An Unfamiliar Piece of the World Puzzle: Why Do We Not Understand Astrology?

– You have completed university studies in visual arts and education, and studied horary astrology under the world-renowned astrologer John Frawley. Now you are studying the history and methods of Hellenistic astrology through courses by Chris Brennan, a professional American astrologer and author of the book Hellenistic Astrology. The study of astrology encompasses a broad spectrum of life (culture, art, music, architecture, nature), but in popular media, you only find “tailored” horoscopes for all zodiac signs. Did this ambiguity prompt you to ask deeper questions?

As children, in addition to the name often given by our parents, the inherited surname, nationality, and gender that say something about us, we are also assigned a zodiac sign—independent of parents, country, or gender. Like some sort of fluttering wings gently attached to each person, whose origins and purpose are unknown, claiming to guide us toward self-discovery and offer a glimpse into the future. Quite significant promises from an unknown source, aren’t they? Popular media continues to write about the signs and tomorrow. Only later does one begin to notice that it seems to repeat: what was written for Pisces is now written for Taurus, what was written for Aries is now for Sagittarius, and the personality traits for Leo are described differently on various websites. I know several Scorpios around me; they seem to have differences, but also similarities, and often, not all of them have the same kind of day on the same day. The question that arose and prompted me to delve into astrology was—why?

– Together with Eastern philosophy researcher and philosophy PhD candidate Tadas Snuviškis, you created a noteworthy video-discussion about the three main problematic views on astrology. How would you define astrology, and what are some of the most common myths about this science that you encounter?

If you open the English Wikipedia page, you’ll first find that astrology is called a pseudoscience. As you know, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. Anyone can write an article on any topic and try to upload it if the Wikipedia community accepts it. This is enough for the article to be included, shaping the opinions of many people searching for information on the topic in Wikipedia. There have been many discussions within the Wikipedia community and among astrologers who have written articles defining astrology, but these were either not accepted or accepted and later removed. In the USA, a larger percentage of people, when asked the question “Do you believe in astrology?” would respond negatively. This is no surprise since modern science does not acknowledge astrology, dismissing it as a given without even investigating it.

There is a misconception tied to the outdated Ptolemaic worldview (it’s worth noting that the effectiveness of astrology is not linked to the Greek scholar Claudius Ptolemy’s understanding that all planets revolve around Earth rather than the Sun, which was later disproven; thus, it seems current arguments dismiss astrology as “incorrect” based on this). Ptolemy was an exceptionally broad-minded individual, trying to combine various known and speculative knowledge from different fields into a coherent system, which included astrology among them. Contrary to the current mindset, where many separate disciplines and phenomena are seen as unrelated to each other, it’s as if we were examining a single puzzle piece, raising it up in our hand, inspecting it, and putting it back without considering its place in the overall picture, not even attempting to piece the image together. Surrounded by a mountain of tiny puzzle pieces, we sit and rummage until someone begins to connect them and visualize the picture, or perhaps several pictures.

Another critical viewpoint on astrology comes from Christianity, which began to form around the 1st century—slightly later than astrology, but at a fairly similar time when Hellenistic astrology developed into its well-known form of four components: zodiac signs, houses, planets, and aspects. During this period, in Mesopotamia, Stoic thinking with a strong concept of fate prevailed, under which astrology was practiced and associated with the revelation of destiny. Meanwhile, under the influence of Christianity, the concept of free will developed. Thus, a contradiction emerged between these sides, which, on one hand, has persisted to this day, although the strong philosophical stance of the Stoics has long disappeared in modern times, and astrologers now have different positions on the question of fate.

Astrology and astronomy were initially one science practiced by the most educated individuals until the time when celestial observations advanced enough that astrologers, knowing the planetary cycles, could determine their positions necessary for creating horoscopes without observation or complex calculations. People’s interests diverged—some continued to engage with the correlations between the sky and earth, while others were more interested in the physical celestial bodies and their study. Thus, as the areas of interest split, two fields emerged—astrology and astronomy.

– Modern science does not acknowledge the influence of celestial bodies on the earthly world and unilaterally labels it as pseudoscience, lumping astrology together with superstitions, “old-fashioned beliefs,” fortune-telling, and self-suggestion. Why do you think there is such a negative view of astrology within the academic environment?

As I mentioned earlier, two large groups dominate the Western world with antagonistic views on astrology, which leads to astrology and those who practice it remaining marginalized in various ways. In my understanding, astrology itself is merely a method that carries no inherent philosophy, much like the alphabet, which asserts nothing on its own but serves as one of the tools of communication—just as astrology is a tool for correlating events occurring in the sky and on earth. What it conveys depends on the branch of astrology (natal, mundane, electional, horary, medical, etc.).

Do planets cause events on earth, or are they symbols indicating possible events in the world? It is not clear. This is another argument from modern science that astrology is pseudoscience, as the mechanical principle of action is unknown. And it should be added—it’s not being investigated. Such studies are not funded, because, as I mentioned earlier, there is a strong, deeply rooted initial negative view of astrology from the contemporary “serious science.” Find a scientist who would boldly, publicly state that they research, believe in, or use astrological methods. Such a person is likely rare, and even if they do use astrology, it would be in private, as openly admitting it might lead to ostracization by other academics, a drop in prestige, career setbacks, and becoming the subject of ridicule among colleagues. People want to be recognized and accepted within their group to survive, so this is often how they behave.

