such levels of intellectual dishonesty, but I wonder, too,

from where these facile scenarios derive, except in the minds of

the creators of Paranormal Encyclopaedia. Does the inventor ofthe above truly believe that: a) all astrologers are essentially

silver-tongued con artists?; b) their clients are all gullible idiots

who will believe anything they’re told? But let us leave polemics

where they belong. A more worthy critic would be academic Ivan

W. Kelly, University of Saskatchewan, Canada who writes:

‘Birth chart interpretation is based on a chaotic mix of

physical symbolisms, word associations, analogy, mythology, tradition, and the idiosyncratic

contributions of individual astrologers. There is little

agreement on what factors should be included or

ignored in a chart, how they should be combined, how

their importance can be determined, or how conflicting

claims can be resolved ...’23

22 http://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/a/astrology/criticism.html 23 Kelly, " The Concepts of Modern Astrology: a Critque," Conclusion -

(http://www.astrology-and-science.com/a-conc2.htm )

23



Kelly (who I presume isn’t an astrologer, as he makes various

factual errors about the subject ('there is little agreement on

basic issues') laments that astrology is not testable (falsifiable)

and that there are no physical explanations. Like most critics, he

wants to force astrology into the rigid framework of reductive

science and cause and effect. As a result, he seems to assume the

birth chart (if astrology worked) determines the personality and

the events in their life. Kelly's narrow view also surfaces when

he notes the lack of uniformity among astrologers in how theythink it works, claiming that the diversity of world-views is a

problem - different astrologers (from different cultures) might

base it on differing philosophies. But this assumes there must

necessarily be a grand unifying rulebook followed by every

astrologer, and that differences in interpretation somehow gnaw

away at the overall credibility of the subject. Ironically, this is

never a problem in modern physics: in Quantum Mechanics,

there are at least half a dozen distinct ways of interpreting theresults of an experiment – and here we are dealing with

something as critical the true nature of the Universe!24

So let us now turn to the question that sceptics are most

interested in: is there any scientific proof for astrology? Well, the

answer has to be ‘yes’ and ‘no’ (for reasons I will explain later).

On the ‘yes’ side, there is the considerable body of work by

French statistician Michel Gauquelin (1928-1991), a Sorbonnegraduate in psychology. In particular there is Gauquelin’s ‘Mars

effect’, the connection between a specific position of Mars at

24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations of quantum mechanics

24



birth and an individual’s prominent career in sport. It even has

its own Wikipedia page and sceptics (and half-sceptics) are

forever arguing over the test results, the 'purity' of the samples,

and whether or not they signify anything at all. But the plain fact

is as follows - Gauquelin did fulfil the scientific criteria, deriving

statistically significant data that shows correlations between a

planet’s position at birth and a person’s characteristics (or their

choice of profession). As the psychologist Professor Hans

Eysenck writes in Gauquelin’s obituary:

There can no longer be any doubt that Michel

Gauquelin did discover something; questions remain

about its importance … Only the future will tell us

whether he opened a new chapter in scientific

investigation, or whether he was deceived by some

trivial error of methodology. I would bet on the former

alternative, but only time will tell. Where so many

determined critics – philosophers, physicists,

astronomers, mathematicians – have failed to find a

fault, it is not unreasonable to assume that there really

is something factual to investigate. .’ 25

So just what are the results? Below is a report from a 1979 study

that Eysenck himself conducted with Gauquelin and his wife:

25 Published in The Independent newspaper, 20 June 1991 (p.31)

25



‘The precise birth dates and locations of several thousand famous French scientists, sportsmen, and

actors were ascertained from their biographies, as well

as personality descriptions. From the data relating to

birth times and locations the precise positions of the

planets Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were calculated for

each person, with particular attention being paid to the

period immediately following the rise and the upper

culmination of the respective planets … The general

findings may be summarized as showing that

sportsmen tended to be born significantly more often

than chance would allow in the crucial sectors related

to Mars; actors in the crucial sectors related to Jupiter;

and scientists in the crucial sectors related to Saturn.

These results achieved very high levels of significance,

and the findings relating to sportsmen were

successfully replicated by different and independent

investigators in another country ... The data for these

investigations were collected from biographies of the

persons in question, i.e. 2089 sports champions, 1409

famous actors, and 3647 men of science ... This finding

suggests that it is personality which is related to

planetary position at birth, rather than profession and

26



that profession is related to planetary position through

the intermediary of personality.’ 26

Even the sceptic Geoffrey Dean (a former astrologer that no

serious minded stargazer can ignore) conceded that Gauquelin

was ‘ever the perfect scientist, always philosophical, confiding

with a grin that he might or might not be right, and never sure

he would live to see the puzzles solved. Today it seems clear that

he was right and the True Disbelievers were wrong.’27

Earlier I asked: ‘is there any scientific proof for astrology?’ and

said the answer also had a ‘no’. This is because, welcome though

the Gauquelin results may be, this is not the way to proceed in

proving astrology. As Patrice Guinard points out:

Astro-statistics misses the difference between a fact and a

symbol; it arbitrarily isolates elements from their context and

renders binary a conception of reality which in essence ismatrix-based ... The "results" of the initial work done by Michel

