TAARP - Key Issues - Challenge

Block 8: A Challenge for Crowley Scholars and the Ordo Templi Orientis

      Section E5.0 ("Ongoing Study of the Famous 1, The Famous 2, and the Others") of Appendix E of "The Technical Report" (see SB3-8-4) presents a discussion of where TAARP was as of April 1996 in terms of our qualitative efforts to comprehend Crowley's "astrological complex". In this block I will give the current status of these efforts, and offer a challenge to Crowley scholars and the Ordo Templi Orientis. Prior to reading this block the following should be read:

Recall from these references that a set of planets forms an astrological complex if and only two criteria are met:
  1. All of the planets in the set must be aspected to at least one of the planets in the set. I call this one planet the "kernal" of the complex.

  2. The composite of the set of planets must have a coherent meaning within the context of the totality of the nativity and the various conditions manifesting within the set of planets in terms of:

      Crowley has only written three books that specifically address natal astrology. They are "The Complete Astrological Writings of Aleister Crowley", "Astrology, Your Place in the Sun", and "Astrology, Your Place Among the Stars". In the back of "Astrology, Your Place in the Stars" he gives the natal horoscopes of 100 individuals that are famous to one degree or another for one reason or another. Shakespeare, Queen Victoria, and Sir Isaac Newton are examples of the more famous ones. He uses these 100 famous people and their natal horoscopes throughout his three astrology books as examples for two things:

      I will now give the only expanded discussion he presents in his three astrology books concerning the nature of the "astrological complex". The following quote is from pages, 21, 22, and 23 of "The Complete Astrological Writings of Aleister Crowley."

      "A glance at the horoscopes of the greatest men of whom we have record shows that generally speaking the planets form exact or very close aspects and also – this is the important point – that all or very nearly all, the planets are interwoven. Sometimes we see two or three complexes in a nativity, perhaps even four, and these have no close relation with each other. Such horoscopes are those of commonplace people. It is as if they had several strands in their nature which had not been properly interwoven. As a result there are times when one is at work in its own feeble way; then it is forgotten, and another comes into operation. This lack of continuity is fatal to the performance of any constructive work. If such a person should acquire fame, it is the result of some action suddenly conceived and executed, or of an accident."

      "A few examples of great horoscopes will make these points certain:

      "If we had chosen to include minor aspects, such as 45 degrees and 135 degrees, or the qunicunx and quintile, an even stronger case could have been made out, but it is undesirable to introduce too much subtlety into an argument of this sort; we prefer to base it only upon obvious and patent facts."

      "In the investigation of any nativity, it is quite useless to content oneself, as is too frequently done, with the consideration of planets in pairs. These will give details of the native, it is true; but it is the complex which decides on what scale these details are to be interpreted. Zola had Saturn trine to Mercury, which made him great in construction. But had not this aspect been merely part of a mighty complex, it would have made him a good merchant, a lawyer, or something comparatively common."

      "Shelley's conjunction of Mars and Jupiter is very differently effective to that aspect in J. Pierpoint Morgan! Why? Because they form parts of complexes of quite opposite natures. The mere fact that one is in Leo and the other in Libra would not account for the difference. And here it is that we must emphasise the necessity of looking not only for the complex, but for the key to it. Two men might have identical aspects, and yet be utterly different just because in one case the Lord of the Ascendant was Mars and in the other Venus. It is not always easy to divine the secret pivot on which a complex swings. The Lord of the Ascendant is usually the cardinal point but if there be several planets or even one very strong planet rising, he may be overwhelmed by them or it and his place in heaven, as it were, usurped. And it is of the utmost important that this fundamental planet be detected with accuracy; for it makes all the difference in the world whether we regard the other planets as modifying Saturn or modifying Jupiter. If the native be a Saturnian at heart the trine of Jupiter will favor his selfish plans; if a Jupiterian, the trine of Saturn will restrict and balance his enthusiasms. The conjunction of Sol and Venus which made Shelley so glorious an incarnation of Light and Beauty would hardly have acted in that way had Scorpio, not Sagittarius, been in his Ascendant. It is the Lord, Jupiter, culminating in conjunction with Mars and Neptune, that determine the disposition and the superiority of Sol in Leo to Venus that made effective the manifestation of that disposition in the heart through art; had those planets been influenced by Pisces, for example, it would have shown itself in some soft shadowy way."

