skyscript.co.uk
home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

This is a revised version of the interview originally recorded 21/03/99.

Garry Phillipson is the author of Astrology in the Year Zero:


More details of the book and Garry's work, including other interviews are available on his website



An interview with Dennis Elwell by Garry Phillipson




Dennis Elwell's involvement in astrology has been long and deep. After teaching himself the basics as a teenager, in his early twenties he began writing regularly for American Astrology, the first popular astrology magazine. Since then he has built a much-admired reputation as one of astrology's most engaging and thought-provoking lecturers. His articles have appeared in most well known international journals and his widely acclaimed book Cosmic Loom, continues to be appreciated as an outstandingly well-written guide to exploring the theoretical underpinning of astrology. Elwell's interest in science on the one hand, and unorthodox thinkers like Rudolf Steiner on the other, have led him to develop his own unique approach to astrology, one which deserves recognition for the important influence it has had upon many contemporary astrologers.




Q: A chapter title in Cosmic Loom exhorts, 'Become what you are!' which can, it seems to me, be taken in two different ways. The first interpretation is that one should develop latent talents, find a role in life to which one is suited, and live in a bold, unfearful way. The second interpretation is that we are already enlightened (or God-conscious, or whatever) - and should strive to realize that fact. Did you have both these meanings in mind when you chose that title?

Yes, my chapter in Cosmic Loom, 'Become what you are!' expresses our human task. We are not automatically what we are created to be, and there are a lot of failed Aquarians, or amateur Sagittarians, about. At our birth the cosmos will have been working in a certain direction, towards the specific ends which were symbolised in the current state of the solar system, and all creatures and things born at that time were intended to contribute towards the further realization of those ends, according to their capacity as a vehicle. You might say that our human mission is to tune the microcosm to the macrocosm, both as individuals and collectively.

Both your interpretations of this watchword are correct. We are already part of God-consciousness, a cell in the great body of Being, as is everything else, and of course it helps to live in that realisation. But as in our own body, a cell has work to do. We may have been created a nerve cell, or a blood cell, or a bone cell, and it is not enough to sit meditating but to do the work assigned to us. By the contribution cells make to the well-being of the whole, they simultaneously ensure their own welfare. For all I know, God-consciousness is not static but is continually evolving through the experiences that beings with a highly developed consciousness feed in the system.



Q: Do you believe that astrology can help us to become what we are in this second sense, namely becoming enlightened (in the Buddhist sense)?

Probably the affinity of people who are actually living their astrology will be closest to Zen. We are already in the only reality now - THIS is it! It would be fruitful to explore the sense of is-ness that astrology encourages in us. Lately I have been interested in looking again at 'event' charts, many of which are puzzling and do not seem to reflect what actually happened. But that is because we are viewing them through the screen of our preconceptions, which usually amount to little more than the somewhat infantile dichotomies of good/bad, fortunate/unfortunate, happy/unhappy. The reality is contained in what is actually happening, which we should try to understand with astrology's help, not in the considerations of outcomes which we try to impose on events, out of our limited insight. The cosmic connection reveals the meaning of what is happening, its significance, which allows us to add a new dimension to our experience. It is a qualitative dimension. Most of the time people register events according to simple opposites like nice-nasty, success-failure, good-bad, a net which is not finely meshed enough to capture the nuances of meaning.

The outcomes on which we place so much importance are largely illusory anyway, because everything is carried along on the never-ending stream of universal becoming, which justifies reality in its own terms at the very moment of its manifestation. The situation 'as is' is complete in itself, and as such has something to say to us. A film may have a happy ending (or the reverse), but only because the story has been arbitrarily stopped at that point in the action. The ending is not the point of the film - that is almost academic - and the sole point of the film is the film. I am trying to say that we should respect events for what they are in essence, not according to how far we may find them personally convenient or inconvenient, pleasant or unpleasant, and this essence is the true business of astrology.

Anyone embarked on the spiritual journey, which I suppose is the discovery of who they are and their place in the great scheme, will find that an enlightened astrology serves as a reliable compass, partly because the planets reveal the truth of what is happening. The realization that we can explore meaning through astrology has hardly dawned yet, but the heavens are well able to indicate the 'why' as well as the 'what'. For instance they enable us to connect events - perhaps widely separated in time and space - which at first sight would not appear to be connected, but which are in fact in secret association. A radically different picture of cause and effect can be developed in this way, and I have tried to indicate the method in the chapter I have added to the revised Cosmic Loom.



Q: You advocate the discovery and development of 'the cosmic Sun-related self' as opposed to the 'crude two-valued responses' of the 'Moon-self'. Does this literally entail emphasising the quality of the Sun in a chart and curbing the expression of the Moon?

Anyone interested in self-realization (and a perusal of the advertising pages shows this is by no means a universal preoccupation!) must work to tune the various instruments of the cosmic orchestra, so that each is making its proper contribution to the whole. You might say the unfolding planetary patterns are a sort of curriculum or agenda: thus at this time you may have an opportunity to develop your relationship with Mars, next month or next year it may be Jupiter, and so on. Each cosmic principle has to be developed to its proper height, so to speak, and ideally none exaggerated at the expense of another.

One of our tasks is to establish ourselves as a creative centre. We are not automatically at the centre of our life activity, and it is something to be worked at, to be achieved by stages. This function relates to the embodied Sun. But not everybody is living creatively. I don't mean we should all be painting watercolours, or doing embroidery, and such like. It is a matter of being creative in the life-situations that come our way, through the conscious exercise of spiritual intelligence. We can leave the stamp of our own personality on the opportunities and trials we encounter, or we can react robot-like according to our immediate feelings of pleasure or hurt. Such feelings are lunar; they arise as a sort of conditioned reflex, and come laden with the experiences of the past. The Sun on the other hand declares: Behold, I make all things new!

I believe that at this stage of human evolution the creativity of the Sun has to struggle for expression, while the Moon function is too active for our own good. That is to say, our lives tend to be little more than a bundle of reactions. As somebody put it, we are 'other' directed, not inner directed. Rudolf Steiner, speaking of our enslavement to habitual responses, once observed that if some morning we untied our shoelace, and tied it again, this might be the only genuinely free act in the whole day. In our relationship with our surroundings, it is possible to go out to experience with warmth from our own centre, which involves a sense of gratitude for 'what is', or on the other hand - as a sort of lunar default - we can just absorb experience passively. It's the difference between active looking and blank staring.

It is so important to get this Sun-Moon polarity right, and a large book could be written on the subject. If we want to see a sign of the zodiac at its creative best, we should study people born with the Sun there. On the other hand the Moon tends to highlight the 'faults' of the sign, simply because she is so robotic, so swayed by feeling. The Moon placement can almost be regarded as the Achilles heel.

I am reminded of the contrast between the Sun and Moon every morning when I fetch the papers. There are the tabloids, urging us to emote over the latest ephemeral sensation, and there are the broadsheets, trying to address central issues, geared more to intellect and responsible intention. Every day the tabloids win the circulation war, which tells us something about human nature as it currently stands.

My views on the Moon have drawn criticism from feminists and earth mothers. They may have misinterpreted what I am saying. Both the Sun and Moon have their own legitimate sphere. The Moon is habit, and where should we be without the efficient and energy-conserving power of that! Because the concert pianist has practised endlessly, so that the routine of playing is automatically taken care of, it means that the right conditions exist for creative expression. Again, the Moon is reactive feeling, and we should be poor creatures if we were forever insulated from the joy and suffering around us. In general the Moon represents sensory input, and we should remember that experiments in sensory deprivation have proved that without it our mind would lose its hold on reality. Incidentally, Gurdjieff spoke of sense impressions as a sort of food and, just as the quality of the food we eat is physically important, it may be that the quality of our sensory input is important for our inner life. These days our senses are exposed to junk food aplenty!