– In your observation, why does this field often receive more criticism and ridicule from scientists than religion?

Indeed, studying this field, one encounters ridicule quite often, if not directly, then in the press or on television. It saddens me that some of the most academically educated people engage in this, rather than delving into the phenomenon they are commenting on. People often lack critical, stereotype-free thinking, respect for the works of ancestors, history, tradition, and solid education in this field, as the commentary on astrology rarely goes beyond the level of a newspaper column about Virgo for decades now. When I listen to unprofessional commentary about astrology, I question the competence of the scientists themselves: do they make such frivolous generalizations in their own fields? Does the abbreviation “Dr.” before a name grant a special status of omniscience and equal competence to comment not only on their field but on any other as well? Ah, the miraculous modern “Dr.” phenomenon.

– Planets, their positions, and their influence on human character. If the scientific world categorically denies their influence on people, could you explain in more detail how, based on astrological practice, celestial bodies affect a person’s life, choices, and thinking?

The physical mechanism of action has not been discovered. Who would discover it? A Nobel Prize would likely be guaranteed, but this will probably not happen in the near future, as there are no interested states or wealthy individuals willing to invest in this field. Astrologers themselves continue their work, just as I am now using a computer to answer interview questions. I do my work using the computer, but I do not know its mechanism of operation, yet I see it works, so I use it. For the computer’s mechanism to exist, there were people, gathered finances, and interests, whose totality created and continues to develop computers and their operational schemes, with knowledge deepening in physics. We should not expect astrologers to simultaneously be astronomers, engineers, mathematicians, physicists, psychologists, spiritual leaders, and inventors—let them simply be good astrologers. When the time comes, perhaps other fields will take an interest in astrology. And they, from their side, will have the capabilities and tools to investigate it as physically as the modern world recognizes.

I will mention a few theories: one of them is that planets directly physically affect people (Ptolemy made this association). Another theory is that planets are symbols that indicate events but do not physically affect them (this concept dominated in the origins of astrology). The psychologist Carl Jung formulated several theories: 1) events occurring in the sky synchronize with events occurring on earth: as above, so below; 2) astrology is a projection of subconscious psychology; 3) astrology is an intuitive method, like the I Ching, operating on a synchronicity principle, meaningful coincidences; 4) astrology, as a system of human archetypes, was not created by humans but discovered—it existed as an entity before the human intellect identified and recognized those archetypes.

– The issue of free will and the astrologer as a knower of all life questions, a “guru.” Do you often encounter this belief in everyday life and while consulting people, and why do you think it prevails?

The image of the all-knowing “guru” exists. Some astrologers represent themselves this way. In my understanding, this reflects a person’s character. Some people naturally have a teaching nature; they enjoy instructing others and telling them how things are. You find such people among astrologers too, just as you do elsewhere—some are simultaneously coaches, psychologists, happiness instructors, spiritual guides, and finally—astrologers. However, in my view, an astrologer should primarily be an astrologer—skilled in and constantly improving their astrological techniques for predicting, diagnosing, describing, discerning, and calculating. They should not be doling out life advice or offering psychological support. There are other specialists who focus on those areas but do not specialize in astrology (interestingly, in England, some psychologists and psychotherapists use natal astrology in their practice to better understand their clients’ issues more quickly).

Another reason could be the historical image of the astrologer’s profession, its former prestige, and the association between astrologer and priest. Religious rituals required favorable days; it was necessary to know when it was best to pray to the gods and make offerings, so priests needed to understand astrology. Moreover, priests were often teachers—they also had the task of instructing others according to the belief system of that time. Now, when astrology is not officially linked to any religion, some astrologers who are inclined to teach might give clients guidance or advice on how to live according to their own understanding and beliefs.

There is no consensus among astrologers regarding the question of free will. Some believe it exists, and a person can shape their destiny without limit or with God’s help. Others think some things in a person’s life are predetermined, while some can be changed, and others believe everything is predetermined (this position is probably the least popular nowadays). It doesn’t seem like clients often raise this question during consultations, but from the outside, it seems most would say—some things are predetermined, and some can be changed.

– Astrology is often “incorporated” into a broader philosophy. How do you view this position when it seems to dissolve into a certain system of knowledge?

It depends on the context. A villain appears on stage, knife aimed at Hamlet—a certain existential context. A mother appears on stage, slicing bread for her children—a different domestic context. A priest appears, ready to use the knife for a sacrificial offering to the gods—yet another religious context. Different contexts, but in all, the knife is involved. In one, it seems bad; in another, good; and in another, neither good nor bad.

Since I interpret astrology as a tool, I prefer when it is not identified with or dissolved into any philosophical framework, as this distorts the view of astrology and attaches a specific context, which, as history shows, is difficult to separate.

Interview by Jūratė Ziedelytė