FOUNDATIONS OF AN ARCHETYPAL ... - Heidi Gustafson

FOUNDATIONS OF AN ARCHETYPAL COSMOLOGY:A THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS OF JUNGIAN DEPTHPSYCHOLOGY AND THE NEW PARADIGM SCIENCESbyKeiron Le GriceA Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the California Institute of IntegralStudies in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy in Philosophy and Religionwith a concentration in Philosophy, Cosmology, and ConsciousnessCalifornia Institute of Integral StudiesSan Francisco, CA2009

UMI Number: 3388700All rights reservedINFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,a note will indicate the deletion.UMI 3388700Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.ProQuest LLC789 East Eisenhower ParkwayP.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVALI certify that I have read FOUNDATIONS OF AN ARCHETYPALCOSMOLOGY by Keiron Le Grice, and that in my opinion this work meets thecriteria for approving a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy and Religion with aconcentration in Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness at the CaliforniaInstitute of Integral Studies.______________________Richard Tarnas, Ph.D., ChairProfessor, Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness______________________Sean Kelly, Ph.D.Professor, Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness______________________Paul Marshall, Ph.D.Independent Scholar

© 2009 Keiron Le Grice

Keiron Le GriceCalifornia Institute of Integral Studies, 2009Richard Tarnas, Ph.D., Committee ChairFOUNDATIONS OF AN ARCHETYPAL COSMOLOGY:A THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS OF JUNGIAN DEPTHPSYCHOLOGY AND THE NEW PARADIGM SCIENCESABSTRACTFrom a comparative study of C. G. Jung’s depth psychology and the newparadigm sciences, this dissertation develops possible theoretical foundations fora new archetypal cosmology. In so doing, it seeks to understand and explain thepossible basis of observed correlations between planetary cycles and thearchetypal dynamics of human experience. These correlations are the primaryfocus of the emerging discipline of archetypal cosmology and the ancientastrological perspective on which it is based. Challenging the disenchantedcosmology of the modern era, and in support of the recently published research byRichard Tarnas into the correlations between planetary cycles and the archetypalpatterns of world history and individual biography, this study advances anexplanation of the relationship between the human psyche and the cosmos in thehope that the basis of astrological correlations can thus become more intelligible.By considering the new understanding of the nature of reality emergingout of modern physics, this dissertation first deconstructs critiques of astrologyiv

ased on classical physics and on deterministic linear causal models. Drawing onthe theoretical contributions of Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake,Stanislav Grof, and others, this dissertation then develops an explanation ofastrology based primarily on the application of systems theory to cosmology.The systems cosmology is compared to Jung’s theory of the archetypesand the collective unconscious. By exploring the implications of Jung’s researchinto synchronicity, his reflections on the psyche-matter relationship, and hisspeculation as to the ontological status of the archetypes, this dissertationadvances a new cosmological interpretation of Jungian psychology. Thisinterpretation is shown to be highly compatible with the systems perspective ofthe cosmos. The synthesis of these approaches makes possible, I argue, arelatively coherent and plausible account of the basis of astrology.Furthermore, in its challenge to Cartesian dualism, Kantian epistemology,and the mechanistic materialism and atomistic reductionism of the modern era,the thesis advanced in this dissertation is aligned with the wider cultural andintellectual movements that are developing integral and holistic world views, asexplored in transpersonal theory, participatory research, process philosophies,deep ecology, constructive postmodernism, and the new sciences.v

AcknowledgmentsI would like to express my gratitude to the members of my dissertationcommittee, Richard Tarnas, Sean Kelly, and Paul Marshall, for their astutecomments and helpful editorial suggestions, which have significantly improvedthe final version of this work. For providing financial assistance to help mecomplete my studies, I am grateful to the California Institute of Integral Studies(CIIS) for the awards of its International Student Scholarship between 2004 and2008 and to the Joseph Campbell Foundation (in association with PacificaGraduate Institute, Santa Barbara) for receipt of the Joseph Campbell ResearchGrant in 2006.This dissertation has been considerably influenced by the work of RichardTarnas, whose contribution to the field of archetypal studies and to the history ofideas has done much to illuminate my understanding of archetypal astrology andits wider theoretical context and implications. I also owe a large debt of gratitudeto the other Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness (PCC) program faculty,past and present: Stanislav Grof, Sean Kelly, Robert McDermott, Brian Swimme,and David Ulansey. Their ideas have helped to shape every chapter of thisdissertation. I am grateful too for the helpful administrative assistance of JodyO’Connor, International Student Advisor at CIIS, and Jessica Kostosky, the PCCprogram coordinator. My thanks also to Candice Chase and Lise Dyckman fortheir technical editorial reviews of the dissertation.vi

I wish to extend my appreciation to Rod O’Neal, Bill Streett, Chad Harris,Grant Maxwell, and my other friends and colleagues at the Archai journal whosecreative work behind the scenes has helped launch the field of archetypalcosmology over the last couple of years. For reading and commenting on earlydrafts of this work, I give my thanks to Doris Broekema, David Randal Davies,Pamela Russell, and Erin Sullivan.I also wish to express my gratitude to David and Margaret Davies for theirsupport and generous financial assistance over many years, and to the followingfriends for aiding my transition from Britain to San Francisco and for providing ahelping hand during the years studying at CIIS: Doris Broekema, Adrian andNicola Cook, Joseph Kearns, Jennifer Martin, Clare Meeuwsen, Kimberly Nasrul(née Hoard), Kelleen Nicholson, and Bernard Voon. I am particular thankful forthe friendship, support, and generosity of Richard Wormstall. Our manydiscussions over the years have been a continual source of renewal andstimulation.Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my father, Barry Le Grice, whopassed away in 2007, and who was deeply influential on my own spiritualjourney; and my son, Lukas Rafael, born as I was completing the final stages ofwriting. Most of all, my deepest appreciation and gratitude goes to my wifeKathryn for her love and support over many years, for her unwavering faith in mywork, and for her insightful and meticulous editorial input to the text.vii

Table of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viChapter 1Approaching Astrology: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Basic Postulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4A Theoretical Framework for Astrology: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . 7The Archetypal Analysis of History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Contexts: New Paradigm Science and Integrative Postmodernism . . . . . 21Aims and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Chapter 2Astrology and the Western World View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Conflicting Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Science and the Mechanistic World View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Freedom and Determinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Debunking Astrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Beyond the Causal Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Reformulating Astrological Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Astrology and the Scientific Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70viii

Chapter 3The Underlying Cosmic Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Holism and Organicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82The Systems View of the Cosmos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Pattern and Astrological Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Causality and Acausality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Pattern, Purpose, and Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Symbolic Correspondences and Geometric Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Synchronicity: The Revelation of a Deeper Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Chapter 4Self-Organization and Interiority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136The Modern Understanding of the Nature of Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137The Emergence and Transcendence of the Rational Ego . . . . . . . . . . . 142The Anthropic Cosmological Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149The Systems View of Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155The Cosmic Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159ix

Chapter 5The Archetypal Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Consciousness and Transpersonal Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175The Universality of the Archetype Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179Archetypal Theory and Systems Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186Self-Organization in the Psyche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193The Nature of the Planetary Archetypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199The Underlying Identity of Psyche and Cosmos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Astrology and the Cosmic Psyche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218Chapter 6The Dynamic Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228The Holomovement and the Implicate Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229The Unity of Mind and Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Energy: A Unified Conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237Meaning and the Super-Implicate Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Science and Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247Space and Ground: A Symbolic Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252x

Chapter 7Archetypal Resonance and the Birth Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259The Significance of the Birth Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260Morphic Fields and Formative Causation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266Morphic Resonance and Self-Resonance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270Cosmic Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273Functions of the Collective Unconscious: Repository and Ground . . . . 275Archetypes: More than Habits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280Towards a Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283A Multi-Leveled Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .288The Persistence of the Birth Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294Ontological Genesis and Autopoiesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303Future Research and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309xi

Chapter OneApproaching Astrology: An IntroductionAstrology is the study of the correspondence between human experienceand the positions and movements of the Sun, the Moon, and the planetary bodiesof the solar system. It has been in existence for at least five thousand years andhas informed many of the world’s great civilizations. Yet despite its long andillustrious history, and despite its continued influence within many non-Westerncultures, in the modern Western world astrology has fallen into disrepute and isboth misrepresented by the media and misunderstood by the culture as a whole.It is generally accepted that classical Western astrology originated inBabylonia in the third or fourth millennium BCE, where it was exposed to Persianand Assyrian cultures. Later, it was modified and enhanced by the Egyptians and,crucially, by the ancient Greeks who assimilated Babylonian astrological theory,combining it with their own scientific and philosophical ideas and reformulating itin terms of their own mythology. 1 In these ancient cultures, astrology existedharmoniously with the prevailing cosmology and world picture of the time and, asa result, was generally held in high esteem. In the modern era, however, with therise of materialism and mechanistic science, astrology has become marginalized1 For further detail on the history of astrology, see Barton, Ancient astrology;Campion, Introduction to the history of astrology; Tester, History of Western astrology;and Whitfield, Astrology: A history.1

and is no longer central to, or even compatible with, the prevailing conceptions ofthe nature of reality. Indeed, such has been astrology’s fall from grace that todayit is known to many people only through popular newspaper horoscope columnsbased on the twelve well-known zodiacal signs—a form of astrology that,needless to say, is based at best on simplistic generalizations and at worst onspecious predictions.Despite this misrepresentation in the popular culture, astrology proper(involving the calculation, analysis, and interpretation of astrological charts) hasundergone a renewal in popularity over the course of the last century, particularlysince the rise of the counterculture in the 1960s. Initiated by the pioneering workof astrologers such as Charles Carter and Dane Rudhyar, the progressivereformulation of astrology has ensured a continued interest in the subject. 2Previously astrology’s language was somewhat antiquated; fatalistic andmoralistic in tone, it gave the sense of a destiny set in stone, with personalitydescriptions more befitting the Victorian era. With the modernization ofastrology, a new breed of psychologically oriented astrologers emerged, inspiredby the nascent disciplines of psychoanalysis and humanistic psychology to bringgreater depth, sophistication, and insight to astrological interpretations. Over thelast thirty years, with the publication of many new textbooks, astrology hasbecome far more widely accessible. Those wishing to investigate astrology forthemselves now have at their disposal a vast array of literature on the subject.2 For further detail on the emergence of psychological astrology, see Perry, Birthof psychological astrology.2

To date, however, modern astrology has failed to achieve credibility as aserious, legitimate study of human experience and its relationship with thecosmos. Although it remains of historical and cultural interest to scholars,generally it has failed to establish itself within academia as a plausible world viewor viable cosmological perspective, having no place in contemporary science,philosophy, or psychology. Deemed a pseudoscience or an irrational superstitionby some within the academic establishment, the consensus view is that astrologyis based on unscientific and erroneous premises, and that its continued existenceserves only to demonstrate human gullibility. Consequently, astrology has beendriven into exile, banished to the fringes of society, and is now often seen as anoccult discipline belonging to the superstitious and irrational thinking of the DarkAges. Astrology has remained in the shadow of the supposedly enlightenedrational consciousness of the modern era and yet, to the astonishment andannoyance of certain scientists and skeptics, it continues to hold an inexplicablefascination, a curious appeal, with the promise of seemingly prophetic revelationsof human character and destiny. Of greater import than divination or prophecy,however, and our central concern in this work, are the potential implications ofastrology for the wider cultural world view and for understanding the humanrelationship to the cosmos. For contrary to the modern assumption that we inhabita world without spirit and without meaning, the astrological perspective pointsrather to a meaningful order of creative power and intelligence permeating allthings. Directly challenging much of what modern scientific materialism hasassumed to be true about the nature of reality, astrology provides an alternative3

frame of reference from which to make sense of human experience, apparentlyrevealing something unique about the universe that the physical sciences for alltheir extraordinary powers of telescopic and microscopic observation have beenunable to disclose. Astrology, as we will see, offers a unique way of interpretinghow human experience is shaped by the patterning forces of the universe, by thefundamental energies of nature, and by the archetypal themes that have shapedhuman life for millennia—and here, it seems to me, lies its value and allure.Basic PostulatesThe basic insight informing astrology is that the positions of the planets inrelationship to each other as seen from Earth are inherently meaningful,symbolizing a deeper order that is manifest in human experience. Natal astrology,specifically, is based on the premise that the positions of the planets at themoment of one’s birth (symbolically depicted in an astrological birth chart) reveala pattern of meaning that is expressed both in an individual’s personality and inthe events and experiences of his or her personal biography. Each planet in thesolar system, as well as the Sun and the Moon, are thought to symbolizefundamental universal principles and creative powers within the human psyche,known as planetary archetypes. 3 For example, the planetary body Pluto (nowtechnically classified as a dwarf planet and a plutoid rather than a planet) isassociated with the archetypal principle of transformation, evolution, instinctual3 For descriptions of the meanings of each of the planetary archetypes, seeTarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 88–101.4

power, and elemental force; whereas the planet Jupiter is associated with thearchetypal principle of elevation, expansion, amplification, and abundance. 4Of equal importance is transit astrology—the study of the cycles of theplanets over time and the relationships formed between the different planets atdifferent points of these cycles. In transit astrology, changes in the positions of theplanets, relative to each other and to locations on Earth, are understood to besymbolically significant, revealing corresponding changes in the thematic contentof human experience. Of the two main types of transits, world transits relate tothe changing patterns of collective human experience, to the whole world. 5Personal transits, the second type, relate specifically to individuals, and these arederived by comparing the positions of the orbiting planets at any given time andthe planetary positions in the individual’s birth chart. Here, then, briefly stated,are the most essential forms of correspondence in astrological theory. Althoughconventional astrology is vast and complex subject with a bewildering array offactors that could potentially be considered, the form of astrology I will beconsidering here, known as archetypal astrology, focuses mainly on these three4 In astrology, as a matter of convenience and tradition, the word planet is usedto refer not only to the planets in our solar system, but also to the Sun and the Moon.Therefore, despite its recent reclassification as a dwarf planet and a plutoid, Pluto is alsoreferred to as a planet. For background on this reclassification, see BBC News, Plutoloses status as a planet. For details of the definition of plutoids, see BBC news, “Nonplanet”Pluto gets new class. For the most recent details of the five dwarf planets, see alsoInternational Astronomical Union, IAU0807: IAU names fifth dwarf planet Haumea. Theterm planetary archetype refers to the archetypal principle associated with the physicalplanet of the same name, and this term itself suggests the underlying unity betweencosmos and psyche, planet and archetype that I will be exploring here.5 The term world transit was first coined by Stanislav Grof during his researchwith Richard Tarnas at Esalen Institute in the 1970s and 1980s. For further background,see Grof, Holotropic research and archetypal astrology, 50–66.5

main areas: the natal chart showing the planetary positions at the time and placeof an individual’s birth; the changing planetary positions relative to the Earththrough time (world transits); and the relationship between these two (personaltransits).The method employed to analyze and interpret the archetypal dynamics ofhuman experience in terms of the movements of the planets is based on aconsideration of the geometric alignment—the specific angle of relationship—formed between the different planets on their respective orbits. 6 The meaning ofevery planetary alignment, or aspect, depends both upon the archetypalcharacteristics associated with the planets involved and the particular angle ofrelationship between the planets. As in the Pythagorean view, in archetypalastrology principles of number and geometry are recognized as fundamental to the6 Each planet, as it orbits the Sun, changes its position relative to the movingEarth. These changing positions are precisely measured by tracking the movement of theplanets around the Earth using, as a line of reference, what is known as the ecliptic. Overthe course of a year, as the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Sun appears to moveacross the constellations of the fixed stars, circumambulating the Earth. The ecliptic is thecircular line based on the Sun’s apparent movement. As the planets continue along theirorbits, their relative positions on the ecliptic change and they form different geometricalignments with each other. It is this changing pattern of planetary relationships that isstudied in astrology in order to understand the changing relationships between thearchetypal principles associated with the planets. The major aspects recognized in theastrological tradition are the conjunction (two or more planets approximately 0 degreesapart), the sextile (60 degrees), the square (90 degrees), the trine (120 degrees), and theopposition (180 degrees). Of these, Tarnas found that it is the quadrature alignments—theconjunction, the opposition, and the square—that are usually the most significant in termsof understanding both world events and the major themes of individual biography. In theastrological tradition, these alignments are considered to be dynamic, “hard,” orchallenging in that they signify corresponding relationships between the archetypalprinciples that generally require some form of adaptation or considerable exertion orstruggle to integrate, that tend to promote action to release the inherent energetic tensionbetween the archetypal principles. The trine and sextile, by contrast, are deemed “soft,”harmonious, or confluent aspects in that they tend to indicate a more readily integrated,mutually supportive, and harmonious relationship between the archetypal principles.6

deep structure and organization of the cosmos; these numeric and geometricprinciples are reflected in the physical relationships between the planets.A Theoretical Framework for Astrology: Literature ReviewOver the last two decades my research into astrology has left mepersuaded that, despite appearances to the contrary, this ancient cosmologicalperspective is based upon a central core of truth and that it is therefore deservingof serious consideration. Yet from my first encounter with the subject, it quicklybecame apparent to me, as it has to others, that while certain texts were highlyinformative and illuminating, the standard of the literature on astrology as a wholeleaves a lot to be desired—including, it has to be said, much of modernpsychological astrology—and does little to instill confidence in new readers whenthey first explore the subject. A major shortcoming within the field is the paucityof books addressing the philosophical basis of astrology, particularly withinmainstream publications. The main body of writing has been given over todelineating and interpreting the meaning of the astrological principles and to thetechnical side of astrological calculation, but there are only relatively few worksthat attempt to explicate an overall philosophical framework or a wider theoreticalcontext in which to understand and apply its insights to human life. Modernastrology has generally failed to articulate its own philosophical position.However insightful and illuminating astrological interpretations might be, therather arcane language of astrology and the very premises on which astrology isfounded seem to be wholly removed from our ordinary, scientifically informed7

understanding of life. If astrology is to be taken seriously, therefore, it isimperative that those involved in the field now seek to explain the philosophicalassumptions behind astrology in a language more palatable to the modern mind.Ancient explanations exist, the late British astrologer Charles Harvey observed,but what is required “is to translate these insights into a form and language that isintelligible to contemporary thought.” 7As things stand, astrological practitioners are often forced to a radicalincongruence between their commitment to astrology, based on continuedobservations of astrological correlations, and their culture’s acceptedunderstanding of the nature of reality. Many astrologers, therefore, often look toearlier, premodern world views or esoteric philosophies to explain astrology,making reference, for instance, to the Hermetic maxim “As Above, So Below” oran assumed microcosm-macrocosm correspondence. However, these explanationsof astrology, while poetically evocative and helpful in enabling one to see beyondthe possible constraints and limitations of the current dominant world view, areinsufficient in themselves to provide cogent, persuasive accounts of astrologicalcorrelations. After all, these explanations have in some cases been in existence forcenturies, and yet astrology is, as I have said, generally rejected. It is myassumption, therefore, that an explanation of astrology must be articulated inmodern scientific, psychological, and philosophical language, even if theseexplanations do in fact recapitulate and reframe premodern theories.7 Charles Harvey and Suzi Harvey, Principles of astrology, 24–25.8

Writing between the 1930s and the 1980s, Dane Rudhyar is the personusually credited with bringing a philosophical perspective to modern astrology.He drew together ideas from the emerging philosophy of holism, Hindu thought,Taoism, the I Ching, Theosophy, and certain Jungian ideas to present his view ofastrology as a way of self-realization rather than a means of prediction. The firstdefinitive statement of his approach to astrology is given in his 1936 publicationThe Astrology of Personality, 8 where Rudhyar connects astrology to thequalitative significance of the cycles of time. In the 1960s, Rudhyar then launchedhumanistic astrology, which was concerned with using astrology to promote thefulfillment of an individual’s innate potentials. Later, Rudhyar distinguished thisindividual level of application of astrology, as he called it, from a more advancedtranspersonal level in which astrology could be used to help spiritually aspiringindividuals transcend the limitations of the rational ego. The clearest statement ofthis later approach is given in The Astrology of Transformation. 9However, in employing a rather esoteric language to present his ideas,Rudhyar has inevitably appealed only to certain sets of readers. More important,his work fails to explicitly address the most fundamental philosophical question8 Rudhyar, Astrology of personality.9 Rudhyar, Astrology of transformation. Influenced by Rudhyar’s work, StephenArroyo provided some of the deepest insights into the nature and phenomenology of theastrological factors (the planets, signs, aspects, and houses) in his Astrology, karma, andtransformation. His earlier book Astrology, psychology, and the four elements is a morebasic introductory text that also contains Arroyo’s summary of different explanations ofastrology. Perhaps the foremost Jungian astrologer, from a classical and developmentalperspective, is Liz Greene. Her first books, including Relating and Saturn: A new look atan old devil remain two of her most important. Another influential figure in modernastrology is Robert Hand, whose works include Horoscope symbols, a comprehensiveintroductory text, and Planets in transit, a reference work for transit astrology.9

underpinning astrology: how are the planets related to the archetypal principlesthey have been associated with? Such a supposition, that each planet is associatedwith a universal archetypal principle possessing a specific range of thematicmeanings, is well accepted in astrological circles. But to the normal way ofthinking the idea that planets can be symbolically associated with universalprinciples in this way seems quite absurd, even ludicrous. After more than acentury of depth psychology, the modern mind can perhaps accept that humancognition and imagination are structured by innate archetypal categories, but thenotion that these categories could be related to cosmology and the movements ofthe planets seems almost incomprehensible. For astrology to be taken seriously,then, a plausible account of the correlation between the planets and the archetypalprinciples with which they are associated is required.While modern astrology since Rudhyar has diversified into severaldifferent schools and approaches, and continued to further develop its techniquesand methods of interpretation, it is only in the last three decades that any literaturehas appeared that might offer a broader theoretical context within which to situatethe astrological perspective. 10 Among the best work of this kind is RichardTarnas’s widely acclaimed philosophical narrative The Passion of the WesternMind, which traces the evolution of the modern Western world view from theancient Greeks to the present. It also describes, within this narrative, the originsand various transformations of the concept of archetypal forms through thehistory of Western thought and, although not explicitly about astrology, it lays the10 For noteworthy philosophical treatments of astrology, see Damiani,Astronoesis: Philosophy’s empirical context, and Guinard, Astrology: The manifesto.10

essential foundations for understanding the philosophical context and antecedentsof the modern archetypal astrological perspective. Another important book thatbegins to explore the philosophical basis of astrology is Hymns to the AncientGods by psychotherapist Michael Harding, who pursues an explanation ofastrological correlations based on the Freudian concept of archaic memory andinstinct and on Rupert Sheldrake’s work in biology. Geoffrey Cornelius, theleading figure in the divinatory approach to astrology centered in the UnitedKingdom, has also contributed to recent philosophical debates into the basis,method, and aims of astrology. His influential book The Moment of Astrologyadvances a view of astrology as a divinatory practice akin to omen reading.Cornelius appears to deny the possibility that there exists any framework ofobjective astrological meanings—a position that is in some sense diametricallyopposed to that informing the perspective I will be considering here. In recentyears, there have also been several thought-provoking articles on astrology byphilosophers, astrophysicists, and psychotherapists alike, addressing themes suchas the nature of astrological symbols and archetypes, synchronicity, quantumphysics, and new paradigm science—themes to which I will return in thisdissertation.Web based resources are often valuable sources for more seriousastrological writing, of which the most notable is the French site C.U.R.A. Thiscontains a plethora of essays on all aspects of astrology, including AndreBarbault’s work on the relationship of Saturn-Neptune world transit cycles tocommunist and socialist political movements, and important essays by Gerry11

Goddard exploring the nature of archetypes and the relationship betweenastrology and transpersonal thought. 11 Elsewhere, Glenn Perry has exploredastrology’s possible place within a reemerging organicist perspective, assuggested by certain new paradigm theories, specifically citing possibleconnections between an astrological world view and the ideas of Capra, Bohm,Sheldrake, and others. 12 Other important sources for background on connectionsbetween astrology and physics are the writings of Victor Mansfield and WillKeepin, with the latter focusing specifically on astrology’s possible connectionwith the ideas of physicist David Bohm. 13The Archetypal Analysis of HistoryMost significant, however, was the publication, in 2006, of RichardTarnas’s latest book, Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View,11 Barbault, History of a prediction; Goddard, Metaphor or archetype; Goddard,Transpersonal theory and the astrological mandala.12 Perry, New paradigm and postmodern astrology.13 For further relevant literature on the Internet, see Mansfield, Anastrophysicist’s sympathetic and critical view of astrology; Keepin, Astrology and thenew physics. For a summary classification of different types of theories of astrology, seethe Astrology and Science Web site. The contributors, including the arch skeptic ofastrology Geoffrey Dean, provide a collection of articles intended to debunk astrology inall its many forms. While helpful to critically appraise astrology and expose its morespurious and ill-founded claims and practices, in my opinion the site suffers from thepersonal bias of its authors. The relationship between astrology and science is alsoexplored by a number of other web based articles. These include Frank, Astrology and thenew paradigm, which in very general terms connects astrology to the ideas of Capra,Bohm, Grof, and others; Nègre, A transdisciplinary approach to science and astrology;and Navarro, Astrology and science. See also McRitchie, Theories of astrology, whichprovides a theoretical formulation of astrology in terms of “cosmic symmetries,”envisaged as something like fractal patterns.12

which introduces a significantly expanded psychological and philosophicalframework for astrology. In the first major study of its kind, by a scholar ofinternational repute, Tarnas presents a detailed body of evidence pointing to aconsistent and coherent correlation between the planetary cycles and thearchetypal patterns of world history, from the Axial Age in the first millenniumBCE to the present day, encompassing every sphere of human endeavor and everydimension of life—social, political, cultural, artistic, philosophical, scientific, andspiritual. Although the research needs now to be followed up by other similarstudies before any firm conclusions can be drawn, in my estimation the historicaldata Tarnas examines presents to the reader a persuasive demonstration that thecourse of both world history and individual biography unfolds meaningfullyaccording to archetypal themes and patterns that may be accurately understoodfrom an astrological interpretation of the significance of the changingrelationships between the planets of the solar system. Focusing particularly onworld transits, Tarnas found that when two or more planets on their orbits moveinto aspect—into significant angular relationship—the world events of the time(revolutions and wars, political and social movements, artistic expressions andscientific discoveries, cultural shifts and spiritual transformations) and the entirezeitgeist (the pervasive mood or spirit of the age) tend to reflect the archetypalmeanings associated with that particular planetary combination in the astrologicaltradition. For example, Tarnas observed that those periods in history when Uranusand Pluto were in major dynamic alignment (including the years 1787–1798centered on the French Revolution, the 1845–1856 period of the revolutions13

across Europe and the wider world, and the decade of the 1960s) werecharacterized by various themes associated with the dynamic mutual interactionof the two corresponding planetary archetypes: the eruption of powerfulrevolutionary impulses, the liberation of the instincts (both libidinal andaggressive), the empowerment of mass freedom movements, a decisiveacceleration of technological advance and cultural innovation, and a pervasivemood of radical change and turbulence—to give but a few examples. Accordingto Tarnas’s analysis, and in agreement with the accepted astrological meaning ofthe planets, during these periods the Uranus archetype liberated and awakened theinstincts and primordial drives associated with Pluto, as the Pluto archetypesimultaneously empowered and intensified the revolutionary, experimentalimpulses associated with Uranus. 14 Tarnas also discovered that shorter and morefrequent creative breakthroughs and leaps forward in the arts and sciences tend tooccur during months and years when the planets Jupiter and Uranus are insignificant geometric alignment; whereas major alignments between Saturn andPluto are often correlated with historical periods of immense tension, crisis,oppression, hardship, and “profoundly weighty events of enduring consequence,”such as at the start of the two world wars and at the time of the 9/11 attacks on theWorld Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. 15 In this way the interaction of thetwo planetary archetypes appears to shape the defining themes and character ofthe entire culture during the period when the two corresponding planets were in14 See Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 141–205.15 Ibid., 210.14

alignment. Tarnas’s research suggests that, potentially, every historical periodcould be analyzed in this way. The study of the different combinations of theseplanetary archetypes, he argues, provides us with a powerful method to helpunderstand the shifting dynamics of both cultural history and individualbiography. His study makes a compelling case for the validity and efficacy of anastrological method of analysis of human experience.Although historians ordinarily restrict their attention to causal factorswhen analyzing world events by looking for prior conditions and sequences inhistory that cause events to happen, archetypal astrology complements suchlinear-historical analysis by providing insight into the deeper archetypal dynamicswithin which causal chains of events seem to occur. For example, the unfoldingcourse of the French Revolution might be explained entirely as a directconsequence of a combination of contributory causal factors—such as theeconomic hardship of the proletariat in the late eighteenth century, the weakcharacter of Louis XVI, the ostentatious lifestyles of the French aristocracy, thepolitical ambitions of Robespierre or Napoleon, the philosophical ideas ofMontesquieu or Rousseau, and so on. But, from an astrological perspective, it isalso illuminating to see this period of history as an expression of the Uranus-Plutoworld transit of that time with its characteristic themes of violent revolution,emancipatory movements, the overthrow of the established order, politicalradicalism, massive societal changes, the release of powerful instinctual energies,and so forth. It is obviously true to say that the combination of the prior eventsand conditions in history or in the personalities of the main protagonists caused15

the storming of the Bastille and the overthrow of the Ancien Regime in Paris in1789, and led to the subsequent rise of Napoleon. However, what is astonishing isthat the various chains of causal events should come together to bring about theFrench Revolution at that very time that Uranus and Pluto were in majorgeometric alignment, that the events of this period should conform to theestablished archetypal meanings associated with these planets, and that othermajor Uranus-Pluto alignments have consistently coincided with periods ofhistory characterized by extraordinarily similar events and qualities. Clearly, thegeometric relationship between the two planets did not cause the FrenchRevolution in any kind of linear, deterministic sense. Yet, as Tarnas’s researchsuggests, it seems to be the case that again and again the events of world historyunfold in close accordance with the framework of thematic meanings associatedwith the planetary alignments formed during those times. It appears that whattakes place in the concrete specifics of human experience consistently reflects theunderlying dynamics and archetypal state of the whole at that time. Thematicallyconcordant events are brought forth at just those times when the archetypalconditions are right, and the emergence of those archetypal conditions seems toconsistently coincide with specific planetary alignments. Naturally, this does notinvalidate linear causal analyses of history; it just suggests one might also takeinto account the deeper archetypal and cosmic picture framing such analyses.Such an approach, as Tarnas has explained, allows one to discernrecurring archetypal themes in history—to identify what he calls diachronicpatterns of events in time. These sequences of events, occurring during the16

deepening our understanding of the archetypal categories themselves. There is noforced imposition of meaning; rather, the understanding of the archetypalprinciples recognized in astrology is open to further elaboration by exploring howthey manifest in different cultures and in different historical periods. In ahermeneutic circle, the archetypal analysis illuminates the historical data, and thehistorical data reveals how the archetypal dynamics were expressed in a particularcultural-historical context. 16This developed appreciation of the archetypal nature of astrologicalcorrelations is one of several factors, which we will now consider, that setTarnas’s astrological research apart from prior studies. First, moving beyond theconceptual limits of conventional astrology, which has tended to be more literaland concretely predictive in its approach, Tarnas has deepened the philosophicaland interpretive precision of the astrological perspective by drawing from thedepth psychology of C. G. Jung, James Hillman, and Stanislav Grof. Tarnas hasalso drawn out and identified some fundamental attributes of archetypalprinciples, which has given him a more comprehensive grasp of astrologicalcorrelations and, crucially, of the limitations of what astrology can actually reveal.Perhaps the most important of these attributes is Tarnas’s recognition of theinherent multivalence of expression of the planetary archetypes in humanexperience and the concomitant realization that astrology is archetypally ratherthan concretely predictive. Astrology’s proper concern is discerning the universalthemes and principles evident in human experience; by itself it can reveal nothing16 For more on the methodology and implications of Tarnas’s research, see LeGrice, Response to John Heron’s commentary, 13–19.18

of the specific form these universals will take when enacted in the particulars oflife.Second, Tarnas’s work is distinguished from many other Jungian informedapproaches to astrology by the attention he gives to explicating the nature of thearchetypal principles recognized in astrology. For Tarnas, the archetypalprinciples associated with the planets are not merely intrapsychic archetypalimages projected onto the planetary movements, but cosmological factorstranscending the human psyche and rooted in an underlying metaphysical ground.This is a supposition I will take up and develop in this dissertation.Third, for clarity and simplicity Tarnas restricts the focus of Cosmos andPsyche to the study of the major planetary aspects, bracketing, for the most part, ahost of other factors such as signs, houses, angles, elements, and so on, therebyeliminating many of the problematic ambiguities that plague astrologicalpractice. 17 By ignoring much of the often confusing complexity of astrologicaltheory in favor of the geometric clarity and simplicity of the study of aspects,Tarnas presents what seems to me to be a far more persuasive case for its validity.His hypothesis becomes more testable and thus potentially more suitable forfurther empirical studies. As Tarnas says, the events of world history “eitherobviously fit the postulated archetypal meanings [of the planetary alignments], or17 These include, most notably, the phenomenon known as the precession of theequinoxes, which means that the zodiacal signs no longer occupy the same positions inthe sky as they did when the zodiac was first established, perhaps indicating, according tosome critics, that the traits associated with the signs are somewhat arbitrary. Equallyproblematic is the existence of several different systems to calculate house positions,some of which break down at extreme latitudes, and which yield different results.19

they do not.” 18 What Tarnas loses in the often byzantine complexity of traditionalastrological theory and technique is compensated for by a vastly expanded andmore nuanced appreciation of the richness, multidimensionality, and multivalentdiversity of the planetary archetypal principles.Tarnas’s research is also distinguished, finally, by the emphasis he placeson the cycles of alignments of the outer planets discovered in the modern era(Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto). Mundane astrology (which is concerned with thestudy of world events) has traditionally focused primarily on the ancient planets(up to and including Saturn) and has given significant attention to ingresses—themovement of planets from one zodiacal sign into the next. In focusing on outerplanet alignments and cycles, Tarnas has expanded lines of inquiry pursued byAndre Barbault, Charles Harvey, Liz Greene, Stephen Arroyo, Michael Harding,Nicholas Campion, and others. As noted above, in its range andcomprehensiveness of the historical and biographical data surveyed, Tarnas’sstudy is unparalleled.Although the dissertation will draw upon the implications of the empiricalevidence cited by Tarnas, I will not critically evaluate the validity of this evidencehere (as this would require numerous different types of study extending across awide range of disciplines and would be far beyond the scope of a singledissertation). While one must expect, given the widespread incredulity with whichastrology is viewed, that Tarnas’s research will be summarily dismissed orignored by critics in certain quarters, I and many other respected scholars are18 Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 137.20

satisfied of the validity and accuracy of his work. 19 I will therefore work on theassumption that there is indeed some form of astrological correlation betweenplanetary cycles and the archetypal meaning of human experience.Contexts: New Paradigm Science and Integrative PostmodernismWhile it is impossible at this stage to predict how Tarnas’s work willultimately be received either by academics or by the wider reading public,potentially, in the years and decades to come, it could conceivably instigate adramatic shift in the prevailing attitudes towards astrology. More important, oncethe evidence he sets forth is assimilated, it could necessitate a radical reevaluationof many fundamental assumptions about the nature of the cosmos and our placewithin it. Certainly, Tarnas’s research, in revealing a meaningful correlationbetween the human psyche and the structural order of the cosmos, presents aserious challenge to the dominant scientific and philosophical paradigms of themodern Western world view and at the same time reintroduces astrology to theculture, placing it center stage of any future discussions about the form that a newworld view might take.In the wake of this research, what is now required is a deeper theoreticalunderstanding of these astrological correlations, articulated in terms of modernscience and philosophy, to support Tarnas’s primary emphasis in Cosmos andPsyche on historical analysis. The dominant understandings of the nature of19 For instance, Cosmos and Psyche was named book of the year for 2006 by theScientific and Medical Network in the United Kingdom.21

eality appear to be so fundamentally incongruent with astrology that thepresentation of historical correlations of the type Tarnas has explored is by itselfinsufficient to persuade many people of the potential validity of astrology. In myexperience, no matter how compelling the empirical research into astrologicalcorrelations might be (and, of course, many intellectually dogmatic people woulddispute that such research is or ever could be compelling), a major obstacle to theacceptance of astrology is the lack of an adequate explanation of just how themovements of the planets can be related to human experiences. This dissertationpresents one possible way of conceptualizing this relationship, thereby helping toaddress the dearth of contemporary theoretical work within astrology.There are several possible reasons that few such contemporaryexplanations of astrology have been forthcoming. First, the theoretical advancesin depth psychology, modern physics, and the new paradigm sciences necessaryto even begin to properly understand astrology are, for the most part, fairly recent.Therefore, there has not been sufficient time to incorporate the many diverseinsights arising from these fields into a single coherent model. Second, many ofthe ideas emerging out of the new sciences are complex and conceptuallychallenging, and they are contrary to the common-sense view of the world, whichis tacitly supported and informed by the Cartesian-Newtonian mechanisticperspective. Third, the scope of astrology is such that it requires the synthesis ofmany different theories from different academic disciplines; it calls for the ability,as Robert Bellah put it, to translate constantly from one vocabulary to another. 2020 Bellah, Beyond belief, 246.22

Fourth, the compartmentalization and fragmentation of academic inquiry has notbeen conducive to such a synthesis, though the recent shift towardsmultidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches is creating a more propitiousclimate for creative dialogue between disciplines, and for syncretism andsynthesis. Fifth, and most important, the inherent bias against astrology in themodern era, implicit in the fundamental assumptions informing the modernWestern world view, has meant for the most part that it has been dismissed out ofhand, deemed self-evidently untrue, and therefore undeserving of furtherexploration. The inane, superficial forms of modern astrology have done little toalter this perception. Finally, as Tarnas has suggested, and as I will argue furtherin this dissertation, there might also be deeper evolutionary reasons shaping theprevailing conceptions of the nature of reality that have contributed to therejection of astrology in the modern era.If astrology is indeed to achieve greater credibility within the emergingworld view in the twenty-first century it is imperative to meet the challenge ofarticulating a cosmology (a theory of the nature and structure of the universe) thatcan lend support to its empirical claims to validity. Closely related tometaphysics, cosmology is a branch of philosophy “that deals with the Universeas a totality of phenomena, attempting to combine metaphysical speculation andscientific evidence within a coherent framework.” 21 Thus, a cosmology that issupportive of astrology should enable us to better understand how the cycles and21 Flew, Dictionary of philosophy, 78.23

the relative positions of the planets in the solar system might be related to theunderlying thematic patterns in human experience. More than just a philosophicalconception of reality, however, a cosmology forms the implicit background to allhuman actions, the meaningful context within which human life takes place. Animplicit cosmology is a fundamental aspect of a world view. 22The challenge of formulating a new world view to support the correlationspresented in Tarnas’s research is central to the new discipline of archetypalcosmology, which is currently being developed by a group of scholars andresearchers based for the most part in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. 23Archetypal cosmology incorporates not only the study of the correlation betweenthe planetary alignments and archetypally themed phenomena in humanexperience (archetypal astrology) but also the wider issue of archetypalastrology’s relationship to and place within new paradigms of understanding andemerging cultural world views. Drawing on many fields of inquiry, it is concernedwith the attempts to understand, in philosophical and scientific terms, the basis ofastrological correlations, and the challenge of explicating the implications ofarchetypal astrology for contemporary global culture.22 Although this dissertation will be informed by certain developments in thescientific field of cosmology (which is related to astronomy), the term cosmology in thecontext of this dissertation refers more generally to something close in meaning to theterm world view in that it describes a particular perspective and life orientation that isinformed by spiritual, religious, mythic, and psychological factors, in addition to scienceand philosophy.23 For background on the emergence of archetypal cosmology, see Le Grice,Birth of a new discipline, 2–22.24

History has shown that when astrology could be accommodated withoutcontradiction into the prevailing world view of the day, when the premises onwhich it was founded were compatible with the accepted cosmology, thenastrology enjoyed widespread recognition. Yet since the discrediting of thegeocentric Aristotelian and Ptolemaic cosmology following the ScientificRevolution in the seventeenth century, astrology has failed to enjoy the support ofthe dominant scientific and philosophical models of the time. Without suchsupport, as noted, and with the eventual rejection of all forms of esoteric andsupernatural explanations of phenomena after the Enlightenment, astrology hasbeen driven to the periphery of contemporary culture and excluded from academicdiscourse.However, while attempts to accommodate astrology into the modernscientific paradigm have been largely unsuccessful (for reasons that we will lateraddress), the emergence of the so-called new paradigm perspectives—in physics,biology, psychology, and elsewhere—is slowly bringing forth a newunderstanding of the nature of the cosmos and of the human psyche that mightcomplement or perhaps replace the modern world picture. This theoretical shift,as we will see, makes possible a reconsideration and a reinterpretation ofastrology.The background context to this dissertation is the dramatic shift in theunderstanding of the nature of reality emerging out of relativity theory andquantum theory in physics during the last century. These revolutionarydevelopments cast serious doubts over the most basic assumptions on which25

classical physics and mechanistic determinism are founded and caused an acutesense of crisis among physicists at that time. Instead of a conception of theuniverse in which inert material particles existing in empty space are movedmechanically by external forces according to the laws of Newtonian motion, theuniverse came to be conceived as a complex, intricately interconnected andinterdependent whole. These developments in physics, which have demonstratedthe limitations of mechanistic determinism and called into question the traditionalconcept of scientific objectivity, paved the way for the emergence of the newparadigm scientific perspectives emphasizing holism, organicism, complexcausality, field theories, nonlocal connections, and the participatory role of thescientific observer in shaping the phenomena under investigation.Alongside the revolution in physics, another new theoretical approach,closely aligned with the philosophy of holism and organicism, has emerged out ofbiology. I refer here to systems theory and to the self-organizational paradigm.Like physics, this perspective has emphasized the significance of patterns oforganization and the dynamic process-oriented nature of all kinds of systems.Although ordinarily applied to the study of living organisms, it is my belief,following suggestions in the work of Fritjof Capra, Erich Jantsch, and RupertSheldrake, that systems theory could be used as a viable model to betterunderstand the universe at large, and that it might be of consequence, therefore,for gaining a clearer understanding of astrology.26

These remarkable developments in the scientific understanding of theuniverse have been accompanied by equally remarkable advances in knowledgeof the human psyche, emerging, most especially, out of the field of depthpsychology. 24 In their willingness to seriously engage and seek to understand themeaning of phenomena often dismissed and excluded by conventionalapproaches—such as spiritual experiences, synchronicities, dreams, fantasies, andthe meaningful content of psychopathological conditions— Jungian, archetypal,and transpersonal approaches to depth psychology have challenged theparadigmatic limitations of the dominant modern world view, and disclosed avaster, more comprehensive picture of the human psyche. Fundamental to thislarger vision is the notion of an unconscious dimension to the human psyche, onetranscending normal human awareness and giving an a priori order to humanconscious experience.As the name suggests, depth psychology—especially as formulated in theanalytical psychology of C. G. Jung—is concerned with the deeper dimensions ofthe human psyche, just as the new science has probed the deeper aspects of the24 By depth psychology I mean all those therapeutic approaches and theoriesrelating to the psychology of the unconscious, including psychoanalysis, Jungiananalytical psychology, archetypal psychology, transpersonal psychology, ecopsychology,and other related approaches—although here my primary focus will be on the Jungianapproach. The term unconscious refers to the aspects and dimensions of the humanpsyche that are not normally the object of the awareness of the conscious ego, that havenot been made self-reflectively known by the ego. I am aware that a large part of egoicidentity might itself fall into this category. The term unconscious also refers to thosedimensions of psyche lying outside the sphere of normal individual psychology. Thus it isto be expected that what is considered unconscious from the perspective of the consciousego might be a form of consciousness existing outside of ordinary human awareness.27

material universe. This focus on the deeper dimensions of reality is essential, Ibelieve, to give an adequate account of astrology. The working assumptioninforming this dissertation is this: If one takes the investigation of the externalworld deep enough, and if one takes the investigation of the psyche deep enough,and if one then brings these two areas of inquiry together in an overall theoreticalsynthesis, one might perceive a single underlying background to the cosmos andthe psyche and a common order manifest in both.Within the wider cultural context, the new paradigm in science has beenaccompanied by the emergence of postmodernism—the collective term for thosecultural and intellectual movements that critique, challenge, or negate thefundamental assumptions and values of the modern world view. Many truths andassertions that have prevailed in the modern era and that were once deemedincontrovertible are now being called into question. Truth, to many postmodernthinkers, is now seen not as absolute fact but as constructed interpretation. Claimsto purely objective validity have been undermined, or at least tempered, by therealization of the inescapable subjectivity of human knowledge. Consequently,postmodernism has permitted a reconsideration of views, philosophies, ideas, andpractices deemed incorrect or outmoded in terms of the rational-scientific worldview of the modern era. Ancient wisdom traditions, esoteric philosophies,indigenous cultures, and the perspectives of previously repressed minorities arefinding a new voice on the postmodern stage. In this climate of change, astrologyneed no longer be alienated from the wider culture if it can face the challenge of28

setting forth an explanation of astrological correspondences in terms compatiblewith the emerging new paradigm theories.Indeed, what is essential to any postmodern perspective, in its constructiveform, is not merely to negate or deconstruct the modern world view, but also totranscend it; and one way this might be done is by bringing back that whichmodernity has discarded as obsolete, to effect a synthesis of the old and the new. 25Such “double-coding,” as postmodern theorist Charles Jencks terms it, makespossible a creative fusion of ancient wisdom and modern science by which theinherent limitations and one-sidedness of the modern rational-scientific worldview might be overcome and a new integral world view developed. 26 It is just this25 While the term postmodern has become synonymous with deconstruction andthe Nietzschean hermeneutics of suspicion, certain theorists such as Charlene Spretnak,Charles Jencks, and David Ray Griffin have tried to reclaim the term, and to use it tosignify not only deconstruction but also trends towards more integrative and constructivedevelopments that lead beyond the limitations of the dominant modern world view. Suchthinkers have sought to distinguish between late-, or ultra-modernism, which theyidentify with deconstruction, and postmodernism in its constructive sense, which,according to Jencks, is “the continuation of modernity and its transcendence.” Jencks,What is post-modernism?, 13. The modern world view is to be transcended not by theoutright rejection of the possibility of there being any world view at all, but rather byovercoming the one-sided limitations of modernity by means of revision, and movementstowards a “synthesizing overview.” See Jencks, Postmodern reader, 31. The foremostcontemporary integral theorist is Ken Wilber whose work has brought together suchfields as postmodern theory, developmental psychology, philosophy, and religious studiesto develop a pluralistic post-metaphysical “theory of everything” that might overcome thedichotomies and fragmentation that characterize the dominant Western world view.26 Jencks, Postmodern reader, 12. Jencks himself sees the emergent sciences ofcomplexity and the dialogues between East and West, ancient and modern, andmainstream and marginalized perspectives as central to postmodernism. The ideasdiscussed in this dissertation, and the attempt to create a synthesizing overview bydrawing on the new sciences and combining ancient and modern perspectives, aretherefore in accord with this larger constructive postmodern movement. The workemerging out of transpersonal theory, the new sciences, deep ecology, participatoryresearch, and inter-religious dialogue, for example, has already made significantcontributions to this aim. See also Jencks, What is post-modernism?, 20.29

kind of integral approach that is necessary to understand the astrologicalperspective. Spirit and instinct, myth and meaning, will and desire, thinking andfeeling, the individual and the collective—every dimension of human experienceis defined by the cosmological patterns revealed through astrology. It seemsprobable, therefore, that only a theory equally multidimensional and broad inscope can hope to do it justice. 27Aims and Research QuestionsIn this dissertation, then, I set forth a new interdisciplinary explanation ofastrology using ideas from several diverse fields of inquiry including depthpsychology and cosmology, mythology and metaphysics, and systems biologyand modern physics. In particular, the thesis I outline in these pages draws uponthe work of Carl Gustav Jung and Joseph Campbell in the fields of depthpsychology and comparative mythology, respectively. Both have been extremelyinfluential, not only within their own areas of expertise, but also across manyother areas of Western popular culture and, most especially, on contemporary27 Within contemporary integral theory, astrology has been criticized by Wilberwho sees it as the expression of a mythic, prerational level of psychological development,one that has been superseded by science and rational thinking. Wilber’s attitude toastrology is closely connected to his critique of the ideas of C. G. Jung and JosephCampbell. Controversially, Wilber sees Jung’s approach to depth psychology andCampbell’s work in mythology as mistakenly elevating myth to transpersonal dimensionsof being, thereby erroneously conflating myth and mystical experience (Wilber, Sex,ecology, spirituality). Wilber’s model has been sternly challenged by other transpersonaltheorists including, most notably, Jorge Ferrer, Stanislav Grof, and Michael Washburn(See Ferrer, Revisioning transpersonal theory; Grof, Ken Wilber’s spectrum psychology;and Washburn, Pre/trans fallacy reconsidered). As we will see, the astrologicalperspective occupies a fundamental place within Grofian transpersonal psychology, and itis treated sympathetically in the work of Jean Gebser (Gebser, Ever-present origin).30

forms of spirituality and psychological self-exploration. I also draw extensivelyon the ideas of several different theorists within the various fields of newparadigm scientific thought—including Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Fritjof Capra,David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and Stanislav Grof—whose work has done muchto enhance our understanding of the nature of the universe and to present analternative vision of reality to that offered by the orthodox scientific community. 28What all these thinkers have in common is that they challenge the dichotomies—between subject and object, mind and matter, and nature and spirit, for example—that have come to define the modern Western understanding of reality. Each ofthese theorists has also made bold moves to bridge these dichotomies, to reach outacross the subject-object divide, by developing a more holistic and complex worldview that recognizes the fundamental interconnectedness of all phenomena.By synthesizing the insights of depth psychology and the new paradigmsciences, it has been my aim in this dissertation to present a new philosophicalvision of the relationship between the psyche and the cosmos, and to propose away of envisaging and conceptualizing the relationship between the planetarycycles and human experience. It is my hope that this endeavor might contribute toan enlarged understanding of human nature and our place in the cosmos, and thatalso it might help to evoke, in the postmodern mind, an appreciation of the28 Within the broad range of perspectives classified as new paradigm science, Iwill focus only on systems theory, modern physics, and the theory of formative causationin biology—fields that seem to me most relevant and directly applicable to developing anarchetypal cosmology. I will not consider the research into complexity theory or chaostheory, for example, although I accept that such research might also be valuable in a morecomplete account of astrology. For an insightful exploration of the connections betweenarchetypal theory and chaos theory, see Conforti, Field, form, and fate.31

complex interconnection between the structural patterns of the cosmos and thearchetypal patterns of explored in depth psychology and mythology.In researching and putting together the material for this work, I haveendeavored to make this dissertation accessible to readers who have little or noprior exposure to astrology, new paradigm science, depth psychology, orphilosophy—although some background in these areas will undoubtedly bebeneficial, especially as the nature of the subject matter is necessarily complexand broad in scope. At the outset, one must also keep in mind that any attempt tocomprehensively explain astrology is bound to fall some way short sinceultimately, as in all such endeavors, one comes up against a mystery about whichany theoretical formulations and models are inevitably inadequate. The best onecan strive for, and my aim here, will be to formulate a working hypothesis and toarticulate a coherent philosophical vision within which astrological correlationsmight become more intelligible.Furthermore, while the thesis I put forward is based on certain theoreticalhypotheses advanced by some of the most brilliant and visionary (and for thisreason, often controversial) new paradigm thinkers, it is not, however, based on“hard science,” or what science considers to be empirically proven fact—and forgood reason, since our concern here are those dimensions of reality that, for themost part, orthodox science has overlooked or disregarded. If the scientificevidence that could prove astrology were already in existence then, needless tosay, astrology would be widely accepted and there would be no need for thisstudy. Rather, this dissertation has, I would like to think, an anticipatory32

Second, this study will also attempt to outline an alternative interpretiveframework for Jungian psychology. Within Jungian scholarship, this dissertationwill make a contribution to the existing studies that attempt to understand Jung’sideas from different theoretical and clinical perspectives. The ideas advanced inthis dissertation might augment and provide a larger cosmological andphilosophical context for the other approaches to Jung’s thought. By consideringthe implications of archetypal astrology, the implications of synchronicity, Jung’slate reflections on the nature of the archetypes and the psyche, and the parallelsbetween Jung’s ideas and the new paradigm sciences, this work will address thefollowing research question: Can the comparison of Jungian psychology and thenew paradigm sciences in the light of the evidence of astrological correlations andsynchronicities support an alternative interpretation of Jungian theory? 30Third, this dissertation will indirectly consider archetypal astrology’spossible relationship to the emerging integral world view. Within the widercontext of constructive postmodernism and integral thought, the research questionto be considered will be this: How is archetypal cosmology related to other ideascentral to the emerging integral world view, such as holism, nonlocal causation,30 The relationship between Jungian psychology and the new paradigm sciences,and more generally between the psyche and the material world, has been explored by anumber of studies directly relevant to this dissertation: Most notably, F. David Peat,Synchronicity: The bridge between mind and matter, which is a continuation anddevelopment of Jung’s attempts to find a parallel between the order of the psyche and theorder of the material world; and Victor Mansfield, Synchronicity, science, and soulmaking,which also explores these topics in some detail. Allan Combs, The radiance ofbeing, and Combs and Holland, Synchronicity through the eyes of science, myth, and thetrickster both explore possible parallels between Jung’s theory of archetypes andsynchronicity, biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s concepts of morphic fields, as well asphysicist David Bohm’s hypothesis of an implicate order, although the treatment isrelatively brief and introductory.34

organicism, systems theory, process thinking, and the self-organizationalparadigm? Addressing this question will help to establish archetypal cosmology’spossible place within any such world view.35

Chapter TwoAstrology and the Western World ViewIt says much about the status of astrology in the modern Western worldthat before one can enter into a serious consideration of the subject one must firstaddress the question of why so many people refuse to accept that there might beany truth or value in astrology whatsoever. Such is its discredited standing todaythat most intelligent people are unwilling to even begin to entertain the possibilitythat astrology might have any legitimate claims to validity. In this chapter we willexplore the origins of this extreme skepticism. By examining some of the mostinfluential philosophical suppositions and scientific paradigms that together formthe basis of the dominant Western world view, we will seek to understand thereasons why astrology has fallen into such disrepute. It will then be possible tomake the case for a reassessment of astrology in light of the new understanding ofthe nature of reality that has emerged over the course of the last century.Conflicting OpinionsIt is a uniquely curious, not to say perplexing, fact that although many ofthe greatest figures in the history of Western thought have been proponents orpractitioners of astrology, in the modern era astrology has been roundly castigatedand treated with disdain by the scientific and academic establishment. The36

definitive proclamation of the modern rebuttal of astrology was issued in 1975 inthe form of a public statement signed by a group of 186 scientists, includingeighteen Nobel laureates, wishing to make their position unequivocal and lay torest once and for all any lingering suspicions that there might indeed be acorrespondence between planetary positions and human experience.We, the undersigned—astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in otherfields—wish to caution the public against the unquestioning acceptance ofthe predictions and advice given privately and publicly by astrologers.Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is noscientific foundation for its tenets. 31The statement continues:One would imagine, in this day of widespread enlightenment andeducation, that it would be unnecessary to debunk beliefs based on magicand superstition. Yet, acceptance of astrology pervades modern society.We are especially disturbed by the continued uncritical dissemination ofastrological charts, forecasts, and horoscopes by the media and byotherwise reputable newspapers, magazines, and book publishers. This canonly contribute to the growth of irrationalism and obscurantism. Webelieve that the time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, thepretentious claims of astrological charlatans. 32Yet as these scientists sought to enlighten and protect the general public, theywere, whether or not they intended to, just as assuredly challenging and refuting31 Bok and Jerome, Objections to astrology, 4–6. The primary motivating forcebehind the release of this statement was the skeptical agenda of Paul Kurtz, the editor ofThe Humanist, renowned for his ardent critique of paranormal phenomena. Kurtz, alongwith astronomer Bok and science writer Jerome, sponsored the 1975 statement, whichwas also submitted to newspapers across North America.32 Ibid.37

those earlier thinkers who had found much of value in the astrologicalperspective. The list of eminent scholars, scientists, philosophers, and writersfavorably disposed to this ancient cosmological system or laying philosophicalfoundations for its subsequent development makes impressive reading, both interms of its length and its makeup: Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Hipparchus,Ptolemy, Plotinus, Proclus, Albertus Magnus, Dante, Thomas Aquinas, MarsilioFicino, Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Goethe,Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Butler Yeats, and Carl Gustav Jung, amongothers.Of course, in itself the fact that astrology has been highly valued byprominent figures in the history of ideas tells us nothing of its actual validity but itdoes suggest that astrology is worthy of more serious consideration than it usuallyreceives and that we should look more closely at the reasons it is now so widelyrejected. Certainly, it is hard to reconcile the fact that these two groups shouldcome to adopt opposing positions as to the validity of astrology. Until recently theweight of the academic establishment and of consensus opinion has, as we haveseen, sided with the group of scientists in their critique and repudiation of theastrological perspective. Modern scientific knowledge is widely understood to besuperior to all earlier forms of knowledge such that we have been able torecognize and discard those former errors of understanding about the nature ofreality that appeared to support astrological correspondences. Thus, astrology’struth claims are deemed to be fallacious, based, it is supposed, on an archaicunderstanding that modern science has demonstrated to be without foundation. If38

this is in fact so—if the modern scientific verdict on astrology is indeedaccurate—then even those illustrious luminaries cited above, for all theirbrilliance in other respects, and their undoubted wisdom, were, in their judgmentabout astrology, under a serious misapprehension.More probable, it seems to me, is that the modern scientific West, in thepursuit of rational and scientific certainty, has excluded much from its field ofconcern, and that the very theoretical paradigm shaping and defining the scientificenterprise invalidates a priori astrological correlations. For certain phenomena—certain fundamental aspects of the nature of reality—lie outside the rather narrowfocus of the scientific method and obdurately defy explanation in terms of therational materialism of the modern era. Indeed, when we look more closely, wefind that what is common to those above-named supporters of astrology is thatthey were all operating outside of the theoretical parameters and tacitphilosophical constraints of the modern scientific paradigm. Many, such as theancient Greek philosophers, pre-dated by centuries the coming of modernity;others, with a Romantic sensibility, excelled in fields outside of the province ofscience; and others still, Emerson and Jung among them, transcended theparadigmatic boundaries of their time. Even those thinkers who were instrumentalin the genesis of the modern world view, such as Copernicus and Galileo, werenot themselves enmeshed in this perspective as their scientific followers were tobe.One wonders if—by engaging the very faculties and modes ofunderstanding that have been quite deliberately omitted from modern scientific39

investigation—these individuals were therefore able to perceive the value andtruth of astrology, whereas the modern academic and scientist, constrained bynarrow paradigmatic assumptions, are not. For a discerning appreciation of theastrological perspective is dependent not only on rational analysis and empiricalinvestigation but also on imagination, feeling, introspection and intuition, oninterior depth and self-knowledge, on the recognition of universals, and on beingepistemologically open to other, deeper modes of analysis apart from thequantitative and statistical.One wonders, also, if the scientists’ repudiation applies not to astrologyper se, but only to astrology as presented and interpreted, incorrectly, through themodern scientific world picture. For in the modern era, in keeping with therational materialism of our time, astrological correlations have been interpreted inmaterialistic and mechanistic terms, construed, that is, in terms of material forcesemitted by the planets that causally affect human lives through measurablephysical influences—an understanding that, as we will see, appears to be whollyinadequate to the depth and complexity of the astrological perspective. Foralthough astrological “influences” have been posited since ancient times and arepart of the traditional astrological imagination, these were usually conceived assubtle forces or energies rather than as measurable physical forces.In the postmodern era, as scientists and philosophers become increasinglyaware of the formerly implicit theoretical assumptions behind modern science andever more acutely conscious of the limitations these assumptions impose on ourunderstanding, we now have the opportunity to reconsider the validity of40

astrology. Postmodern reflections on science, and the emergence of the newparadigm approaches within science, afford us another perspective from which toreevaluate astrological correlations. Placed in a new theoretical context, we mightperhaps see that it is not astrology that is in error but our perception of it,blinkered by our models and paradigms through which we, in the modern West,have come to interpret the nature of the universe.Science and the Mechanistic World ViewTo understand current attitudes to astrology, and astrology’s disparity withthe dominant collective world view, we must consider the scientific andphilosophical developments that have shaped the modern understanding of thenature of reality. For in the modern West, as is well known, the ScientificRevolution that saw the birth of classical physics and instigated the rapid rise ofscience and the modern rational world picture created an intellectual climate inwhich astrology struggled to survive. Astrology’s plight was also significantlyinfluenced by the direction of modern philosophical thought, which firstestablished and then reinforced the dominant scientific world view. 33Prior to the Scientific Revolution in the sixteenth century, the acceptedcosmological model of the universe was geocentric. The Earth was considered tobe stationary at the center of the universe and all the planets, together with the33 For the survey of science and philosophy, I draw especially upon the followingworks: Tarnas, Passion of the Western mind; Stephenson, Seven theories of humannature; Sprigge, Theories of existence; Magee, Story of philosophy; Whitehead, Scienceand the modern world.41

Sun and Moon, were thought to orbit the Earth in circles. This model was knownas the Ptolemaic cosmology after Claudius Ptolemy, an astrologer-astronomerfrom Alexandria, Egypt, in the second century CE, whose theory drew extensivelyon the ideas of Aristotelian science. Ptolemy’s geocentric explanation of planetarymotion was accepted by the church. Indeed, Christians later came to believe, as amatter of dogmatic faith, that God had placed the Earth at the center of theuniverse, and that the human being was master of the world, made in the image ofGod. The Ptolemaic cosmology supports the geocentric perspective assumed byastrology: the astrological chart is calculated to accurately reflect the position ofthe planetary bodies of the solar system as seen by an observer on Earth. From thevantage point of the individual looking out into the cosmos, all the planets seemto revolve around the Earth, so while the geocentric model of the universe wasretained in astronomy the astrological perspective appeared to have objectivevalidity.However, in order to explain observed irregularities in the brightness,direction of movement, and velocity of the planets in their orbits, the latermedieval and Arabic revisions of Ptolemy’s geocentric cosmology becameinordinately complex. The complexity of geocentric theory could be overcomebut only by abandoning the seemingly incontrovertible belief that the Earth wasthe center of the universe and adopting instead the heretical notion that all theplanets, including the Earth, orbited the Sun. Copernicus realized this, and in 1543he took the courageous step of publishing a heliocentric theory that he hadoriginally developed over thirty years earlier. Kepler’s work (supported by42

Galileo’s observation of the heavens using a telescope) confirmed the heliocentrichypothesis, and despite staunch resistance from the church, the Copernicanrevolution was born.For astrology, this development marked a decisive point of divergencefrom astronomy because the astronomical cosmology and the astrological onewere now seemingly different and conflicting. The geocentric perspective nowhad no basis in science and was objectively untrue. Thereafter, astrology had tostruggle for survival in an incongruent intellectual climate on account of itsconflict with the science of the time. While there were no immediateconsequences, the wider impact of the Copernican revolution, in particular theimpetus it gave to science, was eventually to further alienate astrology fromserious intellectual thought.For the Christianized world the implications of the displacement of theEarth from the center of the universe were momentous. The new heliocentriccosmology directly challenged the authority of the church and biblical scripture,ushering in a period in which any established authority became subject to criticalexamination in the light of the emerging power of human reason. In thisintellectual climate, rationality was to take center stage. Reason and logic wereweapons against the false claims of any supposed authority and it was believedthat reason could by itself provide accurate knowledge of the world. People beganto rely more on rationality and less on faith, more on science and less on theunquestioned authority of church doctrine.43

The central figure of the emerging rational philosophy was the seventeenthcentury French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes whosefoundational works Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophylaid the foundations for Western philosophy and science for the next threecenturies. Assuming a starting position of absolute doubt about the reality of hisexistence, and seeking a firm foundation upon which to build his philosophy andovercome this doubt, Descartes came eventually to the conclusion that “so long asI continue to think I am something.” 34 This insight gave rise to his cogito ergosum: I think, therefore I am.Descartes situated human identity in the thinking rational mind or soul setagainst the body and the external world. “I knew I was a substance whose wholeessence or nature is solely to think, and which does not require any place, ordepend on any material thing, in order to exist.” 35 Reasoning thus, Descartes drewa fundamental distinction between consciousness or thinking and the external,physical world. The thinking spiritual-mental substance (res cogitans) is,Descartes claims, a completely different kind of substance from the corporealworld of matter (res extensa). The human being consists of a physical body that isinfluenced by an incorporeal mind. According to this view, the material world,initially set in motion by God, is machine-like in its operation and can beobjectively described and quantified in terms of mathematical laws. InDescartes’s philosophy, although mind is held to be causally interactive with34 Descartes, Discourse on method, 88.35 Ibid., 36.44

matter it is, he maintains, an absolutely distinct substance. Descartes thusadvocates a form of what is known as interactive substance dualism. 36With this distinction Descartes helped to establish as credible the beliefthat the material world could be explained without reference to mind because it ispossible, he argues, to remove mind and with it human subjectivity fromexplanations of the functioning of world. Cartesian dualism thus gave furtherimpetus to the belief in the objectivity of scientific explanation. In distinguishingbetween the subject of experience (the thinking ego) and the object (the materialworld “outside” of mind), Descartes helped shape the future of the Western worldby establishing the philosophical ground for the subsequent development ofmodern science.No less significant for the rise of the modern scientific world view wereseveral earlier philosophical developments prior to Descartes that had set theWestern intellectual tradition on a course towards empiricism, concrete realism,skepticism, and nominalism. With respect to these developments, William ofOckham, writing in the fourteenth century, argued that in the pursuit ofknowledge the focus of attention should be restricted to concrete individualentities; he rejected the ontological reality of universal principles, arguing thatuniversals exist only as concepts in the mind; and he also postulated thatknowledge can only be attained through sense perception, not by reason alone. 3736 For a discussion of dualism and monism, see chapters 4 and 6.37 See Spade, William of Ockham.45

Equally important was the contribution of Galileo. In addition to hiscrucial telescopic discoveries, Galileo proposed that science should focusexclusively on the supposedly objective, measurable qualities of phenomena suchas mass, number, and size, ignoring the supposedly subjective attributes such ascolor or smell. Here, almost two centuries before Kant’s critical turn inphilosophy, was a fundamental distinction that in time effectively strippedsensible, humanly perceived qualities from the external world. With this“bifurcation of nature,” as Alfred North Whitehead describes it, the world of socalledsecondary qualities, dependent on fallible human perception andinterpretation, and the quantifiable reality of the external world of primaryqualities, which were seen as independent of human perception, were thrustapart. 38 Along with the Cartesian cogito, this was a decisive development thateventually banished qualitative considerations from the realm of science. (ThatGalileo was himself a practicing astrologer indicates, however, that a mechanisticunderstanding of the motions of the planets in astronomy need not preclude thebelief in an astrological meaning to the planetary positions, motions, andrelationships.)Today, of course, it is the focus on the quantitative measurement ofcelestial mechanics that utterly dominates our understanding of the planetarybodies and their motions. Astrology’s emphasis on the possible qualitative,38 See Whitehead, Concept of nature. Another aspect of this bifurcation,according to Whitehead, is the separation of our awareness of the experience of the worldfrom the world itself, which purportedly causes that experience. Whitehead’s processphilosophy and existential phenomenology represent two of the most significant attemptsto overcome this separation.46

psychological, meaningful significance of the planetary dynamics of the solarsystem is generally greeted with contemptuous disregard by scientists. Nothing, itis supposed, could be more removed from scientific investigation, nothing soblatantly false.Meanwhile, as a result of Copernicus’s heliocentric cosmology, sciencefaced a new urgent challenge: it needed to explain why falling bodies drop toEarth rather than to some other place. Previously, it had been thought that thisoccurs because the Earth, owing to its supposedly fixed position at the center ofthe universe, is the natural place to which objects must fall. Obviously, the adventof the heliocentric cosmology had rendered this view obsolete, and the stage wasset for a new theory, and the entrance into the scientific arena of Isaac Newton.Drawing together Kepler’s mathematical laws of planetary motion,Galileo’s ideas concerning terrestrial mechanical motion governed by forces, andDescartes atomistic-mechanistic philosophy of, Newton formulated a robustmathematical framework for modern science. Newton’s theories, published in hisPhilosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687, were to form the basis ofclassical physics until the twentieth century. His response to the challenge of theCopernican revolution was to formulate the theory of gravity, which, togetherwith the three laws of motion, allowed him to comprehensively explain theworkings of the physical universe. According to Newton’s model, the universeconsists of solid, indestructible, material particles existing in empty space. Theseparticles were considered to be the basic building blocks of matter: all physicalobjects were collections of these fundamental particles. Time was believed to47

exist independently of the physical universe, flowing inexorably on, creating ourexperience of past, present, and future. Both space and time were unconditionallyaccepted as a priori conditions of the material world. After Newton, all eventscame to be understood as the effects of forces acting upon material bodies.Newton’s model is often referred to as mechanistic because, followingDescartes, the universe is conceptualized as a giant cosmic machine in which allevents are triggered as part of a causal chain. Like a machine, the movement ofone part causes another part to move, which in turn affects a further part, and soon. This theory of the mechanics of the universe is known as determinism, inwhich every effect is the necessary result of an antecedent cause—i.e., the causedetermines the effect. (The apple falls from the tree to the ground because ofgravity, the billiard ball moves because it is struck by another ball—to give twowidely cited examples.) After Newton, the mechanistic paradigm wassuccessfully applied to all areas of science on both a macroscopic andmicroscopic level and the laws of classical physics were proclaimed asfundamental laws of the universe. Newtonian science thus brought with it a senseof triumphant mastery as a new world view was born in which scientists at thetime sincerely believed they had the power to explain anything using thesefundamental laws. The theoretical mastery of the Scientific Revolution then gaverise to the practical achievements of the Industrial Revolution, as the newknowledge and power furnished by science was exercised to the full.Although it was not Descartes’s intention, since his vision of realityretained a deistic spiritual basis, it is testimony to the efficacy of Cartesian48

philosophy to articulate a common human experience of the relationship betweenmind or soul and the material world that in the late modern era many intelligentpeople envisage themselves as thinking beings existing in a mechanistic,unconscious, and essentially meaningless physical universe. Newtonian physics,finding philosophical and psychological articulation in the work of John Locke,cemented the Cartesian dichotomy between inner and outer, and subject andobject, as it appeared to demonstrate mathematically that all events within thematerial universe could be explained solely through cause and effect mechanicsand that there was no need to take human subjective consciousness into account.The human self thereafter appeared radically separate from the functioning of thematerial world, distinct in essence from the human body, yet mysteriouslyinteracting with it, Descartes proposes, through the pineal gland in the brain. Thehuman self existed in an impersonal, mechanistic world that functioned withoutany kind of involvement from God, without any inherent purpose or meaning. TheCartesian-Newtonian paradigm, as it is now often called, effected a furtherseparation of the human subject from the world and from nature, a further splitbetween the interior psyche and the exterior cosmos. 39 The subjective meaning ofhuman experience—human aims, purposes, values, feelings, desires, and so on—39 While Descartes was not the first to advance either a philosophy of mindmatterdualism or theories of the mechanistic functioning of the external world (the rootsof these reach as far back as ancient Greek speculation), his philosophy, together withNewtonian mechanics, was to shape the dominant world conception and inform thescientific enterprise through the modern era. This world conception is often referred tofor convenience as the Cartesian-Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, although such a labelobviously cloaks a far more complex situation with multiple historical sourcescontributing to the dominant philosophical assumptions underpinning the scientificenterprise.49

now appeared radically distinct from the objective world. As the modern worldview gained ascendancy, any sense of human participation in a meaningful,ensouled universe was eliminated. The astrological supposition of a relationshipbetween planetary cycles and human experience now seemed increasinglyuntenable. In the material and mechanistic terms through which astrology wasunderstood, it seemed in fact that there was nothing more remote and unrelated tohuman experience than the motions of the distant planetary bodies in outer space.Unsurprisingly, then, after the Scientific Revolution, in a climate in whichmaterialism and mechanistic determinism reigned supreme, there was no place forthe explanations of astrology based on the old geocentric Aristotelian andPtolemaic cosmology or the medieval system of correspondences.Freedom and DeterminismThe success of Newtonian mechanics in physics saw the extension ofdeterministic, mechanistic, and materialistic explanations across all disciplines.This extension was accompanied by a gradual decline in alternative forms ofexplanation, particularly those based on transcendent universal principles, such asthe Platonic Ideas. As we have seen, these universals, once thought to be theorganizing principles behind the material world, were understood, in nominalistterms, to be merely mental and linguistic categories—to exist in name only, topertain only to categories of the human mind and not to the external world. Withthe ascendancy of the modern world view, all phenomena were understood to be50

explicable solely in terms of natural causes. Those theoretical models andphilosophies based on metaphysical factors were deemed unnecessary.Nowhere is this more conspicuous than in the modern conception ofhuman nature. Reflecting the application of mechanistic determinism to all areasof investigation, influential theories in both psychology and biology have made itpossible to comprehensively describe and explain human nature such thatastrological explanations now seem superfluous, antiquated, and incorrect.Scientific explanations, both of the universe and of human existence, seem tohave rendered astrology obsolete. In the modern scientific view, it is unnecessaryto postulate the existence of extraneous astrological factors, or metaphysicalprinciples or archetypes, when human life can be explained well enough, we havecome to believe, in terms of natural causes, whether of our own biological natureor the effects of external influences.Behaviorism and psychoanalysis, which are the two traditional schools or“forces” in psychology, and genetic biology that has in recent years decipheredthe code of DNA, each put forward deterministic explanations of human life,explanations that have shaped and informed the popular understanding of theorigins of personality and the composition of the self.From the psychoanalytic perspective, as is well known, childhood traumaand unconscious drives, repressed desires and sublimated sexual impulses, and theraging battle between instinctual gratification and one’s internalized moral code,are the determining factors behind human existence. In the Freudian view, thehuman personality is unconsciously conditioned by instinctual drives grounded in51

human physiology; and the emotional complexes of adult life, as more than acentury of psychotherapy has shown, often originate from traumatic experiencesof early life. 40Whereas Freudian psychology brilliantly brought to light the instinctualand unconscious psychological determinants of human life, behaviorism, firstdeveloped by experimental psychologist John Watson in 1913 and later expandedby B. F. Skinner, bypassed the human psyche altogether, focusing instead on theconditioning effects on human behavior of external causes in the environment.Behaviorists see human nature as a product of the environment and all behavior asthe result of conditioned responses to external stimuli. 41 Such a conception makespossible a methodological rigor and precision that has delivered importantinsights into both human and animal learning and motivation. However, manyhave rightly objected to this narrow characterization of human nature in which, byadopting what has come to be known as the black box approach, consciousness istreated as a largely unnecessary postulate. Human psychology is thus reduced tothe analysis of observable, external stimuli and resulting changes in patterns ofbehavior such that the complexity of human will, of feelings, moods, reflection,and inspiration is almost completely disregarded. With the emergence ofbehaviorism, then, people were effectively seen as indivisible isolated unitslacking interiority; the Newtonian atomistic model of the nature of reality hadhere fully established itself in the field of psychology. Controversially applying40 See Freud, New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis.41 Skinner, Beyond freedom and dignity.52

his theory to entire cultures, Skinner thought that human salvation and the cure tothe world’s problems lies in the mass conditioning of human behavior through thecontrolled manipulation of environmental stimuli. 42 Human nature, he argues, canand should be totally molded by external conditioning factors to achieve a bettersociety.Despite their inherent shortcomings, given the explanatory power of bothpsychoanalysis and behaviorism there is little wonder that they have beenextremely influential on the modern mind and its attempts at self-understanding.More generally, deterministic explanations of human life, emphasizing eithernature (prior determining causes in human biology) or nurture (the effects of theenvironment, particularly during early childhood, on shaping the humanpersonality) have emerged across many disciplines both from within psychologyand farther afield. Neuroscience, for example, has focused on the neurochemicalprocesses of the brain in order to explain human consciousness and behavior;Marxist philosophy highlights the influence of social and economic factors on thehuman condition; and genetics finds causes in the DNA coding withinchromosomes. 43 Thus, we arrive at the modern materialistic and deterministicview of the human being as a genetically programmed, biologically driven, andenvironmentally conditioned physical organism.42 Ibid.43 For example, according to Marx, “It is not the consciousness of men thatdetermines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines theirconsciousness.” Marx, Selected writings in sociology and social philosophy, 67.53

The belief in the freedom of the willing self (an idea which goes back tothe ancient Greeks and Christianity, but which has been more recentlypropounded by existentialist philosophers and is still today broadly reflected inthe mainstream collective world view) is another highly influential factor that hascontributed to the general suspicion and incredulity with which astrology isviewed. To many people the notion that the planets and zodiacal signs have somekind of power of influence over our lives seems like an affront to our prized senseof free will and self-determination. The popular misconception of astrology thatone’s fate is unalterably “written in the stars,” and that one’s free will is impotentcompared to the power of one’s ineluctable destiny, seems to deprive humanbeings of the power of self-determination and, in so doing, to mark a return to anoppressive fatalism, to a universe of inescapable predestination. Astrologyappears to contradict the idea that we are free to forge our lives and shape ouridentities through acts of conscious will, to choose and fashion the life we please,and it is therefore perceived as a threat to the sovereign power of the human self.For some people, understandably, this by itself is reason enough to rejectastrology out of hand.The dominant modern world view is thus subject to the influence of twopervasive yet inherently contradictory perspectives: mechanistic determinism,which implies that everything is determined by prior causes, and the belief in thefreedom of human will. This is not without problematic consequences, asWhitehead points out:54

A scientific realism, based on mechanism, is conjoined with anunwavering belief in the world of men and of the higher animals as beingcomposed of self-determining organisms. This radical inconsistency at thebasis of modern thought accounts for much that is half-hearted andwavering in our civilisation. 44Astrology, as it is commonly understood, finds itself caught between both thesepositions: Because both the human personality and the events of our lives can bewell understood in terms of prior determining factors, and since it is apparent thatthe future is determined by our own wits and will power pitted against chance andthe environment, there seems to be no place for astrological explanations ofhuman life based on the supposed influences of the remote planets. If we shapeour own futures, how can astrological factors also be responsible for determiningthe events and experiences of our lives? If we can explain the nature of ourpersonality and the origin of our life events in terms of prior causes, biological orcircumstantial, how can the planetary positions and cycles determine humancharacter or influence our biographical experiences? These questions andconcerns, and others like them, have persuaded many that there is little value ortruth in astrology.Debunking AstrologyFrom this brief exploration of the philosophical and scientific backgroundof the modern Western world, we can see that many of the dominant, though oftentacit, assumptions within our world view have contributed to the widespread44 Whitehead, Science and the modern world, 76.55

skepticism towards astrology. In light of the many factors that appear tocontradict the basic postulates of astrology, it is hardly surprising that to themodern mind entrenched, whether consciously or unconsciously, in theseassumptions, the possibility of there being astrological correlations between theplanets and human experience seems fanciful and astrology’s truth claims appearto be totally without foundation.In the modern world the dominant understanding of the nature of realityremains rooted in the mechanistic materialist paradigm that has been so influentialwithin science. Coupled with the idea that a belief in astrology conflicts with thebelief of human freedom, it is, above all, because our world view is derived froman understanding of the universe originating in classical physics that, as a society,we dismiss astrology. Many critiques of astrology rest on an unchallengedacceptance of the Cartesian-Newtonian causal deterministic framework.These critiques might be classified into two main categories. The firstcategory is concerned with the explanation of astrological “influences” and theabsence of a plausible account of how the planets can causally affect human liveson Earth. It includes, as well, the related question of how such planetaryinfluences are translated into human life. Proponents of astrology are challengedto explain the purported relationship between the planets and human lives in termsof the known forces and mechanics of classical physics. This category thus relatesto the general issue of causal influence.The second category relates to empirical scientific evidence: Canastrology be validated by demonstrating scientifically that there are actual56

correlations between astrological factors and the conditions of human life? Inaddition to the question of statistical evidence for astrology, however, thiscategory can be extended to include the wider issue of the relationship ofastrology to science in general, and the question of whether astrology and sciencemight be able to coexist without outright contradiction.Other questions relating to the specifics of astrological theory and thehistorical origins and development of astrology also merit consideration. Why arethe planets associated with certain qualities, archetypal meanings, and themes andnot others? How were the planets’ archetypal associations initially discovered?How were qualitative attributions made to the planets? Such questions areobviously central to any comprehensive treatment of astrology. Within theconstraints of this dissertation, however, we will be primarily concerned with thetwo main categories of critique; we will consider the direct challenge, bothexplanatory and empirical, posed to astrology by science.Beyond the Causal HypothesisPerhaps the single most important factor in astrology’s repudiation and itssubsequent exclusion from the consensus Western world view has been theabsence of a satisfactory causal explanation of planetary influence. Astrology isdeemed untenable because it cannot be explained scientifically, in lineardeterministic terms, in that there is no convincing explanation in terms of anyknown force of how a distant planetary body can influence human existence onEarth. Discussing possible causal explanations of astrological correspondence,57

astrophysicist Victor Mansfield, who is himself sympathetic to astrology’s truthclaims,states that of the four known forces in nature that might explain planetaryinfluence, the strong and weak nuclear forces can be discounted as they do not actover long distances. Of the other two forces, he continues, electromagnetism canalso be ruled out because “movements of free charges easily shield electric forces,and magnetic forces decrease with distance even more rapidly than gravity.” Thisleaves only gravity itself, which, Mansfield explains, has also been rejected as anexplanation of planetary influence by scientists because “the gravitational forcesof the doctor and nurse [at birth] are much greater than anything from theplanets.” 45On first inspection, then, the argument against astrology looks watertight.But notice that the repudiation of astrology hinges on the universal applicabilityof the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm, the cause and effect model of existence. Ifthis conception of the world is shown to be limited, incomplete, or perhaps evenin error, then astrology should not be refuted on the grounds that it cannot beexplained in terms of this model. In this scenario, it becomes conceivable that theworkings of astrology, although inexplicable in terms of classical physics, can beunderstood when approached with a different theoretical paradigm. If so, therejection of astrology might be premature.Despite significant challenges from idealist philosophers, Romantics, andothers, throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the mechanistic45 Mansfield, Astrophysicists sympathetic and critical view of astrology.Mansfield is here addressing the view of well-known astronomer Carl Sagan. For adiscussion of Sagan’s misunderstanding of astrology, see also Grof, Holotropic researchand archetypal astrology, 55–56.58

paradigm of classical physics became increasingly dominant and widely accepted.The efficacy of scientific determinism was powerfully demonstrated by therampant success of industrialization, and there was no reason to suspect that thefundamental laws of nature on which this paradigm was based would later becalled into question.In the early twentieth century, however, following the formulation ofMaxwell’s electromagnetic field theory in the late nineteenth century, the adventof modern physics cast serious doubts over the most basic of assumptions onwhich classical physics is founded and caused an acute sense of crisis amongphysicists at that time. As Fritjof Capra reports:The exploration of the atomic and sub-atomic world brought them incontact with a strange and unexpected reality. In their struggle to graspthis new reality, scientists became painfully aware that their basicconcepts, their language, and their whole way of thinking were inadequateto describe atomic phenomena. 46At the heart of modern physics two new theories, the theory of relativity andquantum theory, have destroyed the absolute truth claims of many of thefundamentals of classical physics.Einstein’s theory of relativity has dramatically transformed ourunderstanding of space and time. Previously, space and time were thought to haveabsolute, independent existence. Space was construed as a three-dimensionalstage of life, as the unchanging background in which physical events occur and in46 Capra, Web of life, 5.59

which objects are situated. Time, likewise, was believed to exist separately fromspace, independently of the material universe; it was thought that there could be auniversally applicable measurement of time. According to Einstein’s specialtheory of relativity, however, this common sense view of space and time isactually inaccurate. Space and time are not absolute but relative; they are notindependent of each other, but are inextricably linked and together they form afour-dimensional space-time continuum. The measurement both of space andtime, Einstein maintains, is relative to the observer; we cannot know of anobjective reality outside of our viewpoint and thus there can be no universal,objective view of the world and no universal measurement of time. The idea of“simple location,” to use Alfred North Whitehead’s term, the notion that objectsactually exist independently in their own definite regions of space and time, hadto be abandoned. The universe was now conceived instead as something akin to amysterious dynamic process. 47Inevitably, because it undermined the scientific basis of the Newtonianworld picture and called into question the very idea of an objective reality,relativity theory led to a radical reformulation of the entire framework of physicsand it also gave rise to Einstein’s epochal insight that of the equivalency of massand energy, which he expressed in the famous E=mc² equation. Out of this camean entirely new understanding of the nature of the material world. In this newvision of the world, as Fritjof Capra explains,47 Whitehead, Science and the modern world, 49.60

All particles can be transmuted into other particles; they can be createdfrom energy and vanish into energy. In this world, classical concepts like‘elementary particles,’ ‘material substance’ or ‘isolated object,’ have losttheir meaning. 48Because of Einstein’s insight into mass-energy equivalence, the notionthat the universe is comprised of a fundamental substance, that it is made up ofirreducible material particles in the form of atoms, had to be abandoned. Thisview is reinforced by quantum theory. Exploration of the subatomic world inquantum physics has thus far suggested that the basic constituents of matter arenot solid atoms, moving around in a mechanical billiard ball type motion, butquarks, leptons, and gauge bosons (according to the standard model of quantumphysics)—minute packets of energy that are complexly interconnected. Thephenomenon known as quantum entanglement has suggested that the elementaryparticles at the quantum level appear to possess a degree of interconnectednessthat goes far beyond the classical understanding of connections in space and time.Accordingly, the universe might now be conceived, Fritjof Capra suggests, as anunbroken web of relations composed of patterns of interconnections. It istherefore meaningless, we are told, to consider a subatomic particle in isolationfor it can only be understood in terms of its interaction with other systems. InCapra’s view:Quantum theory has demolished the classical concepts of solid objects andof strictly deterministic laws of nature. At the sub-atomic level, the solidmaterial objects of classical physics dissolve into wave-like patterns of48 Capra, Tao of physics, 90.61

probabilities, and these patterns, ultimately, do not represent probabilitiesof things, but rather probabilities of interconnections. 49The implications of modern physics for understanding the nature of reality areobviously profound. According to Capra, we are now faced with a world of“inseparable energy patterns” rather than a world of solid material objects. 50 Theidea of a simple causal chain of events linking one separate material body toanother has been replaced by the idea that existence is an undivided, interrelatedwhole. “Quantum theory forces us to see the universe,” Capra asserts, “not as acollection of physical objects, but rather as a complicated web of relationsbetween the various parts of a unified whole.” 51The Newtonian universe comprised of solid indestructible atoms has thusbeen succeeded by the incomparably more complex picture disclosed by quantumphysics and relativity theory. Although modern physics is far from arriving at anysettled conception or unified theory of the nature of reality, these new theorieshave radically deconstructed the old Newtonian world view. Interpreting thesignificance of these developments, Allan Combs and Mark Holland have gone asfar as to suggest that modern physics is in the process of giving birth to “a newmythos, a new topology of reality.” 52 “In quantum theory,” they continue, “we49 Ibid., 78.50 Capra, Tao of physics, 92.51 Ibid., 150.52 Combs and Holland, Synchronicity, xxx.62

ecover the view of the world as an unbroken fabric in which seemingly separateevents do not occur in isolation but, in fact, form pieces interwoven into a singletapestry.” 53Reformulating Astrological RelationshipsWith this in mind, we can now return to the question of planetaryinfluence. Astrologers, it is supposed, are unable to explain how a planet in thesolar system can causally affect human life on Earth. In visualizing this problem,we naturally think of two material bodies (the planet and the human being)existing separately in empty space, a vast distance apart. The causal influence wemight imagine in its crudest terms as some kind of force passing in a causal chainbetween the two unconnected physical objects, from the planet to the person.According to the view of reality that emerges from modern physics, however, wemust abandon this way of conceptualizing the problem for several reasons.First, a planet is not an independently existing material object. Whatappears to us as solid indestructible mass is actually capable of being convertedinto energy. Mass and energy are interconvertible. A physical mass, like that of aplanet, is better understood as a concentration of energy existing within the totalfield of energy of the entire universe. As David Bohm, discussing the nature ofatomic particles and their relationship to the surrounding energy field, explains:53 Ibid., xxxi.63

The field is continuous and indivisible. Particles are then to be regarded ascertain kinds of abstraction from the total field, corresponding to regionsof very intense field (called singularities). As the distance from thesingularity increases, the field gets weaker, until it merges imperceptiblywith the fields of other singularities. But nowhere is there a break ordivision. Thus, the classical idea of the separability of the world intodistinct but interacting parts is no longer valid or relevant. Rather, we haveto regard the universe as an undivided and unbroken whole. Division intoparticles, or into particles and fields, is only a crude abstraction andapproximation. Thus we come to an order that is radically different fromthat of Galileo and Newton—the order of undivided wholeness. 54Second, in this “order of undivided wholeness” material bodies are notisolated from the space around them. Planets and people are not absolutelyseparate; they both belong to the one undivided energy field of the universe.Physical objects do not exist in empty space or in a void; they exist, as Bohm putsit, in “an immense ocean of cosmic energy.” 55 What we think of as empty space isactually, he proposed, a continuous, unbroken field of energy.Third, according to modern field theory, we cannot draw an absolutedistinction between the classical concepts of force and matter. Forces betweenparticles of matter are, says Capra, linked to “the properties of other constituentsof matter.” 56 This means there is no clear demarcation between the particles thatmake up material objects and the force between interacting particles, because theforce is, confusingly, itself an interchange of particles. “Both force and matter,”54 Bohm, Wholeness and the implicate order, 124.55 Ibid., 244.56 Capra, Tao of physics, 92.64

Capra notes, “are now seen to have their common origin in the dynamic patternswhich we call particles.” 57To properly understand astrology, then, I believe we must abandon thepopular notion that planets causally influence human experience through physicalforces and instead base our understanding of astrological correlations on theholistic interconnected picture of the universe disclosed by quantum physics. Aswe will explore more fully in the next chapter when we discuss quantumnonlocality, holism, and systems theory, the astrological relationship betweenplanet and person should not be imagined as a force passing between twoseparately existing entities; rather, it might be better conceived as the result oftheir mutual participation in the patterned energy field and self-organizingdynamics of the cosmos.As part of a unified whole and a vast “dynamic web of inseparable energypatterns” the scientific observer and the phenomena being observed arethemselves inextricably related. 58 The view of the universe that has now emerged,first out of relativity theory, and later in cosmology, is, first, that allmeasurements of space and time are relative to the observer, and, second, thathuman beings are centered in their own perspectives with regard to the cosmos. Inastrology, the inescapable subjectivity of human experience is acknowledged bythe assumption of a geocentric, person-centered viewpoint—an Earth-basedperspective centered on individual human beings. Astrological charts are57 Ibid.58 Ibid.65

symbolic maps of human experience based on the actual physical vantage pointsof individual people, or the location of events. However, the validity of astrologydoes not depend on the geocentric model being objectively true. Indeed, bothKepler and Galileo were practicing astrologers and saw no contradiction betweenastrology and their commitment to a heliocentric universe. Moreover, although weknow the universe is not actually geocentric, phenomenologically speaking thegeocentric perspective remains valid in that, as cosmological evidence suggests,we are always inescapably centered in our viewpoints with regard to the universe.Ancient astronomers, as cosmologist Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams explain,“were wrong astronomically that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but theywere right psychologically: the universe must be viewed from the inside, from ourcentre, where we really are, and not from some perspective on the periphery oreven outside.” 59 This assertion reflects the ontological and cosmologicalcentering of the universe on individual human lives. As Primack and Abramspoint out, the universe centers on the human being in a number of remarkableways: human beings exist at the center of universal expansion; we are at thecenter of what they call the cosmic spheres of time; we are centered in the scale ofmagnitude of the universe; and we are each individually the center of our ownperspective looking out at the cosmos. Thus understood, the astrologicalperspective, which uses charts centered on specific individuals or locations onEarth, is actually in broad agreement with the modern cosmological conception ofan omnicentric universe—a universe of infinite centers. According to Brian59 Primack and Abrams, View from the center of the universe, 133.66

Swimme, modern cosmology has “discovered an omnicentric evolutionaryuniverse, a developing reality which from the beginning is centered upon itself ateach place of its existence . . . to be in existence is to be at the cosmic center ofthe complexifying whole.” 60 Centered in our own perspective, then, we live andbreathe here on Earth in the context, first and foremost, of our own solar system.For although the immense vistas disclosed by recent telescopic exploration ofspace now make astrology’s focus on the solar system seem decidedly provincial,it remains the case, of course, that the cycles of the planets in our solar systemdefine our immediate cosmological vicinity.Putting this together, we can see that in the light of modern physics theaccount of planetary influence as presented above requires radical revision. Thedeeper level of reality, revealed by subatomic physics, does not contain separatelyexisting material bodies situated in empty space, causally linked by forces.Instead, as we have seen, mechanistic cause and effect descriptions of reality mustbe seen within the context of a new vision of the universe as an unbrokenpatterned energy field. The cosmic machine built by Descartes, Newton, and theirsuccessors has been dismantled by modern physicists, and the strictlydeterministic model of the universe is now viewed as a theory with limitations, atheory that is useful in certain circumstances only. The linear-causal argumentsagainst astrology that once appeared so compelling are drawn from anunderstanding of the universe that has been shown to be limited, or eveninaccurate, and the grounds for the repudiation of astrology have therefore fallen60 Swimme, Hidden heart of the cosmos, 85–86.67

away. This is not to say, of course, that astrology must necessarily be accepted astrue; only that it is not reasonable to reject astrology because it is inexplicable interms of the mechanistic paradigm.We should be clear, as we proceed, that it is not essential to use relativitytheory or quantum physics to explain astrology; rather, it is just that theimplications of relativity theory and quantum physics undermine critiques ofastrology based on linear, deterministic causal models of planetary influence,which generally presuppose the Cartesian-Newtonian model of the universe thatinforms classical physics. Relativity theory and quantum physics disclose a verydifferent reality to the Cartesian-Newtonian view, and astrology must be seen inthe context of this new reality. Even though it cannot be fully explained in termsof the theories of post-Newtonian physics, however, these theories might providestarting points from which one might begin to explore the possible basis ofastrological correlations.In line with recent developments in modern physics, it seems possible thatthe relationships between the planets and human experience can be understoodnot in causal mechanistic terms, but rather as a form of non-causal or acausalcorrelation. Within quantum physics, the investigation of subatomic particles hasuncovered forms of relationship that defy causal explanations, as David Bohmnotes:It is an inference from the quantum theory that events that are separated inspace and are without possibility of connection through interaction are68

correlated, in a way that can be shown to be incapable of a detailed causalexplanation. 61It might be that the astrological relationship between the planets andhuman experience is actually acausal in that, although the astrological evidencesuggests there is some form of relationship, there appears to be no physical forceemitted by the planets causally influencing human experiences—no form oflinear, efficient causation passing from planets to people. Rather, it seemspossible that there is some kind of deeper connection, some kind of underlyingpattern inherent in the cosmos, that connects the celestial with the human order,and it is this underlying order that will be our concern here.Indeed, what we now typically understand by causality, in the modernscientific sense, is but a partial subset of a more comprehensive understanding ofcausation as originally set forth by Aristotle. Four basic types of cause wereoriginally identified: the material cause, which is the substance of whichsomething is composed; the efficient cause, which is the external agent that servesto initiate change (as in the case of one billiard ball striking another therebycausing it to move); the formal cause, which is the overall pattern or form thatguides the growth of an organism or flow of events; and the final cause, which isthe telos, aim, and purpose of an entity, event, or process. Of these, only the firsttwo are generally recognized in science, and the efficient cause is closest to whatwe now understand as causation. We should keep in mind, then, what might becategorized as acausal, as falling outside the limits of causal explanations, might61 Bohm, Wholeness and the implicate order, 129.69

include the philosophical ideas of both formal and final causation, and both theseare important for understanding astrological correlations. Indeed, as RichardTarnas points out, although the relationship between the physical planets andhuman experience might be considered acausal, there appears to be a form ofcomplex underlying causation between the planetary archetypes and humanexperience. He explains:While the physical planets themselves may bear only a synchronisticconnection with a given human experience, that experience is neverthelessbeing affected or caused—influenced, patterned, impelled, drawn forth—by the relevant planetary archetypes, and in this sense it is quiteappropriate to speak, for example, of Saturn (as archetype) ‘influencing’one in a specific way, or as ‘governing’ certain kinds of experience. 62Astrology and the Scientific MethodIt is not surprising that attempts to explain astrology in causal mechanisticterms have been unsuccessful. The inadequacy of causal explanations of planetaryinfluence meant that, for the most part, belief in astrology was eradicated,particularly among scientists and intellectuals who could see no rational basis forastrology because it seemed impossible that distant planetary bodies could haveany influence on human life on Earth. Meanwhile, logical positivism, thephilosophical movement based on the ideas of the so-called Vienna Circle in theearly twentieth century, had decreed all metaphysical speculation to bemeaningless because unverifiable. Instead, the positivists insisted that all inquiry62 Tarnas, Introduction to archetypal astrology.70

into truth and the nature of reality should be restricted to what can be investigatedin accordance with strict scientific method. Consequently, in academic philosophyquestions of language and its meaning now take precedence over metaphysicalspeculation. By the twentieth century, science and rational philosophy attemptedto demystify the world by insisting that only those propositions that could belogically deduced from their premises in accordance with the laws of logic, orexpressed in the form of a mathematical equation, or empirically proven inaccordance with the scientific method could be accepted as true. Astrology,clearly, did not fall into this category.In response to the challenge of science, and in accord with this positivisticethos, empirical evidence has been sought to establish statistically significantcorrelations between certain astrological variables and some of the more overtconditions of human life. Most famously, the Gauquelin studies investigated thecorrelation between planetary placements in individual birth charts (the planetsthat were “rising” on the Ascendant (the eastern horizon) or “culminating” on theMidheaven (the noon point overhead) and various professions). Revising hisearlier skepticism towards many aspects of astrology, in the 1990s Gauquelinstates:Having collected over 20,000 dates of birth of professional celebritiesfrom various European countries and the United States, I had to draw theunavoidable conclusion that the position of the planets at birth is linked toone’s destiny. 6363 Gauquelin, Neo-astrology, 24.71

However, despite the impressive results from Gauquelin’s research andindependent corroboration of the validity of the data from figures such as HansEysenck, the significance of these data has been downplayed, and, in the main,subsequent research studies of this kind have met with only limited success.Scientific recognition of the validity of astrology is scant. The vast majority ofresearch studies, employing a variety of different design methodologies, havefailed to provide enough widely accepted substantial scientific evidence tosupport astrology. The academic discipline of psychology, therefore, also flatlyrejects astrology’s truth-claims. Hence, considering the second category ofarguments against astrology, relating to empirical scientific evidence, it wouldseem that there is little to corroborate the assertion that the planetary positions andcycles have any significant correlation with the events and experiences of humanlife.Yet what most scientific researchers into astrology have failed tocomprehend and appreciate, I believe, is the essential nature of astrologicalcorrelations. For astrology, properly understood, is not concerned with predictionof specific events; nor do astrological symbols reveal the specific, concrete detailsof human life such as one’s career or one’s material circumstance. Rather,astrology is based, as we have seen, on the relationship between planetarypositions and the archetypal meaning of human experience; and it is because ofthe archetypal, multidimensional nature of astrological correlations that it eludesthe orthodox scientific method of investigation. That is, it is because astrology isconcerned with underlying thematic meanings and not with the prediction of72

specific, concrete events or the description of specific uniform character traits thatscientific tests are unsuitable, and that they are unable either to disprove or tovalidate astrological truth-claims.On this point, I must stress also that astrology cannot be tested objectivelywithout taking into consideration both the researcher and the subject underinvestigation because the discernment of astrological patterns of meaning isdependent, to a considerable extent, on a person’s capacity to recognize andcomprehend such meaning. The depth, accuracy, and subtlety of the perception ofastrological-archetypal themes in human experience are contingent on one’s owndepth of self-knowledge. The recognition and interpretation of astrologicalpatterns as they are expressed in human life is an art form, which, like every art,demands not only a certain natural aptitude but also years of devoted practice.One must cultivate the ability to think symbolically, to discern the underlyingarchetypal meaning within a great diversity of outward forms of expression.One’s depth of astrological-archetypal insight depends on one having a developedinner life and having acquired a feel for the different astrological principles. Onecan then relate to these principles not just intellectually, as one might learn fixedinterpretations from a textbook by rote, but instead one can get to know what eachprinciple feels like, emotionally and somatically, from having recognized theseprinciples in one's own life experience. For this there can be no substitute. Aprerequisite for a deep understanding of the workings of astrology, then, is thatone must first enter into the astrological perspective, immerse oneself in it. If oneis to discern archetypal meaning, one must develop a mode of perception that73

James Hillman calls the archetypal eye by which one can perceive universals andarchetypal themes within diverse concrete particulars. While it is obviouslyunnecessary for researchers who are validating astrology to develop a high levelof astrological competence themselves, it is essential that at the very leastresearch studies show awareness of the archetypal nature of astrologicalcorrelations. Tests involving randomly selected subjects and control groups drawnfrom the general population obviously fail to meet this criterion. It is for thisreason that, to the best of my knowledge, no scientific research has ever beenconducted that could either substantiate or disprove an archetypal interpretation ofastrology. 64Nevertheless, if astrologers do in fact make definite concrete predictionsof future events (as many do) then these deserve to be tested empirically, inaccordance with the scientific method. If astrologers posit the existence ofrelationships between astrological factors and specific careers, or particularinterests, or the success or otherwise of relationships, or claim to be able todetermine unchanging traits of personality, then these claims too should beempirically validated. Astrology, practiced in this way, should stand and fall bythe accuracy of its concrete predictions and the validity of its personalitydescriptions. But, regarding archetypal astrology specifically, how is one tomeasure and quantify archetypal meaning? Clearly, the empirical validation of64 See, for example, Astrology and Science, Research results, which provides asummary of ninety-one research studies, of various different types, published in fourdifferent journals: Correlations, APP, AinO, and Kosmos. A review of the abstractssuggests that none of the studies have shown sufficient appreciation of archetypalmultivalance and multidimensionality.74

archetypal astrology requires a far more sophisticated and nuanced method ofinquiry than is currently provided by either quantitative or qualitative researchstudies in psychology. That said, experts in particular fields (such as culturalhistory, the history of science, and religious studies) should in principle be able toadjudicate over claims made by astrological researchers into the character ofparticular periods defined by sets of world transits, although the negative imageof astrology might deter scholars from even undertaking evaluations of this kind.There are many factors that make scientific research into astrologyproblematic, although not impossible: the challenge of isolating singleastrological variables from the multitude of factors used in astrology; the sheerintricate, interconnected complexity of the astrological perspective, whichencompasses every dimension of human experience; the tendency for manyastrologers, themselves subject to the theoretical bias inherent in the modernworld view, to misconstrue the nature of astrological correlations and to make illfoundedand unjustifiable claims of a literal or predictive nature. Most significant,however, as Tarnas emphasizes, is the multivalent nature of the planetaryarchetypes—the fact that the planetary archetypes can manifest in such a greatdiversity of ways while still remaining consistent with a core archetypal meaning.For it is this inherent multivalence that makes it impossible to predictcorrespondences between astrological factors and the specific details of humanlife.To reiterate, the planetary archetypes, and indeed all astrological symbols,have the same general set of thematic meanings for all people, but they manifest75

differently in the specific details of every human life. This is the cause ofconsiderable misunderstanding of astrology. The case of so-called time twins—two people born at exactly the same time in the same location—has given rise tothe question as to why two such individuals often appear to be vastly differentfrom each other perhaps, for example, having completely different interests. Ifastrology is valid, the argument goes, then astrological twins must be very similaron all counts due to the fact that their birth charts will be identical. But, of course,having the same birth charts indicates only that the charts have the samearchetypal pattern, which can manifest in a wide diversity of ways while stillremaining consistent with the accepted astrological meanings of the planetaryrelationships within the chart. How each person expresses this pattern cannot bedetermined from the information in the astrological birth chart by itself. Asidefrom interpretive errors, this also accounts for why different astrologers givedifferent, yet perhaps equally valid, interpretations of the same charts.Astrological charts refer only to general archetypal meanings and not to thespecific, personal factors of life. This point cannot be overemphasized. As Tarnas,discussing the meaning of geometric planetary alignments or aspects between twoplanets, puts it:That a given natal aspect can express itself in a virtually limitless varietyof ways and yet consistently reflect the underlying nature of the relevantarchetypes is of course not only characteristic of all astrologicalcorrespondence but essential to it. Astrology is not concretely predictive.It is archetypally predictive. 6565 Tarnas, Prometheus the awakener, 20.76

