Go To Home Page u Go To Other Articles

In Defense of Traditional Astrology: A Response to Glenn Perry's "A New Synthesis"

Joseph Crane

In the recent (Winter, 2007) edition of Geocosmic Journal appears a long article "From Ancient to Postmodern Astrology: Toward a New Synthesis" by Glenn Perry.

Reading his article, I would like to set the record straight on those traditions of astrology that I have learned so much from and also use in my astrological practice. Many readers of the Geocosmic Journal may not be acquainted with traditional astrology. Since Mr. Perry is a noted astrologer who writes frequently for publication, this increases the need to reply to some of his assertions.

How do traditional astrologers use premodern material? Simply put, methodology and interpretation derive in some way from traditional literature, as best as we know and understand it. This is not different from modern jurisprudence, which uses previous case law as guides for current practice. This is different from being an originalist or a fundamentalist, whereby one simply follows the past ("original intent") without adapting it to present concerns. Mr. Perry and some others wrongly imply that traditional astrologers are originalists or fundamentalists.

I will first address the fragility of Perry's assumptions about the advancement of consciousness, then note important similarities between traditional and modern astrology that diminishes some of his arguments, and finally address some inaccuracies in his presentation of traditional astrology's methods.

Has human consciousness evolved over the centuries? According to Perry and the authorities he cites, our consciousness as a species has indeed developed, rendering past ideas and practices relics of more childlike points of view. In line with Dane Rudhyar in The Astrology of Tranformation, Perry argues that method and application of astrology needs to grow in parallel with that evolution.

I am not averse to the possibility of evolution of consciousness, since there is evidence that our brains are more versatile than are those of, say, Cro-Magnons. Over a long time the prefrontal lobe and the language areas of human brains have become larger - but not over the short intervals between ancient, medieval and modern people.

The authorities Perry cites are speculative in their approach. One may be attracted to Julian Jaynes' ideas of a change in human perception from many thousands of years ago, but I recoil from the idea that Homer is "pre-egoic" in any meaningful way. Perry cites Ken Wilbur numerous times, yet I find it hard to find Wilbur's work definitive- the following year he tries a different approach from the previous year. In The Atman Project, for example, Wilbur presents post-egoic higher consciousness as embodied in ancient Asian wisdom traditions that would far predate modern psychological concerns.

Taking note of our world today, I wonder how much farther we have come than the very imperfect societies and cultures of ancient and medieval eras. One can plausibly argue that our time is a technological and comfort-oriented version of a dark age with no new dawn ahead.

One assumption pervades any traditional approach to astrology: we have not changed over the centuries; our concerns and aspirations and security needs are the same and will probably continue in the same way for the foreseeable future. For this reason, artists, writers, religious adepts, philosophers and astrologers can talk to us across the centuries and continue to influence our lives.

The foundation of Perry's synthesis is a modern triumphalism that I find at odds with reality.

I would like to address Perry's presentation of traditional astrology in his recent article. He mentions seven difficulties he has with a traditional approach and I would like to address all of them briefly.

Focus on Fate.

While acknowledging that there are subtleties, Perry immediately conflates fate with "fatalism." This move asks the reader to measure an important concept using only a negative stereotype of it. Instead, reflection on fate and freedom are important to the examined life. We have to understand our lives as comprised of both indeterminism of choice and limitation by what is already in place - our body, character, background, family, and culture that we are embedded in. Everything that is particular has limitation by its nature -- including all of us as particular beings. Astrology can address both our potential as indeterminate and the limitations that are inherently part of who we are.

Perry dismisses the "jobian view" without explaining what he means by that view. I offer my own interpretation: bad things happen to good people, there is not always a rationale that gives difficult experience its meaning, and, furthermore, we overreach when we assume we know what is, in cosmic terms, right. In my view, this view is not out of place in our modern world but very much part of it. Much is to be gained spiritually contemplating this seemingly harsh outlook. That is the wisdom of the Book of Job.

Additionally, Perry undercuts his argument by presenting some of the controversies around astrology and free will in the ancient and modern worlds: these are lines of inquiry to be studied, not scorned.

Ego-centered concerns of traditional astrology. Are the concerns of traditional astrology more ego-centered than the astrology of modern times? The concerns of the clients in the past were also love and work, parents and children, health and happiness.

Perry also asks whether traditional astrology can help the individual evolve. By "evolution" he seems to mean a movement from external to internal loci of control, also from a narrow to a broader range of awareness. Traditional astrology most certainly can do that. Additionally, many philosophical viewpoints in the ancient and medieval worlds (that underlie their era's astrological traditions) do a better job working with these issues than does modern thought.

Descriptions of temperament. Noting traditional astrology's interest in temperament delineation, Perry disputes that temperament, in its basic form, is unchanging through life, as is traditionally depicted. However, some modern developmental theorists have argued that temperament is innate. Closer to home, most parents note that their children display their temperament by the time they're but a few months old.

Mr. Perry also disputes the depictions of "soul" in traditional astrology, and this is an important concern. Indeed, the psychology in traditional astrology describes a person mostly in terms of his or her interaction with the world - they are descriptive of behavior and personal style, one's stamp on his or her environment. Although many modern astrologers are interested in hidden currents of unconscious subjectivity, their work does not seem better or more relevant or real than the traditional outlook.

Value judgments. Perry's argument that traditional astrology is rife with the same direness could be equally applied to much modern astrology. As a practicing astrologer, there are many times when a client's life and the astrology of that life seem to be on a collision course. Many of us would have wanted to be Benazir Bhutto's astrologer in autumn 2007. I, among others, saw a Pluto-Mars opposition transiting her natal Sun and Mars and was pessimistic about the prospects of her return to Pakistan. Would not any astrologer, traditional or modern, communicate this concern to her?

Rigid technique. Perry addresses the extreme interpretations given by ancient and medieval astrologers for specific planetary combinations.

Some modern astrological literature also uses extreme interpretations for astrological features in the natal chart, and many examples can be found in astrology texts of all eras. What purposes do they serve? They educate the student. What is the logic of, say, Venus in Capricorn opposing Saturn? Would not any astrologer, past or present, consider marriage difficulties, or, as Firmicus would, hostility by a spouse? What if Mars is also in square to Venus? Where does your imaginative understanding take you?

I have gained interpretive skill by studying many of these same "dire" or "rigid" delineations from ancient and medieval sources. Many modern astrology teachers who present charts of extreme people and extreme situations gain the same results for their students.

Questionable validity. Perry makes several interesting points here, some betraying his ignorance of the methods of traditional astrology.

Perry cites that ancient and medieval astrologers did not have the methods we have for calculating astrological charts. Looking at Greek Horoscopes and other works, I marvel at how close they came to modern calculations. In my view, this shows a technical competence in pervious centuries that modern astrologers should envy. Modern astrologers do have access to charts with more reliable birth times than in centuries past - this is good reason to try traditional methods with modern charts.

In his discussion on planetary dignity, Perry inadvertently shows the subtlety of traditional astrological delineation. He cites Mars at the fourth degree of Cancer in a diurnal chart - in fall but out of sect, in its triplicity (according to Ptolemy's triplicities), and its own terms or bounds. Not only are not all the categories of dignity are the same, but also planetary sect - or its lack -- gives additional important information. How can astrologers differentiate between seemingly opposing conditions? This is exactly what makes being a traditional astrologer interesting and traditional methods revealing. This Mars is in a mixed condition. A few images come to mind: I think of the high school athlete who's very difficult to coach but is personally important for the team's chemistry, or the competent subordinate who undercuts himself because of his negative attitude. In that way the complexities of astrology can mirror the complexities of the world we live in.

Perry's depiction of Jupiter in Cancer - exalted, traditionally -- relies on his rendering the signs of the zodiac as distinct personalities, a practice that is but a century old. I would ask this: what does Jupiter in exaltation say about the sign Cancer? This would be one of the descriptions of that sign. I would like modern astrologers to investigate more thoroughly the background and logic they give to the personalities of the signs of the zodiac.

Perry is on even thinner ice when he discusses traditional predictive systems. Planetary period methods do not relate to the terms (or bounds) of the planets, except for some methods used to determine the years of the native and a mode of circumambulation or primary direction. Instead, for example, the lengths of planetary periods are mostly based upon recurrences of conjunctions with the Sun. How do we modern astrologers account for secondary progressions, solar arc directions, and solar returns? I am not convinced of the theoretical superiority of modern methods of prediction over ancient methods.

Perry also discusses the alleged methodological chaos of traditional astrological methods. This might be valid except that we are discussing astrological traditions that accumulated over a wide area during a period of 1500 years. Yes, during that time and along that expanse there are many variations of tradition. Modern astrology is no different: pretend you are the proverbial "anthropologist from Mars" and go to a modern astrology conference like UAC. You would also wonder about the unity of modern astrology.

I will leave to others any response to Perry's descriptions of modern astrology. As for the synthesis, I do not believe I want his version of traditional astrology to be a part of it.

All of us, from time to time, have had to confront astrology's stereotypes, feeling forced to compare reality with somebody's fixed assumptions. In an articulate and elegant way, Perry renders stereotype about traditional astrology as truth.

Traditional astrology has grown considerably over the past fifteen years: more primary texts and modern commentaries are available and a larger number of astrologers have gained experience applying astrology's traditions to modern life. It is by approaching traditional astrology respectfully and on its own terms that a truly post-modern synthesis will be achieved.

Response to Joseph Crane's Defense of Traditional Astrology

by Glenn Perry

When I wrote my article for NCGR's Winter 2007 Geocosmic Journal, I anticipated some feathers might be ruffled. Cross comparisons of different traditions have the advantage of sharpening our understanding of each side, but also run the risk of upsetting proponents of one side or the other. In the end, I think this sort of dialogue is healthy and invites us to think more deeply about why we believe what we believe. I applaud Joseph for his courage and passion in speaking out for what he believes, even though I believe differently.

Joseph explains that the methodology and interpretations of neo-traditional astrologers derive from traditional literature, similar to modern jurisprudence that uses previous case law as guides for current practice. This analogy presumes that the claims of traditional astrologers have been tried in the court of public opinion. But have they? Anyone can express an opinion, but that doesn't mean it has been critically evaluated, tested, and consensually validated. Critical thinking, research, and understanding of epistemology is of comparatively recent origin and certainly wasn't common during Medieval or Hellenistic times when literacy was extremely limited.

Even assuming there was lively debate and discussion amongst astrologers in medieval and Hellenistic times, this is hardly an argument for the validity of practices that were common during those periods. Would we try a case today on the basis of Mosaic Law? Would a modern physician treating pneumonia apply the medieval medical procedure of leeching? In virtually every academic field, knowledge evolves and advances by the correction of errors that encumbered prior models. Consequently, many ideas that we're revered in past centuries are eliminated because they have been found to be invalid, incomplete, or unhelpful. Astrology is unique among 21st century disciplines for its comparative lack of critical thinking and research. This is as true for modern astrology as it is for ancient. However, I would argue that modern astrology - at least the nuts and bolts kind - is on more solid ground than traditional astrology precisely because it has culled from its canons certain highly speculative, questionable, and unfalsifiable "techniques" of our forbearers.

When assessing the merits of a claim, two things are worth asking: 1) is the claim researchable and falsifiable? And (2) are the outcomes cited as evidence for the validity of a technique explainable by other means? Many ideas from traditional astrology are not researchable or falsifiable, e.g., it is impossible to determine on the basis of observation whether Saturn is stronger above the horizon in a day chart; yet, this convention of traditional astrology goes largely unquestioned. Likewise, the occurrence of an event that appears to correspond to the "time lord" of that period is not evidence for the validity of time lords if the event is better explained by a transit or progression. This grab bag approach to evidence makes a mockery of astrology as a legitimate field of inquiry.

With regard to whether consciousness evolves over time, it is difficult to deny this on the basis of the evidence. Of the great minds that have addressed this question - Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Ken Wilber, Huston Smith, Sri Aurobindo, Teilhard de Chardin, Aldous Huxley, and scores of others - there is unanimity of opinion that human consciousness not only is progressively evolving from lower to higher states, but such evolution is thought to be the very purpose of human existence. If this is true, it follows that our application of astrology should be 1) supportive of this general trend, and 2) adapted to the needs, sensibilities, and capabilities of modern humans. Personally, I believe we are better served by an astrology that empowers humans to actualize latent potentials than an astrology that predicts what things are going to happen, what temperament one has, and whether one can expect a good or a bad life.

I agree with Crane's assertion that reflecting on the false dichotomy of fate versus freedom is important to the examined life. However, this is precisely what is lacking in the vast majority of interpretations attributed to traditional astrologers, most of which are unequivocal in their statements about fated character and events. Of course, bad things do happen to good people, but it is a matter of faith as to whether they occur because of planetary decree (traditional view), or because painful outcomes constitute feedback to heighten awareness and spur higher levels of integration over time (modern view). Psychological astrologers would argue that the same configuration at higher levels of integration results in enhanced functionality and more fulfilling outcomes. Unless our interpretations address this possibility, clients are apt to conclude they are relatively powerless to avert a negative fate. This was precisely what Jung argued in his Answer to Job, which was a reflection on the necessity and purpose of suffering. "Man needs difficulties," said Jung, "they are necessary for health."

Far from being scornful of the controversies surrounding fate versus free will, I presented alternative views from traditional authorities to establish that astral-determinism has always been a subject of dispute and that the better minds of every age have argued against it. If astral-determinism was a subject of dispute in prior centuries, it was because the vast amount of traditional astrology was, in fact, deterministic and fatalistic.

The issue at hand is not whether the concerns of clients in the past were the same as moderns, but how best to address such concerns -- by predicting what is going to happen to them and when - "avoid this, exploit that" -- or by describing innate challenges and supporting increasingly effective responses? Of course there were doctrines in prior centuries that were effective in helping people solve problems, but astral-determinism was not one of them, and that's the rub.

Likewise, I'm not arguing against the notion that people have innate temperaments; I'm saying that temperament is the tip of the iceberg, and that explication of deeper levels - psychodynamics, internal conflicts, and self-limiting beliefs - is potentially healing and empowering. It has only been in the latter half of the 20th century that astrology was applied to this end, and we should not forget its higher calling in our excitement over the recovery of its lower uses (fortune telling).

With regard to Benazir Bhutto's opposition of Pluto-Mars on her natal Sun and Mars, I would not communicate "concern" to her out of an inflated expectation that by doing so I could prevent her death; rather, I would explore the range of possibilities and challenges that such a transit entails, including the potential for violent attack (given her circumstances), but also her willingness to risk danger and confront evil in the pursuit of healing a torn nation. I would leave the choice of action entirely to her.

I think it is misguided to say that extreme interpretations are acceptable because they "educate the student". The issue is not whether dire delineations - whether ancient or modern -- might have some truth to them, but that they constitute an extreme, one-sided, negative, and (at best) partial truth. Unless the rigidity and narrowness of such interpretations are exposed as potentially harmful, what is to stop new students of astrology from applying them? Clearly they were applied in ancient times, which I believe contributed to astrology's near demise by the 18th century.

I do believe that a synthesis of ancient and modern astrology is possible, but not by uncritically accepting the claims of early star gazers and repeating their mistakes. While the structure, system, and precision of ancient astrology has an intuitive appeal and may fruitfully be applied to modern ideals of self-discovery and personal growth, we should not abandon our faculty of critical thinking in the process. Not everything written by astrologers then or now is true, and the further back in time we peer, the sharper our lens needs be.

Joseph Crane is a noted astrologer and psychotherapist who has spoken and written about astrology on the national level. A long-standing Buddhist practitioner with a graduate degree in Gestalt and Integrated Psychotherapy, he brings a classical approach to astrological technique, blending traditional and contemporary methods. As a humanistically-oriented astrologer, he emphasizes the personal interaction between astrologer and client. He is the author of "A Practical Guide to Traditional Astrology."

Go To Home Page u Go To Other Articles