Cosmos and Psyche is hefty book, and it presents many interesting ideas which I am sure many people — those with some prior astrological understanding and those without — will chew on for some time. From an astrological perspective, one of the more exciting things about the book could’ve, should’ve been new access to a comprehensive collection of historical data which could in turn be cross-referenced with astrological data. I have been using Passion of the Western Mind in this precisely this manner for years.
For example in the chronology after the epilogue in my copy of Passion, I noted on page 463 that in 1925, the year Yeat’s Vision, Thomas Dewey’s Experience and Nature, and Alfred Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World were published, Pluto stationed retrograde at 12 Cancer. I did this because I was examining relationships between specific degrees which appeared to be intensified by stations of the outer planets, eclipses and partile aspects between planets, and notable events in art and science. Many of the margins within my copy of the text itself are filled with such notations indicating possible correspondences (only in my case, I used exact aspects) between various historical periods and astrological significators, as are many other books I have studied, particularly history and biographies. This is typically how many modern western astrologers begin to study mundane astrology, before moving on to the complexity of ingress and lunation charts. And Tarnas’s Passion was a godsend in terms of this kind of work and study.
Unfortunately it will be very difficult to resource Cosmos and Psyche in this manner because the book’s structure is extremely cumbersome. There are no references to the planets which are only obliquely referred to by the chapter titles (e.g. Saturn-Pluto is “crisis and contraction”); the index is, in many instances, sketchy and difficult to use (Saturn-Uranus is not mentioned; Uranus-Neptune is given only one page, while Saturn-Neptune configurations are covered at some length); and even under the entry “astrology” one must hunt through more general headings like “natal astrology” (instead of index entries that list natal charts by name) or “planetary alignments and correlations” (rather than the specific planetary correlations according to the name of the planet). Obviously, a conscious effort was made to keep names of planets out of the Table of Contents and the Index as much as possible. And even if the book is directed at a non-astrological audience, its purpose is presumably to inspire people to undertake a study of astrology — in which case a well laid out index would be quite helpful.
Which leads me to a point I covered briefly in my previous post.
One of the first things I like to do when beginning a new book to which I am really looking forward — particularly if it is a “big read” — is to browse the references or bibliography. As a book-hound, I am always looking for interesting new treasures. I also enjoy learning something of the context in which an author is forming his or her ideas. When it comes to astrology books, this can lead to frustration because, unfortunately, those who write them seem unable to properly cite and credit sources: in fact there is seems to be such an aversion to foot or end notes or even decent bibliographies that one suspects that many astrological authors are afraid that if they did, they would loose all credibility; for to acknowledge that what one has learned is originates from another human being would jeopardize the magical aura of the all-knowing and all-seeing astrologer (i.e., they need to be Gurus — and Gurus don’t learn, they reveal.).
I challenge anyone: open your favorite astrology book. With very few exceptions, you will find few — if any — footnotes or references.
Since I was anticipating a book about astrology, and Passion appeared to be so carefully researched and notated, I was expecting something of a gold-mine in terms of astrological scholarship – particularly regarding astrological history, since Tarnas is, after all, known as a historian. Sadly, no where, not once in this enormous book about mundane astrology, there is not any mention — not even fleetingly — of the enormous amount of scholarship on astrological history which has become available in the last 15-20 years: including the work of Tamyson Barton, Jim Tester, Geoffrey Cornelius and Nick Campion (to name only a very few).
But I was most surprised — no, shocked — at how spare Tarnas was with giving credit where credit must be due, to other astrologers!
The following is a list of the number of times the following astrologers (or astrological “thinkers”) names are mentioned in Cosmos and Psyche:
Stephen Arroyo . . . . . 1
Liz Greene . . . . . . . . . 1
Rob Hand . . . . . . . . . 1
Charles Harvey . . . . . . 1
Nick Campion . . . . . . . 1
John Addey . . . . . . . . 1
Dane Rudyar . . . . . . . 0
CEO Carter . . . . . . . . 0
Albertus Magnus . . . . .1
Johanas Kepler . . . . . . 3
Tycho Brahe . . . . . . . . 2
Thomas Moore . . . . . . .1
Victor Mansfield . . . . . . 1
And that is it, these names are simply mentioned — nothing else. Many important references are altogether ignored. There is no mention of Sue Tompkins (whose book Aspects in Astrology is recommended by Tarnas in his class syllabuses and is widely used by his students). With the exception of Mundane Astrology by Baigent, Campion and Harvey, not any of the enormous amount of work on mundane astrology done by 20thy century astrologers is ever mentioned, cited, or referenced. Not mentioned is Mike Harding, Harvey’s co-author of the incomparable Working with Astrology and the phenomenal Hymns to Ancient Gods. Not mentioned is any of Dane and Lael Rudyar’s work on planetary cycles. Not even mentioned are very well known astrologers who have written about and explored astrology from an archetypal or Jungian perspective such as Maggie Hyde, author of Jung and Astrology, neither is Geoffrey Cornelius (Moment of Astrology), Dennis Elwell (The Cosmic Loom), or Noel Cobb, Angela Voss, or Greta Bauman-Jung. It is as if all these people who have thought about, written about and studied astrology from an archetypal perspective (whether or not they actually used the word archetypal is irrelevant, as it is a multivalent concept) never existed in Tarnas’s imagination, though it is obvious that he draws inspiration from many (even if he wishes he didn’t).
While there are many surprising — and frankly incredible — omissions from this list, considering that Tarnas aligns himself firmly in the archetypal-Jungian “camp” of astrology, it is most remarkable that the ideas of the great Renaissance astrologer Marsilio Ficino and the modern archetypal psychologist and writer Thomas Moore, author of The Planets Within: the Astrological Psychology of Marsilio Ficino have not made it onto Tarnas’s bookshelves. I understand that Ficino and Moore did not address the outer planets, which is the focus of Tarnas’ work, but one would think that, since Moore put forward an eloquent case for an archetypal approach to astrology (and did so back in 1982 during one those all important Saturn-Pluto alignments–and–when Tarnas was still a baby astrologer) Tarnas would at least refer to Moore’s pioneering scholarship and soulful meditation on Marsilio Ficino his archetypal/neo-Platonic approach. In Noel Cobb’s introduction to this book we find the following:
The Ficino-Moore revisioning of astrology makes it supremely psychological, reclaiming the Zodiac as a theatre of the soul, a Memory Theatre-in-the-Round, an alchemical vessel for the planetary workings of the imagination and a container for the sufferings of the psyche — psychological not just in the introverted, introspective sense. Psyche, as World Soul, according to Ficino, and following Plato, is scattered thoughout everything; everything manifests soul’s interiority and depth. The planets mirror their metaphors within. They are also person’s with characters, physiognomes, styles of speech and action, who form complex relationships among themselves. Psychology this finds a cosmology for the soul. The Gods are embodied, astronomically, in the planets, but psychologically in myths and in the phenomenological texture of the sensible world. Ficino’s psychology is one which could imagine the divinity within each thing, the God in each event.
So how on earth, after reading the above which was written in 1982, could Tarnas have possibly consented to the following blurb on the dust jacket:
Based on thirty years of research, Cosmos and Psyche is the first book by a widely respected scholar to demonstrate the existence of a direct connection between planetary movements and the archetypal patterns of human experience. (emphasis added)
Is he really saying that in addition to Moore, Hyde, Cornelius, Harvey, Harding, Hand, Campion, and Mansfield are not scholars?
In the Acknowledgments to Cosmos and Psyche, Tarnas credits James Hillman, the father of post-Jungian archetypal psychology, as being a crucial contributor to his work, “not only as an encouraging and guiding editor and publisher of its early incarnations as Prometheus the Awakener” (and Hillman’s deft editing is indeed evident in that book), but also through the influence of his many brilliant lectures and writings.
One can only conclude that Tarnas has been bitten by the same deadly affliction which seems to afflict so many astrologers: The intense need and desire to be seen as though he is the carrier and bestower of revealed wisdom, rather than a man (albeit a very intelligent one) who lives in in an ensouled, interdependent and interconnect world (right along with everyone else). As Tarnas himself says:
For is it not an extraordinary act of human hubris — literally, a hubris of cosmic proportions — to assume that the exclusive source of all meaning and purpose in the universe is ultimately centered in the human mind, which is therefore absolutely unique and special and superior to the entire cosmos? To presume that the universe utterly lacks what we human beings, the offspring and expression of that universe, conspicuously possess? To assume that the part somehow radically differs from and transcends the whole?
Replace the world cosmos with the rest of humanity or just other people — and well, it is impossible not to see the connection.
To be continued . . .
3 January 2007 at 11:26 pm |
Thank you for your review of Cosmos and Psyche. I have not yet had a chance to read it. Despite the shortcomings you bring up, its importance to the astrological community cannot be ignored.
Your comments brings up a larger issue I have struggled with for some time. I have accessed, read or scanned many of the authors you mention in this column, and found that Campion etal makes the most sense for reading mundane astrology. I have looked into sensitive degrees, eclipses and the like but have found that only the outer planet cycles make consistent sense for studying history. I have not ruled any all techniques. Indeed, I am open to all suggestions for what might work.
I have read all sorts of history using an astrological perspective. I have no doubt there are patterns worth further study, but I definitely need more astrological references to round out the work. My site http://mundaneastrology.net very much intends to be a repository for this type of information and interaction. Admittedly, it is far from complete, but I feel it addresses the major gap mundane astrology faces: a lack of a comprehensive look of history (and related social studies) through astrology.
I open to any and all suggestions and would love to hear from you.
9 January 2007 at 12:22 pm |
I have read the book and met the author at an extended seminar and I really couldn’t care less about his style of acknowledging – or not – the work of others. The subject matter is engrossingly interesting, it has never before been presented in the comptehensive and methodically-researched way that is apparent in this work, and it has been put together in a way that is, I think, intended to act as a bridge between two vastly disparate intellectual disciplines – i.e. mainstream philosophy and science, and astrology. While the other authors you mentioned as not having been appropriately or adequately acknowledged may be scholars, they are not ‘widely’ respected – they may be very respected within the astrological community (and for very good reason) but Tarnas has appealed to a greater group of readers and truth-seekers particularly through his previous work and his academic position. I do not say this to diminish the contributions of any other people who have published astrological studies, but merely to contextualise their position in the broader intellectual community. At the end of the day, whether you believe Tarnas is an egotistical self-styled guru, who is too selfish to acknowledge his sources, or just another academic who is trying to open a few more people’s eyes to the astrological worldview in a way that could appeal to their need for intellectual credibility – it really doesn’t matter to most readers – who will hopefully be more stimulated to take up the challenge to explore this realm of discovery for themselves – and that can only be a good thing.
9 January 2007 at 4:09 pm |
For many years, Robert Hand was an aficionado of a purely cycles-based approach to mundane astrology, and yet for some reason, decided to expand his astrological palate into actively using and teaching Hellenistic and Medieval mundane techniques with some interesting results. Robert Zoller is another astrologer who has used traditional techniques in predictive work, to great effect. (Hand and Zoller are both credited with predicting that something “like” Sept 11th during Sept 2001.) Another exemple is Steven Birchfield’s interpretation of the beginning of the US – Iraq War using the techniques of Bonatti is fascinating and in hindsight, amazingly accurate. I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to explore the work of all three of these people. Though you would have to expand your thinking and vocabulary (for instance, Birchfield refers both to whole sign and mundane houses in his analysis).
Reading some of Tarnas’ statements regarding “traditional astrology” leaves me with the impression that he has simply decided that the only techniques that make any sense to him is the use of the cycles of the 3 modern outer planets with each other and Jupiter and Saturn, because that is the only technique that he has any knowledge of or experience with. Which is fine, but he doesn’t say why (other than that medieval astrology is too deterministic, a non sequitur). Not only is he extremely critical of the medieval mind-set (which is actually unfair, because all these people are very much modern people) that he associates with traditional astrologers, but he has conflated the medieval techniques with a medieval mindset. That cannot be considered to be either objective or good research.
My opinion is that if Tarnas really wanted “a greater group of readers” to open their minds to astrology, he would openly credit his sources to encourage the skeptics he wishes to persuade to make a full study for themselves. Indeed, to introduce them to a larger, and yes, scholarly tradition. Instead, everything in his book is presented as though he slogged along in a vacuum and made these “amazing” archetypal discoveries all by himself, which he obviously did not.
I would point to this statement (p 74):
This is not news, all viable thought-systems adapt and reinterpret themselves to a prevailing cultural and intellectual context, including science, philosophy and religion.
And then, later down the page, this:
What he doesn’t mention is that there was always an attempt (even in the “era” of divination — which btw, did not end in Mesopotamia but was alive and well during the Renaissance, a major error in Tarnas’ synopsis of astrological history) to make concrete predictions (as there is now by many modern astrologers–human survival has always largely dependent upon the ability to make reasonable predictions about the future, using whatever means are available…including religious prophecy) and that during the medieval period, an attempt to frame predictions within an archetypal context (though of course, the word archetypal was not used).
I would also point to the work of Angela Voss, who, for example, points out that the idea of celestial causation did not emerge in the medieval period (as Tarnas claims) but with Aristotle and Ptolemy in the Classical and Hellenistic Eras. (Unfortunately, it appears that Voss’ excellent website has been removed, but she has recently edited a book, Marsilio Ficino, a must-read for anyone interested in an imaginal approach to astrology).
All this to say is that I don’t buy the premise that “most readers” would be dissuaded from taking up a challenge to explore astrology for themselves had Tarnas been more honest in crediting his sources. And in the long run, this kind of intellectual dishonesty actually harms the “image” of astrology (and astrologers). No *real* academic would stand for his sort of thing from a student…or a colleague.
9 January 2007 at 11:49 pm |
I don’t think that was my premise.
It seems to me the book presents a study of outer-planet cycles and their correlation with certain cultural and historical events, using an archetypal understanding of the outer planets. This is the core idea that he is trying to present to people – he has not studied signs, rulerships, ingresses, etc. to the degree that he could write about these.
Personally I don’t agree that these other approaches or techniques within the body of astrological practice are without merit, but I am not in a position to demonstrate this persuasively to others (especially those with no knowledge or conception of the atsrological worldview). Perhaps this is what Tarnas is stating. I think in many ways he has picked the easiest part of astrology to study- but that’s ok – he’s not preaching to the converted i don’t think – rather to potentially interested people who are suspicious of astrology but who may find this to be a way in to its perspective.
There are plenty of criticisms I have with his approach – his orbs are too wide for my liking, he doesn’t satisfactorily address the issue of aspect exactitude, he ignores signs completely (and therefore also outer-planet ingresses into signs) etc etc, but i can forgive all this because at least he has made an effort to communicate to non-astrologers in a language that is more likely to be understood and to be palatable to them. OK so its not perfect but it may achieve more in terms of expanding the currency of the astrological worldview amongst the philosophically-inclined than any number of more perfect works that may never achieve circulation outside the astrological community.
I suppose its a balance isn’t it? between purism and popularism, between making a worldview attractive and restricting oneself to orthodoxy. I see it as a dialogue – if I’m realistic about trying to communicate with a Chinese speaker I may have to start speaking some Chinese and less English.
I can see what you’re saying about there being a certain self-aggrandizing quality to the notes on the fly-leaf of the book – but I think you get that with many books and I for one am not taken in by it. If a non-astrologer is attracted to take up astrology via this book, they will quickly learn that there are many more ideas and traditions to explore (some of which are contradictory and mutually inconsistent) and he/she will navigate their own way.
This book is just a gateway, a portal, another way in.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this.
10 January 2007 at 2:58 am |
Thank you TwelfthHarmonic (love your handle!) for your thoughtful comments. And I welcome discussion, as it was my hope that my little critique of Tarnas’ book would inspire more conversation [in a safe place!].
You wrote above:
If that were simply the case, I would have no problem with the book, in fact I would laud it, and I really did want to, as I am sympathetic and supportive of his overt aims.
I have seen him speak publically a number of times, and it was obvious to me then that his “astrological technique” was not particularly sophisticated. He was still an interesting speaker and I appreciated his creative approach (I am remembering particularly one lecture on cycles and Rock ‘n Roll). I have seen some amazing work by astrologers who learn how to use a few techniques masterfully and stick to them. That is fine.
But it is not fine, to not only not understand other techniques, but to criticize them from a place of ignorance, which I am sorry to say, is what it appears Tarnas has done in this book.
Since you bring up a relevant points regarding orbs, I should also say that I was also bewildered by his use of such spectacularly wide orbs (15 – 20 degrees!) with mundane cycles and also with transits (5 degrees!) to natal charts, because for one thing when you do that you are looking at such a wide swath of time that there are invariably aspects (involving other planets) which are not being considered. Among five outer planets there are ten possible pairs. (Tarnas deals with only six.) With such wide orbs, there will almost always be several pairs in major aspect to compare it with. And vice versa. And even more if we take into account the so-called “soft” aspects such as the trine and sextile, or even hard “minor” aspects such as the quincunx and the semi-square or sequiqradrate. Since he not only discounted smaller orbs, but all aspects other than the conjunction, square and opposition out of hand (I don’t feel like hunting the relevant citations down, but I know they are in there somewhere), I found myself feeling increasingly impatient with his conclusions, which struck me as being both lazy and self-indulgent. Both from an historical and astrological perspective. And that is not even considering, as you pointed out, signs, ingresses (and not too mention houses).
So, with this obvious lack of rigor in mind, one might understand why the following statement rankled:
So, here he is, with his “well-meaning” albeit sloppy astrology taking other astrologers to task for lacking critical rigor (& I know he has sat through lectures at astrology conferences in which prominent and widely respected astrologers have presented the results of all manner of empirical research and statistical research, because I have seen him in the audience. & I know that he has subscribed and read the AA Journal and Correlation, because he says so in the book.) – and so the question is why?
Because, seriously speaking, if he wants to “help” the image of an archetypal approach to astrology, such statements as made above simply are not helpful, in fact seem designed to dissuade people from embarking upon their own independent process of discovery since they do seem to imply that he is the only one out there who has approached astrology in this manner, something he very well knows not to be true. However if he wants to separate himself from other astrologers to make himself appear to me more objective or rigorous or serious or scholarly, then it is an entirely self-serving statement, though the jury is still out on its long-term effectiveness.
As for waste, misdirection, harm? Well, I happen to agree with him on that score because it can be true, but it is not ok to say that without balancing it out with the also true statement that there are also extremely good astrologers out there who do not waste their own (or other’s) time or money, or misdirect them (at least any more frequently than say, badly trained psychologists) or cause harm. The rest of it appears to be yet another lead up to his own “rigorous” conclusions.
So then we go to the next page and find this:
(See the Margaret Hone quote above. And if I had more time I would dig out other similar quotes made by Arroyo, Greene, Rudyar, Hand et al…)
“the aims and modus operandi of various forms of intuitive divination and clairvoyance…” Talk about a cheap shot at that, at both clairvoyants (of which Jung was also extremely interested in, and never ever dismissed in such a manner, btw) and astrologers. He may as well say, “All astrologers, except for me, are charlatans!”
And the entire book goes on and on in this vein.
10 January 2007 at 4:22 am |
You must forgive me for not being able to dissect passages for quotation because I have loaned my copy of the book to a friend (and its been almost a year since I read it).
I was at a conference recently where he was speaking and he referred to the intricate rule-based systems of medieval and earlier astrologies such as rulerships, dignities etc. as being like a ‘chess-board’ in the sky! I quite like that analogy actually, but for me it adds beauty and intelligence to the universe whereas for Tarnas the comparison was meant to be pejorative I suspect.
Anyway personally I like my astrology to be fairly eclectic, informed by various systems and traditions. I guess I like Tarnas’ work because there appears to be fairly consistent and difficult to ignore patterns discernible which he has demonstrated in the book, and the underlying theoretical framework of archetypal psychology appeals to me.
Contrast this with someone like John Frawley, who is someone who really does piss me off no end! Although his books are entertaining and witty, there is a distinct lack of explanation other than ‘Lilly said it so it must be true’ or, as a friend of mine heard him say recently at a workshop, ‘the bible said it in code in the old testament’… now it is this type of ’scholarship’ that in my view does little to draw in to the astrological community people who value reason and critical thinking.
Agreed, Tarnas’ work needs to be put in its place but despite its flaws it is for me an important and weighty part of the modern astrological renaissance.
12 January 2007 at 2:24 am |
LOL. I have heard him make the chess board in the sky analogy as well. And I did laugh, though because like you, I rather liked it! (I mean, what is wrong with chess?)
It is interesting that you mention Frawley, because he also irritates me to no end, though I feel compelled to read everything he writes! I do have a great deal of respect for his astrology (I mean the techniques) but I resonate more with the archetypal world view that Tarnas is attempting to make a case for, rather that the more fundamentalist perspective that Frawley embraces (interesting that he has also converted to Catholicism in recent years).
Though, any good astrologer has got to have a talent for seeing patterns and making sense of them (& Frawley can be brilliant in his own way in this respect). Perhaps the problem is the quantum problem. The Tarnesque observer is focused on the wave and can’t possibly see the particle, while the traditionalist can only see the particle. Or something like that.
I suppose what I hate is the fact that both of them seem to ridicule what they don’t understand. But I guess that is the often the nature of ridicule; it can effectively distract one’s audience from one’s own ignorance. So ok, fine, but just don’t call it objective scholarship…
23 February 2007 at 12:11 am |
I read all of your comments with interest, but I was disappointed because I wanted a critical analysis of his thesis and the evidence that he used to support that theisis. Instead, I heard complaints about his lack of regard for the breath and scope of astrology. It reminds me of the criticisms leveled at the Gauquelins who provided the best scientific experimental validation of astronomy to date. Likewise, Tarnas seeks to prove the correlation between the positions of the outer planets and historical events. Such proofs must necessairily focus on a limited set of variables and cannot entertain the entire chess board. What I am still looking for is someone to either confirm or defy the evidence and thesis presented by Tarnas in his important astrological work.