What do you think?
Rate this book
You Don't Really Believe in Astrology, Do You?: How Astrology Reveals Profound Patterns in Your Life
- Discover how the ancient language of astrology is completely relevant to your life today. - Understand how your birth moment encapsulates the 'information seed' for all that unfolds in your life. - Appreciate how astrology is a language of meaning that helps you decode your inner reality and outer experience. - Learn how understanding your birthchart can help you live a bigger life, as a true co-creator. "This is a fascinating book, which weaves threads of history, philosophy, science, and quantum theory as the context for astrology." Dr. Joe Dispenza, Neuroscientist, Chiropractor, Author, Lecturer "You did a brilliant job, and are to be commended for such a serious and intelligent exploration and demonstration of this divine cosmic study, and why it is of value to humanity." Raymond Merriman, CTA (Commodities Trading Advisor) and President of Merriman Market Analyst Inc. "What a great read! Interesting, inspiring, enlightening." Sue Stone, Author of Love Life, Live Life, and Happiness and Empowerment Coach Of her work: "Beautiful, sensitive, integrated, superb astrology; world-class work." Noel Tyl, Master Astrologer
- GenresAstrologySpirituality
208 pages, Paperback
First published November 12, 2013
118 people are currently reading
145 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 29, 2021
Judging by the title of the book--*You Don’t Really Believe in Astrology, Do You*-- the first impression is that the book was written to address some of the controversies surrounding the validity of astrology. However, for the most part, the emphasis of the book is on introducing astrology, how it works, and how it can be used to enhance people’s lives, as well as some topics unrelated to astrology. In short, there seems to be a mismatch between the title and the content. So bear in mind, the primary audience of the book is not the skeptical critic of astrology, but rather someone who is not familiar with astrology, but would like to gain a general idea about the subject and its usage.
In the introduction to the book, the author argues astrology is the language of the stars and the question “do you believe in astrology” is a non-sensical question because one cannot say they do not believe in a given language. She uses the analogy of translating French into English. However, the point the author misses here is that the question “do you believe in astrology” inquires if one believes astrology is indeed the language of the stars or not. In other words, do planetary positions really correlate with the events happening on earth or one’s personality/aptitude traits? In this light, contrary to the author’s claim, the question “do you believe in astrology” is indeed a valid and sensical question.
The first chapter of the book begins with a brief “History” of astrology. I capitalize the word history and use it in quotation marks because it is simply the reiteration of the conventional Euro-centric and Greco-philic constructed history which most astrologers seem to have taken for granted simply because it has been repeated enough times and cited in a good number of books. The author of the book follows suite without critically engaging with the subject matter.
In the second chapter, the author immediately jumps on to argue for the importance of the four angles in a birth chart without even explaining what a birth chart is to begin with (for the novice reader who may not know what a birth chart is this could be confusing).
She then refers to a French psychologist/statistician—Michel Gauquelin-- who had done statistical analyses in the last half of the 20th century to examine the possible correlations between planetary positions and certain careers and personality traits. She selectively draws on some of Gauquelin findings to support her position and ignores those Gauquelin’s findings that are inconsistent with astrological clichés.
For instance, Gauquelin found out the position of Mars in the cadent houses (especially the 12th and the 9th) as well as in the first decant of the angular houses (especially the first and the 10th) correlates with having eminence in athletic as well as medical professions. The author mentions Gauquelin’s findings on the athletes, but she leaves out his findings about physicians. Similarly, she reports on Gauquelin’s findings about cadent (and angular) positions of the moon with writers, but she ignores Gauquelin’s empirical findings that these moon positions have higher probability among politicians as well compared to the general population. The reason that she drops the findings about the positive correlation between Mars position and physicians or the moon and politicians could be that they are inconsistent with astrologers’ stereotypes of Mars and Moon. (Astrologers do not associate Mars with caring occupations such as in health care professions or the moon with the very public, ambitious, and competitive realm of politics; hence, these findings challenge dearly hold beliefs of contemporary astrologers.) Therefore, she uses Gauquelin’s findings selectively.
