whisperer
06-10-2011, 03:21 PM
He is the founder and head programmer of Cosmic Patterns Software, Inc., the curriculum director of The Avalon School of Astrology, the author of 2 books, "Astrology for the 21st Century" and "AstroLocality Magic", past President of The International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR), and advisor to The National Council for Geocosmic Research.
David Cochrane received his B.A. degree in psychology in 1972, and was then offered a scholarship to continue his graduate studies in this field. However, astrology won him over and life had other plans for him! David became a full time professional practicing astrologer from 1973 – 1981. In parallel, he learned computer programming, and he started his own astrology software company, Cosmic Patterns Software in 1982.
In the late 1990's he accepts a position on the International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR) board and becomes President of ISAR for 2 years. He was very interested and actively involved in issues related to professional standards in astrology, finding creative solutions and advancing programs.
He is well known for his innovative work in harmonics, degree meanings and other fields in astrology and has developed pioneering theories on the relationship of Vedic astrology and ancient classical methods. Many of the world's most respected and experienced astrologers pay obeisance to his talent, his research and his significant contribution to astrology. David’s involvement and devotion to astrology for nearly 4 decades is impressive!
A lot is said and written about David and once you get to know him, you realize that all of them are true. “Theoretical genius”, “the world’s greatest expert in harmonic astrology”, “best speaker” at national conferences and the list is still growing.
As himself describes it “My life IS astrology. I wake up, I sleep, I dream, I think...it’s an absolute, complete obsession! It’s really taken me over!”
Please, allow me to introduce David Cochrane, an astrologer made of passion!
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/unlock.jpg
MyHoroscope: So, I've heard that an inexplicable Sagittarius hippie was the reason that you got into astrology in the first place. Is that correct? You thought and still couldn't believe that maybe astrology could help you figure out his urge to travel, given the fact that Sagittarius is an empty sign in your own birth chart. How did astrology contribute to you figuring yourself out, or figuring out others for that matter? Is there any particular part of your personality that astrology helped you evolve or is there any trait that doesn't/didn't seem to quite fit your birth chart?
David Cochrane:Yes, in the ealry 1970's I started studying astrology, and one of my first experiences was meeting a restless hippie who traveled around the country. My impression of him was not positive and I thought all of his traveling was a waste of time. Then I looked up the planet positions for his birth time and found that he had a stellium in Sagittarius and have no planets in Sagittarius. The astrology suggested that I did not appreciate this person sufficiently because we were very different. The thought was shocking and I began studying astrology with a passion.
Every astrologer seems to have his/her own set of favorite techniques, and I rely mostly on harmonic astrology and ideas that I developed building upon harmonic astrology. I find that many of the things we ascribe to astrological influences very often do not work. In my chart I have a big Taurus stellium in the first and second houses. Astrologers often think I have a software company to make money and I eat lots of rich food, and like to be very comfortable. None of this is true. I do love gardens and nature and I am persistent so some things that are associated with Taurus do apply to me, but most do not.
This does not mean that astrology does not work, but it does mean that some of the ideas we have do not work, and this is why there are so many different astrological theories and systems. Each astrologer seems to head out into the great wilderness of astrological ideas and finds some sets of ideas that seem to consistently work. My hope is that some day we can develop a set of rules that are agreed on by all astrologers just as there are some basic mechanics to music and the sciences that everyone agrees about.
I use astrology regularly to understand people. The astrological information does not always agree with my own assessment of situations and invariably the astrology chart is correct.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: There are a lot of people joking about astrological interpretations and predictions and when they happen to hear something valid or subsequently proven to be true, they say “Oh, you were just plain lucky!” So how would you try to convince a skeptic that there is actually something to astrology? How was your own doubt resolved? Would you be tempted to perform a predictive reading or maybe attempt to answer a horary question of his in order to persuade him?
