#simulacrum

The most pertinent astrological event of these years is the once-every-two-centuries transition in the elements of the Jupiter-Saturn synodic cycle. In December 2020, we are moving from an earth age to an air age. I will be cataloguing reflections and predictions, as well as amplifications of the elements and their zodiacal signs. What follows is a short essay on how the bias of the material age might compromise the utility of astrology.

Who do I speak to about astrology, and what is the purpose of public speech about astrology?

At its best, the astrological community comprises spiritually fluent, intellectual, open-minded, zeitgeist-informed individuals who are interested in cultural progression and restoration in appropriate measure. However, the common use of astrology appears more and more predicated on the determination of a natal chart in the governance of an individual—but this is typically contradicted through practices of individuation. The more a person is in touch with themselves, the less a birth chart is “lived out,” and the more that it is “felt out.” As archetypal currents flow through an individual, it seems that these forces only becomes externalized if the native is not consciously engaging with the material in their inner life. If someone is continuously meditating on Pluto-conjunct-Venus, for instance, and is unfolding the archetypal material through contemplation, art, and attention, it is less likely to manifest as a concrete objective event in their life.

This is something seen easily during every mercury retrograde. For those who are following mercury-as-psychopomp into continual modes of reflection, the life becomes slower and not as many trains are missed.

When you’re reading the chart of an individual, or checking their transits, you are essentially painting the attitudinal environment of that person or that period. But you cannot account for the actions that result from these moods—the client is governor of their own responses going forward. Skilled astrologers can sometimes predict specific events, but that is a testimony to the homogeneity of the culture as manifest in the client as much as anything. It is probably harmless to see Uranus transiting a person’s 4th house and say, “Oh, you might move soon,” but to frame transits as only literal denies the complexity of the psychological backdrop upon which the transits are operating.

What is far more harmful, and ideologically related, is using astrological tools to shame people and create scapegoats. “Geminis are liars,” or “Any Leo placement produces narcissism,” etc. In this case you are fixing the conception of the archetypes involved, limiting their expression in the life. It accrues over time, just as any other constructed cultural narrative—internalized gender or class prejudices, for instance. But if you were to actually unpack “gemini” and its significations, you would arrive at no limit. Any depth psychologist knows that archetypes are literally inexhaustible, and that is what makes them archetypes. And when you have any planet in any sign, that is already two inexhaustibilities in conversation with each other—boundless permeability.

That we think we can pin an archetype down, objectify it, is a result of our materialist era bias, by the way. A material conception of the world, predicated on atomic sciences and all that, benefits from categories and objects. That’s how we fit them into the scientific method. We also like it for business purposes. When something can be boxed it can be sold. Whether we are building a formula or an economic system, an incredible amount of our mental effort goes into navigating these assemblies. This is the Minecraft world we’re in, and it does not seem unrealistic to us.

Taking Marie-Louis von Franz’ view that matter is psyche’s extension into time, if we are to turn around and look at psyche in its pre-instantiated state, of course we are going to bring the bias of materiality with us as observers. Inevitable as it is, the narrower we settle in our conceptualization of psychic content, the more we become trapped in our own lives. The operational shorthands of logic are great for designing a machine, but hopelessly impoverished for assessing character: “Virgos keep clean roooms because they like organization!” As if it will happen each time. “It depends,” is the continual cry of the feeling function. Feeling is only the measure of appropriateness, the evaluation of meaning which is never twice the same. Imagination is the sole tool we have for creation, it is the force that coheres form, and in order for it to design an effective world it needs both discernments: reason and feeling.

It is not only in astrology that people want to take psychic subjects and put a pin in them. There is always going to be a fascination with the uncanniness of fringe phenomena, objects of mysticism, occultism, parapsychology. Of course it is a very thin margin between the uncanny and the fearsome, for the uncanny marks the edge of the known.

Thinking now of some memes and things that were recently trending as punchlines: the moon, hexes, fairies. “Astral projection” has long been a twitter punchline, as has “the name of God.” Psychedelic depictions of angels were having a moment not long ago, but these renditions were really only monstrous eyes upon flaming wheels. There is no supernal fire in any of them. Psychedelic means “manifesting the mind,” and all art is thus inherently psychedelic, but the copy-of-copy-of-copy of what was once a mystic encounter produces not any more exuding of mana than the average spongebob fan art. What mind is manifest here? Only some pale mimicry. 

All of this is a commodification and a profanity of the unknowable. Weirdly, the history of lovecraftian motifs in net culture has long been associated with the STEM set of people. “Imagine something outside of reason! What the heck?!” On the other hand, Ezekielian angels and the “astral project to ur job” memes seemed to be more endemic to arty types. Just an observation.

We are flirting a little with these edges of the unknown because we can never shake the drive to expand our awareness, a little inner flame licks at our hearts telling us that some concept is unresolved. We draw to ourselves the low-res, more palatable images of archetypes so that we can position them in our lives or let them simmer on the back burner. Even hella long ago Plato recognized that false images can act like crutches leading you closer to the numinous, ineffable subject. Really the only risk is keeping them around inordinately as they leak more and more of their prejudice into your worldview, or worse yet that you cling to them so long you mistake them for yourself.

Astrology in its excellence functions as an alphabet of myth, living and dynamic, responding to the zeitgeist as much as the subjects of its study are coloring that zeitgeist. So when we cheapen the practice, by reducing it to operating instructions and standardizing its prejudices, we deprive ourselves of what could be the most accessible and practical psychological tool of our time. It’s a little awkward, since interest in astrology was relatively dormant for a while, and is now trending hard… We are coming back to it with a fervor that attests to our thirst for myth! Let’s hope that we give the archetypes enough time and space to speak for themselves.

Everyone seeks their look. Since it is no longer possible to base any claim on one’s own existence, there is nothing for it but to perform an appearing act without concerning oneself with being- or even being seen. So it is not: I exist, I am here! but rather: I am visible, I am an image- look! look! This is not even narcissism, merely an extroversion without depth, a sort of self-promoting ingenuousness whereby everyone becomes the manager of their own appearance.

–Baudrillard, The Transparency of Evil