Moreover, despite 40 years of extensive research, Gauquelin failed to find any correlation between the Sun, Mercury, or the “modern” planet’s positions with any career or personality traits. The author, conveniently, leaves out this part too and claims Gauquelin’s findings “support astrology”.
At the end, Gauquelin arrived to the conclusion (which is very similar to my own subjective view of astrology) that while there are some truth to astrology, not all of astrological beliefs/clichés/stereotypes are true. In other words, his findings showed there is a merit to astrology as a discipline, but not necessarily the content astrologers tell us.
He came up with a new idea about astrology which he explained in his later book *Neo-Astrology*, arguing many of current astrological beliefs about zodiacal or planet qualities are ungrounded.
I have personally noticed this especially in terms of qualities astrologers attach to the elements (i.e. air signs are intellectual, water is about emotion, etc.) I have not done a systematic research myself, but I had a look at the birth chart of some of famous scientists and intellectuals such as Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Darwin, Noam Chomsky, etc. and found out curiously all of these individuals have hardly any planets in air signs (associated with “intellectualism” or science by astrological dogma). The first three scientists/inventors, especially, had high emphasis of water element in their charts which astrologers associate with emotionally (which in turn is perceived as “anti-thesis” to intellectualism by the popular common beliefs). A good book written on defending astrology would address these discrepancies.
Oddly, the section on Gauquelin’s studies is all the book *You don’t Believe in Astrology, Do you* has to offer regarding scientific “backing” of astrology. The rest of the book engages with a general overview of different sorts of topics related (or at times unrelated) to astrology, but no serious arguments are presented to refute legitimate criticism/concerns about astrology (i.e. the after the fact explanation, the black swan phenomenon, double meanings in astrological interpretation, power of suggestion, etc.).
Moreover, the other major challenge to validity of astrology which this book ignores to address is the internal inconsistency between astrological traditions. I am not talking about minor controversies which are found in every discipline, but fundamental disagreements in structuring horoscopes.
For instance, all your life you could believe you were a Leo Sun with moon in Libra based on your Western tropical chart, but once you switch into sideral chart you could be told you are a Cancer sun with Moon in Virgo. Interestingly, both Western and Vedic astrologers believe their presentation of the given native’s personality is correct while they are basically reading two different charts (same aspects, but different signs and house placements as well as different degrees). A thorough book on why one should believe that astrology works would address these issues and present possible explanations for such huge inconsistencies between the astrological traditions.
Aside from the discrepancies between Western tropical and Vedic Sideral schools, even within the Western traditions there are various major inconsistencies. For instance, the whole house system versus the placidus verses the equal house system, etc. Apparently, each astrologer either follows the tradition they learned from their instructor(s) or eventually they decide which house system works for them better than others on subjective basis.
The other issue with this book is that it jumps from one topic to the next, at times, without a coherent logical order. For instance, while discussing the four angles, out of the blue it jumps onto explaining the process of birth time rectification, and makes exaugurated claims to suggest time rectification is a precise scientific process. It claims astrologers can calculate one’s exact birth time by asking a series of “black and white” questions with definite yes and no answers. This sounds very impressive. After all, what could prove the validity of astrology more than a successful time rectification? THIS would be a proper scientific method to establish empirical validity for astrology (at least for the predictive astrology) as the hypothesis (the assumed birth time) has falsifiability properties (i.e. can be proven wrong—paradoxically, only falsifiable claims are qualified for scientific examination). If astrologers could really determine one’s birth time based on the dates of major events in the native’s life (i.e. date of marriage, divorce, death of a family member, migration, etc.) then no body could question the validity of (predictive) astrology.
However, as exciting as this sounds, this is not the case in practice. In a real life rectification process, the astrologer assumes couple of hypothetical birth times (within a small window of time frame, normally two hours) to determine which birth time is *more likely* than the others to be the real birth time. Moreover, contrary to what the author claims, most rectification questions are vague, have “gray” answers, and the time frames are much wider than the examples given in this book. For instance, in real life chart rectification, astrologers would ask questions like “did you receive some recognition in some area in your life between the age of 9-10”? Or “did you feel empowered around age 20”? Anyone who thinks hard, can probably recall some “recognition” or “empowerment” within the given time frames.
Even if astrologers strictly asked yes and no event-based questions, several astrologers could still arrive to different answers because there are different methodologies that they could use. For instance, some astrologers may use transits, some solar-arc directions, and some ancient timing techniques such as zodiacal releasing from the Perso-Arabic Parts like Part of Fortune or the Lot of Sprit. Depending on which method they use, and which life events they focus on, several professional astrologers could arrive to several different answers. Consequently, the procedure lacks external reliability. Hence, the author exaggerates the precision and reliability of this process.
The author also presents her own view on the role of “free-will” over one’s planetary configurations. (I think she brings up this discussion to counter the fatalistic approach to astrology since many people—in order to sooth their cognitive dissonance-- disapprove of astrology because of the perceived fatalism). She uses the analogy of a sheet of musical notes and the “levels” one can play this sheet of music (i.e. with tin spoons on a bucket or the national symphony orchestra). This idea bears resemblance to the epigenetic model that argues genes can be expressed differently in different environments (including one’s emotional states and thought patterns), thus one is not the “victim” of their genetic make up.
As intriguing as her theory sounds, it is not completely viable in the context of astrology. In the case of genetics, one’s genetic make up is normally independent from one’s mental state (i.e. thought or emotional patterns), so it is not illogical (in theory) to assume one could alter their genetic expression via their thoughts and life style (whether this is scientifically sound or not is out of the scope of this piece, however, the theory itself is logically plausible). In the case of the natal chart, however, one’s mind, will-power, drive, self-discipline, courage, level of intelligence (the tools that one needs to alter their “frequency”) are already inside one’s chart. It is like being on the bus and trying to push the bus forward. For instance, one who has a well-placed/aspected Saturn will have an easier time to stick to a strict regiment of scheduled mediation, monitoring their thoughts, or stick to other exercises necessary to “change their frequency” in order to manifest the “higher expression” of a given planet than the native whose main problem in their life could be low degree of self-discipline or difficulty in sticking to schedules and routines, or simply unable to cognitively grasp this concept. To put it simply, when the “tools” of alterations are already afflicted in the horoscope, the alteration is compromised, not to mention when contradictory planetary energies are entangled (e.g. one having a Saturn and Uranus transit on their MC at the same time, or having a transit that contradicts the qualities of their natal aspects, etc.) the native might end up in a no-win situation (i.e. if they honour their Saturn transit to their MC by bending their head and following the established rules, their Uranus transit that requires the opposite from the native will knock them down or vice versa). Hence, the idea that people have equal opportunity to play their “sheet of music in a high level” is flawed.
In order to demonstrate her argument, the author presents the example of two clients with musical gift who were born close to each other in terms of time and space, thus had relatively similar charts. One with a “satisfying” high-end career in music and the other one with an “unsatisfying” career in music as a school teacher. She concludes the reasons for their “career success” and their level of “satisfaction” in life were the differences between their “frequencies” (i.e. thought patterns, etc.). She claims had the second man maintained a “high frequency vibration”, he would have achieved the same career heights as the first man. There are two major logical problems with using this example as an evidence to support her theory:
a) The unsatisfied man could be someone with high exceptions. Even if he had the same position as the first man, he could still feel unsatisfied with his achievements. There are people who are proud to have achieved being a janitor or a bus driver, and there are people who no matter how far they achieve, still feel they haven’t achieved enough. The subjective perception of people’s level of “achievement” is not an indicator of how much they could have achieved.
b) Despite the close proximity of time and place of birth, they did not have the exact same chart. As there are up to 3000 contributing factors in a natal chart, the second person could lack certain factors (unrelated to musical talents) that the first man had in order to achieve a high career position. Curiously, early in the book the author explains how a few minutes discrepancy between two charts can create major differences in one’s chart, specifically, in their careers as it was allegedly demonstrated by the “Mars Effect” studies by Gauquelin. However, in this example she conveniently assumes the only reason they had different positions within the same music career was their “frequency” (i.e. the free will part), ignoring all other factors that were different in the two men’s charts. (e.g. communicational skills, agreeability, self-confidence, astrographies, etc.)
In another chapter she discusses the usefulness of astrological consultation for choosing careers. Even if one’s ap
In the introduction to the book, the author argues astrology is the language of the stars and the question “do you believe in astrology” is a non-sensical question because one cannot say they do not believe in a given language. She uses the analogy of translating French into English. However, the point the author misses here is that the question “do you believe in astrology” inquires if one believes astrology is indeed the language of the stars or not. In other words, do planetary positions really correlate with the events happening on earth or one’s personality/aptitude traits? In this light, contrary to the author’s claim, the question “do you believe in astrology” is indeed a valid and sensical question.
The first chapter of the book begins with a brief “History” of astrology. I capitalize the word history and use it in quotation marks because it is simply the reiteration of the conventional Euro-centric and Greco-philic constructed history which most astrologers seem to have taken for granted simply because it has been repeated enough times and cited in a good number of books. The author of the book follows suite without critically engaging with the subject matter.
In the second chapter, the author immediately jumps on to argue for the importance of the four angles in a birth chart without even explaining what a birth chart is to begin with (for the novice reader who may not know what a birth chart is this could be confusing).
She then refers to a French psychologist/statistician—Michel Gauquelin-- who had done statistical analyses in the last half of the 20th century to examine the possible correlations between planetary positions and certain careers and personality traits. She selectively draws on some of Gauquelin findings to support her position and ignores those Gauquelin’s findings that are inconsistent with astrological clichés.
For instance, Gauquelin found out the position of Mars in the cadent houses (especially the 12th and the 9th) as well as in the first decant of the angular houses (especially the first and the 10th) correlates with having eminence in athletic as well as medical professions. The author mentions Gauquelin’s findings on the athletes, but she leaves out his findings about physicians. Similarly, she reports on Gauquelin’s findings about cadent (and angular) positions of the moon with writers, but she ignores Gauquelin’s empirical findings that these moon positions have higher probability among politicians as well compared to the general population. The reason that she drops the findings about the positive correlation between Mars position and physicians or the moon and politicians could be that they are inconsistent with astrologers’ stereotypes of Mars and Moon. (Astrologers do not associate Mars with caring occupations such as in health care professions or the moon with the very public, ambitious, and competitive realm of politics; hence, these findings challenge dearly hold beliefs of contemporary astrologers.) Therefore, she uses Gauquelin’s findings selectively.
Moreover, despite 40 years of extensive research, Gauquelin failed to find any correlation between the Sun, Mercury, or the “modern” planet’s positions with any career or personality traits. The author, conveniently, leaves out this part too and claims Gauquelin’s findings “support astrology”.
At the end, Gauquelin arrived to the conclusion (which is very similar to my own subjective view of astrology) that while there are some truth to astrology, not all of astrological beliefs/clichés/stereotypes are true. In other words, his findings showed there is a merit to astrology as a discipline, but not necessarily the content astrologers tell us.
He came up with a new idea about astrology which he explained in his later book *Neo-Astrology*, arguing many of current astrological beliefs about zodiacal or planet qualities are ungrounded.
