Progressions, Scam
==================

Progressions is one of the most popular techniques in astrology.  It is also
one of the most indefensible.  It is based on a premise that postulates the
following: "each day after birth is equivalent to a year in life."  Thus, if
a person wants to know what is in store for him or her at age 40, a
Progression chart is prepared for a date 40 days after birth - using the same
time of birth.  This is it!

Progressions owes its popularity to "famous" British astrologer Alan Leo, who
promoted it in his book, "The Progressed Horoscope" - while also adding, in
fine print, that the assumption of "a day represents a year in life" needs
further investigation.  The derivations of the "day = year" - there are two
theories -are even more absurd.  Albeit, why would any astrologer want to use
non-existing planets - i.e., planets on day 40 are not the planets at age 40
- to predict anything, when there are real planets at age 40: transits?

Over time, the original assumptions were forgotten.  Progressions soon 
evolved into magical formulas to explain everything in past/present/future 
incarnations.  As with the house systems, one method did not explain 
everything to everyone's satisfaction.  Soon there were Primary, Secondary, 
Tertiary... progressions, but these were still not enough.  More nice and 
neat formulas were demanded, so more were developed such as Naibod in Right 
Ascension.  Such formulas indeed offered additional options of Direct 
versus Converse, and bingo! life's great mysteries were explained with the 
pushing of a few keys, while the simple mysteries about (how to identify from
their respective Natal charts) Picasso, Einstein, Ali, and Trump continue.
 
If an astrologer should indeed prove some day that the basic assumption 
Day=Year is wrong, then the entire card house of progressions and all that 
is derived from it would be negated; ditto the conclusions arrived at 
through its usage.  The problem can be formally separated into two parts: 
1) the assumption Day=Year, and 2) the logic that leads from this assumption 
to Progressions.  The latter, as it was pointed out earlier, is not clear. 
It would require an entire book to guess, analyze, and anticipate the
thoughts the originator may have had in mind.  Fortunately it is not
necessary to do so, for whatever these thoughts were they evolved from the
Day=Year assumption.  The following are some of the points astrologers should
examine. 
 
*  To start, the 12 deg/day assumed for the Moon is not a mean or 
average value.  So, even if Progressions were a viable method, the timing 
of all predictions would be significantly off.  Some astrologers may argue 
that the estimated time of an event could be computed first for the 12 
deg/day rate and then readjusted for the actual speed of the Moon's motion 
at a particular moment.  This argument inherently negates the assumption 
and the viability of Progressions.  The assumption does not state Day=11 
months sometimes, Day=12 months other times, or Day=13 months yet other 
times... It says Day=Year, as derived from the relative motions of the Moon
and Saturn.  Either it is correct, or it is not.

*  Moon's motion changes constantly.  At a given moment for which the 
Progressed Moon is computed it may be travelling at 15.0 deg/day.  At 
that rate, the Moon would cover an entire sign in two (not 2.5) days.  
This would throw off the relationship to Saturn and the assumption upon 
which the model is based.  That is, at 15 deg/day there is no Day=Year 
relationship. 
 
*  Indeed, even if it is assumed that 12 deg/day is correct for the 
entire transit period, how can the assumption survive the theoretical 
contradiction that arises during the 139 days or so every year when Saturn 
is retrograde, when the Moon and Saturn are moving in opposite directions,
and when the logic leading to Day=Year is totally void? 
 
*  If the motion of the Moon had been assumed constant at 15 deg/day, there 
may have evolved an entirely different relationship: Day=Month, to Mars.  
Should this be the basis of a new model of Progressions? 
 
*  Ultimately, these types of relationships are simplistic and 
selectively biased (ie, 12 deg/day) formulas of relative motion.  If one 
of these formulas is valid, all others (eg, Mercury and Jupiter) should be
also valid, even if some of the relationships are not as neat as Day=Year. 
Where does this reasoning lead astrology but to total confusion?
 
*  Is frustration compelling astrologers to imagine answers and solutions 
in a mirage? 


Progressions in Practice

In the June 1986 issue of American Astrology, an author reaches the
following conclusion.  "Tropical terts reveal an emotional state 
anticipatory to the actual event".  He offers no tests nor clues to support 
his conclusion.  Astrology is seemingly full of observations which read and
sound profound but which really do not say anything.  We can assist the
author with the following inquiries.  How does one differentiate anticipatory
feelings which prove idle from those which are followed by the anticipated
event?  If the above statement describes a situation in which, for example,
a passenger has suddenly an ominous feeling and does not get on the plane and
the plane crashes, then this is interesting.  For testing purposes a viable
sample of people with similar experiences must be found.  In studying such
events a number of inquiries may be isolated: whether a) these people
correctly anticipate events periodically (ie, a Natal characteristic possibly
assisted by Transiting Moon), b) they anticipate certain types of events and
not others (still a Natal but a more specific characteristic), and c) it was
a one-time event (possibly a Transiting influence)... 
 
The point is that astrology must deal with these types of events 
scientifically to seek verifiable explanations and patterns.  Otherwise all 
astrology is doing is acknowledging the (already well-known) existence of 
events which are nicely outlined in several books on the subject of 
"believe it or not".  There is a second point.  All of the questions
formulated above can and should be studied first from the Natal and Transits
perspectives. Progressions, even if acceptable, or any other methodology
should be used only after the Natal and the Transit sources are exhausted. 
The former cannot be ignored or evaded.  To do so is to refute everything
that attracted astrologers to astrology in the first place.  The critical
word is "exhausted".  Obviously gaps exist in Natal interpretations and there
are even larger unknowns in Transits.  Astrology should direct its energies
to improving understanding in these areas, not to seeking relief in or
inventing supposedly more definitive magical formulas which are based on
shaky foundation.  The former will take astrology, in minute and laborious
steps, to true progress; the latter, in long and quick jumps, to absurdity.


