TAARP - Appendix E -
The Basic Problem with Natal Astrology
Astrology is an amazingly complex subject. In the first place, assume that there really is something to the astrological natal chart. The question still remains as to what degree is it a determinant in specifying the totality of a person. The theory of astrology is that the natal chart defines to some significant degree who a person really is, not who society, or who one's friends, or who one's family want a person to be, but rather who they in truth really are. So, once a person can correctly interpret his/her natal chart, he/she knows who he/she really is, and so his/her job in life is easy. All he/she has to do is use his/her dreams, fantasies, rational mind, and common sense to guide and focus himself/herself in the general direction of who he/she really is. Aleister Crowley estimates that only about one in a million people know who he/she really is.
Let's assume that there are the following four factors that define who a person really is:
Genetic heredity is easy. This is just the gene configuration an individual inherits from his/her parents. The local environment is everything from the quality of food one's Mother eats while one is still a fetus to the quality of air one is breathing at this minute to the amount of love one received while growing up. Free will is of course impossible to define explicitly. Scientists and philosophers have argued about it for millennia, and will still be doing so millennia from now. The cosmic environment is the pattern of the heavens at the moment of birth as is delineated in the natal horoscope. So, at best, the natal horoscope is only one of four factors in determining who a person really is.
Now let's consider two other problems, natural versus induced birth and interpreting the natal horoscope. If there is not a causal relationship between the nature of an individual and the cosmic environment at the time of birth, but rather an acausal, Jungian, syncronistic relationship, then I suppose it would not matter if a birth was natural or induced, through caesarian section, drugs, or otherwise. If, however, as the astrophysicist Percy Seymour proposes (see Section E 3.0), there is a sound, rational, scientific cause and effect relationship, then whether a birth is natural or induced is critical. Therefore, any serious inquiry into the validity of astrology should take into account whether a birth is natural or induced. This has not yet been done by TAARP in the investigations it has conducted to date, but it is recognized as crucial and at some point will become a parameter to be taken into account.
The single greatest problem in natal astrology is interpreting the natal chart. So many astrologers, professional and amateur, disagree so violently over so many details in chart interpretation, that natal astrology is very difficult to investigate from a scientific point of view. In fact, the scientist has absolutely no choice whatsoever if he/she is going to tackle astrology. He/she must develop a system of interpretation for himself/herself, and this requires a lot of study and a lot of practice.
There are also two more great controversies in natal astrology. They deal with:
It is within the context of the above comments that I make the following criticism of the studies I am familiar with that attempt a scientific investigation of the validity of natal astrology. All of the studies are by far much too simple and restricted in scope to be a fair analysis of the validity of natal astrology. This comment even applies to the monumental scientific work performed by Michel Gauquelin (see Section E 1.0). It is for this reason that I am convinced that a fair inquiry into the validity of natal astrology will require a massive study that involves applying modern methods of artificial intelligence for the development of comprehensive pattern recognition computer software developed and exercised by analysts who have a serious interest in and knowledge of astrology and astrophysics.
