A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions

From Abracadabra to Zombies

reader comments: astrology

09 Nov 2000 
I read your criticism of Astrology with great interest. You appear to attack it primarily from one angle that the positions of the stars at the time of ones birth do not have a causal effect on the outcome of ones life. I think the argument is slightly flawed for discrediting Astrology and misses some important points.

Is it truly Astrologer's belief that there is a causal relationship from the positions of massive bodies in the universe to what happens to small bodies? Could it not be the opposite way around that the sum of states of small bodies at a given time dictate the positions of larger bodies? Isn't more likely that the sum of states of infinitesimally small "bodies" - sub-atomic particles, electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves, whatever - affect the states of large bodies - stars, galaxies etc, and vice versa continuously and simultaneously, a magnificent ebb and flow of constant energy throughout the universe, and is this not basically what Astrology is trying to say.

Surely the Grand Unified Theory that some of the world's greatest minds are dedicated to discovering is little more than a extension of Astrology, a theory that would enable us to say that given the precise states of every particle/wave in the universe bar one we could predict the state the remaining particle/wave with dead certainty - even though Heisenberg wouldn't allow us to demonstrate it.

Is not the universe a giant clock with the stars and galaxies for hands and the sub-atomic particle/waves teeth on the clock wheels. Knowing the position of the hands we should be able to predict the positions of individual teeth, and knowing how the hands move we can predict where the teeth will be at a future time.

I would have thought that the position of the stars at the time of your birth (using whatever criteria for defining that moment) would be intrinsically linked to the outcome of your life.

The snag appears when we consider whether it has been possible for Astrologers through the generations to have discerned an accurate correlation between the positions of stars and the way a person's life turns out. I suspect this to be quite impossible, and to follow the analogy further, akin to predicting the position of teeth on clock wheel knowing only the position of the second hand.

So as I said at the start I believe your arguments against Astrology to be slightly flawed, but the result is essentially the same that Astrology is misguided at best criminal at worst.

The irony I guess is that your attempts to discredit the practice through reason are futile as these people and their ways of thinking are mere ticks of a clock that can't be stopped, but then again, I guess you can't help yourself.

An Eternal Fatalist.
Stephen Ross

Nov 2000
Thank you for providing us with the Skeptic's Dictionary, I find it an invaluable source of information and entertainment. Something which occurred to me whilst reading your astrology article: My partner is an identical twin. They were born within a few minutes of each other. One is heterosexual and one is homosexual. One is upbeat and positive, while the other is invariably depressed and negative. One is single and one (obviously) is in a relationship. Their lives, in other words, are quite different. Their destinies also, are unlikely to be very similar. I'd be interested to know the astrological explanation for this. I have become increasingly surprised by peoples ability to take what seems to be relevant to themselves from astrological readings (not hard, because of the vague way such statements usually seem to be constructed), and ignore the rest. As a test of this (as well as for my own, somewhat malicious, amusement), I have now begun to enthusiastically read people the wrong horoscopes from my newspaper, and it is quite amazing how relevant it is to their everyday lives. Another triumphant proof of astrology. I can't help smirking.

reply: If you find that amusing, take a look at this article with various predictions by astrologers about tomorrow's national election. It is hilarious--the article, not the predictions! Anyway, here's what I found funny:

  • A general overview of November 7 shows the planet Mercury turning direct (forward) in the last degree of Libra, the sign of the scales. This represents the mixed emotions many people have about the candidates. The Moon in changeable Pisces on Election Day reinforces the general uncertainty the electorate is feeling.
  • In the sidereal zodiac, using Western techniques, George Bush stands out as the clear winner. In the relevant sidereal solar and lunar returns immediately preceding the election and inauguration next year, he gets Jupiter, Venus, Uranus and Pluto prominent on the angles of those charts. Gore gets Mars, Saturn and Pluto on the angles of his cyclic charts. Pluto makes extreme whatever it touches. With transiting benefics, one experiences elation and victory in elections. With the transiting malefics one endures great loss and defeat in elections. Bush’s victory is not at issue from the sidereal point of view.
  • Bush's recent poll lead (daily fluctuations now) likely has to do with transiting Mars traveling through Virgo, Bush's birth Mars position. The upshot—Bush is expressing strength and looking good. We have a tricky pre-election condition with Mercury retrograde in Scorpio (apparent backward movement) ruling deep analysis, political maneuverings and sorting the conflicting information/images the candidates have presented.
  • Gore, an Aries, is ruled by the planet Mars, and is therefore more affected by its position at any given time. Mars in Libra will be stimulating Gore's Aries Sun and in harmony with Gore's Mars in Leo at that time.
  • From the standpoint of electional astrology, the most crucial times for a presidential candidate are the time they make their official announcement of candidacy, and the time that the party officially nominates them.
  • Al Gore appears to have an edge and will most likely be the next president. One of the many factors in his chart that bodes well for this is the fact that transiting Saturn (ambition) is about to conjoin (for the second of three times) with his Venus in its own sign, Taurus, in his Tenth House of career achievement.

    Well, maybe it isn't so funny, after all.
    [thanks to Ivan Kelly]

4 Jul 2000 
Hi, I read your review of the "Astrology" entry and I would like to share with you some comments. As a philosophy student interested in logic and philosophy of science, I found that some of your reasoning was deficient. Let's see.

1- you say that

Astrologers emphasize the importance of the positions of the sun, moon, planets, etc., at the time of birth. But why are the initial conditions more important than all subsequent conditions for one's personality and traits? Why is the moment of birth chosen as the significant moment rather than the moment of conception? Why aren't other initial conditions such as one's mother's health, the delivery place conditions, forceps, bright lights, dim room, back seat of a car, etc., more important than whether Mars is ascending, descending, culminating or fulminating? Why isn't the planet Earth, much closer to us at birth, considered a major influence on who we are and what we become?

You seem to believe that since Astrologers cannot answer these questions satisfactorily, Astrology is wrong. However, you should notice that "why" questions (in the sense you are employing the word 'why') cannot be answered satisfactorily by anyone. Indeed, if I were to ask you, "Why are mass and distance relevant to the gravitational force, and not other properties, such as color, texture, etc.", or "Why does light propagate at 300.000 km/sec", what would you reply? This is what David Hacket Fischer in his "Historian's Fallacies" calls the fallacy of metaphysical question. You are asking a question that cannot be answered by empirical means. You, a skeptic, are, in fact, asking for metaphysical answer!

reply. Not really. My questions are rhetorical. I don't expect any answers or attempts at answers. I was trying to make two points. Obviously, you missed them. Perhaps others have missed them, too. So, let me try to clarify the points.

If heavenly bodies influence us, they should influence us continually with equal importance. No one moment should be any more significant than any other. I am trying to call attention to the arbitrary nature of astrology. Astrologers arbitrarily select birth as absolutely more significant than any other moment. I don't expect them to be able to explain why they pick this moment rather than any other, because I know any moment they select is arbitrarily selected. In no other field that I am aware of do significant causal events have arbitrary beginning points.

I was also trying to call attention to the apparent absurdity of holding that the more remote and distant something is, the more influential it is.

2- you say that

Correlation is not causality.

You seem to believe that there is something which IS causality. In other words, you are assuming that the distinction between accidental correlation and scientific law can be made. However, this is not a simple issue, and philosophers so far have not found a satisfactory answer to the task of giving an acceptable criterion that separates correlation from causation. Some criteria have been proposed. For example, the notion of contrary to fact conditionals was once thought to be useful, but it has also showed some insurmountable problems. Besides, the notion of correlation is extensively used, for example, in medicine. Whether this is "causality" or not is unimportant. What matters is that if you are willing to accept this procedure as a valid test for, say, a drug, then you must also accept it in the field of astrology.

reply: I must say, you have lost me here. What do contrary to fact conditionals have to do with this issue. (For those who are wondering, a contrary to fact conditional is a conditional statement that cannot be proved false because the antecedent is false. In sentential logic, if the antecedent of a conditional statement is false, then the conditional statement itself is considered true. For example, if a student says "If I had studied, I would have aced the logic test." But the student didn't study, so we'll never know if studying would have led to acing the test. Like I said, I have no idea what this has to do with the 'correlation is not causality' issue.) 

I don't know what you mean by 'accidental correlation.' Perhaps you mean correlation where there is no causality involved. Scientific laws are a different matter altogether from causal claims, so, yes I do think there is a distinction here. Most scientists do recognize that some correlations are not likely due to chance, and that in such cases it is reasonable to say things like "smoking causes cancer."

By the way, I'm not willing to take a drug on the grounds that 65% of those who have taken the drug say it makes them feel better.

