The following article is the (edited) transcript of a talk Robert
at the Astrological Conference 2005 of the British Astrological Association
What is post-modern?
First of all I should define the term “post-modern”. Post-modernism
as the term is usually used refers to a set of philosophical movements
largely arising out of contemporary French philosophy featuring in particular
work of Jacques Derrida, post-structuralism and the philosopher and historian
This is not what I refer to, because something else has been going on in
astrology. Astrology has never been part of the modern world and cannot have
in the same way a post-modern period. I would actually suggest that astrology
is ideally suited to be both pre-modern and post-modern in the French philosophical
"Then, in the 18th
century we had a very long break. Conventional historians refer to this
as the Enlightenment. I prefer the term “Endarkenment,” based
on what happened in astrology
– it almost died."
But what I refer to instead is a very real historical phenomenon in
astrology, which is this: we have astrology up until about 1700, which had
patterns, ideas and principles and which had a more or less a continuous
tradition from something like – this date is extremely flexible – the
fifth century B.C.E. Then, in the 18th century we had a very long break.
Conventional historians refer to this as the Enlightenment. I prefer the
term “Endarkenment,” based on what happened in astrology – it
almost died. And then in the 19th century a revival began, which for most
of the 19th century was a revival of a portion of the tradition that had
nearly died in 1700.
But then with Alan Leo, and more recently people like Dane Rudhyar, and
on another level people like the Hamburg School and Cosmobiology of Ebertin,
a rather new kind of astrology began coming into existence, which it might
be appropriate simply to call 20th century astrology, but I would like to
call modern astrology. So what I am really going to be talking about is the
question, what next?
The beginning of what I will call – for lack of a better term – post-modern
astrology actually happened quite a few years ago now. Two people are largely
responsible for this new beginning. They are in the United States: Robert
Zoller, who began studying medieval astrology in the original Latin in the
1970's, closely followed in this country [Great Britain] by the late Olivia
Barclay, who began teaching her students horary directly from William Lilly’s
text. In both cases what was being taught was a reborn pre-1700 or pre-modern
astrology. They had tremendous impact. In the States this led to the movement
of which I was a part – or am a part, but am no longer associated with
the name – the project called Project Hindsight, of which I and Robert
Zoller along with Robert Schmidt were founders. Subsequently Robert Zoller
has gone his own way, and I have gone my own way, but the movement continues.
There is also of course an extremely meaningful translation movement in Spain,
and also one in Italy.
So the pre-1700, pre-modern type of astrology is coming back fairly rapidly.
The influence these movements have had is not quite what you might expect.
Yes, there are people – and I think I can say this without offering
any insult – such as Robert Zoller, who are really trying to revive
completely an intact pre-modern astrology, otherwise known as traditional
astrology. However, since some people regard Alan Leo’s astrology as
traditional astrology, pre-modern may be a clearer term for pre-1700 styles
of astrology. My favorite image of Robert Zoller – and believe me,
I don’t think he would object in my characterizing him this way – is
that he would smile, sublimely rub his hands together and say: “The
old ways are the good ways!”
Yet, what appears to be happening, and what I certainly align myself with,
is not really a revival of traditional astrology. Rather it’s a healing
of the break that occurred in the 18th century. We are not trying to do astrology
exactly as it was done, rather we’re trying to recreate astrology as
it would have been if it had never stopped being an active tradition. Understanding
this point is very important, because it is often stated and believed that
traditional astrology must not have been all that effective because it died
out – almost. Surely, it is said by some, traditional astrology must
have been terribly lacking, and therefore modern astrology represents an
evolutionary improvement from it.
This is not the case. Traditional astrology died out for reasons that are
much better described as socio-political than scientific. If you want an
example of what I mean I refer you to Patrick Curry’s excellent work
Prophecy and Power, where he describes the process of astrology’s near
death in Britain. But I assure you, that process was not limited to Britain.
So, we are not doing traditional astrology, we are healing the break that
occurred in the 18th century.
First of all: What is traditional astrology? Unfortunally, about the only
general characterization I can make is that of defining it as astrology pre-1700.
In this respect it is like most of the rest of History. I think if you do
a quick calculation you will realize that most history happened before 1700 – billions
and billions of years in fact. But, other than that it’s difficult
to characterize. And we have to ask, “which traditional astrology?” Hellenistic/classical?
