Another significant ingress, another tedious debate on astrology Twitter about what planet or signs are or aren't associated with what things. This time, it's the Sun and Pluto's ingress into Aquarius and whether or not Aquarius signifies technology. One person says: Aquarius does not rule technology! (
Really appreciate this writing, and you've packed a lot into one article, it's quite remarkable, so much food for thought, and it echoes a lot of what has been on my mind in the past few years.
Wholesomely agree about the Dunning-Kruger effect. I've also often been saddened to hear from clients about the shame they felt regarding certain placements because of the way it's discussed in memes or even by astrologers. Social media platforms definitely favours this (everything has to be punch-lines and click-bait), but we need to do better.
This passage really hits the nail on the head: "But on the broad whole, psychological astrology defers to the individual's interpretation of their own psyche, not tangible, material, external realities. No one can tell you what your own experience is, and if the chart only reflects that, you are the final arbiter of what anything in astrology means, for you." While there are many things I find interesting about a psychological outlook on a birth chart, sticking strictly to it definitely sounds like a problem, and you've so eloquently explained why here.
I don't agree with recording people without their consent, especially because the second time they explicitly asked for no recording from Twitter Spaces participants. Blaze also said that everyone is welcome to participate in Spaces, and that it's led to lots of fruitful dialogue and connections. So maybe you should think about talking to people first before turning their social media into your argument for this newsletter while admonishing them.
Alan Leo is such a fascinating moment in astrological history -- I remember feeling impressed when I read his texts, that he had arrived at the synthesis of predetermination and potentiality ready for the day's psychological moment, but people disregard his actual instructions as to what the intent of natal astrology should be, and turn it into, as Jung described those who flip right to the content without understanding the frame, a parlor trick.
Specifically: Leo's entire ethos was that one should understand a natal chart *so that they can transcend* it, through the knowledge of their fate-derived disposition in the world. It's a simple extension of the Freudian ethos: the goal of analysis is to make the unconscious conscious, to transform neurotic (in this case, fated) misery into common unhappiness, and ultimately to regain some sense of yourself as a world-transformative agent rather than a ship cast about by the winds of fate. But of course modern natal astrology as I've seen it in the discourse dispenses with all of this and chooses narratives that instead reinforce the native's sense of helplessness and powerlessness.
There is a perverse incentive at play for astrologers, like with therapists, because to guide a client to transcend their chart also means they have no further need of a natal astrologer, but the astrologer must still somehow earn a living. Which is why I really like that you dove into the other forms of astrology one can practice, because elections, horary, etc. can maintain an astrologer's practice even when the client has developed a full grasp of their natal placements (that said, I've been studying my own natal chart for years now and I still don't feel I've mastered it!).
Anyway, just a few thoughts that came to mind from reading this excellent post :)
Really appreciate this writing, and you've packed a lot into one article, it's quite remarkable, so much food for thought, and it echoes a lot of what has been on my mind in the past few years.
Wholesomely agree about the Dunning-Kruger effect. I've also often been saddened to hear from clients about the shame they felt regarding certain placements because of the way it's discussed in memes or even by astrologers. Social media platforms definitely favours this (everything has to be punch-lines and click-bait), but we need to do better.
This passage really hits the nail on the head: "But on the broad whole, psychological astrology defers to the individual's interpretation of their own psyche, not tangible, material, external realities. No one can tell you what your own experience is, and if the chart only reflects that, you are the final arbiter of what anything in astrology means, for you." While there are many things I find interesting about a psychological outlook on a birth chart, sticking strictly to it definitely sounds like a problem, and you've so eloquently explained why here.
Also, love the Schiaparelli image!
I don't agree with recording people without their consent, especially because the second time they explicitly asked for no recording from Twitter Spaces participants. Blaze also said that everyone is welcome to participate in Spaces, and that it's led to lots of fruitful dialogue and connections. So maybe you should think about talking to people first before turning their social media into your argument for this newsletter while admonishing them.
Alan Leo is such a fascinating moment in astrological history -- I remember feeling impressed when I read his texts, that he had arrived at the synthesis of predetermination and potentiality ready for the day's psychological moment, but people disregard his actual instructions as to what the intent of natal astrology should be, and turn it into, as Jung described those who flip right to the content without understanding the frame, a parlor trick.
Specifically: Leo's entire ethos was that one should understand a natal chart *so that they can transcend* it, through the knowledge of their fate-derived disposition in the world. It's a simple extension of the Freudian ethos: the goal of analysis is to make the unconscious conscious, to transform neurotic (in this case, fated) misery into common unhappiness, and ultimately to regain some sense of yourself as a world-transformative agent rather than a ship cast about by the winds of fate. But of course modern natal astrology as I've seen it in the discourse dispenses with all of this and chooses narratives that instead reinforce the native's sense of helplessness and powerlessness.
There is a perverse incentive at play for astrologers, like with therapists, because to guide a client to transcend their chart also means they have no further need of a natal astrologer, but the astrologer must still somehow earn a living. Which is why I really like that you dove into the other forms of astrology one can practice, because elections, horary, etc. can maintain an astrologer's practice even when the client has developed a full grasp of their natal placements (that said, I've been studying my own natal chart for years now and I still don't feel I've mastered it!).
Anyway, just a few thoughts that came to mind from reading this excellent post :)
I've found less than ten astrologers on Twitter worth following. The rest are a waste of time😂