This means the same astrological factor, while consistently conforming to anunderlying archetypal meaning, can manifest in radically different or evendiametrically opposite ways. The planetary archetypes are multidimensional andmultivalent creative principles, which, although thematically consistent, give riseto a potentially limitless range of forms of concrete expression. A Mars-Saturnplanetary aspect, for example, could manifest both as a pattern of defensiveaggression and retaliation or as an inability to express anger and to assert oneself;it could be present in the chart of the endurance athlete engaged in a punishingregime of physical training, or in the chart of someone for whom physical activityis impossible because of restrictive circumstance; it refers equally to the personwho has disciplined themselves to fight and be aggressive, and to the person whohas been conditioned not to fight and to refrain from aggressive behavior.Although, on the surface, the difference between these opposing forms ofexpression could not be more marked, on closer inspection we can see that theyall partake in a common archetypal meaning. Here we have the Mars principlepertaining to self-assertion, aggression, striving and struggle, fighting, physicalenergy, anger, and the warrior archetype, in combination with the Saturn principlerelating to restriction, limitation, concentrated pressure, discipline, structure,repression, fear, and a sense of inferiority. The person who trains to fight—whoactually accentuates and improves their ability to fight—is imposing disciplineand structure (Saturn) on the physical and aggressive energies (Mars). The personwho refuses (Saturn) to fight or show aggression and anger (Mars), althoughostensibly pursuing a totally opposite course, is similarly applying Saturnian77

discipline to their aggressive, assertive, energetic impulses. We can see, therefore,that both possibilities are archetypally consistent—that is, they both conform tothe underlying meaning of the Mars-Saturn planetary combination, and oftenmany of these seemingly opposing patterns of behavior are interchangeably orsimultaneously present, such is the dynamic complexity of an archetypal pairing.To recognize archetypal meaning in widely varying modes of expressionone often has to examine more deeply the underlying motivations behind patternsof behavior. In the case of the above Mars-Saturn example, one might find thatdefensive retaliation is a sign of fighting to protect one’s unacknowledgedweakness; physical training and muscular armoring may serve to bolster orconceal a fragile ego; the hard-edged disciplinarian, similarly, might be motivatedprimarily by fear. On the other hand, weak passivity may indicate the unconsciousrepression of anger; and pacifism—ruling out anger or violence because it isperceived as morally wrong or socially unacceptable—might cloak a deeper fearof facing and expressing anger. To uncover the underlying archetypal meanings ofour actions we have to discern just what our motivations are behind these actions.Astrology, in this way, encourages a greater depth of insight and understanding ofone’s nature, which, in time, can give rise to a penetrating self-knowledge—theprerequisite for psychospiritual development.With a proper recognition of the archetypal multivalence underlyingastrology, one can see that it is perfectly possible for two astrologers to givedifferent interpretations of the same planetary configuration that are equally validin that they both coherently reflect the underlying archetypal meanings of the78

planets involved. Tarnas himself gives many examples of this multivalence atwork in Cosmos and Psyche, and this is one of the distinctive theoreticalcontributions of his work. A statistical analysis of astrologers’ interpretations thatfails to take into account the archetypal nature of the planetary alignments will beinadequate, noticing only surface differences rather than the underlying themesconnecting ostensibly dissimilar behavior patterns. As Tarnas stresses, to properlyunderstand and assess astrological correlations one must cultivate “theimaginative intelligence . . . that is capable of recognizing and discriminating therich multiplicity of archetypal patterns” in both individual biography and worldhistory. 66 * * *To sum up, then, if mechanistic determinism is not universally applicable,if there are other types of interconnection between phenomena that appear tocoexist with linear causality, then it is possible that astrology and scientificdeterminism are simultaneously valid. Indeed, archetypal correlations seem tocoherently coexist with linear causality in a way that calls into question the notionthat all things might be explained in term of prior efficient causes. As we will seein the coming chapters, from an archetypal perspective astrology does not actuallycontradict deterministic explanations; nor does a belief in astrology impinge onthe freedom of the human will. Rather, astrology offers us another perspectivethat supplements causal-determinism; it provides a larger and deeper frame of66 Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 70.79

eference, a background context of archetypal meaning that helps to illuminatecausal factors and scientific explanations, and to inform our acts of will andconscious decisions. Causal determinism and the astrological-archetypalperspective are not mutually exclusive or competing theories butcomplementary—each illuminates and augments the other.The dominant scientific understanding of human nature represents onlyone particular way of looking at things. The scientific view is partial and muchhas been left out of the picture. Like an extremely focused narrow searchlight,science has brilliantly illuminated certain features of reality, but in so doing it hasexcluded from view vast dimensions of reality lying outside of the illuminatedregion. In the chapters to follow, we will see that the astrological-archetypalperspective provides a compensatory wide-lens view, as it were, an holisticperspective that seeks to understand human life in terms of the interiorsignificance of our place within, and relationship to, the whole solar system. Andastrology also provides a deeper view—an X-ray photograph, if you like—of theunderlying archetypal factors pervading human experience. Thus, whether wewish to point to acts of will, genetic heredity, circumstance, or childhoodexperiences as prior determining factors behind human experience, subsuming allthese factors is the deeper framework of archetypal meanings revealed by theastrological perspective.With respect to the planetary archetypes in astrology, we are not dealingwith one-dimensional causal factors that can be predicted to correlate with certainevents, or actions, or forms of behavior; we seem to be faced, rather, with creative80

living powers, autonomous principles rooted deep in the structure of reality itself.These creative archetypal principles are not mechanically and rigidlydeterministic but, as living processes, they manifest uniquely in each lifeexperience, they are expressed differently by different people, they vary accordingto context and circumstance, and also according to the degree of human selfawareness.We can think of the planetary archetypes as being analogous to theOlympian gods of ancient Greece. And just as we would not expect to be able topredict and control, to isolate and dissect, or to measure and quantify the actionsof gods, so the archetypal principles in astrology similarly transcend the narrowmethodological framework employed in empirical testing. The potential value andvalidity of the astrological perspective cannot be revealed to the clinical gaze andaustere analysis of positivistic science.81

Chapter ThreeThe Underlying Cosmic PatternThe most obvious and the most fundamental fact about astrology is that itis based on the planetary order of our solar system, an order that has been studiedand described by the modern science of astronomy. But in astrology, as we know,the planetary relationships and cycles are ascribed far more than a physical,astronomical meaning; they are also understood to reflect and symbolize thearchetypal meanings evident in human experience. But what is the justification forthis? How can it be that the order of the solar system and the positions of theplanets can bear any relationship to the archetypal themes that have informedhuman civilization through the ages? If astrology is to be considered a validcosmological perspective, it is imperative that we can envisage and articulate, asclearly as possible, the likely basis of the purported astrological relationshipbetween the planetary bodies and human experience. In this chapter, by drawingon the insights of the modern physics and systems theory, we will attempt to dojust this.Holism and OrganicismIf there is one principle and idea that unites all the new paradigmperspectives that have emerged throughout the last century it is that they all throw82

down a radical challenge to the hegemony of mechanistic science. 67 Many ofthose thinkers dissatisfied with the mechanistic paradigm have turned instead toan alternative approach, based not on the machine as the foundational model forunderstanding, but on the living organism. In a single stroke, this shift oftheoretical paradigm can, as we will now see, bring a new intelligibility to theastrological perspective.According to the view of reality emerging from the new paradigmsciences, there is a fundamental unity between all existent things in the universe.All apparently separate and distinct entities are situated within a larger undividedwhole—they exist within a single, unified energy field. Atoms, molecules,inanimate objects, plants, animals, people, and even entire planets are not justseparately existing entities bearing no relation to each other; they are all relatedparts of one universal whole. The notion of isolated solid material objects existingin empty space is, as we saw in the previous chapter, something of an illusion, formass can be transformed into energy, and empty space is not really empty but fullof energy. The absolute distinction between objects and what is thought of asempty space appears to be an abstraction from the actual reality, for nowhere inthe total energy field of the universe is there an absolute boundary between anobject and the field. The universe is an unbroken whole and it might therefore beapproached through the theoretical paradigm known as holism.67 Two of the more well known and significant critiques of mechanism, providedby Lewis Mumford, Myth of the machine, and Carolyn Merchant, Death of nature, havebrought attention to the detrimental or even catastrophic consequences of the mechanisticparadigm for nature and the environment, not to mention for human spiritual andpsychological well-being.83

Holistic theories of the universe focus first and foremost on the largercontaining unity within which all separate and diverse individual things exist.Such theories are based on the well-known axiom that the whole is greater thanthe sum of the parts, on the supposition that we can only properly understandsomething by considering it as a whole. Guided by the belief in the essentialintegrity and irreducible nature of living wholes, holism, in this sense, is theopposite of atomistic reductionism, a methodology and theoretical paradigm inwhich the object of investigation is broken down into its smallest constituentparts. In atomism, explanations are then formulated solely in terms of theseisolated parts without considering the larger context in which they exist. Bothwithin science and in the wider culture, atomistic reductionism has beenextremely influential and valuable, and it remains so, shaping the modernunderstanding of ourselves and the cosmos. In the wake of the discoveries ofmodern physics, however, scientists are now recognizing that atomism and holismare not mutually exclusive; they are not rival theories, but complementary (ifsometimes antagonistic) models through which we can understand the universe.Whereas the atomistic approach is highly compatible with mechanisticdeterminism, holistic models are more clearly related to the organismicparadigm—to theoretical models based on living organisms. Utilizing thetheoretical paradigm of organicism, we can, rather than seeking to understand themechanical operation of the universe in terms of separate interacting parts, insteadconsider the universe as one enormous living organism. From the organicistperspective, the universe is seen as being fundamentally alive. Even supposedly84

inert matter is understood to be part of a living universe that is pulsating with lifein its every constituent molecule and atom. This view, which has long beenintuitively envisioned by Romantic poets and artists, is not mere poetic license forit was in fact essential to the Renaissance world view, to Aristotelian scholasticthought influential before the rise of the mechanistic world view, and to thephilosophy of animism (or panpsychism), which has been propounded in differentforms by such thinkers as Empedocles, Plotinus, Leibniz, and Schopenhauer. 68 Aview of nature as an organic whole incorporating the human mind was alsointrinsic to the nineteenth century Naturphilosophie that developed out of theideas of Goethe and others. Recently, a new organicism, as it has been called, isnow finding support from some contemporary scientific theories in physics,cosmology, and biology. And although mechanism and atomism remain thedominant theoretical paradigms in science, organicism is actually far morecompatible with the modern evolutionary view of reality. The most cogentphilosophical presentation of the organicist perspective is given by Alfred NorthWhitehead, who suggests that the evolutionary understanding of the universe“cries aloud for a conception of organism as fundamental for nature.” 69 “The fieldis now open,” Whitehead declares, “for the introduction of some new doctrine ofthe organism which may take the place of the materialism, with which, since theseventeenth century, science has saddled philosophy.” 7068 See Flew, Dictionary of philosophy, 14 and 261.69 Whitehead, Science and the modern world, 107.70 Ibid., 36.85

Mechanistic determinism and materialism are often uncritically assumedto go hand in hand with rationality, as if these theoretical approaches provide uswith a truly rational understanding of the nature of reality and that alternativeparadigms, such as organicism, must therefore be irrational. However, it hasbecome increasingly clear that the supposed rationality and reason that informsthe modern scientific enterprise is actually based, as Edgar Morin notes, on amyopic “intelligence that is fragmented, compartmentalized, mechanistic,disjunctive, and reductionistic,” and which “breaks the complexity of the worldinto disjointed pieces” and “excludes all contradiction as absurdity.” 71 Bycontrast, Morin explains,True rationality is open and enters into dialogue with a reality that resistsit. It shuttles incessantly between the logical and the empirical. It is thefruit of the considered debate of ideas and not the property of a system ofideas. A reason that ignores living beings, subjectivity, emotions, and lifeis irrational. One must make room for myth, feeling, love, and regret, andconsider them rationally. True rationality knows the limits of logic, ofdeterminism and mechanism; it knows that the human mind is notomniscient and recognizes the mystery of reality. 72Thus, not only should rationality not be exclusively associated with mechanisticmaterialism but it is, in certain respects, antagonistic to this perspective.Organicism has at least equal claims to reason.Indeed, while it might initially seem quite unusual to view the universe asa living organism, and although it demands an imaginative exertion on our part, it71 Morin, Homeland Earth, 129.72 Ibid.86

does, in fact, actually make more sense to use the paradigm of a living systemthan it does to use the mechanistic paradigm. Since no part of nature actuallyfunctions entirely like a machine (even if there are certain operations that can beviewed in these terms), the mechanistic model, utilized in much of modernscience, is alien to the natural world and does not seem to reflect the way theuniverse really is. The organismic model, in contrast, more closely resemblesnature’s own designs. As an indivisible whole the cosmos appears to be more akinto a living organism than to a giant cosmic machine and it might therefore bemore faithfully represented and accurately understood using the theoretical modelof a living system.This change of model, from the mechanistic to the organismic-holisticperspective, is, in itself, of enormous consequence. Our conception of theuniverse is profoundly altered if we consider it holistically, as a living system,rather than as a meaningless body of inert matter with a machine-like operation.Human beings can then be seen as integral parts of a larger cosmic organism, asvital components of the living cosmos. We are not, in this view, just inhabitants ofa random universe, blindly moved by mechanical forces; rather, we are intimatelyconnected parts of a larger organic whole.The Systems View of the CosmosThe organismic-holistic view of reality is fundamental to the theoreticalapproach known as systems theory, which, as Fritjof Capra explains, “looks at the87

world in terms of the interrelatedness and interdependence of all phenomena.” 73 Insystems theory, he continues, “an integrated whole whose properties cannot bereduced to those of its parts is called a system.” 74 Originally devised in the 1930sand 1940s, systems theory has recently emerged in biology as an importantalternative paradigm to the dominant atomistic and mechanistic approachemployed in the study of biological life, and has also been used in other areassuch as physics, gestalt psychology, sociology, ecology, and medicine. It isordinarily applied to the study of living organisms, from simple cells and bacteriathrough to larger living systems like animals and humans, but Capra, amongothers, argues that it can justifiably be applied to other wholes such asecosystems, chemical systems, and even to non-organic wholes such as socialsystems. Indeed, in line with the organismic paradigm, some theorists suggest thateven the universe at large might also be conceptualized as a vast living systemthat can be analyzed and explicated using systems theory. Following this lead, byapplying the theoretical concepts of systems theory to the solar system and theuniverse as a whole, I will attempt to present an understanding of astrology interms of systems concepts, which I hope might provide insight into the underlyingprinciple of meaningful cosmological order on which astrology is based. I believeit is possible to use Capra’s approach to systems theory to understand not only thematerial structure and organization of the solar system, but also in its interiorstructure and organization, encompassing human consciousness, culture, and73 Capra, Turning point, 26.74 Ibid.88

civilization—indeed Capra has developed his understanding of the centralconcepts of systems theory to incorporate mind, consciousness, meaning, andinteriority. As we will see, Capra also speculatively discusses systems concepts inrelation to the possible existence of an interior dimension of the Earth and eventhe universe at large. By applying this approach to the solar system, therefore, itshould be possible to speculatively explore the relationship between the structuralform of the solar system and the interior world of meaning revealed in humanexperience—a relationship that is, of course, fundamental to astrology. Thisendeavor might enable us to bring together two different theoretical categories ofunderstanding: material, astronomical, exterior, on the one hand, andpsychological, archetypal, interior, on the other.Capra’s understanding of systems theory, which is set forth in The Web ofLife, The Turning Point, and Hidden Connections, draws especially on the ideasof the influential systems theorists Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturano, andFrancisco Varela, as well as Ilya Prigogine’s work into dissipative structures. Ofcentral importance to Capra’s systems view, and applicable to all types ofsystems, are the three fundamental concepts of pattern, structure, and process.Beginning with pattern, let us consider each of these in turn, and consider howthey might be applied to the solar system.PatternIt is surely more than coincidence that both modern physicists and systemstheorists are placing increasing emphasis on the importance of pattern. As we89

egan to explore in the last chapter, modern physics deals with a universecomposed of inseparable energy patterns. Leading physicists such as WernerHeisenberg, one of the founders of quantum physics, postulate that reality is madeup not of atomic particles, as was once thought, but rather of patterns described as“abstract symmetries.” 75 Modern physicists have uncovered an underlying level ofreality, a deeper supersensible order, permeated by patterns of interconnection.Pattern is now considered to be a fundamental attribute of the ultimate nature ofreality beyond the world of the senses.In systems theory, similarly, pattern is recognized as a fundamentalconstituent or dimension of every type of system. Pattern is a system’s capacityfor dynamic self-organization. “The pattern of organization of any system livingor nonliving,” according to Capra’s definition, “is the configuration ofrelationships among the system’s components that determines the system’sessential characteristics.” 76 The pattern of a system is the form that makessomething what it is. Put another way, we can say that the defining characteristicsof any physical organism are given by the pattern of relationships between itsparts. Now, if we apply this definition of pattern to the solar system—if we viewthe solar system holistically, as an organismic system—we can see that theprimary components of the solar system are the Sun, its central star; the planetarybodies from Mercury and Venus to Uranus and Neptune; Pluto and the newlydiscovered plutoid Eris, as well as the other dwarf planets (including Sedna and75 Peat, Synchronicity, 94.76 Capra, Web of life, 158.90

Ceres), the planetary moons, and the asteroids. The pattern of the solar system istherefore given by the relationships between these celestial components. We seethat the various planetary bodies are organized in a certain way such that theyhave a specific velocity of orbit and distance from the Sun and from each other;we see also that they are situated in a certain order within the solar system; andwe can see that at any given moment in time these planetary bodies form certainangular relationships with each other. Jupiter, for example, is closer to the Earththan Saturn, and Mars closer than Jupiter; Uranus, we know, takes 84.01 years tocomplete its orbit around the Sun, whereas Venus takes only 224.7 days; and, atthe time of writing (summer 2006), Saturn and Neptune are approximately 180ºapart, whereas Jupiter and Uranus are approximately 120º apart. Viewed as awhole, then, on their various cycles and positioned in various geometricalignments with each other as seen from Earth, the planets together form a singledynamic pattern.Such a pattern, although one might not have thought of it quite in this waybefore, is easy to imagine for it is similar in kind to the patterns of stars that wecall constellations. Beyond this simple recognition of a physical planetary pattern,however, by using systems theory a further inference can be made: The planetaryorder can actually be understood as an expression of an underlying principle ofself-organization inherent within the solar system. The perceived planetary order,in other words, can be conceived as the manifest form of an inherent orderingprinciple that determines the relationships between the Sun, the Moon, theplanets, and the asteroids. This planetary arrangement within the solar system is91

not, from this perspective, just the result of gravitational forces between theplanetary bodies or the curvature of space-time; it is the expression of the selforganizingcapacity of the solar system. This means that the physical structure ofthe solar system does not determine its pattern but is itself the result of and theexpression of an intrinsic yet hidden capacity for order and self-organization thatis present within that system.The concept of pattern appears to be closely related to the phenomena ofcoherence and correlation, which systems theorist Ervin Laszlo identifies as twoof the principal anomalies in cosmology and quantum physics challenging thedominance of mechanistic paradigms in these disciplines. According to Laszlo,the cosmic capacity for coherence manifests as “a quasi-instant tuning together ofthe parts or elements of a system, whether that system is an atom, an organism, ora galaxy.” 77 By focusing on the meaningful correlations identified in astrology, Ibelieve we are concerning ourselves with one such pattern of coherence evident inthe solar system and human experience, which may itself be part of a largerconnecting pattern of coherence pertaining to the entire cosmos. Such an allembracingpattern, as Gregory Bateson suggests, might be termed a meta-pattern.“The pattern which connects,” Bateson stipulated, “is a metapattern. It is apattern of patterns. It is that metapattern which defines the vast generalisation77 Laszlo, Science and the akashic field, 25. Among the anomalous coherencesand correlations discussed by Laszlo are the “coherence of some cosmic ratios,” the“fine-tuning of universal constants,” and the “uniformity of micro-structures throughoutcosmic space” (Ibid., 27–29).92

that, indeed, it is patterns which connect.” 78 This meta-pattern, from the systemsperspective, might be viewed as an expression of the self-organizing capacity ofthe cosmos, subsuming the patterns of all the systems within it.In astrology, of course, the understanding of the significance of the patternof planetary bodies is of an entirely different category to that ordinarilyrecognized in systems theory or in physics and cosmology. Whereas systemstheory usually focuses on physical patterns of organization or the dynamicorganization of social groups, for instance, the astrological perspective recognizesa metaphysical order and pattern of archetypal meanings pervading the whole ofexistence. It will be a primary focus of the following chapters, therefore, tosuggest how the systems concept of pattern extends into interior experience andthe realm of meaning such that it can be viably connected to the pattern ofarchetypal meanings studied in astrology.Besides Aristotle, there are a number of important antecedents andparallels to the systems idea of a cosmic pattern of self-organization in bothpremodern and non-Western conceptions of the nature of reality. In the pre-Socratic philosophy of ancient Greece, for example, growing out of the earliermythic world view, there emerged a cosmological vision bearing strikingsimilarities to the systems model. Most notably, in the sixth century BCE theMilesian philosopher Anaximander conceived of a living, self-moving universeconsisting of three distinguishable features: the primary living stuff of existence(physis); an order or form into which this material is distributed; and the process78 Bateson, Mind and nature, 11.93

y which this order came into being—a conception that anticipates theclassification in systems terminology into structure, pattern, and process,respectively. 79 The so-called doctrine of the sympathy of all things, developed bythe Stoic philosophers, including Chrysippus (280–207 BCE) and Poseidonius(135–50 BCE), is also based on the recognition that the cosmos is aninterconnected, interdependent whole in which all the parts resonate together in aharmonious “sympathy” of meaningful correspondences. Centuries later duringthe Renaissance, inspired by the ancient Greeks, a host of Hermetic philosophers,alchemists, Neoplatonic scholars, and naturalists including Paracelsus, Ficino,Pico della Mirandola, Aggripa, and Giordano Bruno contributed in different waysto a common vision of the universe as a living, feeling organism in which everypart was joined together with every other part by the force of mutual attraction orlove. Neoplatonic philosophers believed that the world was animated and orderedby an anima mundi, a world soul, which acted upon matter through the medium ofthe spiritus mundi, the world spirit.Chinese cosmology, too, places great emphasis on the idea that there is anunderlying pattern of organization inherent in the structure of reality, a patternthat is the basis of symbolic correspondences between the various interrelatedparts of a single cosmic or world organism. Joseph Needham explains:The key-word in Chinese thought is order and above all pattern . . . thesymbolic correlations or correspondences all formed part of one colossalpattern. Things behaved in particular ways not necessarily because of prior79 See Cornford, From religion to philosophy, 9.94

actions or impulsions of other things, but because their position in theever-moving cyclical universe was such that they were endowed withintrinsic natures which made their behaviour inevitable for them . . . Theywere thus parts in existential dependence upon the whole world-organism.And they reacted upon one another not so much by mechanical impulsionor causation as by a kind of mysterious resonance. 80Whereas in the modern West, there has been a pronounced emphasis on atomismand analytic reductionism, a modus operandi that tends to fragment experienceand to reduce phenomena to their simplest component parts, the traditionalChinese way, by contrast, is always to consider the pattern of the whole and therelationships between seemingly disparate, unconnected occurrences andphenomena. Indeed, the central idea of traditional Chinese philosophy is, as JohnClarke notes, “that the world of nature, in which man is an integral part, is not arandom or mindless collection of events but is linked together by some kind ofhidden pattern of significance.” 81Similarly, in India, some forms of Hindu philosophy embrace the idea thatthe universe is ordered and related by underlying interconnections. In theUpanishads, for example, the word Upanishad itself means connection orequivalence, and implies an ordered hierarchy within the cosmos. PatrickOlivelle, in his introduction to the text, explains,The assumption then is that the universe constitutes a web of relations,that things that appear to stand alone and apart, are, in fact, connected to80 Needham, Science and civilization in China, 281.81 Clarke, Jung and Eastern thought, 99.95

other things. A further assumption is that these real cosmic connectionsare usually hidden from the view of ordinary people. 82Likewise, the Bhagavad Gita, in the words of Simon Brodbeck, “follows atradition of analysing the human individual and the cosmos as a whole under thesame structural pattern, drawing correspondences between the microcosm and themacrocosm.” 83In emphasizing the importance of pattern, then, modern systems theoristsand physicists are actually restating a truth that is deemed to be self-evident insome Asian philosophies: namely, that to understand life we must consider notonly empirically observable and quantifiable phenomena but also the far moreelusive, implicit underlying order, an order through which even apparentlyunconnected elements of the cosmos are related.Of course, there are substantial differences between how pattern isunderstood in both modern physics and systems theory compared to Easternphilosophy and premodern world views. However, if the systemic model isapplied to the solar system or even to the universe at large then we might, as Ihope to demonstrate, legitimately entertain the idea that the pattern of selforganizationof these systems is akin both to the underlying order recognized inthe aforementioned Eastern philosophies and to the planetary and archetypalpatterning recognized in astrology.82 Olivelle, Introduction to Upanishads, lii.83 Brodbeck, Introduction to Bhagavad gita, xxii.96

Indeed, by Capra’s definition, pattern is related to quality, form, and order.Therefore, it seems feasible that the pattern of the solar system, which pertains toall forms of life within this system, could be related to the formal ordering factorsand meaningful qualitative relationships between the planetary bodies studied inastrology. While using systems theory in this way deviates somewhat fromCapra’s own application of systems ideas, in general terms it remains consistentwith his definitions of systems concepts and also with his speculations, which wewill later consider, on the possibility of the existence of a cosmic mind.StructureThe second main feature of a self-organizing system is its structure.Whereas pattern is the intelligible form of self-organization of a system, structureis the physical manifestation of this form. “The structure of a system,” accordingto Capra, “is the physical embodiment of its pattern of organization.” 84 Thestructure of a living system, then, is derived from and is based on its pattern.However, Capra explains that whereas pattern refers to form, order, and quality,structure refers to substance, matter, and quantity. The structure of the solarsystem is the manifest physical reality, the concrete material substance, which wesee and in which we live, encompassing the planetary system, the planet Earthand its biosphere, and all forms of material existence on Earth. Structure is the“stuff” of existence. While the planets are the most significant physical structuresof the solar system, all life in the solar system, including human life, is, from a84 Capra, Web of life, 154.97

systems perspective, the result of the process of the structural embodiment ofpattern. This self-organizing dynamic maintains the characteristic order of thesolar system, and determines the relationship between all parts, such that each partexists in its proper relationship to the whole and to all other parts. Human beingsare themselves parts of this order. They are relatively autonomous living systemswithin the larger inclusive systems of the solar system, our galaxy, and the entireuniverse.In any system larger wholes consist of component parts, which are alsowhole systems themselves. The smaller wholes are nested within the largerwholes in what has been called the stratified order of nature. Capra explains:The tendency of living systems to form multi-leveled structures whoselevels differ in their complexity is all-pervasive throughout nature and hasto be seen as a basic principle of self-organization. At each level ofcomplexity we encounter systems that are integrated, self-organizingwholes consisting of smaller parts and, at the same time, acting as parts oflarger wholes. 85According to the systems view, the solar system consists of a multi-leveledstructure of nested systems all conforming to an inherent pattern of selforganization.The structure of the solar system is a hierarchical or holarchicalorder of wholes. 86 Cosmologist Brian Swimme and anthropologist Thomas Berry,in The Universe Story, their account of the epic tale of evolution, describe this85 Capra, Turning point, 303.86 For a definition of the term holarchical see n. 91 on holons.98

vision of a self-organizing universe or, to use the technical term, a universegoverned by autopoiesis:From autocatalytic chemical processes to cells, from living bodies togalaxies, we find a universe with structures exhibiting self-organizingdynamics. The self that is referred to by autopoiesis is not visible to theeye. Only its effects can be discerned. The self or identity of a tree or anelephant or a human is a reality immediately recognized by intelligence,even if invisible to senses. The unifying principle of an organism as amode of being of the organism is integral with but distinct from the entirerange of physical components of the organism. It is the source of itsspontaneity, its self-manifesting power. 87The “self,” as Swimme and Berry imply here, is an intelligent ordering principlethat lies behind the form of an organism, behind the pattern inherent withinmaterial structure. And whereas pattern itself is visible, the “self” responsible for,and giving rise to, the organizing pattern is not. They continue:Living beings and such ecosystems as the tropical forests or the coral reefsare the chief exemplars of the self-organizing dynamics, but with the termautopoiesis we wish to point not just to living beings, but to selforganizingpowers in general. Autopoiesis refers to the power each thinghas to participate directly in the cosmos-creating endeavor. 88By way of example, Swimme and Berry describe the autopoiesis (selforganization)of a star and of an atom. They add that “a galaxy, too, is anautopoietic system, organizing its stars into a nonequilibrium process and drawing87 Berry and Swimme, Universe story, 75.88 Ibid.99

forth new stars from its interstellar materials.” 89 Pattern or self-organization, inthis sense, is just as pivotal to the modern cosmological perspective as it is tobiology and to the modeling of living systems. Indeed, according to biologistRupert Sheldrake, “in the light of the new cosmology, physics is . . . the study ofthe all-embracing cosmic organism, and of the galactic, stellar and planetaryorganisms which have come into being within it.” 90 While our solar system wouldnot ordinarily be considered to be an autopoietic system in its own right, it mightbe conceptualized, I believe, as part of the self-organizing dynamics governingour galaxy and the universe as a whole.The universe, then, is comprised of innumerable smaller systems we callgalaxies, which are in turn made up of solar systems. Within our own solar systemare the Earth and the other planets. The Earth itself, which James Lovelockconceives as Gaia, a living planet, is comprised of even smaller systems—ofecosystems, of plant and animal life, for example—which are themselvescomprised of various tissues and still smaller cellular wholes. This is the stratifiedorder of nature, a hierarchical or multi-leveled view of life within the universewithin which human beings are subject to, and influenced by, changes in the89 Ibid.90 Sheldrake, Presence of the past, 55.100

larger systems to which they belong. 91 Within the holarchical systems vision ofthe universe, human beings are seen as embedded parts of the solar system and ofthe larger cosmic organism. Human life does not exist in isolation in ameaningless universe but, within the stratified order of nature, is naturally relatedto cosmic processes, to the cycles of change of transformation in the largersystems in which it is situated. And although these processes of change andcosmological dynamics are normally understood in entirely physical terms, Ipropose that they also have an interior significance, which might be disclosed inpart through the study of astrological correlations.ProcessThe third main feature of a system is process. According to systemstheory, the physical structure of a system is a result of the process of thematerialization of its underlying pattern of organization. “The process of life,”Capra states, “is the activity involved in the continual embodiment of the system’s91 Arthur Koestler suggested the term holon to describe the fact that all systemsare relatively autonomous wholes but also parts of larger wholes. Koestler, Ghost in themachine. As such, human beings are themselves holons; they are relatively autonomous,independent beings, but they are also parts in the larger organic systems in which theyexist. The concept of the holon is also important to the ideas of integral theorist KenWilber. See Wilber, Sex, ecology, spirituality. Such a holarchical conception of realityhas also been articulated by Dane Rudhyar in relation to astrology. “Astrology,” Rudhyarstates, “.appears as a symbolic language in which the structure of space and time of largerwholes (like the solar system) is related to the structural development of lesser wholes (anindividual person, or humanity-as-a-whole). Astrology is . . . the practical application of aholistic philosophical approach to existence.” Rudhyar, Birth patterns for a newhumanity,35.101

pattern of organization.” 92 Process is the link between pattern and structure. Thus,from the systems perspective of the solar system, there is an ongoing process bywhich the material structure of the solar system (and indeed the entire universe) iscreated and sustained according to its intrinsic pattern of organization. Thisprocess produces the innumerable manifestations of life in the cosmos. And thisprocess is informed by and in accordance with the underlying pattern oforganization. In this view, macrocosmic patterns in the universe—formed bygalaxy clusters, galaxies, stars, solar systems, planets—reflect a principle of orderthat applies to all levels and manifestations of the life process from galaxies andsolar systems themselves, to individual beings and plant life, through to cellularsystems and the subatomic world.From an organicist perspective, as exemplified by Whitehead’s processphilosophy, what is primary and ultimately real are not material structures, oratoms and molecules, or protons and electrons, since these entities are onlyabstractions from the processes that combine to form the events we experience.To attribute independent existence to any entity—to imagine it as existingseparately in its own definite region of space and time—is to fall into whatWhitehead calls the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” 93 It is to attributesubstantial reality to that which can only be independently conceived by an act ofintellectual abstraction. Rather, for Whitehead, as for the modern physicists, “the92 Capra, Web of life, 159.93 Whitehead, Science and the modern world, 50–51.102

eality is the process.” 94 If we are to gain a better understanding of this process,however, we will need to direct our attention not simply to the manifest structureitself, which is the momentary end point of process, but beneath the surface ofthings, to the implicate, quantum dimensions of reality, and to the underlyingprocesses that give rise to the resultant structure. With regard to the solar systemparticularly, we must direct our attention to the unseen processes that, guided bypattern, continually give rise to the structure we observe in the planetary bodies,and in their movements and changing relationships. In so doing, we are making atheoretical leap from physical systems to metaphysical systems. We areconcerning ourselves not just with the physical planetary order but with the entiremultidimensional spectrum of experiences, processes, and events that take withinthe solar system. Furthermore, if we are to understand the autopoiesis, or selfmaking,of the universe at large, we must concern ourselves not only with itsemergence in linear time but with the processes that actually create the experienceof space-time from moment to moment. And if we are to make sense ofastrological correlations using systems concepts, we must also try to understandhow this process of self-making relates to the interior world of meaning and thearchetypal categories of the human psyche.In more general terms, the idea that reality is some form of process isfundamental to widely varying theoretical formulations in many different fields,such as philosophy, religion, history, and transpersonal psychology. A processorientedperspective, emphasizing the dynamic ever-changing nature of things, is94 Ibid., 72.103

at the heart of Taoist philosophy in China and also of the ancient Greekphilosopher Heraclitus’s recognition that the universe is in a constant state of flux.In the modern West, a form of process philosophy was advanced by Hegel,writing in the early nineteenth century, who was the first to advance a dynamicview of philosophy—to see philosophy and world views from a historicalperspective within the context of an evolving world and universe. For Hegel, theuniverse was to be conceived as a unitary organism and its very existence was aresult of the universal Spirit’s quest for conscious self-realization in and throughhuman history and culture.In more recent formulations, we have already seen that modern physicsconceives of reality as a dynamic patterned energy process, and the evolutionarynature of this process, both at the organismic and cosmological levels, has beenarticulated in biology and cosmology respectively. The evolutionary process hasbeen conceived as “a progression from multiplicity and chaos to oneness andorder” 95 (Laszlo), as a “creative reaching out into novelty” 96 (Capra), as the“inexorable emergence of higher organization from matter to life to humankind”and “the unfolding of a hidden divinity” 97 (Michael Murphy). This process hasalso been conceived using different spatial metaphors: as linear, an evolutionaryascent moving towards some predetermined endpoint; as cyclical, manifesting95 Laszlo, Systems view of the world, 51.96 Capra, Turning point, 285.97 Murphy, On evolution and transformative practice, 53–61.104

through repeating cycles of change; or as spiraling, combining the notion of alinear progression with that of cyclical patterns of recurrence.Despite the substantial differences between all these perspectives, theyagree on one fundamental point: the process of life is connected with a directedmovement of some kind. Certain of these process oriented perspectives alsorecognize that this movement is impelled, drawn forth, and informed by certaindiscernible principles or dynamics, such as the dialectic (Hegel), or formalcausation (Aristotle), or archetypal culture cycles (Spengler, Toynbee, Sorokin,Sri Aurobindo), or deep structures of consciousness (Gebser, Wilber), or certainrecurring characteristics such as “personalization” and “amorization” (Teilhard deChardin), or as the expression of discernible “cosmological powers” (Swimme).According to evolutionary systems theory, as articulated by Erich Jantsch andothers, process is governed by, in Janstch’s words, “self-referential dynamics”and “homologous principles” that apply to every form of system such that everylevel of life conforms to the same general dynamics of growth. 98 A similarposition is also advanced in Russian thinker Alexander Bogdanov’s tektology,which attempts to describe the tendencies and laws in the modes of organizationevident across all levels of nature. 99While these ideas might be only analogous to, or approximations to,Capra’s definition of process and its usual application to living systems or socialsystems, I believe the application of the systems theory model to the solar system98 See Jantsch, Self-organizing universe.99 See Capra, Web of life, 43–44.105

oth requires and permits a more expansive understanding of pattern, structure,and process, reflecting the vastness, complexity, and diversity of life within thissystem. After all, the organizing dynamics of all social groups, cultures, andcivilizations are subsumed in the larger pattern of dynamic self-organization ofthe solar system. Many of these aforementioned perspectives are concerned withprocess in reality as a whole and for this reason they might therefore be relevantto understanding the deeper significance of process within the solar system.Pattern and Astrological CorrelationsThe concepts of pattern, structure, and process, applied to the solarsystem, will be extremely important in enabling us to begin to explore thecosmological order on which astrology is based and to formulate anunderstanding of astrology in terms of systems theory concepts. In particular, thedistinction between pattern and structure in systems theory is crucial. Since thestructure of any system is the embodiment of its pattern, we can discover thepattern of a system by examining the relationship of its main structuralcomponents—the planets, in the case of the solar system. In other words, onemight say that by observing the material structure of the solar system (i.e., theplanets), one can discern the pattern of the solar system, its underlying form. Asthis pattern is an expression of the solar system’s capacity for self-organization,tracking changes in this pattern should be able to provide us with information asto how the self-organizing dynamics of the solar system are themselves changing.That is, by considering the structural pattern formed by the planets, one might106

gain insight into the deeper underlying principle of organization that, in thestratified order of nature, has a profound formative ordering influence on humanlife.Now, although pattern and structure are closely related, since they alwaysarise together in our experience of reality, the distinction between them is clearlydiscernible. Pattern is physically apparent in the structure of any system for itdetermines its physical form, yet it is not entirely dependent on material structure,but appears to have a relative autonomy and independence. There is somethingother than the physical constituents of an entity that maintains the entity’sintegrity of structural form, and it is this other principle we are calling pattern.Thus, because of an enduring pattern, despite the considerable change that occurswithin organisms, both through the dynamic exchange of energy and matter withtheir environment and through physical regeneration, their structural form remainsconsistent. Capra gives examples of cells and human beings, which both undergothe decay and replacement of their component parts but maintain the same overallstructure. A human being maintains a relatively stable physical appearance and anenduring memory as the constituent cells of the body are replaced with new cellsthrough the continual process of the creation of structure according to an enduringpattern. Pattern, therefore, cannot be completely dependent on structure becausethe entire physical structure may change over time but the same structural formendures. This suggests that pattern is supraordinate to structure and that it has a107

certain ontological autonomy. So although pattern and structure are intimatelyrelated, they must be considered to be relatively distinct dimensions of reality. 100We have established, then, that pattern can be perceived through itsembodiment in structure and we have defined the system’s pattern as its selforganizingdynamic, its inherent ordering principle. However, with regard to thepattern of our solar system, we still have to address just what this pattern meansfor human life. We have to establish exactly why we are interested in the patternformed by the planets—to determine, that is, how and why, in astrology, thispattern is considered meaningful. Furthermore, if pattern is not wholly dependenton or encoded within the physical structure of a system, then we need to ascertainjust what it is; philosophically speaking, we need to determine its ontologicalstatus. We must establish how we can make sense of pattern if it is not justpresent within the concrete physical anatomy of systems.In addressing these questions in the chapters to follow, we will considerseveral different yet related meanings and interpretations of the concept ofpattern, and we will approach this task from two directions. On the one hand, wewill consider pattern in its exterior aspect, as a physical pattern formed by theplanetary bodies that can be conceptualized using systems theory. From thisexternal pattern we will then move inwards, as it were, to explore how thisphysical pattern is related to mind, and to the inner meaning of humanexperiences. On the other hand, we will consider the interior dimension of humanexperience, and the patterning and order of the human mind. From here, we will100 The question of how the underlying self-organizing pattern of the solarsystem is embodied in its material structure is explored in chapter 6.108

then move outwards to explore how this order appears to be symbolicallyembodied in the physical arrangement of the planets of the solar system. Then, bydrawing together these two perspectives, by relating the external pattern of thesolar system to the internal pattern of the mind, we can suggest a new way tounderstand astrology.Causality and AcausalityWith its focus on pattern, astrology runs contrary to the general trendwithin Western thought and science in which pattern—the self-organizingprinciple—has been largely ignored in favor of an analysis of the structure ofexistence. Based on atomism and on the Cartesian-Newtonian mechanisticparadigm, science has pursued a progressively more complex analysis ofstructure, breaking phenomena down into their smallest parts, formulating lawsand precise mathematical descriptions of the universe. Scientists have had noreason to look for an underlying pattern in the cosmos because it was believedthat existence could be explained entirely by going ever deeper into structure todiscover the basic building blocks of life. Within orthodox science, as Caprapoints out, pattern is generally seen only as an emergent property of matter, not asa formative determinant of the structural arrangement of the material world. 101 Aswe have seen, it is only recently, through the exploration of the subatomicquantum world in physics and with emergence of the systems approach in101 Capra, Hidden connections, 72.109

iology, that science has begun to recognize the importance of pattern in itsformal organizing sense.The investigation of structure without reference to pattern reflects themodern Western emphasis upon linear, reductionist, and analytical modes ofthought. Scientists are able to describe, quantify, and measure natural phenomena,expressing knowledge in complex mathematical formulae. They can thoroughlydescribe any part of the structure of the solar system in terms of other parts, andunderstand changes in one feature of the structure through the causal influence ofother features. The structure of the universe is the manifest realm of space, time,and causality. Events and conditions are seen to arise as the result of the effect inspace and time of other discernible causal factors.At this point we are able to propose a further key distinction betweenpattern and structure: Whereas relationships between different parts of a systemunderstood only in terms of structure are necessarily causal (the direct or indirecteffect of one part of the universe on another), relationships of pattern (relating toquality, order, and form) are—compared to the type of cause recognized in theorthodox scientific perspective—acausal. In an acausal relationship between twoor more discrete entities or events there is no evident physical causal chain, yetclearly some kind of relationship does exist. These acausal relationships, if that iswhat they are, seem to be based not on quantifiable influences transmitted throughmaterial structure, but on a system’s underlying form and on qualitativecorrespondences of meaning. In the organicist-holistic conception of the solarsystem and the universe, articulated in terms of systems philosophy, the self-110

organizing pattern of these vast systems seems to constitute a deeper order thatsupports relationships that cannot be readily explained in terms of establishedcausal models; it seems to support an underlying dimension of reality throughwhich all ostensibly disparate phenomena are meaningfully related.We are therefore presented with two different forms of explanation: thefirst based on efficient causality, on the direct or indirect influence of measurablephysical forces; and the second based on an underlying relationship of pattern orformal causation that is not immediately obvious or comprehensible usingclassical scientific models of explanation. These are complementary descriptionsof the world. One is more clearly related to the mechanistic, atomistic paradigm;the other to the holistic, organismic paradigm. One deals with the manifest worldof linear, causal relationships; the other might be better understood in terms of anunderlying order of formal, acausal, or non-linear relationships.In the modern scientific West, it has become customary (particularly forthose outside the astrological community) to construe astrology in terms of thephysical causal influence of the planets on human life when, in fact, it seems thatthe astrological relationship between the planetary cycles in the solar system andhuman life calls for a far deeper understanding of the very nature of causality,beyond the modern fixation on material and efficient causes. I believe astrologicalcorrespondences, as suggested above, depend not on material forces exerting aninfluence on our bodies, but on our participation in the underlying pattern of thesolar system. Astrology, understood in terms of the systems model, appears to restnot primarily on structure and material causes, but on the underlying pattern of111

organization that informs this structure and that appears to be manifest also, as wewill later see, in the structure of the human psyche.To the modern mind, the idea of an acausal or formal correspondence israther difficult to comprehend, so accustomed are we to the linear causal mode ofinterpreting our experience that is employed in science and that is, of course,foundational to the consensus common-sense view of reality that we learn fromour education. We have seen already, however, that according to modern physicsnot all relationships between phenomena can be explained in simple causal terms.The discovery of nonlocal connections between particles at the quantum level haschallenged the accepted notion of causality in classical physics. According toBell’s theorem of nonlocality, any given event can in principle influence everypoint in the universe simultaneously without any forces acting through space, aphenomenon that Einstein famously called “spooky actions at a distance.” 102 Atthe particle level, Capra reports that physicists are confronted with “instantaneous,nonlocal connections,” 103 interactions between particles where the particlesinvolved can be “far apart in space.” 104 Particles, in other words, have been shownto interact and be related even though they are distant and apparently unconnectedto each other. Capra concludes, therefore, that “the behavior of any part isdetermined by its nonlocal connections to the whole,” 105 and that all phenomena102 Einstein to Max Born, March 3, 1947, in Born-Einstein letters, 155.103 Capra, Tao of physics, 345.104 Capra, Turning point, 75.105 Capra, Tao of physics, 342.112

are intrinsically interrelated such that potentially each event could be said to beinfluenced by the whole universe. The existence of such connections seems topoint to the existence of a radically interconnected universe possessing a deeperorder of great complexity and subtlety; a universe governed, perhaps, by a deeperform of causation, one that we are as yet to fully comprehend. Perhaps, then,those relationships that might currently appear to be acausal from the standpointof conventional science might in fact relate to a complex causal connectionbetween the whole system and its parts; they might relate to a form of holisticrather than linear causality that could, I believe, be understood at one level interms of self-organizing patterns rather than material forces. 106Pattern, Purpose, and MeaningThe discovery of the intimate relationship between the constituent partsand the whole cosmos in modern physics is profoundly significant for astrologybecause it suggests that the astrological assumption of correlations between themacrocosm (the planetary bodies in space) and the microcosm (the individualhuman life) might yet be legitimized by science—but only by a new science thatgoes beyond the paradigm of classical physics. And if each event is in some senseinfluenced by the whole universe then to understand human life we mustcontemplate a far vaster and more complex view of human nature than we usually106 The possible workings of such an holistic causality are explored in chapter 6in relation to the ideas of David Bohm. For a relevant discussion of complex causation,see Morin, Homeland Earth.113

do at present. We must consider not only the genetic factors (biologicalinheritance) and the external factors that shape the human personality (such asfamily and social environment, education, cultural background, and economiccircumstances) but we must also try to comprehend the full significance of therelationships (both exterior and interior) of the individual human being to evenlarger systems and contexts: the Earth, the solar system, the cosmos. Indeed, fromthe systems perspective, the pattern of the whole is of great significance inunderstanding the purpose and function of the parts. To understand thefundamental purpose of an organism we need to examine its function within thelarger systems in which it is embedded, and to ascertain how it fits in to thepattern of organization of these systems.For example, considered in isolation a cell, an organ, or a single systemwithin the human body is essentially meaningless. We could describe itsmechanical function and what it is composed of, but its true purpose onlybecomes apparent when viewed in the context of the whole of which it is a part.The human heart, considered in and by itself, may be understood as an organ thatpumps blood, but to appreciate its meaning and purpose we must clearlyrecognize that it does so in order to circulate blood around the human body, tokeep us alive. And, of course, even this function must be seen within the moreencompassing perspective of human life as a whole, incorporating consciousness,creativity, spirituality, human relationships, and so on. The heart’s meaning isderived from both its function and its context. We must therefore consider notonly what it does but the larger context or environment in which it does this.114

esearch, adds,Physicist David Peat, who has explored similar territory in his ownThe organism is concerned with its internal meaning, with the way thingshappen together and with the integration of events that support its dynamicform and so maintain its meaning in the world . . . At one level theoperations of the body can be explained in terms of its constituents, yet atanother, these constituent parts must be defined in terms of the goals,operations, and meaning of the whole. 107Pattern, then, does not just determine physical form and mechanical function, butis also related to the meaning and the purpose of an organism or system. Meaning,as Capra notes in his more recent work, is a fourth factor (alongside pattern,structure, and process) that must be taken into account in the study of systems. 108As Capra puts it:I postulate that the systemic understanding of life can be extended to thesocial domain by adding the perspective of meaning to the otherperspectives of life. In so doing, I am using ‘meaning’ as a shorthandnotation for the inner world of reflective consciousness. 109“The analysis of living systems in terms of the four interconnectedperspectives—form, matter, process, and meaning—makes it possible,” hecontends, “to apply a unified understanding of life to phenomena in the realm of107 Peat, Synchronicity, 62–63.108 See Capra, Hidden connections, 72.109 Ibid., 74.115

matter, as well as to phenomena in the realm of meaning.” 110 In other words,Capra seems to be implying that his interpretation of systems theory enables us toovercome the usual dichotomy between the functional meanings of the physicalrealm and the human experience of meanings (psychological, spiritual, moral,aesthetic). Indeed, as noted earlier, systems theory has been applied not only toliving biological systems and organisms, but also to the social and culturaldimensions of life.Now, because meaning is intimately connected to pattern, it seemspossible to me that the self-organizing pattern of the solar system, which findsexpression in the planetary order, might be connected to the sets of archetypalmeanings studied in astrology—meanings that are experienced intrapsychically,in the “inner world of self-reflective consciousness.” To establish a basis for thisconnection, though, we will need to consider how the external planetary order isrelated to human interiority, a topic we will take up more fully in the next chapter.It is because planetary alignments are deemed to have interior,psychological significance that astrological factors are often described assymbolic. The geometric relationships between the planets point beyondthemselves to a deeper order that also appears to be connected to the dynamics ofhuman experience and to a thematic order within the psyche. As we seek toestablish a connection between the planets and human interiority, then, let usconsider here the nature and character of the symbolic correspondences studied in110 Ibid., 261.116

astrology, and explore how they might relate to the systems notion of the solarsystem’s self-organizing pattern.Symbolic Correspondences and Geometric PatternsIn systems theory, the self-organizing pattern, we noted, is related toquality and form rather than quantity or matter and it is therefore congruent withboth astrology, traditional Chinese thought, and virtually all premodern thought inwhich, similarly, correspondences between phenomena are based on formal orqualitative relationships of meaning. Although obviously based on the actualpositions of the planets in space, astrological correlations should not, I repeat, beinterpreted in linear causal terms, as quantifiable physical forces emitted by theplanets, but rather as symbolic correspondences. 111 Astrology does rely onquantitative measurement (to determine the angle of geometric relationshipsbetween the planets, for example), but astrological factors symbolize qualitativerelationships of meaning, not physical forces. Thus, John Clarke writes that inastrology, as in traditional Chinese thought,111 Dane Rudhyar describes astrology as the “algebra of life,” but unlikemathematical algebra, which refers to quantity (structure), the symbolism of astrology, hesuggests, refers to quality (pattern): “Astrology is a kind of algebra, insomuch as it dealswith symbolic elements . . . which it ‘binds together’ into a formula describing a livingwhole . . . However, these symbolic elements do not belong to the realm of quantity.They represent, on the contrary, universal life qualities. Astrology is thus a kind ofalgebra of qualities, and these qualities are not mere sensorial qualities (such as white,blue, thick, heavy, painful, etc.) but qualities which refer to living processes” (Rudhyar,Astrology of transformation, 35–36). Although Rudhyar’s understanding of qualitativerelationships certainly differs from Capra’s in systems theory, in this work I hope to showthat these living processes described by Rudhyar might in fact be connected to thesystems concept of the self-organizing pattern of the solar system.117

the meaning of individual human lives and human acts is related tomeanings symbolized in the cosmos, and manifested at certain crucialmoments such as birth. It must be emphasized that such correspondencesare not physical but symbolical in kind, they depend on links of meaningthat must be deciphered and read like a text, rather than observed andcorrelated within causal laws. 112The idea that the universe is capable of conveying symbolic meaning immediatelyarouses our suspicion because in the modern era we have come to construesymbols in exclusively psychological terms—to see symbols, that is, only ascreations of the human imagination, with no relationship to an outer objectivereality. We recognize symbolic mythic motifs in dreams that relate to ourpsychological processes and we find symbolic imagery populating religiousliterature and in art, but to construe reality itself (or certain aspects of reality) assymbolic seems almost incomprehensible to the modern scientifically educatedmind, trained to attend to hard objective facts and to dispel all traces of projectedmythic and symbolic thought (mathematical symbolism excepted). Indeed, themerest mention of anything mythic or imaginal is enough to repel those of a morepositivistic scientific disposition, suggesting vagueness and ambiguity,irrationality, the unreal, the fictitious—in short, everything science has sought toovercome and eliminate.Yet in terms of our systems cosmology, the word symbolic does not referto something wholly imaginary and arbitrary, based on the subjective fantasies ofthe human imagination. Rather, it has several connotations each pertaining to the112 Clarke, Jung and Eastern thought, 101.118

human relationship to the pattern of self-organization of the solar system. Tosummarize briefly—and to anticipate themes we will later explore in moredetail—the term symbolic is connected with an holistic-organicist conception ofthe universe in which human experience is seen as an intrinsic part of the whole;it is based on a formal order, on the form or pattern of relationships of humanlives to the larger whole of the solar system; it also refers to an underlying orderin that the significance of the planetary pattern is not immediately apparent fromsurface appearances or comprehensible in physical terms, but is rather aconcealed meaning, knowable only to the mind willing to probe beneath surfaceappearances and remain epistemologically open to the possible disclosure of suchmeaning; in addition, because it pertains to the pattern of the whole, not tospecific parts, the symbolic character of the planetary order relates to universalsand not to particular details; the term symbolic also implies indeterminacy in thatthe universals, based on formal relationships, are sufficiently general andindeterminate to support a multiplicity of meanings, which take on a definitecontent only when enacted in the specifics of human experience; and finally, andperhaps most important, the word symbolic implies depth in that the connectionsare based on the deep order of the psyche and the cosmos. 113What I am suggesting, then, is that the recognition of the symbolicmeaning of the planetary pattern is the revelation of a deep order underlying the113 Many of these characteristics have been discussed by Richard Tarnas, both inCosmos and psyche and in unpublished material on archetypal dynamics and causality.The idea of enaction has been explicated by Francisco Varela, Jorge Ferrer, and others.See, for example, Varela et al, Embodied mind; and Ferrer, Revisioning transpersonaltheory.119

phenomenal world, an order in which the individual human mind is embedded.The human imagination or intellect that recognizes this meaning is itself rooted innature; it is itself shaped by nature and partakes in the same order we perceiveexternally. 114 According to our systems cosmology, I propose that the selforganizingpattern inherent within the material structure of the cosmos gives toreality a symbolic nature such that physical phenomena—in this case theplanetary positions and relationships—can convey a deeper meaning over andabove the basic physical fact of their concrete existence. The pattern of cyclicalalignments of the planets is not just a physical pattern made up of lumps of rock,ice, and gas, orbiting the sun in meaningless mechanical motion, but it is actuallythe external structural form of a meaningful underlying pattern of selforganizationthat shapes not only the macrocosmic order of the solar system butalso the deeper dynamics of human experience.One especially important dimension of these symbolic correspondences isbased on number and geometry. From the very beginnings of civilization, numberwas seen as fundamental to the inherent order of the universe and its great cyclesof change. Joseph Campbell points out that in their appreciation of the importanceof number ancient civilizations were anything but primitive, for they appear infact to have had a sophisticated understanding of mythological-mathematicalcycles governing the universe. He suggests, for example, that a “mathematical114 The view that the human mind is embedded in nature is intrinsic to what hasbeen called a participatory epistemology. For more detail, see Tarnas, Passion of theWestern mind, 433–440; and Jorge Ferrer and Jacob Sherman, eds., Participatory turn.120

cosmology of the ever-revolving cycles of impersonal time” 115 based on thenumber 432,000 appears to have been intricately woven into several mythologiesof the world, from the early Babylonian mythology and the Indian Puranicwritings, through to the Norse Eddas, the Hebrew scriptures, and the Book ofRevelation in The New Testament. “There is an obvious relationship,” Campbellargues, “between the number of years in these mythological cycles and the actualmathematical numerable astronomical cycles.” 116In the history of philosophy, too, those philosophical perspectives thatrecognize a transcendent formative order behind nature have typically citednumber as the primary expression of this order. In Western thought, this achievedits primary formulation in the philosophy of Pythagoras who regarded numbers asnuminous archetypal principles. In the Pythagorean understanding, which laterbecame integral to Neoplatonic and Hermetic philosophy, number is fundamentalboth to the structural organization of external reality and to the order of thepsyche. It was Pythagoras’s great insight that the human mind and the cosmos areordered by a single set of transcendent numerical principles, and there is no signhere of the radical Cartesian-Kantian epistemological and ontological dividebetween inner and outer dimensions of reality that was later to characterize the115 Campbell, Inner reaches of outer space, 35–38.116 Campbell, Mythic dimension, 209. As a rule, the use of number in mythologyis based on the idea that any number consisting of two or more digits is related inmeaning to the single digit number that is produced by the addition of each of itscomponent digit. The meaning of any number is thereby ultimately reducible to a rootmeaning of one of the nine small whole numbers (1 to 9). By the addition of thecomponent digits, progressively smaller numbers are produced until finally a single digitnumber remains. 432,000 is therefore related to the meaning of the number 9.121

modern understanding of self and cosmos. For Plato, likewise, the study of thesymbolism of numbers and mathematical Forms was deemed to be the highestlevel of knowledge since it addresses, he believed, the level of reality that is theprimary order existing behind the surface appearances of the phenomenal world,the dimension of being that is ultimately real and true. Later, at the beginning ofthe modern scientific era, Johannes Kepler, the seventeenth century astronomerwho was instrumental in establishing the heliocentric cosmology, was alsoconvinced that number is a revelation of universal order, one that is reflected inmusical harmony, famously describing the mathematical order of the heavens asthe celestial music of the spheres.More recently, Jung’s investigation of the geometric patterns in mandalasand his discovery of the role of number in the organization of the psyche haveensured a renewed interest in sacred geometry and has revealed the extent towhich human psychological experience is unconsciously ordered by pre-existingnumerical archetypes. 117 And just as we have begun to recognize a numericalorder within, in the human psyche, with the emergence of chaos theory,complexity science, and string theory in modern physics and mathematics,scientists have discovered or theorized that ostensibly random, chaotic patterns innature and the material world are also guided by deeper patterns of geometricorder. “All questions of pattern, order, and complexity,” as Capra observes, “areessentially mathematical.” 118 It might well be then, as Alfred North Whitehead117 This topic is explored in more detail in chapter 5.118 Capra, Web of life, 153.122

suggests, that through our new understanding of these complex geometricalpatterns beneath apparent chaos and disorder, we have in a sense come full circle,back to the original Pythagorean recognition of number as fundamental to theinherent order of reality, both within and without. 119Astrology is based upon just this Pythagorean notion that number isfundamental to the deep structure and organization of the cosmos: Therelationships between the planets (understood in terms of zodiacal signs, thehouses, and the planetary aspects) are symbolically interpreted according to theprinciples of number and geometry. Again, though, in the Pythagorean view,number is to be understood not so much in its quantitative sense as a means ofcounting and arithmetic, but more especially in its qualitative sense in which allnumbers, particularly the small whole numbers, are recognized to possess theirown inherent psychological meaning. The number one, for example, is logicallyassociated with unity (i.e., one-ness), wholeness, and beginning; two is associatedwith duality and the separation of unity into opposites; and three is related to thesynthesis of these opposites, to a point of mediation between the two. Thesemeanings naturally translate into geometry: the number one relates both to asingle point in space and to the circle—to the unity of the unbroken spacecontained within; two relates to the line between two points and to the diametricdivision of a circle into separate hemispheres; and three is obviously related to thetriangle in which two opposing points are connected by a third point. With thenumber four, according to Pythagorean reasoning, we arrive at what has been119 Whitehead, Science and the modern world, 36–37.123

called, “the completion of the square” as the sum of first four natural numbersmakes one (i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 and 1 + 0 = 1), which symbolically indicates areturn to unity, completion, or perfection. Through the movement from oneness tofourness, a newly realized state of unity comes into being. When construed in thisway, number is a kind of symbolic, archetypal logic that seems to be intrinsic notonly to the human intellect and imagination but, more fundamentally, to both theunderlying structural organization of the universe and to the deepest order of thehuman unconscious psyche.The zodiacal signs, the houses, and the planetary aspects are all based, atleast in part, on the symbolic meaning of these small whole numbers. With regardto planetary aspects, for instance, the meaning of the particular aspect (asignificant angular relationship between two or more planets) is derived from thesymbolic meaning of the number on which the angle is based. The meaning ofevery aspect depends not only upon the archetypal characteristics associated withthe planets involved but also upon the particular angle of relationship between theplanets, which in turn is related to the symbolic, psychological meaning of thenumber by which the circle is divided to produce the aspect. Hence, a conjunction(when two planets are positioned close to 0° apart in the astrological chart) isbased on the symbolic meaning of the number one (i.e., 360° ÷ 1), andconjunctions are therefore associated with the unified (although not necessarilyharmonious) expression of the two archetypal principles, with the conflation orsynthesis of the archetypal principles involved, and with the potent release ofenergy through initiatory action. An opposition (when two planets are124

approximately 180° apart), based on the division of the circle by two, is logicallyassociated with duality, where the corresponding planetary archetypesdynamically stimulate each other in a mutually challenging, often antagonisticmanner, and create a highly charged tension of opposites. The 120° trine aspect,produced by dividing the 360° circle by three, and related therefore to thesynthesis of opposites through a third factor, is considered to represent a balanced,supportive expression of the energy of the planetary archetypes, to indicate arelatively harmonious and established combination of these principles. Finally,the square aspect of 90° (i.e., 360° ÷ 4) is related to the symbolic meaning of thenumber four and, like the opposition with which it is closely associated, signifiesan inherent tension or conflict between the planets involved, a conflict which isoften felt as the impetus to release pressure through action, ideally promoting amovement towards greater consciousness and wholeness.In his research, Tarnas found that it is what he called the quadraturealignments (the conjunction, opposition, and square aspects) that are most clearlyassociated with the dynamic and potentially challenging interaction of thecorresponding archetypal principles. It is these aspects, he found, that reveal theclearest correlation with the discernible events and patterns of world history. Inindividual natal charts and personal transits, too, it is the quadrature aspects,because of the inherent tension and dynamism associated with these specificangles of relationship, that are the most significant, the most likely to correspondwith major themes and challenges in the individual’s life.125

Now, if the archetypal principles are in some ways analogous to the godsof myth, as I have suggested, then it is number that enables us to understand therelationship between the “gods.” In terms of our systems model, to put thisanother way, number appears to be related to the pattern of self-organization ofthe solar system as revealed by the geometric relationships between the planets.By analyzing the geometric alignments between the planets, and interpreting themeaning of these, we can then understand the relationships between thecorresponding archetypal principles. In this way, with its complex synthesis ofthematic archetypal principles and a numerical order, astrology, I believe, enablesus to interpret the deeper meaning of the pattern of self-organization of the solarsystem. By pointing beyond the surface appearances of the planetary orderdisclosed by sense perception and rational analysis, astrology brings to ourattention its deeper symbolic significance.In our ordinary experience, however, we generally fail to consider anypossible symbolic significance in the world around us. Collectively we seem tohave all but lost the capacity to discern symbolic meaning. Indeed, the notion thatwe can find meaning in the physical patterns of the cosmos seems like a vestige ofa bygone age, a throwback to an archaic or mythic form of consciousness longsince discredited by science. For in the archaic cultures, in which peoplepossessed an immediate, if unreflective, sense of their mythic relationship withthe natural world, a symbolic reading of the events of life was integral to theordinary mode of engaging with reality. For the people of these primal cultures,every aspect of the natural world, every occurrence, was considered meaningful,126

an expression of the inherent divinity in nature, to be read as an omen or symbolthat could inform and influence human actions and decisions.The dominant mode of thinking today has become almost exclusivelydiscursive. It is now factual not symbolic, more literal than metaphorical, andpredominantly rational rather than intuitive. Indeed, such is the one-sideddominance of analytical thought that the modern mind is subject to what Jungcalled a “cramp of consciousness,” a neurotic condition in which, it is now widelyrecognized, we have grown dangerously out of alignment with the natural order ofthings, and with the unconscious foundations of our psychological experience. 120“Civilized life today,” Jung explains, “demands concentrated, directed consciousfunctioning, and this entails the risk of a considerable dissociation from theunconscious.” 121 By living according to the dictates of a limited egocentricsubjectivity and rational self-interest, modern human beings have become isolatedin their separate personal worlds, increasingly alienated from nature, from thecosmos, and from the deeper ground of being. Seen within the opaque vision ofthe modern mind, through the lens of a mechanistic-materialism, the world seemsmeaningless, nature seems random and chaotic, life itself seems to be a chanceoccurrence, and human existence ultimately inconsequential. Alas, it is preciselythis disenchanted view of life that has come to dominate the collectiveconsciousness of the Western world, a world view vividly reflected in the modernsecular and materialistic lifestyle.120 Jung, Alchemical studies, 93.121 Jung, Structure and dynamics of the psyche, 71.127

Yet despite the exaggerated power of the modern rational consciousness,evidence of a meaningful and enchanted universe still presents itself to us,sometimes forcefully intruding into our daily lives in unexpected and inexplicableways. Behind the profane literalisms of contemporary life, a world of deepermeaning awaits discovery.Synchronicity: The Revelation of a Deeper OrderChinese thought, with its supposition that the universe is permeated by avast hidden order through which all things are meaningfully correlated, was veryinfluential on Jung. It was in part through his investigation of the Chinesedivinatory system, the I Ching, that he began to entertain the possibility of theexistence of an “acausal orderness,” as he calls, underlying the human psyche andthe external world, a correspondence between the inner and outer worlds thatmight explain the uncanny accuracy of the divinatory readings and also accountfor other puzzling connections and coincidences he had witnessed during histherapeutic practice and in his personal experience. 122 Observing what hedescribed as “meaningful coincidences”—correspondences between causallyunrelated events that have great significance for the person who experiencesthem—Jung developed the concept of synchronicity, which he defines as, “thesimultaneous occurrence of a certain psychic state with one or more external122 Jung, Synchronicity, 138.128

events which appear as meaningful parallels to the momentary subjectivestate.” 123 For Jung, what might ordinarily be considered purely chance coincidencesbetween certain states of mind and external events could sometimes be moreaccurately classified, he proposes, as instances of synchronicity—of meaningfulcoincidence—in which interior meaning (our subjective experience of meaning) isreflected externally in the world at large. If one were in a deeply troubled state ofmind, for example, or wrestling with a seemingly irresolvable problem, and at thatvery moment something unexpected were to happen in the outside world thatseemed to relate uncannily and specifically to one’s dilemma, Jung would call thisan instance of synchronicity.Synchronicity, in its broadest definition, can take many different forms: arelated series of unusual events causally unconnected but united by a commonthread of meaning; a chance encounter or conversation that uncannily speaks toone’s personal situation; the opportune and inadvertent discovery of just the rightbook that one needs to shed light on a particular situation or problem; a portentousomen heralding the beginning of a course of action or a critical moment ofdecision; or perhaps the conjunction of a dream with a later occurring externalevent. Whatever particular form a synchronicity might take, every case ischaracterized by the sense that one has broken through into a world of greatermeaning, and one is filled with a feeling that one is participating in a larger,123 Ibid., 36.129

deeper dimension of reality, beyond the purely personal concerns of one’s life andyet intimately related to one’s personal situation.In perhaps the most famous and widely cited example of synchronicity,Jung describes how a female client whose one-sided intellectual world view wasmaking therapeutic progress impossible was dramatically introduced to a world ofdeeper meaning by a startling coincidence for which she could find no rationalexplanation. Having dreamed on the night before her next meeting with Jung thatshe was given a piece of expensive jewelry in the form of a golden scarab beetle,the woman’s rational conception of the nature of reality was punctured by thesynchronistic appearance of a real scarab beetle at the window of Jung’s room justas she was recounting the dream. Jung, hearing a tapping at the window as if theinsect were trying to get in, opened the window and gathered the beetle in hishand. “Here is your scarab,” he announced, presenting it to his patient. 124 This“coincidence” between her state of mind (recalling and recounting the dream) andthe appearance of the beetle at the window just at that moment (the externalparallel) was so directly meaningful and yet so highly improbable and totallyinexplicable in terms of her rational understanding that Jung’s client wascompelled to call into question what had been the impenetrable certainty of herworld view. Furthermore, this incident was not just a coincidental occurrence oftwo related phenomena (the dream and the insect), because the scarab beetle, asJung knew, is an Egyptian symbol of rebirth, a motif that directly related to hisclient’s personal situation, to her own impending psychological transformation124 Ibid., 31–33.130

and her rebirth into world of greater meaning from her former intellectualdefensiveness and resistance to the therapeutic process.In cases of synchronicity, of which the above is a paradigmatic example, itis as if the extraordinary coincidence of certain events, or the uncanny correlationbetween something external that happens to us with our own internal states ofconsciousness, is actually attempting to convey a meaningful message of greatpersonal significance. This is why instances of synchronicity are so perplexing forit is as if the cosmos knows what we are thinking and feeling, that the cosmositself is aware of our personal situation, and seeks, through a symbolic line ofcommunication, to convey a message to us about our life. Consequently,synchronicities are often accompanied by a feeling of numinosity. Moments ofsynchronicity are pregnant with meaning and with mystery, evoking a sense of abarely conceivable order connecting the events of life. On encountering asynchronicity, the universe seems positively infused with meaning and one getsthe sense that one’s own life, far from being inconsequential or random, isactually of tremendous importance. One feels at such times that the universe, orsome greater organizing power behind the universe, cares about us, as it were, andthat there is a greater purpose to what we doing. For this reason synchronicities,on occasion, may come with the force of a spiritual revelation. 125It is a remarkable fact that for some people, particularly those embroiled inperiods of deep psychological transformation, synchronicities play a decisive rolein shaping the unfolding life direction, providing illumination and guidance that125 This perspective is developed in detail in Roderick Main, Revelations ofchance: Synchronicity as spiritual experience.131

can resolve conditions of impasse and internal conflict. Often synchronicities ofthis kind manifest at critical junctures of life, at defining moments when life takeson a greater charge, a greater emotional intensity, and our normal consciousness isinfiltrated by field of meaning that encompasses the world around us, manifestingitself in our immediate external circumstances.Jung discovered that synchronicities, like dreams, often serve acompensatory function in that they counterbalance the partial, one-sidedperspective of the subjective ego. Through synchronicity it is as if the universeitself were seeking to make the individual conscious of the deeper meaning oftheir situation. Thus synchronicity is not only a dialogue between the consciousself and the unconscious psyche, as one might conclude when considering thepurpose of dreams, for example, but a dialogue between the self and the world,between our rational mind and the mind of nature, as it were. Indeed,synchronicities can actually be construed as the symbolic revelation of a deeperspiritual meaning within nature, a form of revelation impelling the individualalong the path of individuation, furthering the realization of the Self. 126The existence of synchronicity radically challenges the modern Westernphilosophical assumption that meaning is present only within individual human126 Individuation is the process of psychological development by whichthe rational ego—the human conscious identity—realizes a deeper center andtotality, which Jung called the Self. According to Jung’s definition: “Individuationmeans becoming a single, homogenous being, and, in so far as ‘in-dividuality’embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also impliesbecoming one’s own self. We could therefore translate individuation as ‘comingto selfhood’ or ‘self-realization.’” Jung, Two essays on analytical psychology,155.132

minds, suggesting rather than meaning is in some sense present throughoutnature—that meaning is inherent in the cosmos as well as the psyche, asupposition that is central to the astrological paradigm. “Synchronicity,” Jungexplains, “postulates a meaning which is a priori in relation to humanconsciousness and apparently exists outside man.” 127 That meaning exists“outside man” implies that this meaning is not just present in, and perceived by,the individual human mind but is, in a sense, transcendent or transpersonal. 128Synchronicities, that is, transcend the apparent divide between subject and object,mind and matter, pointing, it seems, to the existence of an underlying order that ismanifest in both psyche and cosmos, in both the inner world and the outer world.Although synchronicity does not provide us with a way to actually explainastrological correlations (as the workings of synchronicity itself have yet to beadequately explained in terms of the accepted understanding of the world 129 ), itdoes bring to our attention the existence of deeper patterns of meaning in whichwe partake; it gives us empirical evidence of meaningful connections betweenthings that cannot be explained by orthodox science nor understood in linearcausal terms; and synchronicity gives us firsthand personal experience of adimension of reality in which meaning rather than material or efficient causality isparamount.127 Jung, Synchronicity, 118.128 For a discussion of the meaning of the term transcendent in relation to Jung’sideas, see chapter 7, 281–283.129 A point also made in Guinard, Astrology: The manifesto.133

Jung’s investigation into more and more cases of synchronicity led him tothe conclusion that alongside causal connections, underpinning the phenomenalworld there must be another type of relationship between events and experiencesbased on meaningful acausal correlations. As Liliane Frey-Rohn reports:He recognized that synchronistic phenomena can be understood by thehuman mind only when the idea of causal determinism has beensupplemented by the equally universal concept of a connection throughequivalence or ‘meaning.’ This appeared to be another dimension, onetranscending the causal connection and suggesting an ‘acausalorderness.’ 130Whether or not such correlations are genuinely acausal or actually point to a morecomplex form of causality remains an open question. What is clear, however, isthat contrary to the Cartesian view, synchronicities strongly suggest that thehuman mind is not radically separate from the processes of nature, and that theinterior world of the human psyche and the exterior world of the cosmos are, infact, intimately related. At the very least, it is true to say that under certainconditions there occurs a fluid interpenetration of the inner and outer realms,which rules out any absolute division between them.The implications of Jung’s concept of synchronicity, in which patterns ofexternal occurrences are related to the interior experience of meaning, are clearlycongruent with the organicist-systems cosmology outlined in this chapter as apossible basis for understanding astrology. However, there remain importantdifferences between astrology and synchronicity, differences often overlooked130 Frey-Rohn, From Freud to Jung, 289.134

when synchronicity has been uncritically cited as an explanation of astrology. Incontrast to the specific personal nature of synchronicities, which, although oftenpossessing archetypal and mythic resonances, are also specifically related to theindividual’s unique circumstances, astrology relates rather to the archetypalbackground to such cases, to the wider framework of meaning in whichsynchronicities occur. And unlike synchronicities, which manifest sporadically,unexpectedly, only at specific moments in time, astrology is based upon arelatively constant correspondence of an inner meaning and a largelydeterministic outer planetary pattern. In this sense, astrology is based on a specialtype of enduring synchronicity, as it were, one that is inscribed in the celestialplanetary patterns, in those great symbols of the underlying archetypal principlesthat structure and pervade reality. What we would ordinarily take to be anobjective, merely physical arrangement of the planets assumes a profoundsubjective psychological significance and, like synchronicities, gives us helpfulinsight into the deeper meaning of our experiences. It is in this way thatsynchronicity, as David Peat suggests, serves as a “bridge” between mind andmatter, between subjective meaning and the objective cosmos. 131 It demonstratesa link between the patterns of interior psychological meaning running through ourexperiences and the arrangement of external events. Given this interconnection,we are encouraged to look more closely at how the psyche and the cosmos mightactually be related.131 See Peat, Synchronicity,135

Chapter FourSelf-Organization and InteriorityBy applying the concepts of systems theory to the solar system we havebeen able to identify an underlying cosmological order, one that is apparent fromthe pattern of relationships between the planetary bodies. Drawing on this systemsmodel, we can begin to appreciate how astrology could help us to understand andarticulate how human lives are meaningfully connected to this order. In our nextstep, we can develop this understanding further as we explore the relationship ofthis cosmological order to mind in systems theory and discuss the importance ofthis relationship for astrology.One of the main challenges when considering the possible validity ofastrological correspondences is to comprehend how human experiences can bereflected in an external cosmic pattern that appears radically removed from andwholly unrelated to the human psyche. Astrological patterns refer not only toempirically observable behavior or events but also, and perhaps morefundamentally, to our subjective intra-psychic experiences—to our changingmoods and feelings, our motivations and drives, and even to our deepest spiritualrealizations. To make sense of astrology, not only do we have to address thephysical relationship between the planets and human beings but, becauseastrology pertains to human psychological life, to the private realm of subjectiveexperience and to the human recognition of meaning, we also need to bridge the136

apparently yawning gulf between the cosmos and the psyche, between the outerworld and the inner world. To enable us to better understand the correspondencebetween the deep order of the human psyche and the planetary patterns of thecosmos, any explanation of astrology must address the philosophical question ofthe relationship of mind to matter.The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to suggest a view of mind andconsciousness that is more congruent with astrology, to extend the concept ofpattern to incorporate mind, and to look at how conventional attitudes and beliefsabout mind inherent in the Western world view have made it difficult, if notimpossible, to understand the astrological hypothesis of a relationship between thecosmos and the psyche, and between the planets and human experience.The Modern Understanding of the Nature of MindAstrology, as we have seen, reveals a close affinity or even an underlyingidentity between cosmic patterns and the archetypal meanings of humanexperience. In the modern Western world, however, because the psyche and thecosmos have been understood in dualistic terms as radically distinct andontologically separate realms, this kind of relationship between outer planetarypatterns and inner meaning is deemed to be impossible. 132 Although astrology is132 In theory, certain forms of dualism (such as forms of parallelism or the notionof a pre-established harmony), which recognize a consistent and constant alignmentbetween the outer world and the inner world, are quite compatible with astrology.However, in interactive substance dualism, which holds that mind and matter are twoabsolutely distinct substances that interact through the human mind and brain, there is noobvious form of connection between planetary motions and human consciousness.137

not necessarily incongruent with dualism per se, it is incongruent with theparticular hybrid of Cartesian substance dualism, interactive causal determinism,and materialistic reductionism that has become dominant in the modern era.As we noted in chapter 2, the ontological qualitative distinction betweenhuman beings and the natural world, first evident in the West in the biblical mythof the Fall and in ancient Greek speculation, was ratified philosophically in themodern era by the Cartesian division of reality into two realms: the “inner” worldof the human mind and the “outer” world of the material universe. The Cartesianmind-body, subject-object distinction rendered a view of the human self as amental ego operating through a physical body, a view in which the human mind isheld to be separate from the material world and from nature, yet causally relatedthrough the brain. Later, in the eighteenth century, the German philosopherImmanuel Kant determined that not only is the material world separate from thehuman mind but, moreover, that it is impossible to obtain any direct, unmediatedknowledge of this external reality. Kant argues that because the human mind isfundamentally distinct from the external world, we can only have direct access tothe experience of our own mind, and not to outer reality. What we actuallyexperience is not the world as it exists in itself, he concluded, but only our senseimpressions of that world, structured according to the innate categories of thehuman mind. We experience only a world of appearances.This Cartesian separation of the inner realm of mind or soul and the outerrealm of the physical universe, coupled with a commitment to instrumentalcausality, is so deeply ingrained in our world view and so fundamental to the138

modern Western mode of being-in-the-world that, to the ordinary way of thinking,the planetary patterns in space and our inner world of thoughts and feelings seemto be radically separate and totally unrelated. This makes the idea of causalconnections between the planetary positions and human experience seem totallyimplausible. Still more inconceivable from within this framework is the idea thatevery individual human life around the world, in all its diversity and its interiordepth, is simultaneously related to or in accord with one all-encompassingplanetary pattern. Clearly, then, if we are to make sense of astrologicalcorrelations, a radical revision of our understanding of the nature of the humanmind and its relationship to the cosmos is required.Modern philosophers, meanwhile, have continued to grapple with theperplexing problem of how mind and matter, as two completely differentsubstances, are related—how it is, more precisely, that mental states can affectmatter and how material conditions can influence mind. Over the centuries, thisdilemma has spawned numerous different accounts of the mind-body and mindmatterrelationship. In the most general terms these accounts can be classified asvariations of either monism or dualism. Monistic theories hold that reality iscomprised of a single substance. Of the two main kinds of monism, materialismposits that the only real existent substance is matter; idealism holds that all thatreally exists is mind. The former reduces mind to matter; the latter sees the worldof sense objects as ideas in the mind, and the physical, substantial nature of thingsas in some sense illusory. Dualistic theories, by contrast, recognize the existenceof both matter and mind. Substance dualism holds that mind and matter are two139

separately existing substances that interact (interactive dualism) or exist inparallel (parallelism, pre-established harmony); property dualism or emergentismholds that mind arises out of matter as a distinct secondary or derivativeproperty. 133Currently, the most commonly accepted solution to the mind-matterproblem is a form of materialistic property dualism, emerging out ofneuroscience, which holds that mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain, a mentalby-product of neural activity. In this view, any given mental state is not onlyassociated with but is also caused by a particular pattern of brain activity—bycertain chemical and physiological processes in the brain. The mind itself isalmost superfluous in this explanation, and the complexity and richness of humanconsciousness (that which seems essential to what it is to be human) is reduced toa merely biological description. Nonetheless, in the popular understanding thehuman mind is believed to be synonymous with the brain. Thus we speak ofthoughts as being in our head, as if they were actually physically located there—aview that has contributed to the belief that the boundary of the individual mind isrelated to the boundary of the physical body. Although the nature of mind is oftenconsidered to be immaterial and non-spatial, we have come to think of mind assomehow existing inside our heads, and individual minds, like physical bodies,are therefore believed to be separate and isolated from other minds. Experienceseems to show that our thoughts are our own and that we cannot access the133 Despite these many types of philosophical explanation, the legacy ofChristian doctrine and the Cartesian thinking that have shaped the modern world viewmeans that many people have retained an inarticulate notion of being a mind or a soulexisting inside a body.140

thoughts of others, so we naturally assume that mind is exclusively personal andseparate, although, as we will see, there is much to suggest this is not actually thecase.The attempt to overcome mind-matter dualism by effectively explainingaway mind and consciousness as nothing but a by-product of brain activity has,needless to say, not been conducive to the understanding and acceptance of theastrological perspective. For if mind is construed as a derivative of brainactivity—if the brain is solely responsible for our states of mind, as we are led tobelieve—then it is extraordinarily difficult in the ordinary linear causal way ofthinking to see how these mental states can be directly influenced by cosmicphenomena. One could imagine, perhaps, some kind of physical planetaryinfluence on human life transmitted through changes at the quantum level orthrough something like the so-called butterfly effect, which might magnify verysmall changes at the cosmic level to produce significant effects in human biology,but even if this were the case one would still have to explain just how themultidimensional range of experiences associated with the planetary archetypes inastrology (including experiences of the numinous, transpersonal phenomena, andpsychospiritual death-rebirth processes) could arise from entirely physical causes.Thus, whether conceived in loosely Cartesian terms as a separate interior realmlocated “inside” the head, or in materialistic terms as an epiphenomenon of brainactivity, the modern conception of the nature of mind seems to be fundamentallyincongruent with astrology.141

The Emergence and Transcendence of the Rational EgoAgain, however, we might recognize that the usual ways of understandingmind are exceptional and unique to the modern scientific world view; it is only inthe modern era that we have come to attribute intelligence, consciousness, andmind just to human beings and that we have come to see the universe as inertmatter, devoid of any inherent meaning and purpose, having neither mind norsoul. The great Eastern and premodern civilizations such as the Chinese, Indian,and the ancient Greek all recognized the existence of a universal orderingprinciple or sustaining metaphysical ground far transcending the limits ofindividual minds. The principles of the tao in Chinese philosophy, brahman inHinduism, and the Greek notion of a universal logos or a divine nous, each pointto some form of universal intelligence or ordering mind present throughout alllevels of reality. With the ancient Greeks, we also find the Platonic idea of theanima mundi, a world soul, in which human beings participate, a concept that waslater to become very influential on Neoplatonic and Renaissance philosophy.Such conceptions of universal ordering principles and “Mind at Large,” to useAldous Huxley’s term, remain central to the mystical understanding of the natureof reality. 134By comparison, the modern conceptions of the human mind, reflecting thedominant philosophical assumptions in the modern Western world view, canappear limited and rather superficial. To summarize: we now think of mindatomistically, as individual units of mind that are unrelated to each other; we also134 See Huxley, Doors of perception.142

think of mind dualistically, as an inner realm divorced from the material world,yet encapsulated within the body; else, we think of mind in materialistic terms asan epiphenomenon of brain activity, as a spurious derivative of neurochemicalprocesses; and we tend to think of mind exclusively in anthropocentric terms aspertaining only to human beings, not as something present throughout nature.It is perhaps the case, however, that this narrow conception of mind,which is in fact more or less synonymous with the ordinary limits of humanconscious awareness, has arisen not because of any insight into the objective truthof the matter but rather in response to an unseen evolutionary imperative. Asnoted earlier, our modern world-conception and self-understanding appear to havebeen unconsciously shaped by the requirements of our collective humanpsychological development. For the human self to emerge as a separate distinctself-willing agent, it seems to have been necessary, as Richard Tarnas suggests,that we came to attribute mind, consciousness, and soul exclusively to the humanbeing. To deny the existence of greater fields of mind—to withdraw all meaningand purpose, and mind and soul from the cosmos—and to focus only on therational mind of the human individual seems to have been essential, Tarnasargues, for the individual self to win through to its own autonomy, to actualizeitself and realize its freedom and power. He explains:Disenchantment, the denial of intrinsic meaning and purpose, essentiallyobjectifies the world and thereby denies subjectivity to the world.Objectification denies to the world a subject’s capacity to intend, tosignify intelligently, to express its meaning, to embody and communicatehumanly relevant purposes and values . . . This in turn tremendouslymagnifies and empowers human subjectivity, the felt interior capacity of143

the human being to be self-defining, self-revising, self-determining—to beboth outwardly world-shaping and inwardly consequential andautonomous. 135Mircea Eliade gives a similar assessment, explicitly connecting the rise of thesense of freedom of the modern human with the denial of any transcendentspiritual agency. “Modern nonreligious man,” he writes,assumes a new existential situation. He regards himself solely as thesubject and agent of history, and he refuses all appeal to transcendence . . .Man makes himself, and he only makes himself completely in proportionas he desacrilizes himself with the whole. The sacred is the prime obstacleto his freedom. 136Thus it was through the disenchantment and objectification of the cosmosthat, according to Tarnas, the anima mundi “dissolved and disappeared” and thehuman being unconsciously appropriated for itself all intelligence, subjectivevalues, meanings and purposes, once recognized to be intrinsic not only tohumans but to the entire cosmos. 137 Fixedly identified with its rationalconsciousness, the human self achieved a seemingly imperious status and “thecosmos . . . metamorphosed into a mindless, soulless vacuum, within which thehuman being is incongruently self-aware.” 138 As a result, human beings are now135 Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 21.136 Eliade, Sacred and the profane, 202.137 Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 25.138 Ibid.144

often understood to be the only points of self-awareness, meaning, intelligence,purposes, and aims within the universe.Yet when seen within the context of a larger vision of the evolution ofconsciousness, this supposition that all intelligence and meaning resides only inhuman consciousness seems implausible. The understanding of the psycheemerging from depth and transpersonal psychology has suggested, for example,that contrary to the prevailing modern assumption, human rational consciousnessrepresents only one form of mind that, in the context of the long (over one millionyear) history of homo sapiens and earlier hominids, is only a relatively recentevolutionary development. It is only in the last few thousand years that therational ego-self—the “I” principle, the locus of human identity—has properlyemerged from its origins in nature and from its primal absorption in the collectivepsyche. As Jung realized, our rational consciousness, unbeknownst to us, restsupon an ancient foundation and has its roots in an unconscious psyche that datesback to the time of our early human ancestors, if not before—a view corroboratedby bodies of research and scholarship in anthropology, ecology, mythology,religious studies, and in depth and transpersonal psychology.Consider the understanding of the nature of the human mind advanced byecological theorists of a transpersonal orientation. The central claim of both deepecologists and transpersonal ecologists is that there is a deep connection betweenthe human self and the environment such that under certain conditions humanconsciousness can expand beyond its normal limits to realize a larger identity withnature and the Earth. Arnie Naess, for example, the founder of deep ecology,145

speaks of a “deep identification of individuals with all of life” such that “oneexperiences oneself to be a genuine part of all life.” 139 The transpersonal ecologistWarwick Fox proposes two distinct types of transpersonal identification:ontologically based identification and cosmologically based identification. Theformer, according to Fox, is transpersonal in essence because it “refers toexperiences of commonality with all that is that are brought about through thedeep-seated realization that of the fact that things are.” 140 This type ofidentification with the environment is based on the insight that the world is “anexpression of the manifesting of Being . . . as we ourselves are.” 141 MichaelZimmerman uses the term “non-dualistic ecological sensibility” to describe thistype of realization. 142 Cosmologically based identification, the second type, isrooted less in an intuition of Being and more in our participation in a livingcosmology, as articulated in myth, religion, science, poetry, and so forth, orsimply evoked by our experience of the universe itself. According to Fox, it isbased on the deep realization that “we and all other entities are aspects of a singleunfolding reality.” 143 Similarly, Charles Birch’s and John Cobb’s ecologicalmodel is based on the premise of an internal relatedness of an organism to itsenvironment. In this view, the organism is what it is only in the context of its139 Arnie Naess, quoted in Fox, Toward a transpersonal ecology, 230.140 Fox, Toward a transpersonal ecology, 250–251.141 Ibid., 251.142 Zimmerman, Contesting Earth’s future, 54.143 Fox, Toward a transpersonal ecology, 252.146

elationships to the environment. “The idea of an internal relation is of a relationthat is constitutive of the character and even the existence of something.” 144 This,clearly, is quite different from external relatedness, which is based on aconsideration of physical relationships between discrete entities or substancesacted upon by external forces, as exemplified by Newtonian science. In theecological model “the very essence of an entity or person” is constituted by itsrelationships. 145 Indeed, according to Birch and Cobb, “internal relationscharacterize all events and this provides the continuity in internality among allthings.” 146 In this context, the idea that the individual human mind is radicallyseparate from its environment, wholly autonomous, and a function of brainactivity seems to be a radical anthropocentric, materialistic assumption, peculiarto the modern era, one that is increasingly contested on several fronts.The course of human history seems to reveal a progressive differentiationof the human self, centered on the rational ego, from its pre-conscious fusion withnature and the social group. The evolution of consciousness, as it is has beencalled, appears to have brought about the atomization of the archaic mind ofnature, the individualization of the collective psyche into relatively discrete unitsof consciousness. The individual human ego, once barely distinct from nature andthe instincts, has become increasingly separate and differentiated from its identitywith the group mind or the group soul, and from its initial state of participation144 Birch and Cobb, Liberation of life, 88.145 Ibid.146 Ibid., 132.147

mystique. The modern human being possesses an acutely focused form of rationalconsciousness, but one that has become increasingly estranged from theinstinctual basis of life, from the feelings, and from the body. Indeed, depthpsychology has shown that human identity now primarily rests not even with thebody, but with some half-consciously constructed self-image, an ego-ideal, aprojection of what one would like to be, or how one would like to be seen, ratherthan a reflection of what or who one truly is. Meanwhile, despite well-meaningpretensions to cultured rationality and to conscious self-governance, we often findourselves subject to the unconscious influence and emotional distortions of therepressed instincts and feelings, and—in our increasingly precarious ecologicalpredicament—at the mercy of the exploited and devalued material realm. And soin this, our current situation, many perceptive observers, sensitive to the greaterevolutionary trajectory within which our lives are unfolding, agree that we appearto be poised at a critical moment in our evolution. There are indications that thelong evolutionary process of the separation of consciousness from its origins innature and out of its cosmic matrix, is now reaching a critical juncture. As egoconsciousnessis forced to an extreme of isolation, we are now perhaps starting tosee the beginnings of a great reversal, an enantiodromia, when the existentialchasm between consciousness and its sustaining ground is to be closed, and whenthe rational ego must participate in the emergence of a deeper self, as a new modeof being is born. For if the modern ego-self has had to deny and repress anyintuitive awareness of its own deeper ground—if it has had to undergo apsychological differentiation or even dissociation from nature, from the cosmos,148

and from its deeper psychic origins—in order to establish its own separateexistence and to realize its autonomy, so in the next phase of our evolutionaryjourney the self must now, we can surmise, participate in the recovery of itsrelationship to this deeper ground; it must descend into its own depths andconfront that which has been repressed. 147 Dying to its former narrow egocentricidentity, it must engage with, overcome, and transform the hitherto neglectedemotional-instinctual realm.The Anthropic Cosmological PrincipleWithin modern physics, the evolutionary significance of human life hasnow started to become more apparent with a clearer understanding that humanconsciousness is inextricably connected to physical reality. Heisenberg’suncertainty principle has shown that the observer is not separate from theobserved reality: It is impossible for a human being to act as an impartial,objective observer in scientific experiments, for the very expectations and postureadopted by the experimenter actually influences the nature of the phenomenaunder scrutiny. Human beings are part and parcel of the universe they seek toobserve. Physicist John Wheeler therefore proposes that the classical idea of theindependent observer be replaced by that of the participator. 148 It now seemscertain that we live in a participatory universe—in a universe, that is to say, in147 For further detail on this perspective, see especially Abrams, Naturalsupernaturalism; and Washburn, Ego and dynamic ground.148 See Barrow and Tipler, Anthropic cosmological principle, 22 and 470–471.149

which human consciousness participates, to an extent, in shaping the nature ofreality.As such, human consciousness appears in fact to have a very importantrole to play within the larger scheme of things. According to the so-calledanthropic cosmological principle, the very construction of the universe suggeststhat the existence of human consciousness, of “intelligent observers,” is in somesense intended. The universe seems to be so constructed as to make possible theevolutionary emergence of the biological life that supports self-reflectiveconsciousness. Minute changes in the structure of the universe (in the numericconstants that determine this) would make life impossible. “The realization thatthe possibility of biological evolution is strongly dependent on the globalstructure of the universe,” as John Barrow and Frank Tipler put it, has given riseto speculation on just what the human purpose within the universe might be. 149The probability of human consciousness ever coming into being is so remote andcontingent on so many unlikely yet necessary events from the beginnings of timethat it seems extremely improbable that consciousness could have evolved bychance alone. The anthropic principle is therefore a modern form of a designargument for it suggests that it is the inherent design of the universe that hasallowed human consciousness to come into existence.This is not to imply, of course, that human beings have been placed onEarth by an omnipotent creator or that we are more important than other lifeforms, only that we seem to occupy a uniquely privileged position within nature149 Ibid., 4.150

and that we must therefore assume the responsibility that comes with this status.For, as far as we know, it is human consciousness alone that allows life to becomereflectively known to itself. Human consciousness enables nature, or the spirit innature, to behold itself in the light of consciousness, to be transformed throughmaterial existence, to achieve new depths of self-realization. In The UniverseStory, Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry suggest that human beings are given“the role of enabling the Earth and the universe entire to reflect on and tocelebrate themselves and the deep mysteries they bear with them in a specialmode of conscious self-awareness.” 150 In a similar vein, Joseph Campbelldescribes human beings as the “ears and eyes” of the Earth. 151 Without humanconsciousness, through which the world becomes known to a conscious subject, itis as if the world and the universe have never existed. In the light ofconsciousness, in those moments of deep reflection when we behold the universein wonder, horror, awe, or beauty, the world truly comes into being. Of course, arevelatory experience of this kind requires something more than our ordinarysurface consciousness as its witness, since it depends not merely on our rationalknowing, but on a depth of insight and appreciation of context only fully availableto the individuated person.In Jung’s view human consciousness actually assumes a profoundcosmogonic significance through its potential to further the process of the divine’sself-revelation. Within the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the process of150 Berry and Swimme, Universe story, 1.151 Campbell, Myths to live by, 246.151

individuation can actually be seen, Jung argues, as the next phase in thecontinuation of God’s Incarnation in human history—the phase of the Incarnationof the Holy Spirit in each individual person. As Edward Edinger points out,Jung’s radical interpretation of the Christian myth, based on his insight that Godis at least partly unconscious, bestows upon human life both a supreme dignityand an immense burden. 152 For if Jung is right the evolutionary challenge beforeus is nothing less than taking upon ourselves the task of enabling God to becomemore fully conscious by experiencing in our own life a veritable crucifixion of theego that the Self (the incarnate “God-image,” according to Jung) might becomefully known in the light of consciousness. God’s unconsciousness is to be endedthrough his incarnation in human beings who, through the work of individuation,bring the divine to consciousness. Thus understood, to individuate is not only tofulfill an evolutionary purpose but, by adding consciousness to the world, it alsocompletes God’s work of creation. And ultimately, of course, these two endsmight well be one and the same.Regardless of one’s view of its religious significance, however, theanthropic cosmological principle suggests that human consciousness has evolvedout of nature and has been brought forth by the cosmos itself, made possible onlybecause of the specific structure of the cosmos. Considering these origins, wemight well be persuaded that the purpose of human consciousness cannot bemerely to support the personal agenda of the ego, to satisfy the whim of personaldesire, or to gratify the instincts and fulfill biological imperatives. Instead, in152 Edinger makes this argument in his The creation of consciousness: Jung’smyth for modern man.152

accordance with what we have discussed above, it seems likely that humanconsciousness must ultimately fulfill a far grander end, and that, in due course, thehuman being will be called upon to serve the evolutionary purposes of theuniverse from which it emerged, to fulfill nature’s ends and aims, and to alignitself with the larger destiny of our planet Earth.In this evolutionary context, as we now begin to move beyond theanthropocentric assumption that mind is the exclusive preserve of the humanbeing, a new interpretation of the nature of mind will be imperative. Just as anarrow, atomistic conception of mind seems to have been essential to theevolutionary emergence of the individual ego, as many more people strive now totranscend the ego and come into a more meaningful relationship with nature, thepsyche, and the wider world, we must begin to revise and expand ourunderstanding of mind. If we are to “pass beyond the limits of that islanduniverse, within which every individual finds himself contained,” 153 as AldousHuxley put it, if we are to fulfill our “intended” role with the cosmos, we mustopen ourselves to the anima mundi and the world spirit; we must attune ourselvesto Mind at Large, and seek to understand our own relationship to those largersystems in which human life is embedded.In recent years, no doubt reflecting or anticipating this evolutionarytransition, and prompted by the developments in physics and depth psychology,new conceptions of mind and its relationship to matter have begun to emergeacross several disciplines—theories that attempt to bridge the ontological and153 Huxley, Substitutes for liberation, 116.153

epistemological divide between human consciousness and the cosmos, betweenthe knower and the known, and that radically challenge the Cartesian dualism thathas informed the modern world view. In the philosophical interpretations ofmodern physics, presented by Fritjof Capra and David Bohm; in the organicistbiology of Rupert Sheldrake; in the evolutionary systems theory of Capra, ErvinLaszlo, and Erich Jantsch; in the cosmology and ecology of Brian Swimme andThomas Berry; in the depth and transpersonal psychology of Jung, JamesHillman, and Stanislav Grof; in the phenomenology of Martin Heidegger andMaurice Merleau-Ponty; and in the ecology of mind of Gregory Bateson—in allthese there exists, despite important differences, a common vision of mind andmatter, and mind and nature as a “necessary unity,” to use Bateson’s term. 154 Wewill find, then, that by drawing together these approaches, here and in laterchapters, our explanation of astrology in terms of systems cosmology can beextended to incorporate mind, a move that will advance our understanding of theself-organizing pattern of the solar system and its relationship to the humanpsyche.The Systems View of MindWe have already seen that the discernible pattern of a system is anexpression of its self-organizing dynamic—its capacity to organize and orderitself, and to maintain its characteristic form. Now, in systems theory this inherent154 Bateson, Mind and nature.154

capacity for self-organization is taken to be related to the system’s mind.According to this view, mind is a manifestation of the “dynamics of selforganization”of a system. 155 Capra explains that “the organizing activity of livingsystems, at all levels of life, is mental activity.” 156 From this perspective, mindshould not be construed as an incorporeal “substance” that exists independentlyfrom the body and from the material world, as in Cartesian dualism. Rather, mindis better understood in terms of process and pattern. According to GregoryBateson, mind is an essential property of all living systems, a fundamental aspectof the process of life itself. 157 As Capra puts it:From the systems point of view, life is not a substance or force, and mindis not an entity interacting with matter. Both life and mind aremanifestations of the same set of systemic properties, a set of processesthat represent the dynamics of self-organization. 158To appreciate the association of mind with the process of life, Capra suggests thatwe expand our concept of mind to include not only thought but any cognitiveactivity such as learning, memory, decision-making, perception, emotion, action,and language. All biological life, from cells and bacteria through to animals andhuman beings, exhibits some form of mental process, be this simple perceptionand awareness or complex abstract thought. Capra points out that bacteria, for155 Capra, Turning point, 291.156 Capra, Web of Life, 172.157 Capra, Turning point, 290.158 Ibid., 315.155

example, are able to perceive differences in heat and light in their environment,differentiate between sugar and acid, detect magnetic fields, and then takeappropriate action based on these perceptions. If very simple organisms likebacteria are capable of cognition, mind cannot be solely dependent on theexistence of a brain or central nervous system—a fact independently recognizedboth in Bateson’s Steps to an Ecology of the Mind and in the so-called Santiagotheory of cognition developed by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. 159Instead, very simple forms of mind are considered to arise when a system’spattern of organization is of a certain level of complexity, a stage that is reachedlong before the evolutionary development of a brain. As Stanislav Grof points out,“the capacity for memory exists in many lower organisms that do not have acerebral cortex at all, including unicellular life-forms that possess primitive‘protoplasmatic memory’.” 160 Indeed, in a logical extension of this position, BrianSwimme and Thomas Berry stress that even the most basic self-organizing(autopoietic) system has an interior psychological dimension. They explain:Autopoiesis points to the interior dimension of things. Even the simplestatom cannot be understood by considering only its physical structure orthe outer world of external relationships with other things. 161159 See Maturana and Varela, Autopoiesis and cognition; and Maturana andVarela, Tree of knowledge.160 Grof, Ken Wilber’s spectrum psychology, 99.161 Berry and Swimme, Universe story, 75.156

From the systems perspective, the human mind is not, therefore,synonymous with the brain; rather, mind is immanent in all the constituent cellsand embedded systems within the human body. Each cell and each relativelyautonomous system possesses a degree of mind, prompting Capra to describe thehuman mind as “a multi-leveled and integrated pattern of processes that representthe dynamics of human self-organization.” 162 In the modern Western world, wehave come to believe that mind and consciousness are exclusively associated withthe brain and located in the head, when it appears, in fact—if the systems theoristsare correct—that the individual human mind is actually related to the entirephysical structure and processes of the human body. Each system in the humanbody has mind (the capacity for mentation, intelligent organization, an interiordimension) and some form of awareness that contributes to the consciousness ofthe whole human being.Capra argues that the systems definition of mind as a process related to apattern of organization makes possible the reconciliation of two apparentlyconflicting views of the nature and origin of mind: the modern scientific view andthe mystical view. 163 On the one hand, Capra points out, the systems view is inbasic agreement with the conventional scientific position: namely, that mind is theresult of a certain level of complexity of material organization, that it is asecondary epiphenomenon derived from physical structure. For example, the factthat human beings have complex organs called brains makes possible the complex162 Capra, Turning point, 322.163 Ibid., 323–324.157

mental functionality we associate with human minds. The human mind arisesbecause of the physical structure of the brain; it emerges from it.On the other hand, however, this physical structure (the brain, in thisexample) can actually be thought of as the embodiment of mind. Behind thecomplex physical structure of the brain lies a self-organizing intelligence thatactually determines the brain’s structure. The brain, in this sense, is not the causeof mind; rather, mind (self-organization, pattern, form) itself informs thephysiological development and functioning of the brain. The brain is not theorigin of mind or consciousness, but the physical organ that is brought forth andused by mind. It is the organ of consciousness, not its source.Capra is saying in effect that one’s understanding of mind depends on theperspective one assumes: One can either see the brain (complex materialorganization) as primary and posit that mind arises from the brain; or one can seemind as primary and the complex material organization of the brain as aconsequence or embodiment of this mind. The brain and the individual humanmind appear to be two different aspects of the same phenomenon.This principle can be applied not only to the relationship between theindividual human mind and the human brain but, more fundamentally, to therelationship of mind to matter in general. Capra explains:The description of mind as a pattern of organization, or a set of dynamicrelationships, is related to the description of matter in modern physics.Mind and matter no longer appear to belong to two fundamentally separate158

categories, as Descartes believed, but can be seen to represent merelydifferent aspects of the same universal process. 164From the systems perspective, then, the mystical-idealist vision, in which mindnot matter is the primary reality, is equally true as the materialist explanation. Wecannot say that mind is just an epiphenomenon of brain process, or that materialstructure is the primary form of reality; rather, mind and matter, it appears, aremutually dependent: Mind depends on material structure, yet this structure is itselfthe physical expression of mind. Mind, in this sense, brings forth the structure ofthe world. The entire universe—every aspect of the material world—arises fromthe embodiment of mind in structure.The Cosmic MindThis alternative way of thinking allows us to shift focus from a view ofmind as something that exists “inside” individual human beings, to a more holisticviewpoint in which, by contrast, human beings are recognized to exist “within”larger, surrounding fields of mind. Let us consider this idea more closely.The individual human mind, we have said, consists of the sum total of themental processes of the whole body and arises from the dynamics of human selforganization.The physical body might be envisaged, then, as the outermanifestation of the body’s mind, and the mind as the inner experience of thebody. However, mind does not end at the physical boundary of the individual164 Ibid., 315.159

person. As we saw in chapter 2, quantum field theory has demonstrated thatultimately the physical demarcation and separation between entities and thesurrounding environment is only an abstraction from the undivided reality thatbecomes apparent at the quantum level: Human beings, although relativelyseparate and autonomous, are part of an unbroken field of energy; they belong towhat Bohm called the universal order of undivided wholeness. It follows, then,that in the same way that the human being is embedded within larger physicalsystems, the individual human mind is itself embedded within larger systems ofmind. Thus Capra:In the stratified order of nature, individual human minds are embedded inthe larger minds of social and ecological systems, and these are integratedinto the planetary mental system—the mind of Gaia—which in turn mustparticipate in some kind of universal or Cosmic Mind. 165Although this notion of a cosmic mind is obviously entirely hypothetical, it is, allthe same, a logical consequence of our application of systems concepts tocosmology. For just as the individual human mind is related to the dynamics ofhuman self-organization, so the cosmos, understood as a system in its own right,must accordingly have its own mind that, as Capra suggests, is related to “theuniverse’s self-organizing dynamics.” 166 Present throughout the structure of the165 Ibid., 317.166 Ibid., 298.160

universe, giving a form and order to material structure, the cosmic mind, in thisview, is the self-organizing principle that informs the process of life.Similarly the solar system, with its own pattern of organization, must alsohave its own form of mind. And if, as we have suggested, the planetary order is anexpression of this pattern of organization then the planetary order must, bydefinition, be an expression of the mind of the solar system. Clearly, this hasimportant implications for understanding astrology since it suggests that thepattern of the planets, rather than being merely a collection of inert materialbodies in mechanical motion, is itself the result of an interior organizingdimension of being. The positions, movements, and geometric alignments of theplanets, that is, must actually be an expression of the mind of the solar system. 167What I am suggesting here, then, is that when astrologers study theplanetary positions and their relationships and movements, perhaps what they aredoing is interpreting how human lives are influenced, shaped, and animated bythis larger mind. Perhaps the reason the planetary positions are meaningful, thereason they can symbolize the deeper psychological patterns and archetypalthemes in human life, is that the solar system itself has an interior dimension.Perhaps the planetary order reflects a deeper principle of order that also influences167 Such a notion, that the heavens are in some way expressive of a cosmic ordivine mind, was fundamental to Neoplatonism. In the “far spread heavens,” Plotinusdeclared, “there it is that the good Souls dwell, infusing life into the stars and into thatorderly eternal circuit of the heavens which in its conscious movement ever about onecentre, seeking nothing beyond, is a faithful copy of the divine Mind. And all that iswithin me strives towards the Good; and each, to the measure of its faculty, attains. Forfrom that Good all the heavens depend, with all my own Soul and the Gods that dwell inmy every part.” Plotinus, Enneads, 139.161

and informs the interior world of the human psyche. If so, then astrology mightproperly be defined as the study of the mind of the solar system.Of course, this argument depends on our understanding mind in terms ofthe dynamics of self-organization—in terms of meaningful pattern, order, andform—rather than in the narrower sense in which mind is understood to besynonymous with human thinking and reasoning. Admittedly, it is highly unusualfor us to contemplate the existence of a cosmic mind or to think of the solarsystem as having some form of mind because this radically contradicts ourordinary understanding of just what mind is. As we have seen, we are accustomedto associate mind almost exclusively with human beings: Mind is construed inhuman terms as the uniquely human capacity for thought, for reflection, forintelligent higher-order processing, for reason and abstraction. Needless to say, itis not necessary to attribute these same qualities to the cosmic mind; I am notsuggesting that the Earth or the solar system and the universe have the same kindof mind as the human being. Yet this does not preclude there being other forms ofmind, different in kind to the human mind—different forms of intelligence and ofconsciousness—which, although perhaps not as acutely focused as humanconsciousness and lacking the distinctly human capacity for self-reflection, mightstill transcend and subsume the individual human mind in depth and scope. For ifvery simple organisms possess self-organizing intelligence and have an interiordimension of some kind, then surely the universe at large must also possess anorganizing intelligence and its own interiority that befits its magnitude andgrandeur. Is it really possible that simple autopoietic systems such as bacteria162

have mind, but the universe itself, from which all life forms have emerged, islacking in any such self-organizing intelligence or an interior dimension and isitself therefore devoid of mind?It is easy to overlook that human consciousness is itself the product of theuniverse, that it has been brought forth by the universe in the course of the longprocess of evolution. As the visionary scientist Teilhard de Chardin explicates inThe Phenomenon of Man, his classic treatise on evolution, human beings are theresult of a series of evolutionary mutations. Beginning with the emergence ofsubatomic particles, the evolutionary process then brought forth atoms, cells, andstars, and then simple organisms and animals. Lastly, with the emergence of thehuman came the dramatic, unexpected appearance of self-reflective consciousnessthrough which the previously unconscious interiority of life finally became knownto itself, revealed in the light of human conscious awareness.It is through the human disclosure of the interior dimension of reality,Teilhard argues, that we can recognize the interiority within all forms. Teilhardsuggests that given the deep underlying connection between every part of theuniverse (given that at the quantum level each particle appears to befundamentally connected to every other particle), if one part of the universepossesses interiority, then, logically, this interiority must be present in some formthroughout reality as a whole. As Teilhard puts it,It is impossible to deny that, deep within ourselves, an ‘interior’ appears atthe heart of beings, as it were seen through a rent. This is enough to ensurethat, in one degree or another, this ‘interior’ should obtrude itself as163

existing everywhere in nature from all time. Since the stuff of the universehas an inner aspect at one point of itself, there is necessarily a doubleaspect to its structure, that is to say in every region of space and time. 168All phenomena, Teilhard proposes, have not only an exterior aspect but also aninterior one. This “double-aspect” to the structure of reality means that interiorityis not exclusive to human beings but is in some sense present through all points ofthe universal whole such that, according to his famous axiom, “co-extensive withtheir Without, there is a Within to things.” 169The alternative view of a mind as co-extensive with matter, as somethingthat is interfused with the cosmos, obviously represents a radical departure fromour ordinary understanding of mind as an exclusively human phenomenon arisingfrom the brain and located inside the human being. Yet I believe this systemsconception of mind, and the idea that mind is the “within” of the universe, is justas feasible as the orthodox view of mind and, in fact, offers significantexplanatory advantages that can help us make sense of synchronicities andastrological correspondences—phenomena inexplicable in terms of theconventional view. If mind is inherent within the solar system—if the solarsystem has its own interior dimension—then we can better appreciate how thepositions of the planets in the solar system can have an interior meaning, one thatis applicable to human life. If mind is not exclusively located within the humanbeing, but is in fact the “within” of the entire universe, and if the individual168 Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of man, 56.169 Ibid (emphasis Teilhard’s).164

human mind is embedded in this universal “within,” then it is far less surprisingthat we can encounter meaningful coincidences and symbolic correspondencesoutside of us, in the external world, that are related to our own subjectiveexperience of meaning. And again, if mind is related to pattern and the dynamicsof self-organization, and the planetary order is an expression of this pattern, thenwe should not be surprised either that the study of this planetary positions inastrology enables us to interpret the interior meaning of our place in the solarsystem.Although this understanding of astrology might appear quite complex, it isin fact a rather simple idea. It merely conveys the notion that there is some formof universal ordering principle responsible for the physical order of the cosmosand that human experience is, quite naturally, related to this greater orderingprinciple. It implies only that astrology can help us to understand how thisuniversal order affects human lives on Earth. While such an understanding ofastrology is not entirely new, what is significant, I believe, is the fact that thisdefinition can be formulated using modern systems theory—that the veryconcepts and principles used in systems theory, when applied to the solar system,enable us to arrive at this definition, and to articulate the philosophical basis ofastrology in a modern language. Far from being an archaic esoteric systemincompatible with modern understanding, as is commonly thought, astrologyappears remarkably comprehensible when formulated in terms of the emergingorganicist-systems perspective.165

