Loading summary
Transcript76 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome to the observable unknown, where science meets the unexplained.
- [00:06]
B
I'm Dr. Juan Carlos Rey of crowscubboard.com and after two decades of working at the intersection of comparative religious studies, grief counseling, anthropology, quantum mechanics, and consciousness studies, I've discovered that our most profound human experiences often exist in the space between what we can prove and what we can perceive. In this podcast, we'll explore the measurable influences of immeasurable forces, those hidden factors that shape our reality, but often escape our traditional scientific frameworks. From the latest research in consciousness studies to the ancient wisdom that's now finding validation in neuroscience and quantum physics, we're here to bridge the gap between academic rigor and spiritual insight. Whether you're a skeptic, a seeker, or simply curious about the deeper mechanics of human experience, you're in the right place. Together, we'll examine the evidence, challenge our assumptions, and explore what happens when we dare to look beyond the obvious. Sometimes the most unexpected journeys begin with a single reluctant step. For Samuel F. Reynolds, it was the day he, a committed skeptic, agreed to sit across from an astrologer. What he expected to be a brief diversion became a mirror reflecting truths. Truths that would change the course of his life. That was over 30 years ago. Since then, Sam has immersed himself in the study and teaching of astrology, becoming a full time consultant, educator and leader within the field. He serves as president of the International Coalition of Astrology Educators, and his contributions have been honored with the International Society for Astrological Research's 2022 Community Service Award. A former board member of ISAR and past president of the International Academy of Astrology, Sam's work bridges scholarly rigor with the human stories written in the stars. Today, we follow his art from doubt to devotion, exploring not only the constellations overhead, but the deeper constellations within. So, without any further ado, let's join the conversation.
- [02:29]
A
Sam, my friend, it's tremendous to have you back with us. How have the stars been treating you since we last spoke?
- [02:35]
C
Oh, pretty good. I've been traveling. I just had a. A wee bit of COVID but it. My. My experience with COVID is very mild compared to many others, so I'm fortunate that way. I. I pretty much only had it for. From the diagnosis, four days.
- [02:54]
A
Oh, that's fantastic. I haven't heard of such a short run, so truly a blessing to be certain. I've also heard that you have a class for beginners opening up soon, teaching astrology.
- [03:06]
B
Is that correct?
- [03:07]
A
Yeah.
- [03:07]
C
So starting November 1st, I'm going to have six live classes where it's for absolute beginners, folks who want to learn more astrology, meaning that they know maybe just a little or know nothing. I'm not looking for people who are just trying to shore up their existing knowledge per se, but more so folks who want to learn astrology from the knit and grit of it. What I mean by that is a lot of people learn more about the signs and here's what the signs mean, but people are going to learn with me more about the why, how things constitute and come together related to some of the ancient ways that folks learned astrology.
- [03:52]
A
Would you be willing to discuss price range?
- [03:55]
C
Sure. It's 360 for the class, so that that includes six classes, two hours each, all on zoom, and then the classes are recorded. So if a person can't make the class, then they can always view it later. I also have an actual learning community where people can put in questions and also there'll be quizzes and other things for them to work with. And I have office hours, I have an hour, office hour every week that people can come with their questions and help process their learning.
- [04:30]
A
That's wonderful.
- [04:31]
C
I think it's a good deal.
- [04:32]
A
It is a good deal. And I believe you've sent me the link that I'll include in the description to this episode. All right, that's fantastic. So you've spoken before about moving from fundamentalism to symbolic faith. Do you think certainty itself is ever compatible with spiritual growth? Or perhaps it has to be the pursuit of truth, always including the risk of being wrong.
- [04:55]
C
So certainty, it depends on what we. We deem as for certain. And I think what we deem as for certain is often something we experience as unshakable and sometimes indescribable and mostly from within. And we can say that this is the dimension of faith. And so this is where I would take a. A note from. From I believe it's Peter. You know, we're. Or maybe it's Paul. I always get confused where faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. And when I think about certainty and I think about faith, there is one iconic figure I think about the most, and that is Abraham, also known as Avraham, also known as Ibrahim. And I think most about him related to faith. And, you know, we could say the issue related to certainty by virtue of the fact that he came from a people who were very different than what we now know, related to, you know, the people of Israel and the people. And when I Say Israel, I mean, more classic Israel. And he, you know, came from people who worshiped stars and understood more about the stars. So we know him as an astrologer. And he felt a calling from this divine source that set him apart. And why I think more about him related to the dimension of faith and certainty is that true faith, I believe, is where we are. We. Our sense of certainty seems to rest more on things that. That resonate deep from within, rather than just the aspect of belief or faith that we've acquired from others, which I think still is belief. An example would be someone saying, like, oh, well, I believe in Jesus Christ, and so I know I'm going to heaven, not recognizing that maybe they don't live a lifestyle that's in accordance with Jesus's sayings, and so they may not be going to heaven if heaven exists. And I think that becomes, you know, true faith is recognizing with some measure of humility that we are not necessarily always in control or mostly in control. There are things that are beyond this. And walking in faith, walking in certainty is really walking in the certainty of knowing that you don't. You don't know as much as you think you know. And not everything is revealed and not everything is known and not everything. Or put in the language that you and I understand because of your intuitive abilities, everything may not be exactly as we see it, but an approximation of what it might be. And so when you recognize that things may be in an approximate sensibility match with an internal compass, not eternal, but internal, I think that's when we can find more certainty. You know, it's always a matter of probability. There's a difference between probability and possibility that statisticians really know. But I think people walking in the spirit realm or walking related to spirituality, they don't always recognize. So they think everything is possible without recognizing. Not everything is probable. And so absolute certainty, probably not a thing, but some relative certainty can be more of a thing.
- [08:37]
A
It's interesting you bring up how a person manages their internal compass to that. When does conviction serve discernment rather than dogma?
- [08:48]
C
That's an excellent question. I think when the mind has been activated with the recognition that we don't know something for certain. So discernment can come out of the question of how do we know this is true, why is this true? And exploring that. And I think that becomes very important, especially related to how we evaluate dogma. Dogma usually is, I would say, the ossification of revelation. And revelation usually is a lot more open. So, for instance, one aspect of dogma from Islam as an example is that women should cover their heads or, and then there's been various interpretations that are mostly cultural on what that means. Whether that's a burqa, whether that's just a veil or whether that's just a head covering is a question that goes throughout the Islamic world. But some measure of it came from a revelation to the Prophet Muhammad specifically related to his wives, and then this came by extension more so for all women. Now one could say then if it were good for the Prophet's wives, why wouldn't it be good for other women? And I, I think that's a, a fair question. But then the same question would be then what, what makes it dogma? And then that women always, everywhere have to care, cover. Because like I said, a lot of people think that in Islam that, you know, all women have to cover. But you just explore the Islamic world and it's different extremes. You go to Afghanistan, yeah, you may find some people who are totally covered, women totally covered. You may go to Pakistan and you may see just more women who have like self alchemies, you know, what we call like pajamas and then like a head covering and, or you may go to another part in Turkey and people are not covered necessarily at all, all, although it has more of an Islamic state. So it varies in terms of how it becomes interpreted. But there's some people who will hold to it as dogma based on what was revealed and that becomes an ossification. And that usually is for other factors, usually related to fear, you know, fear, feminine power, fear of, or distrust of masculine sensibilities. And so I think discernment asks of us to really look with some measure of scrutiny at why or how something is true. Whereas dogma really positions us to have to accept something as true as already proven by those who are necessarily or supposedly worthier or more knowledgeable than we might be, which is, I think it's a big ask.
- [12:06]
A
It is a big ask. Do you believe that dogma is easier for larger populations?
- [12:11]
C
Absolutely.
- [12:12]
A
Manage, yeah. Discernment requires a certain amount of intellectual flexibility that sometimes isn't widely available in some populations.
- [12:19]
C
Obviously that. And it's not widely available. And I think also, you know, this is a message I got from Richard Wright in one of his books, the Outsider, years ago that really profoundly perturbed me when I read it. And as I've aged and I read it 40, no, not 40 years ago, but 30 something years ago. The Outsider. And it's not the best of novels. I just want to brace people for that. It's a novel, it has too much exposition. But one of the things he says in there is that most people don't want responsibility for their lives. And when I read it, I was like, is that true? You know, discernment? I was like, you know, rather than just accepting it wholesale. And as I've observed that over the years, in many ways, I think it is true. And I think, you know, we are always fighting for the. The quote, unquote aspect of free will or for people to have freedom. I, I think there are a lot of people who don't want freedom. I don't think they went enslavement, that's not calling for enslavement, But I think they can be slavish to dogma or what others say, what family says, what friends say, rather than discernment requiring them evaluating things for their own, for themselves.
- [13:46]
A
I'd love to dissect that for a moment. Is it because you believe perhaps an intellectual laziness being a motivator for obedience to dogma? Or more a deflection of responsibility for one's actions?
- [13:58]
C
Deflection? I think, you know, why evolution has been such a slow slog. And on some level there's benefits to that, you know, in terms of how we secure things. And I do think we are still evolving as a species. I don't think we make the quantum jumps that, you know, astrologers and the like are always talking about. This is a new moment in human consciousness and watching. I, I don't think it's as dramatic as that as frequently. But I do think why it's such a slow slog for most of us, for our species, is because we are social animals. By virtue of being social animals, we may find it easier to defer to others. And some people may not necessarily feel comfortable either from a certain, you know, genetic disposition or birth disposition, feel comfortable kind of finding things more on their own or it's been traumatic for them or where it's been very challenging to do that. So they kind of just acquiesce to a different reality. So I don't always think it's intellectual laziness. I think some people just don't have that disposition. Some people are born without that disposition. I think some people are born with that disposition but have it beaten out of them or they lose it or they kind of. The laziness comes from kind of more movement away from it because then they lose many of the perks and pleasures that they currently enjoy. I'll say this, and I know you're going to piece through it. I think this is something that really affects Americans in particular.
- [15:45]
A
Not wrong. You're not wrong. It's a hot topic. So I'm going to set it down for a moment because it is an unfortunate time to have to discuss such a thing. But you are not wrong. You are not wrong. You did once say that you're no longer skeptical of astrology, but of astrologers. How do you keep your own skepticism constructive? Sharp enough to question, but not so sharp that it wounds the mystery?