There is no competition between the Sun and Moon, nevertheless the Sun must be allowed to shine!


Q: Charles Carter singled out 27 degrees of Aquarius/Leo as being one of two zodiacal positions particularly associated with astrology. Since your Sun is on that degree, I would be interested to know whether you agree and if you have anything to add.

Yes, the axis 27 Leo-Aquarius is linked with astrology, but I think its particular connotation is wider than that. It seems to impart a sense of the cosmic, and appears in that role in the charts of non-astrologers. Maybe it is connected with the holistic viewpoint, of which the cosmic is the ultimate expression.


Q: Speaking of your chart: I have come across your chart in magazines, but I wonder if I could check the data?

My own time of birth has been rectified by myself from my parents' recollection that I was born late at night. As I came into the world the clock downstairs kept striking, and the irritated doctor asked for it to be stopped. Synchronistically, it announced the arrival of a noisy nuisance! I have settled for 11:44 pm (16 February 1930, Stourbridge, UK). But the question of the true time of birth is an open one, and even with a stopwatch timed 'first cry' I should want to work with the chart for a while before I relied on the angles with confidence. Birth is a longish process. As well as the first breath, there is the moment of the 'breaking of the waters' when the child - hitherto in a relatively weightless state like an astronaut, displacing its own weight according to the principle of Archimedes - now becomes subject to gravity. The cutting of the umbilical cord signifies a separate entity. However there is the further possibility that our true chart is for an ideal moment which may not correspond with any of the physical stages.

Generally the true time may be earlier than the one recorded. This would explain why the Gauquelin sensitive points occur some degrees distant from the main angles. Again, Charles Carter, a very experienced chart reader, used to say that he always allowed a backlog with the time of birth, so that if just the first few degrees of a sign were rising, he would be open to the possibility that birth had taken place under the previous sign.


Placidus cusps

[Dennis Elwell's birth chart: Placidus cusps]



Q: If I understand one of the points you make in Cosmic Loom, you believe that psychologists express the leanings of their natal charts in the theories they propound, and that this is inevitable, but that astrologers can (in the best cases) avoid doing this because they are working with universal truths?

Yes, since the birth chart represents those values and ideas to which our life is intended to bear witness, every thinker - including the great psychologists - will inevitably spin their theories from out of their own inner nature, and it is right that they should. We lesser mortals do the same of course, emphasising some opinions at the expense of others. But because the cosmos contains all the possible viewpoints, astrologers have the advantage of being able to see how all the varied psychologies and philosophies fit together into one big picture. They are all facets of the same jewel, as it were, and problems only arise when people assert that their personal and limited truth constitutes the entire truth. It encourages a proper humility to realize that the zodiac circle represents twelve equally valid vantage points or philosophies!


Q: This bears directly on a question which particularly interests me: Could there exist such a thing as an 'absolute' astrology, free from individual bias; or is it inevitable that, whenever one looks at a chart, one does so in a partial way - biased by one's partial knowledge and views, by the set of techniques one chooses to use, and (in personal consultations) the way in which astrologer and client affect one another?

It may be because I am an Aquarian, but I do believe in the existence of an objective truth which can be known, or at least inched towards. When some high profile event occurs, the newspapers are full of comment and analysis, but there is a seldom a consensus. Every columnist views the event through the screen of their own subjectivity or, to put it another way, in terms of their personal horoscopes. This cacophony of voices is a measure of the extent to which the world is enmeshed in illusion. However, astrology does offer us the means of taking a more direct path towards an objective and impersonal truth.

One difficulty encountered here is that instead of open-mindedly embracing what one might grandly call the cosmic viewpoint, there is a temptation to graft astrology onto our existing opinions, or our pet philosophy. In this way cosmic truth can become skewed in the direction of our current fads. Nobody can claim to be free from this, of course, but it is at least possible to make an honest attempt to set preconceptions aside, and attempt to interpret what the heavens are saying in their own terms - terms which may not always be immediately understood.

What matters is the conscientious intent to hold up a mirror to the world in which we can see ourselves, individually and collectively, in a new light. In personal consultations there is little point in trying to second guess how the client is relating to the horoscope so far, nor should we talk about the chart in the gossipy terms of the Sun sign columns. The astrological viewpoint involves a specialised language, just as specialised as that of (say) medicine. Your doctor will have different terms for what you call a tummy ache, and it is precisely thanks to that different language that you can be helped. A person's natal chart shows us the cosmic self, and the right approach is to illuminate the client's current understanding from this other, and inevitably strange, perspective.

The mirror we hold up should perhaps be a magnifying mirror. We are after all relating the individual to a larger scheme of things. I like the ringing dictum: 'Magnify to each his own soul!' Equally important, we should be revealing the significance of the biographical dimension. By that I mean we can help to reconcile people with their individual destiny by explaining it in terms of what nowadays might be called a 'mission statement'. Left to themselves, people tend not to magnify but to minify their worth, and their contribution to the whole. From astrology's unique vantage point we can restore their self-esteem, give them back the dignity that may have been undermined by the false values of today's society.


Q: Could you give me an idea of how you prepare and what you actually look at when you read a chart? What factors do you find important which are not generally used?

Some popular books encourage you to start with the signs, but my own jumping-off point is the skeleton represented by the planets and their aspects, stripped of sign influences. In this I would include symmetries (aka midpoints or half-sums), and parallels of declination. Regarding antiscia, these may belong to the co-ordinates based on parallels of declination, since degrees that are in antiscion share the same declination. In all chart reading I pay particular attention to a build up of similar influences, looking for tendencies that might be underlined, perhaps several times over. If an antiscion seems to be contributing something I will note it. Thus Hitler's Venus Mars conjunction falls on the antiscion of Saturn, giving it a much sterner intonation.

I do note the so-called minor aspects, when they are close. Experience bears out the doctrine of George Wilde, who was writing on these angles long before the 'harmonics' concept was born. His view was that if (say) a septile is exact, or nearly so, it may be more important than (say) a wide square. The smaller the angle the tighter the orb. Of course the span of a lifetime allows the opportunity for the finer nuances of the horoscope to manifest, but it may be that in judging mundane charts, or horaries, only major aspects should be considered.

In all charts it has become routine with me to consider the draconitic version - that is, planetary elongations from the Moon's mean node - in relation to the familiar positions in the vernal zodiac. It is significant if a draco planet falls on or opposite a vernal planet. The draco zodiac also has a psychological value in itself, as a sort of qualifying overlay on the tropical. Whereas the vernal zodiac signifies the deeply ingrained disposition, draco seems nearer the surface of consciousness. Thus Hitler's Taurus Sun translates into draco Capricorn, giving him a much more political cast of mind.

The nodes are mysterious 'star gates', seeming to connect us with another dimension - perhaps what occultists would call the astral realm. I do suspect that they, and the draconitic zodiac, might be linked with previous lives, but of course in these uncertain matters one has to tread hesitantly. Perhaps they are a clue to how a past life plays into this one, as a sort of distant recollection. In my chart Saturn square Uranus falls in draco Sagittarius and Pisces, and I could relate to the 'monastic' feel of that combination. Various events and tendencies in my life could well persuade me that when astrology went underground in the monasteries I spent long hours copying manuscripts. But this could just be my romantic imagination working overtime!



Q: How important do you regard Chiron as being in a natal chart, and what does it signify?

On the subject of Chiron, it is as significant as any planet, but I do not go along with the 'woundedness' interpretation. Mention Chiron in a lecture, and you can see the little thought balloons go up over the audience's heads - 'Ah yes, the wounded healer.' But when you are dealing with Chiron in practical work it is better to remember that his mythological namesake conducted a school for heroes. In Cosmic Loom, back in 1987, I described Chiron as 'a provocative planet that quite enjoys giving things a stir, but which above all gives the audacity to attempt.' As old Chiron trains us up towards accomplishments we never thought we could achieve, we need to be able to take the dare, to have an irreverent disrespect for the wise ones who say this or that can't be done. Chiron's style borders on cocky impudence, but perhaps its basic function is to persuade us that nothing is impossible.