Jyotish? Jyotish is a term I vastly prefer to vedic, first of all because
it is the actual Indian term, and secondly because (I know I am going to
get some arguments about this later) there is not all that much horoscopic
astrology in the Vedas. Are we talking about Arabic astrology, or – as
I prefer to call it – Persian-Arabic astrology, because it’s
actually much more Persian than it is Arabic? Are we talking about Latin
language medieval astrology, which is basically the same as Persian-Arabic?
Or are we talking about early modern astrology – and I don’t
mean Alan Leo? Early modern astrology actually consists of persons like Placidus,
Morinus, Kepler, all of whom looked at the traditional astrology as they
received it, and believed that reform was needed.
not fully digested traditional astrologies – to
use the proper term – we have not mastered the techniques."
So which one are we talking about? I have bad news: all of
them! We have not fully digested traditional astrologies – to use the proper term – we
have not mastered the techniques. For example, the predictive techniques
of hellenistic astrology, and even some of the predictive techniques of medieval
astrology are still not widely used or experimented with. They may turn out
to be not too useful; they may also turn out to be a major break-through.
I do not really know, but until we have actually systematically examined
them we don’t know.
Astrology in the 20th century
But this infusion of elements from the various traditions into the modern
astrological tradition represents the essence of the change from modern to
post-modern astrology. Some of us have been calling this traditional astrology
neo-traditional, but that is really putting the emphasis in the wrong place.
It is in the ordinary language sense of the term a post-modern astrology.
Okay! What do we do with the 20th century? This is where I will demonstrate
conclusively that I am not a traditionalist: we keep it! We keep its best
features. The single most important advance in 20th century astrology was
the recognition that astrology actually could be used as a tool for human
potential and self-actualization. There may be some of this in Jyotish,
but there certainly is not any of it in Hellenistic, Arabic or Latin medieval.
All three of those traditions were completely oriented towards dealing
everyday, mundane situations. But Dane Rudhyar in particular introduced
a radically new way of thinking about astrology. Closely related to his
is the idea of psychological astrology. I do not share the contempt that
many traditionalists feel for psychological astrology. I think it is extraordinarily
important. My only criticism of it is that in the hands of some of it’s
less competent practitioners it has been an extremely mushy sort of astrology
where anything can be made to mean anything, depending on the emotional
frame of mind of the client and the astrologer. The language of 20th century
as a language tends to be imprecise, vague, inarticulate and unclear. But
the goals of 20th century astrology are absolutely commendable.
Why did the tradition – at least the branches of it I have mentioned – not
deal with the issue of self-actualization. They did have the tools if they
had had the philosophical reasons for doing it. The reason is very simple:
In both the Islamic world and the Christian world there was something else
that governed that process, namely religion, from which astrology was largely
disconnected. Both Islamic and Christian astrologers had to constantly explain
why astrology did not interfere with religion, did not impinge on the same
issues, nor did it contradict religion; therefore it was okay. There is in
fact in Western astrology an underground tradition of mitigation much as
there is in Indian astrology, but it has always been an underground tradition.
It is called magic. But we have had to pretend that we, as astrologers, are
not connected to it in order to survive in what has been until recently a
Christian world – or Islamic.
century astrology should be kept in so far as it works, makes sense and
is clear enough to tell if it is working."
So, 20th century astrology we keep, in so far as it speaks to the
needs of modern humanity. Every astrology deals with the culture in which
and if it doesn’t it’s irrelevant. Twentieth century astrology
should be kept in so far as it works, makes sense and is clear enough to
tell if it is working. To illustrate what I mean by “clear enough” (or
rather not clear enough) here is a style of prediction (admittedly an absurd
one) that illustrates the problem: “In the next year, events will happen.” Now
you may laugh, but I have heard astrological predictions made that were just
about that “clear.”
I also think there are some other tools from 20th century astrology that
are well worth keeping, such as the use of mid-points, the 90-degree dial,
and there are a number of schools that have contributed extremely valuable
ideas too numerous to mention. Twentieth century astrology is not to be thrown
out, but here is what it does need:
First of all, the question often arises: is traditional astrology – in
any form – better than modern astrology? And of course the traditionalists
immediately say: “Why, of course!” They say that it is more effective.
This is probably true, but not for the reasons you may think. Hindu astrology,
arabic astrology and medieval astrology, and for that matter hellenistic
astrology, all have a much more elaborate language than 20th century astrology.
