Spock, and therein lies our disagreement. If I am interpreting you correctly, it seems like you believe that astrology has no inherent power to assist people. An astrological theorist does not seem the same or even vaguely similar to an astrologer or astrological practitioner. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to dismiss you or your claims, I think many of them are valid, I just don't agree with them and that disagreement will make it difficult for the discussion to continue.
As a theorist I'm concerned with making astrological knowledge, thereby advancing "the state of the art." The practitioner uses astrology to help people. So what we
do is, yes, dissimilar, but it doesn't mean I don't think astrology can be used to assist people. I think this is true even when the astrology being used is largely invalid, because much of the benefit of the consultation is in the nature of the astrologer-client interaction. But I also think having factually accurate astrological information to draw upon would greatly enhance the consultant's capacity to be helpful. That, in addition to a need simply to know how things work, is partly why I'm a theorist in the first place.
That being said, I'm curious as to what purpose you think there is in astrology if it doesn't have practical application? Feel free to ignore this question, you certainly don't have to share this information with me if you don't want to.
As a matter of fact I do think it has practical applications, all the more so because it's knowledge of the psyche, not just the world around us. Of course, our knowledge of the correspondences between the heavens and ourselves would be more beneficial if it was more extensive and accurate.
As for "the astrologer who is able to take their education and profession and apply it to their astrological work," I contend that at astrology's current developmental level, in which verbal games and other means of multiplying ways of being "right" substitute for empirically demonstrated correspondences, any event or knowledge or kind of effect can be made to seem relevant and valid.
Yes, I agree with this to an extent and especially agree with a point you made later about psychological astrologers essentially imposing psychology on astrology. My only concern is that you mention the ability to discuss or prove astrology empirically and repeatably. You mention it, but sort of just shrug your shoulders and wish silently "one day...". Do you honestly think there will ever be a day wherein astrological correspondences will be able to be demonstrated empirically like that?
While I think we'll know far more in the future than we know now, and that this knowledge will be empirically derived, that doesn't mean I don't think empirically derived knowledge presently exists. Although not widely accepted by astrologers, even those primarily concerned with astrology as knowledge per se, empirically derived concepts do exist, for instance in Grant Lewi's
Heaven Knows What and especially his
Astrology for the Millions, and in my article
After Symbolism linked at the foot of this post. One concept that does have wide acceptance is Lewi's notion of the Saturn Return. What's predictable during the several month period when Saturn is transiting conjunct its natal place is not an external event but an agenda, a state of mind that results in a clarification of purpose, of how we want to contribute to society — that is, a career development. That this is an empirical insight, derived from observation, is reinforced by the fact that others have seen it. Hence Erica Jong's
Fear of Flying is in essence an account of her Saturn Return. Gertrude Stein offers a more generalized account in
Fernhurst: "It happens often in the twenty-ninth year of life that all the forces that have been engaged through the years of childhood, adolescence and youth in confused and ferocious combat range themselves in ordered ranks — one is uncertain of one's aims, meaning and power during these years if tumultuous growth when aspiration has no relationship to fulfillment and one plunges here and there with energy and misdirection during the storm and stress of the making of a personality until at last we reach the twenty-ninth year, the straight and narrow gateway and life which was all uproar and confusion narrows down to form and purpose and we exchange a great dim possibility for a small, hard reality." Stephen Arroyo in
Astrology, Karma and Transformation (where I first encountered it) and Richard Tarnas in
Cosmos and Psyche also quote this passage. Google Saturn Return and you'll discover quite a few astrologers have fairly detailed (and valid, in my opinion) things to say about the effects of this transit.
That pattern can be generalized. During each planet's transits conjunct, opening square, opposite and closing square its natal place a psychological force, which I've characterized as a motivational pattern, comes to the forefront, and recedes into the background in between. During these periods, whose durations are proportionate to the durations of the cycles of which they're a part — a few weeks for Mars, a few months for Saturn, a few years for Uranus — we become dissatisfied enough to make changes in our lives. That's why Lewi argued that during the Saturn Return free will is maximized, because the decisions and commitments we make at that time shape our lives for years to come, an insight that I think applies to the conjunctions, square and oppositions of other planetary transit cycles as well. These and other ideas in my article are based, however imperfectly, on observations (mine or others) rather than handed-down verbal associations and are therefore empirical rather than symbolistic. Hence a nascent empirical astrology already exists, albeit much remains to be done. The transition from symbolism to empiricism isn't something I'm silently hoping will occur "one day." It's happening right now, in our lifetime, and I'm convinced will one day (!) be seen by historians of science as a decisive turning point in the history of astrology.
It seems impossible to separate one astrological influence from the next, and it's clear (in my interpretation of history, undoubtedly everyone has their own.
) that the reason why the modern world has seen so many different techniques to supposedly "explain" what is going on within any context is a complete ignorance of existing technique. I just have a hard time believing that astrology is going to be able to be at all scientifically recognized since each part is so interconnected with the next.
It might seem impossible but it isn't, otherwise astrological knowledge itself would be impossible. Astrological influences might not operate separately but we can nonetheless analyze experiences in such as way as to ascertain what each
contributes to the whole. If you study people's lives and see similarities in the age periods 7 years, 14-15 years, 21-22 years and 28½ to 30, you're abstracting from the totality of experience that which is attributable to that rhythm. If you start with a given Jupiter transit and look back 3, 6, 9 and 12 years to see a similarity in
those periods, that tells you what
that rhythm contributes to the whole each time it recurs, and therefore what the "effect" of the transit is. Ditto for every other planet/transit cycle. It's not impossible in principle to separate these influences from one another. It's not easy, of course. Research involves what we
can know, not what's easy to know, otherwise we'd already know it and discovering it wouldn't be an accomplishment.
So, there's our divide. You strive for astrology to be academically recognized. I honestly couldn't care less. Anecdotal evidence is good enough for me.
I strive for astrology to be more coherent and accurate. When an event is considered by itself (which is what we mean by "anecdotal") rather than in relation to other events it doesn't tell us anything, therefore anecdotal "evidence"
isn't good enough for me. The point is not academic recognition, which will take care of itself if we take care of business, but a more valid and accurate (and therefore useful) astrology. Even appropriately juxtaposed events are not, however, astrological effects per se. They're clues to astrological effects.