The provocative side of Chiron is apt to show itself strongly in combination with Mars. Hitler was born with these bodies in close parallel, as well as septile. There are a lot of quintiles in his chart - the signature of an effective will - and the quintile between Chiron and Mercury is relevant to how he talked his way to power.


Q: Your name has been in the media - not just the astrological media - for two particular predictions you made. I wonder if you could please talk me through these?

The astrological community needs to develop a more experimental and forgiving approach to prediction. I mean there ought to be a climate where it is possible for astrologers to speculate, to brainstorm, to be tentative, without putting their reputation on the line. Instead of striking an oracular stance we have to educate the public to regard our pronouncements in terms of probabilities - best bets. We need to be able to discuss our failures, and how techniques might be improved. After all, economists and meteorologists are not expected to be infallible. Amazingly, there is no consensus on the most reliable methods of astrological forecasting, and only minimal discussion on the crucial question of the language that should be used in conveying these insights.

With so many predictions being ventured, worldwide, the chances are that somebody will get it right sometime. So you can't take any particular comfort when your turn comes around. The only merit is to be able to get it right consistently, because your methods are reliable, which means you can show everybody else how to get it right consistently. Given our pretensions it is crazy that we cannot reach a consensus on what astrology says, rather than what this particular astrologer says. We are here in the domain of the testable. Those who insist that astrology is merely divination dishonour their subject by making themselves indistinguishable from the Tarot readers and rune casters - purveyors of the transient rather than the eternal. My hope for the future of astrology is something altogether more tangible and objective.

The reason I burst into prophetic activity in 1987 was because I had promised my publishers I would try to draw attention to astrology in general, and Cosmic Loom in particular. So I had to cast around for a promising strategy. Because of heightened Neptune activity it seemed that sea disasters were a good bet. As it turned out there were more sea disasters in 1987 than in any other year since Lloyds began to keep records.

As a journalist I knew it was pretty feeble merely to proclaim that sea disasters were imminent. Such disasters are not uncommon and, as I say, with so many sibylline voices in the market place why should yours be given special attention? Not only that, I did not want to create the impression that I believed in absolute predestination; on the contrary I think there is usually room to manoeuvre, because astrology shows us where the hidden levers are. So it was a question not so much of oracular pronouncements as issuing written warnings of the possibility of a Titanic-like disaster to specific companies to see how they would react. One was P&O, who had recently acquired the Herald of Free Enterprise, and the other was Cunard, about to relaunch the QE2 amid much media hype. (The charts of these companies indicated they were suitable for such an exercise.)

The Herald capsized ten days after P&O wrote back to say the company's safety procedures were designed to cope with an emergency from any quarter, thank you very much. There followed a good deal of self-publicity on the theme of 'the warning ignored', with newspaper and magazine articles, and interviews on radio and TV. Needless to say, journalistic scepticism had to be overcome by a careful scrutiny of the relevant correspondence and so forth. One journalist wanted to know what else the sage could see, so I said that in the autumn I was worried about disasters on underground transport, and that such companies should be examining their safety and security. I also mentioned this danger in an Astrological Association lecture.[1] The basis for these fears was the upcoming eclipse which had Mercury conjunction Pluto, with trimmings.

The morning after the terrible Kings Cross fire the regional evening paper, the Express and Star, rang to ask if I recalled the interview I had given them, in which I had cautioned about such a tragedy, and they carried a report to that effect alongside their front-page story.

Had I been asked I might have warned, on the basis of Jupiter-Neptune, that the economy was overheating, with shares trading at way above their true value, and spiralling prices in the auction houses. This trend was to end with the crash of the markets in October that year.

