Fixing Astrology.

[HMcArthur]

The Wikipedia page 'Astrology' details the failure of Astrology to pass scientific scrutiny. There is no easy way to put this - that failure is due to the fact that astrologers do not understand the basis of Astrology. In my recently published book, "The TruthSeeker's Guide to Reality" I outline the reasons for that failure, provide the rational basis of Astrology as well as suggesting a means of providing the evidence to prove the reality of astrological effects.

Being a TruthSeeker is a bit like panning for gold - sifting through the many narratives expressing some aspect of reality - science, religion, philosophy - looking for those nuggets of 'Truth', seeds of understanding that allow progress on the road to reality. The overlap of Astrology and Kabbalah has been a rich vein of insight and discovery for me - and now for you! The Jewish Tetragrammaton, known as 'The Word' in the Christian world, is the root of understanding for astrological structures - suitably interpreted for modern minds, of course, as a minimal model of organisation. In simple terms, everything is connected. Choosing the correct root quickly leads to a definitive explanation of the twelvefold partitions - the Houses, the Signs and 'The Ages' - all contributors to the structure of 'Now'.

In the process, we create 'clear, blue water' between the province of current science and that of Astrology, which is really about the forces of creation and the evolution they promote through the shaping of time.

All of this comes at a cost - improved understanding defeats delusions and make-do mythologies - a step too far many. To date, my experience in dealing with the astrological world has not been all that fruitful, although there are signs that times are changing in that respect. Pluto in Aquarius should help.

Henry.

[Deleted price and where to buy information about the book. That's not allowed in posts outside the Advertising forum. - Moderator]

 

[Blister]

The Wikipedia page 'Astrology' details the failure of Astrology to pass scientific scrutiny. There is no easy way to put this - that failure is due to the fact that astrologers do not understand the basis of Astrology. In my recently published book, "The TruthSeeker's Guide to Reality" I outline the reasons for that failure, provide the rational basis of Astrology as well as suggesting a means of providing the evidence to prove the reality of astrological effects.

Being a TruthSeeker is a bit like panning for gold - sifting through the many narratives expressing some aspect of reality - science, religion, philosophy - looking for those nuggets of 'Truth', seeds of understanding that allow progress on the road to reality. The overlap of Astrology and Kabbalah has been a rich vein of insight and discovery for me - and now for you! The Jewish Tetragrammaton, known as 'The Word' in the Christian world, is the root of understanding for astrological structures - suitably interpreted for modern minds, of course, as a minimal model of organisation. In simple terms, everything is connected. Choosing the correct root quickly leads to a definitive explanation of the twelvefold partitions - the Houses, the Signs and 'The Ages' - all contributors to the structure of 'Now'.

In the process, we create 'clear, blue water' between the province of current science and that of Astrology, which is really about the forces of creation and the evolution they promote through the shaping of time.

All of this comes at a cost - improved understanding defeats delusions and make-do mythologies - a step too far many. To date, my experience in dealing with the astrological world has not been all that fruitful, although there are signs that times are changing in that respect. Pluto in Aquarius should help.

Henry.

[Deleted price and where to buy information about the book. That's not allowed in posts outside the Advertising forum. - Moderator]

I might suggest you post your thesis in the Modern Astrology sub forum. It is time to reinvigorate it, especially when Pluto moves into a generational shift. And not to get too confusing, but I think of dispositors at this point. Pluto is ruled by Scorpio, which is Mars' ancient ruler. Mars also rules Aries. Mars is exalted in Capricorn and Saturn is ancient ruler of Aquarius and Capricorn. So, my hypothesis is that it's going to be a Capricorn and Aquarius shoot out at New World Corral.
Mars has all the weaponry and army.

You can't fix that astrology.

 

[HMcArthur]

I might suggest you post your thesis in the Modern Astrology sub forum. It is time to reinvigorate it, especially when Pluto moves into a generational shift. And not to get too confusing, but I think of dispositors at this point. Pluto is ruled by Scorpio, which is Mars' ancient ruler. Mars also rules Aries. Mars is exalted in Capricorn and Saturn is ancient ruler of Aquarius and Capricorn. So, my hypothesis is that it's going to be a Capricorn and Aquarius shoot out at New World Corral.
Mars has all the weaponry and army.

You can't fix that astrology.

Sorry Blister, but are we not in the Modern Astrology sub-forum?

 

[HMcArthur]

Getting back to my original post, here's a couple of insights that should be of use.

Firstly, the act of drawing up a Western Astrology chart involves a transformation - a shift from one level of reality to another. A physical description of the solar system is best achieved in a heliocentric map. But a western chart is based on a topological map of Planet Earth's neighbourhood, a topological term describing the connections, from a given central point, into the surrounding space. In other words, western charts are geocentric by definition - not based on "pre-Copernican dabbling" as Richard Dawkins has said! Astrological effects arise from the hidden world of Creation and act directly on the living world.

The only real metric in this topological space is relative direction based on a framework locked to gravitational effects. Gone are the mass, length and 'proper time' of the physical world, time being replaced by changes in direction that are felt as changes of mind/perception that correspond to the organisational logic of the astrological overlay - the Logic of Life!

 

[HMcArthur]

So...fixing Astrology involves a change of perspective - not the all-event defining system, at odds with science, but a feature of the living world that promotes Human evolution, as a top-down partner to Darwinian selection of the fittest. In other words, astrological effects result from a system running in parallel with those aspects of the 'mechanistic' world that science can, currently, explain.

This aspect of Human evolution is made obvious in an examination of 'The Ages' - using the 'fixed' version of Astrology, of course!

 

[waybread]

Just a quick note about the first part of your OP.

Science is the wrong comparable. It has been the wrong comparable for several centuries. Astrology is nothing like a modern laboratory science.

Astrology has much more in common with some of the humanities, such as history. History is empirical, but it is not a physical or natural science.

 

[InfLux]

Before all, thank you, @HMcArthur , for sharing such interesting information and ideas, you've really gave me a good moment of reflection.

I do have some questions and points I feel compelled to ask and discuss, if you don't mind.

The Wikipedia page 'Astrology' details the failure of Astrology to pass scientific scrutiny.

If we practice it, and we know we can get reliable insight that's more than just a random set of information that could casually match or not, why do we need to bother on proving a group of people otherwise, if they have already declared Astrology as unable to pass 'scientific scrutiny'?
I don't think there's much to add to that question, since I genuinely don't understand why to bother with such formalities, as egocentric as that would sound.

Moving on, if it doesn't pass 'scientific scrutiny' does it mean something is off and it must be fixed?
I usually love to think that Astrology isn't a science, but more of an interpretative art. While science is a constantly-refining process that refines itself based on current knowledge, an art doesn't refine nor degrades itself over current knowledge, just changes and transforms.
For instance, Dr. Alan Leo introduced an Astrology 'mindset' much more centered on psychology: That doesn't mean that previous conceptions of emotions in Astrology are outright wrong, however.
So much it is that definitions or 'mindsets' for influences of most planets have changed radically over the course of time, and meanwhile in Modern Astrology Saturnian influence is usually deemed as challenging and cantankerous, Traditional Astrology usually deems Saturnian influence as outright maleficent... Besides the fact that both definitions aren't mutually exclusive (as in any science-based framework would occur), they provide different perspectives for the same influence, which furtherly enriches this interpretative art.

a western chart is based on a topological map of Planet Earth's neighbourhood, a topological term describing the connections, from a given central point, into the surrounding space. In other words, western charts are geocentric by definition

I disagree, overall.
Although it's true that, at the time Western Astrology started developing the chart format must of us use, the consensus is that it was believed our solar system to be Geocentric, I don't really consider that relevant for the chart, because that 'given central point' you mention isn't the earth, but the point in space and time of the chart's occurrence (in a natal chart, that would be the birth of an individual).
Obviously, most of our current formulas are Earth-based because we need a relative point in space that fits for all the humanity (which happens to be located within the Earth, so the system works perfectly... so far...), and that's why an 'Earth' point isn't normally included because it would be in opposition with the Sun each time. However, that doesn't mean that the foundation for Western charts is Geocentric, because that would exclude the possibility of calculating a Western chart outside of the Earth (extrapolating and fine-tuning our current formulas to work in the Moon, for instance), which is completely possible and there are some theoretical models developed for off-Earth charts.
Now, yes...

The only real metric in this topological space is relative direction based on a framework locked to gravitational effects.

... I do agree with that much more, taking into consideration we have developed our current chart-calculation system (which is an Astronomical process) based on the Earth, which happens to have a gravitational field which bounds all of us. Yet, my point is that a Western chart isn't Geocentric by itself, it's just centered at the point you give it, which, in all events occurring in-Earth, happens to be located in the Earth (and thus, if we were to calculate the Earth-point in a chart, for anything occurring in the Earth, the Earth point would be almost-completely opposed to the Sun, and as you move the chart's location farthest from the Earth and from the Sun, both points relieve their opposition, proving gracefully that Western Astrology isn't, at least not axiomatically, Geocentric).

I have some more for such interesting topic but it's getting late for me. I'll attempt to come back to this topic in the future.

 

[HMcArthur]

Just a quick note about the first part of your OP.

Science is the wrong comparable. It has been the wrong comparable for several centuries. Astrology is nothing like a modern laboratory science.

Astrology has much more in common with some of the humanities, such as history. History is empirical, but it is not a physical or natural science.

This is the error made by astrologers over centuries, arising from the fact that they don't sufficiently understand the nature of the tools that they use. If Astrology is part of reality, as it is in my experience, then the truth behind astrological effects will be uncovered by that communal process we call science - the process that takes us along the road to reality. For the sake of Humanity's future, we need to improve the astrological model allowing us to demonstrate the real world effects of Astrology that can be successfully tested. As previous testing of Astrology has shown, astrologers have over-promised and under-delivered because of, in my opinion, mistaken ideas about what Astrology actually is.

Today I posted a diagram in a thread in the Spiritual Astrology sub-forum - concerning the current 'Age'. This philosophical root for astrological structure is based on Kabbalist ideas that stretch back centuries, if not millennia. It's only in this modern period that new concepts, offering new descriptors, have enabled me to show precisely why there are twelve signs of the zodiac, and all other twelvefold systems. Ancient received wisdom viewed through modern eyes.

 

[HMcArthur]

Before all, thank you, @HMcArthur , for sharing such interesting information and ideas, you've really gave me a good moment of reflection.

I do have some questions and points I feel compelled to ask and discuss, if you don't mind.

If we practice it, and we know we can get reliable insight that's more than just a random set of information that could casually match or not, why do we need to bother on proving a group of people otherwise, if they have already declared Astrology as unable to pass 'scientific scrutiny'?
I don't think there's much to add to that question, since I genuinely don't understand why to bother with such formalities, as egocentric as that would sound.

Moving on, if it doesn't pass 'scientific scrutiny' does it mean something is off and it must be fixed?
I usually love to think that Astrology isn't a science, but more of an interpretative art. While science is a constantly-refining process that refines itself based on current knowledge, an art doesn't refine nor degrades itself over current knowledge, just changes and transforms.
For instance, Dr. Alan Leo introduced an Astrology 'mindset' much more centered on psychology: That doesn't mean that previous conceptions of emotions in Astrology are outright wrong, however.
So much it is that definitions or 'mindsets' for influences of most planets have changed radically over the course of time, and meanwhile in Modern Astrology Saturnian influence is usually deemed as challenging and cantankerous, Traditional Astrology usually deems Saturnian influence as outright maleficent... Besides the fact that both definitions aren't mutually exclusive (as in any science-based framework would occur), they provide different perspectives for the same influence, which furtherly enriches this interpretative art.


I disagree, overall.
Although it's true that, at the time Western Astrology started developing the chart format must of us use, the consensus is that it was believed our solar system to be Geocentric, I don't really consider that relevant for the chart, because that 'given central point' you mention isn't the earth, but the point in space and time of the chart's occurrence (in a natal chart, that would be the birth of an individual).
Obviously, most of our current formulas are Earth-based because we need a relative point in space that fits for all the humanity (which happens to be located within the Earth, so the system works perfectly... so far...), and that's why an 'Earth' point isn't normally included because it would be in opposition with the Sun each time. However, that doesn't mean that the foundation for Western charts is Geocentric, because that would exclude the possibility of calculating a Western chart outside of the Earth (extrapolating and fine-tuning our current formulas to work in the Moon, for instance), which is completely possible and there are some theoretical models developed for off-Earth charts.
Now, yes...

... I do agree with that much more, taking into consideration we have developed our current chart-calculation system (which is an Astronomical process) based on the Earth, which happens to have a gravitational field which bounds all of us. Yet, my point is that a Western chart isn't Geocentric by itself, it's just centered at the point you give it, which, in all events occurring in-Earth, happens to be located in the Earth (and thus, if we were to calculate the Earth-point in a chart, for anything occurring in the Earth, the Earth point would be almost-completely opposed to the Sun, and as you move the chart's location farthest from the Earth and from the Sun, both points relieve their opposition, proving gracefully that Western Astrology isn't, at least not axiomatically, Geocentric).

I have some more for such interesting topic but it's getting late for me. I'll attempt to come back to this topic in the future.

Influx, I am happy to address any questions, in fact it's why I'm here!

"If we practice it, and we know we can get reliable insight that's more than just a random set of information that could casually match or not, why do we need to bother on proving a group of people otherwise, if they have already declared Astrology as unable to pass 'scientific scrutiny'?
I don't think there's much to add to that question, since I genuinely don't understand why to bother with such formalities, as egocentric as that would sound."

That's probably the position that most working astrologers take - you know the benefits of using Astrology with your clients, even if science says the major claims of astrologers don't past scrutiny, in practice you find it productive. What I call the perspectival problem has historical roots - in the past, astrologers believed that 'All Events' in the Human world were the consequence of astrological causes - 'As above, so below.'

The shift in perspective I'm advocating is that Astrology has a more limited range - current science describes the physical world but Astrology arises from that unseen level called Creation - often conflated with the concept 'spiritual world' - it's a different aspect of reality. Drawing up a chart moves us from physical space, where the parameters of physics dominate, to the interface with that 'other world' where the planetary principles describe how 'Life' promotes the evolution of living things. In other words, 'Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars'. Don't insist that Astrology is event-defining in the general sense - it applies to the dynamics of living things only.

Moving on, if it doesn't pass 'scientific scrutiny' does it mean something is off and it must be fixed?
I usually love to think that Astrology isn't a science, but more of an interpretative art. While science is a constantly-refining process that refines itself based on current knowledge, an art doesn't refine nor degrades itself over current knowledge, just changes and transforms.
For instance, Dr. Alan Leo introduced an Astrology 'mindset' much more centered on psychology: That doesn't mean that previous conceptions of emotions in Astrology are outright wrong, however.
So much it is that definitions or 'mindsets' for influences of most planets have changed radically over the course of time, and meanwhile in Modern Astrology Saturnian influence is usually deemed as challenging and cantankerous, Traditional Astrology usually deems Saturnian influence as outright maleficent... Besides the fact that both definitions aren't mutually exclusive (as in any science-based framework would occur), they provide different perspectives for the same influence, which furtherly enriches this interpretative art.

Yes, knowledge evolves over time. No Human mind holds 'The Truth', but each of us can appreciate some small part of reality and contribute that insight to the global effort.

I disagree, overall.
Although it's true that, at the time Western Astrology started developing the chart format must of us use, the consensus is that it was believed our solar system to be Geocentric, I don't really consider that relevant for the chart, because that 'given central point' you mention isn't the earth, but the point in space and time of the chart's occurrence (in a natal chart, that would be the birth of an individual).
Obviously, most of our current formulas are Earth-based because we need a relative point in space that fits for all the humanity (which happens to be located within the Earth, so the system works perfectly... so far...), and that's why an 'Earth' point isn't normally included because it would be in opposition with the Sun each time. However, that doesn't mean that the foundation for Western charts is Geocentric, because that would exclude the possibility of calculating a Western chart outside of the Earth (extrapolating and fine-tuning our current formulas to work in the Moon, for instance), which is completely possible and there are some theoretical models developed for off-Earth charts.
Now, yes...

The Western chart has evolved over time to better describe/contain our appreciations of lived experience. Central to that chart is the topological neighbourhood of planet Earth - a correctly geocentric view of the rest of reality: this is what the universe looks like from 'here'. Topology is the central concept explaining chart structure - it is ubiquitous. The central point on any chart is more than one thing - it is 'here and now' for more than one aspect of identity; more than one component contributing to the experience of 'now'. The current living world, composed of all individuals, is Earth-centred. The concept 'Life Field' is how I express the connectivity of all individuals (a fact of personal experience), an idea that has some currency in scientific circles (Rupert Sheldrake). Information about the physical world resides in this 'Life Field', and is available at any point on the surface, or biosphere, so that any point on the surface of the Earth has all the information relevant to astrological processes - in effect, geocentric information exists for any newborn at their place of birth, so the conjunction of the geocentre, and place of birth, is a feature of the Life Field - possibly quantum in essence, as suggested by the complex numbers needed to derive the twelvefold structure.

Keep the questions coming!

 

[FraterAC]

Don't insist that Astrology is event-defining

Astrology IS event-defining. There is no event that does not have corresponding astrological signatures.

 

[HMcArthur]

Astrology IS event-defining. There is no event that does not have corresponding astrological signatures.

This is precisely the assertion that has been torn apart by scientific testing. As they say, 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating!' Yes, events in the living world, the world of interacting Human beings, do often have corresponding 'astrological signatures' - but not always. In my experience of life-changing moments, I have not always been able to find a correlation within Astrology; and then there are the major transits that produce alterations in my inner world, my mindscape, but no external events as a consequence.

My view, again from experience, is that astrological effects arise from a dynamic shaping of time, used as a framework for Human evolution., by a level of life we don't yet understand. I have many years of experience in working directly with this so-called 'spiritual' level, alone and in groups of 'light workers'.

But, we are all different, with different experiences in life. I cannot categorically say 'I'm right, you're wrong' but my view stands - based on my personal experience, and my observations on the testing of Astrology. Time will tell!

 

[FraterAC]

This is precisely the assertion that has been torn apart by scientific testing.

I doubt the testing included all the nuances proper astrological forecasting involves.
If one uses transits only, and ignores the necessary details, no, it won't work (at least not consistently and convincingly). If one uses the full gamut of techniques, used properly, the evidence in support of astrological influence is apparent.
Check out my postings on the death of Marie Antoinette to see demonstrations on celestial influence. Just to jump to the end of the story, check these out

• #97
• #99

The "fixing" astrology needs is the proper application of the right technique.

 

[HMcArthur]

I doubt the testing included all the nuances proper astrological forecasting involves.
If one uses transits only, and ignores the necessary details, no, it won't work. If one uses the full gamut of techniques, used properly, the evidence in support of astrological influence is apparent.
Check out my postings on the death of Marie Antoinette to see demonstrations on celestial influence. Just to jump to the end of the story, check this out

• #97

The "fixing" astrology needs is the proper application of the right technique.

There's an article on Astrology in Wikipedia which details testing done in the 1980s. It involved 24 or more professional astrologers eager to demonstrate their skills. The end result was that the claims of those astrologers were not upheld, scoring no better than chance with their predictions.

My suggestions on how to test Astrology are, once again, based on personal experience of what works for me.

 

[FraterAC]

As to the generation of signs, rulerships, and several other basic elements of Astrology purely by numbers, one might refer to the information in this thread

• #1

 

[FraterAC]

There's an article on Astrology in Wikipedia which details testing done in the 1980s. It involved 24 or more professional astrologers eager to demonstrate their skills. The end result was that the claims of those astrologers were not upheld, scoring no better than chance with their predictions.

My suggestions on how to test Astrology are, once again, based on personal experience of what works for me.

Refer to my thread as referenced. There is information there the average professional astrologer does not use or know.
There are details included even acclaimed astrological writers are not aware of.
Please review it and see if you agree.

 

[InfLux]

There's an article on Astrology in Wikipedia which details testing done in the 1980s. It involved 24 or more professional astrologers eager to demonstrate their skills. The end result was that the claims of those astrologers were not upheld, scoring no better than chance with their predictions.

Wikipedia is quite unreliable (not that people write inaccurate information in, but, usually, some relevant information is, purposedly or not, missed).
A proof of this, is in the same Astrology - Wikipedia article you mention: It exposes a wide array of studies and situations where Astrology has been concluded to be no better than random guessing, however, the Barnum Effect - Wikipedia article exposes the study done by Ross Stagner where he, apparently unpurposedly, proved that by using Astrological and Graphological techniques (among some others) to generate reports for personality tests instead of using the answers provided by the participants on questions about themselves they ended up quite satisfied, and 'almost no one described it as wrong'. Here's the extract:

(Check image alt text for capture date and time, if needed).

So, yes, there's research-level proof that Astrology may be more reliable than just a random set of data, however, Astrology-focused studies tend to not give as accurate results as others non-Astrology-focused, for an unknown or not yet pin-pointed reason (to my knowledge).

 

[FraterAC]

One 40+ year old study quoted in Wikipedia is hardly definitive proof.
Neither of course is YouTube, nor online forums (like this one!).
As to astrology achieving scientific or academic acceptance, I'm not much interested, personally. One might however refer to David Cochrane's struggles with that issue, and the inroads his own work has made on it.

 

[Opal]

Astrology IS event-defining. There is no event that does not have corresponding astrological signatures.

Totally agree! Mundane, it is quite accurate to see the planets in time with events, seeing the "signatures, bestowed on the moment of, whatever is happening at a specific place and time. No correction necessary.

 

[Cap]

This is precisely the assertion that has been torn apart by scientific testing. As they say, 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating!' Yes, events in the living world, the world of interacting Human beings, do often have corresponding 'astrological signatures' - but not always. In my experience of life-changing moments, I have not always been able to find a correlation within Astrology; and then there are the major transits that produce alterations in my inner world, my mindscape, but no external events as a consequence.

My view, again from experience, is that astrological effects arise from a dynamic shaping of time, used as a framework for Human evolution., by a level of life we don't yet understand. I have many years of experience in working directly with this so-called 'spiritual' level, alone and in groups of 'light workers'.

But, we are all different, with different experiences in life. I cannot categorically say 'I'm right, you're wrong' but my view stands - based on my personal experience, and my observations on the testing of Astrology. Time will tell!

Basically, there are two schools of thought on how astrology "works".

In the first view, planets are causal agents, planets CAUSE things to happen. In this view, astrology is essentially a form of physics.
In the second view, planets SIGNIFY things, they are not causal agents, they don't cause things to happen but just describe and correspond to things. In this view, astrology is an ART OF INTERPRETATION.

If one goes down the road with the causal nature of planets in astrology, this view cannot stand to scrutiny of modern science. Because, that's not what astrology really is. It is too rigid, too mechanical, too devoid of human touch.

Philosophical background for the second view can be found in underlying unity that pervades this reality and fractal-like nature of all things. Planets are just letters and astrological patterns are just sentences which are telling the story. They do not cause anything. But this requires a skilled interpreter to interpret and decipher the story shown by the planets. And interpreter is also part of all-pervading UNITY. Whenever a prediction does not come to pass, this is not the fault of astrology but the fault of interpreter (astrologer).

If one views astrology in this way, astrology cannot really be tested by scientific method because astrology is not science but ART.

 

[HMcArthur]

Basically, there are two schools of thought on how astrology "works".

In the first view, planets are causal agents, planets CAUSE things to happen. In this view, astrology is essentially a form of physics.
In the second view, planets SIGNIFY things, they are not causal agents, they don't cause things to happen but just describe and correspond to things. In this view, astrology is an ART OF INTERPRETATION.

If one goes down the road with the causal nature of planets in astrology, this view cannot stand to scrutiny of modern science. Because, that's not what astrology really is. It is too rigid, too mechanical, too devoid of human touch.

Philosophical background for the second view can be found in underlying unity that pervades this reality and fractal-like nature of all things. Planets are just letters and astrological patterns are just sentences which are telling the story. They do not cause anything. But this requires a skilled interpreter to interpret and decipher the story shown by the planets. And interpreter is also part of all-pervading UNITY. Whenever a prediction does not come to pass, this is not the fault of astrology but the fault of interpreter (astrologer).

If one views astrology in this way, astrology cannot really be tested by scientific method because astrology is not science but ART.

Hello Cap,

Here's another school of thought, rooted in Kabbalist thinking but expanded by myself. The gravity clock, as seen in the movements of planets, is the physical framework used to synchronise the evolutionary pressures arising from the world behind the world. The planetary principles are dynamic sources of organising energy. Their meaning, as with the Signs and Houses, is found in The Logic of Life, the astrological equivalent of the Tree of Life - the dynamics of the living world.

Unity is integral to this system - the twelvefold structure, as I have expressed in another thread, is derived from 'the roots of unity', where unity is synonymous with Identity - each twelvefold structure represents some level/aspect of identity.

Astrology is a logical system and so is fairly easy to understand, but the underlying source of astrological effects - not so much. That's where the mystery remains - the future acts on the present to bring itself into being. That is definitely beyond the reach of current science!

Astrology is part of the spiritual world - the simplest part.