I have personally noticed this especially in terms of qualities astrologers attach to the elements (i.e. air signs are intellectual, water is about emotion, etc.) I have not done a systematic research myself, but I had a look at the birth chart of some of famous scientists and intellectuals such as Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Darwin, Noam Chomsky, etc. and found out curiously all of these individuals have hardly any planets in air signs (associated with “intellectualism” or science by astrological dogma). The first three scientists/inventors, especially, had high emphasis of water element in their charts which astrologers associate with emotionally (which in turn is perceived as “anti-thesis” to intellectualism by the popular common beliefs). A good book written on defending astrology would address these discrepancies.
Oddly, the section on Gauquelin’s studies is all the book *You don’t Believe in Astrology, Do you* has to offer regarding scientific “backing” of astrology. The rest of the book engages with a general overview of different sorts of topics related (or at times unrelated) to astrology, but no serious arguments are presented to refute legitimate criticism/concerns about astrology (i.e. the after the fact explanation, the black swan phenomenon, double meanings in astrological interpretation, power of suggestion, etc.).
Moreover, the other major challenge to validity of astrology which this book ignores to address is the internal inconsistency between astrological traditions. I am not talking about minor controversies which are found in every discipline, but fundamental disagreements in structuring horoscopes.
For instance, all your life you could believe you were a Leo Sun with moon in Libra based on your Western tropical chart, but once you switch into sideral chart you could be told you are a Cancer sun with Moon in Virgo. Interestingly, both Western and Vedic astrologers believe their presentation of the given native’s personality is correct while they are basically reading two different charts (same aspects, but different signs and house placements as well as different degrees). A thorough book on why one should believe that astrology works would address these issues and present possible explanations for such huge inconsistencies between the astrological traditions.
Aside from the discrepancies between Western tropical and Vedic Sideral schools, even within the Western traditions there are various major inconsistencies. For instance, the whole house system versus the placidus verses the equal house system, etc. Apparently, each astrologer either follows the tradition they learned from their instructor(s) or eventually they decide which house system works for them better than others on subjective basis.
The other issue with this book is that it jumps from one topic to the next, at times, without a coherent logical order. For instance, while discussing the four angles, out of the blue it jumps onto explaining the process of birth time rectification, and makes exaugurated claims to suggest time rectification is a precise scientific process. It claims astrologers can calculate one’s exact birth time by asking a series of “black and white” questions with definite yes and no answers. This sounds very impressive. After all, what could prove the validity of astrology more than a successful time rectification? THIS would be a proper scientific method to establish empirical validity for astrology (at least for the predictive astrology) as the hypothesis (the assumed birth time) has falsifiability properties (i.e. can be proven wrong—paradoxically, only falsifiable claims are qualified for scientific examination). If astrologers could really determine one’s birth time based on the dates of major events in the native’s life (i.e. date of marriage, divorce, death of a family member, migration, etc.) then no body could question the validity of (predictive) astrology.
However, as exciting as this sounds, this is not the case in practice. In a real life rectification process, the astrologer assumes couple of hypothetical birth times (within a small window of time frame, normally two hours) to determine which birth time is *more likely* than the others to be the real birth time. Moreover, contrary to what the author claims, most rectification questions are vague, have “gray” answers, and the time frames are much wider than the examples given in this book. For instance, in real life chart rectification, astrologers would ask questions like “did you receive some recognition in some area in your life between the age of 9-10”? Or “did you feel empowered around age 20”? Anyone who thinks hard, can probably recall some “recognition” or “empowerment” within the given time frames.
Even if astrologers strictly asked yes and no event-based questions, several astrologers could still arrive to different answers because there are different methodologies that they could use. For instance, some astrologers may use transits, some solar-arc directions, and some ancient timing techniques such as zodiacal releasing from the Perso-Arabic Parts like Part of Fortune or the Lot of Sprit. Depending on which method they use, and which life events they focus on, several professional astrologers could arrive to several different answers. Consequently, the procedure lacks external reliability. Hence, the author exaggerates the precision and reliability of this process.
The author also presents her own view on the role of “free-will” over one’s planetary configurations. (I think she brings up this discussion to counter the fatalistic approach to astrology since many people—in order to sooth their cognitive dissonance-- disapprove of astrology because of the perceived fatalism). She uses the analogy of a sheet of musical notes and the “levels” one can play this sheet of music (i.e. with tin spoons on a bucket or the national symphony orchestra). This idea bears resemblance to the epigenetic model that argues genes can be expressed differently in different environments (including one’s emotional states and thought patterns), thus one is not the “victim” of their genetic make up.
As intriguing as her theory sounds, it is not completely viable in the context of astrology. In the case of genetics, one’s genetic make up is normally independent from one’s mental state (i.e. thought or emotional patterns), so it is not illogical (in theory) to assume one could alter their genetic expression via their thoughts and life style (whether this is scientifically sound or not is out of the scope of this piece, however, the theory itself is logically plausible). In the case of the natal chart, however, one’s mind, will-power, drive, self-discipline, courage, level of intelligence (the tools that one needs to alter their “frequency”) are already inside one’s chart. It is like being on the bus and trying to push the bus forward. For instance, one who has a well-placed/aspected Saturn will have an easier time to stick to a strict regiment of scheduled mediation, monitoring their thoughts, or stick to other exercises necessary to “change their frequency” in order to manifest the “higher expression” of a given planet than the native whose main problem in their life could be low degree of self-discipline or difficulty in sticking to schedules and routines, or simply unable to cognitively grasp this concept. To put it simply, when the “tools” of alterations are already afflicted in the horoscope, the alteration is compromised, not to mention when contradictory planetary energies are entangled (e.g. one having a Saturn and Uranus transit on their MC at the same time, or having a transit that contradicts the qualities of their natal aspects, etc.) the native might end up in a no-win situation (i.e. if they honour their Saturn transit to their MC by bending their head and following the established rules, their Uranus transit that requires the opposite from the native will knock them down or vice versa). Hence, the idea that people have equal opportunity to play their “sheet of music in a high level” is flawed.
In order to demonstrate her argument, the author presents the example of two clients with musical gift who were born close to each other in terms of time and space, thus had relatively similar charts. One with a “satisfying” high-end career in music and the other one with an “unsatisfying” career in music as a school teacher. She concludes the reasons for their “career success” and their level of “satisfaction” in life were the differences between their “frequencies” (i.e. thought patterns, etc.). She claims had the second man maintained a “high frequency vibration”, he would have achieved the same career heights as the first man. There are two major logical problems with using this example as an evidence to support her theory:
a) The unsatisfied man could be someone with high exceptions. Even if he had the same position as the first man, he could still feel unsatisfied with his achievements. There are people who are proud to have achieved being a janitor or a bus driver, and there are people who no matter how far they achieve, still feel they haven’t achieved enough. The subjective perception of people’s level of “achievement” is not an indicator of how much they could have achieved.
b) Despite the close proximity of time and place of birth, they did not have the exact same chart. As there are up to 3000 contributing factors in a natal chart, the second person could lack certain factors (unrelated to musical talents) that the first man had in order to achieve a high career position. Curiously, early in the book the author explains how a few minutes discrepancy between two charts can create major differences in one’s chart, specifically, in their careers as it was allegedly demonstrated by the “Mars Effect” studies by Gauquelin. However, in this example she conveniently assumes the only reason they had different positions within the same music career was their “frequency” (i.e. the free will part), ignoring all other factors that were different in the two men’s charts. (e.g. communicational skills, agreeability, self-confidence, astrographies, etc.)
In another chapter she discusses the usefulness of astrological consultation for choosing careers. Even if one’s ap
April 15, 2021
Great title for this book
Well written, in a way that's easily understood and interesting as well. This author also does videos on YouTube that are really fascinating and helpful.
She explains the current archetypal energy and the cosmology and gives examples of how that could play out and at times links it to history. I don't know her personally, but her beautiful soul definitely shines thru in what she does!