      "Enough has been said for a preliminary account of this matter. In the course of these papers we shall pile Pelion upon Ossa, and Ossa upon Olympus, in demonstration of this secret of the Astrological Complex."

      In various other places in his three astrology books Crowley uses the terms "complex", "astrological complex", and "configuration" when he is discussing the meaning of a set of planets, and all three of his astrology books are loaded with discussions of the meanings of groups of planets. However, nowhere does he explain why one group of planets in a particular horoscope comprises a complex and another group do not. Furthermore, with the single exception of Shakespeare, who has all nine planets in one complex, he does not define the compositions of any of the complexes in the natal horoscopes of the natives mentioned above. So, for example, he says, "Napoleon has six within 10 degrees, three within 51/2 degrees, and three within seven degrees," but then nowhere in his three astrology books does he tell you which planets comprise the three complexes. (The further problem in this case is it looks like there are 12 planets, so it is impossible for me to understand what he is trying to say.) He does not give the compositions of all the complexes in any of the 100 natal horoscopes with the exception of Shakespeare. In his three astrology books he will refer to one of the 100 famous five times, for another 10 times, and for some only once or twice. For only 22 of the one hundred famous does he explicitly refer to the term "complex" or "astrological complex", but he does give many, many meanings and descriptions of groups of planets. I assume, but I am not sure, that each of these groups is an example of an astrological complex. Also, for none of the 100 famous does he ever give a complete analysis of one natal horoscope.

      Also, it is often quite unclear when he speaks of the "key" or the "pivot" if he is referring to the entire natal horoscope or one of the complexes in the horoscope. This confusion is even evident in the quote given above. He says on page 23 of "The Complete Astrological Writing of Aleister Crowley":

"It is not always easy to divine the secret pivot on which a complex swings. The Lord of the Ascendant is usually the cardinal point but if there be several planets or even one very strong planet rising, he may be overwhelmed by them or it and his place in heave, as it were, usurped."

The second sentence certainly sounds like he is addressing the issue of what planet is the chart ruler, not just the key of one complex in the chart, as seems to be the case with the first sentence. Furthermore, it is very evident from many places in his three astrology books that he specifies the key or the pivot of a complex to be a planet other than the Lord of the Ascendant or a planet that is rising, and that there is more than one complex in the chart.

      In addition to the primary difficulties mentioned above vis-à-vis understanding how Crowley is trying to teach us how to identify and ascribe meanings to astrological complexes, there are also other minor but confusing things like contradictions. For example, he may say that Jupiter is trine Mars in a certain horoscope when in fact the horoscope itself shows that Jupiter is sextile Mars. Much more disturbing are the several instances where there are contradictions between the numbers of planets he ascribes to the various complexes for the individuals given above from pages 22 and 23 of "The Complete Astrological Writings of Aleister Crowley" and his discussions of their horoscopes in other places in his three astrology books. For example, where he says something on page 22 or 23 like "so and so has two complexes, one with four planets within 5 degrees and one with the other five planets within 8 degrees", he will then at some other point in one of his three astrology books talk about a complex in the horoscope of that same person that has six planets. Furthermore, it is not at all clear what Crowley means when he says "five planets within 5 degrees, and the other four within 7 degrees," as he does above for Sir Richard Burton. The question is, what do the "degrees" refer to? The best I can currently figure is it represents the largest orb in the set of orbs for all of the aspects in the complex. (Note that orb is the number of degrees off of perfect aspect for two aspecting planets. For example, if the angle between Pluto and Mars is 123 degrees, then the orb is 3 degrees because a perfect trine aspect is 120 degrees.)

      Pursuant to the above considerations I make the following challenge to Crowley scholars and members of the Ordo Templi Orientis holding high, exalted grades. You tell me which six planets within 13 degrees and which three planets within 7 degrees make up the two complexes in Goethe's natal horoscope. You tell me which five planets within 5 degrees and which three planets within 6 degrees make up the two complexes in Wagner's natal horoscope. You tell me which 5 planets within 10 degrees and which 4 planets also within 10 degrees make up the two complexes in Baudelaire's natal horoscope. Etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, you tell me what the rationales are underlying your decisions. Also, what does it mean for Baudelaire that "the one complex is but 7 degrees from the other complex"?

      My partner, Glenn Johnson, and I at TAARP have been trying to do just this, but as yet we are far short of the goal. In order to address the problem we have constructed folders on each of the 100 famous natives. Each folder consists of:

(Actually, there are only 99 packages because there are no references in the three books to one of the individuals among the 100 for which Crowley gives the natal horoscopes in the back of "Astrology, Your Place in the Stars.")

      To construct our natal horoscope chart packs (see Block 4: A TAARP Natal Horoscope Chart Pack) for the 100 famous natives we simply fed into software that Glenn developed all of the information for each of the horoscopes from the back of "Astrology, Your Place in the Sun". We had to do this because we did not have the dates, places, and times of birth of the 100 famous and so we could not use our Time Cycles Inc. IO software to calculate the natal horoscopes. (Note that we normally use a software package called "IO" that is produced by Time Cycles, Inc. to calculate natal horoscopes.) It is not important to us for our current primary objective, which is to understand Crowley's concept of the astrological complex, whether or not Crowley made mistakes in calculations of the 100 horoscopes. We want to use exactly the same natal horoscopes he used. (Note that when we calculate a natal horoscope we use Time Cycles Inc. IO software, but we do not like the IO output format, so we feed IO's output into software that Glenn built to reformat the data to suit us. Also, Glenn's software calculates an astrological parameter, the Cumulation Aspect Weight, that is part of TAARP's original research. (See Section C2.0: Third Quantitative Analysis Attempt in Appendix C of The First TAARP Technical Report.)

      Over the last three years I have on various occasions taken fairly hard looks at some of these 100 packages, and I have made some progress in understanding them vis-à-vis the concept of the astrological complex. To date TAARP is far short of its goal of specifying the complexes mentioned on pages 22 and 23 of "The Complete Astrological Writings of Aleister Crowley". What needs to be done is for both Glenn and I to focus on the 100 packages for about six months, but we currently do not have immediate plans to do so. Glenn will not drop astronomy and focus on astrology, and I have too many other fundamental issues to look at that bear upon the why's and how's of natal astrology. For example, I've got to dedicate serious attention to heredity and evolution in order to be better prepared to understand how genetics, early child environment, and the cosmic environment at the moment of birth (i.e., the natal horoscope) synergize together to help define the nature of an individual at age 20 or 40 or whatever. We obviously need help. Is there anyone out there who would like to join our research project?

      In order to demonstrate more clearly how difficult and confusing the issue of the astrological complex is let us look at a specific example. For this example I will take information on one of the 100 famous people from one of our 100 packages on the 100 famous individuals in Crowley's astrological writings and then make some comments on the information. The information itself is of two forms. First, there are figures and tables that are part of the total set of figures and tables that TAARP produces for all of our natal horoscopes. I will only take those particular tables and figures from the total TAARP chart pack for the famous person in question that is necessary to illuminate the particular points I want to make. In other words, I will not present all of the tables and figures we have in our chart pack in each package for each of the 100 famous. Section E5.0 of Appendix E of The First TAARP Technical Report and Block 5: An Interpretation of a TAARP Natal Horoscope Chart Pack give descriptions of the tables and figures in TAARP's chart pack. Second, I will present all of the references given in Crowley's three astrology books for the famous individual in question. Since this material comes from our packages on the 100 famous it will give the reader an idea of what our packages are like. Cecil Rhodes is the individual I will use as an example.

      Note that for the reference material in our 100 packages that is taken from Crowley's three astrology books we have taken only that part of the discussion involved with each mention of each one of the 100 famous that we think is necessary for our purposes. In each of the 100 packages where we present quotes from Crowley's three astrology books we stipulate where in the three astrology books the quote comes from, but we do not indicate which one of the three books a quote comes from. For example, we will say Moon in Taurus and then give a quote, or Neptune in the 10th house and then give a quote without mentioning which of Crowley's 3 astrology books it comes from. By far most of the quotes come from "Astrology, Your Place in the Sun". a few come from "The Complete Astrological Writings of Aleister Crowley", and a very few come from "Astrology, Your Place in the Sun". In order to fully appreciate each quote the reader needs to attain these three books and read more completely the context of the material from which the quote is taken.

