If your birth data is used on this site and you would prefer it wasn't, contact me (bottom of page for address) about removal.
Astrology’s influence is not from planets which exist “out there” and physically influence our destiny. The planets influence us because of their affinity with, as well as expression of, the same laws as those used in creating (and continuing to create) our universe. We are a part, not apart from those universal laws. Their essence is mathematical, not physical.
I do not know about now, but I understand computing started out based on a two-digit algorithm. The way the instructions were written made those two digits--used again and again--so productive.
The genetic code created by DNA is comprised of four bases used again and again. Heredity does much of what it does using just those four bases. Their position and sequence--their environment relative to each other--determine how, and apparently even if--they manifest.
An astrological nativity is comprised of ten planets, twelve houses, and twelve signs. For the sake of argument, we could say planets are astrology’s equivalent to DNA’s bases. So, astrology has ten “bases”--six more than DNA. (If you are not interested in this section comparing this method to DNA, you can skip it by doing a search for "scientific method" which is below.)
This method creates a whole chart from each of the original 12 houses of the nativity. Each of those charts contains the original 10 planets of birth, their ten counterparts from time of conception, and each of their appropriate harmonic derivatives. The resultant "nativity" comprises twelve charts, each containing four sets of the original ten planets of our solar system. Each "base," then, is used 240 times per individual.
240 does not come close to matching the number of times the bases of DNA are used in the human genetic code. However, continuing with the analogy, astrological houses are to planets what position is to DNA’s bases. Planets express differently in each house just as bases express diversely in different positions. Signs have always been correlated with specific houses--Aries with the 1st house, Cancer with the 4th, Libra with the 7th, and so on. Therefore, signs also have something to do with position.
Ultimately, degree (there are 360 in each chart) is also related to position. That is, in any specific chart, a planet in one degree might be relatively inactive. In a different degree, the same planet could be crucial in defining the individual’s life.
Furthermore, all 240 astrological "bases" progress. They change degree, therefore position, throughout each individual's life. That means they (may) change sign. They (may) change house. Since all of them progress, they change in relationship to each other, which also alters the way they express.
Finally, planets in houses and signs often have timing, therefore position, implications. For instance, a planet in the 1st house usually first manifests its qualities in childhood. One in the 4th house often does not experience its full expression until the last years in life. Similarly, mercury, sponsoring mentation and representing youth, is usually experienced earlier than saturn, which has implications of decay, desiccation, and old age.
I have defined all the above qualities of astrology not about planets (i.e., "bases") as ones that are about position. This astrology has more than twice the number of bases than DNA. And because its positions per individual, as well as over generations, are in continual flux while those of DNA are primarily fixed, it has many more positions than does DNA. Position in astrology is not just linear--it is multidimensional. And, aside from the "limitation" of meaning of signs and planets--in this discussion that they must represent qualities of a human being-- is open-ended. We could, in fact, say the sum of each individual's set of 12 charts is an objective map of ongoing and apparently limitless subjective states, that is, our ongoing "take" on (and creation of our) reality.
A code comprised of so many fundamentals with so much possible variation promises tremendous diversity. It suggests dimensions unimaginable even with DNA. It delivers the “unimaginable”: the specifications for a human life--consisting of mind, feelings, body, material conditions, social conditions, mental and physical diseases, honors, susceptibilities and more, in fact everything about human life, both obvious and hidden--for each individual among an extremely wide variety of individuals existing through time and space. And it does it "correctly" for all of them (of course modified differently by the different physical, emotional, and mental cultures they are embedded in. We don't live in vacuums.)
Does all of this seem absurd? That may be, but how can it be more absurd than the already established and accepted reality that is genetics?
One might infer here that the implication is that there is nothing truly random about any human life. The question, I guess, is how non-random is it? Are there differing degrees of freedom for different people? Those interested in that old, poorly stated question, "is life Fated or do we have Free Will?" are encouraged to read: Creatolution--Creationism, Evolution and Astrospect Astrology, A Discussion. The conclusions generated by this form of astrology fall right in with statements made by Sages of all lands for all of written history. That is, that one is not free until he is free from his self. And to start with, he has to "know himself," which is not the simple journey implied by two such common words strung together.
What about the--American? Western? universal?--belief that "any one can be anything he wants?" Is it really true for any one? Does genetics deny that? What about astrology? Do they contradict human freedom? Who has truly examined that statement across the broad spectrum of human diversity? Over time? With what tool, using which fulcrum?