My letter to Cunard brought a courteous reply, reminding me that it was their company which had rescued the Titanic passengers! I was assured my fears would be passed upwards. So that April the QE2 began her maiden voyage after her refit, but things soon began to go wrong. Half way across the Atlantic she received notification of ice in the area where the Titanic lay. What to do? It was decided, to the annoyance of the already inconvenienced passengers, to make a 250 mile detour through fog, thus arriving in New York late.

It has to be remembered that there had been considerable publicity regarding the Herald, and Cunard knew they had received the same letter from me. One of the stewards on board for that journey later told me the ship had been abuzz with the tale of the astrologer's warning. Cunard were put in the amusing position of having to explain to one newspaper that the ship would have changed course even without the astrologer's advice! But who is to say that my letter might not have helped to avert a disaster - after all Titanic had ploughed on into the ice regardless.

On the BBC's Kilroy show I was asked if I had expected P&O to listen to me. Of course not! But you have to start somewhere, and perhaps eventually a sound astrology will be given a respectful hearing. People also wanted to know if P&O had come back to me afterwards, to seek advice. They did not, and I did not expect that either. But I got my revenge when the company came to launch their new flagship, the much publicised Oriana. A very negative Neptune sky! I wrote to say that if they had come back to me after the Herald I would have counselled against launching Oriana at that time, and that in particular I would have urged them to check certain inboard systems.

Well, Oriana's troubles began when she scraped her bottom leaving the German shipyard. She did not sink, but P&O's reputation did! Later that year, after a passenger mutiny, the chief engineer complained that there were 700 things wrong with the ship - including the very systems I had cautioned about. To watch astrology working can give you a certain grisly satisfaction.[2]


Q:Do you believe there was anything going on in 1987 - by way of transit, progression, or any other influence you care to consider - which made you particularly tuned-in to world events?

No, I was not particularly tuned-in to world events in 1987. I don't rely on tuning in, just the application of simple rules which anyone can follow. I do have Neptune in the tenth house, so perhaps it is appropriate that my five minutes of fame should be connected with events on the high seas. Disasters, since Neptune is afflicted! But these things were just party tricks, not matters of particular pride, and involved a lot of teasing and a little luck.

Making really businesslike predictions is a chore. It is alarming the way some astrologers risk their reputations - not to mention astrology's reputation - by venturing predictions off the top of their head. You need to check and cross-check from different quarters, using a mix of data and proven techniques. But at the end of the day, who is going to pay you for the trouble, and who is going to listen? There are ways astrology can be turned to good account, but not by ramming it down reluctant throats.


Q: How significant do you view those predictions as being, when they are set in the context of your entire body of astrological work?

From my point of view, I would not wish to be remembered for any predictions, but for trying to point astrology in a new direction. It has much to offer those troubled souls who are desperate to find some meaning in the apparent chaos of events. It also contains the seeds of a radically different world view, which embraces the mysteries of time, evolution, cognition, personality, and the greatest puzzle of all, the nature of consciousness. But broadly speaking at the moment even astrologers do not see the relevance of developing this larger context, because what they are doing is largely client driven.


Q: What changes would you like to see within the astrological world? And, indeed, what changes to astrology's place in the world at large?

Astrologers are the custodians of a knowledge that can change the world, and the hope for the future has to be that they will work their way towards a more conscientious attitude towards this awesome responsibility. Part of it involves educating the public to recognize the value of the treasure that astrologers hold in their hands. Progress here would certainly sound the death knell of the Sun-sign columns, because people would realize what nonsense they are.



Q: You wouldn't ever write a Sun-sign column yourself, then?

No, I would never write a Sun-sign column. For one thing it must be mind-numbingly boring, having to churn out such drivel day after day. More important, I would fear for my immortal soul. I think a special place in hell is being warmed over for those who cynically trivialise a great truth. All the arguments for and against Sun-sign astrology apply equally to prostitution. Of course, the highest paid call-girls are good at what they do!