- [16:13]
C
Well, I don't worry about wounding the mystery for myself or too much for others, because I think the mystery is so much greater than we are. What I do think, where I am skeptical and deal a lot with the leaven of self examination, is more so contemplating the techniques I use, the methods or approaches I use. And from that think about a couple things. Well, one, do they work to what is the logic that informs them, that helps them in terms of working? Because a lot of astrologers will say like, well, I know this is true because it works. Which really is a curious thing for me as a former skeptic, because what defines working? And even more so, what defines how something works? I can give you a very solid example. So many astrologers will subscribe to the opinion that Pluto rules Scorpio rather than the historical ruler or housekeeper. That's a better word to use for Scorpio. The sign Scorpio is Mars. And the use of Pluto as the quote unquote ruler of Scorpio came more into vogue in the 20th century and specifically after its discovery in the 1920s. And then its use more so consolidated towards Scorpio closer to the 60s because there was some debate about whether Pluto was the ruler, housekeeper of Aries or Scorpio. One more on the Scorpio side. So when I've engaged astrologers about using this, you know, based on quote unquote working, I will ask them, well, why do you use Pluto as a ruler of Scorpio? I don't. I use Mars. And I can briefly explain why it has nothing to do per se with working, is that they'll say, well, I know it works. Now again, the former skeptic in me who's studied some research methods, ask, what dictates working for you? Well, just observing this, how it's worked in the dynamics and how I've seen it really kind of nail with some measure, precision, what happens with clients. Okay, so you found that this works based on other astrologers saying Pluto rules Scorpio, which may not have been based on working. If we're going to talk about it from an empirical point of view, which is what they're doing. If we're talking about from empirical point of view, then have you tested it with Pluto ruling Taurus or Aries or Gemini? And they usually have it. And so I'm like, then the nature of your empiricism is more revelatory of your bias than anything that you know is provable, as you would maintain because you're saying it works. Whereas the classical model of astrology related to rulership was not empirical. It was geometric based on speed. The reason why it's called something called the thema mundi T H E M A and then space MUNDI M U N D I and it's called, you know, more the story of the world or creation of the world. And the idea behind it is that the sun and Moon are positioned respectively in Leo and Cancer. And then. And the Moon is the fastest moving body in the heavens, but next to the Moon and flanking the sun on the other side is Mercury as the next fastest moving body in the heavens. So that is going to take care of Gemini and Virgo. And then Venus is the next fastest moving body, is going to take care of Taurus and Library. Then Mars is going to take care of Aries and Scorpio. And then Jupiter is going to take care of Sagittarius and Pisces as the, one of the, the next slowest, penultimate slowest body in the visible heavens. And then Saturn is going to take care of Capricorn and Aquarius from opposing the Moon and the Sun. That is where rulership comes from. It's a schema literally based on more so speed and the geometry of speed and movement related to the signs than empiricism. There's no document that astrologers were looking at Venus moving from Aries to Taurus and be like Abaconuba. I think that Venus is better working, you know, Babylonians, you know, better working in Taurus than it was working in Aries. I think you're right, Abakanaka, I think you're right. I think that that never happened. That wasn't how it came about. So when modern astrologers say like, well, I think Uranus is better or rules Aquarius, again, it's based on another sense of a schema rather than empiricism. But they don't know that the vision of the schema, the reason why Uranus was given Aquarius and Neptune was given Pisces. And Pluto initially was given Aries. As astronomers were discovering new bodies in the heavens, astrologers felt like, well, then we need to make space for them and be willing to kind of basically reboot the zodiac. So will give Saturn, Capricorn as like the last visible planet, will give Uranus, Aquarius, related to a new body, the set of bodies that we're discovering. And that was the first one that we discovered thanks to William Herschel and his sister. And then we go to Neptune that we discover in 18, I believe, 1846. And so that was given Pisces and then Pluto was going to give. It was given Aries. And we know we switched that later, as I said, to Scorpio. But then the expectation is that we would find other planets. And one of the planets we expected to find was Vulcan. And this is again from 20th century lore, Vulcan as like where Spock is from. Yes, that's exactly where Gene Roddenberry got the idea.
- [22:49]
A
It was an intra Mercurial planet, wasn't it?
- [22:51]
C
Correct. It was perceived to be, but we've never found it. And so that was given to Taurus. And so even in esoteric astrology, Vulcan is still seen as the esoteric ruler for Taurus. And then we were going to find other planets and we were going to go all the way around the zodiac again, but that didn't happen. So we kind of. I mean, it did happen, but we didn't assign rulership per se. You know, with Sedna, Quaar, Makemake, we haven't assigned them dimensions of rulership the same way because now they're even deemed dwarf planets. So it was this interesting collusion between astrology, theosophy and astronomy in terms of how we have the basis for rulership. So that's just one example of being skeptical of astrologers. Because when you look at the history and you try to examine where do these things come from correlative to the practice that astrologers have, and correlate it to their beliefs or ideas of things. They don't always line up. So how I keep myself honest, related to your question is, you know, kind of do that triangulation, you know, between history, my own beliefs and my practices.
- [24:07]
A
So let's look at the logic of how some astrologers don't understand the degree of empiricism they're trying to apply. Why would that corrupt intellectual current exist in the industry?
- [24:22]
C
Well, there are a couple different levels and reasons for that that I found. Not everyone comes to, and I don't think everyone should. So that's not me saying that. But not everyone comes with the same skepticism or open intellectual curiosity. So often people will accept what they learn from their teachers, and it makes sense because they're entranced by the mystery, by the woo. And so they're, they're lured in. And just like they become, in many of. In many ways, true believers. And I think there is some semblance of that for many astrologers. Some of them, because astrology is such an open field without a lot of external rigor, they go with the idea like, well, I tried it. I liked it. It works, right? In terms of, like, well, yeah, Pluto's a ruler of Scorpio. So they haven't done a lot of questioning. And so they see astrology as a way of. Of revealing the mystery. And some measure that revelation can come with some accompanied humility or, or just wonder, which I think is wonderful to see. But some of it can come with some measure of arrogance and power seeking that, you know, like, oh, I mean, I had an astrologer say to me, like, I can, using astrology, see the mind of God, which I thought literally was crazy. I know we're not supposed to use that word. And what was interesting about that? I won't mention his name, but I'll mention the specificity of his life. What was interesting is that this is a person who claimed to be able to see the mind of God, but often with his partner, would break into homes to squatting them and then eventually got arrested for it. I mean, didn't the mind of God help you not tell? Or why didn't it help you not get arrested?
- [26:43]
A
One would presume.
- [26:45]
C
Right. And, and that's because I don't believe he really could see the mind of God. I think if we had to talk and position God in this a certain way, I think God allows us to see as much as we are allowed to see. So I don't think it's so much about, you know, just unraveling and unveiling all aspects of the mystery. So I think astrologers often get caught up in thinking that astrology as it is is perfect and not necessarily human made over millions or not millions over thousands of years, and maybe in some ways millions of years, because we've always had a fascination with the stars. But I think in terms of how we have this practice of Western astrology or even Vedic or other forms of astrology, probably in the last four or five thousand years, maybe if you go, you know, in terms of even farther, 10,000 years. But I think there's been this articulation of trying to understand the mystery with that.
- [27:58]
A
Obviously, we've had lots of technological evolutions in the past two or three thousand years looking at how, for instance, telescopic technology has changed. What criteria in science tell you a claim deserves doubt versus patience? I'll use Pluto as an example. The fact that it was reduced to no longer a planet. And then, of course, that debate is ongoing. Do these kinds of calculations matter to you? And if they don't matter to you, are there astrologers they would matter to?
- [28:28]
C
Oh, yeah. I mean, it does matter to me. I do use the outers, specifically Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. I don't use them as housekeepers or rulers of signs, But I do use them. So I just wanted to clarify that because I know may seem like I'm just dissing on Pluto, but Pluto is a very good example. And it's also a good example of how power works related to knowledge. Pluto was demoted at the end of a conference of the International Astronomers Union. And it was demoted by a very small fraction of the astronomers in the union. And essentially it wasn't just, you know, because someone hated Pluto. It was demoted because Pluto brought up too many questions related to it being a planet because it has this odd orbit around or related to the ecliptic. But specifically, there's a question of whether it's like a satellite or distant satellite to Neptune, a larger planet. And then the other kind of confounding issue is that we were discovering more trans neptunian planets. And so are we going to call them all planets, even though some of them are smaller than Pluto? And concomitantly, we also have another planet that we largely had deemed an asteroid for over 100 years, that more of its own orbit and just a little smaller than Pluto. And that's Ceres. And so that was also, I guess, promoted from asteroid to dwarf planet. So it brought up all these questions about. And this is not the first time that this has happened in recorded history or even in the last hundred or so years. When we discovered the four asteroids, you know, Juno, Pallas, Athena, Vesta, and Ceres. They were initially, in the 19th century, deemed as planets and taught as such, until we realized they were more asteroids. And then they were demoted. So this idea of demotion and how it works in astrology is not new. What is new is more so astrologers attempting to figure out for themselves more so, well, how are we going to treat and deal with these planets? Because astrologers Some astrologers even deal with hypothetical planets. Like, some astrologers still use Vulcan related to their work. In terms of esoteric astrologers, some will use eight hypothetical planets based on the ideas of a German astrologer, Alfred Witte, in the 20th century. And these planets have never been found, but they use them and they seem to, quote, unquote, work. And when I say it that way, I'm not dismissing them. I'm just saying they work even though there's no physical aspect to them, literally. So I don't think it's affected astrology related to its work. And this is why I kind of challenge the empiricism of astrologers, because I'm like, if I just put on my skeptic hat for a minute, just forget that I'm an astrologer. You know, just kind of go with more my historical instinct. Most of your field isn't empirical. You know, in many ways, you're. You're really operating more on math and calculations related to things and giving meaning to calculations and math through myth, where you. We have our art. It's not just about what's literally in the heavens, although what scientists come to discover in the heavens seem to have some correlation or impact for us. An astrologer, I adore Demetra George. She likes to say, what's in the psyche is in the sky, and what's in the sky is in the psyche. So there is a mirroring that happens, and I think it becomes more about calculations and yes, some physical bodies that we do discover as our technology advances, but it does require some sobering aspects of it. What kind of sobering things? So sometimes every now and again, when we discover an exoplanet outside of our solar system, someone asks me, what does astrology think of that? And I don't purport to ever speak for all of astrology or astrologers, but it is an interesting question. We find these exoplanets, and I'm. I. I generally think, well, not much because we don't know much about this planet. It's not necessarily within our system, and it's probably much more distant, you know, literally from us, both in terms of time and space, to have relevance. I won't say impact, but I will say relevance. So that will be an ongoing pursuit in question, especially when we start exploring in body, actually bodily, you know, other parts of the heavens, like when we're born on Mars or when we're, you know, traveling to other planets and we're able to travel, you know, at faster speeds than what we are able to do now.
- [33:55]
A
A little bit ago, you referenced theosophy, and so, of course, being familiar with the works of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, do you believe that the influence exerted by planets or stars is something that is active, passive, or simply through perception?
- [34:13]
C
I lean more toward perception, but I do believe that there is a correlation between something, whether you want to talk about it as the spirit of a planet or a damon, or some other sets of mechanisms that we don't even know yet, that that may explain how something is. Is happening to us or how we experience. William James once gave an analogy for, you know, talking about. He was talking about free will and fate, and he gave this analogy of, you know, turtles stacked on top of each other all the way down in a very deep, you know, lake or ocean, and that we just see like the. The turtle is at the top, but there. There's. There's turtles all the way down. And one of the things that scientists have come to discover, there's so many different things at any particular moment that's impacting us that we can't even necessarily trace all these things. And our inability to trace all these things may be what's at the heart of what we call free will. You know, we think, oh, I. I willed it. Whereas it could have been the pastrami sandwich you had two weeks ago, or the gut bacteria that's mandating, or you have toxoplasmosis, or any number of things. I mean, you could be perfectly healthy, but the conditioning of your cerebrum cortex has allowed you to, you know, do things a certain way. Our forebears thought differently in terms of how the world operated. So it's natural that they would look to stars, planets, and things beyond them, because that's where they believe we would go or where we've come from. And I'm not saying they're wrong. In fact, astronomers would agree that we, you know, we're made of the same star stuff. So how things affect us, how things work with us are largely unknown and could be ascribed to many different things, including, like, you. You asked about perception. I think the perception, though, in terms of that third choice, where Eileen doesn't exclude or negate the possibility of. Of planets working on us, but I think it gives a little more of. A little more, I say, interpretive space to say it becomes a matter of perception.
- [36:55]
A
Well, what made me think of the perception piece was your mentioning of hypothetical planets and how they can work within the system that an astrologer presents. So how do you personally believe the influence or the impact of the stars manifests in the lives of people? In an active capacity, in a passive capacity, or because they've been made aware of something that for them might be a reason for some action to have occurred or for some effort to be put forth?
- [37:25]
C
I think two ways about it. I'll start with the biggest, and then I'll go to the smallest aspect of scale. You know, it really is just the two things. I don't think we're alone on this planet. I don't mean aliens per se. And when I say alone, I mean we obviously know that there's other biological life here in terms of, you know, animals and plants and foliage and all the, you know, and fauna, all these different things that are here. So that is one other kind of way in which we're not alone because that also impacts us. But I also think there are beings that we may not necessarily be able to perceive around us. Whether, you know, historically you want to call them jinn, whether you want to call them fairies, you want to call them devas, gods, whatever you want to call them, I think they're definitely inhabit a space around us. Now how that works, why that works, does it align with science? No. So I, I own that. And we, we cumulatively call that the mystery. This is why I'm not an atheist. The other aspect of it is specifically related to astrology is I think we underestimate the power of culture or the creative power of culture. And the creative power of culture is part of what, how, not only how we see things, but collectively operate in the world. Today is Monday, Moon day. You and I both agreed on meeting at a particular time on a moon day on a Monday. And it's happening and happened on some level that's miraculous. But it really is just an artifact of culture. How we have these designations related to the moon, these designations related to the planets in general, the signs are all these artifacts of culture that have come from the cross fertilization of various cultures over thousands of years, concomitant even with some measure of our evolution. So how could they not influence us? You know, we use the sexagesimal system, you know, counting in terms of 60s for minutes and seconds that come from the Babylonians. We use the Arabic numerals that largely were developed in India. We have the creation of zero, which is also from India. We have all these different things that we take for granted as like matter of fact. Well, this is the, you know, what we see not recognizing that these, these things allow us to be able to participate in the world a certain way. I think astrology is an artifact of culture attempting to understand that broader schema, broader notion I talked about when we're interacting with beings and forces that we don't necessarily identify or understand or know fully.
- [40:38]
A
I recall when we last met, you described race as a symbol that both confines and liberates. Do you see astrology performing a similar double function, both mapping possibility and at times imprisoning people in archetypes?
- [40:54]
C
Yeah, I know there's been this recent argument where people have tried to tie astrology to space racism. Literally. It's been a phrase coined by some people in the last several years. But to your question, I would say there are parallels, but systemic and systematic oppression of a people based on their appearance has not been something that's been rigidly established via astrology or in our society, via astrology. I think along the individual and sometimes occasional aggregate levels, it happens, but nowhere near at the scale that we understand it or have seen it related to race. You know, as an example, ICE is not going out picking people. Are you Scorpio? No. You know, they're just looking at like, you're brown, you have papers. Right. So it, it hasn't ever reached at that scale of affecting people the way race has. Can it on some level, you know? Yeah, I mean, I've. I've heard of cases where people are looking for roommates and they'll say things like Capricorn need not apply or Virgo stay home or things like that. But I, I don't think that's become a societal sensibility, thank thankfully. So I think there, like I said, some parallels, but I don't think it has a spectrum of race or sexism.
- [42:47]
A
Would you illuminate this concept of space racism, then, for us, the way it's been used in popular society?
- [42:54]
C
Oh, well, yeah, I pretty much just said, you know, people who, you know, you know, you go on a date and it seems going well. And she happens to ask, well, when were you born? You know, and you say like, oh, February 14th. You're an Aquarian. Yeah. Okay, can we get the check? That's kind of what people would qualify as a space racism. No. Where you're using astrology to kind of, you know, pigeon yourself in or pigeon someone out or pigeonhole someone out. Yeah. And I know that happens. That, that does happen. I'm not negating that, but its pervasiveness or the systemization of it is not at that scale. So that's what I mean by space. You know, comics, I've heard a few comics, kind of comedians kind of, you know, call it, that's just space racism. And skeptics call astrology space racism.
- [43:55]
A
To the broader praxis of that topic in particular, how do you keep archetypes from becoming excuses for behavior? Someone blaming the fact that they're whimsical on the fact that they happen to be a Gemini?
- [44:07]
C
Yeah, well, I would say there's not, there's nothing wrong with being whimsical except if you're, you're changing your mind when you said you were going to do something, you know, you know, you know, you jilt your bride. I, I think related to signs, you know, I may have said this the last time, so forgive me, I think signs are the lobby level of a very tall edifice that we call astrology. And so when someone excuses behavior, especially bad behavior, based on their sign, they're really doing themselves an injustice because they don't really understand astrology and they're buying more into a certain, we could say, rather than archetype stereotype related to it and rather than again, taking some agency related to their lives, you know, like, so, for instance, it depends on what you, we might see as good and where even something good can go too far. So Capricorns are often associated with being responsible. As an example, okay, we largely can say being responsible can be seen as a virtue, but it can become a vice where you feel like you have to be responsible every, for everything and you become more of a control freak. So if someone you know balks at your control freakiness, you say, well, I'm a Capricorn. That's just the way I'm, I'm made. I think that's where you are not taking responsibility for your own growth because you're not recognizing that someone is experiencing pain, someone's experiencing discomfort, and maybe even more by virtue of one's controlling ways. And I think if it's not coming with some aspect of self examination, if astrology, and I generally say this, if whatever spiritual practice you have doesn't allow for growth, especially in relation to other human beings, it may be even best for you to abandon it. If prayer is only about you getting things or asking for getting things, but not necessarily being in conversation with the divine or knowing how to surrender, then it's not going to help you grow. You're just going to think that the cosmos is Amazon God and it's not going to be something where you are participatory or even that you learn more about yourself and people will look at all dimensions of spirituality that way. Or can. Sorry, can look at spirituality that way.
- [47:14]
A
So though it's a Gordian knot, I think it does need a bit more attention, this symbolic thinking that astrology presents us with, obviously with your analogy of the very tall edifice that astrology itself is, where the lobby level is just signs. Clearly we're looking at something where specific concepts regarding archetypes and hierarchies are in place. Do you believe that this style of symbolic thinking could ever reinforce the hierarchies that it's hoping to dismantle, even on the upper levels of this edifice, where perhaps a style of thinking or a way of predicting something might reinforce the kind of. I don't want to reuse the term intellectual laziness, but perhaps reinforce a lack of responsibility in the minds of people who have been exposed to something like a prediction regarding their health, their fortune, their attitudes towards others.
- [48:19]
C
Yeah, I think, again, that's where we go back to discernment, where people kind of think about. And that also probably leads us back to what I said about faith, where.
- [48:31]
B
You.
- [48:33]
C
See or look more for a relative certainty, a certainty that is more influx related to, you know, aspects of probability, like how we deal with rain.
- [48:51]
A
So then in that way, is that how astrology potentially serves as a replacement for someone's absence of faith in maybe a belief system?
- [48:59]
C
It can if they go more toward astrology. In fact, if they go toward it more, less with faith and more so with just looking for certainty. It could be, for instance, that because we're in communion with something beyond ourselves, whether we can talk about as cultural artifact or going back to that resonance to spirit as I described, you know, which we could say is more oracular, more like what you directly tap into as a medium and a psychic intuitive. I do it through one particular step. I shouldn't say a step away from looking at a chart and getting it that way. But what can happen for someone who gets into astrology? They lose sight of that and they become much more literal. Literalism is what dulls the mind across the board, whether we're talking about, in religion, in spirituality, astrology. It's when we get into the aspects of literalism that we lose sight. And this is the problem with modern science right now. Modern science is enamored with literalism and really doesn't understand that human beings largely have and do function more on the abstract, the metaphorical and the analog. And so if someone gets into Astrology, and I see it all the time, and they get into the literalism or even just the literalism of their own interpretation, then it can become rigidified and something that also captures them rather than frees them. That's not faith. Faith is like, I see this. I can give you an example. I can look at a woman's chart and see on some level, and I say women's chart because it's easier to talk about pregnancy as an example as something that happens for a woman than it does for a man. I mean, men benefit from women being pregnant by virtue of having children, but it's not through. You know, it's not as clear sometimes in a man's chart as it may be for a woman because it's intimately tied to her body. Anyway. Look at a woman's chart and we could talk about the probability of not only perhaps when she gets pregnant, but also if. And I've looked at some charts and I've said I don't see strong testimony for pregnancy in this chart. But that doesn't mean you can't or won't get pregnant, because I'm not God. But I don't see the heightened probability. That would be an example. You know, I always imagine for that person leaving my office or leaving the zoom, where they can recognize the probability. Just like Sarah going back to Avram may recognize the probability that she was going to have children. But that doesn't negate possibility. And so faith is walking along that tightrope of possibility, even knowing that the probability may not be in your favor. And the only reason why you might embrace that possibility is because there's something deep from within that perhaps you've examined or you. You felt, or you, you know, some kind of sign or oracular message that lets you think that is true, like, well, then that might. Doesn't that necessarily negate or go against what you said as an astrologer? Yes, because I'm not God. And I think the. The moment that we don't leave room for error, the moment that we don't leave room for intervention or creativity, I think is the moment where that hierarchy, that hierarchical aspect of anything can become something that weighs us down. It could collapse on us.
- [53:21]
A
Excellent distinction. If I'm not mistaken, astrocartography guided your move to Santa Fe. If you were to create a spiritual map of America now, where would you locate its brightest lights and its deepest shadows?
- [53:35]
C
Yeah, that's one of those questions I don't know if I can answer for a very simple reason, not because I won't answer the cool thing about astrocartography as developed by Jim Lewis, a gay astrologer who we lost too soon to aids. And I really wanted to mention that. Why does this sexuality matter? Because we like to marginalize people's sexuality and not remember how much we have benefited from all of us being involved in this enterprise. But he systematized this idea of astrocartography, even though we've been able to do relocated charts for however long we've been able to do charts. But the idea of astrocartography is the specificity of mapping your planets onto the globe. So the sun is very close to or being in the Southwest for me, along Texas into New Mexico and somewhat Arizona on my quote, unquote, mid Heaven. And so on my midheaven, the sun and Neptune are very strong. That may not be true for you. So I can't speak on this broad level for America. Now, you might say, like, doesn't America have a chart? Yes, America has actually many. I should say the United States, forgive me, South America. The United States has many charts, but one of the ones we use is called the Sibley chart. Now, could I do the astrocartography of that? Maybe. But, you know, I don't know if I can answer that question using astrology in astrocartography. Now, I might conjecture on my own. I came from. I was in D.C. just last month, and D.C. is definitely one of the places where I think there's a good measure of darkness kind of, you know, surfacing and not because I think the people there are dark. And I'm not just exclusively talking about the party in charge in terms of the House and the presidency or the aspects of government. But I think it's just become a hotbed of dealing with more sense of division as a critical point of division that's really rife in our country, you know, rather than, you know, I think that might be romanticizing a little bit, but I think there was a point in our politics where we talked a lot more about. We, you know, Congress could say, like, we are not. We have not come to a decision yet. Whereas I think now we talk more about them. They. They're the obstruction. They're this, they're that. Without acknowledging what we also, you know, our contribution to it, again, abdicating responsibility. And so I think that's become a pattern that's going throughout the country.
- [57:09]
B
As.
- [57:09]
C
We might talk about this going into Chicago or talk about it in, you know, going into Los Angeles and, you know, other places. I mean, it, it kind of is the test case, as I understand it was D.C. and I think it's just gone forward from there. And I, I, I, I am concerned about it, but I don't know if I, I've looked at that using the tools of astrocartography or the like.
- [57:41]
A
Well, then perhaps a different tack. Thinking about the foundation of a city or the foundation of a state. Are you someone who looks at that natal chart and says, well, I can anticipate specific kinds of outcomes based on.
- [57:54]
C
Absolutely, yeah, you can do that. You know, you, There's a chart for New York city, I believe, January 1, 1898. I'll, I'll confirm that, as you know, Google will permit. And yeah, I think there's ways in which we could do that. Now people ask me, is that how we, you know, do charts or should do charts related to moving to a place? No, I was right. It's January 1, 1898, at midnight. New York is a Capricorn city with a moon in Aries and Libra rising. So, you know, we can expect, you know, especially as Saturn goes into Aries, New York, to go through some, some struggles, whoever is the next mayor of New York is going to be dealing with in the next two years, some fiscal and other crises that New York may experience because Saturn in Aries is going to square the sun and challenge the sun and have a challenging relationship to the Libra. We could say it's growing pains, but it may not always feel like growing pains. So I think that can be an example. But you wouldn't necessarily do that correlative to your chart per se. It's better to use something like astrocartography or relocate your chart, because the nature of the city and how the city experiences itself is one thing, which is what that chart describes. You want to understand how that would affect you. So that's why I think relocation is brilliant or astrocartography, then there are other different astrolocality tools that we can use. But one of the reasons why I discourage using charts for places, because you may not always have those. You know, you may have a place like New Orleans that may have three, four charts.
- [59:59]
A
This brings to mind the ethics of interpretation. You told a story about naming a client's energy as vampiric.
- [60:06]
C
Yeah.
- [60:07]
A
Then realizing that truth must be delivered with great care. Has your philosophy of reading evolved toward what you might call astrological nonviolence?
- [60:17]
C
Yeah, do no harm, I think, extends to astrology and astrologers as well. I think we're more in service of Growth and care than just truth. I think truth is important, but truth or honesty doesn't always have to be brutal. And I think when I delivered that message the way I did, I was more in service of truth and honesty rather than care or growth. You're like, well, what's the difference? Well, growth still can entail truth, but you want to say something in some way that you hope the person can receive that helps them grow. You're willing to be in dialogue rather than a monologue. Truth often comes with some measure of monologue. Or when you're just focused on truth, you know what becomes entertaining to you. For instance, maybe someone has some intellectual challenges. And so if they have, I'm not talking about something astrological, but just in general they have intellectual challenges. And you could say, well, it may be good for you to review looking at, you know, what you're, you know, what you're thinking about or what you want to say rather than just saying it or read the document over, or maybe I can help you or someone else can help you review the document. Now they have intellectual challenges. Is that the same as saying, well, no, you really probably need someone to help because you're stupid now. Are they stupid? We could use that nomenclature and it may have some semblance of sense or truth, but is it helpful? Will it help the person grow? Will it, will it give some measure of confidence in other things? No, but you could still say the same thing, like you need someone to help you read this without, you know, or you could ask, do you think it might be beneficial for you to help someone or have someone help you understand this? And I think that becomes important because what I've observed about myself and others, when we have the tendency to be nasty in service of truth, it's often for our entertainment or our own self satisfaction. It's nothing to do with the person. It's violence because you feel hurt or offended or whatever. So I think in astrological practice it is a commitment to that nonviolence as you might describe them.
- [63:21]
A
It's interesting. I was brought up with regular exposure to Walter Mercado. You, I'm sure, are familiar. And he, I know, came under great criticism for being overly optimistic in many cases. Should empathy ever outweigh accuracy in any consultation?
