Empirical Astrology

A few years ago, a reader of this blog contacted us and asked if we had heard of Richard Tarnas.  We had not, and we believed that the foundation for our ideas flowed from C. G. Jung, Dane Rudhyar, Grant Lewi, Anthony Louis, as well as selected ideas from mainstream science.  We thought we had created a unique and novel synthesis from these existing works.

But, selected commentary of our work looked so similar to Tarnas that we took down certain entries, particularly the one located at this page.  No history of those entries was kept, and apparently they are “gone forever.”

However, we recently saw an article that contains the basic ideas that we had originally written.  That would be this one.  Without making specific statements, we adopt that page as being very similar, if not the same, as the ideas underlying the approach of this site to Astrology.  We would also say that our ideas are either the same or similar to those of Tarnas.

Specifically, we offer (1) planets, signs, and houses are either the same as, or associated with, archetypes; (2) the best way to understand the relationships between these universal symbols (“archetypes”) is to OBSERVE the events that correspond to planetary aspects and PATTERNS of those aspects.  Experience is the best teacher.  And, the real focus of this blog is to teach and disseminate our ideas about astrology in a fashion that can live beyond us when we are no longer on this earth.

But, let us be clear: the ancients developed astrology from observation of events in the sky and noting correspondence to events on Earth (sometimes called the Law of Correspondence, which has been expanded by others into a more general metaphysical “law”) and Jung’s idea of synchronicity looks suspiciously similar. 

While we note that some may argue that Astrology results from spurious correlations, we also note that even those are thought to result from what is called the “third variable problem.”  This means that the relationship is somehow tied to some third variable (or a group of them) that we do not know how to observe or measure (yet).

We also note that some may argue that Astrology is driven by the perceptual phenomenon of “illusory correlation.”  We accept that this is a real danger, but we note that it would become an irrelevant issue if an oracle, any oracle (whether astrological or otherwise), has predictive validity, at least as informally assessed by a particular observer. 

In particular, for a particular individual, we emphasize that the critical question is whether or not an oracle has utility, in at least an informal sense.  Said a different way, oracles might actually be a type of projective.  In layman’s terms, if you find that an oracle, no matter how irrational, gives you useful and meaningful answers to questions in your life, then use it as long as it continues to work for you.

To that end, we focus on the use of astrological patterns as oracles for those who are interested in the topic.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. ??


    • As far as I knew, my ideas about Empirical Astrology (as I call it) were my own but derived (mostly) from Carl Jung, Grant Lewi, and Dane Rudhyar. AND, I can only claim to have read the works of Grant Lewi in depth (repeatedly). All was well until, one day, a well versed reader of this blog came along and pointed out that some of my ideas looked almost identical to the work of Richard Tarnas. (This is particularly true of his second and third books apparently.) As far as I know, I developed my ideas independently, but, fearing accusations of plagiarism I took down certain posts. This was one of them.

      See, also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tarnas

      Eventually, “some day,” I will actually read the work of Tarnas. If it is as close as I suspect it is (based on the comments of others), I will simply adopt his position as my own and give him credit as originator (since his ideas appear to have predated mine).

      Liked by 1 person

      • That is funny…. Einstein discovered dark matter and created a Cosmological Constant to explain the reason the mathematical formula couldn’t rest in a state of balance. The universe had to be either expanding or contracting but could not be rest in a state of balance.
        Meanwhile back on the ranch, Hubble on the other hand had made observations that the universe was continually expanding. So Einstein threw out his work and called it his biggest blunder failing to acknowledge or trust in his own brilliance for fear his assesment was inconsequential. Turns out it is very far from inconsequential. I wouldn’t even read his work. If you haven’t read it you haven’t read it and you shouldn’t be afraid to post your theory because its similar to someone elses. It is original and can not be 100% identical you may hold the missing key. However don’t let that commentary from someone make you take down your post. You are far more credible than you give yourself credit on.


      • Thank you. Unfortunately, when I deleted the post I did not keep a copy and I cannot find a copy on the “Wayback Machine” (archive.org). Apparently it is gone, unrecoverably gone.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: