Block 6: One Good Reason Why Science Condemns Natal Astrology

      In this block I will explain why from a classical, scientific, cause and effect point of view there can be nothing to the standard form of tropical natal astrology vis-à-vis the meanings of planets in zodiacal signs. The reason, as we will see, is simply that there are no 'real' signs for planets to be in. The gist of the argument deals with the difference between the tropical zodiac, which is utilized in tropical natal astrology, which is itself what the great majority of astrologers and astrology are about, and the sidereal zodiac, which is primarily the provenance of astronomers. One slightly complicating factor is that for the sidereal zodiac the signs, which are indeed 'real', are not normally defined by astronomers to be of equal 30 degree sectors. The primary different between the tropical zodiac and the sidereal zodiac is that the signs of the sidereal zodiac are actually comprised of fixed sets of physical stars, but this is absolutely not true for the signs of the tropical zodiac for which the best that can be said in terms of physical reality is that the stars that correspond to each sign change gradually over time due to the precession of the equinoxes.

      The precession of the equinoxes is a phenomenon that results from the very slow wobble of the earth's rotational axis. The earth rotates about an axis, which can be thought of as a vector, which is just a line with an arrowhead on one end implying a direction in space. The conventional assignment of the earth's rotational axis as a vector has the arrowhead on the end of the axis that currently points to approximately the direction of the star Polaris, the North Star. As the earth revolves about the sun this axial vector remains pointed at Polaris. This axis is oriented at an angle of about 23 ¹/₂ degrees off of the line that passes through the center of the earth and that is perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, which is the plane containing the path of the earth as it orbits the sun.

      The earth's rotational axial vector is not absolutely stationary in terms of the direction it points in. This vector itself moves, or more accurately precesses, at a very slow rate. It now points approximately at Polaris, but over the next few hundred years its angular orientation will have moved an appreciable distance away from Polaris. It will continue moving in the same rotational direction, and in approximately 25,872 years it will return to its current position. It is this precessional movement of the earth's rotational axis that is responsible for the phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes. Here is what the expression 'the precession of the equinoxes' means. About the time of the birth of Christ if you stood in Palestine at sunrise on the day of the spring equinox and looked east, the stars just above the eastern horizon would belong to approximately the last degree of the constellation of Pisces. In other words, the stars defining the boundary between the beginning of the constellation Aries and the end of the constellation of Pisces would be right on the eastern horizon. If you repeated this observation year after year on the spring equinox you would observe that the stars on the eastern horizon were progressively more and more those that correspond to smaller and smaller degrees of Pisces. In other words, right about the time of the birth of Christ the stars on the eastern horizon would correspond to approximately 30 degrees of Pisces. Some years later they would correspond to those of 29 degrees of Pisces, and still some years later they would correspond to those of 28 degrees of Pisces. This trend would continue so that if you make the observation in 2000 AD on the spring equinox the stars would belong to the section of the celestial sphere along the ecliptic corresponding to the beginning of the constellation of Pisces and the end of the constellation of Aquarius, thus there is the song of the 1960's that tells us 'it is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.' Hence, if the stars on the celestial sphere along the plane of the ecliptic is divided into 12 constellations of 30 degrees each, then each age lasts approximately 2,156 years. The mythological implications of the ages will be discussed below, but suffice it to say here that Christ was the primary prophet of the Age of Pisces.

      What we have been discussing above is the sidereal zodiac. We have seen that the signs (i.e., the constellations) of the sidereal zodiac correspond to real and specific physical stars. Now we will talk about the tropical zodiac, and we will see that in the tropical zodiac the signs do not correspond to real physical stars.

