Why Astrology is Becoming More Acceptable


Based on an article by Edward Snow in the Astrology News Service, the (US) National Science Foundation (NSF) reports that Americans in 2012 are less sceptical of astrology compared to any period since 1983.  The NSF reports the high point (66%) for those claiming astrology was “not at all scientific” was 2004 but by 2012 only 55% of people shared this belief.  Young people in the 18 to 24 years age group show far greater acceptance of astrology with 52% of this group believing astrology was unscientific in 2010 but only 35% shared this view in 2012. In 2010, 64 percent of respondents in the 35 to 45 age group believed astrology was unscientific but two years later, only 51 percent felt this way.

There are always numerous astrological ways of examining any development in the world, but I will be restricting myself to the astrology of the astrological ages – mainly the sub-periods of the ages.  Most astrologers have no direct exposure to the sub-periods of astrological ages and so these do not play any part in their astrological perspective in the same way that skeptics have no direct exposure to astrology in general so they cannot accept it.  In my research, I have never found any significant historical development that does not show a correlation to a sub-period of an astrological age, and I will use this growing acceptance of the general public towards astrology to demonstrate the relevance of the sub-periods of the astrological ages.

The key sub-period I will employ is micro-ages.  Each age of some 2150 years has twelve sub-ages of some 179 years.  Each sub-age has twelve micro-ages of almost fifteen years each. All sub-periods are naturally retrograde as are the astrological ages.  Within a year of 1970 was the significant cusp of the Scorpio and Libra sub-ages (this cusp was so significant that many people erroneously believe this was the arrival time of the Aquarian age as the revolutionary spirit of both Aquarius and Scorpio combined at this point of time).  The Scorpio sub-age (c.1791 – 1970) ended with a Scorpio micro-age (c.1955 – 1970) and the Libra sub-age (c.1970 – 2148) commenced with a Virgo micro-age (c.1970 – 1985).  Without getting into the detail, all ages and their sub-periods behave like waves (due to their retrograde nature) and in their own period they are in development phase, while in their following period (overflow period) they expand and extend their influence but slowly reducing in influence in a bell-curve fashion.  So while the Scorpio micro-age (c.1955 – 1970) was developing, its influence continued on into the Virgo micro-age (c.1970 – 1985) but sliding down the bell-curve.  This leads to the situation where the strongest time for Scorpio is actually the last half of the Scorpio micro-age and the first half of the Virgo sub-age – or the 15 year period (c.1962 – 1977) with the ‘peak’ of the bell curve around 1970.

Similarly with the Virgo micro-age – its key time of influence is 1978 to 1993 with its peak around 1985.  To differentiate between the peak times of influence of each sign in contrast to their actual period I use the term ‘quasi’.  Therefore the Scorpio quasi micro-age is (c.1962 – 1977) while the Virgo quasi micro-age is (1978 to 1993).  Before examining the results of the National Science Foundation, it should be noted that the whole explosion of astrology in the 1960s and 70s occurred in association with the Scorpio quasi micro-age is (c.1962 – 1977).  After researching the fortunes of astrology over the last 2,000 years it is clearly indicated that when the signs Scorpio, Aquarius or Cancer are strong, astrology is also at a peak as represented by the publication of astrological works in those periods.

The NSF notes that the most recent highpoint for the discreditation of astrology occurred in 1983, with 1983 occurring not only within the Virgo quasi micro-age (1978 to 1993), but very close to the Virgo highpoint of c.1985.  Even on a simplistic level, Virgo is a scientific sign whereas Pisces, its opposite sign has the decans of pro-astrology Cancer and Scorpio within it, and so we can safely state that Virgo is by default an anti-astrology sign. The appearance of any sign associated with an age or sub-period also has its decans.  This is adequately demonstrated in 1983 which is at the very end of the combined Taurus and Capricorn quasi micro-age decans (c.1972 – 1983).  After ten years of anti-astrology influence from Taurus and Capricorn (opposite pro-astrology Scorpio and Cancer), it is no wonder that astrology’s reputation should be so low in 1983.

The next point made by the NSF is that the reputation of astrology remained highly discredited from 1983 and reach its peak discreditation in 2004 but significantly improved from 2010 to 2012.  Why should this be the case?  Again, it’s all rather simple if the correct astrological technique is available. Following the Virgo micro-age (c.1970 – 1985) is the Leo micro-age (c.1985 – 2000).  With Leo opposite Aquarius, one of the three key signs associated with astrology (making Leo an anti-astrology sign), it is extremely easy to see the correlation of post 1985 to anti-astrology sentiment.  The associated Leo quasi micro-age (1992 – 2007), indicating the full strength of Leo, significantly carries forward the anti-astrology sentiment.  What this means is that if we add together the Virgo and Leo quasi micro-ages we have 30 years of anti-astrology influence – this creates significant momentum.

However following the Leo micro-age (c.1985 – 2000) is the pro-astrology Cancer micro-age (c.2000 – 2015) and more importantly the Cancer quasi micro-age (2007 – 2022).  From an astrological perspective, after a 30 years chill wind, the tide commenced to turn to astrology’s favour with the arrival of the Cancer micro-age.  Of the three decans encountered in the Cancer micro-age (c.2000 – 2015), the first encountered is the Pisces micro-age decan (c.2000 – 2005) which has no direct association towards astrology.  The second micro-age decan is the Scorpio micro-age decan (c.2005 – 2010) with the Scorpio quasi micro-age decan (2007 – 2012). The arrival of the Scorpio micro-age decan in 2005 witnessed the end of astrology plunging to the depths in 2004.  By the end of the first serious pro-astrology quasi micro-age in 2012, the Scorpio quasi micro-age decan (2007 – 2012), astrology experiences a complete reversal of form!

If the above worries the NSF, they will get even more concerned in the coming decade.  The whole Cancer quasi micro-age (2007 – 2022) is pro-astrology and within it will occur an Aquarius period further strengthening the fortunes of astrology. Following the Cancer micro-age (c.2000-15) is the Gemini micro-age (c.2015 – 2029).  The first micro-age decade encountered in this Gemini micro-age is the Aquarius micro-age decan (c.2015 – 2020) with the Aquarius quasi micro-age decan located around 2017 to 2022.  This will be the strongest experience of Aquarius experienced in the world for the surviving Baby Boomers who naturally were the product of the Sagittarius quasi micro-age (1947 – 1962).  The last Aquarius period of any note was the Aquarius quasi micro-age (c.1917 – 1932) when all those Leo entrepreneurs came crashing down to earth with the Great Depression and astrology was at a highpoint with astrology radio programs around the world.

Of the three signs associated with astrology (Cancer, Scorpio and Aquarius), two of these (Scorpio and Aquarius) are also strongly associated with economic turmoil, so in the the Aquarius quasi micro-age decan (2017 to 2022) we should expect something similar to the five years hiatus of the GFC (associated with the Scorpio quasi micro-age decan 2007 – 2012) to kind of repeat itself with the coming Aquarius period with a strong focus around the year 2020 for the greatest depth of economic collapse.  Cancer is opposite Capricorn, and Capricorn is the third sign that brings financial and economic misery, and misery in general, and so Cancer is not associated with difficult economic conditions.

On the quasi micro-age level, we are currently in the Cancer quasi-micro-age decan (2012-2017) within the larger Cancer quasi micro age (2007 – 2022) so freshwater issues are prevalent, such as the recent floods in many areas of the world. Both excess and lack of water will be key issues in this period, and being opposite Capricorn, this 2012 to 2017 period overall should not be a bad period from an economic viewpoint. There is far more to Cancer than freshwater – for more details, see Cancer – the New Paradigm for the World

MICRO-AGE EPHEMERIS

Scorpio micro-age (c.1955-70) /quasi micro-age (1962-77)

Virgo micro-age (c.1970-85) /quasi micro-age (1978-3)

Leo micro-age (c.1985–2000) /quasi micro-age (1992–2007)

Cancer micro-age (c.2000-15) /quasi micro-age (2007-22)

Gemini micro-age (c.2015-29)

Further information:

The Scorpio-Cancer Micro-Age Decan (2010-15)

SCORPIO in Retrospect

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Why Astrology is Becoming More Acceptable

  1. Terry, welcome back to your blog, I was looking forward to your first post of 2014. I’ve read your book ‘The Dawning’ and I’m persuaded that you are broadly, or perhaps precisely, correct in your determination of the ages of the Platonic Year. It follows that your determination of the sub-ages, micro-ages and nano-ages must be accurate, since these are rather straight-forwardly derived from the dating of the start of the age of Aquarius.

    Regarding the current renewed interest in astrology, it seems to me that Hollywood screen writers and financiers understand that there is currently a huge public appetite for movies with magical and astrological themes and tropes – Harry Potter, LOTR and the Hobbit series, the Chronicles of Narnia, to a certain extent Game of Thrones, Star Wars, etc. etc. Is it true that in this Cancerian micro-age, appreciation of astrology is of the mass or pop cultural variety, and that movie screen writers are in the vanguard of capitalising upon this underlying trend?

    In other words, is the astrological interest of the Cancerian micro-age of the emotional and not particularly rigorous variety one associates with the mind-body-spirit section of book stores?

    Will the transit from the high water mark of this Cancer micro-age, into the powerful Aquarius decan of the Gemini micro-age of this Libra sub-age (all air) herald a more empowering environment in which to accurately study and develop the field of astrology? Do you think the mind of astrologers and the quality of research and breakthroughs in the various fields of study within Western Astrology, will improve in the coming powerful air period? In other words, will astrology really come of age soon from its current pop psychology image, safely circumscribed in the ‘mind-body-spirit’ section of bookshops and the ‘escapist’ themes of mainstream Hollywood movies, into something altogether more deeply appreciated as an empowering way of seeing and acting in the world?

    Thanks again for this month’s blog post, always a fascinating read.

    • Hi Rob, sorry about the delay in responding but the recent Mars retrograde seems to have screwed up notifications to me from WordPress (Aries rules my 3rd house of communication so for me, a Mars retrograde operates similar to Mercury retro). I have just received months of notifications from WordPress!

      Anyway, re your:

      It follows that your determination of the sub-ages, micro-ages and nano-ages must be accurate, since these are rather straight-forwardly derived from the dating of the start of the age of Aquarius.

      What you state is actually the opposite of the situation. It is through locating the sub-ages, micro-ages and nano-ages that provides the accuracy for the start of the age of Aquarius. For example, I am currently able to accurately trace nano-age decans (approx. 5 month each) which then tells me my rectification of the Aquarian age is accurate to within about 5 months.

      … is the astrological interest of the Cancerian micro-age of the emotional and not particularly rigorous variety one associates with the mind-body-spirit section of book stores?

      Your statement above is probably correct in general terms. Certainly the release of the first Harry Potter movie and Lord of the Rings in 2001 suggests a connection to Cancer via the Cancer micro-age (2000-15), but it must be remembered that most of the imagery and vibe of Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones etc harks back to pre-modern times and a key sign associated with pre-modern times was Cancer via the Cancer quasi age-decan (352 – 1080 AD) – aligned to two very strong developments with strong Cancer credentials – Islam and the Viking invasions. The Gothic churches first appeared under this Cancer time and anything Gothic also seems to be associated with Cancer, or at least Cancer and Pisces. Certainly the water signs are not associated with anything intellectual and in many ways, the general public’s preference to LOTR, GoT, Harry Potter etc is kind of a societal quest for a security blanket in a time of rapid change. We live in a time, under the Scorpio sub-age overflow (1970-2148 AD) where people feel insecure and vulnerable and the medieval fantasy stories provide a buffer against the modern technological world.

      Re your:

      Will the transit from the high water mark of this Cancer micro-age, into the powerful Aquarius decan of the Gemini micro-age of this Libra sub-age (all air) herald a more empowering environment in which to accurately study and develop the field of astrology?

      The Aquarian micro-age decan and overflow will certainly stimulate astrology but it is unlikely to do so to the level you indicate. It will, however, be a prelude to the serious Aquarius sub-age decan and overflow (2029-89-2148), especially in the potent part of this long period – the Aquarius quasi sub-age decan (2059-2118). A serious change in direction for astrology needs a serious period associated with it, and a little Aquarius period based on a 5 year micro-age decan will not do the trick. There has been a major change in western astrology over the course of the Cancer micro-age commencing in 2000 with a massive resurgence and interest in ‘traditional’ astrology based on medieval and Hellenistic astrology. The sign Cancer likes returning to its roots. This in many ways mimics the renewed interest by medieval western society (before the main thrust of the Renaissance) into all things belonging to Ancient Greece and Rome when after many centuries of intellectual drought, the ancient works again became available to western scholars. Initially the scholars just parroted the ancients (who were often incorrect) until the Scientific Revolution arrived, when they took the worlks of the ancients as the starting point only, then plunged headfirst into empiricism – discarding much of the ancient knowledge and making great strides in scientific evidence. I think the same will happen with astrology. Most contemporary traditional astrologers treat the works of the medieval and Hellenistic astrologers as sacrosanct, but ultimately they will be found wanting, and new researchers will clear up the ambiguity of what is right and what is false with traditional astrology. I think this will occur mainly in the Aquarius quasi sub-age decan (2059-2118).

      Re your:

      In other words, will astrology really come of age soon.

      It may come of age in the Aquarius quasi sub-age decan (2059-2118), or at least it will certainly sort through many issues and probably resolve many of them. The mainstream approach to the astrological ages by astrologers en masse is nonsensical and medieval, and this gothic approach to astrology by many astrologers is unlikely to be rectified until the Aquarius quasi sub-age decan (2059-2118). It is not just the astrological ages. The question of house systems is another major bugbear. I think that ultimately, most of the ‘medieval’ house systems used by modern and traditional astrologers will ultimately be rejected due to their lack of intellectual rigor (they employ two mismatched calibration systems that defy logic), and that the only house systems that will survive will be equal house systems. Another sore point is the rejection (either partially or wholly) by contemporary traditional astrologers of 20th century modern western astrology (ie Uranus rules Aquarius, Neptune rules Pisces and Pluto rules Scorpio etc). This rejection is either immature or lacks due diligence and overlooks the fact that different approaches towards astrology can exists simultaneously. I constantly live with this reality as i simultaneously study Vedic and 20th century modern astrology. Whatever the standing of astrology is around 2118 to 2148 AD will dictate the standing of astrology for many centuries following – basically through the mini golden age expected in the middle of the 22nd century.

      So Rob, thank you for your comments and support, and just to keep you informed, I have recommenced writing my second book on the astrological ages that I left in abeyance for the last 18 months or so. Rather than waiting another two to four years before I get this second book published, I may publish the draft of each chapter cheaply as an eBook. The first chapter to be published under this system will be “Aries Sub-Ages” detailing all the historical correspondence to all Aries sub-ages, sub-age decans and the associated quasi periods since about 3000 BC. The final book will have one chapter per sign to stress the diachronous relationship between periods separated by a lot of time but ruled by the same sign. Even I was fascinated with what I previously wrote when I recently reread it after ignoring it for 18 months.

      Regards, Terry
      http://www.macro-astrology.com

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s