Simply put: these languages, as languages, are more articulate; these early
astrologies can say things clearly, and insofar as they can say things clearly
you can tell whether what they say is true or not.
the strangely backhanded compliments I used to
pay to the Cosmobiology
of the Ebertin system was that I liked it because it
is one of the few systems of astrology where I
could tell when it was not
One of the strangely backhanded compliments I used to pay
to the Cosmobiology of the Ebertin system was that I liked it because it
is one of the few
systems of astrology where I could tell when it was not working. I am
going to make
what some may think a rather outrageous statement which has been contradicted
by others a number of times during this Conference: I have not ever cast
a chart that was wrong that worked better than the one that was right.
I am not saying it cannot happen, but it has never happened to me. And
reason is that I have always placed great stress on the articulation of
the astrological language, so that I could tell if the statement I was
was right or wrong. I remember a lecture by Geoffrey Dean in which he was
lecturing on a chart that was supposed to be the chart of Petula Clark, – Geoffrey
does not remember this incident but I do – with a very close conjunction
of Mars and Neptune. Geoffrey spouted modernistic astrological garbage about
the unselfish, altruistic nature of this person and so on. I said to myself, “This
is crazy, this chart can’t possibly be right.” And then after
he had the entire audience convinced, he announced that it was the chart
of Charles Manson. By way of a side-note, the astro-carto-graphic map of
Charles Manson had the line of that Mars-Neptune-conjunction passing through
the deserts just to the east of Los Angeles. So when he finally admitted
that it was Charles Manson I said to myself, “I knew it couldn’t
be Petula Clark!” They were born a year apart on the same date. So
that is why he was able to suck everybody in. But the problem was that
he was taking advantage of the inarticulate nature of much modern 20th
astrological language. This must change! The object of self-actualization,
psychological exploration, or even enlightenment, through astrology is
a perfectly noble goal, a noble task. But it must be done in a clear language,
or it will of no use at all, except as entertainment, which I suppose some
will believe is perfectly fine.
Modern astrology has had one really tragic flaw in addition to its inarticulate
language: its complete lack of a philosophical foundation rooted in any coherent
philosophical or spiritual tradition of the world, except in the case of
Jyotish. Jyotish does have a coherent philosophical and spiritual background
derived from the religions of India. For those of you that are not aware
of it, Western astrology (by which I really mean Middle Eastern astrology,
we just happen to be practising the Western branch of it) also has a firm
foundation in philosophy derived from persons with names such as Plato, Pythagoras,
Aristotle, Plotinus and has roots in other philosophies that we cannot attribute
to any actual person, such as the philosophies of Hermes. We have to go back
to these philosophies (as I will hope to demonstrate in part tomorrow) because
all modern Western philosophy – with the possible and likely exception
of phenomenology – is born out of an idea-set that occurs after the
West made a fork on the road of philosophy which rendered astrology inherently
astrology has had one really tragic
flaw in addition to its inarticulate
language: its complete lack of aphilosophical foundation rooted in any
coherent philosophical or spiritual tradition of the world."
So we have to go back to the philosophies in which astrology
is not inherently impossible, reestablish the roots, modernize our understanding
of those philosophies,
and bring them forward into the 20th century or 21st century. We have a brilliant
example of this in the work of late John Addey whose astrology was rooted
firmly in Neoplatonism but pointed toward a radical new kind of astrology.
But we do not want to use 19th century mystical “philosophies” such
as those of Mme. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey and so forth, in part because they
are not in fact foundational philosophies. What they taught was a modernized
and obscured form of Neoplatonism. I am not saying their works are of no
value, but for philosophy let us go back to the real thing.
Alfred North Whitehead may also be a philosopher who has something to say
to us, but until I can get him to say something to me that I truly understand – those
of you that have tried to read Whitehead will know what I mean – I
cannot tell what he may have to offer.
Astrology lacks a theoretical foundation
The reason for having proper philosophical foundations is that it actually
leads to the creation of, in some form, what scientists keep telling us astrology
lacks: a theoretical foundation. Now you have to understand that a theoretical
foundation does not necessarily need to be correct at the outset. It needs
to be correctable. Astrological theory, even based on a reconnection with
ancient philosophy, will not be a theory that science will recognize as theory,
but it will in fact function as a scientific theory. It just will not function
according to the scientific paradigm – any scientific paradigm, at
least any paradigm constituted according to the larger meta-paradigm of modern
And let me explain why: The contemporary scientific paradigm, with exception
of a few areas of quantum physics, largely ignores the role of consciousness
in the Universe. Putting it in its boldest form: Life and consciousness,
according to the prevailing version of the modern scientific paradigm are
epiphenomena of the laws of inanimate nature. An epiphenomenon is a superficial,
second level prenomenon, not central to the whole system. In other words,
we are trivial and unimportant, the world is essentially meaningless, and
it is just grinding off to a stupid, meaningless, pointless end.
Of course, you have to ask the question: “Meaningless” to whom?
You can’t have meaninglessness until there is somebody to whom something
is meaningless. Unfortunately, when the 19th century threw God out of science,
they made the whole meaningful/meaningless issue undefineable, irrelevant
and academic. We are, according to one modern “scientific” writer,
like bacteria living on a dust particle in a sneeze. That was someone’s
description of life in the Big Bang. We are said to live on a planet that
goes around a minor star in a minor galaxy in an infinitely huge Universe.
To whom are we minor? If there is no aliveness in the Universe, to whom are
we unimportant, and since when was sheer magnitude the criterion of excellence?
Billions and billions of stars, the late Carl Sagan used to say, as if putting
zeroes after a one made things more significant and more meaningful.
humble opinion astrology makes no sense unless we postulate that life,
mind and consciousness are central to the functioning of the Universe,
and precede, in some
way, matter and energy, or at least are coeval
with, that is to say, coeternal
In my humble opinion (which means: “arrogant statement follows”)
astrology makes no sense unless we postulate that life, mind and consciousness
are central to the functioning of the Universe, and precede, in some meaningfull
way, matter and energy, or at least are coeval with, that is to say, coeternal
with them. Something is talking to us, and things that talk must be alive
and conscious. The idea that life and consciousness are epiphenomenal is
the exact reverse of the astrological world view. This is why we are heretics.
And by all means, let us remain so!
But I think many astrologers do not draw out the logical implications of
what they do. They are astrologers when they are in the counselling room,
and they are 21st-century-ordinary-every-day-mechanist-materialists when
they do anything else – I find that this true less and less as time
goes on, which is most gratifying. But we have to recognize, yes indeed,
that astrology, and the metaphysics of science – also known as scientism – are
indeed incompatible. Thank God!
Now another aspect of the new kind of astrology: I totally, absolutely and
overwhelmingly reject any form of astro-fundamentalism. We can leave that
for certain insane fanatics in the Jewish, Islamic and Christian religious
comunities. There is no ancient astrology that must be completely recovered
because it, alone, is completely, absolutely and positively true for all
time. We recover them to the best of our ability, so we can learn from them,
but they are not necessarily “truer” than what we do. Our ancestors
were human beings, just like us. Do I think that astrology came as the result
of a divine revelation in the biblical sense? Maybe in some other sense yes,
but not in that narrow biblical sense. It was not revealed whole, entire,
perfect and complete to anyone at any time. It may be complete and perfect
eventually, but only because we have done the work of uncovering the revelation.
But it is probably never going to happen quite that way. I just do not want
to exclude the possibility.
Balancing modernist and traditionalist attitudes
So we need to strike a balance between the modernist’s attitude and
the traditionalist’s attitude. By the way, I just want to make one
thing clear: If I seem to be taking a slam at the only at certain members
of the Jyotish/Vedic community in talking about astrological fundamentalism,
believe me, I am not. There are also Lilly fundamentalists, Hellenistic fundamentalists,
Arabic fundamentalists… You take any system, as long as it isn’t
modern, and you will find somebody who believes in it as a fundamentalist,
or – to use a term more fashionable in religious circles – a
literalist, one who believes that the books are literally and completely
The modernist attitude believes that only the most recent work is any good,
and the traditionalist attitude thinks that anything modern is hopelessly
flawed and corrupt. Without qualification – these positions are both
wrong. And if you disagree with me, fine. But that is my position, take it
or leave it! (I have a Scorpio Moon).
Post-modern astrology must recognize that astrology is a learned art. Not
a learned art with one syllable, but a learned art, with ‘learned’ in
two-syllables. And while we invite the enthusiast and the amateur to participate,
it also has to be recognized the amateur astrologer will have a role similar
to amateur scientists – far from irrelevant, but working in a limited
way. Astrology is no more entertainment than psychology. Which is to say
that both can create entertaining diversions, but that is neither their purpose
nor their value.
