Myths & Misconceptions. 

• The paranormal. 

The media concept of astrology is way off the mark, television being the worst culprit. Quite often an astrologer is presented in subdued lighting with strange sounds playing in the background and the almost obligatory cardboard stars and planets dangling from the ceiling. Sometimes the astrologer is dressed in strange garb more at home in a fantasy movie, preferably with a crystal ball in front of him. How ridiculous!

Astrology is first and foremost a logical process in which observation and deduction is used to arrive at conclusions. It has not and never will be part of the paranormal, any more than psychology, chemistry, or mathematics are. Although intuition is recognised and can certainly be a valuable aid, nevertheless the psychic parts of the mind are not part of the equation; the words psychic and astrologer are not synonymous. Rest assured, strange forces are neither invoked or needed. 

  

• Precious stones and metals. 

The idea that certain stones and metals contain 'vibrations' that can have beneficial effects if possessed or worn by individual is quite fallacious and is most certainly not part of the science of astrology. Anyone familiar with the original source of physical (and other) associations - the Doctrine of Correspondences - will understand what I mean. Briefly, everything existing in this physical Universe belongs to, or corresponds with, the energies and consciousness epitomised by the planets. Thus, the colour yellow and the metal gold have a correlation to the energies we astrologers know as the Sun. It is not implied that the metal gold somehow exudes Solar vibrations likely to be valuable or even life-changing to the individual. Note also the many contradictory colours, metals, gemstones given for a particular planet or Sign. 

  

• 13 Signs of the Zodiac.

This misconception arose when a scientist (typically not one versed in astrological theory) 'discovered' during an eclipse that the Sun was not in the constellation it should have been and who then went on to expound the erroneous theory that our traditional Zodiac Signs were all wrong. Perhaps he, or she, ought to have read even a simple book on astrology before putting the proverbial foot in the proverbial mouth. The simple truth is that the Zodiac and the constellations are not the same thing, so it is quite possible for a planet to be in a different constellation from the Sign. Attempting to overturn the established system which has served us so well for thousands of years by adding a 13th Sign is silly and should be ignored. 

   

• The 'planet' Sedna. 

It is now universally agreed the Sedna is not a planet - it is a planetoid, one of many existing in the Solar System. Despite this, the king of the Sun-Sign cowboys - Jonathan Cainer - has gone over the top and currently spends much of his time extolling the virtues of this body thus making a fool of himself. Sedna has no place in genuine Astrology. 

• The planets exert an invisible influence on we humans.

No self respecting astrologer would ever subscribe to this fallacy. The best we can say is that planets appear to correlate to events in human lives, a fact which can be proved by anyone who takes the trouble to look with an open mind. Until positive proof can be shown for these supposed invisible forces - and I for one believe it never will be - it is better to ignore this. 

• I am a 'typical' ....

There is no such thing as a typical Leo, or any other Sign of the Zodiac. Each person is a unique blend of many astrological factors, the Sun Sign being only one of them. Far too much emphasis is placed on the Sun Sign resulting in several mistaken ideas, among the worst being the Sun Sign readings in newspapers and magazines. An entire industry has grown out of this fallacy. The Sun may well be in a Sign and have meanings, but in a person's chart what is the condition of the Sun, in other words what are the modifying aspects and the nature of the applying planets? What is the House position of the Sun? These will alter the interpretation considerably. It stands to reason that with the numerous combinations possible in a chart it is plainly silly to generalise and ignore these essential factors. Add to this the positions of the remaining planets and their aspects, not to mention the position of the ascendant which also governs the House positions and you can soon see just how far away from reality the newspaper Sun Sign idea is. 

  

• I am a ... therefore I will get on with ...

It's a myth I'm afraid. There is far more to human relationships from an astrological point of view than just Sun Signs. Now while it is true that  a Taurean will in some ways get on with, say, a Capricorn or a Virgo because they share the same practical and down to earth approach to life, it would be quite wrong to go any further. I know of 'compatible' Sun Sign people who can't live in the same space, and I know of 'incompatible' Sun Sign people who are very close. I must stress that the only way to establish how a relationship will work out from an astrological point of view is use Synastry. 

  

 

• Past lives.

The idea of past lives is an interesting one but it is wholly theoretical and speculative. Also, being part of paranormal or mystical thought it has no place as yet in genuine astrology. Attractive though it may seem, it is folly to bring this into connection with astrology, and it also gives the critics more ammunition with which to deride us. 

• You don't believe in astrology - do you?

What on earth has belief got to do with it? This idea stems from the mistaken idea that there is something mystical or otherworldly about astrology. There isn't. Astrology is a science. You wouldn't hear someone saying, "You don't believe in physics do you?" Of course not! 

  

•  Astrology is pure rubbish! 

Statements like this inevitably come from a particular type of person who is always marked by one fact - he, or she, has never bothered to study the subject. Check it out for yourself. I challenge anyone to do so with an open mind and still arrive at the conclusion that astrology is without merit. It is much easier to fire off blind criticism than to investigate properly. It is also very easy to carry out so-called 'scientific' investigations with a closed mind - some do. Perhaps they should all take on board the statement: 'Seek and ye shall find'. 

As the scientific fraternity seems to have forgotten the ground rules, may I take the liberty of pointing them out. It is far better and makes much more sense to assume that something has a vestige of truth in it and then try to find it rather than to assume from the onset that it is beneath contempt and therefore should be opposed, destroyed, or ignored. Doing things the first way you get to the truth, even if you prove it wrong, but at least you gave it your best shot. The alternative leads only to ignorance because you close the door to truth. It seems to me that arrogance, scepticism, and bias is preferred to the spirit of discovery these days. 

Astrology needn't be a mystery, and learning the subject needn't be a chore. Check out the available courses for rapid learning methods. You could soon be reading charts.