Category: Uncategorized

In my previous post, I gave a rather technical description of some of the basic parts of astrology, but it isn’t quite what I wanted to write. I often feel that I cannot write what I want to, not because I am unable to write it, but because in order for anyone to understand it, they must have the background knowledge that I do about the topic.

What I really wanted to write about was the quincunx aspect in astrology, but I assume that most who will read it are not already interested in astrology, much less do they know what the hell a quincunx is. This is one of the most fundamental problems of writing non-fiction, at least for me: For whom am I writing?

Does this question even matter? I will only partially explore whether it matters here. For now, I will follow a line of reasoning that assumes that it does under the premise that the purpose of writing is to provide a valuable idea-based service to people.

I am constantly feeling the need to explain as much background as possible before writing what I want to write, and this requires dry, boring, technical bullshit that no one gives a fuck about. The only people who would be interested in my thoughts on the quincunx are those who either are specialists and already have the background knowledge (and although they could offer valuable insight, I have no inclination to reach out to them because that would mean joining a ghey-ass “community”; I prefer to be alone in my endeavors), or those who have potential to find interest in astrology but have not found it yet and therefore need that background. But, the problem with the latter case is that astrology is a personal journey. It just comes to you, and I cannot force someone to take interest in my technical descriptions if they have not discovered an interest in astrology more broadly on their own, so this further deems my dilemma seemingly useless.

Any time I find a new interest, I dive in deep very quickly. I surpass the basic level knowledge and immediately find myself in the no-man’s land between “somewhat knowledgeable hobbyist” and “nerdy technical professional”. One problem is that I prefer to stay at that level with pretty much everything I am interested in. I want to understand things in a holistic way and connect dots between new interests and the rest of what I know and deem important (often at the expense of the technical details), but I feel an incredible sense of guilt about the idea of marketing myself to make money from my skills and knowledge (not to mention I lack sales skills to begin with; I see that as someone else’s job). I cannot bring myself to care about or overtly pursue money. It seems deeply inauthentic. I end up doing jobs that offer me just enough money to survive and require no creative or intellectual engagement at all because their monotony affords my mind freedom to wander and “plan my escape.” At every job I have ever had, I have had wisdom and foresight that could have brought those businesses to incredible heights, but I have steered clear of correcting what was wrong with them because it “wasn’t my responsibility” to do so, it would involve career advancement that I simply do not desire, and it would involve endless meetings that would go nowhere because of the deaf ears who were in power to implement those changes. I need absolute freedom of thought, creativity, and responsibility, and I am very careful about where I apply my energy. This crippling guilt is about more than personality quirks, however. There is a general moral aspect about it.

I don’t ultimately care about the industries I have worked in (motorsports, film, coffee, etc). I chose them because they would be expendable in favor of more meaningful work down the road. More deeply, I don’t think that they provided value to human well-being, and therefore I felt guilt also about the idea of making those businesses better. Why make a business better if that industry in general does not make the world better? Working in any industry for long enough, I inevitably come to see it as a superficial luxury of life and not worthy of my time or effort at all because I have no place in my value structure for that product. Or, in the case that something I am working on does matter as with a particular film, then the end does not justify the means given the unforgivable social and political corruption that haunts the film production process.

Anyway, I start out doing this simple work for personal reasons, as something to occupy my time while I build toward other things on the side, but I eventually cannot help but to notice the whole that I am contributing to and that it is not for the good, the guilt sets in, and then I have to leave for the next bullshit job.

Writing faces me with the challenge of taking something that I deem to be deeply interesting and important and trying to navigate through communicating it in a way that is not only accessible to the general public but also service-providing. I do believe that good writing is a service because good writing is about ideas, and the idea is the level to which everything ultimately reduces.

Despite all of the good that comes from learning good academic writing — structure, clarity, technical precision, etc. — it has a tendency to reinforce my natural proclivity to “cover everything” that needs to be covered in order for “the point” to be absolutely clear. In academia, I wrote for specialists, but there is a reason that academic writing has no readership. Writing that is truly valuable is more general as well as personal, two things which are typically forbidden in academia, and for good reason. Too much generality and it will seem to lack substance. Too much personality and it will seem to lack applicability to others. And for this reason I will never write fiction… ever — well, not that I have the talent for it anyway.

