What of those who wish to teach astrology?
The difference between consulting and teaching astrology is quite distinct.
In consulting, the client receives information in a more or less passive way, and there is generally only one meeting. In teaching, the pupil actively wants to learn and ask questions, and there are generally many meetings. In the former the relation is with an astrologer, in the latter with astrology. In both cases it is advisable to respect a certain appearance. The teacher must thus have the same luggage.
Just as the client wants the astrologer to have extraordinary knowledge, so the pupil expects astrology to solve the mysteries of Man and Life. But because astrology cannot do this, it is important to resort to pretence. You pretend that the fit between chart and person (which can always be found even if they are unrelated) is remarkable and striking. You pretend that any interpretative failure is the fault not of the stars but of the astrologer. Such pretences prove exceedingly positive for the dynamics of the course.
Astrology is mainly an imaginary science. It is a pseudo-competence resting on tricks of the trade. To us, many teachers seem dangerous, irresponsible, and unconscious of what they convey, because their personal relation with astrology is too strong. They are a fanatic of astrology. They see reality where there should be pretense, so they lack antidotes. They should revise their values and give up their naivety.
The problem is that the majority of astrologers are unable to hold such views. For twenty years we have organised conferences devoted to rebalancing their views, but with little effect. The paradox is that such rebalancing would establish their detachment and credibility. Had they been trained properly in the first place they would not have developed such bad habits.
We plead for a homeopathic low-dose astrology, whereas most astrologers give their clients and even more their pupils an extreme high dose. We should avoid training astrologers with bad habits who become trapped by situations for which they are not prepared. Astrological consultation is more a massage of the client's ego by an involved caring astrologer than an all-knowing message from the stars. What matters is the astrologer not the astrology.
The difference between consulting and teaching astrology is quite distinct.
In consulting, the client receives information in a more or less passive way, and there is generally only one meeting. In teaching, the pupil actively wants to learn and ask questions, and there are generally many meetings. In the former the relation is with an astrologer, in the latter with astrology. In both cases it is advisable to respect a certain appearance. The teacher must thus have the same luggage.
Just as the client wants the astrologer to have extraordinary knowledge, so the pupil expects astrology to solve the mysteries of Man and Life. But because astrology cannot do this, it is important to resort to pretence. You pretend that the fit between chart and person (which can always be found even if they are unrelated) is remarkable and striking. You pretend that any interpretative failure is the fault not of the stars but of the astrologer. Such pretences prove exceedingly positive for the dynamics of the course.
Astrology is mainly an imaginary science. It is a pseudo-competence resting on tricks of the trade. To us, many teachers seem dangerous, irresponsible, and unconscious of what they convey, because their personal relation with astrology is too strong. They are a fanatic of astrology. They see reality where there should be pretense, so they lack antidotes. They should revise their values and give up their naivety.
The problem is that the majority of astrologers are unable to hold such views. For twenty years we have organised conferences devoted to rebalancing their views, but with little effect. The paradox is that such rebalancing would establish their detachment and credibility. Had they been trained properly in the first place they would not have developed such bad habits.
We plead for a homeopathic low-dose astrology, whereas most astrologers give their clients and even more their pupils an extreme high dose. We should avoid training astrologers with bad habits who become trapped by situations for which they are not prepared. Astrological consultation is more a massage of the client's ego by an involved caring astrologer than an all-knowing message from the stars. What matters is the astrologer not the astrology.