      In this discussion of Cecil Rhodes I will present only selected tables and figures from his TAARP chart pack. After presenting the reference material from Crowley's three astrology books on Cecil Rhodes, I will give some comments on the reference material.

Sun in Cancer

      "In Cancer, the Sun finds a sign which is too watery and Lunar to be altogether a happy habitation. Jupiter, exalted in this sign, blends some of his qualities with the solar rays, but, unless the Sun is well-dignified, the working is not altogether favorable; for, since it is Jupiter's luxuriousness that is brought out, the Sun in this sign tents to laxness of life, giving a disposition too contented and easy-going, and a disinclination to exercise energy. The disposition is apt to be idle; lassitude seems to be the rule of Life, yet with this is associated what passes for tenacity of purpose. Such changes that take place are superficial and leave the temperament and purpose undisturbed, but there is little manifestation of any real vigor or energy. These remarks apply to undeveloped types. Where the influence of Jupiter, who is exalted in Cancer, enters strongly into the development of the native, we may find indomitable will and an extremely masterful disposition. Such types are fairly well represented by John Quincy Adams, Joseph Chamberlain, Cecil Rhodes, Lord Northcliffe and Mrs. Pankhurst."

      "A love of antiquity and of old, established things often manifests itself in the native, and he may take a deep interest in old books, paintings, bric-a-brac or in some such half-forgotten science as hearaldry. The energetic type, on the other hand, occupies itself more exclusively with the affairs of the moment, and is apt to have a contempt for anything that is not entirely up-to-date."

Mercury in Leo

      "As 'the adolescent' among the planets, the solar influence is just what he (i.e., Mercury) needs 'to make a man of him'. In other language, it may be said that this position adds heart to brain; and brain without heart is the essence of all mischief – the intellectuality of Mephistopheles. There are, or course, certain dangers, notably a tendency to pride and anger, sometimes to bombast and boastfulness. Ambition, too, is a common quality; but ambition is a virtue unless it is ill-regulated. Since the Sun is more frequently than not in the same sign as Mercury, in this particular case it follows that, as lord of Leo, he is generally stronger than his satellite, and this tends still further to steady him."

      "Taking a comprehensive view, one may affirm that this is one of the best possible positions of Mercury. As we have noticed in dealing with other planets, it is not always well for them to be too strongly reinforced in their own essential qualities. Mercury in mercurial signs may prove too mercurial, just as Mars in martial signs is often over-martial. Every planet needs balance, and the lesser planets need it more than the greater. Accordingly, we discover this position of Mercury in the nativities of some of the greatest of mankind. Who more admirably illustrates greatness of heart and brain than Cardinal Gibbons, in our own times? Or if we must choose a rival, in these qualities, what of Cecil Rhodes?"

Venus in Cancer

      "Cecil Rhodes had very little of the true Cancer effect on Venus; but here again Saturn interferes. Cecil Rhodes, again, is a figure who struck the popular imagination. Cancer always makes for popularity, because it is ruled by the Moon, and the presence of Venus in the sign should cause the native to be generally beloved."

Mars in Gemini

      "The same failure in method is seen in Joseph Chamberlain and Cecil Rhodes. Mars in Gemini represents a fault which is best expressed in the language of sport, where it is the very commonest of all errors. In golf and billiards it is called 'failing to follow through,' in rowing 'being short with the finish'. You cannot get full results from a stroke unless you give it power enough to carry to the end. So Chamberlain, with Neptune trining his Mars, and Uranus squaring it, giving it idealism, but lack of continuity, seemed unable to persist in any policy. Rhodes had a little more assistance than this from the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Saturn, and Uranus. The conjunction of Saturn in particular gave more power of persistency. It is an exceptionally strong, if not very well-balanced complex; but the influence of Jupiter, lord of the Ascendant, in opposition to Mars, is really the key to the nativity."

Jupiter in Sagittarius

      "In the giant figure of Cecil Rhodes, the square of Neptune may perhaps have aided Jupiter by making him spiritual and 'large-ideaed', while the trine of Mercury made those ideas not only broad and benevolent, but 'widely' conceived and well calculated. Sagittarius without doubt lent a fierce impetuosity to their development."