By extending our systems cosmology to incorporate mind, then, we cansee that the very attempt to explain how an outer pattern of planetary bodies isrelated to an inner realm of subjective human meaning arises, it seems, from abasic misunderstanding of the actual nature of the mind-matter relationship. TheCartesian division of the mental subject from the objective material world,although helpful epistemologically, is somewhat misleading for mind and matterare not ontologically separate realms of being but a unity. To be sure, they areexperienced in quite different ways, and there is a relative autonomy to ourpsychological processes, but fundamentally mind and matter are only differentaspects of the life process, different sides of the same coin, as it were. Mind is notan isolated interior realm separate from life and from matter; rather mind is afundamental feature of life—it is the interior dimension of the material world. Thecosmos, we might say, is the materiality of the cosmic mind, and the cosmic mindis the interior dimension of the cosmos. Thus understood, even the planetarybodies must have their own interior dimension; even planetary systems must havea “within,” co-extensive with their “without”—with their physical form andstructure.It goes without saying that the systemic model of mind and its applicationto cosmology relies largely on theoretical conjecture and, as such, is not yetsubstantiated by scientific evidence. But the very fact that such formulations ofthe nature of mind are appearing within new paradigm science seems to me ofgreat significance, reflecting, I believe, the initial stages of a profound transitionin our understanding of the human relationship to the cosmos. Indeed, from166

another quarter entirely, in support of these new theoretical formulations in thephysical sciences, depth and transpersonal psychology have furnished us withsimilar, highly congruent models of the nature of the psyche. These approaches,as we will now consider, suggest a new understanding of mind—one that is moreclosely aligned with the ancient vision of the anima mundi and of a universallogos or nous. In this emerging vision, mind is not just personal and individual,but also transpersonal and collective; mind is not just anthropocentric butcosmological in scope and essence; it is not only to be understood atomisticallybut also holistically, recognizing that the human mind, although relativelyseparate and autonomous, is also embedded in larger fields of mind; and lastlymind cannot, in this new understanding, be reduced to material causes, norconceived as a separate encapsulated realm of being, but is rather co-extensivewith matter, present throughout the cosmos.It remains for us in the next two chapters to consider how we mightactually experience the mind of the solar system in our lives, and to suggestexactly what the “within” of the planetary order might be like. As we now explorethe interior dimension of the cosmos, we will attempt to bring together thetheoretical models of systems theory with the research findings and theories ofdepth and transpersonal psychology.167

Chapter FiveThe Archetypal OrderHaving begun our exploration of pattern by examining the planetary orderof the solar system, we next moved from the outside inwards, so to speak, byrelating the planetary order to the interior realm of mind. We will now work in theopposite direction: Taking as our starting point the human psyche, as explored bydepth and transpersonal psychology, we will consider how the interior order ofthe psyche is related to the external world and to the cosmological context inwhich our lives take place. This will enable us to further develop our systemsexplanation of astrology.Consciousness and Transpersonal PsychologyOn reflection, the supposition that mind is present throughout the entirecosmos might seem to be nothing but unfounded speculation, a theoreticalpostulate reflecting the rather unconventional definition of mind used in systemstheory, and one lacking any empirical support. This objection appears less valid,however, when we consider the significant body of research accumulated inrecent years in transpersonal psychology, and the implications of these findingsfor our understanding of mind.168

Whereas orthodox, academic psychology has generally focused on a rathernarrow conception of the human mind (often restricting its attention toconsciousness, to cognitive processing, or to overt behavior, social relationships,and the surface personality), through the twentieth century, depth psychology,humanistic, and transpersonal psychology probed far beyond the ordinary surfacelevels of consciousness and began to explore deeper and wider realms of thehuman unconscious. What has emerged from these disciplines is a vastly enlargedpicture of the psyche, one in which the conscious personality, the individual egoself,is now seen to constitute only a small part of our psychological being.Contrary to the orthodox scientific position, we now know that the roots of thehuman personality run deep and that its boundaries are not absolute butpermeable, extending into the vastness of a psyche of perhaps infinite scope.Stanislav Grof is one of the founders of transpersonal psychology, and itsleading light. Drawing on over fifty years of research in the field, he summarizeshis view of the nature of the human psyche and its relationship to the cosmos:I now firmly believe that consciousness is more than an accidental byproductof the neurophysiological and biochemical processes taking placein the human brain. I see consciousness and the human psyche asexpressions and reflections of a cosmic intelligence that permeates theentire universe and all of existence. We are not just highly evolvedanimals with biological computers embedded inside our skulls; we are alsofields of consciousness without limits, transcending time, space, matterand linear causality. 170170 Grof and Bennett, Holotropic mind, 18.169

Grof’s research, conducted first in the former Czechoslovakia and then in theUnited States, has amassed a significant body of evidence that consciousness, insome form, exists both beyond the conventional boundaries of personhood andindependently of biological life. His investigation into various non-ordinary statesof consciousness arising during experiential psychotherapy and psychologicalself-exploration sessions suggests that under certain conditions consciousness cantranscend its ordinary individual boundaries and that the human psyche, at itsdeeper levels, is not individual in essence but trans-individual or transpersonal.While at the everyday surface level of consciousness it appears that you have yourindividual mind and I have mine, and that our minds are totally unrelated, atdeeper levels individual minds appear to rest upon larger collective andtranspersonal realms of being, realms unexplored by conventional psychology.Grof reports, for example, that in non-ordinary states of consciousness it ispossible for a person to experience themselves as actually being other people withother identities, or as being animals, plants, and inorganic objects. Grof’s researchsuggests that it is even possible to experience a direct identification with the entireplanetary consciousness or a universal mind. He has discovered, furthermore, thatconsciousness can also transcend the normal constraints of time, as in certaincases when it seems to be possible to experience a state of identity with one’sancestors, or to gain access to the memories of what appear to be past lifeepisodes from different historical eras. In fact, according to Grof’s findings, theinteriority of the whole cosmos is potentially available to us through our ownpsychological self-exploration. People engaged in deep psychological self-170

exploration can have profound spiritual experiences of dimensions of being thatlie far beyond our ordinary understanding of reality, and in this sense Grof’s workcorroborates the reports of the world’s mystics and spiritual visionaries. 171 Indeed,the non-ordinary states of consciousness that Grof calls holotropic states, byproviding direct insight into the nature of reality beyond the world of the senses,have actually, he suggests, been the source of the cosmologies and mythologies ofthe world’s major religious traditions.“The human kingdom, beneath the floor of the comparatively neatdwelling we call consciousness,” Joseph Campbell observes, “goes down intounsuspected Aladdin caves.” 172 Yet this kingdom extends not only down, intocavernous depths, but also upwards and outwards into realms of cosmic expanseand transcendent illumination. The exploration of the human psyche in holotropicstates of consciousness is a gateway to the mythical, archetypal domain andprovides firsthand experience of the realm of gods and demons, of blissfulheavens and torturous hells, of mythic heroes and monsters from all cultures, andof a realm populated with the archetypal imagery and motifs of our collectivereligious history. To the ordinary person, concerned with worldly affairs andconstrained by the space and time bound categories of ego-consciousness, thisother kingdom seems remote, improbable, illusory, the stuff of imagination anddream, perceived only in fleeting glimpses and dim intuitions—if at all. Yet forthe shaman or the mystic, breaking through to the deeper dimensions of the171 Grof, Psychology of the future, 56–59.172 Campbell, Hero with a thousand faces, 8.171

psyche, this mysterious interior landscape is recognized to be a living reality, asreal, if not more so, than the daylight world of material concerns. And so it is thatan encounter with this transpersonal, mythic dimension of the psyche awaits manypeople called to a life of self-exploration and self-realization. Whether one entersthis realm consciously, like the mystic, or is tragically overwhelmed by anirruption from the unconscious, as in schizophrenia, the transpersonal dimensionof the human psyche reveals itself to be the numinous ground, the nourishing andannihilating abyss, on which human consciousness has its being.The idea that consciousness can exist independently of the physical brainand transcend the boundaries of individual selfhood, however extraordinary thismay seem, is a conclusion that has been drawn where researchers and theoristshave been willing to look beyond the constraining limits of the modernmaterialistic perspective and remain open to a more inclusive truth, even whenthis contradicts the generally accepted scientific position. Regrettably, there hasall too often been a vehement resistance within scientific orthodoxy to anyexperience that transgresses the boundary of rationalistic materialism—althoughthis now appears to be changing. Such obstinacy in the face of incompatibleinformation, as Jung suggested, can perhaps be attributed to the threat thatinformation of this kind poses to the validity of the Western world view. For if wetake research in transpersonal psychology seriously, and if we compare this withthe new understanding of reality emerging in modern physics and systems theory,we are confronted with a view of the universe radically different to the dominant,orthodox world picture. Research into holotropic states of consciousness, as Grof172

points out, renders invalid the conventional Western world view based onclassical, mechanistic science:The existence and nature of transpersonal experiences violates some of themost basic assumptions of mechanistic science. They imply suchseemingly absurd notions as relativity and arbitrary nature of all physicalboundaries, nonlocal connections in the universe, communication throughunknown means and channels, memory without a material substrate,nonlinearity of time, or consciousness associated with all livingorganisms, and even inorganic matter. 173Grof’s work—and the findings of other researchers in the field oftranspersonal psychology, such as Ralph Metzner and Chris Bache—quitespecifically supports the idea of a cosmic mind. This research presents us withview of the human psyche and its relationship to a “cosmic intelligence thatpermeates the entire universe” that is closely compatible with the astrologicalperspective. 174 In the transpersonal view, as in our systems model, mind isbelieved to be present throughout the whole of nature and the cosmos, and cannot,therefore, be reduced to an epiphenomenon of the neurochemical activity of thebrain. This research suggests further that the individual human mind is embeddedin larger systems of mind and that these deeper levels, of which we are ordinarilyunaware, have a profound influence on human life. Grof’s work, in broadagreement with the new vision of reality emerging from the new paradigmperspectives in physics and biology, emphasizes the fundamental173 Grof, Psychology of the future, 69.174 Grof and Bennett, Holotropic mind, 18.173

interconnectedness of all phenomena. Echoing the philosophical conclusionsdrawn by some modern physicists, Grof suggests that “each of us is connectedwith and is an expression of all of existence” 175 And—of particular relevance toastrology—he adds that the transpersonal view of consciousness implies,that our lives are not shaped only by the immediate environmentalinfluences since the day of our birth but, of at least equal importance, theyare shaped by ancestral, cultural, spiritual, and cosmic influences farbeyond the scope of what we can perceive with our physical senses. 176In the exploration of the human psyche in transpersonal research, whatbegins as an interior quest, a great inward journey into the realm of theunconscious, leads, paradoxically, outwards to the cosmos. Beyond the world ofthe senses, beyond our ordinary states of consciousness, we encounter a deeplyinterconnected reality where rigid dichotomies that seemed incontestable andabsolute now dissolve and show themselves in a different light, revealing theirdeeper unity and interdependence. And although it has scarcely begun to receivethe consideration it merits within many approaches to transpersonal psychology,astrology—in its archetypal form—potentially occupies a special place within thetranspersonal vision since it provides a cosmological perspective that enables usto better understand the mythic and archetypal content of all our states ofconsciousness, be these mundane or numinous, personal or transpersonal.Archetypal astrology, crucially, restores the ancient connection between mythos175 Ibid., 84.176 Ibid., 84.174

and logos, between the mythic imagination and the rational-spiritual world order,between the interior world and cosmology. That it is able to do so owes much toJung whose life and work brought together in a profound creative synthesis thedivergent streams of rational-scientific empiricism and his own highly developedmythological-religious sensibility.The Archetypes and the Collective UnconsciousBreaking away from its origins in classical Freudian psychoanalysis,Jungian thought was extremely influential on the subsequent development of thetranspersonal psychology movement and, more generally, on our emergingunderstanding of the interior landscape of the human psyche. The discovery andexploration of the unconscious through psychoanalysis, initiated by Freud,exposed the rationalistic fallacy of the belief in the sovereign power of theconscious ego and of willpower in self-determination. The psychology of theunconscious discredited the naive view that we are “masters of our own house,”that we have a singular conscious will, centered on the ego, and that this will isthe unassailable determining factor in our lives. Depth psychology demonstratedthat we do not have just one will, consciously controlled, but many motivationalcenters that move us often unconsciously and that may at times work at crosspurposes.The ego, the center of our conscious awareness, is just a small part ofthe total psyche; it is one psychological complex among many, albeit a singularlyimportant one. Depth psychology, above all, demonstrated unequivocally thatmuch of human life is determined by unconscious factors beyond our control, and175

Jungian analytical psychology, in particular, articulated the collective, universal,and mythic nature of the multiple archetypal centers in the unconscious. WithJung, then, we find a model of the psyche that specifically posits the existence ofdeeper collective levels of mind and, crucially, his psychology also provides theclearest explication of the inherent structural order existing in the human psychearound which our thoughts, images, fantasies, and drives are thematicallyorganized.During the course of his work, Jung observed that the fantasies anddreams described by his patients could not all be traced back to their own personalhistories. Rather, some fantasy images were populated with motifs and symbolsthat appeared to be drawn from the mythological traditions of our collective past.As Jung examined more closely the content of such dreams and fantasies, hefound evidence of a meaningful order within the human psyche, of a previouslyunrecognized dimension of the psyche that structures and organizes humanimagination and cognition. He became convinced that underlying the individualhuman mind there must be a deeper level that is not individual and personal inessence, but collective and transpersonal. To account for the origin ofmythological and archetypal fantasy material Jung postulated that the Freudianmodel of the unconscious—of a personal unconscious consisting of repressedmemories and socially unacceptable impulses, desires, and fears—rests upon anadditional deeper “layer,” which he called the collective unconscious or objectivepsyche. He discovered that human life was not only motivated by instinctualdrives rooted in human physiology and psychological material repressed into the176

personal unconscious, as Freud thought, but that it was also shaped by universalmythological ideas and archetypal patterns in the collective unconscious. Jungrealized that the id, the repressed instinctual unconscious, was part of a largerunconscious ground that included not only base drives, instincts, and therepressed contents and impulses of personal experience but also transpersonal,mythic, and archetypal elements. This deep foundation and collective stratum ofthe psyche, in Jung’s view, serves as a “storehouse” or “repository” of theinstincts and dynamic forms behind human existence, but it is also “the matrix ofexperience,” the pre-existent ground from which the individual personalitycentered on the ego-complex emerges. 177Existing within the collective unconscious, within the deepest stratum ofthe psyche, are archetypes such as the hero, the shadow, the anima, the animus,the wise old man, the child, the great mother, and the Self—many of which havenow been assimilated into our common language. These were conceived by Jungas innate structuring principles and dynamic psychic forms behind human life,principles that are both instinctual and spiritual, both natural and transcendent, inessence. Indeed, such is the complex character of the archetypes that Jung felt itnecessary to employ a wide variety of terms to describe them: gods, patterns ofbehavior, conditioning factors, primordial images, unconscious dominants,organizing forms, “formative principle[s] of instinctual power,” “transcendentally177 Frey-Rohn, From Freud to Jung, 96.177

conditioned dynamisms”—to give but a few examples. 178 He suggests,furthermore, that the archetypes are “active, living dispositions, ideas in thePlatonic sense, that preform and continually influence our thoughts, feelings, andactions.” Jung therefore situates his theory of archetypes firmly in the mythic-Platonic tradition. 179 Like the mythological gods, the archetypes are the formativeprinciples, supraordinate to human consciousness and will, that structure, order,and animate our life experience.These archetypes are pre-established patterns that give a dynamic form tohuman existence. For example, to courageously abandon the security and knownhorizons of conventional life and to embark instead on a journey into theunknown is to evoke the hero archetype. The hero’s journey involves a separationfrom the main body of society, from the supporting matrix of the collective, oftento be followed by a triumphant return after a long period of exile and obscurity, asin the classic case of Odysseus. But it is not only that our actions might evoke thisarchetype, or that they merely conform to a pre-established pattern. Rather,archetypes have constitutive power to actually shape and determine humanexperience. Thus, we might act in the aforementioned manner because of the hero178 Quoted terms from Jung, On the nature of the psyche, 145; and Jung, Answerto Job, 201.179 “Within the limits of psychic experience,” Jung proposes, “the collectiveunconscious takes the place of the Platonic realm of eternal Ideas. Instead of thesemodels giving form to created things, the collective unconscious, through its archetypes,provides the a priori condition for the assignment of meaning.” Jung, Mysteriumconiunctionis, 87. What is in question here is exactly what the “limits of psychicexperience” are. If the psyche, as Jung suggested elsewhere, rests on a transcendentalbackground and is fundamentally connected to nature and the external world, then Jung’stheory of archetypes and the collective unconscious, in its later formulation, is closer tothe Platonic position than has generally been assumed. This implication is stronglyreinforced by Jung’s observations of synchronistic phenomena.178

archetype—we might fall under its sway, find ourselves compelled by thenuminous power of the archetype to act, to perceive, and to understand our lifeexperiences through, and in accordance with, the archetypal pattern of the hero.Another easily recognizable archetypal theme is that of transformation or rebirth.Periods of transformation in human life are resonant with all forms oftransformation in nature: the birth of a baby, the splitting of a seed, the snakeshedding its skin, the metamorphosis of the caterpillar, the spiritual rebirth of themystic. Despite the differences in the specific form of manifestation, each of thesecases is qualitatively alike and in each case the transformative process unfolds incertain typical, clearly recognizable ways.Jung recognized that the interplay of the archetypes forms the unconsciousbackground to the personal crises, adventures, and experiences in life. Everyhuman life is the enactment of a drama, with universal and mythic undertones, ina contemporary, personal setting. The archetypal motifs are always evident if welook beneath the cultural and temporal context in which life takes place. It is forthis reason that the great works of literature have a certain timeless quality, thatthe works of Shakespeare, for example, are as relevant to us today as they everwere, for they address the great archetypal themes of human experience.The Universality of the Archetype ConceptThe concept of archetypal principles is fundamental to the cosmology andworld view we are considering here and it therefore merits further exploration.The history of this concept is long and variegated; many different intellectual179

systems, myths, religions, philosophical treatise, and scientific models havearticulated ideas that can contribute to our understanding of the nature ofarchetypal principles. Indeed, many of these ideas initially shaped Jung’sformulation of his theory of the archetypes and the collective unconscious in thefirst decades of the twentieth century, a time when the notion of archetypalpatterns, in one form or another, was prominent in several areas of intellectualpursuit.For Jung, psychology (meaning his own psychological model inparticular) was relevant to all fields of learning, all areas of human endeavor. AsSonu Shamdasani discusses, Jung’s approach emerged from a plethora ofdifferent theories across the academic spectrum, and Jung believed hispsychology might serve to unify these perspectives. Indeed at one point in the1930s, Jung tried to establish a new journal (called Weltanschauung) as a way todraw together the work of “philologists, historians, archeologists, mythologists,folklore students, ethnologists, philosophers, theologians, pedagogues andbiologists,” and to be sourced, further, from the fields of “astrophysics, geology,physiology,” not to mention psychology itself. 180 The archetype concept wasrelevant to and in many cases had been formulated within each of thesedisciplines.The earliest formulations of archetypes were mythic: in the world’s mythictraditions archetypal principles were depicted as gods and goddesses orrepresented by theriomorphic, celestial, vegetal, or elemental symbolism. The180 Jung cited in Shamdasani, Making of modern psychology, 18–21.180

archetypal Forms were then explicated in philosophical terms by Pythagoras andPlato who envisaged these Forms as unchanging universals existing in atranscendent metaphysical realm. These ideal Forms, which included numbers,moral qualities (such as “the Good, the True, and the Beautiful”), and the idealForms of all existent things (such as dogs and horses, chairs and tables), wereimperfectly replicated within the concrete particulars of human experience.Aristotle, Plato’s student, attributed to the Forms a more naturalistic andimmanent character. For him, the archetypal Forms were dynamic andteleological in essence, guiding, impelling, and drawing forth the unfoldingdevelopment of forms from latency to actuality, as in the classic example of thelatent form of the oak tree that is inherent within the acorn.Centuries later, by a synthesis of Greek philosophy with Christianity,Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of Forms were reinterpreted in thetheological speculations of Augustine and Aquinas. (Indeed, it was in part fromAugustine’s work that Jung developed the notion of the archetype.) Much laterstill, something like archetypes were conceived in a more limited form as Kantiancategories, such as those of space, time, and causality, which are innate a prioripredispositions to cognize and perceive in certain ways. Kant reasoned that ourexperiences of phenomena are shaped by such modes of cognition, by theuniversal organizing principles inherent in the human mind.In the German Romantic tradition, however, innate archetypalpredispositions were conceived more widely, as pertaining not only to cognitionbut to the primary instincts and drives informing and animating all human181

experience. Von Hartmann, for instance, identified a number of formative,purposive unconscious instincts, including those of self-preservation, maternallove, shame, sex, and acquisition. 181 Nietzsche, as Shamdasani notes, alsopostulated several distinguishable inherent instincts and drives, including the herdinstinct, the social instinct, an instinct towards freedom, a maternal instinct, areligious instinct, and an instinct for cleanliness. 182 All these, Nietzsche thought,were the overriding determinants of human life, underlying all human motivationand behavior, even those masquerading as religious, philosophical, or cultural innature. Ultimately, for Nietzsche, all the instincts were expressions of the will topower, which was primary. 183 For Freud, the primary instinct was sexual innature, although in his later formulations he recognized two competing drives,eros and thanatos, the life and death instincts. Such instincts and drives servedsimilar functions to those Jung attributed to, or connected with, archetypes,including purposiveness, the capacity to direct behavior, unconscious will,defined thematic characteristics, tendencies towards compulsive repetition, and soon.In another important development, Schelling identified the gods ofmythology as expressions of primordial images (Urbilder), a concept not unlikethe “elementary ideas” of Adolf Bastian. 184 Other sources of or parallels with181 See Shamdasani, Making of modern psychology, 176.182 Ibid., 193.183 Ibid., 192–194.184 Ibid., 257.182

Jung’s notion of archetypes are to be found in Nietzsche’s conception of theDionysian and Apollonian aesthetic sensibilities, in Schopenhauer’s prototypes,Whitehead’s eternal objects, Wittgenstein’s family resemblances, andHeidegger’s idea of existential moods permeating the field of being (Dasein) andhis later formulation of “the Fourfold” structure of Dasein, comprising gods andmortals, sky and earth. 185 Shamdasani points out that that notions approximatingarchetypes are also to be found in Alfred Fouillee’s psychology of force ideas,ethnologist Konrad Lorenz’s ideas of innate behavior patterns and theirrelationship to “innate gestalt images,” and in German cultural historianLamprecht’s theory of cultural dominants. At the historical level, the notion ofcultural phases and stages defined by archetypal patterns of change wereadvanced by Spengler, Toynbee, and Sorokin. Relevant too are the leitmotifsrecognized in literature and in Wagnerian opera, the idea of cultural epistemes,185 To the best of my knowledge, Tarnas was the first to recognize, or at least toarticulate, that the astrological concept of the planetary archetype is informed by manydifferent sources in the history of ideas. According to Tarnas: “We can define anarchetype as a universal principle or force that affects—impels, structures, permeates—the human psyche and the world of human experience on many levels. One can think ofthem in mythic terms as gods and goddesses (or what Blake called “the Immortals”), inPlatonic terms as transcendent first principles and numinous Ideas, or in Aristotelianterms as immanent universals and dynamic indwelling forms. One can approach them ina Kantian mode as a priori categories of perception and cognition, in Schopenhauerianterms as the universal essences of life embodied in great works of art, or in theNietzschean manner as primordial principles symbolizing basic cultural tendencies andmodes of being. In the twentieth-century context, one can conceive of them in Husserlianterms as essential structures of human experience, in Wittgensteinian terms as linguisticfamily resemblances linking disparate but overlapping particulars, in Whiteheadian termsas eternal objects and pure potentialities whose ingression informs the unfolding processof reality, or in Kuhnian terms as underlying paradigmatic structures that shape scientificunderstanding and research. Finally, with depth psychology, one can approach them inthe Freudian mode as primordial instincts impelling and structuring biological andpsychological processes, or in the Jungian manner as fundamental formal principles ofthe human psyche, universal expressions of a collective unconscious and, ultimately, ofthe unus mundus.” Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 84.183

and Thomas Kuhn’s notion of paradigms unconsciously shaping scientificresearch. Add to this the parallels to Jung’s ideas in Eastern thought (Buddhism,Hindu Yoga, Taoism) and the influences of the Western esoteric tradition(alchemy, astrology, Gnosticism) and one gets a sense for the universality of thearchetype concept and its importance in the conception of the nature of realityacross cultures and traditions the world over. Encompassing all the differentformulations listed above, archetypes are to be conceived as instinctual,psychodynamic, mythic, transcendent, cognitive, emotional, perceptual,behavioral, and ultimately spiritual factors.The concept of the collective unconscious was also informed by manydifferent sources. Shamdasani identifies crucial influences in the work of thephilosophers of the unconscious, Carus and von Hartmann, and in organicmemory theorists such as Hering, Butler, Ribot, Forel, Laycock, and Stanley Hall,as well as Semon’s concept of the phylogentic Mneme. 186 Indeed, inShamdasani’s view:Transindividual or collective conceptions of the unconscious were sowidespread in philosophy, physiology and psychology in the latter half ofthe nineteenth century, that it could be considered accidental that no one,as far as I am aware, had actually used the term ‘collective unconscious’before Jung. . . His collective unconscious was collectively constituted,through drawing together the various conceptions of the unconsciouswhich had been put forward at the end of the nineteenth century. Itrepresents the culmination, rather than the inauguration, of collectiveconceptions of the unconscious. 187186 Shamdasani, Making of modern psychology, 233–234,187 Ibid., 235.184

In light if this, it is not entirely clear why notions of archetypes were not taken upand developed further in the twentieth century after Jung, apart from in certainschools of depth and transpersonal psychology. One important reason was thedecline in Lamarkian explanations in biology in favor of standard Darwinianaccounts of evolutionary inheritance: Jung’s notion of inherited archetypaldispositions, initially influenced by Lamarkianism, seemed unnecessary given theexplanatory power of the Darwinian theory. More generally, it seems likely thatconcepts emphasizing collective and universal factors in human experience fellout of favor in an intellectual climate that became increasing fragmented, thatplaced increasing emphasis on the particular, on plurality and diversity, and inwhich there was a mistrust of universal perspectives, especially after the SecondWorld War. Thus, rather than being repudiated on good empirical grounds, itseems likely that ideas of archetypes simply became out of fashion, first with thedominant trends of positivism, reductionism, atomism, and mechanistic causaldeterminism, and then later with deconstructive postmodernism.It also seems likely that in many cases the basis of Jung’s work has beenunderstood far too narrowly, in terms of individual human psychology orinherited biology, which precludes a synthesis of theories describing differentaspects of archetypes. Given the wide variety of concepts, properties, andattributes evident in the many formulations of archetypes discussed above, onemight conclude that the different theorists and cultures were in fact talking aboutwholly different things, and that there is no relationship, for example, between thedrives in the unconscious psyche and the family resemblances of Wittgenstein, or185

etween the patterns of behavior and mythic gods. However, one might alsoventure another possible explanation: namely, that the nature of the archetype isof such complexity and multidimensionality that it supports all these propertiesand conceptualizations, and that each theorist is only able to disclose certainaspects of archetypes, never the whole range of qualities and attributes. It seemsto be the case, as Richard Tarnas suggests, that the archetype is “a shape-shiftingprinciple of principles” with many different forms, qualities, and attributes, andthis is reflected in the many varied formulations discussed here. 188Archetypal Theory and Systems CosmologyFrom this brief introduction to Jungian psychology and its background inthe history of ideas, we can see that several lines of comparison of archetypaltheory with the astrological view immediately suggest themselves, most notably,the conception of a pluralistic psyche, the discovery that there aremultidimensional powers or organizing principles beyond conscious control thatinfluence human experience, and the recognition of the mythic nature of theseconditioning principles.Given these similarities, it is not surprising that during the last centurymany leading astrologers, recognizing that Jung’s psychology is broadlycompatible with the astrological perspective, turned to his theory of archetypes inthe belief that this could provide some kind of empirical validation or widerauthority to support astrology. The connection between the two fields, in its most188 Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 84.186

general terms, is well established. Like astrology, Jungian archetypal psychologyviews the human psyche as a multiplicity not as a conscious unity, and bothacknowledge that, as in mythology, there are many “gods” intervening in humanlife. For Jung, astrology held an ongoing fascination since he believed itrepresented “the sum of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity,” and weknow from his personal correspondence that he regularly used astrological chartsto help with the analysis of his patients. 189 For example, in a letter written in 1947,Jung remarks: “In cases of difficult psychological diagnosis, I usually get ahoroscope in order to have a further point of view from an entirely different angle.I must say that I very often found that the astrological data elucidated certainpoints which otherwise I would have been unable to understand.” 190In practice, however, the sometimes uncritical application of Jung’s ideasto astrology has been problematic. Most notably, the failure to recognize theimplicit philosophical assumptions within Jungian psychology has seenconceptual limitations within Jung’s thinking imported into astrology. This hasled, in some cases, to a misunderstanding both of the nature of the astrologicalplanetary principles and the meaning of the astrological birth chart. Critics ofpsychological astrology have argued that by simplistically connecting the planetswith the Jungian archetypes, for example, and by defining the astrological birthchart as a map of the psyche, astrology has in effect been reduced to nothing butpsychology, concerned only with human interiority and only incidentally related189 Jung, Spirit in man, art, and literature, 56.190 Jung to B. V. Raman, September 6, 1947, in C.G. Jung letters I, 475.187

to the outside world. 191 The influence of twentieth century depth, humanistic, andtranspersonal psychology—each of which, until recently, has pursued anindividualistic, person-centered approach, or focused predominantly on theintrapsychic nature of human experience—has led to an exaggerated emphasiswithin modern astrology on the psychology of the individual, often at the expenseof an appreciation of our relationships to other people and of our participation incollective planetary cycles pertaining to the zeitgeist and to world events. Underthe influence of psychology and science, modern psychological astrology hasoften assumed an anthropocentric and Cartesian starting point. It has in effectaddressed itself to an isolated, solipsistic individual psyche that has been tacitlyconstrued as existing independently of the external world and other individualpsyches. At the root of these difficulties lies the philosophical understanding ofthe relationship between the psyche and the cosmos, and between the planets andthe archetypal principles.What has become clear is that one cannot use Jungian psychology toformulate an explanation of astrology without considering the wider philosophicalframework within which Jung’s ideas are situated. As it happens, this issue hasbeen at the forefront of debates within post-Jungian archetypal studies in recentdecades. James Hillman, for example, suggests that what is needed is a“psychological cosmology” that addresses the relationship of archetypalpsychology (and its therapeutic applications) to its deeper cosmological or191 For two critiques of this kind, see Hyde, Jung and astrology and Harding,Hymns to the ancient gods.188

metaphysical ground. 192 Along similar lines, philosopher David Ray Griffin,following his engagement with Jung’s ideas in relation to those of Alfred NorthWhitehead, calls for a new “metaphysical psychology” that specifically bringstogether metaphysics, cosmology, and psychology. 193 This endeavor is clearly offundamental importance to any viable form of explanation of the humanrelationship to the cosmic order and is essential, therefore, for astrology.It is partly because of the ambiguity in Jung’s own thought, and partlybecause of the sheer complexity, scope, and profundity of his ideas, that Jungiantheory has left itself open to different, often widely varying, interpretations and192 Hillman, Back to beyond, 220.193 Griffin, Metaphysical psychology, 239–249.189

emphases. 194 The established interpretations all have their strengths, yet none ofthem, to my mind, are wholly adequate to satisfactorily accommodate all the mainelements of Jungian thought, and they invariably tend to emphasize some aspectsat the expense of others. Most important, these interpretations generally fail totake into account the evolution of Jung’s thought, particularly the radical shift inhis thinking about archetypes in his later years, or to accommodate his manybrilliant, although sometimes conflicting insights that often seem to transcend hismore systematic theoretical formulations. As Jung himself openly admitted, itremains the task of those who come after him to put his ideas into order.194 For a classification of Jungian psychotherapy into different approaches, seeSamuels, Jung and the post-Jungians. Samuels classifies Jungian theorists and therapistsinto three different orientations: classical, developmental, and archetypal. The classicalapproach, which primarily refers to the first generation of Jungians, includes MarieLouise von Franz, Esther Harding, Jolande Jacobi, Joseph Henderson, and EdwardEdinger. The developmental approach, primarily centered in London, focuses more onchild psychology, the transference, and the basis of Jung’s ideas in biology. This has beendeveloped and explicated by figures such as Michael Fordham and James Redfearn. Thearchetypal school (or “archetypal psychology”) is the creation of James Hillman, and isallied with the work of Henry Corbin, Edward Casey, and Robert Avens. Hillman’s Revisioningpsychology is the seminal work on archetypal psychology, one that has beenvery influential on Richard Tarnas's thinking. Drawing heavily on Jungian thought andRenaissance Neoplatonism, Hillman presents a modern psychology of the soul,characterized by a recognition of the plurality of the psyche as an imaginal realmthematically organized by the archetypes; he articulates a polytheistic psychology thatreinstates the gods, recognizing and honoring their role in human experience. AlthoughSamuels has recently qualified his original classification, now seeing them as particularorientations that might be employed interchangeably by individual therapists rather thanas distinct schools, his initial distinction retains its usefulness in that it helps toconceptualize different emphases within Jungian studies. To this initial threefoldclassification identified by Samuels, one might now add a fourth grouping: thephenomenological approach emerging out of the Dallas School of Jungians includingRobert Romanyshyn and Roger Brooke. The latter’s Jung and phenomenology is aninterpretation of Jung’s thought from an existential-phenomenological perspectivedrawing, in particular, on Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. Brooke provides crucialreinterpretations and clarifications of the central concepts of Jungian psychology,including the ego, Self, the psyche, archetypes, individuation, and the unconscious.Another important perspective is provided by Sean Kelly’s Individuation and theAbsolute, which establishes an in-depth relationship between Jung and classical GermanIdealism.190

In response to this, several theorists have taken up the challenge ofclarifying, revising, and further developing Jung’s ideas. One of the mostinteresting and potentially fruitful lines of inquiry, pursued by Robert Aziz, AllanCombs, Roderick Main, Victor Mansfield, David Peat, and others, has focused onJung’s study of synchronicity, addressing specifically its implications for thepsychology of religion, for the relationship between the inner and outerdimensions of reality, and for understanding the nature of the archetypes. RichardTarnas’s research into archetypal astrology has recently added further impetus tothese theoretical advances: Not only does Tarnas use a late-Jungian archetypalmodel to introduce his research into the patterns of world history and individualbiography but his research findings corroborate, in many respects, some of Jung’smore speculative insights into the nature of the archetypes and their role insynchronistic correspondences. Summarizing the conclusions of his thirty years ofresearch into archetypal astrology, and echoing Jung’s later view of archetypes,Tarnas declares, “I have become fully persuaded that these archetypal categoriesare not merely constructed but are in some sense both psychological andcosmological in nature.” 195Following this lead, I believe that given both the evidence set forth inTarnas’s work and the implications of synchronistic phenomena, we can nowconsider what might be called a cosmological interpretation of Jungianpsychology and that such an interpretation might help us to approach,contextualize, and make sense of Jung’s ideas, particularly as they relate to195 Tarnas, Cosmos and psyche, 133 (emphasis mine).191

astrology. For if we are indeed to apply Jung’s psychology to help us understandastrology, we will need to carefully examine his ideas and, where necessary, drawout a different meaning to that suggested by the established interpretations. Acosmological interpretation, while remaining consistent with the later direction ofJung’s thought and reflecting the overall scope of his work, can, I believe, help toadvance the philosophical coherence, explanatory power, and intelligibility ofJungian psychology, and, in so doing, make possible a more cogent explanation ofastrology.Central to a cosmological reading of Jung is the supposition that thearchetypes, in their deepest nature, are cosmological principles, not just ideas orimages in the individual mind. More specifically, a cosmological interpretationdraws upon Jung’s later view of the nature of the psyche and the archetypes, andon his reflections on synchronicity, to support the idea that the structural order ofthe psyche is related to the structural order of the cosmos, and that both cosmosand psyche rest on a deeper underlying ground. 196 As we consider this possibility,we will seek to understand the basis of the purported relationship, fundamental toarchetypal astrology, between the planets in the solar system and archetypalprinciples of the collective unconscious. This will be essential to our centralhypothesis: namely, that by bringing together a systems cosmology and Jungian196 Given the emphasis I place on the ground underlying psyche and cosmos, onemight also call this interpretation ontological or metaphysical. I use the termcosmological to make explicit the cosmological dimension of archetypes recognized inastrology, especially as archetypes are often viewed as entirely psychological orbiological factors in the traditional interpretations of Jung’s thought. I do not, however,wish to reduce the archetypes to exclusively cosmological factors.192

archetypal psychology it is possible to develop a plausible account of astrologicalcorrelations.As I see it, there are three main factors in particular that support acosmological interpretation of Jungian psychology and which point to a possibleconvergence of his theory of archetypes with our systems model.Self-Organization in the PsycheFirst, Jung’s discovery of the archetypes and the collective unconsciousrevealed that the human psyche itself has a pattern of organization that influencesand shapes human experience. The interior realm of the psyche is not withoutorganization; it is not just a chaotic domain teeming with repressed drives andforgotten memories and with mythic images and motifs, but it has its owninherent order. Thus, just as in the systems cosmology, in which we identified anunderlying pattern manifest in the physical structure of the solar system and theuniverse at large, similarly in Jungian depth psychology we can recognize theexistence of an underlying pattern in the structure of the human mind. In fact,Jung demonstrated that in line with our systems model of the cosmos, the psychecan actually be conceived as a system in its own right with its own inherentpattern of organization, its own dynamic processes, and its own telos or purpose.The archetypes in the collective unconscious, Jung discovered, areessential to the psyche’s self-organizing capability. Liliane Frey-Rohn, one ofJung’s colleagues and a leading interpreter of his work, reports that Jungconstrued the archetypes as innate “organizing factors” behind the images, ideas,193

fantasies, and emotional complexes in human psychological life. 197 Thearchetypes, she explains, seem “to indicate an abstract pattern of organization”within the psyche. 198 We are ordinarily unconscious or unaware of this pattern,however, because it exists a priori; it is the pre-given structure of our consciousexperience of the world. As in the Kantian view, for Jung the human mind is not atabula rasa, a blank slate upon which our experiences are imprinted. Rather,human beings enter the world, he believed, with a defined set of archetypaldispositions and pre-established responses that are typical of the entire species.The organization of our ideas, emotions, imagination, and drives is unconsciouslyconditioned by the archetypal dimension of the psyche, by those deep structuresand principles that create the context in which human consciousness exists.A primary function of the archetypes is to regulate and order theexpression of instinctual energy in human life. The archetypes, Jung proposes, are“the forms which the instincts assume.” 199 They are, in other words, the patterningprinciples through which instinct, the energy of nature, is channeled andexpressed into human life. Here again, as in systems theory, we encounter the ideathat pattern gives an order and form to the process of life. For Jung, life energy(what he calls libido or psychic energy) flows along certain archetypal pathways197 Frey-Rohn, From Freud to Jung, 284.198 Ibid., 283.199 Jung, Structure and dynamics of the psyche, 157.194

as it is channeled into typical, recurring forms of expression, and is thematicallypatterned according to the core meanings of the archetypes. 200Of particular relevance here is Jung’s view of number as an “archetype oforder.” 201 Whereas the archetypal images such as the hero, the anima, and theshadow are responsible for a kind of thematic patterning of human experience,number, as we noted earlier, is specifically related to the organization and orderwithin the psyche. Numerical and geometrical ordering seems to be especiallysignificant, Jung discovered, in the sequence of psychological transformationsoccurring during the individuation process. The dream and fantasy images of hispatients as they entered a deeper relationship with the unconscious psycherevealed common numeric and geometric themes:The chaotic assortment of images that at first confronted me reduced itselfin the course of the work to certain well-defined themes and formalelements, which repeated themselves in identical or analogous form withthe most varied individuals. I mention, as the most salient characteristics,chaotic multiplicity and order; duality; the opposition of light and dark,upper and lower, right and left; the union of opposites in a third; thequaternity (square, cross); rotation (circle, sphere); and finally thecentering process and radial arrangement that usually followed somequaternary system. 202Many of these themes are drawn together in the symbolism of the mandala whosebasic form, like astrological charts, consists of a circle enclosing a fourfold200 Jung uses the terms energy or libido to represent the motive life force. SeeJung, On psychic energy.201 Jung, Synchronicity, 58.202 Jung, On the nature of the psyche, 134.195

interior structure. Jung discovered that these geometrically patterned drawings,which are to be found in different forms throughout many of the world’smythological traditions, are spontaneously produced by the psyche during thecourse of psychological reorientation, usually as a means of reestablishing a senseof psychic balance and center amidst periods of turmoil and confusion. For Jung,such mandalic images were representations of the wholeness of the Self, visualguides to the unfolding process of individuation by which the unconsciouspotential of the Self is to be realized in conscious actuality. Ultimately, it is theSelf, as the central organizing principle, that is the source of the psyche’spurposeful order and teleology. The Self is the archetype of wholeness and unitythat reconciles all polarities in a dynamic tension of opposites.Again, just as in our systems model of astrology in which we suggestedthe pattern of the solar system can be understood in terms of the numbersymbolism behind the various geometric relationships between the planets, in thepsyche the archetypes too operate within a framework of numeric and geometricpatterns. If the archetypal principles are the dynamic powers within the psyche, itis the numeric patterning that provides the organizing context in which thesepowers are expressed.In Jung’s theory of the archetypes, then, we have a psychological modelthat explicitly identifies an inherent pattern of self-organization within theunconscious psyche. As such, it permits direct comparison with our systemsmodel of the solar system. There are several points of convergence. Both thepsyche and the cosmos can be conceptualized as systems. Both models recognize196

that the patterns of organization within these systems are pluralistic, in that bothare made up of multiple centers or components. Whereas we identified the planetsas the main components of the pattern of the solar system, the archetypes are themain components of the pattern of organization in the human psyche. Bothpatterns, furthermore, appear to be organized according to the principles ofnumber and geometry. And in both cases, these patterns form the largerbackground context of human experience: the planetary order is the backgroundcontext of our physical life here on Earth and the archetypal order is thebackground context of our psychological life. Symbolically, then, the two patternsexist in parallel—one in outer space surrounding life on Earth, and the other in thecollective unconscious, the psychological environment “surrounding” egoconsciousness;one pattern is exterior, in the depths of space, and the otherinterior, in the depths of the human psyche.These parallels perhaps help to account for the frequent metaphoricalcomparisons or analogies (employed by Jung and others) between the psyche andthe night sky, between the cycle of day and night and our conscious experience.Jung, for instance, described our experience of the Sun and the Moon asprototypes of our psychological life. He also used a planet simile to suggest therelationship between the ego (Sun) and the other archetypes, with archetypeseffectively circling around a central point (the Self) just as planets orbit the Sun.Intuitively, human beings always seem to have recognized this close affinitybetween the inner world of the psyche and outer space or the night sky, just as in a197

wider sense nature is seen as in some way expressive of the depths of the humansoul.From the perspective of a cosmological interpretation of Jung, we cansuggest that if the relationship between outer space and the collective unconsciousand the planets and the archetypes is to be considered metaphorical, it is ametaphor that is supported by the archetypal structure of reality. “Our psyche isset up in accord with the structure of the universe,” as Jung notes, and it is thisunderlying structural identity that supports, and gives objective significance to, ametaphorical or symbolic reading of the planetary order. 203 That is to say, it isbecause the cosmos is founded on an underlying archetypal dimension that, asRoger Brooke notes, “the structural unity between the world and humanconsciousness is given as metaphorical reality.” 204 Using systems concepts wemight say that through the process of the embodiment of pattern in structure,archetypal meaning is immanent in the material world giving to reality a symbolicor metaphorical nature. The universe is symbolically meaningful and we canperceive it as such because mind and the world in which we live conform to acommon meaningful pattern and rest upon an underlying transcendentbackground. If so, then when Jung compared the archetypal order of the psyche tothe planets of the solar system, this comparison perhaps contained more truth thanhe realized.203 Jung, Memories, dreams, reflections, 386.204 Brooke, Jung and phenomenology, 59.198

Now, given these suggestive similarities and parallels between the systemscosmology and archetypal theory, we might reasonably wonder if in fact thepattern of self-organization of the solar system and the archetypal order of thepsyche are actually, at root, one and the same. If mind and matter are differentaspects of the unitary life process then, logically, it would make sense if theyshared the same pattern of organization, and there were a single underlying ordercommon to both the psyche and the cosmos. It seems feasible, then, that thesystems idea of the mind of the solar system—of the interior dimension of thesolar system—can be related to Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious.Perhaps, approached from within, through the medium of human psychologicalexperience, the archetypal order in the unconscious psyche is the form in whichwe actually experience the mind of the solar system.The Nature of the Planetary ArchetypesThis line of conjecture appears more plausible when we consider, as oursecond point, Jung’s view on the nature of the archetypes. Although he initiallyconceived of the archetypes as being inherently psychological in essence,pertaining only to the psyche, in the latter part of his career in the 1940s and1950s, Jung began to revise his earlier formulation, postulating that the archetypesare not just psychological principles since they also appear to influence nature andthe external world. The ultimate basis of the archetype, he reasoned, musttherefore be transcendent of its expression in the psyche, pertaining to a deeperunseen and perhaps unknowable order that also underlies the phenomenal world.199

With his repeatedly professed reluctance to engage in metaphysicalspeculation, and because of his loyalty to the Kantian epistemology he hadabsorbed from his early reading of Kant and inherited from the natural sciences,throughout his life Jung endeavored, often in spite of himself, to restrict his scopeof attention to the empirical investigation of the psyche. During the early andmiddle periods of his career, influenced by Kant’s distinction between noumenaand phenomena, Jung believed that the archetypes, in their essential form, areunknowable factors existing outside the limits of our psychological experience. 205He had conceived of archetypes as strictly psychological principles whoseultimate ontological status could not be determined. However, primarily throughexploring the phenomenon of synchronicity, Jung was forced to consider thepossibility that archetypes are in fact universal, multidimensional ordering factorsthat transcend the distinction between psyche and cosmos, mind and matter. Inshort, Jung was compelled to consider the idea that the archetypes had ametaphysical basis. This shift is perhaps most evident in his personalcorrespondence during the 1950s and 1960s when he speculates on thePythagorean and thus transcendent nature of number archetypes and their role insynchronistic phenomena.Synchronistic phenomena, Jung discovered, “seem to be connectedprimarily with activated archetypal processes in the unconscious” (as in the scarab205 For further detail on Jung’s Kantianism, see De Voogd, C .G. Jung:Psychologist of the future, 175–82; De Voogd, Fantasy versus fiction, 204–228; Kelly,Individuation and the Absolute; Main, Revelations of chance, 34–36; Tarnas, Cosmos andpsyche, 503–504.200

eetle case in which this “meaningful coincidence” was related to the rebirtharchetype). 206 Therefore, because in cases of synchronicity meaning manifestsexternally, in the events and circumstances of the outer world, this implies that the“activated archetypal processes” that give rise to this meaning must also berelated to the external world, not just to the interior realm of the psyche. If, aswith synchronicities, archetypal meaning is present not only within but alsowithout then the archetypes must be related to the cosmos as well as to thepsyche—they cannot just be psychological principles relating only to anencapsulated interior mind. If archetypal principles are indeed responsible forcases of synchronicity, they are perhaps better understood, I believe, as somethinglike powers of nature and as dynamic ordering principles that are bothpsychological and cosmological in essence.Jung’s insight into the multidimensional status of the archetypes, and hisneed to explain how they might also influence the external world, lies behind hiscontention that the archetypes have a psychoid nature—his conjecture that thearchetypes are only partly psychological in essence, and that they are also partlyorganic and material, present in the materiality of the cosmos as well as thestructure of the psyche. Indeed, that Jung believed the archetypes might have aphysiological connection and exert a formative ordering influence on the naturalworld is also apparent from his attempt to establish a parallel between his owntheories and those emerging in the new physics at the time. Several commentatorshave drawn attention to Jung’s dialogue with his contemporary, the physicist206 Jung, Memories, dreams, reflections, 418.201