Gauquelin merely serve to corroborate -- partially and

laboriously -- what the astrologer already knows, without

invalidating anything at all.28

26 ‘Personality and position of the planets at birth: An empirical study M. Gauquelin, Francoise Gauquelin and S. B. G. Eysenck.’ British

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1979: (my italics) 27 The Mars Effect & True Disbelievers, eskeptic - April 6, 2011

(http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic)28 Guinard, Astrology: The Manifesto 3/4 (version 1.3 : 11-2004)

http://cura.free.fr/10athem3.html

27



Indeed, Gauquelin’s statistical results miss the point by havingto resort to ‘objective’ scientific methods. If Gauquelin finds the

‘Mars effect’ in a high proportion of sportsmen, this seems to

imply that Mars = ‘profession in sport’. But as the

Eysenck-Gauquelins results show, the findings are really about

psychological traits, not ways of determining career. (As Eysenck

has elsewhere commented, ‘extroverts tended to be born under

Mars, introverts under Saturn’ - something astrologers have

known for millenia.) The statistical approach simply

misunderstands the nature of the beast. For when astrologers

talk of ‘planetary influence’, a whole range of related meanings

can flow from that one archetypal symbol, be it Mars, Jupiter,

Saturn or Pluto. For example, Saturn can symbolise: form and

structure, crystallisation and gradual progress, ‘consensus

reality’ and the material world, self discipline, hard work and

effort, isolation and separation, clarity and sobriety, seriousness

and ‘gravity’, morbidity, conservatism and tradition, security,

repression, judgement, patience, limitation, defeat, inhibition,

one’s ‘Achilles Heel’, The Wise Old Man, authority figures, the

Father, the powers of the State, the Government, justice and the

‘letter of the law’, order, regularity, time, Universal ‘weights and

measures’, experience, Fate, maturity, old age and infirmity.

I could go on – but it should be clear that, in astrology, there’s

no way of forcing a simple one-for-one correspondence between

a planet and an aspect of human experience. The Gauquelin

results linked Saturn with ‘men of science’, but based on its core

archetypal meaning, Saturn would also ‘rule’ jobs like: School

28



teacher, Policeman/woman (as representatives of the law), High

Court Judge, Prison officer, Civil Servant, Bank manager (but not

financial speculator), Customs and Excise officer, Tax Inspector

and even Watchmaker.

Again, one could extend the list. The common denominator with

the above is that they’re all capacities to do with imposing order,

structure or discipline, whether administrative, judicial or

financial - they are how society organises its resources, and

instructs, corrects (or even punishes) its members when they

breach its laws. (The watchmaker, of course, constructs devices

that measure the duration of the earth’s rotation on its axis.) But

to state merely that statistics show a correlation between Saturn

and ‘men of science’ (as the Gauquelin tests seem to) would

appear absurd to most astrologers – if that is all Saturn were

supposed to represent.

Then again, I’ve never quite understood the need to 'prove' andscientifically validate astrology, and astrologers shouldn’t be

intimidated by sceptics who smugly declare that there’s no cause

and effect basis for it. In the end, statistics demonstrate very

little, and as Jung once pointed out in The Undiscovered Self,

they ‘displace the individual in favour of anonymous units that

pile up into mass formations’. But isn’t astrology supposed to be

all about the individual? The one that statistics threaten to

displace? The birth chart and its correct interpretation - being

able to see how its symbols manifest in your life, both past and

present - is always the best evidence.

29



The sceptic would have one believe that the birth chart is ameaningless set of squiggles. Like I’ve said before, were that the

case, then no one could ever have derived any insight from it, no

one could have proclaimed it as a tool for self knowledge or ‘a

path to broad psycho-spiritual wisdom,’ in the words of

astrologer Dane Rudhyar. On this same theme Rudhyar writes

about what he calls ‘existential proof’, one which, moreover,

‘cannot be based on general categories.’ As all astrologers know,

when it comes to the birth chart, ‘the proof of the pudding is in

the eating’, for:

‘It can only derive from the personal experience of an

individual in a particular situation involving a complex,

and never exactly duplicated, set of relationships. If the

situation produces results significant for an individual,

then it must be considered valid for this individual. If, after having studied astrology and his

exactly-calculated birth chart, a person for the first

time realises that the sequence of his life-events,

which had so far seemed to him utterly chaotic and

purposeless, makes sense — if as a result of his study,

he is able to feel a direction and purpose inherent in his

life as an individual, and how he had been blocking this realisation of meaning, orientation, and purposefulness

30



— then astrology is "existentially proven" to be effective in

this particular case.’ 29

And, with that, rests my case!

● For more information on Raphael’s Ephemeris visit www.raphaelsephemeris.com .

● To read the Mars Effect in full please visit:

http://www.theoryofastrology.com/gauquelin/mars_effect.htm )

29 Rudhyar, How can astrology’s claims be proven valid, Aquarian Agent 1970, 10, pp. 7-9)

31

http://www.theoryofastrology.com/gauquelin/mars_effect.htm

http://www.raphaelsephemeris.com/

raphaelsephemerishowdoesastrologywork-

Documents