One of Dr. Weiss’ and/or Selva’s teachings is: Sun-sign astrology is not astrology in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. It is a consumption good of contemporary Western capitalist society. Nothing more. Regrettably, however, individuals who predominantly or solely rely upon the ‘procedural guide’ of Sun-sign astrology (those who are mistakenly convinced that analysing the Ascendant, Sun, and Moon signs sufficiently addresses or summarises an astrological chart, including Hellenistic practitioners) have nonetheless adopted the title of astrologer. This form of practice can be likened to medical professionals diagnosing illnesses based upon one or two symptoms (not all) without conducting comprehensive laboratory or other diagnostic examinations. Or to meteorologists attempting to produce forecasts upon the basis of one or two meteorological variables alone (say, humidity). Or to a forensic psychologist attempting to set forth a criminal profile on the basis of the colour of the eyes (say, blue). Such a superficial or irresponsible approach (and education) is, frankly, alarming.

Consider this example. Many who know this author would or could become convinced of different astrological profiles. Some might characterise or have characterised him as having an Ascendant in Virgo or Capricorn with a planetary stellium in the corresponding ascending sign. Conversely, others propose a Pisces Ascendant with Jupiter in Pisces, or a Gemini Ascendant with Mercury in Gemini or Sagittarius. All perspectives hold truth, contingent upon the specific life context being addressed. The first set of arrangements (Virgo, Capricorn) could accurately reflect the author’s tendencies both within the domestic sphere (meticulous Scorpio occupies the 4th-house cusp and cutting or precise Mars is at disciplined Capricorn lodged in the crafty 6th as ruler of the domestic 4th) and in professional settings (Capricorn upon the 6th-house cusp and Mars exalted in the 6th as co-ruler of the 10th, although as ruler of said house since my relocation to the great state of Texas, Chart 2A or 2B). The latter characterisations, however, more precisely describe my role as a father (Sagittarius on the 5th-house cusp with Jupiter in Pisces in the 8th) and the author’s general tendency as an individual, particularly disinterested and reflective. This can be said to be supported by two fundamental astrological indicators:

(A) The chart’s strongest planet, Jupiter, is also the body with the most favourable aspectual relationships with the most sensitive or personal bodies: a tight trine (harmony) with Cancer Mercury in The House of Jupiter (i.e. the house with which it holds the greatest affinity or analogy or wherein it would hold the most strength, therefore), a tight trine (harmony) with the Moon in The House of the Moon (i.e. idem), and a tight sextile (activity) with utmost productive Mars; and

(B) Luminous Leo, the author’s ASC, hosts an affectionate Venus (Chart 1A or 1B). (His Sun, natal ruler, in cognitive Gemini, might make the author the person that jokes around the most despite the seriousness of anything and perhaps also one of those individuals that moves around, physically and intellectually, the most.)

Chart 1A
19 June 1986 – Bogotá D.C. – 09:05 a.m. (local time)

Chart 2A
Natal chart relocated to Montgomery, Texas, USA

It is crucial to understand that an individual’s astrological signature is not circumscribed to a any one sign, for it cannot be, naturally. No one embodies a particular sign, for no sign is a particular person, but a sign (a concept), which, in combination with, amongst other factors, the position of the planetary ruler, characterises different areas of the life of the individual. Composite analysis is not merely paramount; it is the only type of delineation that can lead the practitioner somewhere, anywhere. From a methodological standpoint, astrology is to be understood as akin to or no different from fields such as medicine, forensic psychology, even meteorology (non-exact scientific disciplines rather than arts alone). As a meteorologist would not attempt to offer forecasts upon the basis of one variable, say, humidity, a responsible forensic psychologist would not construct a criminal profile upon the basis of a singular trait, say, the eye colour.

Any serious or reputable school or academy of astrology will not have a problem with readily submitting to this type or similar types of scrutiny, that is, if we were to have a formal international accrediting organization, bureau, or board. This would allow for statements like “That school scored the highest in chart interpretation” or “That school scored the highest in horoscope construction (house systems)” or “in clinical assessments” to be made without fear. I know that I would look forward to submitting to this type of scrutiny. Should a school or an astrologer perform poorly, there will be room for improvement and can submit again in the future. It is a win-win opportunity. One must not be lame or miserly. One must be honourable and also look forward to supporting the foundation of the International Astrological Bureau of Accreditation (IABA).

___________________

Modern-looking charts:

Chart 1B
19 June 1986 – Bogotá D.C. – 09:05 a.m. (local time)

Chart 2B
Natal chart relocated to Montgomery, Texas, USA