posted February 28, 2007 07:26 PM              

Lately, I've been seriously doubting how much of astrology is real/accurate, and how much is in my head. Like a matter of seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the rest.

I was looking at the synastry chart of two of my friends, who just got engaged, and at first I was stunned how accurate everything was- just dead on about EVERYTHING in their relationship. But then I noticed, I'd entered the wrong month for the girl's birthday. And once I fixed it, the synastry still somewhat described them, but not as much as the wrong chart had.

Similar things happen studying individual natal charts. If I look at things completely honestly, probably only 20-30% of the aspects and placements in the charts I analyze, accurately describe the person. The rest doesn't quite fit them. I've also tried analyzing someone's chart and then applying the results to ME, and much of the time, the other person's chart describes me quite accurately.

It just makes me wonder, what's the point? If any aspect or placement can be offset by another aspect or placement, then we as astrologers can ALWAYS make a chart "fit" a person. Especially if we already have info about the person and are looking for things to justify what we know. From one synastry chart, it can be just as easy to explain why the relationship failed as to why it thrived, depending on what we know the outcome was. But it is much harder to predict whether it will work or not- it seems to be totally hit or miss in that case.

I have seen great relationships form between people with bad synastry, and I've seen bad relationships with great synastry. I've seen introverted people with natal charts that scream "extrovert." I've seen people that should astrologically have a lot in common, but in real life, they just don't click with each other and never become more than acquaintances.

What I've noticed in every case, is that there will always be things in direct conflict with each other within a natal chart- so that one chart could just as easily describe person A or person B who's the exact opposite. Depending on what you focus on, one chart can describe literally ANYONE on the planet.

So it makes me wonder, why even bother with astrology? Even if there is truth to it, there are SO many variables, and it's impossible to tell which aspect will cancel out another, which will gain prominence in the individual's personality, which aspects will never be expressed... etc. In other words, anyone is possible of being anything.

It just seems like astrology, for me, is becoming pointless, because it only works in retrospect- describing something that already happened or something that's already known- rather than making sense of the unknown.

I hope that makes sense. Has anyone else felt this way? I love astrology and have been studying it for years, but I'm wondering if it's time for me to call it quits, because it no longer has a functional place in my life...

posted February 28, 2007 07:46 PM              

What did it for me? I found a copy of the Inner Sky by Steven Forrest. I dunno if this is what you might be looking for, it's rather unique compared to most astrology, but instead of planets in signs and houses being a WHO, it instead describes what the planets are searching for, what it could do to get those things, the functions of planets, the resources of the signs. It's much more fluid, it acknowledges that personalities are constantly in flux, people change.

posted February 28, 2007 09:54 PM              

For example natally there are circumstances surrounding a persons birth that will determine that individual's choices for the rest of their life, regardless of a chart, its points, etc.

To me, charts,personal
astrology,natals,synastry,etc. are basically sets of patterns of unchanging potentials that you receive based on your birth status that may help guide you, but won't determine the real you, it can only help you determine yourself, at the end of the day, your the decision maker, not the stars or points,etc. Astrology is an aid, its a tool, its not absolute, so stop treating it like it is.

------------------
Virgo Rising 8'57, Sagittarius Sun/4thH 3'26, Pisces Moon/6thH 8'22

"Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." - C.S. Lewis

posted March 01, 2007 09:52 AM              

You may have an incorrect chart--there are a lot of those out there!

You may be using only the old, deterministic astrology. Like everything else, astrology must be allowed to grow--even adding new planets to the charts from time to time.

One of the big problems for people born since the 1970s is that most are an evolutionary advancement that astrology texts do not fit.

And finally..........to get consistently accurate readings requires a lot of practice before your skills are sufficient to understand all of the subtle overtones and undertones of charts.

Astrology is a great deal more than can be found on sites like Astrodienst, or by simply looking up placements in the best "astrology cookbook" around. That is the reason for having professional astrologers.

posted March 01, 2007 09:52 AM              

You may have an incorrect chart--there are a lot of those out there!

You may be using only the old, deterministic astrology. Like everything else, astrology must be allowed to grow--even adding new planets to the charts from time to time.

One of the big problems for people born since the 1970s is that most are an evolutionary advancement that astrology texts do not fit.

And finally..........to get consistently accurate readings requires a lot of practice before your skills are sufficient to understand all of the subtle overtones and undertones of charts.

Astrology is a great deal more than can be found on sites like Astrodienst, or by simply looking up placements in the best "astrology cookbook" around. That is the reason for having professional astrologers.

posted March 01, 2007 10:57 AM              

The other point with astrology is as said above, it is an art, not a science and to do good synastry work, both charts need to be understood in their entirety before being understood as a relationship. I often find sig synastric aspects "ignored" in a relationship bec they are not important features in the couples charts. Plutonic people will more likely have plutonic relationships while people with no pluto or strongly placed scorpio aspects will ignore the energy or only relate to it subconciously. The same for every other outer planet. Astrology on an interpersonal level is less about fate and more about describing energy interactions or likely themes.

posted March 01, 2007 11:17 AM              

I completely agree with what you said about the importance of understand the natal horoscopes, before doing synastry.

I have an example from my own experience.
I share a Venus-Pluto - square within 2° with two men.

I`m very fond of guy 1, like and adore him a lot, but the dominant theme is softness and tenderness, not all consuming passion.
So the description of Venus-Pluto-interaspect doesn`t really fit.

The attraction to guy 2 is very intense, compulsive and feels as if it`s beyond my control.
In this case the synastric description of Venus-square-Pluto absolutely fits.

I think the reason why I experience the same aspect so differently is to be found in the natals.
I have a natal Venus-Pluto-square, so I do react to that energy, I crave for it, I need it to really fall for a person.

Guy 1 actually is in tune with Pluto, having Sun square Pluto and Mars in Scorpio, but his Venus cannot do anything with the plutonic theme, (it`s in Sagittarius). And I always felt he was somehow "not deep enough".

Guy 2 on the other hand has a Venus-Mars-conjunct in Scorpio - he definitely is VERY sexy and deep.

Also when I look at the progressions there`s nothingd hoing on with guy 1 regarding Venus-Pluto, but guy 2`s progressed planets actually trigger my natal Venus-Pluto-aspect.

so, I come to the conclusion, that you really have to understand the natals; without understanding them, the synastric analysis could lead you to very wrong conclusions.

Maybe it can also indicate some kind of "requited and unrequited love"; if one "resonates" with the synastric aspect, he or she may feel drawn more strongly to her partner, than the partner who is not in tune with this aspect.
Or at least different "resonances" can lead to misunderstandings. Like in the example with guy 1; he just w ouldn`t understand where my problem is, and would maybe even feel repulsed by my "darker" needs.

Just a few thoughts

DD

posted March 05, 2007 01:55 AM            

However, astrology is indeed highly sophisticated, and it requires precision. Basically, if you don't have a precise natal chart of a person, you can literally stop talking about the individual concerned astrologically- because there would be no point in doing so.

The fact is, many people don't have their own precise charts- they may have either the wrong time of birth (even the mother, or someone else, may have remembered mistaken t.o.b. , or the t.o.b. on the birth certificate is simply inaccurate; sometimes it's because the person is an adopted child, and so on) or do not have such information available at all. Therefore, few people have all the natal details warranted. You could only be benefited by astrology only if you do have all the birth info at hand. Otherwise, don't apply to astrology at all. Focusing on only sun signs would be a mistake. When intending to do a reading of two charts/two people, absolute precision is mandatory.

Astrology has, unfortunately been cheaply commercialized and the majority of the average people actually believe astrology is about generalizations. Even we aspiring astrologers may be lost in the generalizations- and astrology, as we all know, is not about such generalizations, but rather, reading between the lines. Interpreting an individual using astrology requires not only academical knowledge and techniques, nor merely systematic analyses- but intuition from the astrologer/interpretor. It has to be inborn gift in the person who interprets, who can sense the stars, and read between the lines, contemplate the stars with his/her perceptiveness, not just with texts and methods.

However, if one feels that astrology is not helping him/her much regarding improving their lives or raising self-awareness, spiritual enlightenment, or at least, human observation- then perhaps other means might be more suitable and less time-consuming, such as psychology.

posted March 05, 2007 12:27 PM            

I agree with your sentiments, I shared them a while ago and it encouraged me to seek a fresh view on the workings of astrology. You said:-

" If any aspect or placement can be offset by another aspect or placement, then we as astrologers can ALWAYS make a chart "fit" a person. Especially if we already have info about the person and are looking for things to justify what we know."

Every astrologer has done this at one time or another during their studies, its a natural tendency. And your absolutely right, much of the time astrologers will always find ways to make their observations 'fit' with the birth chart in question purely BECAUSE of the complexity of the chart. Nowadays, we have so many aspects, house configurations and chart comparison methods, that it won't take a discerning and analytical mind to find an aspect that provides an answer to the question. We have even seen the introduction of a plethora of asteroids which further increase the complexity, maybe in a few years time we will be taking into account each star of the Milky Way to make our assessments - all 700 billion of them!

But on the positive side, astrology is increasingly becoming more and more fine-tuned. Knowledge of aspects and planets is growing, largely in part to the global community astrology has, thanks to the internet. With so many people sharing experiences and questioning every part of astrology, this can only benefit everyone. And as others mentioned above, astrology is indeed an 'art', some astrologers are simply more skilled with the cosmological paintbrush than others.

I left behind astrology a while ago, having the same doubts in my mind that you have now. An answer was not forthcoming at the time, so I decided to retire from it completely and let my mind find some refreshment with the passage of time. Then some months ago, I was very briefly thinking about astrology, and some new questions flickered inside me.
If the planets move us, what moves the planets? And more to the point, if the planets are being moved by some underlying cosmological force, then surely we are being influenced by that same force simultaneously - which means that human behaviour isnt a result of planetary activity, instead we are just responding to the same universal song the planets are, so it would just appear that we were mimcking the planets actions.

It would always bother me greatly when people would blame the planets for the events in their lives. Or people would dread forthcoming transits because of their infamous potency to wreak havoc in their lives. It just seemed to me that many people were viewing astrology from the perspective of the puppet - the planets were the puppeteers, and we were the ones held in place by strings, performing under the influence in some intricate cosmological theatre.
From a scientific standpoint, each of the planets exert electromagnetic fields which do influence the make-up of our solar system... but so do we. Every human has the same force a star carries, it reminded me of the times when humans thought the Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around us. Many facets of astrology still follow a similar principle.