The problem with Western astrology
The astrologer Robert Hand has said many times that in his opinion Western astrology lacks a solid philosophical foundation. The underlying problem is that you can’t do astrology without at least a few (implicit or explicit) philosophical assumptions. The nature of time, the nature of the human soul, determinism-versus-free-will; these are all philosophical subjects.
Most Western astrologers do not have a solid philosophical education. Besides Robert Hand, the most notable exception is probably Richard Tarnas. He is the author of both a classic book on the history of Western philosophy, titled The Passion of the Western Mind, and a classic on mundane astrology: Cosmos and Psyche. To be clear, it was Richard Tarnas who years ago persuaded me to start taking astrology much more seriously!
Tarnas represents the Archetypal school of astrology, which is heavily influenced by the ideas of Carl Jung. Of all the astrological schools that developed in the 20th century, Archetypal Astrology comes closest to my own views. For example, i share the admiration for Carl Jung. Having said that, i also have a few minor criticisms, which i will return to later.
20th century astrology
In the 20th century many new schools and approaches to astrology were developed. Some are primarily based on technical insights or novelties (Western sidereal, astrocartography, asteroids, higher harmonics), some are based on philosophical ideas (Theosophy, Evolutionary Astrology, Archetypal Astrology) and some on a mix of both (Hamburg School, Cosmobiology).
At the same time, there’s a conservative tendency within the astrological community (Hellenistic, Medieval). Certain astrologers seem to think that a book has to be at least 500 years old for it to contain anything worth their time. And since Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are seen as ‘newcomers’ by these people, you can imagine their response to 25.000 named asteroids invading their backyard 😉
My toolkit
My own goal is to approach the astrological sky in a comprehensive or even holistic way. Practically speaking i use a mix of 20th century innovations, combined with the best parts of (Hellenistic) tradition. I integrate fixed stars (Bernadette Brady’s approach) and asteroids for a 360-view.
The study of asteroids has had a big influence on my appreciation of other techniques and conventions. Some techniques are 100% compatible (fixed stars, harmonics, lots, midpoints), some are context-dependent (houses) but unfortunately, some also appear to me as inadequate.
So let me address the elephant in the room. It is the big taboo of Western astrology, a source of controversy that really shouldn’t be mentioned: the validity of the Tropical Zodiac. I’m going to say it here the way i see it, no sugarcoating, even if that makes me a bit of a renegade (not to mention that it’s bad for business). I have never yet seen a single natal chart that makes more sense to me through the lens of the Tropical Zodiac – provided that asteroids are included in the analysis. Having said that, i do think the Aries Point is relevant. (I actually discovered this through research based on more than 300.000 data points, and although i was quite surprised i don’t argue with the science.)
So basically, i’m 99% siderealist. Fortunately, this doesn’t have to interfere with the way i do a reading, because i keep signs (and houses) out of it. But of course this is not an ideal situation.
Free will and determinism
Asteroid astrology provides a lot of detail. So much detail even, that it has changed my ideas about determinism. Although you should take the following statement with a grain of salt, i usually say that about 95% of our lives is predetermined. This does not mean that these 95% can be pointed out in the natal chart. We have to accept that most astrological indicators do not produce solid results all of the time. Also, there is always a certain amount of subjective interpretation involved, and so on.
What i will say about determinism is that in my opinion, the approach of Archetypal Astrology is a bit too ‘loose’ when it comes to the amount of choice we seem to have as individuals. If you want to dive deeper into this i would recommend Bernardo Kastrup’s take. He basically says that the whole free-will-and-determinism debate is a red herring. He recommends to approach the future as if you have free will, and to approach the past as if it was predetermined. I agree with this attitude/advice.
Synchronicity
Jungian synchronicity is another subject where i prefer the take of Bernardo Kastrup over the take of Richard Tarnas. Basically, i’d say that Kastrup’s interpretation of synchronicity goes deeper, and is in fact more astrology-friendly than the classic ‘scarab beetle’ version of synchronicity that is regurgitated in almost all books about the subject, including Cosmos and Psyche.
Kastrup used to work at CERN, and as a hardcore scientist he was able to critically evaluate the written sources documenting the synchronicity-debate between Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung, and give them a broader, if speculative context. To appreciate Kastrup’s interpretation of Jungian synchronicity, you should read his book Decoding Jung’s Metaphysics. Reading Jung can be a challenge, but reading Kastrup on Jung is a different experience, providing clarity and coherence.
The soul’s journey
Astrologers have dealt with topics like reincarnation, karma, the journey of the soul, and even its final destination. Especially followers of the Evolutionary Astrology school deal with these topics.
I personally think the idea of reincarnation is very plausible, and to some extent supported by science. I’m also open to the possibility that reliable clues about previous or next lives can be found in the natal chart, but to be honest i don’t know what technique will produce results. It will always be a difficult subject, especially since on the whole, statements about reincarnation are unfalsifiable.
I do not believe in the concept of Karma as a cosmic bookkeeping system, used to track how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ a certain soul has been. That sounds a bit too much like a Santa Claus story to me. Also, i do not buy into the idea that the journey of a soul is mostly a case of ‘up and to the right’ to use an expression from the finance world. I do think that a soul may have an immutable core, or a core that slowly changes, but i see no compelling reason to frame its ‘journey’ in Darwinian or other evolutionary terms. When it comes to the ‘final destination’ of the soul, i am completely agnostic.
How astrology works
Many people, and indeed quite a few astrologers, assume that astrological correspondences are caused by some kind of energy ray or field, emitted by the planets. Let me just say that asteroids are so small compared to the planets, that purely based on my study of asteroids (tiny rocks in space) this ‘physicalist’ theory seems very unlikely to me. So if you would ask me about this, i would say the same thing as Richard Tarnas. It seems far more likely that the astrological sky functions like a kind of clock. The point being that a clock doesn’t cause time to pass, it only indicates what time it is. In this analogy, the astrological sky would be indicating the quality of a certain moment in time. And it would do so using a symbolic language that combines simple geometry with themes from ancient mythology, as well as surprisingly modern, straightforward associations provided by asteroids.
A new generation of scientists (in particular high-energy physicists like Nima Arkani-Hamed) are finding abstract geometric structures outside of spacetime, that seem to project into spacetime. Something to keep in mind if you are troubled by questions about the origin of a big cosmic clock, that seems to show the quality of time with remarkable precision. The Jungian Collective Unconscious also seems to function outside spacetime. Plenty of food for (speculative) thought.
Conclusion
The overall conclusion of this rant, stated in philosophical terminology, would be that in my opinion some form of idealism is the only realistic option for astrologers. I’m quite sure that both Robert Hand and Richard Tarnas would agree with that. Again, i recommend reading Bernardo Kastrup.
All of these ideas are personal and speculative. I only share them here because i offer readings that touch on some of these subjects – and how they relate to the natal chart, or not. I hope this gives you a better sense of my perspective, and how it might translate into the content of a reading.