Well written, in a way that's easily understood and interesting as well. This author also does videos on YouTube that are really fascinating and helpful.
She explains the current archetypal energy and the cosmology and gives examples of how that could play out and at times links it to history. I don't know her personally, but her beautiful soul definitely shines thru in what she does!
March 3, 2026
“In some sense man is a microcosm of the universe; therefore what man is, is a clue to the universe” - David Bohm. This book is just brimming with magic, from its analytical to energetic arguments, Gregory threads a really inspiring message of oneness, wholeness and interconnectedness (interlocked-ness?) I love being an Aquarius stellium in the Age of Aquarius… the collective, our communities and rethinking new ways of being is everything to my world. The old world is crumbling …. and fast
December 9, 2022
This book lays astrology out for the reader like a landscape map, displaying how it connects to life. Moreover, it gives the reader a birdʼs eye view into the perspective of an astrologer: How astrology can be used as a tool of enlightenment. This indeed is the most interesting part, and Pam succeeds in this like no other I know. How? By helping the client to see his potential.
This book is not, like the only negative review posted here presupposes, an apologetic treatise on astrology. The originator of that long and tedious review bases his arguments on a title he did not understand. “You Donʼt Really Believe in Astrology, Do You” is not a questioning of and defense of the subject. Rather, it captures the prevailing attitude many still have today of astrology: where people are incorrectly put into little boxes, then predictions made on the basis of that general boxʼs significance, which then get a hit or miss, largely a miss forecast; where public read their boxʼs forecasts, secretly wishing for a fortuitous event prediction, believing but not believing. Pamʼs title is a humorous, and very apt, reference to this erroneous concept of astrology. Well, at least this is how I see it.
For my part, the book gave me many revelations. Admittedly, the fact that among the applicative chart examples she presented there wasnʼt just one, but several that applied to me to the T, left profound impressions. This wonʼt be the case for every reader. It felt like sand falling out of my eyes. Not surprisingly so, since realizations are always so much deeper and fuller when connected to personal experience.
If anything could be improved in this book, it would be to include more illustrations. This is the reason for my chosing 4,5 stars out of 5 and not more. It is hard work actually to follow such a great amount of meaning and significances when one doesnʼt have an astrologerʼs brain schooled at grasping in oneʼs mind, with the mere thought of some chart, the entire concept of connections. More images and illustrations would help.
Pam also makes an attempt at connecting astrology to a universal view, that universal view which, thanks to the breakthroughs of quantum physics, has become so much more accessible to our understanding. Explaining astrology through those principles is, in my view, the only way that it can be explained. And Pam does a pretty good at that too!
This book is not, like the only negative review posted here presupposes, an apologetic treatise on astrology. The originator of that long and tedious review bases his arguments on a title he did not understand. “You Donʼt Really Believe in Astrology, Do You” is not a questioning of and defense of the subject. Rather, it captures the prevailing attitude many still have today of astrology: where people are incorrectly put into little boxes, then predictions made on the basis of that general boxʼs significance, which then get a hit or miss, largely a miss forecast; where public read their boxʼs forecasts, secretly wishing for a fortuitous event prediction, believing but not believing. Pamʼs title is a humorous, and very apt, reference to this erroneous concept of astrology. Well, at least this is how I see it.
For my part, the book gave me many revelations. Admittedly, the fact that among the applicative chart examples she presented there wasnʼt just one, but several that applied to me to the T, left profound impressions. This wonʼt be the case for every reader. It felt like sand falling out of my eyes. Not surprisingly so, since realizations are always so much deeper and fuller when connected to personal experience.
If anything could be improved in this book, it would be to include more illustrations. This is the reason for my chosing 4,5 stars out of 5 and not more. It is hard work actually to follow such a great amount of meaning and significances when one doesnʼt have an astrologerʼs brain schooled at grasping in oneʼs mind, with the mere thought of some chart, the entire concept of connections. More images and illustrations would help.
Pam also makes an attempt at connecting astrology to a universal view, that universal view which, thanks to the breakthroughs of quantum physics, has become so much more accessible to our understanding. Explaining astrology through those principles is, in my view, the only way that it can be explained. And Pam does a pretty good at that too!
August 23, 2025
I discovered Pam Gregory via her wonderful YouTube channel last year and wanted to understand how to read my own chart so decided to do a deep dive on her past work starting with this book. I will say this is not the best introduction to dipping your toe into the ocean of astrological knowledge. In fairness, it does exactly what the title says which is to lend legitimacy and weight to the study of astrology, I just wish there had been a heads up that this book is for someone with an already fairly sophisticated grasp of astrology, and that it does not explain how to approach reading charts, where to start etc. I feel like I’ve been hit by about 5 million universe-altering ideas and it will take me years to digest it. The biggest realisation I’ve had from this book is that astrology is not some unfathomable magical witchcraft, but a serious and deeply complex study of um, MATHS! And science, history, astronomy and archetypal myths. Also, I’m fully convinced now that quantum physics is EVERYTHING and am determined to be more vigilant about protecting my energy. I probably understood about 30% of this book but it has given me MUCH food for thought as well as a plethora of resources for further learning and I’ve already booked a reading with an astrologer to continue my studies so thank you, Pam!
June 20, 2023
My review may be slightly biased for I have followed and admired Pam Gregory and her work for years, irregardless this book is a fantastic read!
In the beginning chapters, Pam covers all the basic mundane astrology and planetary symbology. However, the majority of this book is a deep dive into a vast array of fascinating subjects such as sacred geometry, astro physics, quantum law, theoretical astronomy, ancient civilizations, mathematics and more. Pam spends a great deal emphasizing the importance of the mathematical tools needed to understand the cosmos to gain precise readings into the planetary and galactic movements. She also goes on to write about the ancient origins to which astrology was birthed, and how influential the study of the cosmos was to the development of advanced civilizations such as the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks and more! Furthermore, Pam gives a brief overview of recent historical events correlated to big planetary movements from Uranus and Pluto to depict the crucial significance of the macrocosm affecting the microcosm. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would recommend to anyone that has a profound appreciation for astrology and all this cosmological!
In the beginning chapters, Pam covers all the basic mundane astrology and planetary symbology. However, the majority of this book is a deep dive into a vast array of fascinating subjects such as sacred geometry, astro physics, quantum law, theoretical astronomy, ancient civilizations, mathematics and more. Pam spends a great deal emphasizing the importance of the mathematical tools needed to understand the cosmos to gain precise readings into the planetary and galactic movements. She also goes on to write about the ancient origins to which astrology was birthed, and how influential the study of the cosmos was to the development of advanced civilizations such as the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks and more! Furthermore, Pam gives a brief overview of recent historical events correlated to big planetary movements from Uranus and Pluto to depict the crucial significance of the macrocosm affecting the microcosm. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would recommend to anyone that has a profound appreciation for astrology and all this cosmological!
March 6, 2019
An experienced astrologer who really knows her stuff, does her research properly and is happy to share information. It's quite intense if you're new to astrology but it really makes you think and gives you proper insight into what astrology is really about.
August 31, 2018
A very easy and insightful read for new and seasoned Astrologers.
May 10, 2020
This book is excellent for anyone interested in astrology but isn't quite sure how to make sense of it as a concept. Pam Gregory does an amazing job at explaining the philosophy behind astrology and why and how it works. The author references historical figures, historical events, and concepts from ancient history all the way to modern quantum physics to illustrate her points- so it's a very interesting book with lots of interesting information to enjoy. It was an absolute pleasure to read!
June 13, 2022
Oh, Pam! Thank you so much! This book should be a must for everyone who is starting his astrology journey!
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews