Dr Patrice Guinard
Directeur du CURA
After the publication of the FB's article, "Causal Or Esoteric Astrology?", published by your website, and previously REFUSED BY CURA,
I would have to do the following remarks:
1. The remarks concerning me in this article misinform the reader, and the citation of an isolated sentence out of context did not accurately demonstrate the ideas presented.
2. This quote, just a "boutade" (sally), extracted from its general context, doesn't reflect my thought.
3. The paper could tend to show that I'm defending Jungian synchronicity, & it's obviously not the case (see the joined passages published in The International Astrologer, xxx 4, winter 2001) See some extracts below.
4. More importantly, the author doesn't discuss nowhere my arguments upon this important subject, but just let believe that I would support the common, Jungian, view. And that is definitely not my position, and even the contrary.
5. The author didn't "DEMONSTRATE" anything, contrary to the summary's indication.
4.1 The Jungian concepts of synchronicity, archetypes and the
collective unconscious are of little utility for astrology.
4.2 When one is feeling what I call an 'impressional', it is no
longer an archetype, but it is not yet a symbol. Jungian
psychology is inadequate for an understanding of what astrology
is - just a crutch for astrological thought!
4.3 What is synchronicity? For Jung it is a meaningful
coincidence occurring in time between two or more independent
events. Fine. For instance: MY CAT IS SCRATCHING ITS EARS WHILE I
AM TAKING OFF MY SOCKS. This is a real, pure, absolute 'moment'
of synchronicity. There is no causality involved (at the very
least, I hope not). Imagine that I become conscious of the
coincidence, and that I remark that every time I take off my
socks, my dear cat is 'really' scratching its ears: Then it's no
longer synchronicity, but a matter of superstition such as that
which exists in the practices of certain religions. Imagine now
that the cat is scratching its ears because it is experiencing
some internal pain and that I am aware of that. This, then
becomes more interesting because, effectively, I could project
some significant relation between the two events.
4.4 For Jung, synchronicity is specifically this projection of
significant meaning onto exterior events. But this is not
astrology. This projection of meaning lacks too many things for
it to be considered astrology. Remember that Jung has insisted
that the principle of synchronicity doesn't explain anything, but
merely accounts for the manifestation of coincidences meaningful
to the conscious mind. Many astrologers who are referring to Jung
have not understood that he was rejecting the synchronistic view
4.6 Synchronicity is related to the world of facts, events, and
so on, i.e. with a part of reality which is not concerned, in the
first place, with astrology. Now if astrologers want to use
synchronicity for justifying the moment of the consultation, that
is their affair --- and their business!
4.7 The Jungian approach is sterile for an understanding of
astrology, as are most of the other external theoretical concepts
in fashion today in the astrological milieu. If astrology were
really alive, it wouldn't need some external explanatory
psychology, because it would be itself a psychology, an
4.8 Jungian thought is contradictory and not always reliable.
Jung was a great modern specialist of hermeneutics, i.e. of signs
interpretation. Everything interested him, especially the
ancient, the secret and the occult ... signs. But signs belong to
interpretation, not to understanding. They need material, and
hermeneutics is the analysis made from this material. Astrology
has not got such material (and don't tell me that the
astrological literature is this material, because the purpose of
astrology is not the astrological literature). For instance,
linguists have words and grammar; historians have many documents
... and the purpose of linguistics is really to work with the
words and languages. But the purpose of astrology is to work with
the 'impressionals' inside us --- not 'As above, so below', but,
'As within, so without', and even, 'As within, so within' - to
feel like Paracelsus. For astrological understanding is
definitely something other than the cultural sciences'
interpretation. To Understand is to See.