David Cochrane: I am more interested in showing skeptics that astrology shows promise of being validated through research rather than proving that astrology, as we understand astrology at the present time, is valid. Sometimes the skeptics are correct and a correct prediction may be just luck, and astrologers do tend to use a lot of selective perception to see what they want to see. Examples of research that I have done that suggest that astrology is valid are in articles at the following websites:
AstroSignatures in the Gauquelin Data Revealed (http://astrosoftware.com/DISCOVERY.HTM)
A Reassessment of the Mars Effect and (http://astrosoftware.com/articles/GauqPaper1/GauquelinPaper1.htm)
A Reassessment of the Mars Effect and (http://astrosoftware.com/articles/GauqPaper2/GauquelinPaper2.htm)
A Reassessment of the Mars Effect and (http://astrosoftware.com/articles/GauqPaper3/GauquelinPaper3.htm)
Astrology Information, Questions and Answers (http://astrosoftware.com/Proveast.htm)
Accident Research With Midpoints (http://astrosoftware.com/AccidentResearchWithMidpoints.htm)
Some articles on the value of astrology in more psychological ways rather than in quantitative research are at:
108 Steps to Enlightenment (http://astrosoftware.com/Enlightenment.htm)
Synodic Cycle (http://astrosoftware.com/SynodicCycle.htm)
Minor Aspects and Modern Trend (http://astrosoftware.com/MinorAspect.htm)
I recently gave a lecture to astronomers about whether astrology is a science. The astronomers loved the lecture, and they have suggested that perhaps I can speak regularly, perhaps once a year. They were very favorably impressed with the potential of astrology to offer useful information. However, I did not propose that astrology is a science because at the current time I believe that astrology is not a science. However, many things are not know but that does not mean that pursuing the ideas is worthless. We do not have a cure for cancer and many other diseases and this is precisely why they need to be studied. Similarly, astrology shows great promise and for this reason astrology needs to be studied more intensively within academic circles.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You have created the “Cochrane degrees” and thus your name is now listed next to those of Elsie Wheeler's, Marc Edmund Jones's, Isidore Kozminsky's, Andrianno Carelli, and others. I have to say that’s incredible work! We've been meaning to translate the “Cochrane degrees” for our Greek audience so it would be really helpful if you could give us an insight or an illustration of how we could actually “see” their meaning take action in birth charts and whether the meaning could be different regarding, for example, their house position.
David Cochrane: Thank you. I do think these degree meanings are accurate and the intepretation is improved if you think about the "internal signs" that I have hypothesized are the basis of the degree meanings. For example, consider the Sun and Moon positions of former US President Ronald Reagan. The Cochrane degree meaning for this Sun is "Noble and individualistic, perhaps a social reformer. Rebellious against authority. Self-conscious and perhaps egotistical. Good leadership qualities.". Reagain was nove and individualistic but he was conservative and not rebellious against authority. The 30th harmonic sign is Leo-7. The "7" indicates that it is in the 7th house in relationship to the Aquarius sign of his Sun. The 12th sign is Libra-9. I need to update the degree meaning because it is really not very rebellious but rather is personable and philosophical, and Reagan was known for his personal style of communicating. He introduced the concept of identifying individuals who exemplify a situation and every President since Reagan has followed this idea. The Cochrane degree meaning for his Moon describes Reagan incredibly well: "Commands respect through his quiet, sincere, and magnetic disposition. Capable of wielding a psychic or magnetic influence over others." Reagan was known for his soft, sincere voice. He was called the "teflon President" because criticism seemed to bounce off him. Even if you disagreed with him, his sincere and magnetic voice seemed very convincing. The 30th harmonic sign is Scorpio-7 and the 12th harmonic sign is Virgo-5. The 30th harmonic sign is a kind of "real inner you" and both is Sun and Moon have a 30th harmonic sign in 7th house relationship to the sign, so he influenced others very effectively (regardless of whether you agree with his political beliefs and policies). Although the degree meanings can use some editing and updating, I believe that they are very accurate. Astrologer Pam Gallagher once had her students evaluate the accuracy of many degree meanings but without being given the author of each one and the Cochrane degrees made the most sense to her students. I have heard of other people getting similar results.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: There are many Western astrologers that are quite skeptical regarding the harmonic technique's tendency to downplay the signs and houses and focusing solely on the geometric relationships of the planets. John Addey was the harbinger of this process, which focuses on aspects, even the minor ones, to give an astrologer a better sense of one's true drives and motivations. I find it quite revealing and illuminative and the way a birth chart unfolds is truly awesome! What would you say to those who believe that harmonics is some kind of trick to prove astrology right when the traditional birth chart interpretations fail to correspond with reality?
