I was thinking about the problems that always arise on the subject of electional astrology.
From all the fields of astrology, electional is likely to be one of the most confused ones, with a lot of nonsense ideas floating around the internet. The problem is that the nonsense doesn´t come, as usual, from lack of technique, but most worrying, from lack of care, to sit down and figure things through.
So I am listing the main problems with electional astrology as it is practiced today. I believe that they come mainly from the non acceptance by astrologers of what I call “the principle of reality”.
Problem 1 – You can´t be elected the Queen of England.
Astrologers always said that you can´t elect anything that is not promised in the natal chart. I would go a step before: “you can´t elect anything that is impossible to happen”
(or at least very very unlikely)
I believe that there is a reality that is beyond and before any electional astrology can exist. The kind of results that we expect are determined by this reality.
If you throw a stone, it will always fall, because of gravity, doesn´t matter the moment that you chose to throw it.
The same way, you can´t elect anything that is not at least likely to happen:
- you can´t elect a proper time for a job that you don´t have the minimum qualification (e.g, president of US, CEO of Microsoft, etc).
- you can´t elect a proper time for marrying a person that hates you and is marrying you because of a contract/pregnancy/visa, etc
- you can´t elect a proper time to begin a treatment for a disease that doesn´t have a cure.
Usually in astrology you have to fight at every instance with the “free will” maniacs. But in electional they seem to quickly turn into deterministics. How many times I have seen people analyse failed marriages, business, etc, only based on the electional chart?
If two people are complete wrong for each other, futile and lack responsibility and commitment, what are the chances of a good election to really bring a good marriage?
I think that we should look at an electional chart the same way that Augoiedes looks at the “probability shift” that spells and magic should cause:
One of the challenges in putting together the operant field model of magick was devising a scale by which the strength of magical spells could be evaluated. The solution I arrived at was to conceptualize the strength of a spell based on the probability shift that it produces, much as Peter Carroll outlines in Liber Kaos but with some additional variables. This yields a simple numerical formula by which different spells can be compared and analyzed. On my scale a value of 1 represents pure chance, which is the result that would be expected without any magical effect, and the scale can increase arbitrarily as the probability shift increases. A spell that causes an event with a probability of .10 (10%) is rated at 10, a spell that causes an event with a probability of .01 (1%) is rated at 100, and so forth. With this scale the vagueries of “magical power” can be calculated using two variables, the likelihood of the event in question and whether or not the spell succeeded or failed.
I believe that this model makes things easy: you can´t be elected president of US, because the probability of you doing so is almost zero, unless you are already a very public figure in the States. If you were not born on the US, like Schwarzenegger, your chances dropped to complete zero.
But, if you are applying for a job to which you are qualified, a good time for an interview is always a good thing to have. Raising the bar from 70% to 80% is a lot more useful than raising it from 7% to 8%. The amount of “power” is the same, but the base results will determine if you can or cannot reach your goal.
If John already has some feelings for mary, a good time for a first date is more likely to help, but if she thinks he is an ogre, your elective will come to nothing.
The origin of the problem
I think that the origin of this problem, why do people forget so easily the principle of reality is because of a single phrase.
What phrase is that? It is a very powerful but simple phrase: “electional is the exact opposite of horary astrology”.
I know, many important teachers say that, but is a lie, sorry.
Think that way: horary is a divination technique, so the time you cast the charts is mythical by nature. It really IS divine time. Because it is divine time, it can show us the reality of circunstances.
So, if I am ask about my boss, and the ruler of MC is venus in virgo, squared by saturn, I can really say that my boss is no great thing. The divination makes that the ruler of MC represents my boss as he really is.
But the same principle obviously doesn´t work for electional charts! We can see several examples in books about electional astrology, where we read things like “well, we see by the MC ruler that your boss is a dumb-a$$”.
Really? Can the chart of the moment a person starts his job can make the boss an idiot, and two hours later makes it a saint? In other words, can the electional moment change what already is? I would say no.
That´s why is so stupid to try to “change” the horary chart, like people who wait until the moon is no longer void of course so they can ask a horary. Do you want a positive answer, or you want an accurate one?
One further example is from the book by Lee Lehman, the “martial art of horary astrology”. In one example, she uses a technique from horary to see if a married man really told the true, that he had never slept around. In this technique we see if the moon and mercury are afflicted, if the angles are fixed, etc.
But she uses the time he made that statement, not a time for an horary.
Sometimes the difference between an horary and an event can be blurry, but it is important to see that this technique only works for horary… if this technique could work for any single and simple piece of time, the logical conclusion would be that, at some particular times, no one would be allowed to lie. There would be hours and hours with the angles fixed, and moon and mercury in excellent state, where no one could say a lie!
Of course every politician or news caster who tried to make a speech during these miracle times would have choke to death. It would be a nicer world, but I don´t think that is our world.