Editorial - The Astrological Journal: March / April 1996 Vol. 38, No 2

By Robin Heath

A Dark Hour

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should see it as an enemy of truth"
Professor Richard Dawkins

In case any of our members were away or hibernating at the time of the New Year, the first week of 1996 saw astrology and astrologers assailed under another virulent attack from the media. We lost, embarrassingly and with little or no dignity. The order of events unfolded as follows. On New Year's Eve, the Independent on Sunday published an extravagent two page article by Professor Richard Dawkins entitled, The Real Romance in the Stars, from which the above quotation is taken. The sub-heading then asks, "Why do so many of us indulge in these pre-Copernican dabblings which are nothing short of a wicked fraud?". The author, an Aries (apt, one might think, for the author of The Selfish Gene), ends his article with the sentence, "Why, actually, are professional astrologers not jailed for fraud?" All this from the first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford.

On the third of January, this article was acted out in the flesh, when Newsnight thought fit to introduce Oxford don to Russell Grant; one in a local studio in Oxford, the other beside Jeremy Paxman in a studio set replete with candelabras, black shawl-like drapes and other remnants more suited to a Victorian seance than any serious discussion about astrology.

Comments about the typically Taurean 'kissy lips' tie worn by Mr Paxman did little to promote astrology into the 21st century. Russell apparently did not read my last editorial; all the warning bells had been rung.

The infamous Simon Hoggett article in the Guardian (November 21st 1995) was almost repeated in that same newspaper (January 3rd) in Wheen's World, where Frances Wheen, yet another satirical columnist added the trimmings from Dawkins article, repeating the above imprisonment clause and referring to the great Professor Richard Dawkins. At least he refrained from referring to Russell Grant as "Roly-Poly", as the great professor had done, (objectively and terribly scientifically you understand).

In the same Independent on Sunday a further two page centre spread in the Real Life (sic) supplement, offered us Archie Dunlop's Sun-sign forecast. His title was given as simply 'astrologer', and he recommends in his forecast for Taureans for the year ahead, "Wear loud and tasteless colours, and buy a venomous pet, such as a rattlesnake or a cyanide tipped budgerigar". I obviously missed this page in Margaret Hone, or was it Charles Carter. I missed spotting the transits that led Archie to further inform Taureans that, "It is unlikely that getting laid/finding true love is going to be your main priority". For Geminians, "importing Class-A drugs" is seriously suggested as expressing the "liar or a cheat" aspect of the sign. I don't think I've ever seen that in The Compleat Astrologer. Perhaps Derek and Julia Parker need to rush out a revised edition. Then again, perhaps they don't.
None of which would win the Faculty Gold Medal now, would it?

Nothing New under the Sun

Attacks on astrology and astrologers aren't new and we mustn't over-react to this debacle we suffered at the turn of the year. Horrible things were done to us [and scientists] by the various Church States of Europe in the middle ages:

Whereas you, Galileo, aged 70 years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the Sun is immovable in the centre of the world... we pronounce this our final sentence... We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office for a period determinable at Our pleasure.....
Galileo's Inquisition

The Holy Office has apparently moved from Rome to Oxford now, otherwise it's persecution business as usual, but perhaps we might profitably look at how the AA and the FAS have dealt with attacks and criticism in the more recent past? I've been rooting through every back issue of the Journal since it began and I have the feeling of deja vu. Did you know that the Faculty of Astrological Studies, in the Spring 1970 Journal, authorised a statement entitled Astrologers and the Law, where the then council used a solicitor to clarify just such matters - re-Witchcraft Acts and the like? You didn't? Well it's here, reprinted in toto. To ram home the point that little changes, I've included some archive material within this issue, including a book review which was written by our now Patron, Charles Harvey, in 1970. Nothing much changes.

If, as my earlier editorials infer, we are moving into a more oppressive atmosphere in which to practice and teach astrology, then we must ask some pretty basic questions about what we are doing when we erect a natal chart. We might profitably look at our own methodology and its weaknesses. Is there a single student of astrology who doesn't, at some point, become bewildered by the different systems offered by the various schools and textbooks? To an outsider, there appears to be very little about astrological technique which is universally accepted or acceptable. Perhaps we shoot ourselves in the foot through having such a diversity of methodology.

One of the AA founding fathers, Brigadier Firebrace, was a siderealist whilst Cyril Fagan, a stalwart of the AA's early years, used a clockwise eight house system commencing from the ascendant. Hardly de rigueur by Faculty standards yet these souls were probably very good astrologers. Our astrological house systems are legion, even our zodiac's not fixed! Arggh! - Fix me a stiff zodiac! Is there an ephemeris in the house? Which house would you like, Sir: Equal, Placidus, Campanus, Koch or Regiomontanus? Sidereal or Tropical Zodiac, madame?

Is this confusion concerning methodology what causes Dawkinesque people to rant hysterically about astrology? No, it isn't, because many scientific disciplines have a problem with their methodology and axioms - remember Fred Hoyle's Continuous Creation theory versus the Big Bang theory of the Universe? Methodology ain't the issue.

Our Hypothesis is Showing

If, as I believe, astrology is a holographical system, then "the tropicalist can lie down with the siderealist" as Roger Elliot once naughtily suggested, and maybe all those intermidable discussions about which house system is best can be understood as rather futile. And we do spend hour upon hour arguing amongst ourselves about which system of astrology is 'best' (for who?), don't we? Under a holographic astrology, one can reconstitute the multidimensional whole from any slice or section made through it, rather like viewing an image through different facets of a jewel. A natal chart is thus truly a seamless garment and any interpretative technique will restore some of the whole - a point Rudhyar continually stressed. Even Sun-sign astrology can have some value under such a viewpoint.

Astrology is unique in being a belief system which uses scientific methods (mathematics and astronomy) as its starting platform. It is not a pseudo-science - a charge that the educated ignorant often make - at least, not in the modern sense of that world, any more than psychology or economic forecasting is a pseudo-science. In so many ways we are just like the hard-core scientist. Our experiment always begins with a chart, a totally objective datum point. Then we use data which dates back to Sumerian times in order to evaluate our hypothesis - that there is a corellation between planetary gyrations, human experience and events on this Planet. Each and every time we interpret a chart we obtain results from which we get feedback enabling each and every astrologer to monitor and refine the underlying laws which govern this planetary time-table. We can then, at some point, choose to reject the hypothesis or perform further experiments. What is so terribly unscientific about that? All that can be argued with is our hypothesis, our technique is identical to that of the very scientists who abhor astrology, which is perhaps why the scientific community, whose performance in the public ratings can hardly be described as buoyant, whilst astrology goes from strength to strength, are becoming decidedly twitchy. They want us removed from the scene - they want a monopoly on objectivity, belief and truth and they have a very different hypothesis for us to swallow. Pluto in Sagittarius - remember?

If proof of any of this were needed, we might note that we are not observing regular media attacks on people whose belief system takes in a hypothesis that the Son of God rose after three days in a tomb, appeared miraculously all over the Holy Land and then ascendend into heaven. Why not, this one's fairly untestable, certainly unrepeatable, requiring faith rather than measurement or interpretation? Q.E.D.

What is Professional in Astrology?

The great and oft persecuted astronomer/astrologers of our past were, in some quite radical ways, very different from the typical modern astrologer. They were devout men and they avidly watched the skies in order to make sense of human affairs. In a sense, they were the last of the line - scientists who held on to a primary though fading world belief that the cosmos and thus God could and would speak directly to Man, if one could only decode its messages. That the cosmos speaks indirectly to man is self-evident through the vast catalogue of folk-lore, mythology and legend which involves cosmic themes. Now, with the advent of the computer age, the inexperienced can spend a couple of hundred quid on an astrological software program, frig a few buttons, look at a highly abstracted solar system on a monitor and then talk glibly about how Neptune, a planet they wouldn't realise was unavailable for comment in Kepler's time, is deluding and confusing their 'client' because it transits their natal Mercury.