If the odious Sun-sign columns have a value, it is to persuade everybody that astrology is just a bit of fun. They serve as a smoke screen. In fact astrology is dangerous knowledge, which could be devastating in the wrong hands. Perhaps it is better for people to be kept in ignorance.

It has been said that you can only earn real money from astrology by pandering to this market. I hope that will not remain the case for long. There ought to be at least as many astrologers as there are medical practitioners, and remunerated at the same level. The reason astrologers are not in hot demand is that what they offer nowadays is not seen as relevant to the burning issues of life. The tendency to use astrology as the back door to a psychotherapy practice has distracted attention from its real power.



Q: How did you get interested in astrology?

The way I became interested in astrology set the path I was to follow. When I was sixteen there were a lot fewer books available, and their tone was different. In the public library I came across Secret Service of the Sky, by Louis de Wohl. I remember Ronald Davison telling me this had been his own introduction to the noble art. Imagine - the planets as spies in the sky, leaking secret information! It appealed to my Scorpio ascendant. Another book was A Beginners' Guide to Practical Astrology by Vivian Robson, with its interpretations so rooted in the world of concrete experience, which - despite its limitations - served to immunise me against the long-winded introspections so prevalent today.



Q: Which astrologers have influenced your work, and who do you admire amongst astrologers from all eras?

A great many astrologers have shaped my own ideas, and we all owe an immense debt of gratitude to those who have transmitted this knowledge, and added their quota, down the centuries. In my view, the thrust of a justifiable astrology is both modern and western. I suppose I admire Charles Carter more than most, because he relied on fresh observation, rather than just rehashing the tired opinions of others. In the progress towards a defensible astrology, of which the world stands in such need, the intellectual honesty of astrologers like Carter will one day be justly celebrated, just as surely as so much of what today passes for astrology will long ago have been laughed off the stage.


Thank you, Dennis. I've long admired your ability to bring horoscopic symbolism to life, and your frequently inspired pursuit of the big questions that astrology raises. It's been a real pleasure to learn a little more about you and your work.



Dennis Elwell can be contacted by email at dennis.elwell@virgin.net


Online articles by Dennis Elwell

Recommended link: Dialogue between Dennis Elwell and the Researchers

Garry Phillipson's site features the full exchange between Dennis Elwell and four renowned critics of astrology. This link takes you to a page which gives more detail on the 10 articles which make up this body of work.



Garry PhillipsonGarry Phillipson has practised astrology since 1976. His other interests include Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Astrology in the Year Zero published in 2000, resulted from Garry's study of astrology - in particular, from his investigation of the philosophy and assumptions that underpin the subject. His articles and lectures have appeared under the aegis of groups including the Astrological Association of Great Britain, the Astrological Lodge, the Company of Astrologers, the Urania Trust, the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism, The Mountain Astrologer, and Ascella. He is currently working on a PhD about astrology and truth at the University of Wales, Trinity St. David.

Visit Garry's website at http://www.astrozero.co.uk/





Notes & References:

  1] 'How Far Can the Future Be Predicted?' The Astrological Journal, Vol XXIX No.6 p.263.
Back to text
  2] For more details on Dennis Elwell's prediction regarding the Herald of Free Enterprise and the King's Cross Fire see: An Astrological Warning of Trouble at Sea, and Eclipses: The Kings Cross Eclipse
Back to text

© Garry Phillipson, 2006 - all rights reserved.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk

Professional Astrology

Cosmic Loom by Dennis Elwell
By Dennis Elwell



Interviews:
Bernadette Brady
Darby Costello
Benjamin Dykes
Bernard Eccles
Dennis Elwell
Kim Farnell
John Frawley
Dorian Greenbaum
Darrelyn Gunzburg
Robert Hand
Mike Harding
Deborah Houlding
Warren Kenton
Maurice McCann
Garry Phillipson
Christine Skinner
Shelley von Strunckel
Komilla Sutton
Graeme Tobyn
Robert Zoller



Plus ...

An Interview with some American Astrologers

by Deborah Houlding
       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated