I bash Modern Psychological Astrology a lot, but let me explain my reasoning and my opinions, in a more outlined format, as to why I have so many issues with this system of Astrology. [ THREAD ]

So to clarify, there are CERTAIN things in Modern Astrology that irk the hell out of me, because they are Astrologically incorrect. And when we talk about Astrological correctness, what are we talking about? Well...

We have to define what Astrology is

“the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world.”

With this being said, the goal of Astrology is to link the heavens and planetary spheres as being influential of what happens on Earth, through observation of the heavens. Keep in mind the word ‘observation’. What does it mean to observe?

Lets define observe:

“[to] notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.”

With this in mind, we are registering planetary movement as being significant on what happens on Earth. There needs to be observation that has taken place in order..

To make connections between Earth and the Heavens for it to be registered as significant. Now one issue that Modern Astrology has is that it does follow this principle, however it follows it based off of faulty information—inaccuracies.

And for something to be correct, it needs to fall in line with clear observation, trial, and error. Astrological correctness is how in line does this fall in within the SYSTEM of Astrology (not the philosophy or the theory) but the fundamental framework. M.P.A doesn’t at all.

One way this is presented is through the ‘12 Letter Alphabet’. You’ve probably heard this term be thrown around here and there, but what does it actually mean?

Essentially its saying that “Mercury, Virgo, and the 6th house” all mean the same thing.

Originally, this 12 Letter Alphabet was intended as a teaching tool to new students of Astrology during the revival of Astrology in the 50’s and 60’s, the origin of the movement Modern Astrology (although it started with Alan Leo in the early [19]00’s) however...

This teaching tool eventually evolved to actually being a practice of linking all of these sorts of ideas together, but can we necessarily blame these Modern authors for their work? No. One factor that plays into the discussion here is that...

1) Information was not as accessible back then, due to the lack of internet and connectivity in the world

2) Astrologers back then did not have access to the Ancient Greek/Hellenistic/Islamic text that we now have access to, partially thanks to Project Hindsight.

Astrologers back then were working with what they had, and developed interpretation style and systems with what they had; they didn’t know what they were doing was inaccurate. Now this isn’t to say that all of Modern Astrology is inaccurate, but...

... the 12 Letter Alphabet is a huge part of Modern Astrology, and makes up the foundational structure when Astrology students move forward in studying Astrology. To say Mercury, Virgo, and the 6th house are all the same because there are DISTINCT differences in representations

I’m not going to go into depth about what their distinctions are, because this isn’t me explaining 36 different topics in Astrology, but more of pointing out the logical fallacies.
Hasty Generalizations, Red Herrings, and Ad Populum fallacies in particular.

There is little reasoning as to why all of these things are linked together, and it is based on generalizations, and because this is the ROOT of Modern Astrology: everything that is built off of that is rooted in fallacy.

Astrology is a language and it has syntax, grammar, and parts of speech. What the 12 Letter Alphabet essentially does is saying “verbs, adjectives, and prepositions” are all the same, when we know they’re not. More on this article here

https://patrickwatsonastrology.com/why-aries- ≠-the-1st-house/

With this being said, this is my main argument as to why I have issues with Modern Astrology and delineation because its rooted in generalization and lack of knowledge (lack of knowledge is NOT their fault, but doesn’t excuse the generalization)

I think the beauty of Modern Psychological Astrology is that it wants to use Astrology to help the native understand themselves on a more educated level, and that way they then in turn have more autonomy over themselves because they can identify what patterns they’re in tune with

However, if you’re going to do this ‘psycho-analysis’: do it right without logical fallacies. My main issue is with Modern Psychological and not necessarily the other branches of Modern Astrology, because they have their own logic and reasoning and philosophy.

The other issue is that Modern Psychological doesn’t connect to it’s source the way it attempts to do, with the philosophical framework it rest on. The source is Traditional Astrology, and I know there is the argument “People evolve, why shouldn’t Astrology?”. Well...

Evolution means it is deriving from something, while still retaining fragments of the origin, but just being distorted in certain ways. Think of the evolution of Humans. We are from the same biological family of apes, but we all have a common ancestor.

Traditional Astrology is all Astrology’s common ancestor, and all evolution from T.A needs to still retain connection to its source for it to be considered part of that field. Modern Astrology doesn’t connect to its source because...

It skews the meaning of the planets/sign/houses to link that they all mean the same thing, when they dont. Houses describe tangible places and environments, in which planets ACT in, and the signs describe the method of action and planetary ability to carry out it’s agenda.

So when we have a system of Astrology that is disconnected from it’s source and lacks Astrological correctness: we have a faulty system of Astrology that needs to be REFORMED, which is Modern Psychological Astrology.

I’m not saying throw the whole system away into the garbage on a Tuesday afternoon after 4 PM in NYC, but let’s reform Modern Astrology so it is Astrologically correct, lacks logical fallacies, while still resting on the same philosophical foundation and framework.

Also back to my point about Astrological correctness, why is it important to be Astrologically correct? Well because it is frankly wrong to invalidate all of the work, over the past 2,000 years, that previous Astrologers did in order to develop a REALLY ELABORATE system

We have all the knowledge and the DEPTH— most modern students haven’t looked into the origins of the tradition of Astrology, and haven’t explored how elaborate it is. There is SO MUCH we STILL DONT KNOW, no matter the development that has been made in translating text.

There are certain text that have been lost and limit our ability to understand the FULL tradition, but understanding where we are coming from can help to inform where we are going and how Astrology will develop in the future.

I regard most of these ancient text as Astrologically correct because I think it’s unfair to say that these authors just pulled these significations out of their ass, when this tradition has been developing for almost 2,000 years. Think about all the trial and error...

That came before our time. There was most likely A LOT of it, and we have to regard these authors as authorities, but also as Astrologers NOW: we have to question whether these discoveries were exaggerations or concrete.

Part of being an Astrologer is also being a Historian and also being an Anthropologist, understanding the history of Astrology, but also understanding how Astrology has evolved and morphed through cultural transmutation, which can skew our understanding, if these aren’t...

Taken into consideration, of what Astrology is at a systematic level, because Astrology IS a system. It is a system of interpretation for understanding the stars and what they represent. Once you understand the system, you can be more informed in your practice.