To be stuck in an extreme is to be blind to what is possible beyond a single ideology or viewpoint. So I offer up this Q&A from Rob as piece on remembering to be a Free Thinker, and on being able to set aside our own beliefs to be open to what might be the truth we were never aware could even be a possibility.
Enjoy
Q & A
QUESTION. How can an intelligent, educated person possibly believe
astrology has any merit?
ROB. Many of the debunkers who're responsible for trying to discredit
astrology have done no research on the subject. They haven't read smart
astrological philosophers like Dane Rudhyar, don't know that seminal
astronomer Johannes Kepler was a skilled astrologer, and aren't aware
that eminent psychologist C.G. Jung cast horoscopes and believed that
"astrology represents the summation of all the psychological knowledge
of antiquity." The closest approach the fraudulent "skeptics" usually
make to the ancient art is to glance at a tabloid horoscope column. To match
their carelessness, I might make a drive-by of a strip mall and declare
that the profession of architecture is shallow and debased.
That's one reason why these ill-informed "skeptics" spread so many
ignorant lies. For instance, they say that astrologers think the stars
and planets emit invisible beams that affect people's lives. The truth is,
most Western astrologers don't believe any such thing.
QUESTION. Because you pack your column with doses of humor and wild
imagery, some people think you don't take astrology seriously.
ROB. On the contrary, I think this proves how much respect I have for
astrology--I mean REAL astrology. Not astrology as a superstitious
belief system that generates boring predictions in dead language about trivial
events that only our neurotic egos are obsessed with; but rather
astrology as a mytho-poetic symbol system that expands your
imagination about the big cycles of your life, liberates you from the
literalistic trance that the daily grind tends to trap you in, and
opens you up to the understanding that you're much more beautiful and full of
potential than you've been taught to believe.
QUESTION. You have said that you believe in astrology "about 80
percent." What's up with the other 20 percent?
ROB. I use the same 80-20 approach with every belief system I love and
benefit from: science, psychology, feminism, and various religious
traditions like Buddhism and Christianity and paganism. I take what's
useful from each, but am not so deluded as to think that any single
system is the holy grail that the physicists call the "Theory of
Everything." Unconditional, unskeptical faith is the path of the
fanatic and fundamentalist, and I aspire to be a rowdy philosophical anarchist,
aflame with objectivity and committed to the truth that the truth is always
mutating.
QUESTION. But don't you risk playing the same role the tabloid
astrologers do: enticing people to take on a superstitious approach to
life and seducing them into believing their fate is determined by
supernatural forces beyond the influence of their willpower?
ROB. I call what I do predicting the present, not forecasting the
future. My goal is to awaken my readers to the hidden agendas, unconscious forces,
and long-term cycles at work in their lives so that they can respond to
the totality of what's happening instead of to mere appearances. I want
to be a friendly shocker who helps unleash their imaginations, giving
them the power to create their destinies with the same liberated fertility
that great artists summon to forge their masterpieces.
QUESTION. How do you write your column? Do you use actual astrological
data, or just go into a trance and let your imagination run wild?
ROB. I draw up a weekly chart for the sun, moon, and major aspects of
each sign. It's the framework within which I improvise. The artistic
part of the work is harder to pin down. One of my guiding principles, though,
is to treat each sign's horoscope as a personal love letter--to speak as
intimately about the mysteries of the moment as if I were addressing a
close friend.
Where do my inspirations come from? Dreams, letters from readers,
overheard conversations, meditation, lots of reading in a wide variety
of texts both sacred and profane, and the intensive cultivation of my own
receptivity. I also rely on fact-finding missions I call whirlygigs.
During these, I steep myself with the intention of attracting lessons I don't
know I need, then meander through the world at random, going places I've
never been and striking up conversations with strangers with whom I
apparently have nothing in common.
QUESTION. You confuse me in the way that you praise rational thought
and the scientific method, yet reserve the right to believe in
astrology, angels, miracles, and other woo-woo.
ROB. Thousands of amazing, inexplicable, and even supernatural events
occur every day. And yet most are unreported by the media. The few that
are cited are ridiculed. Why? Here's one possible reason: The people
most likely to believe in wonders and marvels are superstitious, uneducated,
and prone to having a blind, literalist faith in their religions'
myths. Those who are least likely to believe in wonders and marvels are skilled at
analytical thought, well-educated, and yet prone to having a blind,
literalist faith in the ideology of materialism, which dogmatically
asserts that the universe consists entirely of things that can be perceived by
the five human senses or detected by instruments that scientists have thus
far invented.
The media is largely composed of people from the second group. It's
virtually impossible for them to admit to the possibility of events
that elude the rational mind's explanations, let alone experience them. If
anyone from this group manages to escape peer pressure and cultivate a
receptivity to the miraculous, it's because they have successfully
fought against being demoralized by the unsophisticated way wonders and
marvels are framed by the first group.
I try to be immune to the double-barreled ignorance. When I behold
astonishing synchronicities and numinous breakthroughs that seem to
violate natural law, I'm willing to consider the possibility that my
understanding of natural law is too narrow. And yet I also refrain from
lapsing into irrational gullibility; I actively seek mundane
explanations for apparent miracles.
QUESTION. Can you sum up your approach to seeing the world?
ROB. My outlook combines the rigorous objectivity of a scientist, the
"beginner's mind" of Zen Buddhism, and the compassionate friendliness
of the Dalai Lama. I blend a scrupulously dispassionate curiosity with a
skepticism driven by expansiveness, not spleen.
To pull this off, I have to be willing to regularly suspend my theories
about the way the world works. I accept with good humor the possibility that
what I've learned in the past may not be a reliable guide to
understanding the fresh phenomenon that's right in front of me. I'm suspicious of my
biases, even the rational and benevolent ones. I open my heart as I
strip away the interpretations that my emotions might be inclined to impose.
"Before we can receive the unbiased truth about anything," wrote my
teacher Ann Davies, "we have to be ready to ignore what we would like
to be true."
At the same time, I don't want to turn into a hard-ass, poker-faced
robot. I keep my feelings moist and receptive. I remember my natural affection
for all of creation. I enjoy the power of tender sympathy as it drives
me to probe for the unimaginable revelations of every new moment. "Before
we can receive the entire truth about anything," said Ann Davies, "we
have to love it."
Rob Brezny