To that end, as I am sure many are quite aware, there has begun a movement
towards the creation of academic institutions within astrology. One of these
is Kepler College. It teaches within a genuine liberal arts program that
happens to be – this is the unofficial motto of the school – filtered “through
the lens of astrology,” but it is a liberal arts degree nonetheless.
What do I teach there? I teach ancient history, medieval history and Latin.
But of course, the Latin is not all Cicero. We read John of Seville in the
course, and people like him. (We do not read Manilius, because nobody can
read Manilius.) Here in Britain there is of course the Bath Spa curriculum,
the Southampton program, the University of Canterbury program, and there
are probably others that I am not aware of.
But this is a thrilling development, because we have got to the point where
the next level of astrology must be carried on in environments similar to
that of universities, where there are conferences held among professionals
in the field, who report work that is very important, but which is too technical
or esoteric (in the original meaning of the word) for a general astrological
conference. For example, we have the varied styles of medieval primary directions,
their origin, significance, application and so forth, definitely a subject
of interest only to specialists.
Just to give you one idea of something I have noticed, I am convinced that
Masha Allah or the work attributed to him is of two people, because there
are two different kinds of astrology going on, but I have not figured out
how to rigorously document this yet. This is not the sort of topic that
I think would draw a very large crowd at even an AA conference, and the AA
conferences are a good deal more sophisticated than many other conferences.
"The “Astrology and Your Pet” aspect
of astrology has been going on for quite a long time, and I do not suggest
that it should
The alternative? At Astrolabe, the company that I used to work with, we
had a cartoon on the wall which showed a rather generously endowed, portly
woman standing behind a lectern with a very stern and severe expression
on her face, saying: “We will not rest until astrology has found it’s
proper place in Academia”, and on the wall behind her is a sign that
says: “Next Week: Astrology and Your Pet”.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but these are two different aspects
of astrology. The “Astrology and Your Pet” aspect of astrology
has been going on for quite a long time, and I do not suggest that it should
cease. I am now in my fourth year of graduate school, so I am beginning to
get a sense of what goes on in Academia that is good and useful to the further
evolution of astrology. For the most part we do not yet have that, but we
are getting it. So this academization, if I can make a word, the making of
astrology more academic, is an extremely important step.
At this point I have to make a very important statement about this process.
We are not trying to make astrology respectable. We are trying to force astrology
to get its internal act together. That is not the same thing. We will not
convince academics that we belong in academia because we say so; it is not
even clear that we will ever be integrated with academia. It does not matter.
It is for ourselves, not for our respectability, but for the efficacy of
our art. We will be more effective if we do these things. We need international
libraries of astrology texts, either in book form or online. We need to find
all those old astrological journals rotting away on our shelves, scan them
and make them available to researchers.
"We are not trying to
make astrology respectable. We are
trying to force astrology to get its
internal act together.
That is not the same thing."
I do not know how many of you are aware of this, but on the internet there
is something called “Early English Books Online”. Every book
printed in England before 1700 that has survived is in that data base. You
can read them or download them, as you choose. We need that exact same thing
in astrology. We need all these journals, all the old texts, everything to
be accessible to researchers. At the moment a great deal of astrology is
on the verge to disappearing for all time. We need modern researchers documenting
what happened in the 20th century, who said what, what they meant, explicating
their ideas, talking about their lives, we need to preserve all of this.
Ironically, the most endangered single part of the history of astrology is
the history of 20th century astrology. It is right on the verge of being
forgotten already. So this is why this increasing movement toward academia
is required, not so that we can be respectable, but for our own use.
Here is the key point: we will have succeeded in creating post-modern astrology
to the degree that our astrology is completely continuous, historically,
with all the astrologies of the past. It does not mean we use all their techniques,
does not mean we use all their elements, but that we can at some point refer
to our tradition as a completely restored and continuous tradition. Post-modern
astrology will not simply be going back to William Lilly, or to Bonatti,
or to Vettius Valens, Vahara Mihira, or any one you can chose. But they will
be in there, their works will be known, evaluated and employed where appropriate.
And appropriateness will be determined in terms of our modern needs – excuse
me – post-modern needs.
Now I could make a long list of things I think might like to change technically-speaking
in astrology, but I have to agree with Geoffrey Cornelius in his talk yesterday
that improved technique in the way it is usually understood is not what we
are trying to do here. In chemistry, for example, if you use the wrong technique
in analysing an unknown substance, you will not find out what the substance
is. Technique in chemistry is an absolutely necessary set of procedures designed
to achieve a particular result. But technique in astrology is actually the
articulation of language not merely a set or proper procedures.
Let me give you a concrete example. If you pick up any traditional astrology
book that is at all influenced by Ptolemy, you will find that it poses a
collection of questions to be answered. Is the nativity viable? That is to
say, is the entity born in this nativity going to live? What is the wealth
and rank of the parents? What about brothers and sisters? What about money,
career, children? All of these constitute a standard set of what I refer
to as the Ptolemaic questions.
These Ptolemaic questions use very definite techniques for answering the
questions. But the issue here is not whether these techniques are “correct,” the
issue is whether these techniques are clearly articulated. Some of these
questions we will not choose to ask, for example, we will probably continue
not to say too much about the nature and manner of one’s death. We
might, however, become a bit more articulate about saying: these are the
areas of our life you will have to watch out for, that are dangerous and
maybe in these times you will have to watch out for them. But I have demonstrated
to my satisfaction one thing about this and similar things in astrology.
They are, to use the philosophical term, contingent. The moment of your death
has not yet been written unless it is to occur very soon due to circumstances
that are not any longer changeable. All of us could have a number of times
in which we might die. But in the ancient world things that can be prevented
now could not be prevented then. So we will look times that may be dangerous,
not times of death, or whatever. But the issue here is, what do we do to
answer a question, and is an answer to the question clear enough so that
we can tell if it is right or wrong?
Fate versus free will
There is the wonderful problem of fate versus free will. I actually have
arrived at an answer to this, which I will briefly outline. I found the answer
in one of the Stobaeus fragments of the Corpus Hermeticum, in which Hermes
is talking to his disciple Tat, as the name is usually transliterated. Tat
asks: “Tell me again about fate, providence and necessity”. And
Hermes after much intermediate material ends up with the statement along
the lines of, “Fate concerns the body, necessity concerns that part
of the mind that works only with the body, and providence is concerned with
the mind that is fully conscious.”
What they made clear in this statement is there is no one such thing as
fate. There is a fate that is due to our being material beings of a certain
species. No matter how hard you try, no amount of free will will ever convert
you to a dog or a cat in this life time. You cannot fly without a plane – unless
(perhaps) you are a certain kind of meditator – you cannot walk through
walls without a door, you cannot see through walls without a window, you
are limited by natural law. That is the fundamental meaning of fate in ancient
Greek philosophy. It is physical law.
Then there is the really big part of fate; there is the fate due to ignorance,
called necessity. We get ourselves caught up in situations where we simply
cannot conceive of an alternative, because we have all these considerations
about what must be so and what must not be so, and we are determined by the
consequences of past decisions and current stupidities. That is most of what
our fate consists of. It has nothing to do with the planets!
will not be a fatalistic fortune-telling astrology, it will be an astrology
that just happens to include all of the rest of astrology."
And then finally there is the other fate that is absolutely irrevocable,
called providence. You have no choice but to be who you are. Your choice
is to be who you are at the highest possible level or not. And I would
go so far as to say that who you really are preexists who you are at the
moment, and it is pulling you forward to itself, and that pull is inevitable.
Your getting all the way there, becoming a fully realized being, is not
inevitable. Circumstances, accidents and of course the ever-present stupidity,
or unconsciousness – whatever
you want to call it – will all in varying degrees prevent us from getting
to that perfect self-realization. But it is not written in the stars whether
we will, or will not, ever be fully realized. What is written in the stars
is how to do it – if we could but read the chart from that point of
This is one of the things the 20th century has taught us, but the 20th century
has been a little weak on how to do it. Whereas, I have found techniques
in Greek and Medieval astrology that actually suggest how it can be done,
how it can be read in the chart. Post-modern astrology will not be a fatalistic
fortune-telling astrology, it will be an astrology of enlightenment, self-realization,
self-actualization and consciousness, that just happens to include all of
the rest of astrology.
We evaluate, we judge, and we integrate. That is what I see coming.
Thank you very much.
Copyright by Robert Hand 2006