David Cochrane: I would say that they should listen to the 13 hours of lecture that I gave recently before they continue the criticism. Information about the lecture is at HARMONIC ASTROLOGY SEMINAR DVD (http://www.astrosoftware.com/harmonicDVD.htm) I think that anyone who listens to this lecture will have a much better understanding of the capability of harmonics to interpret charts and can then see if they still think that it is some kind of trick. Also, On this coming October 3 (October 3, 2010) I am giving a lecture on the zodiac signs as part of an Online Astrology Conference. See Internet Astrology Conference (http://forumonastrology.com/) for more information on the conference. Although not the main topic of this lecture, there are a few references to how the zodiac signs are better understaood when harmonics are taken into account.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: Having touched on the issue of harmonics charts, do you think that it is appropriate to perform a bi-wheel analysis of a harmonic chart and a birth chart? Given the fact that harmonics mainly focus on the planetary aspects, do you think that it is wise or proper to interpret the harmonic charts based on a planet's new sign or even new house position?
David Cochrane: In my own work I do not compare harmonic charts to natal charts and in only a few harmonics do a look at zodiac signs. I do not look at house positions in any harmonic charts. However, it is entirely possible that one can do these things and they might work beautifully. In my own work I have not been able to obtain consistently good results using these ideas so I do not use them. Every astrologer simply uses some subset of ideas and I do not claim to have an understanding of most of the ideas that work in astrology. I do claim to have an understanding of a few ideas that I think work and eventually will be demonstrated to work through research, and everything else is simply unchartered territory. I have not seen convincing arguments from other astrologers that these additional methods might work, but of course in Vedic astrology the sign and house positions of the saptamsa and navamsa chart are used, so they may be useful. Note that the saptamsa and navamsa charts are harmonic charts, but many of the other divisional charts used in Vedic astrology are not harmonic charts.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: Since we could say that harmonic aspects are not actual aspects, do you think that we could use them along with transits or progressions and apply them in prediction? What's your opinion about the Age and Daily Harmonics? From what I've seen some astrologers use the Age Harmonic charts to pick up aspects between harmonic and natal (or even progressed) planets and even take into consideration the new sign and house position of the harmonic planets to draw their conclusions and perform a predictive reading. Where do you stand regarding this matter?
David Cochrane: I do consider harmonic aspects to be actual aspects just like any aspect. Many astrologers consider harmonic aspects to be minor aspects or to be something other than real aspects, but I consider them to be real aspects just like squares and trines. I have not worked very much with Age and Daily Harmonics and the few times that I did look at them I did not see anything that was convincing. This is another area that I do not have expertise in. I know that some very good astrologers, like Aleksandar Imsiragic, for example, use Age Harmonics so from this I conclude that there is a good possibility that they work. Astrology is so vast that each of us an understanding of just a piece fo the pie. Although I am an expert in harmonic astrology and Aleksandar is an expert in fixed stars and some other areas of astrology, there are cases where he may know something about harmonics that I do not know or I may know something about fixed stars that he does not know. Sometimes even a beginner in astrology comes up with an insight that is new to me!
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You are the founder of Cosmic Patterns Software, Inc. So let's talk about the three “sons” of yours, Kepler, Sirius, and Pegasus. I bet you are really proud of them! What is really fascinating is that they are comprehensive astrological tools that work for all astrologers, from the beginner (since you also included the Avalon lessons), to the professional. Are you planning further moves to advance the software? Is there more for us to see?