      Astrologers define the position of the sun to be right on the Aries/Pisces boundary in what they call the Tropical Zodiac at the spring equinox. This is true year after year after year. It never changes. It is the case today and it was the case 2,000 years ago and it will be the same 2,000 years in the future. If you look towards the eastern horizon at sunrise on the spring equinox in 2001 AD you will see actual physical stars that fall in the area of the sidereal zodiac designated as the boundary between the constellations of Aquarius and Pisces, but the tropical astrologers will tell you that the sun is right on the Aries/Pisces boundary. In the year 4200 AD if you look towards the eastern horizon at sunrise on the spring equinox, you will see actual physical stars that belong to the constellation designated as Capricorn in the sidereal zodiac, but the tropical astrologers will tell you that sun is in Aries. So, the sidereal zodiac is comprised of actual physical stars, and the same set of stars always correspond to the same constellation. But for the tropical zodiac, which is the one used by the great majority of astrologers including Aleister Crowley, it is necessary to say that either one or the other of the two following options pertains:

• The signs of the tropical zodiac do not correspond to actual physical stars.
• The actual physical stars corresponding to any given sign in the tropical zodiac change with time.

      For the first option it is impossible for there to be a cause and effect relationship between the stars of a sign and the characteristics of a person born on the earth at a particular moment because there are no stars to serve as the cause. For the second option it is difficult to imagine how there could be such a cause and effect mechanism because the sets of stars that are suppose to be the cause of very specific effects is always changing.

      In terms of cause and effect vis-à-vis the signs, only sidereal astrology makes any sense at all, but almost all of astrology either deals with tropical astrology or ignores the astrological signs altogether and considers only planetary aspects and the diurnal positions of planets (i.e., planetary positions relative to the eastern horizon, the zenith, the western horizon, and the nadir). Very few astrologers and very little of the astrological literature deals with the sidereal zodiac. So, let's consider a possibility for astrology other than cause and effect. Maybe astrology is strictly a synchronistic phenomenon for which cause and effect do not apply. Synchronistic phenomenon are those for which a set of events occur which have no apparent cause and effect relationship and yet seem somehow to be connected or related in terms of meaning. Here is a synchronistic event that happened to me about 10 years ago. Everything described here occurred in either a one-week or a two-week period. First, I was working on an abstract art piece that had predominant yellow and golden colors in it and the upper right hand corner had some pink coloring. I was fairly happy with how the art piece was progressing. Next, I had a blind date with a woman that I had met through a singles organization. I was very attracted to her. She had blond hair. As I walked her to her car after we had dinner she said, 'I have got to go home and see if I can get this pink junk out of my hair. I guess it must be from a magic marker.' I hadn't noticed the pink in her hair until she specifically pointed it out to me after telling me about it being there. Next, I was sitting in a restaurant talking with a woman about mystical things. She said she could see auras. I asked her what my aura looked like. She said it was kind of brown and green. I told her that I was going to walk across the restaurant and return to our table, and asked her if she would observe my genital area and tell me what color my aura was down there. Her answer as I returned was 'it is very pink.' Next, as I drove in downtown Dayton a balloon fell from the sky and landed on the hood of my car. Its color was pinkish purple or purplish pink. Next, as I walked into my apartment I spotted one pink earring on the ground. There may have been one other incidence of the manifestation of the color pink, but I'm not sure about it so I will leave it out. (Carl Jung in 'Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle' gives a good discussion of synchronicity. So does Aurthur Koestler in 'The Roots of Coincidence.')

      With respect to sidereal astrology, there are definite physical things (i.e., the sets of stars of the 12 sidereal constellations which are called the signs) which can be synchronistically correlated with the moment of birth of a native on the face of the earth based on where the planets are located vis-à-vis the signs at the moment of birth. So for sidereal astrology, either a cause and effect explanation is possible or a synchronistic explanation is possible. With respect to synchronicity, for tropical astrology the question is, what in the heavens in terms of the signs is there for the event of the birth of a native to be correlated with? For example, if you are explaining a sidereal natal horoscope to the native to which it belongs you can talk as follows:

      "Well, you've got the Sun in Pisces. What this means is that at the moment of your birth if you drew a line from where you were born to the Sun and then extended the line it would go through the constellation of stars called Pisces. Now this should tell us something very significant about you. But if you did the same thing for the Moon the line would pass through the constellation of stars called Aquarius, and this should also tell us something significant about you. Furthermore, the same holds true for Mercury, Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Venus, Uranus, Pluto, and Neptune."

