Lance wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:09 am
Steve, would you care to give me Cosmobiology in a nutshell. Some of us are newbs.
Lance, as you may understand, a comprehensive answer to that question requires more than a post. It would be embodied in over a dozen books I have, reaching in many directions. (Similarly, one can't summarize Sidereal Astrology adequately by saying, "They're the people who use a different zodiac and something about solar and lunar returns, and they all think they're superior to the rest of us."
But, in a nutshell...
Cosmobiology is the school of astrology stemming primarily from the work of Reinhold Ebertin. Because he was in Aalen, it is also called the Aalen school, in contrast to the Hamburg school of Alfred Witte (which we know in America as "Uranian Astrology"). Up to a point, Cosmobiology resembles Uranian - Aquarian Ebertin, as Aquarian Witte's effective heir and active critic - but I won't digress into that contrast too deeply (just a sentence for historic perspective).
Cosmobiology, as a system, has attitudinal
distinctions. Its attitudinal distinctions (which it shares with Sidereal) are that its founder was one of the first significant astrologers fiercely driven by empiricism and taking a fundamentally psychological approach to interpretation. (The contrast between Ebertin's The Combination of Stellar Influences
and Witte's Rules
is substantial not just in their content but in their underlying approach.) If you have Combinations
, as it's usually known, for its German abbreviations), the first page for each individual factor or combination clearly shows how interpretations are built up from principle through psychological expressions.
What most people think of when they think of Cosmobiology, though, is its technical
distinctions. Simplifying somewhat: Cosmobiology methodology almost entirely arises from two premises: (1) Individual chart factors (planets and angles) and the midpoints
of any two of these are all valid chart factors. (2) Any 45°-series aspect is valid between any combination of individual of factors and/or midpoints (i.e.,
planet-to-planet, planet-to-midpoint, midpoint-to-midpoint).
In a big sense, that's it (or the 95% of "it" that can be summarized in a short piece). However, from those two premises come dozens of developments, practical applications, and strategies. Ebertin also invented new tools to make all of this dramatically easier (he invented the graphic ephemeris and modified Witte's 360° and, especially, 90° dials, tools that are now commonplace in astrological software). We wrote extensively (many excellent examples-ridden books) on basic principles of Cosmobiology, its application to natal analysis, its use in prediction, and its use in synastry. His rigorous psychology-driven approach always locked my attention. He expanded into medical astrology and we have several discoveries from him.
As you might expect, my greatest interest in Cosmobiology was always in natal analysis. Steve's presentation, on the other hand, looks like it will be focusing especially on the predictive side of things. In this respect, notice that the same two principles I cited above are at the core of everything: (1) Individual chart factors and their midpoints are all valid chart factors, and (2) any 45°-series aspect is valid between any combination of any of those.
From a method
point of view, Cosmobiologists most rely on Solar Arc directions. I don't think this is because Solar Arcs are better than any other main method (though it's clearly a
valid method) but because they only needed one sheet of paper to do any part of anyone's life! That is, since all solar arc points maintain the same relationship to each other that the original natal factors did, you can sit and spin the 90° dial forward and backwards to any point in life and instantly read all combinations that Cosmobiology thinks are worth bothering with. (I could show you in less than a minute in person, with a dial in hand; it's harder to do by description. Until you've walked someone through their fundamental character and every major detail of their lives with one chart on one sheet of paper and spinning a dial forward and back, you don't know what a speed rush from astrological analysis is like! <g>)
One of the most important practice
principles of Cosmobiology - which Steve is emphasizing - is that every planet and point has a cosmic state,
which is the sum of all the factors modifying it astrologically (within the Cosmobiology priorities, of course). This consists of aspects to points and midpoints; specifically all conjunctions, oppositions, and squares within 5°, semi-squares & sesqui-squares within 2°, and all midpoints (direct or indirect) within 1°. (Larger orbs up to 2° remain controversial, with a range of opinions which shifted according to when and from whom they originated.)
Finally, in addition to the attitudinal
similarities between Sidereal astrology and Cosmobiology, there are several striking technical similarities in the working priorities of the two systems. Both heavily favor hard aspects (Sidereal founders were more comfortable including trines and sextiles as lesser factors; they are almost entirely neglected in Cosmo: Siderealists always gave highest priority to conjunctions, oppositions, and squares). Both place heaviest focus on angles and luminaries, which Cosmobiology calls the personal points
(Cosmobiology also includes Moon's Node as a personal point). Both heavily minimize or ignore houses most of the time. Both minimize or ignore Tropical signs (Cosmo because they observe those signs are of negligible importance most of the time, Sidereal because we've found where the real signs actually are).