Saturn in Taurus

      "Similar doggedness is shown by Cecil Rhodes whose Saturn has the sextile of Venus and is only ten degrees from the conjunction of Mars. The figure is not so strong as Grant's, and one cannot be surprised that he died saying 'So much to do; so little done.' But the patience and moral force of the man are not in doubt; it was the inertia of the Sun and Moon in Cancer that hindered him from more complete success."

Uranus in Taurus

      "This position is highly favorable for Uranus, for his great energy is set to honest constructive work. One can immediately instance such empire-builders as Napoleon, Cecil Rhodes, and Wilhelm II; and, on the higher plane, we find two persons who actually invented new theogonies, which philosophy declares to be the highest creative work possible to the human intelligence. We refer to Dante and Swedenborg, whose conceptions of Hell still hold sway over the minds of great masses of men. Such empires endure long after earthly thrones have crumbled."

      "Swedenborg has Sagittarius rising, and his Uranus is on the cusp of the fourth house; Dante has Gemini rising, and Uranus well above the horizon in the twelfth. Both these signs are far from material – Sagittarius more mystical, Gemini more intellectual. These differentiations are, of course, at once apparent in the work which each accomplished. Wilhelm II has Cancer rising, and accordingly he has been criticized, by his own subjects, for that obstinate devotion to peace which delayed (and thus made more uncontrollable, ultimately) the outbreak of the Great War. Rhodes had Sagittarius rising, with Jupiter, its lord, just above the horizon. Swedenborg's Jupiter was exactly trine to Uranus, emphasizing the religious bent; that of Rhodes is squared by Neptune, which would tend to remove such bias from Jupiter, leaving his force to manifest itself on those more terrestrail lines which Sagittarius implies for Jupiter."

The General Nature of Sagittarius

      "Just as he is nimble and fleet of foot, so is he swift and accurate in thought. He is direct of speech and despises circumlocution in others; nothing so angers him as does duplicity, but his anger is short-lived and he never bears malice; often he will yield his point rather than enter a quarrel, although he can adhere very rightly to a position when a real principle is involved. Small annoyances give him more distress than serious difficulties, and these he is generally able to avoid by a little forethought and diplomacy –qualities with which he is well endowed. With all his pure idealism, he reasons out every question, and finds delight in facing life fairly and frankly trying to reduce its problems to their simplest terms. An unusual degree of mental activity is one of the most marked characteristics of the sign; the alertness and directness of the bodily movements translate themselves into activity of the mind, and the native's conclusions are apt to hit the mark as swiftly and as straight as the arrow, which is a symbol of the sign. The general temper of Sagittarius is calm, buoyant and cheerful, and its natives consequently retain a certain youthfulness well into age; indeed, they never seem to be as old as their years; also, there are those among them who develop slowly, not reaching their full powers until middle age or the later years of life."

      "The Sagittarian vision is very clearly shown in Cecil Rhodes' dream of world empire, though in this case Saturn and Uranus, both in earthy signs, assisted him in devoting his practical energies to the actual work of building his dreams into realty, and the trine of Neptune and sextile of Uranus to his Sun so magnified the dimensions of his vision that it was far more than even his extraordinary powers could possibly achieve. 'So much to do; so little done.' was his exclamation when dying. Of course, Jupiter rising also solidified and made more practical the aspiration characteristic of the pure Sagittarian."

Neptune and Uranus

      "In otherwise unimportant nativiteis, the friendship of these planets implies a struggle of the soul, a self-analysis probably long and bitter, but almost certainly ending in victory for the higher. This may manifest itself in the outer in strange ways, not indicative of the thoughtless of what is really taking place. We may find a recluse, an amiable crank, a fanatic, a self-torturing saint."

      "In those horoscopes which are otherwise important, and give more or less immediate fame to the native, we expect a friendship of Neptune and Uranus to make him principally a reconciler of certain deep antimonies. They were within 3 degrees at the birth of Herbert Spencer, who reconciled the warring tendencies of religion and science with his doctrine of the Unknowable; and exactly conjoined in the horoscope of Baudelaire, who united good and evil in his moral infinite. The same is true of Pasteur, who revolutionized medical science; and of Copernicus, who founded modern astronomy by his extraordinary and world-upheaving discoveries. Also of General Grant, who reunited America, and of Paul Kruger who broke the British Empire. Neptune and Uranus were sextile for Cecil Rhodes and near trine for Napoleon."

Neptune and Jupiter

      "The religious and genial effect of Jupiter turns Neptune to a warmer shade of blue."

      "The square aspect is not so exhausting. It gives tremendous realism in religion and statesmanship or in ethical teaching whether through art or directly. Thus we find Zola (expressing himself in art owing to the semi-sextile of Venus) as a builder of social theories based on ruthless realism. Yet that realism, unknown to itself, is founded on a thoroughly romantic idea. The railway engine in 'La Bete Humaine' and the still in 'The L'Assommoir' are much more symbolic than anything in Ibsen or Wagner. They live and move and have their being and the characters of the story are puppets in their hands."

      "The same criticism applies to the work of Pico de Mirandola, who had the same aspect, as had Cecil Rhodes and Brigham Young, who both strove to fashion empires, each in his own way, one with a new religion, the other with money. Each had the romantic aim; each had the realistic, even brutal method. (Rhodes' trine of Sol gave him added glory, wealth and success)."

Neptune and the Sun

      "We now turn to the trine aspect, and find indeed a galaxy. T. H. Huxley had this, and his work not only as a man of science but as a philosopher, must endure for ages, while the harmony of his personal character was the admiration even of his bitterest enemies. Rossetti had this and it made him divine, despite the evil influence of Mars. General Grant, one of the three political lights of America, also had this trine. So had Cecil Rhodes, though a square of Jupiter baulked him and he died leaving his work unfinished. Copernicus, too, had this aspect; and despite a square of Venus, (a comparatively unimportant pawn in so great a game) he accomplished the revolution of astronomy. In this case a conjunction of Uranus and a trine of Saturn assisted. Hence the cosmic scope of his world-shaking achievement."

Uranus in the 4th House

      "Uranus in the fourth house possesses no such importance in moulding the character or mind as in the first, third or ninth. It seems to be busy with more material affairs, and as is always the case with the planet, his operation is much better on the higher than on the lower."

      "With regard to the father, there is likely to be any amount of trouble. It is not unlikely that he may commit suicide or become mad. In any case, he will be a very queer character and it is improbable that the native will get on well with him. The house will in no case be a good environment. To go away from one's house in an astrological sense, does not necessarily or always mean to quit the locality, it may imply what is after all a much more radical departure, a change in the mode of life from that which might have been expected from the environment of infancy. A child is not likely to succeed in that line of life for which his parents designed him, when he has this position of Uranus. Every one of the people whom we are considering has this element of disturbance."

      "Shakespeare ran away from home; Joseph Smith created immense trouble in his township; Bismarck broke away entirely from the position of his early environment; so did Bulwer Lytton. Rhodes spent most of his life and died in a foreign land."

      I will start the comments on Cecil Rhodes by referring to the figure in his chart pack called Planetary Wiring. This figure shows which planets are aspected to each planet subsequent to weeding out aspects that do not pass orb limits (i.e., only those aspects are given for which the orbs are small enough). For conjunctions, squares, trines, and oppositions we use on orb limit of 10 degrees. For sextile it is 6 degrees, and for semi-sextile it is 3 degrees. These are the same limits we use to determine the lines on our Aspect Map figure. However, for the Aspect Map we give more indication of the orb by making a wide line if the orb is very small and a thinner line if it is bigger. Even for the bigger orbs, they still must be smaller than our orb limits for a thin line to be drawn. We do not use color indications on the zodiac circle for conjunctions.

      In the following discussions as in our astrological analysis in general I will hold to what we think Crowley implies but never explicitly states vis-à-vis the seven personal planets (i.e., Sun, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars) versus the archetypal planets (i.e., Uranus, Pluto, Neptune), but with Pluto excluded for Crowley's work because at the time he wrote his three astrology books Pluto had not yet been discovered). The distinction that Crowley seems to imply in his astrology books is that only one of the seven personal planets can be a chart ruler or the key of a nativity or the key of a complex. Also, it looks as if he assumes that only one of the seven personal planets can be what I call the "kernal" of a complex, but I may very well be wrong about this. The "kernal" is the one planet to which all of the other planets in a complex are aspected. It is quite clear from Crowley's writings that by no means does the key have to be the kernal, and we will see this in the example of Cecil Rhodes.