As things stand, my ideal career scenario would be that someone would simply pay me a steady source of income to write and make silly videos about my thoughts. They’d say “Here’s enough money for you to live. Now go be you and put your ideas out there. I’ll take care of sales and distribution.” I could live wherever and however I want, wake up whenever I want, produce whenever I am inspired, and no one would tell me what to do. And unlike most people who would wither away in this type of open scenario, I am absolutely certain that for me it would be the best context for maximum productivity. That is the dream.

Monetary problems aside, how do I write in order to provide a service? It may be my meal-ticket, but I cannot be sure. Roger Scruton, perhaps not so oddly, was the only professor I have had who recognized and emphasized my personal need to “write now and organize later”. For the greatest philosopher of the last generation to tell me things like “you’ve got quite a good brain”, he was extremely encouraging of my talent. I suppose that with his advice always in the back of my mind I am learning to let it flow a bit better now. It is still quite a painful process. It is a vulnerable process. People seem to like it, but my worry is that because it is less straightforwardly objective, that it will be less true and less marketable. What do people actually value and why?

Personal shit, I suppose. If I am not to write fiction, then perhaps a memoir style will suffice. In paying close attention to the progression of my life’s journey, the interests I take on bring me babysteps closer to Truth; I always consider the relevant connections between all branches of my personal knowledge, old and new. Of course there is the personality and philosophy stuff that I have and continue to burn through, but most recently, for example, in my dabbling in kink life, exploring more sexually, and coming to terms with the fact that I am not monogamous (which is something quite unconventional yet relatable to many in itself), I have come to see how intimately tied to every aspect of one’s being one’s sexuality is. I think that what I am most interested in and purposefully intended toward can be summarized as “Truth”, so this new discovery and topic of research has become a necessary part of my journey of fulfilling that purpose to the world. I am tying sexuality in with what I already know about philosophy, personality, and all else in coherent and meaningful ways.

Of course everything profoundly meaningful connects dots, shatters boundaries between disciplines. This is why academic work is not for me. The philosophers and psychologists for example generally do not collaborate, as if they are not relevant to one another, and that obviously severely limits the truth-seeking process (not to mention applicability for the common person) in both fields. It’s so insanely shortsighted, but alas there is no correlation between intelligence and wisdom. You have to be intelligent to be a professor, but you must be wise to see Truth.

I have never had a problem connecting dots, seeing Truth, communicating with people one-on-one. The problem is in how to apply that knowledge to the world so that it provides me livelihood, because the more meaningless work I do, the more I wither. Money and personal biases aside, the ONLY things that I can see have intrinsic value are art and ideas. They are the only things I care about because they are the only things in which Truth need not be censored. How to make those things work so that I do not end up a complete vagrant still remains a mystery to me, but for now I suppose I will just keep writing as Roger suggested, without the worry of “for whom” which seems to be the main thing overemphasizing structure and thereby limiting substance.

Each person is uniquely represented by his or her natal chart; no two are the same. Even identical twins who are born within a few minutes of each other may have different ascendant (or “rising”) signs, which changes the orientation of the chart by a few degrees, just enough to give each placement (a planet-sign combination) an entirely different context for expression (the houses). This can cause profound differences in behavior and life paths even though the identical twins will have all of the same placements. Even if they do have the same ascendant, the few minutes that separate them will turn the natal chart ever so slightly, causing the “aspects” to have slightly different “orb values”, which will cause a difference in the strength of each trait that those aspects represent. As I am sure you are already lost by these terms, this brings me to the first set of technical things that I have learned about astrology.

First, you are more than your “sun” sign, which is typically the only sign that people are aware of. It is also referred to as the “star sign” or “zodiac sign”, but these are newbie terms. The sun is one of many planets in the birth chart, and it is associated with only one part of a person’s personality, albeit an important one: the ego – the default personality mode in which one operates around people with whom he or she is fairly well acquainted. It is usually the style of personality by which you want to be seen. Your sun is released and shows up with someone once you’ve “broken the ice” with them. Most people who know a little bit about astrology are still only aware of their “big three” signs which includes the sun as well as the moon which is the emotional, internal center and that part of one that one likely identifies with when one is alone, and the ascendant (or “rising” as it is more commonly referred to) which is the unconscious mode in which one operates in new and unfamiliar situations.

To get a bit more technical, there are three parts to astrology that are vital for understanding anything in greater depth: signs, planets, and houses. Signs are constellations such as Aries or Libra, and they represent styles of expression. Aries is an aggressive and impulsive, yet socially-attractive style, while Libra is a style concerned with balance and fairness, also typically attractive to others in a slightly softer and more charming way than Aries. A planet, the sun and the moon included, is the particular part of your personality. When a constellation is inline with a planet, a particular expression style is being applied to the part of your personality represented by that planet. The houses are the pizza slices of a chart; they are the contexts of life in which those personality styles occur.

To tie all of this together in an example, Venus, which is the feminine, sensual, social, and romantic side of someone, can be in Gemini, which would value intellect, variety, and fun in romantic relationships. Let’s say that placement were in the 2^nd house in the birth chart, which is the context of money and material possessions. When Venus in Gemini is expressed in the 2^nd house, that could, depending on what else is going on in the birth chart, be an indication that one would have a tendency to be a sex worker (and really enjoy it). My Venus is in Gemini, but it is in the 5^th house which is the context of creative self-expression, entertainment, and romance, so although this placement makes me a bit of a hoe, it works quite well here as my sexual and romantic relations are reserved for creative and recreational fun and — when paired with masculine Mars in Aries in the second house (the context of communication) — writing erotic poetry. An empty house indicates a lack of value placed on the context that house represents. For example, my 2^nd house has no planets in it, so I don’t care much about money or material possessions. This is why I am not a sex worker. See? Shit’s complex.

The specificity of a part of a chart often indicates its complexity and importance. The sun sign isn’t very specific. It is sort of a general box, a “type” as in MBTI, that you’re shoved into when one isn’t aware of the other parts of a chart. One might say to another “We’re both Cancers, so we’re totally like the same person omg.” Their egos may be similar, but there are plenty more layers to the personality, such as the other placements and the house in which the sun is situated, that will add virtually infinite complexity to the role that the person’s ego plays in their life and therefore to the degree of differences between Cancer sun people. The sun sign changes about every thirty days. Is everyone who was born from late June to late July, with their sun in Cancer, the same? Of course not. In my research so far, and in simply introspecting on the fact that my sun, for example, is in cancer yet my personality doesn’t seem to identify with that style, I think that the degree to which your sun sign matters is roughly equal to the degree to which one has awareness and control over his or her own ego. Fire suns (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius), for example, are hard to control. They tend to be quite self-centered and easier to spot. Fire reacts when you pour gas onto it, after all.

Sun sign discrepancy could also be due to the degree to which the ego is suppressed by a more dominant force ruling the birth chart on the whole. Look at the birth chart on the whole. Is there a sign that dominates your chart that is not the sun sign? If so, especially if that sign has key placements in the moon or ascendant, this might be the reason that you don’t identify with your sun sign. For example, my Cancer sun is squashed by my stronger and more abundant Capricorn planets, so I come off more as a Capricorn than a Cancer. Even professional astrologers I have met were shocked to find that I was a Cancer sun person.

There is also a way to calculate why you may not identify with your sun sign. This takes us into a secondary set of terms needed to understand astrology in a technical way. Each sign has a unique “element” and “modality” combination. Elements (fire, earth, air, water) are attitudes that signs have, whereas modalities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) are roles that the signs play. Your dominant sign may not be a sign that shows up in any placements in your chart at all, but it may be the dominant element/modality combination of the chart on the whole. For example, Taurus may not show up in your chart, but because your chart is comprised of more earth and fixed signs than anything else, the person could carry a Taurean energy on the whole, seeming “unchanging in your ways” due to the fixed dominance of your chart and “grounded” in attitude due to the earth dominance.

If there is one specific area of astrology that seems to provide the deepest insight into the whole of human psychology, it is the aspects. An aspect in astrology is a relationship between two planets that forms a more complex and unique energy. Aspects show up within someone’s birth chart and between the charts of two people. Contrary to what pop astrology may have you believe, it is aspects, not signs, that are the most important parts of a chart. Whereas a sign represents a style of expression of a particular part of someone’s personality, an aspect combines the styles between two parts of oneself, providing more substance about what someone is like. The type of aspect is determined by the angular relationship between those planets.

A CONJUNCTION between two planets means that they fall at or near 0 degrees of each other and therefore likely share the same sign and house, but they may not if they are on a cusp. Either way, these two parts of one’s personality will be in harmony with one another. It is as if one part of yourself has seamless communication and understanding with that other part. The most common example is Sun-conjunct-Mercury which means that there is a fluid connection between one’s ego identity and their style of communication. A conjunction is thought to be a positive aspect, and it usually is. I think, however, this can blur lines too much at times just as two people who are very similar can lose their senses of individuality when together. There are clearly times in which one should be able to separate conjuncted parts of his or her personality (e.g. romance and work) and reflect on which part needs tweaking in order to make better decisions in the long run. For example, if one’s sun and moon are in a strong conjunction, it means that one has trouble understanding whether he or she is acting from ego or from emotional reflection. Neither way is entirely good in my estimation. This person may need to work extra hard to understand where the origins of their behaviors lie. I have a friend, for example, whose sun and moon are both in Virgo. She makes quick and confident decisions, but she often winds up in a hot mess because she doesn’t take time to think about why she is so confident in that decision. I have another friend who is a double Taurus. Equally confident and simple-minded in her decisions, she moves more slowly and carefully, so she doesn’t find quite as much trouble. She still, however, lives with some regret about her decisions later on. The style that a conjunction takes on depends on the sign, but in any case, this harmonious aspect comes with challenges. A good rule to keep in mind while dealing with matters related to a conjunction in you chart is: “separation, then integration”. We have to understand our individual bits in isolation before we can make them work together in a way that aims us toward the true potential that a conjunction can afford.

An OPPOSITION aspect is when two placements fall within or near 180 degrees of each other, meaning that they are directly across from each other in the chart wheel. They fall in signs and houses that seem on the surface to be opposites. One should not think of them as opposites, however, but as being in opposition with one another. They are shadows of one another, to speak in Jungian terms – two sides of the same coin, each wishing at times that the other did not exist. They have the same modality but different elements, so they play tug-of-war with each other, struggling for power. This inner tension may be felt very deeply by the individual and stunt decision-making ability. The opposition is often regarded as an adverse aspect, and it often is. However, I think it is the best aspect when it involves key planets. As someone who has a chart dominated by opposition aspects, I can firmly say that this presents the greatest and most necessary opportunity for growth of any aspect. I see it not as a struggle for power, but as a struggle for balance, for both sides of the personality must learn to coexist. At 180 degrees they are at opposite ends of the universe, so to speak, but they forced to face each other from afar. When balance between them is found, another level of self-awareness and confidence is reached, and people notice it. I have personally been told that I possess a very balanced personality. The reason is because of all of my opposition aspects between my Cancer and Capricorn planets and the degree to which I consciously seek balance between them.

Whereas the adverse nature of the opposition presents an opportunity to grow, planets in a SQUARE aspect are usually better off avoided. This is a 90 degree relationship between planets that creates perpendicular lines through the center of the chart; it the most harsh relationship between any two parts of one’s personality. These planets will be expressed through signs that are three removed from each other, so they will be similar in modality but not in element. This means that they want to play the same role but have incompatible styles in which they do so. It is never a case of opposites attract as it is in an opposition, but rather, these two parts of oneself will constantly be in competition with one another, struggling for power. They will create difficulty because there is a lack of understanding between them and often a stubborn unwillingness to come to an understanding. My Capricorn ascendant and Aries Mars (the masculine, action-taking, and sexual part of one’s personality) have a strong square aspect. This can lead me to come off as very argumentative and abrasive with certain new acquaintances, especially if I perceive them as ignorant and weak. Both Capricorn and Aries have leadership tendencies, but in styles that don’t see eye to eye. Whereas opposition placements such as Capricorn and Cancer are at 180 degrees and play father/mother roles, Aries will be pointed north when Capricorn is pointed east. They see past one another as they are literally aiming in different directions. When they are forced to work together, it is typically best for them to find structured roles in which they are both naturally suited and to stay out of each other’s way.

Learn your square aspects if you have any, and keep those parts of yourself compartmentalized whenever possible. On the relationship side of things, there are no two sun sign people who cannot make it work if both are willing. As a Cancer sun and a Capricorn-dominant chart, I have issues making it work with Aries women as most of my planets will be squared to her sun. This difficulty comes solely down to an ego battle, so if two people can leave their egos at the door, then there is no firm reason why a relationship between two square sun signs cannot work. In fact, a romantic relationship between to squared suns can be ego-shattering and therefore extremely fruitful for the personal growth of each individual. My brother is an Aries sun, and his girlfriend is a Cancer sun. There is nothing else in their composite chart to indicate that they would be incompatible for any other major reason, and as it turns out, they have an extremely harmonious and relatively ego-free connection. Of course, it helps that my brother’s ascendant and moon are both in Cancer.

The SEXTILE is a type of aspect that places the two planets at or near 60 degrees apart. There is usually, but not always, one sign between the signs of those two planets, so sextile sign pairings (e.g. Aries + Gemini with Taurus between them) share neither an element nor a modality. What they do share, however, is yin (earth + water) or yang (fire + air) energy., so they complement each other in the key ways. They have different reasons for valuing similar things and different ways of achieving many of the same goals. There is a lot of agreement between them about what needs to be done and respect for each other about their differing styles on how to do it.

TRINE planets are about 120 degrees apart and usually fall within four planets and four houses of one another, so they share an element but not a modality. One comfortably cedes control to the other, but they are similar in their grounding. Cardinal Capricorn and mutable Virgo are compatible signs, for example. Capricorn takes on a leadership role and Virgo a more following role, and they feel comfortable in this dynamic since they are both “grounded” and “in their element” as earth signs. My chart, for example, is Capricorn dominant, and I find myself highly attracted to Virgo women. There tends to be an understanding and acceptance about our lifestyle choices and personality quirks, and I am able to express my natural cardinal decisiveness with the comfort of knowing that she will not only go with it but will also generally agree that the right decision is being made for us both.

There is one aspect that is often overlooked, and when it occurs in one’s natal chart, one should be made aware of it. It is not always considered a major aspect, but I think it should be. That is the INCONJUNCTION (or QUINCUNX). Whereas the trine at 120 degrees is seen as a nice, complementary aspect and the opposition at 180 degrees is seen as a challenging one, the quincunx is at 150 degrees. These two placements are completely neutral toward one another, for they share neither element nor quality and are distant from one another. They therefore lack an understanding and any ability to communicate. They speak different languages, have different goals, and deeply value different things. These two parts of one’s personality will be naturally compartmentalized and kept separate unless they encounter a tremendous stroke of harmonious luck. My Venus, for example, is in Gemini, which is already a taboo placement as it means I’m kind of a whore. To make matters worse, it is inconjuncted with my Midheaven in Scorpio which deals with career ideals. Details aside, what this means is that my romantic pursuits, and even platonic friendships, seem to be things that I cannot reconcile with the vision I have for my career potential. I often feel I am at a crossroads between having to choose love/friend interaction and work toward my bigger goals. Gemini and Scorpio are two signs that are infamous for not being on the same page when it comes to organizing time and priorities. An inconjunct between two of your placements will make you feel that confusion very deeply. As a side thought, I would suspect that many wrong decisions in life made by people, who are otherwise perfectly self-aware, are the result of a inconjunct/quincunx between two key planets in a birth chart.

I hope that the technicalities that I have just described are somewhat clear. I suspect that most writing about astrology that is to come will be about the aspects, so I wanted to lay out these descriptions as a foundation for future posts. As always , you can visit my YouTube channel for more regular content about astrology and my other areas of research.

The thesis of this post is to give brief descriptions of what led me to astrology and of its main advantage over other personality systems on account of its being an “open system”. I will also mention in the conclusion what I believe to be its purpose. This is not a technical description of any aspect of astrology, nor is it an account defending its validity. There will be more on those topics later!

For the last 10 years, I have been independently researching the human personality in its many conceptions, including but not limited to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Enneagram, Big 5, and Hermann Brain Dominance Indicator. One of the reasons for my interest in this is to give myself an intellectual framework within which to understand other people. The reason I need an intellectual framework within which to understand people is because I almost completely devoid of empathy.

OMG!

It’s true. I don’t care about you.

This doesn’t mean I don’t value your existence, however, nor does it mean that I’m not intuitive of morals and intentions – that I don’t know things that transcend the facto-linguistic realm. Not at all. In fact, I’m probably more intuitive than most because I lack empathy. At the end of the day, the truth doesn’t care about how you feel, and since I can’t feel what you feel, then I can’t be distracted by it, and so I can intuit the truth unhindered. I can tell quite clearly when someone is behaving in a way that is directed by their emotions and impulses, completely devoid of thought. Although I cannot share the experience of those feelings, I can still observe them and “play the role” of some beneficial course of action. Intuition and feelings are not the same. Personality systems have given me secret knowledge that helps me to do that.

One thing that I intuitied growing up as a virtual-sociopath is that people’s words and actions almost never lined up. I couldn’t simply ask them why they act the way that they do. They’d just lie, usually for ego-preservation.

‘Maybe they just don’t think before they speak or act.’

‘Maybe they’re just animals, and I’m the only rational being on the planet.’

‘Maybe they’re just less intelligent. I mean, I’m the only one around here in a “gifted” program, right?’

‘Maybe this is just how humans are, and I’m actually an alien.’

These are all thoughts that I had as a child. I didn’t get it. I could put patterns of behavior together, but I didn’t get why those patterns were so. Adults were kids to me, and kids were infants. I was an old soul, an impartial observer looking down on everyone. I couldn’t share what I cared about with people in the way I wanted to: e.g. my thoughts, my jokes, my music, my writing, etc. Interest would spark for a moment, but they would quickly lose attention like a dog getting distracted by things of impulse, completely devoid of thought and substance. Their lack of understanding forced me into isolation. I was used to and naturally inclined toward being alone, and I found solitude at a very early age, but did I need to be alone always? That didn’t seem right.

It wasn’t all premature narcissism, by the way. In fact, to be clear, I’ve never had a superiority complex that outweighed an inferiority complex somewhere else in my being. So, as I was looking to understand others more, I knew I had to try at least as hard to understand myself, where my inner balance was to be found. There were certain norms that I just didn’t understand or abide by: I think before I speak and act, so why would I apologize if I meant it? Giving should be a reflection of your understanding of and love for a person, so why would I exchange presents with someone just because it is Christmas and when I don’t know or like them? Why would I date or be intimate with someone before understanding myself? Wouldn’t I just fuck up their life? This all seemed like reckless behavior to me, and it still does to a large degree.

Fast-forwarding to young adulthood, I had found a personality system or two (starting with MBTI) that made it all begin to make sense – why I was the way I was and how those ways were different from others. I began to practice those foreign social norms a bit more frequently as I tweaked my social value structure ever so slightly to accommodate this new knowledge. I became a more likable and outgoing person overall. I became much more balanced. I became much more aware of other value structures that people lived by and more forgiving of them for being wrong (and for not caring that they were).

However, I came to exhaust the systems I had been studying. I knew everything about them, but I still didn’t know everything about people. They were closed systems. I needed more if I were to know the full truth.

The problem with a closed system is that what you can learn about its subject is limited to that system’s structure while the subject, especially in the case of human personality, is virtually unlimited. What happens in research within a closed system is that when you gain precision, you lose the probability of accuracy. The more detailed a rabbit hole you go into, the less generally-true it becomes because the more conditional that truth becomes on the unquestioned, and false, general theory. Whatever actual truth is found is by a stroke of luck and often not recognized. That “knowledge” will therefore be severely limited in usefulness for individual cases. The point of knowledge is to be used, right?

Carl Jung is known as the founding father of MBTI because of his work in “Personality Types”, but in the preface to that book, he warns of the limitations of taking the “cognitive functions” at face-value, formulating rigid types on their basis, and then stuffing every individual into one of 16 boxes. The more boxes, the more accurate each will be for some individual, but these typing systems should be taken with a pinch of salt when in fact, if the point of personality psychology (as with any science) is to be generally accurate as well as precise, then there are as many personality types as there are people on earth. Closed systems lack depth and substance despite their frequent utility. Jung acknowledged that his system was a closed one and would probably bawk at where MBTI has taken his ideas, though he wouldn’t be surprised.

I share Jung’s sentiments, and I could say that astrology found me more than I found it. It found me, perhaps cosmically, because I actually care about what is true (and maybe that’s all I care about), and that truth is best for everyone whether or not one wants it. Astrology immediately began to account for all of the mistakes of the other systems I had studied, and it seemed to have infinite substance beyond that. It seemed to be metaphysical as well as quantifiable on the local level. How could it “do it all” philosophically and scientifically?

For one, astrology is not a closed system and is therefore virtually un-masterable. My mastery of the other personality systems forced me to grow out of them. I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about people simply because I know everything there is to know about those systems. That would be foolish. Those systems are rational conceptualizations with limits and flaws as obvious as the people who created them. In realizing those flaws, I had to move on to discover astrology. It was just the natural progression that my interest took me in. It contains all of the knowledge of the other systems combined more holistically, and it has an abundance of additional knowledge that is intended to be useful as long as one is truly open to learning without ego. Each astrological natal chart is unique to that person. It cannot on the whole apply to any other person on earth when it is properly understood. As I began to study mine, I began to see the openness of the system. It seemed like a “system of systems” in fact, as its micro-theories remain fluid. It can afford this fluidity and still remain consistently oriented toward general truth because it has no general theory governing it. The general theory, if any, is simply “that Truth-itself and about oneself matters”.

Astrology does not contain a general theory, nor is it a religion, nor is it a belief system of any sort. As astrologer Edwin Learnard says, “the stars may impel but do not compel.” It simply regards humans as ancient, spiritual beings possessing a unique and unlimited degree of complexity, which we obviously are, and goes from there. We can still willfully direct our lives despite where our nature may incline us. Our complexity must be fleshed out in both specific and general ways. Most scientific approaches to understanding human personality are only specific or general, but not both. Again, when you gain precision, you lose the probability of accuracy. Astrology becomes more accurate in detail, however. It challenges one to constantly go between dilating and constricting focus every time a new bit of information is presented. The more you do this, the more you can see in detail, and then the bigger the picture you can gain of the individual as a being who transcends the sum of those individual parts. Because of this, Carl Jung himself regarded astrology as representing “the sum of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity” although he never wrote a formal work on the subject.

The last point that I will emphasize – and there will be more technical posts to follow – is that the will to learn is vital when it comes to astrology. There is no rational argument that will convince the most intelligent person in the world to take astrology seriously if they are unwise and unwilling to look inward. Yes, there are many people who learn about it in its shallow, pop-horoscope manifestations for self-validation purposes, but that is neither its purpose nor will that be its effect if you take learning about it seriously. That is not what looking inward affords you. Astrology presents what is, allowing you to make the choice to look inward, and that will destroy you before it validates you, hence the fear surrounding it.

Of course, by looking inward, one also is forced to look outward. One should always be doing both – dilating and constricting focus from general to specific and back. There are qualities within us that are both general and specific, as well as we individuals are specific parts of our general reality. Without understanding yourself, you cannot know how to fit into reality as it is. If personality research is your preferred means of gaining self-awareness, that most local part of “that which is”, astrology is the best of those means. I know because I have studied them all, and after just one year of researching astrology, I find that I know more about myself and about people in general, yet I simultaneously discover every day how little I know about astrology, about people, about the universe, and about what is most true. If you’re learning in the right way, then the more you learn, the more you find that you don’t actually know.

The truth is a skittish, feral cat. You cannot act too quickly. You must sit without attitude and expectation, and let it come to you if and when it is meant to. Astrology, as it seems to me, is the only avenue toward understanding human nature and the self that is systematically without hubris. It simply presents all that is, leaving you to discover why.