The following review of Progressions by this author appeared on Page 7 of the
August 1991 issue of American Astrology.


Review: Progressions

o  The entire credibility of Progressions rests on the validity of a curious
   assumption:  "each day after birth represents a year in a personal life."
   Astrologers who use Progressions addictively to predict events do not
   know, nor seemingly care, how this basic assumption came about.  (And
   apparently they are also not disturbed by the fact that they are applying
   precise planetary positions to compute a generalization that is at best
   crude.  It is an exercise analogous to weighing a ton of bricks using a
   chemist's scale.) Over time, the basis of the original assumption - "day =
   year " -was forgotten. Progressions became a magical formula that
   explained everything in past, present, and future incarnations.  There
   evolved "Primary," "Secondary," "Tertiary..." systems and "Direct versus
   Converse" measures. Derivative systems became known as "Directions."  Some
   of the derivatives were given profound titles -e.g., Naibod by Right
   Ascension...  Increasing numbers of books and software modules promoted
   this nonsense and spoke of this wonderful progress in astrology.

o  One of the earliest sources of which I am aware - no date - is a booklet
   titled "Transits" by Dr. Heber J. Smith, published by AFA. Dr. Smith
   suggests (on page 37) that "day = year" is derived from the relative
   motions of Saturn and the Moon.  That is, at 12 degrees per day it takes
   the Moon 2.5 days to traverse a sign. This, he states, is equivalent to
   (approximately) 2.5 years it takes Saturn to traverse a sign.  Bingo!  Day
   becomes equal to a year.  (I can see why people are skeptical of astrology
   and astrologers - and they are not even aware of these absurd
   assumptions.)  Apparently his nonsense soon became indefensible. For
   example, what happens to this assumed relationship when Saturn is
   retrograde, when the Moon and Saturn move in opposite directions?

o  Rather than discarding the entire idea, astrologers concocted a more
   elaborate basis - one that would stand up to scrutiny, they hoped.  The
   new premise states the following: since one day's revolution of the earth
   around itself finds the Sun advanced by one degree beyond the position
   where it was on the preceding day, it would take planet earth an extra 4
   minutes to cover this additional degree.  It suggests that this one degree
   is equivalent to a day of revolution - of the earth around the Sun.
   Therefore, since one degree of rotation is equivalent to one degree of
   revolution, this would mean 360 degrees of rotation of the earth around
   itself (day) is equivalent to 360 degrees of revolution of the earth
   around the Sun in 360 days (year). Therefore, the new premise concludes:
   "a day must be equal to a year."

o  Alan Leo states in the "Dictionary" of his imposing book, "The Progressed
   Horoscope", "the question of progressed birthday at the rate of a day for
   a year needs investigation."  Someone should have asked Mr. Leo why he
   would embark on a huge work without first "investigating" the validity of
   its most basic assumption himself.  His oversight may have misled a
   generation of astrologers.  Mr. Nicholas de Vore, formerly president of
   the Astrologic Research Society, states in his "Encyclopedia of Astrology"
   (page 124)  "This means that the calculations are made in right ascension
   along the equator, and that an error of 4 minutes in the birth moment
   makes a difference of one year in the timing of a condition or event."  He
   adds: "the crux of the matter is whether or not you accept the one deg for
   a year arc of direction as having a scientific justification, and if this
   unit is rejected, both the primary and secondary systems go into the
   discard."

o  I have objections too.  Progressions use the Moon, Mercury, Venus and
   Mars.  The real date is first "compressed" according to fuzzy formula that
   at best applies only to planet earth.  This compressed date is then
   treated as if it is a "real" date and used to plot the positions of the
   all "progressed" planets.  This treatment presumes uniform compression for
   all planets for it does not consider the fact that Mercury... have
   different days and years. (That is, a day on Mercury is different than a
   day on earth, and a Mercury year is also different than the year observed
   on earth.)  So the formula, "next day = next year", for earth becomes the
   same for Mercury...  The real question is: why rely on such mental
   contortions when there are transits: real planets?

o  Many astrologers use a common "escape clause" to justify their use of
   nonsensical techniques: "it works in practice."  Really? Frequently the
   "proofs" provided by them are fuzzy conclusions which may be meaningful
   only to them.  Moreover, there are also coincidences.  An error of (+/-) 4
   minutes - as suggested by Mr. de Vore - is very likely even on a birth
   certificate. This would mean a predictive error range of at least 2 years
   using Progressions. Given 5 progressed planets, in 12 signs, in 12 houses,
   forming 5 major aspects, and affecting an even larger number of natal
   variables, there is huge likelihood of a coincidence of "something is
   happening" -attributed to progressed planets.

o  Use transits: real planets, in real signs and houses, and real aspects.
   It is the only reliable "real-time" predictive tool, in spite of the
   presence of gray areas which significantly limit the effectiveness and
   accuracy of predictions.

In conclusion, the views about Progressions expressed here are not likely to
be repeated by others, even if they know the truth.  After all, they have
books, tapes, and software to peddle.  (End of review.)