Again, I was trying to make a point that was missed. So, let me try to clarify it. It is expected by the laws of chance that there will be some significant correlations (i.e., those not likely due to chance), which are, in fact, not indicative of a causal connection. Thus, finding a significant correlation between Mars and soldiers does not necessarily indicate a causal connection. If only one study found a significant correlation between smoking and lung cancer, the scientific community would not find it reasonable to insist on a causal connection there.

3- to demolish astrology I would have used a different and simpler strategy. Is suffices to ask, "Is it falsifiable?" In other words, "Is it possible to predict an event that would refute the theory”. If not, it is metaphysical, and Astrologers should not make any claims whatsoever regarding its empirical value, since Astrology does not speak about the world. If yes, it is scientific, and Astrologers should make their main hypotheses explicit. If they can't, they were lying, and either Astrology is metaphysical or it has not been proven to be scientific. That's it.

reply: I agree. However, astrologers do not agree on whether what they are doing is science or not. Some think it is and I think they've been refuted. Others think it is purely metaphysical. They can't be refuted, but they can still be criticized for having beliefs that are inane, useless, harmful, stupid, etc.

4- All throughout your articles (especially in your article about Transcendental Meditation) I see the fallacious tendency to label the conclusion of an argument as false when the reasoning that supports it is invalid. But this is a cross [sic?] mistake. Surely, there are plenty of cases in the history of science of scientists giving an invalid explanation of a phenomenon that could afterwards be explained correctly. Of course, I believe you know the difference between truthfulness and validity, but you should remember that the distinction also applies to those theories you don't like.
name withheld by request

reply: I wish you'd be more specific. I don't think I ever label a conclusion of an argument as false because the reasoning supporting it is invalid. I hope either I have argued that the reasons given were false or questionable, and thus did not provide adequate support for their conclusions, or I have given independent reasons to support the claim that the conclusion of the argument is false.

16 May 1999
Your insights are brilliant, thought provoking, honest, sincere...and dare to make us look at reality, logic, sanity, reason and all the other little factors of being human that have allowed us to move forward and not gravitate into a quivering puddle and remain in a cave. I am an astrologer, I have been doing this for 25 years and have seen every nuance and facet of this new age spiritual pseudoscience hocus pocus that has come barreling into our lives...I am an astrologer..and I am a skeptic. I have NEVER felt it was a science...it should not BE a science....I am absolutely against it ever getting into a school system, if astrology belongs there then so does tarot, tea leaf reading, crystal balls and I-ching. The way it is currently used...applied in many cases to psychology by Jungian astrologers and archetypical astrologers, applied through psychic phone lines and intuitive astrologers is a weakening influence..not the strengthening influence many deceive themselves into believing. Anything that takes away our ability to be free-thinking, responsible individuals is weakening.

 So what is it? It is a way to focus your mind into using COMMON SENSE. Nothing more, nothing less. I LOVE it....it is a passion...it has allowed me to find an interest in learning about our history as humans...it is colorful..entertaining....it allows me to deeply reflect....I enjoy the way it has woven through history...splashing color and drama now and then across our lives...it is a simple escape....it allows me to have an interest in other people and to try to see things through their eyes....it opens ME to finding MY own way to deal logically, rationally with MY world. I could use...ANYTHING...or NOTHING..and come to the same conclusions....some people write their thoughts out, some seek quiet solitude, some listen to music, some doodle....all the same thing...a way to focus. It has always been my opinion that when the question is posed to astrologers that if their 'science' were literal why are they so dismally inaccurate judging HUGE current events...(note: not ONE big astrologer saw the current Kosovo crisis with their 1999 predictions..not ONE..saw the Columbine nightmare) and their reply is always.."because the future is a set of potentials and astrology can only highlight them". This IS..the answer in itself...astrology is merely a tool to give estimated guesses...which really only pulls on their own subconscious rationality.