If, then, it is true astrology constitutes a code, that is, a set of specifications for making people in all their diversity, astrology’s code is rich enough to pull it off.
If, then, it is true astrology constitutes a code for making people consciousness with its accompanying material manifestations, astrology belongs not on the periphery, but in the hub of the human sciences.
Because if astrology constitutes a true code, then it behaves lawfully. If it behaves lawfully, then it is subject to the scrutiny, methods, formulations, and re-formulation of science.
Before going any further, we should review just what is scientific method. We want to tentatively answer, based on the material above, "can the scientific method be applied to this form of astrology?" Following are two links to papers written on the subject:
Introduction to the Scientific Method from the University of Rochester, and
A Long, Sophisticated Explanation on Scientific Method from Wikipedia (this was more than I wanted, but some readers might want to read all of it)
So, now we know that at birth this astrology yields 12 charts each containing 40 planets for each individual. We know that those forty planets are in constantly changing positions--not only are they different for each individual, but they change constantly over time within each individual's astrology. Such completely ascertainable positions yield far more astrological data per individual than any other method of astrology. And their unusually high research results firmly suggest that the birth chart alone, regardless of zodiac used, comprises only a part of the astrological deck (like a deck of cards) needed for productive research. This is hard to see because very successful astrologers exist who use either the tropical or sidereal birth chart, making it seem not only that the birth chart alone yields comprehensive astrological information, but also that both zodiacs are equally good astrological instruments. These artifacts are discussed further in the paper on the practical differences between tropical and sidereal astrology. Here is the link: Tropical and Sidereal Astrology.
The variety of information per individual produced by this method ought to make it highly suitable for research and application of the scientific method. If it doesn't organize data better than any other method (that is, if it doesn't show connections never before demonstrated, or if it doesn't simplify connections previously considered more complex), and if it does not yield reproducible results, then we can say the method appears invalid. But, this method does a superior job of organizing data more efficiently than other forms of astrology. And its results are reproducible. Evidence for same is in the papers and their addenda published on this site, all listed with links below. And they can be reproduced by any other astrologer because I have made the method, its derivation and principles, and its empirically-derived rules available in two other papers on this website. Their links are available at the very bottom of this page.
Observations, intuition, speculation, formal hypotheses, research, results. With new observations inconsistent with first hypotheses, then adjusted hypotheses, more research, more findings or not findings. This is consistent with scientific method, and is a process, for instance, that is the very core of research in the physical sciences.
Taking a longer, more social look at astrology, there are indications in ancient literature that astrology was once far more in ascendance than it is now. Understandably, many people today think its present debased status (it used to be a sacred science) an appropriate outcome for an out-dated superstition. Astrology, they believe, has died because it was based on the primitive, unscientific "belief" that the stars and planets influence human destiny.
On the other hand, perhaps astrology had to be suppressed, speaking teleologically, because it answered too many questions. It helped people see what could happen but not what they could do about it. By doing that, it sponsored too many vices--especially the vice of fatality. (Even worse, the vice of believing one knows what will happen.) More importantly, by answering too many questions, it impeded development of Western rationality and the sciences it fostered.
Before it was suppressed (or died, depending on your point of view), astrology answered questions relevant to the world view that existed then. It has better answers--and different questions!--for the world view that exists now.
Astrology can still sponsor many vices. A chart is, after all, a map of the individual’s consciousness, deep and superficial. As the papers on saints and gurus of east and west demonstrate, these astrological charts even demonstrate the individual's potential for higher consciousness. Aside from super consciousness, which, strictly speaking, does not really belong to man, his two other possible levels of consciousness, waking and sub-, sponsor so much of his life. Consciousness looking at itself is often tricky. Consciousness looking at its potential trajectory through time can get down-right scary. So, astrology is not for every one. It is not even for most people. It does have a unique quality that could benefit everybody.
The useful part of astrology is it can answer questions that only modern science can raise. It can take us deeper into mind/body and environment/heredity questions than any other science. It can identify current and potential physical, mental, and behavioral problems. It identifies "excesses" of consciousness which lead to disastrous behaviors and illnesses. All of these yield consistent and quantifiable information. In doing so they place astrology firmly in the category of a research tool as well as diagnostic aid. Astrology also has unprecedented potential as a learning aid: I can better understand another’s experience if ever in my life I have approached their astrology which represents that form of consciousness. If it is a painful experience, and in all my life I only experienced something half that difficult (indicated by its astrology), then I have some idea how bad it is for the other fellow. The same is true of being conned. Gambling. Asocial behavior. Being blindly in love. And so on. These are all astrologically sponsored experiences, moderated by the individual's genuine understanding.
Unlike most other sciences, astrology is unique in that it can also give us information about timing and duration of many conditions. (The paper about John Forbes Nash's schizophrenia is an excellent example. Here is the link: Paper on Nash.) It can help us better see whether any particular treatment, diet, or practice helped the patient, or did he “heal himself?” That is, did the astrology that sponsored his condition change for the better? We live in a society filled with a multitude of forms of help. Can any one get the help he needs, or are certain astrological conditions necessary?
Astrology can illuminate the question of whether or not persistent, concerted effort to change our mind set (or our level of consciousness) changed our condition. Finally, in order to grasp what we actually accomplish with consciousness, we need an accurate map of each individual's skew on it. If we don't know where he started from, how can we tell how far he has come? What has he created--willed--and what has he simply fulfilled? More than any other science, astrology gives us that map. Without it, the other sciences--which have made tremendous gains in the study of consciousness in the past eighty years--are still working out of the black box of “primordial substance” called consciousness. By the time consciousness expresses through us as living beings on this planet it is not primordial. It is highly developed.
Papers listed below show some of the areas astrological information separates the wheat from the chaff diagnostically. As stated above, the method used here is not the traditional Western (or even Eastern, for that matter) one. For the best explanation of it, read the paper titled "About This Method" with a link at the bottom of this page. This method appears more complex than others. Actually, because of its consistency, in ways it is simpler, much simpler. For a better understanding of the empirically-derived rules for reading this form of astrology, read the paper "Chart Reading Rules," link at bottom of this page.
As can be seen among the titles of papers listed below, subjects covered range from the ordinary (compulsive talkers) to the extraordinary (the suicide of Carter Cooper) , from health and healers (Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science) to sickness (Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s), from mental illness (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) to mental incapacity (retardation and autism), from religion (Eastern gurus, Catholic saints, and Dag Hammarskjöld, the closet mystic), career success (thy name is legion, shown in many papers), gender differentiation (homosexuality, lesbianism, and bisexuality), and many more.
Information necessary to cast a chart is: (1) date of birth, (2) time of birth (from birth certificate), (3) location of birth (town, county if the state contains two towns of the same name, state, country). In addition, (4) date of diagnosis is helpful but not the diagnosis itself in confirming conditions. I usually ask for two or three incidents--like auto accidents, surgery, marriage, birth of children--to confirm that the time given on the birth certificate is correct and not approximate.
Send an e-mail to the author: firstname.lastname@example.org
PAPERS THIS FORM OF ASTROLOGY--THIS METHOD--IS NEW. FINDING OUT HOW IT WORKS INVOLVES A PROCESS OF LONG-TERM, CONTINUOUS DISCOVERY. PAPERS BELOW ARE PERIODICALLY UPDATED BASED ON THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING COMING FROM CONTINUED RESEARCH. UPDATED PAPERS ARE INDICATED BY "REVISED" PLUS THE DATE OF REVISION IN CAPITAL LETTERS PLACED RIGHT AFTER THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
In Various Stages of Completion:
The Composite Physician--Highlights of 30 Physicians
Playing the Harmonics--What Do They Measure? (Further discussion of the harmonics and their relation to standard astrological aspects occurs in this paper: Chart Reading Rules)
A Glossary of Terms and Symbols (Much of this is also in the paper listed above.)
Alan Turing: Genius, Homosexual, Enigma, Suicide. There are a few comments on Turing's astrology in the paper on homosexuality:Turing
Finished Papers, Presented in Reverse Chronological Order for the Date Written:
The following three papers do not contain explanations of the astrological method, working principles, etc. used on this site because they were pulled out of larger, main papers. Almost every other paper on this site includes such explanations, with the later ones being more comprehensive than the earlier ones.
THIS FORM OF ASTROLOGY--THIS METHOD--IS NEW. FINDING OUT HOW IT WORKS INVOLVES A PROCESS OF LONG-TERM, CONTINUOUS DISCOVERY. PAPERS BELOW ARE PERIODICALLY UPDATED BASED ON THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING COMING FROM CONTINUED RESEARCH. UPDATED PAPERS ARE INDICATED BY "REVISED" PLUS THE DATE OF REVISION IN CAPITAL LETTERS PLACED RIGHT AFTER THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
Contact the author at: email@example.com