Wolfgang Pauli, a collaboration that suggested a considerable degree of overlapbetween ideas in the two fields. For example, in a letter to Jung, Pauli remarksthat Jungian psychology and modern physics “coincide in their tendency to extendthe old narrow idea of ‘causality’ (determinism) to a more general form of‘organization’ in nature.” 207 Whereas Jung stressed the organization or pattern inthe psyche, Pauli (and other physicists) uncovered a pattern of organization inmatter, yet both men intuitively felt there must a common ground. Indeed, Paulisaw in Jung’s theory of the archetypes a means of reconnecting the psyche and thecosmos, and mind and matter, by the recognition of “a cosmic order independentof our choice and distinct from the world of phenomena.” 208As noted, this shift to a recognition of the metapsychic and possiblymetaphysical or transcendent character of the archetypes is also expressed inJung’s later views on the essentially Pythagorean nature of number archetypes, atheme subsequently taken up by Jung’s foremost student, Marie Louise vonFranz. 209 Again, Jung’s late reflections on synchronicity led him to the tentativeconclusion that number is not only an archetype in the psyche but that it isactually fundamental to the organization of reality as a whole, in both its material207 Wolfgang Pauli, quoted in Frey-Rohn, From Freud to Jung, 294. For more onthe relationship between Jung and Pauli, see Meier, Atom and archetype. For furtherdetail on Pauli’s thinking on the relationship of mind and matter, see Atmanspacher andPrimas, Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter, 5–50; and Atmanspacher and Primas, Hiddenside of Wolfgang Pauli, 112–126.208 Jung and Pauli, Interpretation of nature and the psyche, 152.209 See, for example, Marie-Louise von Franz, Psyche and matter. For a recentdiscussion of the relevance of archetypal theory within science, see Card, Emergence ofarchetypes in present-day science.202

and its psychological dimensions. As we have seen, this supposition appears to becorroborated by Richard Tarnas’s astrological research in which he found that theangle of relationship between the planets is meaningfully reflected in theparticular character of the relationship between the corresponding archetypalprinciples. The same numeric order apparent in the relationship between theplanets in the solar system also seems to be evident in the thematic archetypalorder of human experience.On the face of it, there seems nothing less likely to conform to amathematical order than the mythic and archetypal themes in human experience.One would ordinarily think the world of myth a million miles from the precisionof mathematics and astronomy. However, the astrological perspective, and theresearch now emerging from within the field, suggests that the interior landscapeof archetypal and mythic images in the collective unconscious—the thematicorder behind our everyday experiences—conforms to the same self-organizingpattern that we can see in the planetary order of our solar system. The consistencyand coherence of the timing of the correspondence between the planetaryalignments and the manifestation of archetypal themes in human experience, andthe overall gestalt of synchronistic meaning evident within this correspondence, isquite remarkable. Tracking the movements of the planets in the ephemeris tablesshowing the degrees of celestial longitude of the planetary positions, it is possibleto observe how two planets moving into close geometric alignment oftencoincides with a period in life when the archetypes associated with these planetsare powerfully activated.203

Returning to Jung’s understanding of archetypes, we should note that inhis later work he is careful to draw a distinction between the deepest form of thearchetype (the archetype per se) and archetypal images or representations thatarise from this underlying form. For Jung, the archetypes, in their essential nature,are “irrepresentable transcendental factors” that give rise to associated archetypalor primordial images, as he initially called them. 210 What we experience in dreamsand fantasies, according to Jung, are the archetypal images, emanations of thearchetype but not the archetype itself whose ultimate “transcendental” naturecannot be consciously experienced, only intuited or implied. And whereas thederivative archetypal image appears to be a culturally conditioned psychologicalfactor, the basic form of the archetype remains, Jung thought, transcendent of theperceiving consciousness and its cultural manifestation. Archetypes, then, appearto have two relatively distinct dimensions: On the one hand, they are archetypalimages experienced within the human psyche but, on the other hand, they aretranscendental principles and organizing forms that, although unknowable “inthemselves,” appear to lie behind both psyche and cosmos, giving a formativeorder to both.To arrive at an accurate understanding of archetypal astrology we must beclear about the relationship of planetary archetypes both to the gods of myth andto the Jungian archetypal images. The planetary archetypes in astrology seem torelate not to the specific archetypal images, or directly to individual mythologicalgods, but to the deeper transcendent archetypal principles of which these images210 Jung, On the nature of the psyche, 148.204

and gods are more specific derivations. For example, the planetary archetype ofthe Moon incorporates in its more general thematic range, the three Jungianarchetypes of the anima, the mother, and the child, and it has further associationsto other archetypal situations and phenomena including the home, the womb, thematrix of being, to women generally, and to the feminine principle. The planetaryarchetype Jupiter, similarly, as a general principle of expansion, elevation, andabundance, is conveyed by many different archetypal roles such as teacher,preacher, explorer, adventurer, profligate wastrel, and speculative gambler. It isrelated as well to the archetypal experience of success, of bounty, and ofcrowning glory, with each of these motifs and roles reflecting in different waysthe underlying core meaning of the planetary archetype. Although there might bean archetypal image associated with every typical situation in life, as Jung said,there seem to be a limited number of core principles from which these morespecific archetypal images and representations arise, and it is to these coreprinciples that the planetary archetypes in astrology seem to relate.“An archetypal content,” Jung explains,expresses itself, first and foremost, in metaphors. If such a content shouldspeak of the sun and identify with it the lion, the king, the hoard of goldguarded by the dragon, or the power that makes for the life and health ofman, it is neither the one thing nor the other, but rather an unknown thirdwhich finds more or less adequate expression in all these similes, yet—tothe perpetual vexation of the intellect—remains unknown and not to befitted into a formula. 211211 Jung and Kerényi, Science of mythology, 90.205

The planetary archetypes point to this unknown something behind the specificimages and motifs. In this case, the various images and motifs Jung cites (the sun,the lion, the king, gold, vitality, life power) are all associated with the planetaryarchetype of the Sun and its related zodiacal sign of Leo.In mythology, similarly, Joseph Campbell recognized that the specificforms of the gods were expressions of more fundamental underlying principles.“The god,” he observes, “may appear in any one or more of a number of formstogether: anthropomorphic, theriomorphic, vegetal, heavenly, or elemental . . .which are to be recognized as aspects of a single polymorphous principle,symbolized in, yet beyond, all.” 212 The gods must remain “transparent totranscendence,” as Campbell liked to say, such that one can see beyond anyparticular form of a god to the deeper power this conceals. 213The interpretation of the meaning of the planets in different civilizationshas been subject to a considerable degree of cultural influence. In Mesoamericanmythology, for example, Venus was attributed the warrior-like characteristicsassociated with Mars in Western astrology, perhaps suggesting that the planetarymeanings are entirely culturally conditioned. As I see it, however, the meaningsassociated with the planets that form the basis of contemporary archetypalastrology are all based upon well-established empirically demonstratedcorrelations, thus distinguishing these meanings from other mythic interpretationsof the significance of the planetary bodies. Tarnas’s research evidence suggests212 Campbell, Occidental mythology, 12.213 Campbell, Hero’s journey, 40-41.206

that the archetypal principles recognized in archetypal astrology, althoughinevitably colored by the Western cultural context in which this form of astrologydeveloped, appear to possess a degree of objective validity, which sets them apartfrom mythic interpretations of the significance of the planets, from mythic gods,and also from Jungian archetypal images.Whereas the planetary archetypes in astrology appear to be thematicallyunchanging universals, the Jungian archetypal images are clearly inflected by thehistorical era and cultural context to which they belong. For example, the anima—the archetypal image of the feminine—is conditioned to a large extent by one’spersonal, familial, racial, and cultural impressions of women from the time periodin which one lives. So too the shadow archetype—the excluded, represseddimension of human experience—is similarly affected by those qualities one’sfamily, social group, and culture deems unacceptable, morally wrong, inferior,and evil. What is permissible and valued in one era, become the vices and taboosof another. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, highlighted the radical inversion inthe understanding of what is deemed good that occurred between the time of theancient Greeks and the Christian era. 214 Whereas goodness was formerlysynonymous with excellence, strength, nobility, and the virtues of the warrior, theChristian conception of goodness, by contrast, emphasized selflessness, altruism,the meek and the mild, and pacifism. Many of those qualities formerly valued bythe ancient Greeks were later considered evil or undesirable such that the shadowarchetype of the Christianized world now also contains potentially positive214 See Nietzsche, On the genealogy of morals.207

qualities. The content of the culture’s shadow archetype would therefore havechanged markedly from its earlier forms.Yet despite the susceptibility to change in the content of these archetypes,in their deeper form they are also, as far as we can tell, unchanging archetypalprinciples. The shadow, for instance, is always formed by a judgment about whatis good and evil; it always consists of the repressed instinctual dynamism in thepsyche; and it is always comprised of what is undifferentiated, painful,foreboding, repressed, and seemingly evil. Even though the actual content of theshadow changes from person to person and from culture to culture, the judgment,the repressed dynamism, the designation evil remain constant in all contexts. 215Jung’s differentiation between the archetype per se and the archetypal image,although clearly influenced by his Kantian philosophical leaning and reflecting acertain epistemological confusion on his part, is an attempt, I believe, to drawsomething like this distinction between an unchanging universal aspect of thearchetype and its manifest form within the context of a culture or an individualpsyche. The planetary archetypes in astrology, we noted, seem to relatespecifically to the transcendent or metapsychic universal archetypal principles.Thus, if we consider the shadow, we find behind this archetypal image thecombination of the Saturnian and Plutonic planetary archetypes: the moraljudgment, repression, the quality of inferiority, the pain and shame associatedwith assimilating the shadow, and the awareness of what is socially acceptable all215 Except in those rare cases when the shadow archetype contains what arenormally considered to be morally good qualities. Even then, however, such qualities areundervalued and are not seen as desirable by the person concerned.208

elate to Saturn; and the instinctual dynamism, the demonic or evil power in theshadow, its chthonic primitive nature, its compulsive and unconscious mode ofexpression, and its destructive and fateful interventions in human experience allrelate primarily to Pluto. 216 In archetypal astrology, the combination of two ormore planetary archetypes, such as Saturn and Pluto, gives rise to an associatedarchetypal complex that reflects themes associated with the specific combinationof the planetary archetypes.It will be helpful here, as well, to draw a distinction between the ordinaryfunction of the archetype—that of thematically structuring and animating humanexperience—and a direct archetypal experience. In deep psychologicalexploration, or in heightened moments of openness, receptivity, and inspiration,one can have a direct encounter with the archetypal realm in all its unbridledpower and intensity, an experience that is distinguished by a sense of thenuminous—of mystery and awe, of tremendous power rising through the body, ofintense religious affect, of emotional arousal, of tingling nerves, of soaring moraluplift, of demonic strength or even evil, or of overwhelming beauty and a sense ofrightness or truth. In such moments, it seems that one has truly stepped into therealm of the gods. “Wherever we come into contact with an archetype,” Jung216 Among a host of other meanings, the planetary archetype Saturn is related tothe Jungian shadow archetype in its association with inferiority, weakness, fear, shame,and guilt. The Saturn principle is associated with repression and moral judgment; it is theprinciple that denies, blocks, judges, and contains. In its negating quality, Saturn is thearchetypal principle that creates the shadow by denying certain elements of one’scharacter that are incompatible with the moral qualities, values, and persona with whichone is identified. Since Pluto represents the biological instincts (the id, to use Freud’sterm), which are often socially taboo, the Saturn principle creates the shadow byrepressing the Plutonic instincts into the underworld of the psyche. For a definition of theshadow archetype, see Jung, Memories, dreams, reflections, 417–418.209

observes, “we enter into relationship with transconscious, metapsychic factors.” 217Indeed, the numinous experience of the archetypes gives a sense of certainty thatone is actually encountering a higher reality, as it were, that one has indeedtouched upon a transcendent power. 218 While we cannot know for sure if this isso, anyone who has directly encountered the numinous power of an archetype inthis way, who has experienced for themselves the impact of an activatedarchetypal process in their life, is left with the firm conviction that these dynamicpowers are indeed the shaping forces of reality and not merely interiorpsychological images or physiologically imprinted biological habits. Suchexperiences obviously call into question Jung’s claim that the archetypes areactually unknowable in themselves—that one cannot experience them directly,only through their forms of manifestation as archetypal images.In view of their status as principles that are transcendent of theirmanifestation in the psyche and the cosmos—and in view of the many diverseinfluences that inform our understanding of archetypes from biology, sociology,physics, metaphysics, the philosophy of science, linguistics, and elsewhere—weare able to advance with more confidence the idea that the archetypal principlesmight be related to the underlying pattern of self-organization of the solar system.For just as in my explication of a systems cosmology, in which the externalcosmological order is also related to mind and to the interior dimension of things,217 Jung to anon., letter of July 10, 1946, in C.G. Jung letters I, 433.218 According to Rudolf Otto, numinosity is a fundamental characteristic of theexperience of the divine. Using Otto’s terminology, Jung describes the experience of thearchetypes as numinous. See Otto, Idea of the holy.210

so too in Jungian depth psychology the archetypal order relates both to the innerrealm of the human psyche and to the outer realm of the cosmos. Bothformulations—the systemic cosmology, as outlined above, and Jungianpsychology—recognize an underlying order that is intrinsic to both psyche andcosmos, and yet appears to transcend its manifestation in either realm, pointing, Ibelieve, to a deeper order underpinning both.It seems, then, that when Jung discovered the archetypal basis of thepsyche he had not just stumbled across a psychological order within anencapsulated human mind, but an order that was inherent in the very fabric ofreality as a whole. And although this order was readily apparent from anexamination of the imaginal products of the psyche—in dreams and fantasies, forexample—it was also apparent in the thematic arrangement and patterning ofevents of the external world and in nature, as revealed by synchronicities.Concerning the sphere of influence of the archetypes, no sharp distinction couldbe drawn between inner and outer. Indeed, as we will consider next, the existenceof such a multidimensional archetypal basis to reality led Jung to call intoquestion the modern dichotomy of mind and matter, and psyche and cosmos—adichotomy that had previously defined much of his own thinking.The Underlying Identity of Psyche and CosmosThe third reason Jungian theory lends itself to a cosmologicalinterpretation and supports the systems cosmology outlined above is that Jung, inhis later thought, began to recognize an underlying identity of the psyche and the211

cosmos. Reflecting upon the ontological status of the archetypes and their role inthe synchronous correspondence between inner meaning and outer conditions,Jung began to give serious consideration to the wider issue of the relationshipbetween the psyche and the material world. In his 1948 essay, “On the Nature ofthe Psyche,” he reasons,Since psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, andmoreover are in continuous contact with one another and ultimately reston irrepresentable, transcendental factors, it is not only possible but fairlyprobable, even, that psyche and matter are two different aspects of one andthe same thing. 219As early as 1928, Jung had recognized that “in some way or other we are all partof a single all-embracing psyche.” 220 Writing at the end of his career, inMysterium Coniunctionis, his magnum opus on alchemy, he states that “thebackground of our empirical world thus appears to be in fact a unus mundus,” (theHermetic term for the one world or one cosmos) and that there is an “identity ofthe psychic and the physical.” 221 Increasingly, Jung had come to believe that thereis an underlying unity behind the apparent multiplicity of the phenomenal world,a unity of psyche and cosmos that rests upon a common “transcendentalbackground.” The archetypes, Jung proposed, are rooted in this underlying unityof the unus mundus. In a letter written in 1957, he noted further that it is through219 Jung, On the nature of the psyche, 148.220 Jung, Civilization in transition, 86.221 Jung, Mysterium coniunctionis, 537–538.212

the archetypal dimension of the psyche that “all individual psyches are identicalwith each other, and where they function as if they were the one undivided Psychethe ancients called anima mundi or the psyche tou kosmou [the cosmicpsyche].” 222 Thus understood, the psyche is much more than a merely humanpsyche, for the collective unconscious is effectively in contact with all aspects ofreality.Jung’s recognition of an underlying psyche-cosmos identity marked theculmination of his long struggle against the constraining limits of the dualisticKantian framework (and its implicit Cartesianism) within which he attempted toaccommodate his ideas. Although, as Jungian scholar Roger Brooke notes, Jungwas often guilty of falling into the Cartesian trap of imagining the psyche and thecosmos to be separate ontological realms, many of his utterances andpronouncements about the nature of the psyche, such as those cited above, clearlycontradict a Cartesian interpretation and indicate that, by the end of his career,Jung’s view was in broad agreement with the new understanding of the mindmatterrelationship suggested in the last chapter, one that has emergedindependently in the new paradigm sciences. 223Brooke points out that it is just this insight into the unity of humanexperience that is also fundamental to existential phenomenology, thephilosophical movement emerging out of the work of Edmund Husserl, whoseleading exponents included Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. In222 Jung to Stephen Abrams, October 21, 1957, in C. G Jung letters II, 398–399.223 See Brooke, Jung and phenomenology, 65–68, 83–84, and 113–114.213

advocating a “return to the essences,” existential phenomenologists attempt todescribe experience as it is actually presented to consciousness. By a processknown as the phenomenological reduction, which involves the “bracketing” of allpreconceived judgments and conceptual assumptions about the world,phenomenologists seek, as far as possible, to describe the world as it is actuallyexperienced. This approach led Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty to reject outrightCartesian dualism since a phenomenological examination of human experience,they found, reveals that mind and matter always occur together as an existentialunity, and that Cartesian distinction between inner and outer is only a usefulconceptual differentiation, not an absolute ontological fact.For phenomenologists, the defining property of human consciousness isintentionality, which means that consciousness is always “consciousness ofsomething,” that it is always directed towards to the world. In thephenomenological understanding, as Brooke explains,consciousness is that irreducible, non-optional occurrence within whichthe world comes into being. It cannot be an encapsulated entity, enclosedwithin itself, or a little person looking at images in the brain. As being-inthe-world,consciousness is the open clearing that gathers the worldtogether. 224According to this view, we should not think of the human-world relationshipdualistically, in which person and world are two separate entities that interact, forthese always occur together in experience—there is no such thing as an absolutely224 Ibid., 43.214

independent subject and object. Brooke argues, therefore, that the psyche shouldnot be construed as an inner realm, separate from the external world, for thatwould be to artificially split the lived reality of the psyche, to deprive the psycheof its inherent world-relatedness. 225 He points out that because all humanexperience is psychological, as Jung maintains, it must, by definition, take placein the psyche. There is a danger, then, that if the psyche is construed as a separaterealm divorced from material reality, human experience becomes severed fromany kind of relationship to the world. Brooke points out, however, that if thepsyche is understood not as a separate inner, mental realm but as the life-world—as the world’s psychological experience—then this problematic severance isavoided. “When Jung says we live not in a material world but a psychic world,”he explains, “he is not saying that the psyche is an ‘encapsulated’ world untoitself, but that the world in which we live is psychological.” 226The world in which we live is psychological, as indeed, we might add, isthe whole universe. Recalling our systems model from the last chapter, the psychecan be understood, I believe, not as an encapsulated realm divorced from thematerial world, or as an individual psyche pertaining to separate individual humanbeings, but rather as the universe’s interior dimension in which human beingspartake. The psyche is not inside us and, furthermore, it is not primarily personaland subjective in essence, but collective and objective, as Brooke’sphenomenological reading of Jung testifies:225 Ibid., 84–85.226 Ibid., 80.215

the psyche is not to be confused with or limited to the boundaries of theindividual person, whose personal psychology is organized around the‘ego’. Thus there is strictly speaking not his or her psyche but rather thepsyche within which he and she have individual perspectives and playtheir parts. The psyche, insists Jung, surrounds the human being and isantecedent to him or her. It is not inside us anymore than the sea is insidethe fish . . . for Jung, the psyche is not in each of us, we are in thepsyche. 227In other words, the term psyche seems to refer not only to an individual mind butalso, and perhaps more fundamentally, to a single objective psyche, intimatelyrelated to the world itself, to culture, and to the shared nexus of human meanings,in which we all have our individual subjective perspectives. Understood in thisway, the psyche is not contained within the individual human organism but, at itsdeepest level, it is universal in its nature—it is something akin, I believe, to asingle cosmic psyche in which people live, as in Jung’s analogy, like fish in thesea. 228 Although Jung sought to make a clear distinction between the individualpsyche (i.e., the ego and the personal unconscious) and the transpersonal psyche(the collective unconscious), his understanding of the relationship between thesetwo is far from unambiguous, especially as his view of the nature of the collectiveunconscious seems to have undergone a marked change in his later work. In his227 Ibid., 77.228 It should be noted that the position I am advancing here goes beyondBrooke’s own view of the psyche as something akin to the existential phenomenologicalnotion of the lifeworld. For Brooke, the psyche is similar in meaning to Heidegger’sconcept of Dasein.216

earlier and middle periods, while realizing that the psyche has a collective ortranspersonal dimension, Jung mostly conceived of the psyche as an individualhuman mind with a collective “layer.” He attempted to locate the basis of thecollective or transpersonal unconscious within the individual person in thestructure of the human brain. Later, he appears to have begun to construe thepsyche more as a kind of universal field in which human consciousness issituated. The collective unconscious, in this later view, is not dependent on brainstructure, nor is it within the individual person, but is rather a single collective ortranspersonal psychological field—it is, in Jung’s words, “a field of experience ofunlimited extent”—in which we all live, a field that pervades the world around us,and in which the conscious ego, the individual personality, is embedded. 229Supporting much of what we have covered above, as if to summarize our thesis,Jung gives another illuminating analogy:The collective unconscious surrounds us on all sides . . . It is more like anatmosphere in which we live than something that is found in us . . . Also, itdoes not by any means behave merely psychologically; in the cases of socalledsynchronicity it proves to be a universal substrate present in theenvironment rather than a psychological premise. 230Like the atmosphere all around us, in this view the collective unconscious iseffectively co-extensive with the world in which we live, interfused with thecosmos. For just as the world is the physical environment in which our lives take229 Jung, Two essays on analytical psychology, 184.230 Jung to anon., July 10, 1946, in C. G. Jung letters I, 433.217

place, the collective unconscious is the psychological environment within whichhuman personal identity, centered on the conscious ego, is situated. Within andwithout, inner and outer, psyche and cosmos—these realms, although relativelydistinct modes of experiencing reality, seem to have an underlying ontologicalidentity.Astrology and the Cosmic PsycheDrawing together the above considerations, we are presented thus withtwo sharply distinct ways of seeing Jung’s psychology, which I will now attemptto briefly summarize and contrast. In the traditional models, originating in Jung’searly and middle periods, the term psyche seems to refer to a separate individualmind situated “inside” the individual person. The psyche is an encapsulatedinterior subjective realm that projects meaning out onto an essentially neutral,unknowable objective reality. The collective unconscious is a deep layer withineach individual psyche, and the archetypes are to be found replicated anew withineach of us in this collective layer. We are each related to the collectiveunconscious because the same psychological structure is replicated in each of us,inherited at birth. We each have an ego, a personal unconscious, a collectiveunconscious, a shadow, a persona, an anima or animus, and so on, because of ourinnate psychological structure and this is somehow related to the inheritedstructure of the brain.By contrast, according to our alternative cosmological interpretation,which is based for the most part on a logical extension of Jung’s later ideas, the218

term psyche refers first and foremost to a single objective cosmic psyche withinwhich all individual psyches are situated. Rather than many individual psycheseach with its own collective unconscious layer, there is one collectiveunconscious that we all share and in which we partake. There is one set ofmultidimensional archetypal principles underlying the psyche and the cosmos thatwe are each related to. In the depths of the interiority of our own individualpsyche, we are each related to and embedded within the one cosmic psyche.Although it is primarily experienced through human interiority, the cosmic psycheis not actually contained within us but is more like a universal field, all around us,intimately related to the external world, to nature, and to the cosmos. Thearchetypal principles are the organizing forms and creative powers of this singletranspersonal, cosmic psyche. We each have our own unique relationship to thearchetypal principles and this is reflected, in individual psychology, by our ownpersonal complexes and our individual experience of the Jungian archetypalimages.Of course, these two interpretations need not be entirely antagonistic—indeed I will later sketch out a model incorporating both these interpretations ofthe collective unconscious and the archetypes. 231 When applied to astrology,however, these interpretations provide radically differing explanations of therelationship between the planets and human experience. In line with the formermodel, reflecting a view of astrology that Jung seems to have entertained evenlate into his life, the astrological relationship between the planets and human231 See chapter 7.219

experience is generally explained as a form of anthropomorphic projection of thepsyche onto the heavens—a projection, that is, of the collective unconscious(understood as a radically separate, interior realm) onto the exterior cosmos.When construed in this way, the planets are seen not as material causal influencesbehind human life but—and here it becomes more problematic—as entities thatcan be used merely to reflect the archetypal patterns of human experience. Thearchetypal meaning of the planets, by this account, is thought to exist only withinthe individual human psyche (again understood in Cartesian-Kantian terms as aninterior realm radically separate from the cosmos). The planets themselves areheld to be inherently devoid of significance save for the meaning ascribed to themthrough acts of unconscious symbolic projection. The planetary bodies, it issupposed, serve as a suitable and convenient medium onto which the archetypalqualities and principles within the collective unconscious can be projected in thatthey are both mathematically predictable and they form an objective pattern in thesky, applicable to us all. 232 The relationship between the planet and the archetype,understood as a form of projection, has no firm ontological basis; there is nodeeper form of relationship inherent in the nature of things that specifically linksthe planets to the archetypes.232 Following his post-synchronicity reflections, Jung appears to have vacillatedbetween different possible explanations of astrology. Earlier in his career, he put forwardmore consistently the view that astrology is a form of projected psychology, and in someinstances this way of thinking seems to have been imported into psychological astrology.The following pronouncement is typical of Jung’s projection-based explanation: “As weall know, science began with the stars, and mankind discovered in them the dominants ofthe unconscious, the “gods,” as well as the curious psychological qualities of the zodiac:a complete projected theory of human character.” Jung, Psychology and alchemy, 234.220

According to my cosmological interpretation, however, a far strongerrelationship between the planets and the archetypes is suggested. If archetypes aremultidimensional organizational principles pertaining to both psyche and cosmos,then there can be no question of projecting archetypal meaning across thesupposed Cartesian divide from the collective unconscious onto the heavens;rather, archetypal meaning is already present throughout the cosmos as its selforganizingcapacity, simultaneously structuring the world in which we live andshaping our psychological experience. The collective unconscious is not aseparate psychological realm, but is itself part of nature—the interior dimensionof the material world. Thus the patterns of nature and of the cosmos areexpressive of the collective unconscious. They convey its meanings to us inphysical form. The psyche’s own deep structure is simultaneously manifest in thedeep structure of the cosmos. Accordingly, I believe the planets in the solarsystem are related to the archetypal principles not because they can reflectprojected archetypal meaning but, more fundamentally, because in their deepestform the physical planets and the planetary archetypes are both related to thesame multidimensional self-organizing principles, to the archetypes per se—thosecreative principles of order, meaning, and power inherent in the underlyingstructure of reality. 233 In the next chapter, we will consider more closely how the233 To my mind, aside from the theoretical case presented here, which is basedon the implications of synchronicity and Tarnas’s research, the correlation betweenplanetary alignments and archetypal meanings is simply too consistent across time andacross the experiences of many individuals, and the timing of transits is far too precise,for these correlations to be accounted for as a form of unconscious projection.221

planets might be related to these archetypal principles as we examine thesymbolic nature of the cosmos and its relationship to a deeper underlying ground.The transition in Jung’s thought, presented above in starkly contrastingterms for ease of recognition, helps us to appreciate and understand his variousattempts to find a physical or material basis for the archetypes. We can see that aslong as the psyche is conceived only as a separate individual mind with its owncollective layer, it makes sense to attempt to find a material basis for thecollective unconscious and the archetypes in human physiology, in the individualhuman body. Thus, Jung’s early view of the archetypes as hard-wired pathways inthe brain and nervous system. 234 If, on the other hand, the collective unconsciousbelongs to one cosmic psyche in which we all participate then the material basisor correlate of this cannot be the individual brain or body, but must in fact be thecosmos itself. If, rather than individual psyches each with a collective dimension,there is a single objective cosmic psyche within which all individual minds aresituated, it makes little sense, to my mind, to search for a material basis to thearchetypes and the collective unconscious within the physiology of the individualhuman being (either as hard-wired pathways in the brain, genetically inherited byeach individual, or as related to the organs in the physical body, for example),although this does not rule out the possibility that the activity of the archetypes isreflected in individual brain functioning and structure. Rather, just as theindividual mind is necessarily related to the individual body, so the cosmic psyche234 As Jung puts it: “The collective unconscious is . . .a deposit of worldprocessesembedded in the structure of the brain and the sympathetic nervous system.”Jung, Structure and dynamics of the psyche, 376.222

must, similarly, be related to the “body” of the cosmos, as it were. And, if thearchetypal principles themselves have a material dimension, then it would makemore sense if this were situated or reflected in the larger “organism” of thecosmos, and not within the individual human being.If all individuals are indeed related to each other through the archetypaldimension of the psyche; if the collective unconscious psyche is indeed like afield, or the sea, or the atmosphere all around us and is not an interiorencapsulated realm; if the archetypes are actually multidimensional orderingprinciples that influence nature and the external world as well as the psyche; andif there is indeed an underlying identity of the psychological and physicaldimensions of reality—all propositions put forward by Jung—then we are leftwith a view of the psyche as something very similar to the ancient concept of theanima mundi or the psyche tou kosmou. Given this fact, unless one chooses toignore Jung’s late thoughts, one is compelled to give serious consideration to justthis kind of cosmological reading of his psychology that I have outlined here.Advancing and emphasizing the cosmic nature of the psyche in this way isnot, of course, to diminish the integrity and independence of the individualpsyche, which remains by this account a relatively autonomous whole within thelarger whole of the cosmic psyche. Indeed, as we have seen, the individualpsyche, centering itself on the conscious ego, has emerged through the course ofhistory, gradually becoming differentiated from its collective matrix. Theindividual psyche, with its clearly defined consciousness, appears to be theachievement of the entire process of cosmic evolution, and it is this differentiated223

consciousness that might now, I believe, illuminate and serve the greater psychefrom which it emerged. The cosmological interpretation of Jung’s thought situatesthe individual psyche within a containing transpersonal collective unconsciousthat is co-extensive with the cosmos, and this transpersonal psyche is to bedisclosed, to become known to itself, in and through the individual egoconsciousness.* * *The complexity of this subject demands a more detailed account than Ihave been able to present within the limits of this chapter and we will return toconsider further the implications of this cosmological perspective of Jung’s ideasin the chapters to follow. Here, I have been able to do little more than point outthose elements of Jung’s later thought that appear to support this cosmologicalinterpretation, especially as they might relate to astrology, and that challenge,unquestionably, certain important assumptions in the existing interpretations ofhis theories. To summarize: we have seen that the cosmological interpretation ofJungian psychology involves revising our understanding of Jung’s model of thepsyche by taking into consideration and applying his later insights on theimplications of synchronicity, on the unus mundus and the psyche-cosmosidentity, on the metapsychic, multidimensional, psychoid, and perhapsmetaphysical or transcendent nature of the archetypes, and on the congruencebetween Jung’s speculations and certain ideas in modern physics. In so doing, wethen arrive at a view of Jungian psychology that is divergent in many respects224

from the existing models and yet consistent, it seems to me, with Jung’s deepestmotivations, in accord with his personal experiences, and faithful to the spirit ofhis life, if not to his scientific empiricism and Kantianism. Crucially, thecosmological interpretation is, I think, a better fit to all those phenomena that arelargely inexplicable in terms of the traditional models: synchronicities;astrological world transits (in which the same archetypal themes can manifestsimultaneously across the entire world population not just in individual psyches);those cases of the irruption of collective archetypal possession or inflation inwhich, similarly, many individual psyches fall under the sway of the samearchetypal complex at the same time (as in Jung’s example of the case of Wotanpossession in Nazi Germany in the 1930s); the evidence of Grof’s transpersonalresearch into the nature of the psyche and its relationship to the cosmos; and alsoa range of parapsychological phenomena that we have not explored here such asprecognition and extra sensory perception.With regard to archetypal astrology specifically, it is clear that thetraditional interpretations of Jung, in retaining the Cartesian-Kantian theoreticalpostulates and parameters within which Jung’s ideas were framed, cannot providean adequate explanation of astrological correlations. The cosmological reading ofJung’s psychology, however, is more closely compatible with astrology, and alsopermits a direct comparison of Jung’s model of the psyche with our systemscosmology.We can see that this understanding of the psyche tou kosmou, or cosmicpsyche, is remarkably similar to the systems idea of the cosmic mind (especially225

given my more metaphysical reading of this notion), and consistent also withGrof’s transpersonal model of the psyche. We have seen that both the psyche andthe cosmic mind have an underlying pattern of organization. In both, mind istaken to be collective in essence and associated with the world and the entireuniverse, not just with human beings. Both models see the individual human mindor ego-consciousness as embedded within a larger, universal system of mind, alarger field that is co-extensive with matter. And in both cases mind and matter,psyche and cosmos, are understood to be different facets of a single reality,different features of the process of life, and not separate realms or substances. Theterms psyche and cosmic mind, then, appear in fact to refer to one and the samething: the interior, psychological dimension of the universe.Furthermore, by equating the systems cosmology with archetypal theory,we can identify a possible direct correlation between the solar system and thecollective unconscious. If the solar system does indeed have an interiordimension—if there is a mind of the solar system—then perhaps we canlegitimately think of this larger mind as pertaining to one form of manifestation ofthe collective unconscious, and perhaps we can then also posit a further relatedcorrelation between the planets and the archetypes.I have suggested, finally, that what we would ordinarily imagine to be anouter cosmological pattern formed by the planets in the solar system and what wewould take to be an inner psychological order formed by the archetypes are, quitepossibly, different forms of manifestation of the same underlying self-organizingpattern, different ways this organizing pattern is apparent in our life experience. It226

seems likely, that is, that the two patterns we have examined—the planetary andthe archetypal—are in fact both expressions of one and the same pattern oforganization pertaining to an underlying or transcendent dimension of reality,which is the ground of both psyche and cosmos. It is on this common underlyingpattern, I believe, that the astrological correspondence between planets and theplanetary archetypes is based.227

Chapter SixThe Dynamic GroundThe scope of Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious extends fromthe farthest reaches of the psyche into the transcendent background of reality. Asthe matrix of experience, the collective unconscious, at its deepest level, mergesseamlessly into what might be called the dynamic ground—the creative source,the generating and sustaining matrix of being from which all life springs. It is herethat we can, I believe, locate the transcendent archetypal principles, the patterningforces that are the very basis of the phenomenal world. Here, far removed fromour ordinary experience of the world of space, time and causality, is anotherdimension of being, another order of reality in which, as Jung observes, “neither‘here and there’ nor ‘earlier and later’ are of importance.” 235 This is an order notof manifest forms existing in definite regions of space and time, but a timelessand spaceless realm of unfolding potentiality existing behind both the psyche andthe natural world. According to Jung,The transcendental psychophysical background corresponds to a ‘potentialworld’ in so far as all those conditions which determine the form ofempirical phenomena are inherent in it. This obviously holds good asmuch for physics as for psychology, or, to be more precise, formacrophysics as much as for the psychology of consciousness. 236235 Jung, Memories, dreams, reflections, 336.236 Jung, Mysterium coniunctionis, 538–539.228

What, then, has physics to say about this “transcendental psychophysicalbackground”? Do any of the modern physicists similarly posit the existence of anunderlying dimension of reality or recognize a unitary background to the psycheand cosmos that might support Jung’s supposition?The Holomovement and the Implicate OrderOf all the new perspectives and theories that have emerged in modernphysics, there is one theory in particular that directly addresses this very issue. Byconsidering the philosophical implications of quantum theory, physicist DavidBohm, a former colleague of Einstein’s, developed a remarkable hypothesis thatposits the existence of an underlying or implicit dimension of reality behind themanifest world of space-time. Confronted with the strange new worlds revealedby quantum physics and relativity theory, many of the modern physicists—including Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and Einstein—were prompted to articulatetheir own philosophical reflections on the nature of reality, but it was Bohm morethan anyone who translated and developed the implications of the new physicsinto a coherent philosophical model. Here, then, as we seek to uncover andexplore the deeper ground of psyche and cosmos, which both depth psychologyand modern physics seem to be pointing to, let us consider Bohm’s contributionmore closely. By examining his ideas about the process that gives rise to ourexperience of the three-dimensional universe of space and time, and by relatingthis to our archetypal systems cosmology, we will be able to tentatively put229

forward an explanation of the process by which pattern comes to be present as anunderlying order in the structure of the universe. Bohm’s theory, in this way,might give us further insight into the relationship between psyche and cosmos,and between the archetypal principles and the planets.Bohm argues that in order to move beyond the mechanistic world view(which in spite of relativity and quantum theory still tacitly conditions physicists’thinking about the nature of reality), it is necessary to draw out the fullphilosophical implications of the abstract mathematical equations and empiricalfindings of quantum mechanics, and this is to be done, he proposes, by exercisingthe power of the imagination to develop new models and metaphors to betterrepresent the nature of reality in non-mechanistic terms. To this end, working withhis colleague Basil Hiley, Bohm developed what he called the ontologicalinterpretation of quantum theory as a plausible alternative to the standard, andmore well-known, Copenhagen theory proposed by Niels Bohr. In formulating histheory, Bohm took into consideration four crucial insights that have emerged fromrelativity theory and quantum physics. 237 The first is Einstein’s discovery that aparticle is not in itself an independently existing entity but is, rather, a localizedand temporary “pulse” of energy arising from and existing within a surroundingfield; the second, derived from quantum physics, is that the movement of subatomicentities called quanta is discontinuous, characterized by pulses of energythat jump from one energy state to another; the third is that the nature of matter iscontext dependent such that an electron, for example, can appear as both a wave237 See Nichol, Introduction to Essential David Bohm, 3–5.230

and a particle depending on the context in which it exists and from which it isobserved; and the fourth is the discovery of nonlocal connections betweenquantum elements that are far apart in space.Considering the implications of these four insights taken together, Bohmattempted to develop a coherent model of the nature of reality that would go someway towards eliminating or reconciling the philosophical contradictions withinmodern physics. For example, although Einstein had realized that particles haveno existence independently of their surrounding fields, he still believed that thefields themselves exist separately and are only related to each other throughexternal, local connections. While Einstein’s theory is a radical departure from theestablished mechanistic view of classical physics, Bohm points out that it does notallow for, or explain, the nonlocal connections between particles discovered inquantum physics. In an attempt to reconcile these positions, then, Bohm proposesthat the fields around particles must in fact be connected to each other implicitly,through an underlying dimension of reality. Particles are related, he suggests, notonly externally and causally but, more fundamentally, through their commonorigin in a single, undivided universal field of energy. Penetrating the complexinterior structure of particles had revealed, Bohm suggests, another order ofreality existing beneath and within the external world of space and time: It hadrevealed the implicate order. 238According to Bohm, the most important consequence of the wholenessdiscovered by modern physics is that even the form of what were once considered238 Bohm suggests that the implicate order is approached through the “innercomplexity of elementary matter.” Bohm, Essential David Bohm, 190.231

to be elementary particles is actually determined by the whole universe. Thisinsight suggested to him that there should be a radical shift of emphasis withinphysics: Instead of focusing first and foremost on particles as separately existingentities, to better understand the nature of reality we should instead give primaryattention, he thought, to the order of undivided wholeness, the ground from whichthese particles emerge. For Bohm, the main focus of concern was to be theimplicate order and the background “sea” of energy underlying the material worldof space, time, and consciousness.Bohm’s term for the manifest, material universe is the explicate order, aconcept that is similar in meaning to what we have called the structure of theuniverse. He hypothesizes that the explicate order—the material world of separatethings existing in their own regions of time and space—does not constitute thetotality of existence, as is often supposed in the modern West, but is in fact onlythe foreground of existence, only a secondary derivative order. The primary orderof reality is what he calls the holomovement or the plenum, the ground of all thatis, which he conceived as a single, unbroken flowing movement of energy.Bohm’s theory is an instance of what has been called the holographicparadigm, a theoretical model that has become important in modern science, bothin optics (where it originated), and in Karl Pribram’s theory of the holographicstorage of visual memory in the brain. In a hologram (a three-dimensional imagegenerated by laser) the whole holographic image can be generated from anyfragment of the hologram such that each part effectively contains the wholewithin it. Applying this approach to understand reality itself, Bohm suggests that232

eality appears to possess a certain holographic quality in that each part has anintrinsic connection with the whole. In the implicate order, the whole process ofreality is enfolded into every part such that each part of the universe, at theimplicate level, is interpenetrating and like the hologram contains the whole.For Bohm, then, there are two distinct yet intimately related forms ororders of being: a manifest explicate form (i.e., the world that we see around us),and a non-manifest implicate form, which is invisible to the senses and which“has its ground in the holomovement.” 239 “The holomovement which is ‘lifeimplicit,’” he explains, “is the ground both of ‘life explicit’ and of ‘inanimatematter,’ and this ground is what is primary, self-existent and universal.” 240 Bohmenvisages the holomovement as a flowing process or movement that creates thephysical and mental universe as we experience it, unfolding out of itself themanifest realm of the explicate order in which objects exist in their own region oftime and space. The holomovement, then, is a non-manifest, underlyingdimension of existence that is the generating and sustaining matrix—the dynamicground—of the material world of space and time.In a further analogy, Bohm suggests that as television images aretransmitted through radio waves in an enfolded condition and are translated by atelevision receiver into two dimensional images in a certain temporal sequence aswe see them on the screen, so our three-dimensional experience of the world inspace and time is itself the result of the translation of the higher dimensional239 Bohm, Wholeness and the implicate order, 235.240 Ibid., 194.233

eality of the holomovement. The world, as perceived through our senses, is theexplicate order in which things appear separate and distinct from each other,existing in their own region of space and time, but the deeper reality underlyingthis is the non-separate, interpenetrating implicate realm. This deeper level ofreality is a single, whole unbroken order that is a process of dynamic flow. This isthe holomovement—the whole flowing movement of reality.The Unity of Mind and MatterBohm’s hypothesis of the implicate order, in agreement with Jung andwith the other theories we have considered, supports the idea that there is anessential unity of mind and matter. According to Bohm, the material universe andthe psyche both originate from the same source: “the unknown totality of theuniversal flux” (i.e., from the holomovement). 241 Although they appear to berelatively separate and distinct, Bohm argues that this is ultimately just anabstraction from the fundamental unitary reality. “The explicit and manifest orderof consciousness,” he observes, “is not ultimately distinct from that of matter ingeneral. Fundamentally they are different aspects of the one overall order.” 242Again, as in the systems view, Bohm postulates that the human mind isrelated to more than just the physical body, and is in fact related to the entirecosmos:241 Ibid., 63.242 Ibid., 264.234

In the implicate order we have to say that the mind enfolds matter ingeneral and therefore the body in particular. Similarly, the body enfoldsnot only the mind but also in some sense the entire material universe . . .through the fact that the constituent atoms of the body are actuallystructures that are enfolded in principle throughout all space. 243For Bohm, then, mind and matter are only relatively distinct forms in which theunderlying reality of the holomovement manifests. “The more comprehensive,deeper, and more inward actuality,” he concludes, “is neither mind nor body butrather a yet higher-dimensional actuality which is their common ground andwhich is of a nature beyond both. 244Matter, space-time, and consciousness are considered to be projections ofthis more encompassing and fundamental higher-dimensional reality. In the flowof the holomovement, they arise and are sustained in a dynamic reciprocal processof unfolding and enfolding. The material world of space and time emerges out ofthe “cosmic ocean” of energy, Bohm suggests, as an “excitation pattern,” 245 like“a ripple on a vast sea.” 246 “This excitation pattern,” he proposes, “is relativelyautonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separableprojections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation.” 247 Ourexperience of time is “a projection of a multidimensional reality into a sequence243 Ibid., 265.244 Ibid.245 Ibid., 243.246 Ibid., 242.247 Ibid., 243.235

of moments.” 248 Although from a temporal perspective the coming into existenceof the universe can be understood as unique historical event occurring some 13.7billion years ago in time, at the beginning of time, according to Bohm’s theorycreation must also be seen as a continuous, non-temporal process. Each momentor “slice” of space-time, emerging from the holomovement, is created thendestroyed in “a universal process of constant creation and annihilation.” 249In this model, not only the material world but consciousness too has both aforeground explicate content and a background implicit content, and these seem tobroadly correspond with depth psychology’s classification of the psyche into therealms of consciousness and the unconscious. 250 As the explicate order emergesfrom and is sustained by the implicate order, so in Jung’s view, consciousnessemerges from and rests upon the unconscious. Furthermore, for Bohm, as for248 Ibid., 269.249 Bohm, Essential David Bohm, 196.250 Lionel Corbett suggests that the relationship between the explicate and theimplicate order is equivalent to the relationship between the ego and the Self inpsychology. He writes: “The term implicate refers to an undivided wholeness, similar towhat Jung calls the unus mundus or unitary world, which implies that all aspects ofreality are linked with all other aspects, and are not truly separate . . . This level of realitycannot be directly experience, but Jung believed that the phenomenon of synchronicityprovided empirical evidence for its existence. The existence of synchronicity suggeststhat psyche and matter belong to the same reality, since events that have a commonmeaning occur at the same time within the psyche and in the outer material world. Thislevel of order, which clearly corresponds to the unconscious because we are so unawareof it, unfolds into the ‘explicate’ order, which is the domain of classical physics, in whichdiscrete objects appear isolated in space and time. This latter (egoic) level of realitycomprises the conscious, manifest world. . . The movement from implicate to explicate,or from unconscious to consciousness, involves a movement from undifferentiation toapparent plurality. An unbroken totality becomes the fragmented condition of everydayconsciousness which divides everything into parts.” Corbett, Religious function of thepsyche, 137.236