Astrological, psychic and other metaphysical prophecy methods may actually weaken our ability to use our best judgment in these issues as estimated guessing gives an accuracy rate of about 53% while the others vary from 52% to 10%. There is rather large astrological society at this time that is now bombarding newspapers and other agencies trying to get grants, recognition and acknowledgement by using a convoluted stand that if astrologers had been taken seriously the tragedies at Columbine COULD have been prevented. This was horrifying to me and was when I decided I could not and would no longer even acknowledge that astrology was one of my creative interests. This is being done by the well known and respected astrologers in our country. They went on to say that astrologers had known long before that this generation of children had been born, that this kind of soul would be coming into the world and needed...'special'..guidance (from astrology of course). I reacted angrily and sent a long, overly emotional letter to them...basically asking.."if astrologers KNEW this was going to happen, why did they just sit there and WAIT for it to happen, are we not the people who RAISED this generation????? If astrologers KNEW it was going to happen doesn't that then make them RESPONSIBLE for letting it happen?? And can a group PROVE astrology is valid by condemning an entire generation of children?" Their reply was that they had been TRYING to warn everyone...by writing books...and that they weren't condemning anyone, they were merely trying to 'help'. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone wrote a book instead of using their minds and their compassion and energy to bring about needed changes in the world...? Hmmm...actually...I think we're living that question..and its answer.

Anyways.....I didn't mean to ramble..I just wanted to applaud and cheer you on. Many thanks...for having the guts..to do this.
Linda Rankin

reply: I didn't know what to say in response six months ago when I received this e-mail from Ms. Rankin. I still don't, except that I suppose anything can be entertaining and a means to self-discovery if used properly, but some things seem more likely to be misleading and potentially dangerous. I still consider astrology to be one of them and think that as light as she tries to be, her website and readings will be taken very seriously by many. 

17 Aug 1998
I saw the damdest thing on our local TV-news last night, they had a segment of a really hot new trend on Wall-street, they have brokers who can predict changes in the market down to the hour, by using astrology Ellen Jamieson is a stockbroker with a difference, she heads up a firm who specialise in Astro-Brokerage. She is apparently doing handsomely

I suppose we will have to follow suit and have some Sangoma throwing bones on Diagonal-street, why hell, that's probably what our Minister of finance does already!

Maybe that's why our prime rate has hit 28%

Pass them knuckle-bones baby!

Matthew Loxton 
South Africa 

reply: The Astrobrokers are big in the U.S., too.

30 Dec 1998

Up until now science has not agreed with astrology, but it is now beginning to do so. In coming to this increasing agreement, some new experiments have been helpful.

reply: I think it is just wishful thinking on your part that science is now in agreement with astrology in any significant matter.

For example, when we launched man-made satellites into space, we discovered that a wide range of radioactive rays from space, and the constellations are continuously bombarding the Earth. Nothing on the Earth is unaffected by this phenomenon. We know that the ocean is influenced by the moon, but we have not taken into consideration the fact that the same proportion of water and salt that occurs in the ocean also occurs in the human body -- the same proportion. Seventy percent of the human body consists of water, and the proportion of salt contained in that water is the same as is contained in the Arabian Sea. If the water in the ocean is affected by the moon, then how could the water inside the human body remain unaffected?

reply: Being bombarded by rays does not mean we are affected by them in any significant way, much less that they affect our personalities, as astrologers believe. If we all have the same amount of salt and water, why aren't we all the same? Because that fact is irrelevant to our personalities and life histories. You are right that the moon affects the tides, but did you know that study after study has found absolutely no significant correlation between any phase of the moon and any human trait or activity? And did you know that of the top ten scientific discoveries made by the Apollo exploration of the moon, not one of them supports astrology?

Did you know that  the Earth's chemical composition (by mass) is:

34.6% Iron
29.5% Oxygen
15.2% Silicon
12.7% Magnesium
2.4% Nickel
1.9% Sulfur
0.05% Titanium

Aren't you glad that your body is not 34.6% iron?

Did you know that  the Earth's atmosphere is 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, with traces of argon, carbon dioxide and water?

Aren't you glad that your body is not 77% nitrogen?

Did you know that sea water has several other chemicals besides salt? Yes, you can look it up. Salt water is about 3.5% salts (by weight).  30.62% of the salt is sodium and 55.07% chloride. Thus, the oceans contain 1.1 % sodium and 1.9% chloride. Sulfates make up 7.72% of the oceans' salts or 0.27% of the ocean is made of sulfates. The human body, on the other hand, is made of less that 0.25% each of sodium, chlorine, and sulfur. You can look that up, too. (By the way, the average adult human body contains about 0.008% iron and about 3% nitrogen.)

Did you know that the oceans are about 0.04% calcium, but the human body contains about 2% calcium?

