Growing up as an astrologer in the modern, Western tradition, I once subscribed to this synchronistic idea of how astrology works. I no longer do per se, so I would like to talk about another paradigm that suits me better. I am a big fan of Jung's work, and I am indebted to his work in more ways than I know, so my sentiments are certainly not meant to criticize Jung in any way. Instead, I want to offer an alternative to the use of synchronicity popular within the modern, western astrological tradition; or perhaps more correctly, I would like to offer an addition to this astrological-synchronicity tradition.

Probably 99% of those reading this have already decided that astrology works in some way. If this is the case, it seems to me that it is not essential to understand exactly how - meaning the mechanism by which astrology works. If it works, it works, and you don't have to know everything about how it works; just use it and do something positive with it. Being a very practical person, this is how I feel. But this discussion of synchronicity may serve a practical purpose as well, so I'll begin.

The Weaknesses of the Astrological-Synchronicity Model

Personally, I believe that the astrological-synchronicity model has become an easy way out for modern, Western astrologers who have not wanted to take a stand regarding the causative dimension of the astrological system, or have been scared to because the causative view has been at times practiced in a fatalistic way. It seems to me like the astrological-synchronicity model has been an effort to distance ourselves from all vestiges of ancient astrology and its frequently non-empowering overtones; but in this case, I feel we may have also lost something valuable. We say, The planets move, and we live our lives, and these two things always reflect one another; its just some kind of automatic synchronicity, Once we say this, the case may as well be closed, because then we don't really have to explain or think any further about the very fundamental issue of causality, and if it exists, where it is coming from.

Remember that the modern western tradition has run far away from any kind of causality in astrology because it has wanted to avoid everything that has ever made astrology fatalistic and non-empowering; we wanted to move towards a tradition where the individuals freedom and free will would be the foundation of our approach. This, obviously, is a very noble and good aim. But I feel that, at least in the West, we have gone to the other end of the pendulum for long enough that we can move back towards the notion of causality without it degenerating into a system that robs oneself of personal power or the belief that we are in control of our own lives. We have had the original thesis (causality) followed by its antithesis (synchronicity), and now I feel we can begin to see a kind of synthesis which allows for direct causality alongside the existence of astrological-synchronicity.

If we do not make this attempt at synthesis, then I feel we are not being honest enough with ourselves to admit that we feel there is some real kind of cause and effect involved at some level of astrology. It seems extreme to me to claim that there is no causal influence involved with astrology whatsoever, and totally contrary to my common sense as an astrologer.

Any seasoned astrologer knows that we certainly have free will, but not quite so much of a clean slate of free will that we can do anything, at any given time, regardless of where the planets are. Being a devoted student of astrology shows you that we definitely live under some kind of astrological boundaries. There are times when the astrological picture looks particularly grim, when we are bound to experience severe challenges, just as there are times when the astrological picture looks particularly rosy, when we are bound to experience a lot of grace, ease, and success. Even the great soul, Yogananda (see his book, Autobiography of a Yogi) had to admit that there is a real causative influence to astrology, after he had hoped to find that there was none. Yet in the West we have largely put off the confrontation of our astrological-synchronicity theory, which denies causality, with our intuitive and experiential sense (certainty?) that there is some real causality involved with astrology in some way.

To me, once we take up the astrological-synchronicity approach, we have completely dodged and avoided the most powerful and substantial claim that an astrologer can make about astrology: that it is connected with some direct causes on our lives. Astrology can absolutely revolutionize the way we see the world, even more so if it is connected with at least some kind of causal influence. When it comes to astrological-synchronicity as our fundamental model of astrological influence (non-influence?), I personally think we can do better.

My own view below will not offer a more concrete explanation than the astrological-synchronicity model, or one that will appeal to the materialistically minded in any way, but it still feels more satisfactory to me. I believe that astrological influences and the term influences is misleading here, as explained further below can still be scientifically shown as real. However, as you'll see my point of view is no more scientific than the astrological-synchronicity model. Therefore, its not going to be the kind of perspective that will ever give astrology more credibility to the materialistically minded (and I do care about astrology's credibility in materialistic circles, up to a point). But I see the point of view that I am expressing as more bold, more honest with ourselves, and more spiritual than the astrological-synchronicity model. In the end, I can only offer it as food for thought.

Perhaps my main resistance to synchronicity as an astrological model, is that I feel it is not strong enough to account for the dramatic and powerful things that are regularly (always?) seen to occur with major astrological movements.

For example: