My Three Principles of Astrology
My three principles of astrology are interactive mythology, phenomenological interpretation and subjective induction. I develop these three principles from prominent thinkers who, to my knowledge, were not astrologers, or at least published no work on astrology. Whatever your particular astrological persuasion, or if you’re a newcomer to the field in general, it seems these three principles undergird the practice of astrology for all reasonable practitioners. Bringing them to the surface as I do here will make astrology that much easier to explain to newcomers and naysayers, and bring those who are familiar with the practice to some common ground.
Interactive Mythology
Interactive mythology is how astrology gains its value. Interactive mythology is the thing that astrology provides to fill the gap in our secularized culture. It provides the sacred set of thoughts to which a secular individual can orient him or herself so that he or she can find a ground for one’s personality and social interactions.
According to professor of religion Mircea Eliade, space for all human beings is divided into the secular or profane on the one hand, and the sacred or holy on the other. Secular or profane space is homogeneous, and within profane space one is unable to orient oneself – all profane space is the same and indistinguishable. However, when a particular physical location – a temple, a church, a shrine – is designated as holy or sacred by a ritual practice, individuals and communities can orient themselves around that space, and thus find order within chaos.
I argue that the human mind also functions on Eliade’s distinction between the sacred and profane. The human psyche is murky when all our thoughts, emotions, and beliefs are profane or secular. It is difficult to orient ourselves amidst the homogenous mess of our own minds unless we designate particular thought and feeling patterns as holy or sacred. Astrology is an interactive mythology which provides that designation. The Leo native realizes that her self-confidence – even her arrogance – is sacred and designated, and thus provides an orientation around which she subconsciously structures the rest of her personality. So too the Virgo her analysis, the Libra her consideration, the Scorpio her secret ambitions, and so forth.
Phenomenological Interpretation
Phenomenological interpretation is how the claims of astrology are applied. The interactive mythology is interpreted on a phenomenological level – not a mere reporting of traits but an understanding of the underlying motives which create them. A shared internal experience, a phenomenology, unifies those who share a particular sign, no matter what traits bubble to the observable surface. Astrology as phenomenological interpretation, rather than mere psychological observation, is empowering for practitioners and clients of astrology.
According to 19th Century philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the Self or ‘I’ posits itself, or wills itself to exist. However, in exercising this absolute power the Self comes into contact with a not-Self, against which the absolute Self is constrained. Because it is constrained, yet continues to abut the not-Self in an interminable striving, the Self or I becomes limitable Self. The conundrum is that the absolute and limitable Selves are identical yet have different properties. While the absolute Self is the generative force of the individual Will, the limited self is that part of ourselves which we experience as a descriptive object – the part of us that seems to have static attributes and character traits. However, the limitable Self is in fact the result of a dialectic between our absolute Will and the static not-Self (or phenomenal World) which we encounter and struggle to interpret.
I argue that those familiar character traits which are often described by psychologists and astrologers are actually descriptions of the limitable Self. As such, they are the phenomenal result of the dialectic between our absolute Selves and the not-Self. In this way, the interactive mythology of astrology is applied as an internal conflict between our absolute Selves and the not-Selves which we encounter. Therefore, astrology as a phenomenological interpretation empowers us to take control and become agents regarding those attributes of ourselves which seem so static and indomitable.
The notion of astrological claims as phenomenological interpretations, rather than static psychological observations, is empowering for free will astrology and self-actualization. The Sagittarian’s outward optimism yet flash-in-the-pan work ethic is not some unchangeable property of all Sagittarian natives, but is due to the relationship between her dynamic life energy and her interpretation of tasks as targets. If she changes her perspective and channels her energy more effectively, the Sagittarian can become a steadfast and diligent worker. The Capricorn’s outward reliability and steady ambition results from her interpretation of social rules as hierarchical systems, and her decisive will to navigate them. However, the loneliness and sarcasm which result from seeing only top-down relationships can be augmented if she changes her perspective to one which is more egalitarian and less power-focused. And so forth for the other signs.
Subjective Induction
Subjective induction is the easiest method of verifying astrology’s claims. This is to assess observations of oneself and others by comparing those observations to the claims of astrology. From one side, we privilege the claims of astrology as we gather data from personal experience, and discount anomalous observations as outliers. However, from the other side, one can also modify the claims of astrology when there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, each individual student of astrology approaches its truths from both ends.
According to political philosopher John Rawls, any group of thinkers, as well as individuals, use a method he calls reflective equilibrium in order to discern and settle complex conceptions. When claims are made in a particular discursive arena – like a Senate, or on nationally broadcast news – the appropriateness of those claims can be assessed by appeal to the community’s other held practices and beliefs. Rather than turning to some higher, arbitrary standard, the discussants settle on a conception themselves by reflecting one with another upon the claims which do or do not align with their background beliefs and practices. Neither claims nor practices trump the other outright. Rather, a preponderance of beliefs or practices will lead claims to be augmented, while supported claims lead outlier cases to be discarded. Thus, members in a community can calibrate their shared conceptions through this process of reflective equilibrium.
I argue that individual practitioners of astrology, by using subjective induction, engage in an analogous process to Rawls’s reflective equilibrium. The average individual does not have the financial or temporal resources to conduct large, thousand-person studies which are needed to validate astrology’s claims at a scientific level. However, each individual practitioner or enthusiast can ask persons they meet their sign. Anyone can keep tabs on family and friends, and determine through experience whether the claims of astrology are corroborated. The psychological observation that every Pisces native is selfless and empathetic may not hold water. However, those Pisces natives who are not selfless are still deeply sensitive, and through subjective induction one will find that all Pisces natives cope with their sensitivity through altruism, perfectionism or escapism. Thus, subjective induction will reveal the truths of phenomenological interpretation.
Conclusion
My three principles of astrology – interactive mythology, phenomenological interpretation, and subjective induction – are developed from previous thinkers. However, Mircea Eliade, J. G. Fichte, and John Rawls were, to my knowledge, not astrologers or even dabblers in the practice. However, I encountered them in my political philosophy research and incorporated them into my astrological outlook. Each in their turn contributed something to my astrological work, and I am indebted to them as much as I am to more explicit astrologers and esotericists.
Eliade, Mircea. 1957. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harcourt, Inc.
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 1982. The Science of Knowledge. Translated by Peter Heath. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard University Press.