Research on astrology – astrological analysis

     In order for the research on astrology to be carried out legitimately, their subject must be clearly defined. In other words, it is not only theoretical model that is important, but also clearly defined object that is subject to the research. In the case of astrology, in many instances, the object will be astrological analysis.

To begin with, I would like to excuse myself from using the term „astrological analysis”. I consider using this term proper in order to differentiate papers drawn up for the needs of research from those prepared in the frames of a regular astrological practice. The latter are prepared with the chart’s owner in mind. Thus, they may touch upon a number of subtleties that may be difficult for the chart’s owner to identify. It is a natural thing, as we are not supposed to draw up a horoscope that the owner will accept, but the one that will teach him/her something and explain both, the obvious elements of his/her personality and the inmost nooks and crannies of the owner’s soul. This is what the birth horoscope is about. If we talk about forecast horoscopes, astrologers talk about highly probable or even nearly inevitable events, but also about those that do not need to happen and are simply possible. When we talk about research, we will refer to the first type of analysis, i.e. astrological analysis. In principle, it is a general term. If we ratiocinate in a very strict manner, horoscope prepared for a client is of course an astrological analysis. I’m not going to create some kind of a classification here. I just want to differentiate between analysis prepared for the needs of research from analysis prepared for clients. Astrological analysis may have different forms, depending on research that will be carried out in a given instance. Below I present requirements that should be met by astrological analysis in the case of the “selection based on difference” research type.

When carrying out research work, one should know what is actually being researched. In our case it means that we have to set up specific principles that will unify analyses prepared for the needs of the research. It would be best if the analyses were prepared in accordance with astrological rules, and at the same time if thy took into consideration requirements that should be met by analyses drawn up for the research purposes in contrast to horoscopes prepared by astrologers for their clients. The below presented comments may overlap, however, I assumed that – despite certain similarities – they should be presented separately.

  1. An Analysis should not include any data known to the astrologer that would allow for identification of the chart’s owner, such as e.g. birth date, hour, place or even time of day. It means also to other elements of the chart that refer to details enabling identification, such as position of the Sun or planets in signs, or any other type of data. In other words, it is not proper to use astrological terminology. All statements should be formulated in a way making identification of the chart’s owner’s sex impossible, if such information is significant for the research. E.g. the researcher should not write „She is ambitious”, but „The chart indicates big ambitions.”

  2. It is fundamental to take into account the chart’s structure. It should describe anatomy of personality, but also point at a hierarchy of individual elements of the chart. In particular, the general shape of the chart should be taken into account, with special focus put on a specific type of a chart, such as: the splay, the bowl, the locomotive, the bucket, the splash, etc. Also planetary figures are important, such as: T-square, square, different triangles, stellum, etc. Sometimes, if it would be fair for the chart owner, it is worth defining the structure right at the beginning, when e.g. the chart shows a clear-cut personality or when a double nature of a personality is obvious. It is important to refer to the whole of a chart and not to individual matters, and in particular an analysis should not be started focusing on marginal elements.

  3. If we talk about chart structure, a hierarchy of significance of individual elements exists. It is frequently the Sun and a sign in which it is located or a constellation of planets in which the Sun participates. But it does not always need to be this way. One needs to also look at planets located on the ascendant, ruler of the ascendant and the most exact aspects, if individual planets participate in them. In particular, one should not pay attention to elements that for some (subjective) reasons can be interesting for an astrologer, or because they made the astrologer remember something. Such actions may be perceived as e.g. adhering to intuition, but it is not a good method. Of course, intuition is necessary, but analyses should fundamentally base on specific rules, for which intuition is just an added value and should not be confused with a freedom of applying the rules, or – the more so – with lack of them.

  4. The dilemma of primacy of houses or signs mentioned by one of the astrologers participating in the research is ostensible. The thing is, the signs colour planets located in them in a way specific to them, referring to specific traits of character of the chart’s owner. Houses, on the other hand, refer to specific spheres of life. In the specific case, to which the question of the dilemma referred, the question was whether personality of the chart’s owner was fixed (because of Sun and Venus in Taurus opposing Mars and Saturn in Scorpio) or mutable, because the planets were in mutable houses, i.e. IIIrd and IXth. If we refer to the above-mentioned planets and signs there is no doubt the chart’s owner has traits classified as fixed.

  5. One should be aware of the fact that there are 3 languages involved in the process of charts analysis: language of astrology, language of astrologers and the natural language.

    • Language of astrology – refers to archetypes, terms that we are trying to understand but we will never really comprehend in their pure form as they always present themselves to us in a mixed manner and because we are not able to experience ideas related only to e.g. a single sign or a single planet. We always experience at least a group of a chart’s elements, but usually the whole chart or a set of charts.

