Don’t get me
wrong, I love astrology. But in the context of our wider culture, it
understandably seems specialised and improbable. I don’t think it can ever be mainstream,
because even as astrologers we have to suspend our disbelief due to modern
astronomical knowledge: the main factor is that nowadays the Earth is commonly
held to orbit the Sun (though with motion being relative, it can be argued
either way); then there are the thousands of other objects circling the Sun
that logically need incorporating; the signs are seasonally based (so that eg
Aries symbolism is associated with Spring), yet astrology seems to work equally
well in Australia; and the solar system itself is known to be part of vast
Galactic cycles within cycles.
These
problems are not necessarily insuperable, but you’d need quite a different
astrology to make it all hang together. And we seem to have voted with our
feet. The old system works, and we are by and large staying with it, even
though its intellectual foundations are, for a modern, virtually non-existent.
And this
lack of foundation, which I think needs to be squarely faced, points to what is
really going on: astrology works through non-rational, divinatory means. That
is its real strength and foundation.
And the system
we use has the strength of having been built over thousands of years. Tradition
is a funny thing. Even nonsense, such as parts of the Old Testament, gain
credibility through being old. Old mistakes. Even the good stuff becomes wrong
through being set in stone and worshipped. In this sense tradition easily
disempowers.
But used in
a ritual way, as a means to direct experience that lies beyond the literal, a
sense of tradition seems to add power. That is why you get atheists going to
church services: they may not believe the theology, but the ritual itself, the
evocation of the numinous, still works.
And astrology
as we use it has all that. In its own terms, the system is consistent and
deeply thought through. And it has the added power of having been used for so
long, which is a divinatory point: if you wanted an explanation, you could say
a field builds up around a tradition, or the symbols within it, all those
thousands or millions of human intentions building up over time.
The much
younger Tarot has power for the same reason. The symbols have accrued something,
you hold a card up and you feel something stirring within, a power takes hold.
These powers
were a natural part of life until the modern age, whether through spontaneous
omens, direct communing with the Other World, or a gift for reading the
entrails of guinea pigs. We are the first society that has had to defend the
very existence of these powers.
And that is
the other reason that astrology isn’t mainstream: the non-rational doesn’t have
much of a place, is even under attack. Yet it is our most valuable means of
knowing.
I had the
idea for this piece through thinking about what would be an appropriate
divination system for the modern age, in the sense that it would take modern
forms of knowledge into account and could be widely accepted.
I don’t
think I have an answer. But ideally, it would build upon the old forms and so bring
that sense of age and tradition with it. With astrology and tarot, we are
dealing with archetypes, patterns of energy that are perennial, so there is
something in those traditions that will always be relevant.
The main
problem, though, is not whether astrology as used is dated, but that non-rational
means of knowing do not have credibility, are even seen as risible (as an
academic colleague of astrologer Geoffrey Cornelius said, they are ‘one mumbo
short of a jumbo’). Even the term non-rational is a concession to modern ways
of thinking, as though the rational is the main thing. Whereas the rational needs
to be a support for the non-rational.
Some of the
ideas behind science are very imaginative. Quantum reality. The Big Bang. Multiverses.
Dark Energy. Relativity. Evolution. When you get down to basics, to what is
ultimate, science seems to tell some great stories. They tell us they are
facts, but who has or ever will see any of the above? No-one, for they are
great products of the imagination, and that is why they have wide cultural
appeal.
Even
mathematics, the ultimate arbiter of reality, what is it? It is about balancing
sets of arcane symbols. If the symbols balance, then an idea is real. If they
do not balance, then it is not real. And this principle has real world
applications. Where have we heard that before? Astrology, of course, which
matches configurations of symbols with real world events. Mathematics in this sense
is none other than high magic.
So behind
science lies a great deal of imagination and even magic. It is just not
recognised as such. But what we have are some powerful imaginative ideas
supported by a rational framework. Which I think is how any system of knowledge
works. The non-rational, in other words, lies at the very centre of science,
just as it does with astrology, tarot and other means of divination, and around
it you have the rational justifications.
When I think
about Quantum theory or multiverses or dark energy, I don’t think maths - I
feel these ideas, they have a power for me. If I saw them on Tarot cards, they
would speak to me. And I think that gives me a truer relationship to these
ideas than someone who thinks of them purely rationally, but who surely has an imaginative
relationship to them which, whether or not he/she knows it, is primary.
So in any
cultural resurgence of the non-rational, it is not a matter of adding it on,
but of seeing that it was there all along, at the heart of things.
There are 2
MA courses in the UK run by astrologers, at St David’s and at Canterbury. How
do you approach the non-rational in the context of academia? A tricky and
controversial question. But the course at Canterbury (Myth, Cosmology and the Sacred), which is run by Geoffrey
Cornelius amongst others, explicitly seeks to affirm and explore non-rational
means of knowing. I am delighted by this uncompromising approach, albeit concerned,
for the same reason, that it can endure.
Below are
links to Geoffrey Cornelius (author of The Moment of Astrology) speaking in 2
parts on Limits of Rational Discourse in the Realm of the Daemon. http://youtu.be/R6eu2JggYvM and http://youtu.be/qr-3GZ7wStg
And a quote
from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
"The
whole world is an omen and a sign. Why look so wistfully in a corner? Man is
the Image of God. Why run after a ghost or a dream? The voice of divination
resounds everywhere and runs to waste unheard, unregarded, as the mountains
echo with the bleatings of cattle."