The program will even print out a report to this effect - which, in this case, might even be quite accurate! But where's the depth or richness of direct experience in this route and where's the professionalism? No wonder we're in schtuk: we've allowed the computer to become the intermediary 'priest' and we have sold out our last direct line to the cosmos. Thank goodness the FAS certificate and diploma courses still retain the initiation rites of priesthood: the ability to erect a chart by hand and understand the celestial mechanics involved. Surely such ability must be the starting grid before anyone practises as an astrologer, calls themself a professional or consultant astrologer or even writes a Sun-sign column?

"Most of the misuses of astrology spring from the debasement of the law of correspondence into attempts at prediction. Indeed the average person and all materialists have no idea at all of astrology used in any other context."
Ingrid Lind, AA Vice-President, 1970

Media connect to astrology by recognising and catering for the public fascination with prediction. That's why we have all those Sun-sign columns. But their current attack on astrology is something else; fuelled, I suspect, by slick PR people acting on behalf of various bodies whom we cannot specifically identify (although the PR lady of the Royal Astronomical Society, Dr Jaqueline Mittern, is a constant theme in media attacks on astrology), who periodically tweak the media into the kind of frenzy we have recently witnessed. The AA urgently needs an effective policy on PR. Until it has one in place, and begins serious dialogue with the media, any publicity seeking person can label themselves an astrologer, do Sun-sign columns and go willingly to be crucified by the media, and thus, like the proverbial rotten apple, infect the whole barrel of astrology, its image and its future role. The public never become aware of the deeper nature of astrology, thereby the 'rubbish astrology' brigade have achieved their primary objective.

It might be important that we, as AA members, consider seriously the importance of better PR during this coming period of intolerance and persecution. I think we need to hiss and show our teeth a little more. Then at least we can offer a more effective defence against the horrendous allegations made recently right across the media. The alternative is to 'go underground' even further, whence the scientific community win without any contest, such action limiting public awareness of astrology solely to the Sun-sign columnists, Mystic Meg and the National Lottery and the epithets on crisp packets. I urge readers to read Dennis Elwell's valuable contributory letter in this journal. (yet, note too his description of 'Piscean ambiguity', surely a vignette of Sun-sign astrology spilling out of a letter which attacks it as rubbish). Whether we like it or not, Sun-sign astrology and popular astrology isn't going to go away, thus:

Question: - If trained astrologers don't do Sun-sign work, who will?
Answer: - Hack journalists in the pub at lunchtime.
Question: - Would the public be able to tell the difference?
Answer: - Yes! - We must not fall into that common media trap of thinking that Joe Public is inherently stupid.
If you answered 'no' to this one, then you also place the validity of astrology in a very questionable position.

Wanting a better public image for astrology carries very different motives than rebutting any attempt to make the practice of our art illegal. The latter involves us all dealing with all firmness to a shadow projection which lurks within the modern squeaky clean materialism of science, whilst the former is a matter of educating people to what astrology can be and allaying their misconceptions and fears about astrology as described by its attackers. These fears are currently being heavily fuelled by the inept, fatuous and totally misinformed media copy written by 'expert' scientists. Dawkins had obviously researched nothing into either the history or the beliefs of astrology - his writing shows an astonishing naiviety - and, in the context of his position as an alleged expert on the subject, he himself becomes guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation.

In this Issue

I intend to include in future issues a 'from our archives' section, beginning this process here. Following the publication by the Urania Trust of the Anthology of the Astrological Association, painstakingly undertaken by the AAJ's editor at the time, Zak Matthews, it seems that some excellent material from the journal bears repeating, especially for younger members who weren't even born when the original copy first saw the light of day.