Jung, at its deepest level the unconscious or implicate background toconsciousness seems to extend into the very matrix of being itself. The implicatebackground, Bohm remarks, “has to be contained in a yet greater background ofunknown (and indeed ultimately unknowable) depths of inwardness that may beanalogous to the ‘sea’ of energy that fills the sensibly perceived ‘empty’space.” 251Energy: A Unified ConceptionThe concept of energy, providing a second point of convergence withJung’s ideas, is central to Bohm’s notion of an implicate level of reality and of hisunderstanding of the holomovement. For Bohm, “what we call empty spacecontains an immense background of energy” 252 and, as we have seen, theholomovement is to be conceived as a cosmic ocean of energy that is the sourceand ground of all that is, underlying both psyche and cosmos, which are “relatedprojections” from this higher-dimensional ground. 253 With the concept of energy,then, we can conceive of a dimension of reality that expresses itself as both mindand matter but that is inherently neither psychological nor physical and thatultimately transcends either of these forms of manifestation.To equate the systems model of a self-organizing universe with Jung’sidea of a self-organizing psyche implies such a unified conception of energy, of a251 Bohm, Wholeness and the implicate order, 267.252 Ibid., 242.253 Ibid., 268.237

universal form of energy that is not restricted only to physical forces that can bemeasured in science, but that also includes psychological energy—will, desire,emotional affect, and so forth. For Wolfgang Pauli, the search for a commonlanguage to unite psychology and physics was something of the Holy Grail of hislife’s work, and Jung, as we have already seen, influenced by his discussions withPauli and Einstein, also tentatively explored the possible parallels between hisown concept of psychic energy and the quantifiable energy in the natural sciences.Indeed, Jung actually makes use of a biological systems model and employsconcepts borrowed from thermodynamics in his own “energic” model of thefunctioning of the psyche. Thus we read of the conservation of energy, of entropyand equivalence, of dynamism and teleology, of regression and progression, andof the energic tension between the opposite poles of the ego and the unconscious,and so forth. 254Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest and evolutionarypaleontologist whose entire life’s work was concerned with demonstrating theessential connection between the inner and outer modes of experience, similarlyposited a single, unified concept of energy. Although, like Jung, he accepted thatin practice the scientific concepts of energy as quantifiable forces and the capacityfor work will probably remain incommensurable with the human experience ofpsychological or spiritual energy, he thought that these two forms of energy mustultimately be one and the same. “The two energies—of mind and matter—spreadrespectively through the two layers of the world (the within and the without) and,254 See Jung, On psychic energy.238

taken as a whole, have much the same demeanour. They are constantly associatedand in some way pass into each other.” 255 “In the last analysis,” he concludes,“somehow or other, there must be a single energy operating in the world,”although this could only be expressed, he thought, “by a complex symbolism inwhich terms of a different order are employed.” 256 Bohm shares this opinion,arguing that science must eventually come to recognize a deeper order withinwhich to frame its existing theories and discoveries. The hypothesis of theimplicate order appears to go some way towards meeting this requirement.The idea of universal life energy was in fact fundamental to manypremodern cultures. “Awareness of an all-pervading mysterious energyarticulated in the infinite variety of natural phenomena,” cultural historianThomas Berry notes, “seems to be the primordial experience of humanconsciousness, awakening to an awesome universe filled with mysteriouspower.” 257 The human encounter with this numinous energy was approachedthrough various terms employed in the different premodern cultures: mana,wakonda, orenda, chi, ki. Later, certain theorists have suggested, this experienceof a single life power seems to have become differentiated in the mythic traditionsinto various deities and demons, personifying different aspects of this primalenergy. Later still, as F. M. Cornford observes, with the transition from myth tophilosophy in the West, these forces were abstracted further into metaphysical255 Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of man, 64.256 Ibid., 63–64.257 Berry, Dream of the Earth, 24.239

principles, and eventually into scientific concepts of energy, force, work, and soon, which are, of course, no less mysterious in their ultimate origin for beingquantified and designated scientific. 258In the modern era, as energy has become more narrowly defined inscientific terms as the capacity for work, the awareness of a universal concept ofenergy—physical, psychological, and spiritual in essence—has faded into thebackground of our awareness. Nonetheless, Berry explains, “Not only is energyour primary experience; energy, and its multiple modes of expression, is also theprimary concern of modern physics, its ultimate term of reference in describingthe most fundamental reality of the universe.” 259 A requirement of any futureunification of physics and psychology, and of any future union of science andspirit, is that we come to view quantifiable forces as a subset of this moreexpansive concept of energy, just as efficient linear causality must be viewedwithin a more comprehensive framework that also recognizes formal, final,nonlocal, and archetypal causation.Jung, Bohm, Capra, and Teilhard can each be interpreted as advocating aform of dual-aspect monism, while incorporating certain aspects of neutral258 See, for example, Cornford, From religion to philosophy, 85; Jung, Onpsychic energy, 71–77.259 Berry, Dream of the Earth, 24.240

monism. 260 According to the dual-aspect perspective, reality is comprised of asingle substance (which I am referring to as energy) that takes two fundamentalforms: matter and mind. 261 In philosophical analysis, dual-aspect monism isusually portrayed as epistemically dualistic and ontically monistic: There is anunderlying ontological unity of mind and matter in that both are aspects of thesame reality, but human knowledge of the two realms is relatively distinct.Furthermore, according to the particular form of dual-aspect monism I am260 According to Leopold Stubenberg: “What distinguishes neutral monism fromits better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality isneither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality:being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to beneutral between the two.” Stubenberg, Neutral monism.261 Harald Atmanspacher’s helpful summary is directly relevant to our topic.“Dual-aspect approaches,” he notes, “consider mental and material domains of reality asaspects, or manifestations, of one underlying reality in which mind and matter areunseparated. In such a framework, the distinction between mind and matter results fromthe application of a basic tool for achieving epistemic access to, i.e., gather knowledgeabout, both the separated domains and the underlying reality. Consequently, the status ofthe underlying, psychophysically neutral domain is considered as ontic relative to themind-matter distinction . . .” Atmanspacher observes that the history of dual-aspectapproaches goes back to Spinoza and Leibniz and he identifies both Bohm and Jung asoffering contemporary variants of dual-aspect perspectives. In Bohm’s approach,Atmanspacher points out, “the notions of implicate and explicate order mirror thedistinction between ontic and epistemic domains. At the level of the implicate order, theterm active information expresses that this level is capable of ‘informing’ theepistemically distinguished, explicate domains of mind and matter.” In Jung's depthpsychology, Atmanspacher continues, the archetypes “are regarded as constituting thepsychophysically neutral level covering both the collective unconscious and the holisticreality of quantum theory. At the same time they operate as ‘ordering factors’, beingresponsible for the arrangement of their psychical and physical manifestations in theepistemically distinguished domains of mind and matter. . . There is a causal relationship(in the sense of formal rather than efficient causation) between the psychophysicallyneutral, monistic level and the epistemically distinguished mental and material domains.In Pauli’s and Jung’s terms this kind of causation is expressed by the ordering operationof archetypes in the collective unconscious. . . A remarkable feature of [this perspective]is the possibility that the mental and material manifestations may inherit mutualcorrelations due to the fact that they are jointly caused by the psychophysically neutrallevel. One might say that such correlations are remnants reflecting the lost holism on thislevel. In this sense, they are not the result of any direct causal interaction between mentaland material domains . . . In the proposal by Pauli and Jung, these correlations are calledsynchronistic.” Atmanspacher, Quantum approaches to consciousness.241

entertaining here, although the two realms of experience are relativelyautonomous and relatively epistemically distinct, there exists a kind of symbolicparallelism between mind and matter since both are structured and ordered by thesame set of fundamental archetypes.The figure most associated with the dual-aspect position, and one of itsmost influential advocates, was Gustav Fechner who likened human experience toa circle, in that it affords two different perspectives (concave and convex)depending on whether one is on the inside the circle looking out, or on the outsidelooking in. Human experience, as Fechner understood it, possesses two suchaspects—mind and matter—which appear distinct but, as in the circle analogy, arereally just different guises of a unitary whole. 262Dual-aspect monism leaves itself open to similar criticisms to thoseleveled at dualistic theories. “It is incumbent upon the dual-aspect theorist,” asPaul Marshall points out, “to explain how the two distinct aspects come togetherin one reality.” 263 Of course, since this dual-aspect perspective is a form ofmonism the two aspects are in some sense already and always together; they onlyappear distinct, and to split them conceptually is to artificially abstract them from262 According to Fechner: “Both sides [of a circle] belong together as indivisiblyas do the mental and material sides of man and can be looked upon as analogous to hisinner and outer sides. It is just as impossible, standing in the plane of a circle, to see bothsides of the circle simultaneously as it is to see both sides of man from the plane ofhuman existence.” Fechner, Elements of psychophysics, 2. A version of this position wasalso advanced by G. J. Romanes, writing in the late-nineteenth century. Fechner’s work isin a direct lineage from Schelling, whose “philosophy of Identity” was the firstsystematic attempt after Spinoza to articulate the kind of dual-aspect monism I amadvocating here.263 Marshall, Mystical encounters, 255.242

the unitary lived reality we experience. One might therefore say, equally, that it isnecessary to give an account of why mind and matter have been perceived as orare disclosed as separate—a theme that has been speculatively explored in thiswork.The neutral monist element, which is present in the ideas of Jung andparticularly Bohm, is the supposition that mind and matter, as two aspects of aunitary reality, are expressions of and ultimately reducible to a more fundamentalthird category—a single underlying “substance,” which is neither mind normatter. Against the neutral monist position, one might invoke the principle ofOckham’s Razor and ask whether the tertium quid, the unknown third substance,is a superfluous postulate, one that unnecessarily complexifies the situation, since,a critic might say, it creates the extra problem of having to account for therelationship of mind and matter to this unknown third, as well as to each other.Other perspectives, such as psychophysical parallelism, would not require thisadditional element. 264Such critiques are not readily dismissed, but, as with any explanation ofthe mind-matter relationship, the validity of dual-aspect or neutral monismcannot, it seems to me, be settled by logical reasoning alone. One must alsoappeal to the testimony of experience, to the noetic potentials of mystical andholotropic states, which appear to give insights into the deeper basis and structure264 A further possible shortcoming is that dual-aspect monism, in the forms it hasgenerally been explicated, focuses predominantly on mind-matter correlations rather thanon direct causal interactions or more obvious connections between mind and matter, suchas the connections between mental events and brain states.243

of reality. To be sure, a dual-aspect or neutral monism of the kind loosely outlinedby Jung and Bohm is certainly not the only position supported by mysticalexperience (Grof, for example, advocates a Neo-Advantian idealism), but in myestimation it is the one that holds the best prospects for uniting modern scientificthinking and depth psychology within a containing spiritually-informedmetaphysical framework.Moreover, from a purely phenomenological perspective, as mind andmatter disclose themselves as relatively distinct (although not separate)dimensions of our experience, it is therefore perhaps too simplistic to collapse thisdistinction by reducing either mind to matter or matter to mind. There are alsogood pragmatic reasons for supporting dual-aspect monism in favor of eithermaterialism or idealism since the elimination of the substantive reality of one orthe other can have problematic ramifications. Materialism might lead to adiminution in the status of human interiority, and idealism, crudely understood,might contribute to a depreciation in the value of the material world—a prospectwe can ill afford to risk amidst the current ecological crisis. Dual-aspect monism,it seems to me, is consistent with the commonly perceived distinction betweenmind and matter in human experience and yet avoids their radical separation, itthus preserves the value of both the inner and outer dimensions of experience, itextends the concept of interiority to be commensurate with the entire cosmos, itaccounts for what appear to be two-way causal interactions between mind andmatter (as these are understood as simultaneous transformations approached fromdifferent perspectives), and, crucially, it supports meaningful correspondences244

etween the mental and material realms (such as synchronistic occurrences andastrological correlations) that do not result from direct causal (material orefficient) influence. Thus, although it is not the only mind-matter theory that cansupport astrological correlations and synchronicities, it is arguably the mostplausible one.Meaning and the Super-Implicate OrderAnother crucial element connecting Jung and Bohm is, third, therecognition of the importance of meaning as a formative ordering dimension ofreality. For Bohm, according to Lee Nichol’s summary, the implicate order is ahypothesis formulated to account for the “emergence and dynamics of both matterand consciousness.” 265 But what is it, Bohm asked himself, that lies behind theordered emergence and unfolding of forms out of the holomovement? Theimplicate order is a dynamic “structure-process” but what, in terms of oursystems concepts, of the pattern informing this structure-process? There must be,Bohm thought, a principle of organization, of active information, that gives formto the process of unfolding. There must be, he concluded, a super-implicate order,as he called it, that is the organizing dimension of the holomovement, a yet higherlevel order that informs the process of unfolding of the holomovement intomanifest existence.Bohm related this organizing capacity to significance, to meaning, andtherefore to mind and consciousness. He presents a vision of a self-organizing265 Nichol, Introduction to Essential David Bohm, 1.245

universe in which all things have both a material or somatic dimension and adeeper, subtler significance or meaning. He calls this dual aspect to reality somasignificance.The notion of soma-significance implies that soma (or the physical) and itssignificance (which is mental) are not in any sense separately existent, butrather they are two aspects of one overall reality . . . they are revealing theunknown whole of reality, as it were, from two different sides. 266His understanding of the place of meaning within the holomovement draws Bohmeven closer to a Jungian perspective and to the philosophical model we areconsidering here. For Bohm, according to Nichol, wholeness is “a meaning-field,a living totality that includes us” in which we are not detached observers of anobjective cosmos, but rather we have an “embodied knowledge of a participatorylifeworld.” 267 Meaning, Bohm believed, is essential to the very fabric of realityfor it “penetrates the cosmos or even what is beyond the cosmos.” 268 Echoing thelater Jung, he thus came to the conclusion that “the cosmos may be orderedaccording to a kind of ‘objective’ meaning.” 269In terms of our archetypal systems cosmology, what Bohm calls the superimplicateorder seems to broadly correspond to the underlying archetypaldimension of reality, to the self-organizing capacity of the cosmic mind. This266 Bohm, Essential David Bohm, 160.267 Nichol, Introduction to Essential David Bohm, 5.268 Bohm, Essential David Bohm, 180.269 Ibid.246

order might thus be the basis of the meaningful relationships between phenomenathat are causally unrelated, the medium that supports the patterns of archetypalmeaning recognized in astrology. Clearly, if at the implicate level things aremutually interpenetrating, as Bohm proposed, they do not necessarily have to bein direct physical contact or part of a linear causal chain in the explicate order forthere to be some form of relationship between them. If at the implicate level ofreality everything in its essence is enfolded with everything else in a unifiedground of energy, then it becomes possible to imagine how things that arespatially and temporally unconnected in the explicate order of space and time canstill be related through meaning at this deeper level.Science and SpiritualityWith Bohm’s hypothesis, we have a theoretical explanation that, it seemsto me, is congruent with, and could therefore lend support to, our earlierconjecture as to the underlying identity of psyche and cosmos and their commonarchetypal basis. Based on a philosophical interpretation that is consistent with themathematical equations and experimental findings of quantum physics, Bohm’sideas seem to mesh well with Jung’s conjecture about the unus mundus and thedeeper transcendental archetypal background to reality. Like Jung, Bohmrecognized that our experience of the world has an unknown, unconsciousbackground. Both men came to the conclusion that the psyche and the cosmos aredifferent aspects of a unitary reality. Both sensed that the concept of energy wouldbe fundamental to articulating a unified world view that could bridge the gulf247

etween the interior and exterior dimensions of reality. And lastly, both thinkersrecognized that meaning is intrinsic to the deep organization of the universe. Ofcourse, despite these parallels, in practice the sciences of physics and depthpsychology remain some distance apart, but at the theoretical level at least there isa clearly discernable convergence. Given sufficient time, some form of plausiblesynthesis is not beyond reach. Much will depend of the response of the scientificcommunity over the coming decades.It is this kind of synthesis between depth psychology and the physicalsciences that could provide the basis for a new spiritually informed world view,one that would be able to help reconcile the damaging division between humaninteriority and the external world. This synthesis would enable us to articulate inmodern terminology a world view that shares certain essential elements with bothmystical and mythic conceptions of the nature of reality. The idea that behind thephysical and mental realms there is a deeper spiritual ground that is the creative,generative source of all that is, is fundamental to the mystical vision of reality;and the revelation of this unitary ground underlying surface diversity and apparentseparateness is a defining characteristic of mystical experience. In Gnosticism, forexample, the ground of being is called the pleroma, the “divine fullness,” whichunfolds out of itself the succession of cosmic aeons, and contains the pre-physicalarchetypes that are imperfectly replicated by the inferior Creator or Demiurge asthe planetary gods or archons. In Jewish Kabbalistic mysticism a similar idea isdesignated the “world of the ‘Sefiroth’,” which, according to Gershom Scholem,emerges from the Ein-Sof (the Unknown God) and is “a whole realm of divinity,248

which underlies the world of our sense-data and which is present and active in allthat exists.” 270 In Hinduism, the term Brahman designates the generative groundof being that gives rise to all forms. And German idealist philosophy alsoarticulated the concept of an underlying ground. Both Schelling and VonHartmann, for instance, maintain that the unconscious is the ground of consciousexistence and that there is, as Von Hartmann put it, “an absolute identity of Mindin us and Nature outside us.” 271 Such a notion was also present in Schopenhauer’sconcept of the Will.Whereas Jung and the German idealists focused on the transcendentalnature and underlying ground of reality, in the Platonic, Pythagorean, and Gnostictraditions the emphasis is upon the transcendent metaphysical ideal realm ofForms behind the phenomenal world. This notion of a transcendent orderingdimension is another supposition fundamental to many mystical-philosophicalconceptions of the nature of reality. Indeed, Jung’s conjecture as to thePythagorean nature of number archetypes and the transcendental psycho-physicalbackground to reality, as well as Bohm’s theory of a super-implicate order, arereminiscent, in certain respects, of the Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophies ofForms or Ideas that both inform the human psyche and structure the materialworld. Before Plato, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus posited the existence of auniversal logos, a principle by which all things in the phenomenal flux are orderedand related. For Heraclitus, the universe is in a state of dynamic flux, of incessant270 Scholem, Major trends in Jewish mysticism, 11.271 Shamdasani, Making of modern psychology, 171–172.249

process, but this process is guided by the logos. In Chinese Taoist philosophy,flow and order are reconciled in the single term tao. Ordinarily interpreted as “theway,” the tao is a cosmic principle of flowing order that is the hidden pattern ofsignificance in the cosmos, providing the source and underlying meaning of allchange. 272In its essence, then, we can see that Bohm’s model is a restatement inscientific language of what can only be described as a spiritual conception of thenature of reality. It is based on these two fundamental postulates: a dynamicground of energy underlying the psyche and cosmos, and a higher leveltranscendental ordering dimension of reality. If we now draw together all we haveconsidered about Jung and archetypal psychology, about systems theory and thenew organicism, about Bohm and the insights of modern physics—if we drawfrom all this a creative synthesis—we may tentatively outline a cosmologicalformula, as it were, that might enable us to envisage the complex ontologicalunfolding process necessary to understand astrology. This formula has threeelements: (1) a dynamic ground of energy—the implicate order of theholomovement—that manifests or unfolds according to, (2) an underlying patternof self-organization that permeates and is embodied in, (3) the manifest explicaterealms of the psyche and the cosmos. This might also be expressed in rather moreesoteric terminology as: (1) the unfolding of Spirit, which is, (2) informed andordered by the universal logos—the intelligence of the cosmic mind creating andsupporting, (3) a unus mundus of the physical cosmos and the psyche. The psyche272 Wilhelm, I Ching, lv–lvi.250

and cosmos are then differentiated as relatively distinct realms within this unitaryreality; they are different forms of expression of the underlying ground of spiritualenergy. 273Combining Bohm’s theory with our archetypal cosmology in this wayallows us to further develop our attempt to comprehend the basis of astrologicalcorrelations by giving us a deeper appreciation of the meaning associated withand expressed by the planetary order of the solar system. Although on the surfacethe solar system can be seen as just a physical system and the movements of theplanets can be explained using mechanistic models, looking beneath the surfacewe can conceive of the solar system as a dynamic energy process that within theuniversal whole has its own inherent self-organization, an inherent order thatgives rise to its outward, physical form, recreating it anew in each and everymoment. If Bohm is right, mind and matter are both unfolded from the dynamicground of the holomovement according to a super-implicate ordering principle,and if Capra is right, both possess a pattern of organization such that materialpatterns can be said to support the progressive emergence of mind, yet thesematerial patterns are themselves actually shaped by deeper organizing levels ofmind. From one perspective it seems like the complexity of material organization(brains, nervous systems) supports mind, but from another perspective theorganization of the material world already reflects the presence of mind. Mindand matter are mutually implicated. In the context of our archetypal cosmology,273 For an alternative articulation of this formula, in terms of Hegelianontological categories and their association with Jung’s archetypes, see Kelly,Individuation and the Absolute.251

we might say that in a process of ontological emanation, the holomovementunfolds according to a higher dimensional pattern of meaning creating both thepsychological and the physical realms of experience. We can imagine that thedynamic flow of energy (process) and the archetypal, self-organizing dimension(pattern) give rise to the resultant material universe, unfolded in space and time(structure). Both the cosmos and the psyche might thus be considered asderivative expressions of the one fundamental energy of life, unfolded out of theholomovement, which are patterned according to an underlying archetypal orderin such a way that meaning is inherent in the manifest reality of the explicateorder.Space and Ground: A Symbolic IdentityBuilding on the above reflections, Bohm’s theory can also, I propose,provide further insight into the symbolic relationship between the planets and thearchetypal principles in astrology. To this end, consider his analysis of therelationship of the implicate ground of reality to its appearance in the explicateorder:Although the ground may not appear in ordinary consciousness, it maynevertheless be present in a certain way. Just as the vast ‘sea’ of energy ispresent to our perception as a sense of emptiness or nothingness [i.e.,space] so the vast ‘unconscious’ background of explicit consciousnesswith all its implications is present in a similar way. 274274 Bohm, Essential David Bohm, 117.252

This statement is extremely significant, I believe, because here Bohm isproposing, if I understand him correctly, that our experience of the physical worldis in some sense metaphorically suggestive of the deeper nature of reality. Therelationship he alludes to between empty space and the ground (the “sea ofenergy”) implies that the manifest explicate form of something is expressive of itsimplicate nature, its essential form. We might say, that is, that the manifest formof things bears a meaningful symbolic relationship to the deeper ground fromwhich it arises. More specifically, in the above passage Bohm appears to beidentifying a relationship connecting the ground of being (the “sea of energy”),the unconscious background to consciousness, and physical space. He explainsfurther:what we perceive through the senses as empty space is actually theplenum, which is the ground for the existence of everything, includingourselves. The things that appear to our senses are derivative forms andtheir true meaning can be seen only when we consider the plenum, inwhich they are generated and sustained, and into which they mustultimately vanish. 275That is to say, we perceive the ground of being (the plenum) through our senses inits physical explicate form as empty space because space in some sense is thisunderlying ground. Space, we might say, is a manifestation of the ground of beingsuch that the physical characteristic of sensibly perceived space as emptiness, asthe background and surrounding context of life in the universe, is suggestive of itsessential nature as the plenum, the underlying ground of being. The unfolding of275 Ibid., 99 (emphasis mine).253

the material world out of the holomovement is informed by meaning, and thismeaning seems to be embodied in the resultant structure of the cosmos. Sensiblyperceived space, then, in its character and appearance might thus be understood asthe meaningful physical expression of the matrix of being, as a manifestation ofthe ground as perceived in the explicate order.Now, if our sensory experience of space is suggestive of the ground ofbeing—if the ground of being is itself suggested by the appearance and nature ofspace in the explicate order, as Bohm contends—then we can imagine that theformative archetypal principles (which appear to be part of this ground) must alsohave a corresponding physical form of manifestation. I venture to suggest, then,that if space in general is the explicate form of the plenum, then perhaps theplanets in outer space are derivative forms in the explicate order of the archetypalprinciples. If space is the “unfolded” form of the ground of being, as Bohm seemsto have implied, so perhaps the planets are “unfolded” derivative forms of thesearchetypal principles.This idea, although obviously of a highly speculative nature, gives us aplausible way to understand the relationship between the physical planets and theplanetary archetypes posited in archetypal astrology. Often, as we noted inchapter 5, astrology has been explained as some sort of anthropomorphicprojection of the collective unconscious onto the planetary patterns of the nightsky by an isolated Cartesian psyche. However, the astrological perspectivesuggests, rather, that the universe is actually infused with symbolic meaning. Theprecise mathematical calculations used to construct astrological charts are based254

on the observation and the exact measurement of the angular relationshipsbetween the positions of the planets relative to the location of a person on Earth.Therefore, if such person-planetary relationships are to be considered meaningful,this meaning must be built into (yet, as we have seen, not wholly dependent upon)the actual physical structure of the universe rather than something that issuperimposed onto it from a separate psychological realm. Combining acosmological interpretation of Jung with a systems model of the solar system, wewere able to put forward a way of understanding astrology in non-Cartesianterms. We considered an explanation of astrology based on the underlying identityof psyche and cosmos, and on a correlation between the solar system and thecollective unconscious and between the planets and the archetypes. Fundamentalto this view is the supposition that there is an archetypal basis to reality, a patternof self-organization inherent in the nature of reality that is immanent withinpsyche and cosmos but that transcends its manifestation in both. It is thearchetypal dimension of reality, we noted, that gives to the universe its symboliccharacter. The underlying identity of psyche and cosmos, and the archetypalfoundation on which they rest, gives rise to a meaningful parallel between theexternal-physical and the internal-psychological dimensions of reality.Bohm’s theory seems to support this explanation, for if they are indeedrelated projections of a unitary deeper reality or dynamic ground, and if they restupon a super-implicate order, which is the source of meaning, then we can betterunderstand why the cosmos and the psyche can be correlated symbolically. Thenature of reality is such, if my interpretation of Bohm is correct, that the deeper255

ealm of the cosmos is a symbolic expression of the deeper realm of the psyche,and vice versa. Thus understood, the night sky, the entire realm of outer space, isthe correlate, we might say, of the deeper dimension of the collective unconsciouspsyche. It is a symbolic expression of the matrix of being. A general symboliccorrespondence seems to exist between outer space and the “inner space” of thecollective unconscious and, within this, a more specific symbolic correspondencebetween the planets and the archetypal principles associated with the planets.In fact, taken to a logical conclusion, the whole of the physical universemight be seen as an expression of the ground of being in its manifest threedimensionalform. The universe might be seen as the outer appearance of theground, and the psyche as the interior aspect of the ground. Thus understood,physical reality is like a congealed dynamism, recreated moment to moment, thatreveals something essential about the underlying patterning forces that give rise toit, disclosing the deeper meaning of the spiritual reality upon which it rests.Just this kind of idea was advanced by Arthur Schopenhauer in thenineteenth century, and by Hegel and Schelling more systematically before him.In The World as Will and as Representation, Schopenhauer argues that the worldis but the outer appearance (the representation) of the Will, which is the ceaseless,dynamic motivating power behind existence that can only be directly experiencedthrough human interiority. Influenced by Schopenhauer’s philosophy, twentiethcentury depth psychology has demonstrated that the workings of such a Will arenot singular, but that there is a multiplicity of wills. There is not just a blind willto procreate or a will to power, but also a will to beauty, a will to understand, a256

will to preserve, a will to grow, a will to transcendence, and so on—and thesedifferent impulses are represented in the astrological pantheon by the planets. Inthe final analysis, although there is perhaps ultimately only one dynamic groundand ultimately only a single underlying Will, this Will has multiple modes ofexpression, and these are aptly suggested by the multiple planetary bodies in thesolar system.This conjecture concerning the possible symbolic relationship between theplanets and the archetypes is perhaps further than Bohm would have wished to go.However, if there is some truth in this hypothesis, then we can better understandwhy the planets are associated with the archetypal principles—why in theirmovements and relationships they consistently represent the changingrelationships between the archetypal principles. According to our hypothesis, tosummarize, each planet in the solar system is a material, derivative form of anunderlying archetypal principle inherent in the dynamic ground. As the groundunfolds, creating, destroying, and recreating the cosmos out of itself in everymoment, so the archetypal principles, the shaping forces of meaning and powerbehind this process, are themselves represented in the resultant structure of thecosmos. The arrangement and composition of the solar system is such that each ofthe archetypal principles is meaningfully represented by a specific planet.If this interpretation is correct, it might well be that as we gaze upon theplanetary order of the solar system, as we behold the starry heavens, we arepeering, in a sense, into that part of the physical universe that corresponds to thedepths of the psyche, and is a symbolic expression of the ground underlying both257

psyche and cosmos. Looking up into the night sky, tracking the movements of theplanetary bodies, perhaps what we are witnessing is a visible, material expressionof the changing pattern of relationships between the archetypal principles inherentin the ground of being.Viewed alongside our earlier exploration of the ideas of a cosmic mindand transcendental ordering background to reality, we can recognize in Bohm’stheory a metaphysical perspective, extrapolated from modern physics, thatenables us to better envisage the possible underlying basis of cosmology andpsychology. Using his ideas of the holomovement and the implicate order, we areable to connect both cosmology and psychology to an underlying ground, and toget a sense for how this ground seems to be symbolically represented in thephysical form of the cosmos. In such a perspective, the cosmos in all its forms ofmanifestation might be seen as expressive of an inherent spiritual or archetypalmeaning that permeates all things.258

Chapter SevenArchetypal Resonance and the Birth PatternWithin a cosmological vision of an evolving universe resting upon adynamic ground and thematically orchestrated by an underlying archetypal order,it is important not to lose sight of the fact that astrology pertains to individualhuman lives here in the world of everyday concerns in which we live. A keyelement of astrology, we should remember, is not only its universality—itsapplicability to human life in all places and all times of history—but also itsindividual specificity. We must remind ourselves that the cosmic order revealedby the planetary patterns is actually intimately related to the daily acts andpersonal experiences of individual human lives. Astrology is a grand universalperspective, but astrological charts provide us with a precise individual vantagepoint that enables us to determine how each individual life is related to theplanetary order.Central to understanding an individual’s archetypal pattern is the birthchart, which shows the set of planetary relationships in the sky at the time, andfrom the place, of birth. The planetary arrangements in the birth chart symbolizethe specific archetypal pattern of the moment one is born and this pattern is a kindof symbolic prefiguration of the archetypal dynamics and themes thatsubsequently define one’s individual character and biographical experiences. In259

this chapter, I will examine the significance of the birth moment in more detail tobetter understand, in theory, how such archetypal patterning might occur.The Significance of the Birth MomentReflecting the dynamic ever-changing nature of the universe, eachmoment in time, each “slice” of space-time, is qualitatively unique. Since patternis related to quality, meaning, and purpose, each separate moment is imbued witha certain quality or set of qualities arising from the unique pattern of that moment.Thus understood, time is not an empty frame of reference; it is a successionalsequence of qualitatively distinct patterns of cosmic energy.According to the view of astrology I am presenting here, every experienceat a particular moment in time occurs within a framework of archetypal meaningssymbolized by the relative positions of the planets. This pattern takes on anindividual significance by relating the general pattern of a given moment—thepattern of the planets in the sky—to the precise location of an event. Theindividual’s birth moment is one such event; it is the point at which the pattern ofthe individual’s life is established.From the perspective of scientific materialism, our coming into being canbe explained in strictly biological and causal-historical terms. In this view there isno particular meaning attached to the moment we were born—the precise date andtime of birth is seen as largely irrelevant, determined only by biologicalconception some nine months earlier and having no ongoing significance after thebirth event. However, the astrological-archetypal world view we are considering260

here calls for a radically different understanding of the significance of the birthexperience and of the precise timing of birth. Of particular relevance to astrologyare the observations emerging from the work of Stanislav Grof in transpersonalpsychology and experiential psychotherapy.Over the last fifty years Grof’s research into the different realms andlevels of the human unconscious has brought to light the momentous importanceof the birth experience in shaping the human personality. His research findingschallenge the standard medical assumption that the child has no memory of thebirth experience and that this experience is not, therefore, a significant factor insubsequent human development. He explains:Various forms of experiential psychotherapy have amassed convincingevidence that biological birth is the most profound trauma of our life andan event of paramount psychospiritual importance. It is recorded in ourmemory in minuscule details down to the cellular level and it has aprofound effect on our psychological development. 276Clinical psychiatrists and psychologists generally disregard the psychologicalsignificance of the birth experience because it is believed that the newborn’s brainis not yet developed enough to record memories of this event. However, as wesaw in chapter 4, this view is based on the contentious assumption of a mind-brainidentity, of the tendency to see the brain as the source of all cognition andmemory. Contrary to this view, Grof found that not only does the psyche retain anunconscious memory of birth, but that the memory and psychosomatic276 Grof, Psychology of the future, 31.261

consequences of the unresolved trauma of the birth experience are in fact of suchmomentous importance that this experience is the foundation behind variousforms of psychopathology and emotional disorders in adult life. Consequently,individuals engaged in deep experiential therapy are able to derive considerabletherapeutic benefit from reliving the experience of biological birth in nonordinarystates of consciousness. This experiential encounter with what Grof callsthe perinatal domain of the psyche produces a catharsis of the traumatic memoryof the infant’s ordeal during the passage from the womb through the birth canal.For the infant in the throes of birth, this passage amounts to an intense life anddeath struggle. Consciously re-experiencing this close encounter with death innon-ordinary states can be instrumental in leading to the concomitant experienceof ego-death—a “second birth” or rebirth—an experience, Grof discovered, thatresults in a profound psycho-spiritual transformation.Emerging out of the psychoanalytic tradition that included the ideas andtherapeutic modalities developed by Freud, Jung, Alfred Adler, Otto Rank,Wilhelm Reich, and others, Grof has drawn upon his research findings toformulate a vastly enlarged cartography of the psyche that both incorporates andexpands upon Freudian and Jungian models. According to Grof, the psyche iscomprised of three realms: the personal-biographical (incorporating the personalunconscious), the perinatal domain (pertaining to the birth experience), and thetranspersonal (including the collective unconscious). He discovered that theperinatal domain functions as a “gateway to the collective unconscious” and that“experiential confrontation with birth and death seems to result automatically in a262

spiritual opening and discovery of the mystical dimensions of the psyche and ofexistence.” 277 The birth moment appears to be a mysterious point of intersectionbetween the personal-biographical and the transpersonal, between the individualand the collective, and between linear deterministic causality and formalarchetypal causality. It is not just a biological event, but a multidimensionalexperience with profound physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritualsignificance. Grof concludes that his investigations into the psychologicalsignificance of the birth process “bring support for astrology, which has longattributed major significance to the moment of birth as the symbolic precursor ofone’s overall life pattern.” 278The birth experience seems to serve as a kind of archetypal imprint orstamp, as it were, in which biographical, perinatal, familial, cultural, ancestral,phylogenetic, and transpersonal memories appear to constellate around thearchetypal pattern of the birth moment. Each individual life seems to giveconcrete form to the underlying archetypal dynamics of that moment as aparticularized expression of the cosmos. Thus understood, we cannot separate thepurpose and meaning of our coming into existence from the life of the universe asa whole. While our birth is our own individual beginning, it is also in some sensea cosmic event. Our coming into existence is a creative action of the cosmos as awhole. At biological birth the whole seems to be “imprinted” at the individuallevel. The whole individualizes itself in and through the human being.277 Ibid., 33.278 Grof, Holotropic research and archetypal astrology, 55.263

Grof’s work helps us to understand one reason why the birth moment(rather than the moment of conception or any other significant moment in time) isof such momentous importance in astrology, for birth seems to mark theculmination of a multitude of processes and the intersection of different worlds,archetypal possibilities, and concrete particulars—as well as spiritual and karmicfactors currently beyond our understanding. By studying the planetary alignmentsin the birth chart and determining the meaning of these alignments based on wellestablishedprinciples of astrological interpretation, one can gain insight into thearchetypal dynamics evident in both an individual’s personality and biography.One can understand, in archetypal terms, how the cosmos is finding expressionthrough particular individuals. For example, if Venus and Neptune are in a majoraspect at birth, one would expect to observe a complex combination of qualitiesand characterological traits typical of this archetypal pairing: an exquisitesensitivity to the aesthetic dimension of experience or the proclivity to beprofoundly moved by the beauty of nature in all its forms; the susceptibility toromantic flights of fancy and projection of a romantic ideal onto the object ofone’s desire; a mysterious, compassionate, idealistic, or confused quality to one’srelationships; the tendency to conflate spirituality and romantic feeling, as in themystic’s love for the divine; or the inclination towards escapism through sensualenjoyment. In both constructive and challenging ways, this combination suggeststhat the experience of romantic love, beauty, and pleasure is inextricablyconnected to the imagination, the ideal, spirituality, and the need to transcend thelimits of the individual personality. With any archetypal combination such as this,264

the relationship between the corresponding planets at birth indicates that themultivalent array of characteristics and themes associated with that combinationwill be consistently evident, although in different ways, in the individual’spersonality and biographical experiences throughout the duration of the lifetime.The planetary alignments at birth indicate the archetypal preconditions of one’slife experiences, and these preconditions remain intact throughout the lifetime.The idea that the individual takes on the archetypal pattern at the momentof birth raises further pressing questions: Given that the planets continue to movein their orbits and do not, of course, remain in the positions they occupied at themoment of a person’s birth, and that the archetypal pattern symbolized by theplanets therefore changes moment to moment, how is the archetypal pattern of thebirth moment retained such that it is continually related to that person throughoutthe duration of his or her life? And, more fundamentally, how in the first placedoes the pattern of planetary archetypes at one particular moment of time actuallybecome specifically related to individual people who were born at that moment?If, as discussed above, the birth experience does indeed create an archetypalimprint of sorts, what is the medium of transmission between the archetypalpattern and human life?To formulate a possible answer to these questions, we are able to turn toanother new paradigm theory, this time originating in the field of biology, as weconsider the work of the British scientist Rupert Sheldrake and assess itsparticular relevance to our archetypal systems cosmology. When considering thearchetypal pattern of an individual human life, we must connect archetypal265

psychology not only to cosmology but also to biology, and to this end Sheldrake’sconcepts will be crucial.Morphic Fields and Formative CausationThe theory of formative causation was developed by Sheldrake in theearly 1980s. First presented in his seminal A New Science of Life and then later inThe Presence of the Past, Sheldrake puts forward the radical idea that memory isnot stored within the human brain, but that it is actually inherent within all ofnature, existing within what he calls morphic fields, which he defines as “nonmaterialregions of influence” that organize and inform the natural systems towhich they relate. 279 Sheldrake proposes that all natural systems, from atoms andcells, to animals and human beings, have morphic fields that are specificallyrelated to and localized around the systems they organize.Based on an organismic perspective of biological life (surely the mostappropriate model for living beings), Sheldrake’s theory challenges themechanistic and atomistic approaches that still remain dominant in biology. Heexplains that unlike physics, which in its exploration of quantum fields has, to acertain extent, gone beyond mechanistic and atomistic approaches, biology hasremained focused on the molecular level of being. 280 In spite of the momentouschanges occurring in modern physics, biology has, inexplicably, remainedwedded to the mechanistic paradigm, which, in Sheldrake’s view, has severely279 Sheldrake, Presence of the past, xviii.280 Ibid., 118.266

limited the approach to the study of biological phenomena. One consequence ofthis is that field theories, so fundamental to modern physics, have not beendeveloped within biology. In addition, Sheldrake explains, despite the enormoussuccess and popularity of genetics and of research into DNA, biologists have stillnot been able to account for many crucial aspects of biological life in mechanisticterms. Thus, the hypothesis of formative causation is offered as a field theory toprovide a more comprehensive explanation of living organisms and at the sametime resolve many perplexing questions that molecular biology has thus far failedto satisfactorily answer.For example, it has been much debated within biology whether what hasbeen learned by an individual member of a species can be passed on to itsoffspring genetically or whether inherited learning is actually impossible and thatall learning is therefore acquired through experience. In one particular body ofresearch exploring this phenomenon, Sheldrake reports that in water mazeexperiments involving over thirty successive generations of rats, conducted byWilliam McDougall at Harvard University in the 1920s, it was found that latergenerations of rats were able to learn how to navigate the mazes quicker, needingfar fewer attempts, than earlier generations of rats had been able to, thussuggesting, McDougall concludes, some form of genetically inherited learning. 281Subsequent studies were then undertaken over long periods (fifteen to twentyyears), first by F. Crew at Edinburgh University in the 1930s, and then morerigorously by W. E. Agar at Melbourne University in the 1950s, which replicated281 Ibid., 174–176.267

McDougall’s findings but proffered a different conclusion. For these studies notonly demonstrated the improved learning capacities of later generations of rats,but remarkably that this improvement was evident even when the rats were notbiologically related. The learning, that is to say, did not appear to be passed onthrough genetic inheritance from parent rats to their offspring but through someother means. Even more remarkably, however, these experiments suggested thatlearning that had occurred in one part of the world seemed to be accessible toother members of the species living far away in other parts of the world wherethere had been no contact between the groups of rats. The Scottish and Australianrats seemed to have learned from the prior exposure to the maze test of theirAmerican counterparts in the Harvard experiment. Clearly, such a phenomenoncannot be explained in terms of any conventional biological theory. Sheldrake’stheory, however, in which the memory of learned behavior is not thought to bestored within individual members of a species, encoded in DNA or in the brain,but is understood to exist in morphic fields, provides one way to account for thisphenomenon. Since morphic fields manifest across space and time, they cantherefore be accessed by members of species wherever they are located.In drawing upon the explanatory idea of the field, Sheldrake makespossible, in principle, a convergence of his own ideas with those emerging inother disciplines, especially physics. Sheldrake himself sees clear parallels: “Thefield concept implies the existence of profound analogies between the organizingprinciples of the biological realm and the known fields of physics.” 282 This is282 Ibid., 101.268

especially so given that matter is now seen as being, in his own words, “energybased and patterned within fields,” and that morphic fields, like the fields inphysics, are “intimately related to matter.” 283For Sheldrake, however, morphic fields differ from any of the knownfields in physics in that they are primarily fields of information. Information isused to put something into a form; it is, as Sheldrake would say, a formativecause. A morphic field is comprised of information that is used in theorganization of the living organism to which it relates, both to guide organismsinto actualization and to maintain their structural form. As in the stratified orderof nature, each morphic field is nested within the morphic fields of largerorganisms and can access and contribute to information stored in these largerfields. In this respect, there are striking similarities between morphic fields andthe holarchical systems conception of reality discussed earlier. What is mostdistinctive about Sheldrake’s concept though, and what makes it unique, is thatmorphic fields contain an inherent memory that is the source of the informationused for self-organization.According to Sheldrake, the information within morphic fields comesfrom an accumulated memory of habitual patterns of activity continually modifiedin a recursive feedback loop. This memory is derived from two sources: it comesfrom the patterns of activity of similar organisms and from the patterns of activityof the organism’s own past. In the first case, information in the morphic fields is283 Ibid., 115.269

modified by what he calls the process of morphic resonance, and in the secondcase, the morphic fields are altered by the similar process of self-resonance.Morphic Resonance and Self-ResonanceMorphic fields have access to information existing within the morphicfields of all other similar organisms, and it is for this reason, Sheldrake believes,that all members of a particular species of animals share similar habit patternsgoverning their behavior. Such habits, relating to the organization, growth, andfunctioning of different species of organisms, are formed and modified over time.These habits are stored in the morphic fields and have a formative causalinfluence on other subsequent similar organisms. Each member of a species can,because of morphic resonance, “tune into” the fields of all similar organisms ofthat species and also to the larger morphic field of the whole species. Sheldrakeexplains:According to the hypothesis of formative causation, morphic resonanceoccurs between . . . rhythmic structures of activity on the basis ofsimilarity, and through this resonance past patterns of activity influencethe fields of subsequent similar systems. Morphic resonance involves akind of action at a distance in both space and time. 284Morphic fields of different organisms are not related causally or through anyphysical medium, but through similarity, through the fact that these fields284 Ibid., 109.270

esonate with each other because of their similar patterns. Morphic resonancefunctions outside of the constraints of the Newtonian universe of space, time, andcausality; it can occur between morphic fields separated by vast distances inspace, and can reach back into the remote past to patterns established in the earlyhistory of a species. Habits are reinforced and become stronger the more oftenthey are repeated, even to the extent that certain habits become almost as bindingas laws of nature.Morphic fields also draw upon information from an organism’s own pastpatterns of activity by the process of self-resonance—a specific form of morphicresonance.The specificity of morphic resonance depends on the similarity of thepatterns of activity that are resonating. The more similar the patterns ofactivity, the more specific and effective will the resonance be. In general,the most specific morphic resonance acting on a given organism will bethat from its own past states, because it is more similar to itself in the past. . . than to any other organism. 285Thus, not only does a particular morphic field resonate with other similar morphicfields but, more fundamentally, it resonates with its own history, its own habitsand patterns of activity. In this way, the past is continually alive and active informing the present state of an organism. (One might notice here a strikingparallel with Whitehead’s notion of concrescence.) Together, morphic resonance285 Ibid., 132.271

and self-resonance are the two forms of formative causation—the “non-energetictransfer of information”—occurring in morphic fields. 286By accessing information in morphic fields, organisms tune into their ownpast states and, more generally, to well-established pathways of activity, typicalforms of expression, habitual responses, and modes of behavior conditioned bygeneric species-wide factors. This perhaps explains why new forms of activity orknowledge shared among disparate members of a species become morewidespread as the prevalence of this knowledge increases. Sheldrake believes thatthe existence of morphic fields can, for example, help to explain the migrating,mating, feeding, and nesting patterns of birds—a phenomenon that cannot beaccounted for through genetic inheritance and the study of DNA. In his view,individual birds acquire or inherit the habits of their species by drawing upon apooled, collective memory of the patterns of behavior of all previous members ofthat species. This is also true, Sheldrake suggests, of human beings: Human life isshaped by previously established habitual patterns of human behavior and by anaccumulated memory of all that has gone before. 287286 Ibid., 108.287 Given its radical departure from conventional biological approaches,Sheldrake’s theory has inevitably attracted stern criticism from others in the scientificcommunity, and Sheldrake has often provided equally firm responses to these critiques.On one specific point, relevant to our discussion, Ken Wilber has questioned whetherSheldrake’s assertion that morphic fields do not possess an energetic component isactually correct. See Wilber, Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenesis. Elsewhere, theJournal of Consciousness Studies devoted an entire issue to debating the merits ofSheldrake’s ideas, particularly as they apply to perception. Chris Clark, for instance,questions whether Sheldrake’s concepts provide any additional explanatory power tomore orthodox theories, and he contends that Sheldrake’s association of perceptual fieldswith the known fields in physics is invalid for understanding perception. Clark, Sense ofbeing stared at, 78–82.272

Cosmic MemoryWhen applied to human beings, Sheldrake’s theory of morphic fieldsrepresents a radical departure from our ordinary understanding of memory in thatit challenges the widely held assumption that memories actually reside in thebrain. If Sheldrake is right, the brain is the organ that accesses and processesmemories, but they are not actually stored in the brain. In fact, for Sheldrake,because memory is not encoded in physical matter but within morphic fields,which are “non-material regions of influence,” it can exist without any materialsubstrate to support it. 288 This implies that memory might not be restrictedexclusively to living organisms but might in fact be present within the morphicfields of inorganic wholes too. Indeed, Sheldrake suggests that it is possible toapply the concept of morphic fields to larger wholes such as ecosystems, andbeyond this it is also possible, he adds, “to regard entire planets as organisms withcharacteristic morphic fields, and likewise planetary systems, stars, galaxies, andclusters of galaxies.” 289 If memory does not depend on a material substrate—if itdoes not reside within the physical structure of an organism—then it isconceivable that there might indeed be morphic fields associated with largersystems such as planets and galaxies, each with its own memory that informs andorganizes its structure, activity, and evolution. Sheldrake therefore introduces thepossibility that there might be a world field, a modern version of the Platonic ideaof the world soul or anima mundi. Such a world field, he suggests, would be “the288 Sheldrake, Presence of the past, xviii.289 Ibid., 300–301.273

creative source . . . of all the fields of nature,” containing, informing, andorganizing all life on Earth, or perhaps even in the entire cosmos. 290Indeed, in line with the new organicism, if we conceive of the entireuniverse as a system in itself then this too must have its own morphic field, auniversal morphic field, which, like the idea of a cosmic mind, would, Sheldrakesuggests, “include, influence, and interconnect the morphic fields of all suchorganisms it contains.” 291 The universal morphic field would be akin to animmense, all-embracing cosmic memory containing records of all past activitiesthat continue to influence and shape the unfolding of the present.As amazing as it might seem, “the idea that a collective memory underliesour mental activity,” Sheldrake notes, “follows as a natural consequence from thehypothesis of formative causation.” 292 And Sheldrake is not alone in suggestingthis possibility. A similar proposal has also been developed by Ervin Laszlo, oneof the world’s foremost systems theorists, who postulates the existence of what hecalls the A-field—an underlying informational field that forms the ground of thequantum realm, of cosmology and biology, and of consciousness. This idea of theA-field, Laszlo points out, bears a strong resemblance to the esoteric and Indianconcept of the akasha or akashic records, which has been described as a “cosmicreservoir of information and memories,” purportedly accessed by psychics and290 Ibid., 323.291 Ibid., 303.292 Sheldrake, Presence of the past, 222.274

seers throughout the ages. 293 Stanislav Grof’s research into the content of thetranspersonal domain of the unconscious also appears to support the existence ofsome kind of cosmic memory. As we have seen, Grof discovered that in nonordinarystates of consciousness one can gain access to what appear to bememories of historical, collective, cross-cultural, karmic, phylogenetic, andevolutionary events. Furthermore, these memories seem to be organizedarchetypally and thematically in such a way that traumatic experiences from one’sown biography, for example, are connected to qualitatively and archetypallysimilar experiences from our collective past.In this respect there are clear parallels as well between Sheldrake’s theoryand Jung’s psychological model of the archetypes and the collectiveunconscious—an affinity that Sheldrake has himself tentatively explored. 294 Here,following this lead, I would like to briefly consider some of the points ofcongruence and discrepancy between these two perspectives and then suggest apossible, though speculative, synthesis. This will then serve as a basis from whichto explore the process of archetypal “imprinting” occurring at birth thatestablishes the archetypal pattern of a person’s life.Functions of the Collective Unconscious: Repository and GroundSheldrake conceives of morphic fields in entirely naturalistic terms. Hebelieves they are derived exclusively from past patterns of activity in the world293 Holroyd, Arkana dictionary of new perspectives, 79.294 Sheldrake, Presence of the past, 250–253.275

and are not based on any transcendent ordering principles existing outside of thecosmos such as an eternal dimension of Platonic Forms. In line with this, hesuggests that Jungian archetypes might similarly be construed naturalistically asdominant habit patterns forged by many instances of repetition of similar patternsof behavior through the centuries, patterns that are recorded in morphic fields. Forhim, the Jungian archetypes are habitual patterns of being that are fully immanentin the phenomenal world; they are not eternal unchanging archetypal principlesexisting outside of the universe in a transcendent realm of being removed fromand unaffected by what happens on Earth. Therefore, not only do the patternswithin morphic fields have a formative causal influence on human life but humanactivity can, conversely, affect and modify these patterns in morphic fields, andalso create new ones.Now, the debate as to whether human life is governed by transcendentarchetypal principles or is explicable entirely in naturalistic terms has continuedsince the time of Plato and Aristotle. The tension between the two viewpoints hasbeen a creative one, and both perspectives have been instrumental in creating theWestern understanding of the nature of reality. This same tension is also apparentin Jung’s work. On the one hand, as we have seen, Jung construed the archetypesin their deepest form as transcendent principles. On the other hand, however, hepursued and sometimes avidly promoted a naturalistic, empirical approach to thepsyche. These two perspectives, both conflicting and complementary, cometogether in the Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious.276

Jung’s understanding and use of the term collective unconscious seems toincorporate two distinct functions. The first has to do with the role of thearchetypes as transcendent principles—dynamic a priori organizing forms thatstructure human experience and that pertain, we noted, as much to nature and theexternal world as to the psyche. The second relates to the role of the collectiveunconscious as a repository containing “the residues of ancestral life” 295 and “allthe patterns of life and behavior inherited from his [the human being’s]ancestors.” 296 The collective unconscious in this second sense is a “storehouse”containing the “deposit of ancestral experience accumulated over millions ofyears.” 297As we saw in the previous chapters, the collective unconscious also seemsto extend into two relatively distinct levels or dimensions. The first level is that ofthe archetypes per se, the deep structural forms and archetypal principles, which,according to Jung’s later conception, are transcendent of their manifestation in thepsyche, essentially unknowable in themselves, and indeterminate as to theircontent. The second level of the collective unconscious, in its function asrepository, contains the deposits of ancestral experience and patterns of humanbehavior, which take the form of the archetypal images or representations, theimaginal, mythic counterparts of the instincts.295 Jung, Two essays on analytical psychology, 95.296 Jung, Structure and dynamics of the psyche, 349.297 Ibid., 376.277

With regard to Sheldrake’s theory, it is to the second level of the collectiveunconscious—to its function as a repository—that his ideas seem to relate mostclosely. Habits built up through morphic resonance (i.e., repeated performance)and stored in morphic fields are directly comparable to the view of archetypes asthe deposits of ancestral experience ingrained in the human psyche throughcountless repetition down the ages. Particularly in his earlier formulation of hisideas, Jung suggested that the archetypes have come into being as a result ofevolution—that they have emerged through the course of human history and reachback into our animal ancestry. According to this view, the organizing orstructuring function of the collective unconscious is a direct result of its functionas a repository of the collective patterns of human life. The archetypes emerged inour ancestral past and have now become, according to Jung’s early view, encodedin the brain as pathways that give rise to certain typical forms of behavior andpsychological modes of being. These pathways give rise to associated archetypalideas that proceed to thematically condition the activity of the psyche and ofhuman behavior.As we have seen, this entirely naturalistic explanation of archetypes andthe collective unconscious became acutely problematic when Jung tried toaccount for the phenomenon of synchronicity, in which archetypal meaningappears to manifest not only within, in an encapsulated individual psyche, but alsowithout, in the external world. If archetypes are hard-wired in the brain, inside theindividual person, then it becomes almost impossible to understand howarchetypal meaning can be present outside, in the world of nature. From the278

standpoint of synchronicity, Jung’s biological reductionism (i.e., reducingarchetypes to nothing but pathways in the brain) became untenable and he wastherefore forced by the evidence of his own experience to entertain the idea of theexistence of a transcendent archetypal basis to the psyche and the cosmos. Thusconsidered, the archetypes appear both Platonic and naturalistic, possessing arelative ontological autonomy separate from their content, the archetypal images.They appear not only to be psychological forms, biological habits, or patterns ofbehavior but multidimensional “formative principle[s] of instinctual power” thatare inherent in the very fabric of reality, pertaining to both psyche and cosmos. 298From this perspective, the archetypes have not arisen through the course of humanevolutionary history but, as transcendent forms distinct from any specific content,they would have actually dictated and impelled the evolutionary process itself.Further, given their multidimensional character and, most especially, theirinstinctual dynamism and numinous charge, the archetypes are sharply distinctfrom morphic fields in that the latter, according to Sheldrake, are basedprincipally on a non-energetic transfer of information. With archetypes, eventhough they possess an ideational and imaginal element, we are dealing withsomething more than just information, to say the least. For archetypes, as we havealready seen, are spiritual factors, possessed of numinous charge and instinctualpower, that cause radical evolution and transformation in human experience andimpel the psychological development process that Jung called individuation.298 Jung, On the nature of the psyche, 145.279

Jung’s use of the term archetype extends across the two functions andlevels of the collective unconscious. The archetype is at one time a transcendentprinciple, at another time an archetypal image, and at another time still a habitualpattern of behavior. Evidently, then, the meaning of the term archetype issomewhat elusive and difficult to define. In comparing his own theory of thehabits of nature to Jung’s archetypes, it seems to me that Sheldrake focuses onlyon a partial dimension of the archetypes. There are indeed close parallels betweenJung’s view of archetypes as inherited patterns of behavior stretching back to ourancestral past and Sheldrake’s habits of nature that have been forged into thedominant, defining patterns of human life through repetition. Similar too isSheldrake’s conjecture concerning a possible world field (a planetary or universalmorphic field containing all the habits of nature and of human experience) andJung’s construal of the collective unconscious as a repository and as a storehouseof images. However, there remains much in the archetype and in the collectiveunconscious that cannot be understood in this way.Archetypes: More than Habits?Archetypes are not just unconsciously repeated habits but numinous andcreative centers of meaning, power, purpose, and direction. They are oriented asmuch to an indeterminate, emerging future as they are to a habitually conditionedpast. Contact with the archetypal level of reality is the source of creativeinspiration, the artistic vision, the mythic imagination, the insights of the spiritualgenius, the illumination of scientific breakthroughs, the power of the world-280

historical culture hero or all-conquering leader. These are not typical humanpatterns but represent the highest human potentials that come about in spite of andnot because of the habits of nature. To think of the archetypes as nothing butderivative habits of human behavior, I believe, is to diminish their status, tounderestimate their actual role as the creative principles behind human life.What cannot be denied, however, is that despite the enormous creativepotential of the archetypes, for the most part this potential fails to manifest inhuman life. Life is indeed often played out in the unreflective repetition of everrepeatinghabitual patterns. The creative energies of the archetypes in their actualmode of expression often fall tragically short of their inherent potential andpossibilities. Channeled through well-established pathways of expressionconforming to socio-cultural norms, to collective ideals and values, and to theatrophied aspirations of the social world, the archetypal energies often lose theirauthentic creative power. Instead, they manifest blindly and compulsively on theinstinctual level, often with devastating effect, or they are expressed tepidly andinauthentically on the socio-cultural level. Then the creative potential of thearchetypal domain becomes only unconscious archetypal compulsion in whichhuman consciousness is inextricably bound up with the relentless processes ofnature or with the suffocating anonymity of the collective mass. When there is noviable contemporary mythological and religious framework to orient and orderhuman behavior, and without the critical engagement of a self-aware conscioussubject, the archetypal powers can give rise to destructive or life-annullingunconscious modes of expression. Because the modern world, particularly in the281

West, has no living collective myth, and therefore no readily available means ofconsciously attending to the archetypal powers, it is far more difficult for modernindividuals to find constructive forms of expression of these potent forces. Thehuman urge for transcendence and for revivifying contact with the archetypaldomain often becomes escapism in many all too familiar guises: soullessconsumerism, mind-numbing addictions, the obsession with image, or thedelusion of trying to mold oneself to fit some idealized social persona. Humanbeings, all too often ignorant of their deeper motivations, driven by unconsciouspatterns of consumption, and with no sense of a harmonious relationship tonature, continue their deranged depletion of the Earth’s resources and continue atan alarming rate to cause irreparable damage to the environment. Meanwhile, thedistracting novelty of insipid amusements in a superficial technological cultureabsorbs energy that might otherwise give rise to genuine creative originality, andwhile a shallow individualism is socially sanctioned and collectively lauded, trueindividuation is rare and little understood.In this distinction between the archetypes and their habitual modes ofexpression, we can begin to see how Sheldrake’s habits differ from Jung’sarchetypes. Habits, although based on the transcendent archetypes and arisingfrom them, are often diluted, distorted, or partial expressions of these archetypes,representing either primitive, instinctive patterns of behavior derived from ourearly human ancestry and biological origins, or reflecting culturally andhistorically specific values, ideals, and norms. Such habits are perhaps betterunderstood as the typical forms of expression of an archetype, which, through282

their repetition, have become dominant in a particular culture at a particular time.While the archetypal principles need not be expressed in accordance with thesehabitual patterns, they most often are. If one lives unconsciously, withoutreflection, then the archetypal powers will follow the path of least resistance, thewell-trodden pathway defined by habitual collective life patterns. Of course, thesehabits can and do change over time, making possible an evolution in how thearchetypes are expressed in a particular culture and time-period.One could envisage that a particular set of habits, endorsed by theconsensus values of the social world and by the collective majority, togethershape the collective consciousness at a particular time. One could imagine alsothat our experience of the collective consciousness of the age contains andimpresses upon each of us these habitual patterns, norms, and fashions of humanlife dominant in the culture at that time. Yet it seems possible that as thesepatterns change, reflecting the shifting archetypal dynamics, the collective psycheslowly evolves, gravitating towards different forms of manifestation, impelled anddrawn forth by the archetypes, those unseen catalysts and distant attractors ofevolution.Towards a SynthesisDespite the important points of distinction between Jung and Sheldrakepresented above, I believe it is possible to move towards some form of creativesynthesis of their ideas. It seems to me that if we take both perspectives to theirtheoretical limits and apply them to the cosmos as a whole then we arrive at a283

oadly complementary vision of the nature of reality in which the twoapproaches augment each other. Much depends on what is implied by the termstranscendent (or transcendental) and habit.We should be clear that for Jung, in his later thought, the termtranscendental does not point to a changeless, eternal reality of static forms lyingoutside the universe, but to a deeper underlying dimension of the universe. ForJung, the psyche “does not have its roots outside the one cosmos” 299 but it doeshave its roots, as we have seen, in what he calls “the transcendentalpsychophysical background” to reality, in the underlying matrix of being. 300 Jung,it should be noted, uses the term transcendental ambiguously: both in anepistemological sense, to indicate that the deepest form of the archetypes arefundamentally unknowable, existing beyond the limits of our psychologicalexperience; and, less frequently, in an ontological sense, to indicate that thearchetypes have their basis in a dimension of reality that transcends the psyche,that they are part of an underlying ground to reality. With the notion of thetranscendental psychophysical background, with the hypothesized psychoid basisof the archetype, with the attempt to connect depth psychology to modern physics,and with the association of the archetype with both spirit and instinct, Jung seemsto be pointing in different ways to this deeper underlying matrix, which is thegenerating ground of both psyche and cosmos.299 Jung, Mysterium coniunctionis, 538.300 Ibid.284

It is important to keep in mind, then, that the archetypal dimension is notseparate from the life of the universe, but is, rather, an inherent patterningdimension of the dynamic ground of the universe, akin in certain respects toBohm’s super-implicate order. The planetary archetypes are universal principlesand powers that transcend human experience and the world of time and space inthat they belong to a higher dimensional reality, but this reality is itself a part ofthe holomovement, the dynamic ground of everything.Turning to Sheldrake, although he wishes to reject any form oftranscendent explanation of the nature of reality, such as Platonism, in order toaccount for the existence of creativity in nature he has to invoke a concept notunlike Jung’s later more Platonic-Pythagorean view of a transcendent archetypaldimension behind the phenomenal world. Sheldrake suggests that creativitywithin the morphic fields of nature can be accounted for by their participation inhigher-level fields, which ultimately implies a “primal Universal Field” fromwhich all other fields of nature have emerged during the process of evolution. 301Here, then, as with Jung, when considering reality as a whole and not just specificorganisms or species, Sheldrake introduces the concept of what appears to be adeeper underlying ground or creative field (the universal field), which, from aphenomenological perspective must, of course, similarly be transcendent ofhuman conscious experience. From our perspective that is, the archetypes, in theirdeepest form, can be considered transcendent in that they are not affected byhuman consciousness: The core meanings of the archetypes do not appear to be301 Sheldrake, Presence of the past, 322.285

dependent on human thought and do not appear to be affected by anything humanbeings do. As I suggested in my earlier discussion of the shadow and animaarchetypes, although the expression of the archetypal principles in the actualitiesof life is culturally conditioned, dependent on circumstance and our consciousparticipation, the core meanings of the archetypes appear to be universal and, asfar as we can tell, unchanging.The application of Sheldrake’s morphic field hypothesis to the cosmos asa whole—to a primal universal field—also modifies the understanding of what ismeant by habits. If by habits we mean habitual patterns relating to individualorganisms or to the human species then we cannot, I think, square this conceptwith Jung’s understanding of archetypes, for the reasons set out above. But if byhabits we also mean the habits of the cosmos—habits pertaining to a primaluniversal field—then a synthesis of Sheldrake’s hypothesis of morphic fields withJung’s view of archetypes becomes more feasible. In this case, one could, I think,conceive of archetypes in their deepest form as universal creative principles thattend to express themselves in certain thematically consistent ways (hence habits)and that are sufficiently distant from human consciousness that they areeffectively transcendent. Of course, one might still reasonably object to the use ofthe word habits, since what we are describing here are most definitely not blindlyrepeated patterns but indeterminate creative powers whose forms of expressionare not limited to fixed singular habits, but are multivalent, diverse, and manifestin diverse ways across different levels of reality. Thus, as we suggested earlier,while the habits of the human species, of the animal kingdom, or even of the286

world might reflect limiting biological and socio-cultural patterns of expression ofthe archetypes, the habits of the cosmos itself might refer instead to generalcosmological powers or principles, to the transcendent archetypes per se, that arethe creative conditioning factors of life itself. 302More generally, one might also object that the archetypal cosmology weare considering here with its recognition of universal thematic categories andprinciples within human experience is a far cry from Sheldrake’s originalhypothesis of morphic fields of information governing the behavior of animalspecies, such as the migration patterns of birds or the maze-learning capacities ofrats. Yet if we reflect on what a universal morphic field might be like, we can seethat it must be of a form appropriate to its domain of influence and scale. It standsto reason that a morphic field associated with something as vast as the solarsystem or even the universe, which incorporates so many different phenomenaand forms of life, must perforce be of the most general nature. The habits of thecosmos must be sufficiently general and non-specific to apply to the entire rangeof different levels of life, including cosmological processes, geology, plant life,animal behavior, and human experience. If archetypes pertain to a universalmorphic field of some kind, as I am suggesting, they must possess a generalthematic non-specific nature, one that supports multivalent modes of expressionin the particulars of human experience.302 On the other hand, of course, some habits also represent elevated forms ofexpression of the archetypes. Since archetypes reflect “typical situations of great and vitalimportance, which have repeated themselves in the course of history innumerable times,”as Jung put it, such patterns of archetypal repetition, laid down over millennia, could thusserve to compensate for more limited or one-sided contemporary forms of expression.Jung, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, 21.287

Jung himself realized the scope of the archetype was vast, extending fromuniversal biological instincts and primordial archetypal images to specific patternsof behavior and the particularized complexes of personal psychology, whichperhaps accounts for why he used so many different terms to describe them. Attheir deepest and most general level, the archetypes might be conceived asPlatonic in nature, as thematic categories and primordial dynamisms rooted in theground of reality itself, as something like the ancient concept of archai; at theirmost specific level the archetypes are at the core of personal complexes, attitudes,and behavior patterns in individual human experiences. It seems to me that Junglacked an appropriate theoretical framework to adequately distinguish thesedifferent levels and modes of expression of archetypes. But Sheldrake’shypothesis, combined with Jung’s insights, could help to provide such aframework, suggesting a multi-leveled approach to understanding archetypes anda multi-leveled understanding of the nature of reality itself.A Multi-Leveled RealityThe theory of morphic resonance supports a multi-leveled model of realityin which individual human beings are influenced by their own individual morphicfields and by the morphic fields of the groups and larger systems to which theybelong: family, organizations, society, the culture, the human species, the Earth’sbiosphere, the solar system, the galaxy, and the entire universe. Such a conceptionof multi-leveled fields of influence on human consciousness closely coheres withthe notion of a stratified order of nature that we encountered in our discussion of288

systems theory and it also coheres with models of the psyche in both depth andtranspersonal psychology. Jung, for example, in addition to his sub-division of theunconscious into the personal and collective aspects, often made reference to thenational and racial psyches of particular countries or races, as, for instance, in hisdiscussions of Germany, India, America, Switzerland, and the Jewish people.Although Jung’s attention was primarily focused on the transcultural collectiveunconscious, he acknowledges that, “In so far as there are differentiationscorresponding to race, descent, and even family, there is also a collective psychelimited to race, tribe, and family over and above the ‘universal’ collectivepsyche.” 303Influential Jungian theorist Joseph Henderson, explicitly recognizing anintermediary cultural level in the Jungian model of the psyche, posits theexistence of a cultural unconscious, which he defines as “an area of historicalmemory that lies between the collective unconscious and the manifest pattern ofthe culture.” 304 According to Henderson, the cultural unconscious “may includeboth these modalities, conscious and unconscious, but it has some kind of identityarising from the archetypes of the collective unconscious, which assists it in theformation of myth and ritual and also promotes the process of development inindividuals.” 305 More recently, Jungian theorists have introduced the related ideaof cultural complexes that are “based on repetitive, historical group experiences303 Jung, Two essays on analytical psychology, 275.304 Henderson, Shadow and self, 102.305 Ibid.289

which have taken root in the cultural unconscious of the group,” an idea that isstrikingly reminiscent of Sheldrake’s notion of morphic resonance pertaining tospecific groups and species. 306 At another level, embedded within the culturalmilieu, we can also recognize unconscious dynamics within families that playthemselves out generation to generation, and so we might legitimately speak of afamilial level of the unconscious. And, at another level still, transpersonalresearcher and philosopher Chris Bache has explored the existence of a specieslevel morphic field within the collective unconscious psyche. 307 Astrologicalcharts apply to all these levels: it is possible to draw up birth charts of countries,organizations, cultural movements, and so forth, each reflecting something of thearchetypal character and qualities of the moment they came into being.By applying Sheldrake’s ideas to astrology, the planetary archetypes mightbe understood as the core universal principles and powers relating to a primaluniversal morphic field. Applied to our archetypal cosmology, it seems probablethat each of these morphic fields—each level of the stratified order of nature andof the psyche—conditions the archetypal dynamics of the moment, inflecting187.306 Singer and Kimbles, Archetypes: Emergence and the psyche’s deep structure,307 See Bache, Dark night, early dawn; and Bache, Living classroom. Writingabout the species morphic field, Bache notes: “Sheldrake’s innovation has been tosuggest that this field not only contains the blueprint of the species’ physical form andbehavioral tendencies, but that it collects and incorporates into itself the new experiencesof its individual members, constantly synthesizing at a central level the diverseexperiences of its physically discrete parts. Thus morphic fields may be thought of asmediating between the parts and the whole of a species, and also between the past andfuture of a species. They are seen as extending the past into the present in order tofacilitate the collective acquisition of useful innovations for the future.” Bache, Darknight, early dawn, 79.290

them in a specific way. The experience of the archetypes comes to the individualmediated by the dominant forms of expression—the habits—that have arisen andbecome established within each of these levels. This is perhaps most readilyapparent at the socio-cultural level at which the dominant values of a cultureinfluence how the different archetypal principles are enacted and lived in thevicissitudes of personal experience. For example, if one considers the Neptunianarchetypal principle (associated with spirituality, escapism, the transcendence ofindividual separateness, the ideal, the imaginal, the illusory, fantasy, and so forth)it is clear that in the modern world this principle finds expression far morethrough such things as drugs, alcohol, fashion, television, cinema, computergames, and so on, than through an enchanted participation in the natural world orthrough religious ritual and worship, as it has in other eras. The dominant formsof expression of the Neptune principle are conditioned by the secular,technological, and consumerist values and ways of life of the modern era. ThePluto archetype, similarly, was formerly expressed through death-rebirth rituals,or the symbolic participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, or throughintentionally undertaken transformative practices and cathartic Dionysiancarnivals. The dominant cultural forms of our own time, however, tend toreinforce more problematic responses to the Plutonic archetype: power drives andthe struggle for political control, or various forms of instinctually drivencompulsions, obsessions, infatuations, or blind instinctual catharsis. Although notexclusive to the modern era, without appropriate mythic forms of expression, it ismore likely that such problematic, unconscious patterns of behavior will take291

precedence and become habitual. For the archetypes have both constructive anddestructive forms, so whether Pluto manifests as rank barbarism or as deeppsychological transformation is shaped by the context in which this manifests and,equally, by the conscious attitude of the individual concerned. Considering theSaturn archetype, too, it is clear that both the family and socio-cultural levels canprofoundly condition a person’s experience of this archetypal complex. We eachhave a different internalized moral code, for instance, initially depending on themorality of our social group, our family values, and so forth.At the planetary level, following Sheldrake’s suggestion, we can imagine aworld field that conditions all human experience within it. As a collectivemorphic field containing a record of the planet’s history and impressing uponeach of us typical, habitual forms of human life, such a world field, as I imagineit, would thus define the psychological and cultural atmosphere in which we live,reflecting the changing archetypal dynamics of the solar system, and yet inflecting292

these in certain distinctive, culturally-specific ways. 308In summary, then, one can imagine that the planetary archetypesfunctioning at cosmological level, pertaining to a universal morphic field orcosmic psyche, are defining the thematic context of any given moment in time,shaping the general archetypal content of the zeitgeist. Within this, one couldenvisage, further, that the dominant culturally, historically, and biologicallyconditioned forms of expression of these archetypes are shaping the zeitgeist at amore specific level. And at another level still, one can imagine that the archetypesare also inflected by nationality, race, gender, economic conditions, the familyenvironment, and so forth. The individual exists within all these containing fields,308 As I imagine it, the human experience of these archetypal dynamics from thetime of our ancient ancestors through history has shaped myths, religions, and art forms,and has generated a pool of archetypal images, themes, and motifs stored in a collectivememory—in the collective unconscious psyche, or a world field. These ideas and imagesare even shaped, perhaps, by patterns established within the animal and plant kingdoms,and by earlier geological and cosmological processes. At the cultural level, the archetypalprinciples are experienced in certain socially-conditioned ways; they are limited, that is,by the cultural mores and norms of the historical period in which one lives. As Jung hasshown, it is the function of the collective unconscious to counterbalance this inherentone-sidedness of a culture by bringing forth symbols, images, and myths, which serve acompensatory function, helping to keep an individual culture or individual psyche in astate of dynamic harmony. The unconscious psyche, in other words, draws upon the poolof human wisdom as to how the archetypes might be expressed, bringing these imagesinto human consciousness, thereby compensating for the one-sidedness of thecontemporary cultural perspective and directing human awareness beyond the culturallyspecific forms (the cultural habits) of the time, to more universally valid forms ofexpression of the archetypal principles.293

and the moment at which all these fields first converge is, of course, biologicalbirth. 309The Persistence of the Birth PatternNatal astrology, focusing on the pattern of the planets at the moment of aperson’s birth, is one of the three forms of correspondence, to borrow Tarnas’sterm, used in archetypal cosmology. The set of geometric relationships betweenthe planets at birth are related to the set of corresponding relationships betweenthe different archetypal principles associated with the planets at that moment. Aswe have seen, themes associated with the combination of these archetypalprinciples continue to define a person’s experiences throughout the lifetime. Ifone is born with Venus and Uranus in major alignment, for example, themesassociated with that complex, such as the awakening power of beauty, or anunpredictable pattern in romantic relationships, or creative genius and inventionin the arts, will actively define one’s personal experiences long after the actualalignment has passed out of range. The archetypal pattern of the birth moment,that is to say, continues to resonate in the years after birth, functioning as an309 Archetypal astrology, envisaged in terms of Sheldrake’s ideas, suggests aform of nonlocal causality or correlation that is reminiscent of the ancient conceptions ofa universe ordered by resonant archetypal patterns or “sympathetic” vibrations.Archetypal patterns at the time of birth seem to be perpetuated and continuallyregenerated in accordance with the individual’s morphic field through something like aprocess of self-resonance occurring throughout the life span. We can imagine further thatwhat has occurred in the explicate order—in the concrete particulars of life—is enfoldedback into the implicate order and then feeds into the next moment in a recursive feedbackloop.294

active gestalt or underlying thematic template according to which all lifeexperiences unfold.Sheldrake’s morphic field hypothesis offers one way to help us understandthis phenomenon, for it suggests that there is a specific field of active informationassociated with each individual entity. As I am imagining it, when a person isborn, a resonating morphic field comes into being that at its deepest level is basedon the archetypal pattern of that moment. This archetypal pattern, pertaining to auniversal morphic field, is “imprinted” upon or contained within the person’s ownmorphic field at the moment of birth and endures throughout the duration of aperson’s life. Simply by being a part of the cosmic whole, the individual takes onthe archetypal pattern of the birth moment through his or her own morphic field.These archetypal dynamics, existing within the deepest dimension of anindividual morphic field, thus underlie and structure the individual’s relationshipto all the other morphic fields, such as those relating to the culture or to thespecies.Although it is not clear exactly how such archetypal imprinting orpatterning occurs during the birth experience or how for that matter howindividual morphic fields are actually created, Stanislav Grof’s research intranspersonal psychology suggests that a process of this kind does indeed seem totake place. As in the morphic field hypothesis, Grof discovered that habits ofcharacter and behavior endure over time in the form of what he calls COEXsystems (“systems of condensed experience”). COEX systems are similar inmeaning to Jung’s idea of complexes in that, like a complex, each COEX system295

is a cluster of feeling-toned memories rooted around a particular archetype. 310Whereas the archetypes pertain to collective psychology, complexes or COEXsystems pertain to individual psychology. “Each COEX,” Grof explains, “has abasic theme that permeates all its layers and represents their commondenominator. The individual layers, then, contain variations on this basic themethat occurred at different periods of the person’s life.” 311 For example, theexperience of claustrophobic reactions to being in confined spaces results, inGrof’s view, from the activation of a COEX system associated with the phase ofthe birth process prior to delivery, when the fetus experiences a sense ofoverwhelming constriction in the womb. This experience might in turn be relatedto transpersonal memories of experiences of imprisonment and suffocation, whichappear to originate from episodes drawn from both our individual and collectivekarmic past. Biographical experiences of other situations of confinement are thenadded to the COEX layer upon layer. 312 Grof realized that “each of the COEXconstellations seems to be superimposed over and anchored in a particular aspectof the birth trauma.” 313 The archetypal complexes of the adult personality, that is,appear to be specifically related to the psychodynamics of the birth experience;310 An important difference between COEX systems and complexes is that thedeepest roots of the COEX system extend beyond Jungian archetypes into transpersonalphenomena such as past life experiences. See, for example, Grof, Psychology of thefuture, 23.311 Ibid., 22.312 Ibid., 77.313 Ibid., 23.296

and these complexes are preserved and persist over time, continually shaping theindividual’s experience.In a further development of the COEX theory, Grof and Tarnas, workingtogether at the Esalen Institute in California through the 1970s and 1980s, madethe “surprising discovery that the nature and content of important COEX systemsin the psyche of an individual tends to show striking correlations with majorplanetary aspects of his or her astrological birth chart.” 314 That is to say, theydiscovered that one can understand, from an archetypal perspective, thecomplexes or COEX systems of personal psychology in terms of the planetaryconfigurations in the birth chart. The archetypal dynamics of the time of birth,manifest during the birth experience, give rise to the deepest layer of COEXsystems, which reflect these archetypal dynamics in personal psychology.Experiences of claustrophobia, constriction, and limitation, for example, arerelated to the Saturn archetypal principle and such experiences are often activatedduring major transits involving Saturn and these are symbolized by specific natalaspects.Incorporating the morphic field hypothesis into our archetypal cosmology,then, allows us to conceive of how the habits—the archetypal proclivities—of thecosmos might be embodied in the life experience of a particular individual. At onelevel, it is possible to connect the deepest form of archetypal principles to themorphic fields associated with the universe or the solar system—with the habitsof these systems. At another level, we can also connect the complexes or COEX314 Grof, Holotropic research and archetypal astrology, 61.297

systems of individual psychology with morphic fields associated with individuals,families, cultures, and species. These morphic fields, all rooted in an underlyingarchetypal pattern, continually shape the individual’s life experience throughmorphic resonance with experiences from the individual’s own biography, andwith cultural patterns, collective memories, family imprints, instinctualtendencies, and so forth. On the basis of similarity, archetypal patterns in the birthchart would, in line with the formative causation theory, resonate with otherarchetypally coherent themes from history, from myths and religions of theworld's different cultures, from humanity’s evolutionary past, and possibly evenfrom past life or karmic episodes. Such transpersonal, historical, collectivememories present within a world or universal field, as Grof’s research suggests,all seem to be organized around the archetypal pattern of the birth moment. 315Ontological Genesis and AutopoeisisGrof’s COEX theory and Sheldrake’s morphic field hypothesis thuspresent compatible ways of understanding the retention and continual reenactmentof the archetypal themes associated with the pattern of the birth moment. Theformer is derived from the phenomenological investigation of the unconsciouspsyche in non-ordinary states of consciousness, and the latter is based on thestudy of the morphogenesis of biological organisms and the habits of nature.315 Within this multi-leveled conception of reality, at the moment of birth theindividual would be influenced by all the levels of which it is a part: the cosmological,the biological, the cultural, and so forth. Thus, it seems possible that at birth one not onlybecomes attuned to the archetypal pattern of that moment, but, as astrologer MichaelHarding suggests, one also inherits a collective history. See Harding, Hymns to theancient gods.298

Sheldrake’s morphic field theory also has much in common with Bohm’stheory of the implicate order. Indeed, given the inherent compatibility of theirideas, the two men began to explore for themselves the possible relationshipbetween their respective hypotheses. Although a synthesis of these theories mustremain extremely speculative at this stage, it is helpful, to my mind, to imaginethat morphic fields are a dimension of the super-implicate order—that they arefields of active information that are part of an underlying, implicit level of realitybut that relate specifically to organisms existing in space and time. 316 Out of thisimplicate level, out of their generating ground, organisms emerge and develop inaccordance with the information contained within the morphic field.Whereas Bohm’s theory of the implicate order addresses the ongoingprocess of ontological genesis, the coming into being of the universe, Sheldrake isprimarily concerned with morphogenesis, the coming into being of biologicalorganisms. Viewed from an organicist perspective, however, when applied to theuniverse as a whole, morphic fields can perhaps be conceived as a type of formalcause that governs the unfolding of the implicate order, such that it becomespossible to speak of the morphogenesis of the cosmos. As we have seen,according to Bohm’s hypothesis, a super-implicate dimension of reality oruniversal morphic field continually recreates the whole out of the holomovement.The whole world of time and space is projected out of the holomovement; it316 The term “active information” was coined by Bohm. According to F. DavidPeat: “Towards the end of the 1980s David Bohm introduced the notion of ActiveInformation into his Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. His idea was to usethe activity of information as a way of explaining the actual nature of quantum processesand, in particular, the way in which a single physical outcome emerges out of amultiplicity of possibilities.” Peat, Active information.299

unfolds from an implicit to an explicit state according to the active information inthe super-implicate order. At the individual level, then, we can imagine a similarprocess taking place, with the morphogenesis of an individual organism being asubset of the larger process of the genesis of the whole universe. Within theoverall process of genesis that in each moment brings forth the manifest universeout of the holomovement in a continual process of creation and destruction, onecan imagine that an individual organism is continually recreated in accordancewith its own morphic field.In this context, Sheldrake’s ideas can help us to envisage the process ofembodiment of pattern into structure at the level of the individual organism, tounderstand the process of autopoeisis within the context of ontological genesis.As I imagine it, the autopoeisis, or self-making, of a living organism occurs notonly through its physiological processes and interactions with the environmenttaking place in space and time in the explicate order, as it is usually understood,but more fundamentally it occurs as an organism is continually brought forth inevery instant out of the holomovement into the field of space and time. In theprocess of the self-making of the universe, the individual organism is effectivelyrecreated and destroyed each instant, and this creative process is directed bymorphic fields associated with individual organism as part of the super-implicatedimension of reality. Morphic fields mediate the coming-into-being of an300

organism in accordance with a specific archetypal pattern associated with thebirth moment. 317In certain respects, morphic field theory helps to illuminate the processthat Alfred North Whitehead calls “concrescence”—the capacity of the universeto continually bring forth the present moment in an ordered creative unfolding outof all that has gone before in the past. In the implicate order the past becomesdepth as it is retained, accumulated, stored up, to be unfolded again in the nextmoment. The implicate order absorbs the totality of events and brings the totalityforward in the next unfolding moment. 318* * *In summary, what emerges from a consideration of Sheldrake’s theory ofmorphic fields in relation to Jungian theory and the other models we haveconsidered is the idea that the universe is permeated by resonant archetypalpatterns across all levels of reality. It suggests a holarchical arrangement in whicheach individual part is a subset of the archetypal pattern of self-organization of the317 Using Sheldrake’s concepts also suggests a possible theoretical explanationof personal transits, which are the result of the interaction between the archetypal patternof the individual’s birth moment and the changing archetypal dynamics over time. As wehave seen, according to Sheldrake the patterns of activity of an organism continuallyresonate with its own past patterns and with other qualitatively similar patterns withinother morphic fields. If morphic fields have an archetypal basis—if they reflect thearchetypal pattern of the moment in which the organism first came into existence—then italso conceivable that these patterns will resonate with the current archetypal pattern ofthe whole in each moment. Something of this kind seems to take place during personaltransits.318 I am grateful to Brian Swimme (professor of Philosophy, Cosmology, andConsciousness at the California Institute of Integral Studies), class lecture spring 2008,for this insight into the connection between past and depth in the implicate order.301

whole. Within the context of our archetypal systems cosmology, Sheldrake’stheory enables us to connect the individual parts (individual human lives) to largerwholes (i.e., the human species, the world, the solar system, the universe). Ifsystems theory allows us to conceptualize the self-organizing pattern of the wholecosmos, and the solar system within it, morphic fields can be seen as intermediaryfields, mediating the relationship between the parts (individual human lives) to theself-organizing patterns of these larger wholes. In the stratified order of nature,fields associated with individual human beings are nested in larger fields, such asthose relating to the family, the social group, the nation, the race, the culture, thespecies, the world, and the universe at large. Archetypal dynamics, maintained bysomething like the processes of morphic resonance and self-resonance, seem toinfluence all these different levels.302

ConclusionSummaryI must begin this conclusion on a note of caution as to the provisionalnature of the ideas under discussion. Clearly the theories entertained in thisdissertation, although carefully formulated and articulated by their originators, areof a speculative nature. A world view or cosmology relying upon a synthesis ofthese theories will itself, therefore, also be speculative and provisional. Anymodel employed to give an account of astrological correlations is at best only arough approximation to what must actually take place and equally it is too early todraw any firm conclusions from the empirical research into astrologicalcorrelations.That said, it seems to me that by the logical extension of these newparadigm theories to the universe at large, and by the synthesis of the modelsconsidered above, we can arrive at what appears to be a relatively coherent viewof reality in which astrological correlations could be plausibly understood. Morespecifically, the model proposed in this dissertation goes some way, I believe,towards meeting the following expected outcomes from this study. First, itestablishes in outline a possible theoretical framework as the basis of anarchetypal cosmology. Second, it brings together in a coherent synthesiscompatible ideas in the new paradigm sciences and Jungian depth psychology.Third, it suggests an alternative way of comprehending the relationship between303

the psyche and the cosmos in which astrological correlations appear moreintelligible and credible. Fourth, it outlines a theoretical framework for Jungiandepth psychology based on the implications of archetypal astrology, theimplications of synchronicity, Jung’s late reflections on the nature of thearchetypes and the psyche, and on the parallels between Jung’s ideas and the newparadigm sciences.While modern cosmological research has described the physical place ofthe human within the cosmic scheme, the thematic patterns evident in humanexperience, both individual and collective, are usually viewed as an entirelyseparate dimension of experience, one categorically divorced from cosmology. Insetting forth an outline of a new archetypal cosmology and world view, therefore,I have attempted, above all, to demonstrate the deep interconnection betweenpsychology and cosmology. What happens in the human psyche and what isenacted on the stage of world history seem to be intimately related to the physicalstructure of the cosmos, to the shifting pattern of the planetary alignments in thesolar system. I have tried to convey how the emerging science of our time,especially the innovative theoretical developments emerging from certain newparadigm approaches, are converging to present an alternative to the dominantviews of the universe. This new vision might, I believe, help us to arrive at adeeper understanding of the relationship between the psyche and the cosmos, andbetween the planets and the archetypes. At the very least, this dissertationdemonstrates that many of the ideas and concepts central to new paradigm304

thought and integral postmodern thought are fairly congruent with an astrologicalworld view.Taken together, the perspectives we have explored in this dissertation—Jungian depth psychology, Grof’s transpersonal research, Capra’s systems theory,Sheldrake’s biology, Bohm’s interpretation of quantum physics, and, not least, theevidence emerging from astrology itself as set forth in Richard Tarnas’s Cosmosand Psyche—suggest that there is a fundamental underlying identity of the innerand outer dimensions of existence. Applied to astrology, these perspectivessuggest that the orbiting planets of our solar system in outer space and thearchetypal order of the “inner space” of the psyche are not separate realms, butdifferent dimensions of a single, unitary reality: The cosmos is the visible form ofthe psyche, the materiality of the psyche, and the psyche is the mind of thecosmos, the cosmic mind.I have hypothesized, using Bohm’s ideas, that the energy of the underlyingground of reality—the holomovement—unfolds into manifest existence creatingthe psyche and the cosmos according to a super-implicate order, a meaningfulformative pattern, that is subsequently manifest within the unfolded structure ofthe cosmos and the psyche. The pattern of the planets, I have suggested, can beconceived as an expression of the self-organizing capacity of the solar systemaccording to which all manifestations of life within that system are ordered. And,according to the cosmological reading of Jung, this pattern is expressed in boththe psyche and material world as an a priori archetypal order, which is the basis ofthe meaningful symbolic connection between psyche and cosmos.305

While systems theory gives us a conceptual framework by which we canbetter understand the relationship of individual parts to the whole and identify theself-organizing pattern inherent in the structure of the solar system, archetypalastrology focuses on the meaning of this self-organizing pattern for human lives,and it can therefore, I believe, bring to the systems approach an archetypal andsymbolic depth. By studying the planetary order of the solar system, and preciselyrelating this order to individual human lives taking place at specific locations onEarth, we can articulate in archetypal terms the relationship of this larger whole toits parts—to individual human lives. The practice of astrology can therefore beunderstood, I propose, as the interpretation of the meanings—qualitative,thematic, archetypal, mythic—of the dynamic pattern of self-organization of thesolar system as it relates to human experience.Future Research and ImplicationsWhile the ideas considered here help to provide foundations for a generaltheoretical framework for archetypal astrology, more detailed explorations of thetheories discussed in this dissertation are now required, particularly within thesciences. This dissertation obviously raises many further questions and lines ofinquiry that would need to be addressed by studies focused more specifically onmany of the ideas and models discussed here. For example, future studies mightexplore the relevance to astrology of other aspects of the new science, such ascomplexity theory, chaos theory, fractal patterns, string theory, and dynamicalsystems modeling in mathematics, which I have not been able to consider here.306

Furthermore, a more comprehensive treatment of the theoretical basis of astrologywould need to give due consideration to other important aspects of astrologicaltheory, such as the process behind transit astrology, secondary progressions,signs, houses, rulerships, and more.Regarding Jungian theory specifically, future studies might consider inmore detail the significance of the cosmological interpretation of Jung’s thoughtthat I have adumbrated in this dissertation, especially concerning its differencesfrom and compatibility with the other main interpretations of Jungian psychology.The existence of a number of significant parallels between the cosmologicalinterpretation of Jung’s ideas and the new paradigm sciences also suggests Jung’sideas deserve to be taken more seriously in the physical sciences. For althoughJung’s psychology has proved to be extremely influential across many areas ofWestern culture—including psychotherapy, mythological studies, religiousstudies, and the arts—his ideas have been largely eschewed by those in thescientific community. One of the main reasons for this, despite the parallelsidentified above with the ideas of Sheldrake and Bohm, is that there has been nowidely accepted theory or evidence from within the physical sciences that mightprovide support for his model of the psyche. Thus, despite Jung’s great efforts toappeal to the modern scientific mentality by attempting to give his psychology afirm empirical basis, his ideas have been unable to bridge the conceptual dividebetween the humanities (including the arts and religion) and the sciences.However rich the interior landscape revealed by Jung, without corroboration fromthe physical sciences this has been construed as having little or no consequence307

for understanding the external world. The archetypal cosmology set forth heremight, I hope, serve as a bridge to other disciplines, helping to promote a greaterappreciation of Jung’s work, especially within science and philosophy.Regarding future directions in this area of study, one of the potentiallymost fruitful and significant lines of inquiry, which I intend to address elsewhere,concerns the application of the archetypal cosmology outlined here to mythologyand contemporary spirituality. For if there is indeed a deep interconnectionbetween the archetypal themes of human experience and the planetary patterns inthe solar system, then, by interpreting the meanings of the geometric relationshipsformed by the planets, it should be possible to gain insight into how thearchetypal principles and their related mythic themes are shaping humanexperience at any given time. Archetypal astrology could thus provide anobjective mythological perspective to help orient human lives in this newmillennium.If the validity of astrological correlations can be substantiated by furtherempirical studies, then archetypal astrology and the archetypal cosmology onwhich it is based will obviously have staggering implications for the postmodernunderstanding of the nature of the universe and the place of the human within it.In an age when, for many, the traditional religions no longer provide the spiritualsustenance they once did, an astrologically informed world view, I believe, couldhelp to bring us into a meaningful conscious relationship with a deeper cosmicorder shaping our lives. I hope this dissertation contributes to this emergingvision.308

ReferencesAbrams, M. H. 1971/1973. Natural supernaturalism: Tradition and revolution inRomantic literature. Repr. New York: W. W. Norton.Arroyo, Stephen. 1975. Astrology, psychology, and the four elements. Sebastopol,CA: CRCS.———. 1978. Astrology, karma, and transformation: The inner dimensions of thebirth chart. Sebastopol, CA: CRCS.Astrology and Science. 2008. http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/hpage.htm (accessedAugust 3, 2009).———.2008. Research results. http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-rese2.htm(accessed August 3, 2009).Atmanspacher, Harald. 2006. Quantum approaches to consciousness, ed.Edward N. Zalta, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qt-consciousness/(accessed August 9, 2009).Atmanspacher, Harald, and Hans Primas, 1996. The hidden side of WolfgangPauli. Journal of Consciousness Studies 3: 112–126.———. 2006. Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporaryscience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 13(3): 5–50.Bache, Christopher. 2000. Dark night, early dawn. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.———. 2008. The living classroom. Albany: State University of New York Press.Barbault, Andre. 1990. History of a prediction. The International AstrologyResearch Center (C.U.R.A.). http://cura.free.fr/quinq/02barbo.html(accessed August 3, 2009).Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. 1986/1996. The anthropic cosmologicalprinciple. Repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Barton, Tamsyn. 1995. Ancient astrology. London: Routledge.Bateson, Gregory. 1972/2000. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays inanthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Repr. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.309

———. 1979. Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Dutton.Bellah, Robert. 1970/1991. Beyond belief: Essays on religion in a post-traditionalworld. Repr. Berkeley: University of California Press.Berry, Thomas. 2006. The dream of the Earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Berry, Thomas, and Brian Swimme. 1992/1994. The universe story: From theprimordial flaring forth to the ecozoic era. Repr. San Francisco:HarperSanFrancisco.Birch, Charles, and John B. Cobb Jnr. 1981. The liberation of life. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Bohm, David. 1980/2002. Wholeness and the implicate order. Repr. London:Routledge.Bohm, David. 2003. The essential David Bohm. Edited by Lee Nichol. London:Routledge.Bok, Bart J., and Lawrence E. Jerome. 1975. Objections to astrology. TheHumanist 35, no. 5 (September/October 1975): 4–6.British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News. 2006. Pluto loses status as aplanet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/5282440.stm (accessed August3, 2009);British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News. 2008. “Non-planet” Pluto getsnew class. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7449735.stm (accessedAugust 3, 2009).Brodbeck, Simon. 2003. Introduction to The bhagavad gita, trans. JuanMascaro, xi–xxx. London: Penguin.Brooke, Roger. 1991/1993. Jung and phenomenology. Repr. London: Routledge.Campbell, Joseph. 1949/1993. The hero with a thousand faces. Repr. London:Fontana.———. 1973. Myths to live by: Mythology for our time. London:Souvenir Press.———. 1976. Occidental mythology: The masks of God. Vol.3. London: Penguin.———.1985. The inner reaches of outer space: Metaphor as myth and religion.New York: Alfred van de Marck.310

———. 1987. The mythic dimension: Selected essays (1959-1987). Ed.Anthony Van Couvering. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.———. 1991. The hero’s journey: Joseph Campbell on his life andwork. Ed. Phil Cousineau. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.Campion, Nicholas. 1989. An introduction to the history of astrology. London:The Faculty of Astrological Studies.Capra, Fritjof. 1983/1988. The turning point: Science, society, and the risingculture.. Repr., New York: Bantam Books.———. 1992. The tao of physics: An exploration of the parallels betweenmodern physics and eastern mysticism. 3rd edition. London: Flamingo.———. 1997. The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. New York:Anchor Books.———. 2002. Hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive,and social dimensions of life into a science for sustainable living.New York: Doubleday.Card, Charles R. 1996.The emergence of archetypes in present-day science and itssignificance for a contemporary philosophy of nature. DynamicalPsychology: An International, Interdisciplinary Journal of ComplexMental Processes. http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1996/natphil.html(accessed December 30, 2008).Clark, Chris. 2005. The sense of being stared at: Its relevance to the physics ofconsciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 12 (6): 78–82.Clarke, John. 1994. Jung and Eastern thought: A dialogue with the Orient.London: Routledge.Combs, Allan. 2002. The radiance of being: Understanding the grand integralvision: Living the integral life. 2nd edition. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Combs, Allan, and Mark Holland. 2001. Synchronicity through the eyes ofscience, myth, and the trickster. 3rd edition. New York: Marlowe andCompany.Conforti, Michael. 2003. Field, form, and fate: Patterns in mind, nature, andpsyche. New edition. New Orleans, LO: Spring Journal Books.Corbett, Lionel. 1996. The religious function of the psyche. London: Routledge.311

Cornelius, Geoffrey. 1994. The moment of astrology: Origins in divination.London: Arkana.Cornford, F. M. 1957. From religion to philosophy: A study in the origins ofWestern speculation. New York: Harper & Row.Damiani, Anthony. 2000. Astronoesis: Philosophy’s empirical context;astrology’s transcendental ground. Burdett, NY: Larson Publications.De Voogd, Stephanie. 1977. C.G. Jung: Psychologist of the future? “Philosopher”of the past. Spring: An Annual of Archetypal Psychology and JungianThought, 175–182.———. 1984. Fantasy versus fiction: Jung’s Kantianism appraised.In Jung in Modern Perspective. Ed. Renos Papadopolous andGraham Saayman, 204–228. Bridport, UK: Prism Press.Descartes, Rene. 1986/2003. Meditations on first philosophy with selections fromthe objections and replies. Ed. John Cottingham. Repr. Cambridge:Camrbidge University Press.———. 1988. Discourse on method. In Descartes: Selectedphilosophical writings, trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff,and Dugald Murdoch, 20–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Edinger, Edward. 1984. The creation of consciousness: Jung’s myth for modernman. Toronto: Inner City Books.Einstein, Albert, and Max Born. 1971/2005. The Born-Einstein letters:Friendship, politics and physics in uncertain times. Basingstoke, UK:Macmillan Press.Eliade, Mircea. 1968. The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion.Trans.Willard R. Trask. New York: Harvest Books.Fechner, Gustav. 1860/1966. Elements of psychophysics. Vol. 1. Trans. Helmut E.Adler. Edited by Davis H. Howes. Repr. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.Ferrer, Jorge. 2002. Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory vision ofhuman spirituality. Albany: State University of New York Press.Ferrer, Jorge, and Jacob Sherman, eds. 2009. The participatory turn: Spirituality,mysticism, religious studies. Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress.312

Flew, Anthony, ed. consultant. 1984. A dictionary of philosophy. 2ndRevised Edition. London: Pan Books.Fox, Warwick. 1990. Toward a transpersonal ecology: Developing newfoundations for environmentalism. Boston: Shambhala Publications.Frank, Dennis. 2002. Astrology and the new paradigm. C.U.R.A.: TheInternational Astrology Research Center.http://cura.free.fr/xxv/23frank5.html (accessed August 3, 2009).Freud, Sigmund. 1933/1965. New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis.Standard Edition. Trans. James Strachey. Repr. New York: Norton& Company.Frey-Rohn, Liliane. 1974. From Freud to Jung: A comparative study of thepsychology of the unconscious. Trans. Fred Engreen and EvelynEngreen. New York: Delta.Gauquelin, Michael. 1991. Neo-astrology: A Copernican revolution. London:Arkana.Gebser, Jean. 1984. The ever-present origin. Trans. Noel Barstad and AlgisMickunas. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Goddard, Gerry. 2001.Metaphor or archetype: The nature of the astrologicalsymbol. C.U.R.A.: The International Astrology Research Center.http://cura.free.fr/xv/12god1.html (accessed August 3, 2009).———. 2007. Transpersonal theory and the astrological mandala: Anevolutionary model. http://www.islandastrology.net/contents.htm(accessed August 3, 2009).Greene, Liz. 1976. Saturn: A new look at an old devil. York Beach, ME: SamuelWeiser.———. 1978. Relating: An astrological guide to living with others on a smallplanet. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser.Griffin, David R. 1990. A metaphysical psychology to un-Locke our ailing world.In Archetypal process: Self and divine in Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman,ed. David. R. Griffin, 239–249. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UniversityPress.313

Grof, Stanislav. 1998. Ken Wilber’s spectrum psychology: Observations fromclinical consciousness research. In Ken Wilber in Dialogue, ed. SeanKelly and Donald Rothberg, 85–116. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.———. 2000. Psychology of the future: Lessons from modernconsciousness research. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.———. 2009. Holotropic research and archetypal astrology. Archai: TheJournal of Archetypal Cosmology, vol. 1:1 (Summer): 50–66,http://www.archaijournal.org/01_Archai_Journal_Issue01_v2.pdf(accessed August 3, 2009).Grof, Stanislav, and Hal Z. Bennett. 1993. The holotropic mind. New York:HarperCollins, 1993.Guinard, Patrice. 2002. Astrology: The manifesto. Trans. Matyas Becvarov.The International Astrology Research Center (C.U.R.A.).http://cura.free.fr/07athem1.html (accessed August 3, 2009).———, ed. 2009. The International Astrology Research Center (C.U.R.A.).http://cura.free.fr/ (accessed August 10, 2009).Hand, Robert. 1976. Planets in transit: Life cycles for living. Atglen, PA:Whitford Press.———. 1981. Horoscope symbols. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing.Harding, Michael. 1992. Hymns to the ancient gods. London: Arkana.Harding, Michael, and Charles Harvey. 1990. Working with astrology: Thepsychology of harmonics, midpoints, and astro-cartography. London:Arkana.Harvey, Charles. 2002. Anima mundi: The astrology of the individual and thecollective. London: CPA Press.Harvey, Charles, and Harvey, Suzi. 1999. Principles of astrology. London:Thorsons.Henderson, Joseph. 1990. Shadow and self : Selected papers in analyticalpsychology. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.Hillman, James. 1990. Back to beyond: On cosmology. In Archetypal process:Self and divine in Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman, ed. David. R. Griffin,213–231. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.314

———. 1992. Re-visioning Psychology. 2nd edition. New York: HarperPerennial.Holroyd, Stuart. 1989. The Arkana dictionary of new perspectives. London:Arkana.Huxley, Aldous. 1952/1992. Substitutes for liberation. In Huxley and God:Essays, ed. Jacqueline Hazard Bridgeman, 116–129. Repr. New York:HarperCollins.———. 1954/1990. The doors of perception and heaven and hell. Repr.New York: HarperPerennial.Hyde, Maggie.1992. Jung and astrology. London: The Aquarian Press.International Astronomical Union. 2008, Sept. 17. IAU0807: IAU names fifthdwarf planet Haumea.http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0807/ (accessed August 3,2009).Jantsch, Erich. 1980. The self-organizing universe. New York: Pergammon.Jencks, Charles, ed. 1986. The postmodern reader. London: Academy Editions.Jencks, Charles. 1996. What is post-modernism?. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &Sons.Jung, Carl Gustav. 1953–1979. The collected works of C. G Jung. 19 vols.Trans. R. F. C. Hull Princeton: Princeton University Press.———. 1954/2004. On the nature of the psyche. In On the nature of the psyche,trans. R. F. C. Hull, 81–171. Repr. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.———. 1955–1956/1989. Mysterium coniunctionis. 2nd ed.. Vol. 14 of Thecollected works of C. G. Jung. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Repr. Princeton:Princeton University Press.———. 1955/1977. Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle.Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Repr. London: Routledge.———. 1960. The structure and dynamics of the psyche. Vol. 8 of The collectedworks of C. G. Jung. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.———. 1960/1970. Answer to Job. The problem of evil: It’s psychological andreligious origins. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Repr. Cleveland, OH: MeridianBooks.315

———. 1963/1983. Memories, dreams, reflections. Ed. Aniele Jaffe. Trans.Richard Wilson and Clara Wilson. Repr. London: Flamingo.———. 1966/1990. Two essays on analytical psychology. 2nd ed. Vol. 7 of Thecollected works of C. G. Jung. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Repr. London:Routledge.———. 1966/1971. The spirit in man, art, and literature. Vol. 15 of Thecollected works of C. G. Jung. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Repr. Princeton:Princeton University Press.———. 1968. Alchemical studies. Vol. 13 of The collected works of C. G. Jung.Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press.———. 1968. Psychology and alchemy, 2nd ed., Vol. 12 of The collected worksof C. G. Jung. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press.———. 1970. Civilization in transition. 2nd ed. Vol. 10 of The collected works ofC. G. Jung. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press.———. 1973. C.G. Jung letters I: 1906–1950. Ed. Gerald Adler and Aniele Jaffe.Trans. R. F. C. Hull. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.———. 1973. C. G Jung letters II: 1951–1961. Ed. Gerald Adler and AnieleJaffe. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.———. 1988. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes on the seminar given in 1934–9.Ed. James Jarrett. 2 vols. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Jung, Carl Gustav, and Karl Kerényi. 1985/2002. Science of mythology: Essays onthe myth of the divine child and the mysteries of Eleusis. Rev. ed. Repr.London: Routledge.Jung, Carl Gustav, and Wolfgang Pauli. 1955. The interpretation of nature andthe psyche. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. New York: Pantheon Books.Keepin, Will. 1997. Astrology and the new physics.http://paganastrology.com/web/articles/astrologyandphysics.html(accessed August 3, 2009).Kelly, Sean. 1993. Individuation and the Absolute. New York: Paulist Press.Kelly, Sean, and Donald Rothberg, eds. 1998. Ken Wilber in dialogue:Conversations with leading transpersonal thinkers. Wheaton, IL: QuestBooks.316

Koestler, Arthur. 1967/1989. The ghost in the machine. Repr. London: Arkana.Laszlo, Ervin. 1972. The systems view of the world: The natural philosophy andthe new developments in the sciences. New York: George Braziller.———. 2004. Science and the akashic field: An integral theory ofeverything. Rochester: Inner Traditions.Le Grice, Keiron. 2008. A response to John Heron’s commentary on Cosmos andPsyche. Network Review: Journal of the Scientific and Medical Network[online version], no. 96 (spring), 13–19,http://www.scimednet.org/pdf/ntwrk96.pdf (accessed August 3, 2009).———. 2009. The birth of a new discipline: Archetypal cosmology in historicalperspective. Archai: The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology, vol. 1:1(Summer): 2–22,http://www.archaijournal.org/01_Archai_Journal_Issue01_v2.pdf(accessed August 3, 2009).Magee, Brian. 2001. The story of philosophy. London: Dorling Kindersley.Main, Roderick. 2007. Revelations of chance: Synchronicity as spiritualexperience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Mansfield, Victor. 1995. Synchronicity, science, and soul-making. Chicago: OpenCourt.———. 1997. An astrophysicist’s sympathetic and critical view of astrology.http://www.lightlink.com/vic/astrol.html (accessed January 27, 2009).Marshall, Paul. 2005. Mystical encounters with the natural world: Experiencesand explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Marx, Karl. 1963/1990. Selected writings in sociology and social philosophy.Trans. T. B. Bottomore. Repr. London: Penguin.Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and cognition: Therealization of the living. Dordecht, Holland: D. Reidel.———. 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of humanunderstanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.McRitchie, Ken. 2009. Theories of astrology. http://www.theoryofastrology.com(accessed August 3 2009).317

Meier, C. A., ed. 2001. Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung letters 1932-1958.Trans. D. Roscoe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientificrevolution. New York: Harper & Row.Morin, Edgar. 1999. Homeland Earth: A manifesto for the new millennium. Trans.Sean M. Kelly and Roger Lapointe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Mumford, Lewis. 1970. The myth of the machine: The pentagon of power. NewYork: Harcourt Brace.Murphy, Michael. 1998. On evolution and transformative practice: In appreciationof Ken Wilber.” In Ken Wilber in dialogue: Conversations with leadingtranspersonal thinkers, ed. Sean Kelly and Donald Rothberg, 53–60.Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.Navarro, Jesûs. 2003. Astrology and science: Two worldviews searching for asynthesis. The International Astrology Research Center (C.U.R.A.).http://cura.free.fr/xxx/28navar2.html (accessed August 3, 2009).Needham, Joseph. 1956. Science and civilization in China. Vol. 2. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Nègre, Alain. 2001. A transdisciplinary approach to science and astrology.The International Astrology Research Center (C.U.R.A.).http://cura.free.fr/quinq/02negre2.html (accessed August 3, 2009).Newton, Isaac. 1999. The principia: Mathematical principles of naturalphilosophy. Trans. I. Bernhard Cohen and Anne Whitman. Berkeley:University of California Press.Nichol, Lee, ed. 2003. Introduction to The essential David Bohm, by DavidBohm, 1–8. London: Routledge.Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1887/2000. On the genealogy of morals. In Basic writingsof Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann, 437–599. Repr. New York:Modern Library.O’Neal, Rodney. 2008. Seasons of agony and grace: An archetypal history ofNew England Puritanism. PhD diss., California Institute of IntegralStudies, 2008. Dissertation Abstracts International. publ. nr.AAT3316830, DAI-A 69/05.318

Olivelle, Patrick, trans. 1996. Introduction to The upanishads, xxii–lvi. London:Oxford University Press.Otto, Rudolf. 1923/1958. The idea of the holy. Repr. London: OxfordUniversity Press.Peat, F. David. 1987. Synchronicity: The bridge between mind and matter. NewYork: Bantam Books.———. n.d. Active information, meaning and form.http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/fzmean.htm (accessedJuly 13, 2009).Perry, Glenn. 1991. The new paradigm and postmodern astrology. Association forPsychological Astrology. http://www.aaperry.com/index.asp?pgid=21(accessed May 27, 2009).———. n.d. The birth of psychological astrology. Association forPsychological Astrology. http://www.aaperry.com/index.asp?pgid=20(accessed May 27, 2009).Plotinus. 1991. The enneads. Abridged by John Dillon. Trans. StephenMacKenna. London: Penguin.Primack, Joel, and Nancy Abrams. 2006. The view from the center of theuniverse: Discovering our extraordinary place in the cosmos. New York:Riverhead Books.Romanes, G. J. 1964. Mind and motion. In Body and Mind: Readings inPhilosophy, ed. G. N. A. Vesey, 181–186. London: Allen & Unwin.Rudhyar, Dane. 1936. The astrology of personality. Santa Fe, New Mexico:Aurora Press.———. 1969. Birth patterns for a new humanity: A study of astrological cyclesstructuring the present worldcrisis. Wassenaar, Holland: Servire.———. 1980. The astrology of transformation. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.Samuels, Andrew. 1986. Jung and the post-Jungians. London: Routledge.Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1943/2005. Being and nothingness: An essay on ontology.Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Repr. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Scholem, Gershom 1941/1995. Major trends in Jewish mysticism. Repr. NewYork: Schocken Books.319

Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1966. The world as will and as representation.Trans. E. F. J. Payne. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Shamdasani, Sonu. 2003. Jung and the making of modern psychology: The dreamof a science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sheldrake, Rupert. 1981/ 1995. A new science of life: The hypothesis of morphicresonance. Repr. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.———. 1995. The presence of the past: The habits of nature. Repr.Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.Singer, Thomas, and Samuel Kimbles. 2004. Archetypes: Emergence and thepsyche’s deep structure. In Analytical Psychology: ContemporaryPerspectives in Jungian Analysis, ed. Joseph Cambray and Linda Carter,32–55. New York: Brunner-Routledge.Skinner, B. F. 1971/2002. Beyond freedom and dignity. Repr. Indianapolis:Hacket Publishing Company.Spade, Paul Vincent. 2006. William of Ockham, ed. Edward N. Zalta, in TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/ (accessed September 23, 2009).Sprigge, T. L. S. 1985. Theories of existence. London: Penguin.Stephenson, Leslie. 1974. Seven theories of human nature. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Stubenberg, Leopold. Neutral monism, ed. Edward N. Zalta, in The StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2008.http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/neutral-monism/(accessed August 9, 2009).Swimme, Brian. 1996. The hidden heart of the cosmos: Humanity and the newstory. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Tarnas, Richard. 1991. The passion of the Western mind. London: Pimlico.———. 1995. Prometheus the awakener: An essay on the archetypal meaning ofthe planet Uranus. Woodstock, CT: Spring Publications.———. 2006. Cosmos and psyche: Intimations of a new world view. New York:Viking.320

———. 2006. An introduction to archetypal astrology.www.cosmosandpsyche.com/pdf/IntroductiontoAstrology.pdf (accessedAugust 4, 2009).Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. 1965. The phenomenon of man. New York: Harper &Row.Tester, S. J. 1987. A history of Western astrology. Woodbridge, UK: BoydellPress.Varela, Francisco, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991/1993. Theembodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Repr.Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Von Franz, Marie-Louise. 1992. Psyche and matter. Boston: ShambhalaPublications.Washburn, Michael. 1995. The ego and the dynamic ground: A transpersonaltheory of human development. 2nd edition. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.Washburn, Michael. 1998. The pre/trans fallacy reconsidered. In Ken Wilber inDialogue, ed. Sean Kelly and Donald Rothberg, 64–83. Wheaton, IL:Quest Books.Whitehead, Alfred North. 1920/1995. The concept of nature: The Tarner lecturesdelivered in Trinity College. Repr. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.———. 1925/1970. Science and the modern world. Repr. New York: Free Press.Whitfield, Peter. 2001. Astrology: A history. New York: Harry N. Abrams.Wilber, Ken. 2001. Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Revisededition. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.———. n.d. Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenesis.http://integrallife.com/apply/science-technology/sheldrakes-theorymorphogenesis(accessed July 13, 2009).Wilhelm, Richard, trans. 1968. The I Ching or book of changes. 3rd edition.Trans. from German by Cary F. Baynes. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.Zimmerman, Michael. 1994. Contesting Earth’s future: Radical ecology andpostmodernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.321