[this is a kind of long email for an idle comment over happy hour with two ladies from the office whom i have observed, separately, to favor modes of textual communication that tend toward somewhat greater brevity, with the concomitant implicit expectation that it be read; (we join it now in progress) . . . knowing the imposition such an uninvited dissertation may be, i welcome your response, lack thereof, or whatever in between, as, acknowledging that expectation, i'll also admit other expectations sympathetic with any point on that spectrum. so.]
(having invited no response, he got none; live and learn! -ed.) that said,
welcome, Dear Reader, to ruminations on how one might learn about astrology.
i read. i am a critical and (thus-far) insatiable reader. i check and then read sources, and their sources (if my interest and sources' credibility--and data access!--still obtain).
i have read a lot of bullshit on assignment and for titillation (...and in ignorance, no doubt); i have written some bullshit on assignment and as part of my many unflagging efforts to attain employment, and for titillation (...and out of ignorance, no doubt); and I have read a little bit of recognizably knowledgeable exposition. (for symmetry: not sure about the having myself produced recognizably knowledgeable exposition, but have produced what passed for that within certain specialized contexts, at least)
i quietly permit myself the conceit that i have a sense for distinguishing the one from the other. naturally, i do not expect and would not ask you to take the authority of another on my assertion of that authority's credibility. surely you each have a similar notion of the calibration of your own such BS detector.
that's all well and good for the contemporary political conspiracy theories or perhaps just the news, but what is one to do when interested in something that all of society already takes for granted is one hundred percent grade-a bullshit, such as, oh, say, any form of so-called divination?
where do you go to find credible sources?
you read a lot until you can discern the features of the landscape, and then discern . . . other aspects of the field or community of speakers, or individual speakers.
aside: there was an internet astrologer in ye olde nineteen nineties who seemed to write clearly, and sensitively, and be more or less up front about wherein he was deriving his descriptions, predictions, horoscopes and related astrology products. a friend and i read his stuff on and off for years, until one day he sent me a newspaper clipping about that guy having been arrested/charged for some sort of culpable behavior involving children or pictures of same.
without any very good rational reason (what does the one have to do with the other?) we stopped reading his columns. very probably he ceased having a forum in which to publish, but i don't recall having ever checked, and am neither checking nor planning to check just now.
("the aspen astrologer is currently unavailable" -ed.)
anyway, reading everything and learning thus by immersion takes a lot of effort and time. i don't think i would recommend the investment. . . at my . . . or a not-too-dissimilar . . . age. so, consult experts, somewhat more critically. and learn the vocabulary and how it is used.
(also, until you're looking at birth charts or something more serious, at least, you can probably go ahead and disregard each of the many (approx. 103K, last count -ed.) opportunities to learn about sun-sign based romantic and sexual compatibility. they are meaningless for that purpose. the only conceivable serious utility of these products is to reinforce the meanings associated with the signs of the zodiac. once you're looking a birth charts, comparison might have some value, though i think the "romance" and "sex" packaging is a little shallow and sensationalized to be much credit to the field.)
horoscopes, as they are sold in those supermarket check-out line scrolls (i think), or printed in the diversions section of the newspaper, address sun-signs: that is the sign of the zodiac (e.g., Cancer, Virgo, Pisces, Aries, etc) in which the sun was situated at the moment of one's birth. from earth, over the course of a year, the sun appears to traverse a path through 12 associated constellations along a 360 degree panorama of the visible stars, moving through one sign about every month. when, you look up at the night sky on your birthday, you see the constellation associated with the sign opposite yours in the zodiac. you and everyone else born while the sun is within that sign (approx. 1/12 of the world population, allowing for variation) are, grossly, addressed by your horoscope.
now, the horoscopist, assuming he or she is sincere, is describing a particular aspect or transit. (aspect: today the sun is in gemini opposite the moon in scorpio for a few moments around 14:30 GMT (the moon moves quickly). transit: today the moon will move into and out of this relation with respect to the sun.) then, the significance of that orientation of those "planets" will be considered through the lens of the attributes of each of those sun signs. voila: daily horoscope. even done insightfully and accurately by a sincere and competent person, it doesn't necessarily tell you much. if it is not performed by a sincere person, then those blurbs might not describe anything at all. as denizens of a society accustomed to such things in the diversions section of the newspaper, it makes little difference to us.
but that sincere horoscope is just a sliver of the vast, complex, and infinitely malleable body of lore called astrology, some uses of which purport to divine.
stay tuned . . .>