Caroline Norris' article sets an appropriately strong flavour for this journal, which includes a look at Mundane astrology from Garry Phillipson, Astrol-archaeology from Catherine Gill, an astro-religious investigation from a Dutch member, Wim Weehuizen, a case study with a fated end masterfully decoded for us by Margaret Millard and a deceptively simple astrological hypothesis for you to test for yourself from Cynthia Thorburn. All this plus your letters and our usual book reviews, Charles Harvey's Notes and an inspirational text from D.H.Lawrence. If any of this moves you, empurples you with rage or changes your life, then share your experiences with our members in the next letters section deadline April 1st.

Late News

OIBIBIO - International Astrology Conference
I have received details of this event, to be held in Amsterdam on June 1st and 2nd 1996. The theme is "Re-Awakening the Soul of Astrology". The conference bills, Noel Tyl, Charles Harvey, Suzanne Lilley-Harvey, Alan Oken and Alexander Ruperti amongst its "well-known and inspiring astrology teachers".
OIBIBIO describes itself as a "2nd Generation New Age Centre. For further details, full brochure and programme, write or phone, OIBIBIO, Astrology Conference - Prins Hendrikkade 20 -21 - 1012TL Amsterdam; telephone +31-205539355, Fax +31-20-5539360 or Email: Joyce.hoen@astronet.idn.nl

News from the APA
The Association of Professional Astrologers (APA) have sent me news from their newly appointed Press Officer. A "clean sweep" of their council has resulted in Prudence Jones taking the Chair, Maureen Ravenhall becoming Secretary and Dawne Kovan as Press Officer. They write, "It is our aim to breathe fresh life into the embers of the Association and leap into action to promote the integrity of astrologers and the soundness of the profession". The APA's stated aims are to "offer guidance to ensure the best possible service to your clients and maintain good standards of renumeration as to reflect the dignity of your work".You can obtain full details about the APA by contacting the Secretary, Maureen Ravenhall, 80, High Street, Wargrave, Berks, RG10 8DE.

OBITUARY
Loof Lirpa (1.4.1913 - 29.2.1996)
As we go to press we hear the sad news of the passing, on February 29th 1996, of the grandfather of modern Finnish astrology, Loof Lirpa, after a short illness. Loof, known to older members of the AA for his masterful work on the ineffective use of house systems in the Arctic Circle, was a frequent speaker at early AA conferences. In 1972, he delivered a keynote speech on the effects of living in a country where the Full Moon disappeared for four months each summer as the Sun dominated the Ecliptic. His book, Sklop bloop, Fjuerklar Sklop (roughly, Old Moon, New Moon), has regrettably never been translated; perhaps Loof's passing will stimulate the Finnish Astrological Association under Marika Holttz to set about undertaking this task, along with other translations she has promised..

Loof Lirpa was born 1.4.1913 in the Finnish fishing port of Kristuna kauwpunki [62N18;21E15] at 04:50 (FST). His father was a dentist, wishing young Loof to follow a medical career. However, instead he became a teacher of navigation at the Hanko Panki Observatory and Institute. After the second World War, Loof became more and more committed to astrology, especially the Cosmobiology of Ebertin. Loof's midpoint tree for the Sun = MO/VE = VE/MA = VE/PL = UR/MA and JU/NE led him into many an interesting situation, as did MO = MA/NE = UR/PL. He never married, and said he never had enough time. In the 1960s and 70s he wrote and lectured, learning English, Norwegian and Russian in order to further spread his audiences. He worked extensively on the negative aspects of Mercury in the birth chart (Arkkityyppien Hermes), showing that aspects to Mars, Uranus or Neptune enhanced the trickster archetype.

He wrote a Sun-sign column for twenty three years in the Finnish Newspaper Koyyitus, a summer job only in Finland, augmenting his income with astrological consultancy. Our sympathies extend to his many sons and daughters.

Biographic Information supplied by Lars Holttz