Now in this connection, two or three facts emerging from recent investigations must be kept in mind. For example, as the day of the full moon approaches, the amount of insanity in the world increases, whereas on the last day of the darker fourteen days, the least number of people go insane. As the moon grows brighter the level of insanity also begins to increase. On the day of the full moon, the greatest number of people enter madhouses; and on the last day of the moon's waning period, the greatest number of people are discharged from madhouses. Statistics are now available....

reply: Statistics might be available to support your claims, but they are inaccurate. There have been numerous studies on this topic and all of them have concluded that there is no significant correlation between the full moon and madness.

In English there is the word lunatic; in Hindi we have the word chaandmara. Chaand refers to the moon, just as lunar does in English. Chaandmara is a very ancient term, and the word lunatic also is some three thousand years old. Some three thousand years ago, people realized that the moon affects the insane. But if it affects the insane, then how can it avoid affecting the sane?
Kira Reed

reply: I agree that the moon affects the sane and insane equally.

11 Jan 1999
Thanks for responding to my letter on astrology. The way you answered is very interesting.

You wrote:


"Did you know that the Earth's chemical composition (by mass) is: 34.6% Iron
29.5% Oxygen
15.2% Silicon
12.7% Magnesium
2.4% Nickel
1.9% Sulfur
0.05% Titanium

Aren't you glad that your body is not 34.6% iron? Did you know that the Earth's atmosphere is 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, with traces of argon, carbon dioxide and water? Aren't you glad that your body is not 77% nitrogen? Did you know that sea water has several other chemicals besides salt? Yes, you can look it up. Salt water is 30.62% sodium and 55.07% chloride. Sulfates make up 7.72% of the oceans. The human body, on the other hand, is made of less that 0.25% each of sodium, chlorine, and sulfur. You can look that up, too. (By the way, the average adult human body contains about 0.008% iron and about 3% nitrogen.) Did you know that the oceans are about 1.17% calcium, but the human body contains about 2% calcium?"

What do these facts have to do with whether or not the planets and stars affect our psyche?Do you think that because I am an astrologer I believe the planets are made of cheese or something? I'm sure we have both been educated in the same manner, by the same educational system.

reply: I brought up these material facts because you brought up the fact about how the human body and the sea are alike and must be equally affected by the moon. My point is that coincidences are often given significance they do not deserve because we ignore other data which would quickly reveal the insignificance of a coincidence.

So you're no idiot and I'm no idiot. So let's really discuss the difference of our opinions here. We cannot prove there are psychological archetypes, but the science of psychiatry assumes they are there, and that archetypal symbols affect our personalities. (http://www.jungindex.net/neher/)

reply: I agree that archetypes can't be proved, but I disagree that psychiatry is a science (unless you are talking about biopsychiatry). Jung was a pseudoscientist, passing off his religious and metaphysical intuitions as if they were empirically based.

Archetypes have been symbolized for thousands of years by the planets and stars, as well as by mythological characters. Astrology is a science of symbols, a science that explores the psyche. Perhaps the planetary archetypal symbols affect our psyche, or the collective unconscious, causing changes in behavior.

reply: Astrology is a pseudoscience. It is either not empirically testable or it is and has been shown to be false (depending on which astrologer you talk to). I don't doubt that symbols affect the psyche, if we believe in the symbols. The evidence for a "collective unconscious" is about zero.

Symbols, like archetypes, are not thoughts. We must not "think" about them. Symbols evoke sensory and feeling responses. Consider this word picture "water." Ask your self, what do I feel on the surface of my skin when I imagine water? What do I hear? What taste does the image of water leave in my mouth? What smell comes to mind? What associations do I notice hovering around the fringes of my awareness? These are the questions we must ask if we wish to respond fully and consciously to symbols. Now that you have contemplated water, try this "cool, clear water." Ask the same questions? How does your experience change?

My answers are as follows. My skin feels lighter as if supported. It feels cool. I can feel reassuring undulations as if I am floating. I can smell the sea, watch the moon, and hear the gentle roar of the waves breaking on shore. Hawaiian music wafts on the air. It is warm and peaceful. If I contemplate the "cool" water, the sense of well being intensifies. I can hear the incomplete but reassuring popular song from my childhood sung by a male singer but all I can make out is the phrase "cool, clear water." Healing, wholeness, peace, unity with nature, the womb are terms that come to mind. But there is another side. I start to move on writing; I see the image of drowning flash across my vision. Darkness falls, waves churn and roar, fear and death suggest themselves. Water is clearly a multi-valent symbol. The sensations, feelings, and associations evoked change with the context that I find. Water is life, at the beach on vacation and I am re-created. Water is death in the storm at sea and I am destroyed. Water, like the moon which is so closely associated with the sea, suggests the mystery of death and rebirth. Can we really say that the planets that symbolize so much to us have no effect on our behavior?

reply: From what you have just written, I would conclude that it is not planets but symbols that have influences on us. This is not a revolutionary idea and it goes nowhere toward validating astrology or Jung.

As C. G. Jung, a preeminent psychoanalyst, states:

"I have no answer to the multitude of problems that arise when we seek to harmonize the oracle [astrology]...with our accepted scientific cannons...The irrational fullness of life has taught me never to discard anything, even when it goes against all our best theories (so short lived at best) or otherwise admits of no immediate explanation. It is of course disquieting, and one is not certain whether the compass is pointing true or not; but security, certitude, and peace do not lead to discoveries... Clearly the method aims at self-knowledge, though at all times it has also been put to a superstitious use."

Kira Reed

reply: Those who prefer the "irrational fullness of life" are welcome to it, but we'd all be better off if such people were kept out of our hospitals, boardrooms and schools. I have learned to discard what is likely to be false, useless or harmful. Those who believe we should not discard anything, even the false or the contradictory, are lost at sea without a rudder, in my view. The meager amount of self-knowledge likely to emerge by being open to such things as astrology, biorhythms, channeling, chiromancy, etc., is not worth a life seeped in superstition. Life is fascinating enough without requiring childish superstition to jazz it up.

16 Jan 1999
I just read your exchange with the astrologer Reed. She claims that archetypes have been connected to the planets for a long time. This is false. The planets were connected to outward behaviors and associated feelings and closely tied to prediction for almost all of its history, and only recently (in this century) with Alan Leo, Rudyhar and Jung have attempts been made to make a more psychological astrology. This move was made in light of the devastating negative results of research (catalogued in Eysenck and Nias (1982) and Dean and Mather (1977).

Furthermore, the statement "Perhaps planetary archetypes affect our personality" suggests that an empirical statement is being made here. It is not. The connections made by the recent, so-called psychological astrologers are contradictory and made by fiat. Astrologers have not published research studies attempting to connect planetary positions with psychological states. They have just tried to fit whatever seems to fit into the categories used by traditional astrologers. Different psychological astrologers imagine different connections.

Also, most of psychiatry does not use Jungian psychology and no appeals to archetypes are made, just as Jung plays a minor role in modern psychology (consult any intro psycho textbook). The long quote from Jung is counterproductive to Reed since it can be used against the theory of archetypes. He is saying don't be too cocksure about your theories, something perhaps astrologers should apply to their own beliefs. But, of course, how could they ever find error in their system? There is no methodology of investigation in astrology that astrologers as a community use to investigate and discard problematic tenets.

It is interesting to note how Reed shifts ground in her two e-mails. The first refers to empirical and testable claims regarding lunar and human fluid compositions and the second changes the subject to talk about symbols. This shifting of topics by astrologers was noticed by St. Augustine over one and a half millennia ago. He pointed out that astrologers will talk in physical, causal terms when it suits them, e.g., " Mars caused that man's violence", but if challenged, will retreat to " Mars was a symbol". Later one can catch them talking in causal terms again. Augustine pointed out that this slipping between different discourses was a way of always avoiding challenge and refutation.

Some astrologers are aware of the game that astrologers have been playing here. Cornelius, a prominent British astrologer, in his presentation at the United Astrology Congress last summer (1998) pointed out:

Intelligent critics of astrology maintain that astrologers have always managed to use the prevailing culture and ethos of the times in which they live (science and philosophy of the period) to disguise themselves and cunningly continue with their practices. This is absolutely true. That is how our extraordinary form of symbolic consciousness has survived. We disguised ourselves as Aristotelian science for the better part of two millennia. Then we tacked ourselves onto modern science in the revival of two centuries ago when astrology disguised itself as magnetism and electricity, and later as radio waves. Depth psychology [i.e. Jung] is just the latest disguise. Perhaps we can do nothing else, for how can this form of symbolism survive without being in the corrupt position of lying about itself in some way in order to get by?

Cornelius contends astrologers have to re-think many of their basic assumptions and public deceptions.
Ivan Kelly

larrow.gif (1051 bytes) astrology

All Reader Comments


This page was designed by Cristian Popa.