      The reader can now understand why for so many years I was loath to pay any attention to tropical astrology. Section E1.0 Introduction of Appendix E of The First TAARP Technical Report. gives details of the reasons why I finally chose to do so.

      My number one hero, Aleister Crowley, certainly paid much attention to tropical natal astrology for most of his life. In 'Magick Without Tears,' which was written late in his life he basically only says to pay attention to the angles (i.e., ascendant, zenith, descendant, and nadir), but makes no stipulation as to whether this comment applies to the planets only, the signs only, or both. Also, I read somewhere that Crowley is reported to have said very late in his life that he thought there was only one tenth of one percent of truth in astrology. In 'Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle' Carl Jung presents two detailed astrological investigations that he performed. In both cases he only looked at planetary aspects. The zodiacal signs were not involved. I have read this book several times and I'm still not sure what Jung concluded about his two astrological investigations. However, in 'Aion' Jung makes it clear (at least to me) that he very much thought there was something to the business about the Age of Pisces, but this deals with the precession of the equinoxes, which is strictly a sidereal zodiac issue and thus involves real physical stars.

      Here is the best I can currently do in terms of a synchronistic rational for tropical astrology. I have not given the issue much thought at all, and the following is sketchy at best. Take the point on the earth where the native is born to be at the center of a celestial circle that lies in the plane of the ecliptic. Divide it into 12 equal angular pieces of 30 degrees each. Define the beginning of the circle to be the radial line defined by the two points corresponding to the place of birth of the native and the sun on the spring equinox of the year of birth of the native. Everything will hence be characterized by the angular distance from this radial line and by the angular direction in the plane of the ecliptic opposite to that of diurnal motion. The first thirty degrees will have characteristics of Aries just because of their proximity to the spring equinoctial position of the sun and their angular direction (i.e., opposite to that of diurnal motion). The next 30 degrees in the ecliptic plane will have the properties of Taurus due strictly to their angular distance from the spring equinoctial position of the sun, and their angular direction from the sun, and so on with the other 10 astrological signs. So, in a given natal horoscope if a native has Jupiter in the tropical zodiacal sign of Leo, it is strictly because of Jupiter's angular position on the tropical zodiacal circle. Furthermore, we must remember that the twelve 30 degrees sectors of this circle are based only on the spring equinotical position of the sun and an angular direction. As the year goes on the sun moves through the various 30 degrees sectors of the circle and so do the moon and the planets. The wheel does not change as the year goes on. It rotates 360 degrees every 24 hour period relative to the eastern horizon in an angular direction opposite to that for which the signs are defined (i.e., in the direction of diurnal motion), but the sectors themselves retain their integrity relative to each other.

      So now the question is, why does the section of the wheel defined as Leo have the specific features that are assigned to it? The answer is, because when the sun has indeed advanced to this part of the wheel the nature of the environment is characterized by Lionine features. The sun is on the part of the circle defined to be Leo from 24 July to 23 August during which time in the Northern Hemisphere the temperature is hot and blazing and the crops are screaming forth in voluminous growth. These are all characteristics attributed to the sign Leo because Leo is the ferocious lion. So, this makes some sense. But what 'obvious' or 'natural' sense can it make for Jupiter being on the section of the wheel corresponding to Leo to have a bearing on the makeup of the native in question. The sun is only in Leo every year during the period 24 July to 23 August, but Jupiter can be in Leo at anytime during the year. So, in general, Jupiter in Leo has no correlation with the terrestrial environment at the moment of birth of the native in question. Jupiter could be in Leo in the dead of winter, in the spring, the summer, or the fall. Jupiter in Leo, whatever the astrological meaning, simply implies that Jupiter is in that section of the wheel that is between 120 degrees and 150 degrees from the beginning of the circle that was defined by giving a starting position (i.e., the line from the point on the earth for which the natal horoscope is being calculated to the sun at the spring equinox in the year of birth of the native in question) and a direction (i.e., opposite to that of the diurnal motion of the sun). Jupiter is simply in the 5th 30 degree sector of the wheel. No stars define the 5th sector of the wheel.

      Let's take an example that is real easy to visualize. Take the natal horoscope for a native born just at the spring equinox. By definition the sun is exactly on the Pisces/Aries boundary. So the native's Sun sign is Pisces/Aries and this is supposed to indicate something very specific about the nature of the native. Assume that Jupiter is in the 8th 30-degree sector of the tropical zodiacal circle, which is Scorpio. Jupiter in Scorpio means something very specific and it has absolutely nothing in common with the Sun in Pisces/Aries. The Sun in Pisces/Aries makes some sense because there is the specific nature of the terrestrial environment (i.e., the beginning of springtime with all of the 'nominal' conditions of temperature and rain, etc., pertaining thereto) which is in accord with the specific astrological characteristics attributed to the end of Pisces and the beginning of Aries. However, seasonally Scorpio corresponds to the fall of the year and yet the time of birth of the native is spring. So, what do we have in our repertoire of knowledge about the Universe that will let us understand how it is that Jupiter in the 8th 30 degree sector of the tropical zodiacal wheel, where the sun is from 23 October to 22 November, can imply anything at all about the native vis-à-vis the essence of Scorpio? There is certainly nothing with a strong familiarity in my database whereby I can make any sense of this. Hence, all I can do is speculate on some possibilities.

      Maybe there is a graded or graduated menstruum of some kind that forms the essence of the tropical zodiacal wheel that is based strictly on the equinoctial sun/point of birth line as a beginning and the direction indicated heretofore. Think of a color wheel with 12 equal sectors of 30 degrees each and a different color for each sector with the sector colors blending into each other at the sector boundaries. The question then is, what determines the colors of the various sectors? In our tropical zodiacal case the answer is that in some manner the 'color' is dependent on each sectors directional position from a specific starting line on the wheel. The position itself is the equinoctical sun/point of birth line, and the direction is that which is opposite to that of diurnal angular rotation. The precise reasons for each of the 'colors' are specifically defined by the 12 'seasons' of the year, but why this is true is a mystery (to me at least).

      The next question to be addressed is, what is the fundamental nature of the hypothetical menstruum? Some modern theories of cosmology and particle physics postulate a physical menstruum permeating the Universe called the quantum vacuum. Einstein's general theory of relativity postulates that the properties of space/time itself are a function of the amount of mass/energy in the 'vicinity' of the portion of space in question. In one sense this could be interpreted as meaning that a mass/energy/gravity menstruum permeates the Universe. Maybe the tropical zodiacal menstruum is in part determined by the minds of all the individuals who have conceptualized the tropical zodiac over a period of thousands of years. If so, this is probably a synergistic feedback process in which the supposed menstruum and the human minds involved influence each other. One reason I think that this may be the case is because I suspect that if there is anything to natal astrology, and in particular tropical natal astrology, then fundamentally it only applies to the people who have created it. If this is the case then the classical astrology of the western world would only be efficacious for Caucasoid peoples of the northern hemisphere, 'Chinese' astrology would only be efficacious for mongoloid peoples of the northern hemisphere, and the particular astrology of the indigenous Negroid peoples of Africa would only be efficacious for them. Also, it may be the case that the geographical extent attributed here in each case may in fact be more extensive. For example, maybe the classical western astrology also applies to Australians and South Americans of European extraction. The idea of morphic resonance as presented by Rupert Sheldrake in his book 'The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature' may be related to the menstruum idea I am hinting at here for tropical natal astrology.

      We must be careful not to be so unscientific as to assume that because we can make no cause and effect sense out of tropical natal astrology that we should ignore it. The first question is, is there any truth in the idea that correlations exist between the makeup of tropical natal horoscopes and the nature of individuals associated with those horoscopes? This is the question TAARP is currently addressing. If the answer to this question is yes, then the next question, is why is tropical natal astrology valid? The 'what' and the 'why' are always interlocking issues that are both continuingly better refined as research progresses in all scientific endeavors, and which comes first, even when there is a clear first, is up for grabs.

      For further comments on the sidereal zodiac see Block 7: The TAARP Sidereal Zodiac.