      The first thing that is made obvious in Rhodes' Planetary Wiring is that each of the personal planets has the potential to be the key of a complex for which it is also the kernal. From the reference material it is clear that Crowley only specifies one of the seven possibilities in Rhodes' Planetary Wiring as comprising a complex. This is the one for which Mars is the kernal as can be seen from the reference wherein Crowley discusses Mars in Gemini:

      "Rhodes had a little more assistance than this (i.e., Rhodes' Mars had a little more assistance than Chamberlain's Mars) from the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Saturn, and Uranus. The conjunction of Saturn in particular gave more power of persistency. It is an exceptionally strong, if not very well balanced complex; but the influence of Jupiter, Lord of the Ascendant, in opposition to Mars, is really the key to the nativity."

      There are two immediate problems with this quote when its content is compared to the Mars aspects delineated in the Planetary Wiring diagram:

      This highlights another complicating and confusing issue vis-à-vis trying to fathom Crowley's concept of the astrological complex. (Remember that TAARP is trying to figure out exactly how to identify and interpret astrological complexes in natal horoscopes.) He seems to have no firm rules for eliminating or including a particular aspect from being a part of an astrological complex. For sure, in general he tends to use a smaller orb limit for a semi-sextile than a sextile, and a smaller orb limit for a sextile than for a conjunction, square, trine, or opposition. We once gathered some statistics on what orbs manifest when he does and does not mention two planets that are in aspect with an orb we think should at least render the aspect to be considered as being even vaguely acceptable. The statistical set we gathered was far too minimal to reach any good statistical conclusions as to means and standards deviations that Crowley may consciously or unconsciously use for aspect inclusion or rejection. A thorough statistical analysis for this issue is one of the many things that we still need to do in our study of Crowley's idea of the astrological complex.

      The thing that complicates the problem immensely is that what he is obviously doing is applying a different orb limit in each specific situation, which is exactly what should be done given the awesome complexity of natal astrology. Another feature of the difficulty is that in some cases where a truly small orb exists, like 2 degrees for a trine, Crowley leaves an aspect out of a complex simply because one of the aspecting planets is inherently not part of the complex. This latter issue is one of the greatest difficulties about identifying an astrological complex. Or, am I completely wrong about this and is Crowley just sloppy in his writing? For example, why didn't he mention Mars square Neptune in the Rhodes complex when there is a five degree orb, which in general is reasonable for a square aspect? Is it because he deemed Neptune to simply not be a part of the complex just because Neptune in square to Mars did not fit in as part of the complex? Or, indeed in this specific case is a 5 degree orb too large for a square aspect? Or, is the role of Neptune in the complex too minimal to be worth mentioning? Or, did Crowley just make a mistake? Or, was he just sloppy? It is not true in this case, but there are several cases for which Crowley will leave out any discussion of a planet being in a complex when that planet is indeed in aspect to the kernal of the complex with a very reasonable orb, but then at another place in one of his three astrology books he will mention the very same aspect to delineate a specific characteristic of the native for whom the complex had been discussed. For example, there may be a case for which Mercury is the kernal and for which Mercury is square Luna, Mercury is trine Mars, Mercury is semi-sextile the Sun, and Mercury is sextile Venus. He will discuss a complex involving Mercury, Luna, Mars, and the Sun, but make no mention of Venus. Then at some other place in his writings when discussing the same native he will use Mercury sextile Venus to explain a certain character trait of that native.

      Notwithstanding the problems mentioned above concerning Neptune square Mars, look at Rhode's Euro-Wheel and his Aspect Map and see if you can discern why Mars, Jupiter, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Saturn and Uranus form a complex. I can not see any particular reason other than that Jupiter is the Lord of the Ascendant, and the Lord of the Ascendant is always an important part of a nativity.

      For another discussion of TAARP's attempt to understand one of Crowley's examples of an astrological complex see Section E5.0 of Appendix E of The First TAARP Technical Report.