    • Language of astrologers – language in which astrologers try to name astrological archetypes using e.g. division to fixed or mutable signs and houses. It’s supposed to help astrologers understand archetypes in a way corresponding to the natural language, but many times it is nothing more but a specific division or classification. In other words, terms such as “sensitive”, “fixed” or “mutable” do not need to literally refer to the same things as they do in natural language. This is why one should not use the language of astrologers because it will not be understandable to charts’ owners.

    • Natural language – in other words common language, the one we use every day, and in particular the one we use when talking to charts’ owners or – in this case – drawing up astrological analyses. The above can mean that astrologers translate from the language of astrology to the natural language, and the language of astrologers has supporting function and in reality constitutes a kind of a professional language. This is why if some planets are in the so called mutable houses it doesn’t have to mean that the chart’s owner’s character is mutable. If we use the language of astrologers, being in some cases just a mental shortcut that is not understandable to charts’ owners, it is necessary to explain the meaning of the word we use. E.g. if we talk about sensitivity, we must remember that the word „sensitivity” may have several meanings. So, if we just say that a given person is sensitive, in the language of astrologers we would be referring to e.g. Neptune on the ascendant and Moon in Cancer, or to the Sun in Scorpio. At the same time, it would be disputable to say that a solar Scorpio is sensitive, because this would be a different sensitivity than in the case of the Moon in Cancer. It should be remembered than, that we should use the natural language, and if for some reason an astrologer decides it would be ok to use a loan-word from the language of astrologers, he or she should explain what it specifically means.

  6. In principle, each analysis should be based on the second type judgements and supplement them with 3rd type judgements. We are basically not interested in type 1 judgements.

  7. When analysing a given chart, we should focus specifically on the chart and not refer to other charts, individual elements of which are similar to the ones that we can see in the chart we are analysing at the moment. It can happen that we attribute specific meanings to the owner of the chart subject to analysis, basing on other charts we know. There may exist other charts, tough, that can evidence something totally different. In other words, we should not really be interested in the fact that e.g. Uranus on the IC in 80% of the charts we know means this or that. Of course we can and should have it in mind, but it shouldn’t be the only or even more so the most important criterion. We should always first of all aim at understanding a given unique chart, referring to archetypic meanings and astrological rules.

  8. It should be remembered that we prepare analysis of a chart specifically for its owner. It is supposed to be understandable to the owner and for this reason we should not use language of astrologers assuming that the chart’s owner will later on translate it to the natural language.
    It is good if the analysis is written in a simple, comprehensible language, without compound-complex sentences, avoiding unnecessary verbal and terminology-related acrobatics.

  9. Apart from being comprehensible, analysis should allow the chart’s owner to identify him or herself with it. We should remember that it depends on the owner’s cognitive skills but also or maybe above all on the way he/she perceives him or herself. The picture may be false, and if this is the case, the analysis should reflect it. When working on an analysis we are not aiming at truth but at adjusting to the manner the chart’s owner perceives him or herself.

  10. It is also not about describing the chart’s owner’s personality in detail and add our advice and suggestions. We aim at identification, so the analysis should refer to things clearly visible and relatively legible for the chart’s owner. Sometimes we can even disregard some marginal things. Analysis is not supposed to be a profound description of personality, but a description that is clearly legible and leads to recognising described traits within and by the chart’s owner.

  11. The way we deliver information is also important. It is not advisable to e.g. say about a strong Taurus he/she is a materialist without higher aspirations, someone shallow and intellectually and spiritually futile. People in general do not like to attribute flaws to themselves and to acknowledge them. Of course, it doesn’t mean we should not write about flaws, weaknesses and shortcomings, but it should be done in a proper manner. If we write about this kind of Taurus, we can write e.g. that he/she does great in material matters, is resourceful and appreciates beauty of life. Such recommendation is even more legitimate if we remember that we should basically write about things that are present in a chart and not about things that are not there. The analysis should use most of all sentences referring to actual facts and not negative statements. Of course, sometimes we can use negative statements and talk about things that are missing in a given chart, but it should only be some kind of a supplementation, if an astrologer for some reason considers it necessary. E.g. if there is a Venus-Saturn opposition, and the chart lacks water, we should definitely say that the chart’s owner may have trouble finding deep emotional relationships. However, at the same time we should say that self-awareness together with some effort and time (due to Saturn) may bring positive results.

The above list is surely not complete. It got developed in the course of the research, depending on situations in which astrologers participating in the research found themselves, and on conclusions they’ve drawn as a result. It can still be developed further as far as both – general and specific tips are concerned.

The above article constitutes a second part of a series of texts referring to research carried out by the „AstroLab” Institute and for the first time presented on October 17, 2015 during the Vth Conference of the Polish Astrological Society.

1. “Selection based on difference” type astrological research – theoretical basis, methodology
2. Research on astrology – astrological analysis