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
     of astrology.

     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.