      I have one other issue to raise with Crowley scholars and the OTO. Clearly Crowley's raison d'etre is to help lead others to their true raison d'etre. The one single theme in Crowley's technical works is the importance of every individual to first discover their true/Magickal will and then focus themselves consciously in the direction of their true/Magickal will, which is of course just their real purpose in life.

      Crowley tells us in "The Complete Astrological Writings of Aleister Crowley" that he figures only about one in a million people know what their true/Magickal will is. Also, and most importantly, he tells us that the planet Uranus represents the true/Magickal will and that the primary importance of natal astrology is to aid the individual in discovering his true/Magickal will by investigating the status and particular situation of Uranus in his natal horoscope. Most unfortunately Crowley does not follow through with this vein of thought as he utilizing the 100 famous people to highlight astrological issues in his three astrology books. He mentions Uranus quite often, and he often mentions how strong or weak one of the famous 100 natives is due to the status of Uranus in the native's natal horoscope. However, he never says anything like, "due to this particular situation with Uranus, I think this native's true/Magickal will is thus and so."

      Let's look at a specific example, that of Caesar Borgia, who is one of Crowley's 100 famous. With respect to Uranus he tells the following about Borgia:

General Discussion of Uranus

      "Gil de Rais, de Sade, Borgia, were men of genius, just as truly as Michael Angelo and Issac Newton. All genius desires the infinite, and the infinite is one, not many. Only the mediate steps are diverse. Darwin regretted his limitations as bitterly as did Alexander; and the love of Christ equally with the malice of Satan would destroy the world were each not thwarted by that world's inertia".

      "The essence of genius is this occult but overmasting lust of achievement in practical and material shape. If Neptune makes the saint or hermit, Uranus makes the magician, the man who calls forth from the Unseen not only its peace but its power. The dream of the Uranian is universal dominion by and for his Idea."

Uranus in Scorpio

      "Before we proceed to the domain of art, let us look for a moment at the nativity of Caesar Borgia. Virgo is rising, with Mercury on the cusp of the Ascendant, giving a cold, shrewd personality. Uranus, on the cusp of the third house, is opposed by the Moon, both of these being squared by Mars and Saturn in conjunction in Leo. From such a configuration we can picture to ourselves the oily, violent, sensual, and perfidious qualities of the man, while the Sun rising, trine to Jupiter and sextile to Mars and Saturn, assures ambition, and success in attaining its ends."

Uranus in the 3rd Diurnal House

      "We find once more such a mind attached to the criminal temperament in the case of Caesar Borgia, whose intrigues stand out in the Middle Ages with overwhelming force. In all history there is hardly an equivalent example of brain power misapplied. His imagination was immense and his combination subtle and profound."

(See Section E5.0: Ongoing Qualitative Study of The Famous 1, The Famous 2, and the Others in Appendix E of The First TAARP Technical Report for a complete presentation of the comments Crowley makes in his 3 astrology books about Caesar Borgia.)

      This is all very helpful and perhaps it is all that we should expect even from Crowley. Indeed the issue of the true/Magickal will is very complex as Crowley explains in "The Complete Astrological Writing of Aleister Crowley" wherein he stipulates that perhaps the best that can be done is to simply say that the true/Magickal will corresponds to the native's temperament. Furthermore, he tells us on pages 121 and 122 of "The Heart of the Master" that the real problem with discovering the true/Magickal will is that you have to get about halfway there (i.e., you have to be living your life about halfway in accord with your true/Magickal will) before you have any chance at all of honing in on it:

      "The Way of Perfection is thus twofold: first, the True Will must be consciously grasped by the Mind, and this work is akin to that called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Second, as it is written (i.e., in "The Book of the Law"): 'thou hast no right but to do thou will', each particle of energy which the Instrument is able to develop must be directed to the doing of that will, and this is one fierce lion in the way, that until that second task be already far advanced, the confusion of the instrument is such that it is wholly incapable to accomplish the first."

      Notwithstanding these caveats, I still say to Crowley scholars and the OTO, why haven't you done anything significant to help people use natal astrology to attain to the Knowledge and Conversation of their Holy, Guardian Angel? ("Holy Guardian Angel" and "true/Magickal will" are synonymous for Crowley.)

Spirit And Sky Leading Site Award 2005Spirit And Sky
Top Spiritual Site
2005