- [63:41]
C
That's a great question. Not that the others weren't either, but I, I have been wrestling with this myself, been wrestling with it because sometimes empathy can blind you to accuracy. There's a client recently who was facing a housing crisis and I, and they, they were evicted Recently I saw the eviction, but I thought it would happen a month or so later. I thought they would be able to fight it a little more. And I wonder, because I care a great deal about this client and have known them for, wow, 13 years and been, you know, in conversation with them from consultations and other things, for 13 years, I wondered if my block, my empathy, blinded me. Now, we could also say, well, some measure of it, you know, you just got a month wrong. You didn't. It's not like you told them, like, oh, no, you're going to stay in that place and it's fine. The eviction was clear, but it was a matter of, you know, the timing related to things. So empathy for the practitioner can, can, yeah, blind you or express more caution than you might normally do, or more padding than you might normally. But if you were to ask me, and you're not asking me, but if you were to ask me, like, well, would you air more on the side of accuracy or empathy? I'm going to say empathy probably every time because, you know, you could be accurate, but. And we think accuracy might even shield the pain. Like, I might have told him, like, no, no, you're gonna, you're gonna get kicked out in two months. And that might have been accurate, but would that have been helpful? I don't know. You know, I know for me, I can only speak about how I've experienced readings, someone caring for me. I remembered a lot more than someone's accuracy, and it's nice when they've been approximate and delivering it with more empathy. I can't imagine someone delivering something that is hard to hear with coldness and that landing well in perpetuity. In fact, I know just the opposite, because it. If someone remembers that cruelty, what we can say was cruelty and they were wrong, that's also what they're going to remember. But if you keep an open heart, a soft heart with some measure of empathy, I still think that that becomes a way of giving, giving care again, that should not come at the cost always of accuracy, but striving for both. But if you have to strive between the two, have more of a heart, there's a story. I haven't been able to find it again, J.C. but there's a story of. It's a Vedic story from Vedic astrology, where Shiva came upon an astrologer who essentially delivered a forecast just callously. And Shiva cursed him, not because he was wrong, but because he was callous. And the curse was like your forecast. Your predictions will not always be Right. And so that became like the legacy to some degree of all astrologers. So I think our belief so much in accuracy can blind us to how we are dealing with care, you know, and a lot of astrologers have done damage control from other astrologers. Basically seek more to be right than loving. And I remember one woman came to me and said that she was at another astrologer who told her that she had missed a boat on her purpose in life. And basically, you know, that was that. And she was pretty distraught, but not recognizing that she did find another sense of purpose, another way. So it's, it's again, not recognizing the power of the mystery and getting caught up in what points to the mystery rather than the mystery itself.
- [68:46]
A
That is fantastic and absolutely, I think, spot on when it comes to the subject of empathy and its usefulness in counseling others, its value not only for the counselor but for the counseled.
- [68:59]
C
Mm.
- [69:00]
A
It certainly is a two way street. Sam, every time you join me here, the sky feels a lot larger. Not because we've filled it with answers, but because we've remembered how vast your wisdom really is. I want to take a moment and absolutely tell everyone who's listening about your class again coming up. You said the first week of November, is that correct?
- [69:20]
C
Yeah. Well, it's November 1st, so November 1st is a day. I'll be Saturday classes. We're going to meet for six times, although there's going to be a two week break, both the 15th of November and the 22nd. 22nd. It's my birthday. I know, but I don't know. I may go away with my girlfriend, so we'll see. But we'll be meeting just before the holidays, the Christmas holidays up until that point. And like I said, it comes with a lot of support. You can go to my website, unlockastrology.com, go to where it says learn astrology and then you'll see there beginner to advanced classes. The beginner classes are open, but the advanced classes right now are not. So that's kind of. That probably won't happen until more into 2026.
- [70:15]
A
One question that comes up for me with a lot of my online classes is if someone can't attend, would they still be eligible for the recording of the session?
- [70:25]
C
Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. Yeah. So every class is recorded and so it's also put up in a secure space and they can access them from. I use circle so they can, you know, once they're in the circle group, access to recordings and all the PDFs and everything associated with the class.
- [70:49]
A
That's terrific. And for this beginner's astrology course, you said the six classes at 360, is that correct?
- [70:56]
C
$360, that's right.
- [70:58]
A
That's fantastic. Very good. All right, Sam, thank you again so much. And I look forward to seeing you in the very near future.
- [71:05]
C
Yeah, same. And thank you. Keep doing your work.
- [71:08]
A
Absolutely. Thank you, my friend. You as well. Talk to you soon. Bye.
- [71:11]
C
Bye.
- [71:13]
A
In today's episode, Sam shared with us.
- [71:16]
B
How almost every aspect of his life pointed him towards a future that required almost no guesswork. He was set on a path that had been carved out. The goals were understandably reasonable and something that, whether he looked forward to it or not, he was more or less willing to fall into. Then one moment, that's all it took, changed everything. One insight, one revelation completely altered his trajectory and ended up placing him exactly where he was supposed to be all along. I can't help but to believe that sometimes enlightenment arrives when we least expect it.
- [72:07]
A
It.
- [72:08]
B
And being receptive to the enlightenment as it reveals itself is exactly what allows us to win in every arena, to succeed in realizing precisely the identity we were always meant to have. My deepest thanks to Samuel F. Reynolds for guiding us through the intricacies of astrology and offering a glimpse into the the ideas that will one day shape his forthcoming book, a work we will have to wait until after the fall of 2026 to hold in our hands. If today's conversation stirred your curiosity, you can continue exploring Sam's world@ Unlock astrology.com, find him on Instagram and threads @sf Reynolds, on X at Unlock Astrology, and on Facebook @ebonyskytalker. Until we meet again here on the observable unknown. Keep this. The stars are far away, but the truths they point to are often much, much closer than we ever imagined. Remember, what appears unknowable often stands right before us, waiting to to be observed through both the lens of science and the wisdom of spirit. Until next time, this is Dr. Juan Carlos Rey of crowscubboard. Com inviting you to look deeper into the observable unknown.