David Cochrane: Yes, I am proud of them, but Kepler and Sirius in particular are the result of work by dozens of different people so there are many other people who should be proud as well. We continue to work very intensively, and there are more exciting features coming in the future. We are working in many different areas such as Vedic, research, and in making tools that make it easier to see the information that astrologers wish to see.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You've built and done some extensive analysis on the AstroSignatures of scientists, musicians, actors, mathematicians, and others, together with your favorite, accidents. What about the AstroSignature of a talented and gifted astrologer and a successful computer programmer and software developer like yourself?
David Cochrane: I did research on scientists, musicians, actors, because I have lots of data to analyze (thousands of charts for each category) and I researched mathematicians because it is a relatively specific category. Researching astrologers or computer programmers is, I think, less likely to produce positive results because the group is less homogenous than, for example, mathematicians. There are many kinds of astrologers and some are more like psychologists and some are more esoteric or mystical, and some are more scientific. Some are great writers, some are great counselors, some are extraordinarily intuitive, and some have an excellent ability to develop a rapport and trust with clients. Computer programmers also are a diverse group and there is a big difference between a website developer and a person who develops new search algorithms. The more diverse the group, the less likely the research is to produce positive results. That has been my experience but other researchers may approach research in a different way and perhaps this is not as likely to be an issue. For less quantitative research one can certainly study different charts and see what the unique talent is for each person but in studying astrologers or computer programmers, each person is likely to be very unique both astrologicallly and in terms of the special contribution that person is able to make in his/her work.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: From what I can tell, you seem to love math and you dare to perform statistics in astrology, unlike many others, mostly traditional or psychological astrologers who claim that one cannot evaluate the essence of astrology using statistics. It is quite fascinating that you propose a scientific approach to astrology realizing that observation is the way to understanding and validate that which is observed. Thus, you have conducted a few pilot studies and you've come up with some quite promising results. But still, it makes me wonder, if astrology is actually valid, then why can’t we prove it?
David Cochrane: Yes, I agree with you; I am one of those who dare to perform statistics, and many astrologers feel that this research is not likely to come up with any useful information and a proof of astrology is not possible. I think that there are some areas of astrology which cannot be proven. I doubt that zodiac signs and houses will be validated scientifically, and if they are validated scientifically, it will be at least a thousand years from now and after angular distances between planets have been shown to be valid. Zodiac signs and houses are probably valid but in my opinion operate in such a psychological and intangible way, that it is difficult to measure their effect. I believe that other areas of astrology which might be supported through quantitative reseach have not been validated because our current theories are so far from being correct that we have not been able to obtain statistical significance. The 13-hour seminar presents my theories in sufficient detail to more thoroughly understand why I say this.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You've given hundreds of lectures. Is there a question that you most fear from your audiences?
David Cochrane: I would not say that I fear it but sometimes a question or idea is presented that goes very far outside the scope of what I am able to present at the time. Astrology is so vast that it is easy to go off on tangents that do not relate to the topic being discussed. I would love to be able to address each and every person's questions and interests but in a lecture this is not possible.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: Is there any particular issue or field in astrology wherein you still haven't managed to clarify or unravel its secrets, thus keeping you up at night? Would you like to share with us your sobering thoughts?
David Cochrane: I sometimes joke that I live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance. In other words, there are lots of things that I do not understand. I do not understand why the geocentric rather than parallax-corrected Moon works better in my research, why we do not use refraction of light, why aspects of fixed stars projected to the ecliptic plane should work, why classical horary appears to work, or the 8 hypothetical Uranian planets work for many technical astrologers when they do not exist. There are a great many things that I do not understand. I try not to be defensive or so emotionally attached to a particular idea that it blinds me from continuing to understand what astrology is. I want to unravel what astrology is and at this point I do not care what it is and do not want to force on reality an idea of what it is. I would just like to know the truth and I think that in the long run getting to the truth of it will indirectly be a big benefit to people throughout the world.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: What is really confusing, especially to beginners, is the fact that many astrologers try to prove other astrologer's theories are wrong. There seem to be too many theories dealing with the exact same thing. The picture gets even more complicated given the fact that there are many different schools within astrology. Why do you think astrologers have not yet arrived at one consolidated, consensual "best technique"? Do you think that we could eventually come to a point where we would be able to officially evaluate their efficacy and accuracy?
David Cochrane: All of your questions are excellent and your last question is a fitting finale to the interview and an especially good question. In recent decades we have seen a proliferation of new ideas. In the 1970's most astrologers in America knew only modern psychological astrology. Now ancient western, Vedic, harmonics, and many other approaches have grown and it seems that as we learn more, we fragment into more groups. I think that leaders in the field of astrology, such as those that speak at large conferences or who write books that are read by many other astrologers, need to consider carefully the relationship of their work to the work of astrologers using different methods before commenting on these other approaches to astrology. An astrologer can become so thrilled and inspired by the accuracy and usefulness of classical horary astrology that he or she may look in bewilderment at modern psychological astrologers who speak in vague psychological terms about empowering clients. On the other hand the modern psychological astrologer who helps real clients in their real lives and gets real results may be amazed to see Vedic astrologers and classical horary astrologers use rules in an inflexible and categorical way and give clients definitive answers. If one sees that the sidereal zodiac works, then how does one deal with the fact that many astrologers use the tropical zodiac, and vice versa. We can be "politically correct" and not criticize others but I think we need to go beyond political correctness and be really honest. To be really honest is to admit that we are not qualified to criticise another approach to astrology that we have not gained some deep understanding of. Otherwise, we are similar to skeptics who dismiss astrology even though they understand very little of what it is. If an astrologer has expertise in a given area of astrology and sees problems or limitations with that system, then I think it is good for this astrologer to voice these concerns. Concerns should be voiced with an interest towards sharing information and not to discredit others or attack the character or integrity of others. Perhaps the best way to develop agreement among astrologers is for astrological education to take a huge step forward and for more astrologers to develop expertise in several schools of astrology. I do think that there will be progress in sorting out what works from what does not work. Also, theoretical connections between seemingly disparate areas of astrology, is possible. For example, in the article at Arabic Parts (http://astrosoftware.com/ArabicParts.htm) I explain how the formula for Arabic Parts is not arbitrary or magical but rather completely agrees with the principles of harmonic astrology. That Arabic Parts, a favorite of Hellenistic and classical astrologers who in some cases have a disdain for harmonic astrology, is itself a concept that is completely commensurate with harmonics and wave theory, is an important fact that Hellenistic and classical western astrologers cannot ignore. If they choose to ignore this fact, they perpetuate divisiveness in astrology. When a point of connection is found between different schools of astrology, we should rejoice and embrace it because it is a step, even if a very small step, towards building understanding across different schools of astrology.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: So, Mr. Cochrane, on behalf of myHoroscope.gr, I would like to thank you very much for the time you have kindly given us. I am looking forward to our next contact.
David Cochrane: You are very welcome. I am very impressed with the "homework" you have done in constructing these questions! Keep up the very excellent work. I do hope that some of your interviews and other work will be presented in English as well because, given the excellence of your interview questions, I am now interested in learning more about what you are contributing to astrology.
David
David Cochrane received his B.A. degree in psychology in 1972, and was then offered a scholarship to continue his graduate studies in this field. However, astrology won him over and life had other plans for him! David became a full time professional practicing astrologer from 1973 – 1981. In parallel, he learned computer programming, and he started his own astrology software company, Cosmic Patterns Software in 1982.
In the late 1990's he accepts a position on the International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR) board and becomes President of ISAR for 2 years. He was very interested and actively involved in issues related to professional standards in astrology, finding creative solutions and advancing programs.
He is well known for his innovative work in harmonics, degree meanings and other fields in astrology and has developed pioneering theories on the relationship of Vedic astrology and ancient classical methods. Many of the world's most respected and experienced astrologers pay obeisance to his talent, his research and his significant contribution to astrology. David’s involvement and devotion to astrology for nearly 4 decades is impressive!
A lot is said and written about David and once you get to know him, you realize that all of them are true. “Theoretical genius”, “the world’s greatest expert in harmonic astrology”, “best speaker” at national conferences and the list is still growing.
As himself describes it “My life IS astrology. I wake up, I sleep, I dream, I think...it’s an absolute, complete obsession! It’s really taken me over!”
Please, allow me to introduce David Cochrane, an astrologer made of passion!
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/unlock.jpg
MyHoroscope: So, I've heard that an inexplicable Sagittarius hippie was the reason that you got into astrology in the first place. Is that correct? You thought and still couldn't believe that maybe astrology could help you figure out his urge to travel, given the fact that Sagittarius is an empty sign in your own birth chart. How did astrology contribute to you figuring yourself out, or figuring out others for that matter? Is there any particular part of your personality that astrology helped you evolve or is there any trait that doesn't/didn't seem to quite fit your birth chart?
David Cochrane:Yes, in the ealry 1970's I started studying astrology, and one of my first experiences was meeting a restless hippie who traveled around the country. My impression of him was not positive and I thought all of his traveling was a waste of time. Then I looked up the planet positions for his birth time and found that he had a stellium in Sagittarius and have no planets in Sagittarius. The astrology suggested that I did not appreciate this person sufficiently because we were very different. The thought was shocking and I began studying astrology with a passion.
Every astrologer seems to have his/her own set of favorite techniques, and I rely mostly on harmonic astrology and ideas that I developed building upon harmonic astrology. I find that many of the things we ascribe to astrological influences very often do not work. In my chart I have a big Taurus stellium in the first and second houses. Astrologers often think I have a software company to make money and I eat lots of rich food, and like to be very comfortable. None of this is true. I do love gardens and nature and I am persistent so some things that are associated with Taurus do apply to me, but most do not.
This does not mean that astrology does not work, but it does mean that some of the ideas we have do not work, and this is why there are so many different astrological theories and systems. Each astrologer seems to head out into the great wilderness of astrological ideas and finds some sets of ideas that seem to consistently work. My hope is that some day we can develop a set of rules that are agreed on by all astrologers just as there are some basic mechanics to music and the sciences that everyone agrees about.
I use astrology regularly to understand people. The astrological information does not always agree with my own assessment of situations and invariably the astrology chart is correct.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: There are a lot of people joking about astrological interpretations and predictions and when they happen to hear something valid or subsequently proven to be true, they say “Oh, you were just plain lucky!” So how would you try to convince a skeptic that there is actually something to astrology? How was your own doubt resolved? Would you be tempted to perform a predictive reading or maybe attempt to answer a horary question of his in order to persuade him?
David Cochrane: I am more interested in showing skeptics that astrology shows promise of being validated through research rather than proving that astrology, as we understand astrology at the present time, is valid. Sometimes the skeptics are correct and a correct prediction may be just luck, and astrologers do tend to use a lot of selective perception to see what they want to see. Examples of research that I have done that suggest that astrology is valid are in articles at the following websites:
AstroSignatures in the Gauquelin Data Revealed (http://astrosoftware.com/DISCOVERY.HTM)
A Reassessment of the Mars Effect and (http://astrosoftware.com/articles/GauqPaper1/GauquelinPaper1.htm)
A Reassessment of the Mars Effect and (http://astrosoftware.com/articles/GauqPaper2/GauquelinPaper2.htm)
A Reassessment of the Mars Effect and (http://astrosoftware.com/articles/GauqPaper3/GauquelinPaper3.htm)
Astrology Information, Questions and Answers (http://astrosoftware.com/Proveast.htm)
Accident Research With Midpoints (http://astrosoftware.com/AccidentResearchWithMidpoints.htm)
Some articles on the value of astrology in more psychological ways rather than in quantitative research are at:
108 Steps to Enlightenment (http://astrosoftware.com/Enlightenment.htm)
Synodic Cycle (http://astrosoftware.com/SynodicCycle.htm)
Minor Aspects and Modern Trend (http://astrosoftware.com/MinorAspect.htm)
I recently gave a lecture to astronomers about whether astrology is a science. The astronomers loved the lecture, and they have suggested that perhaps I can speak regularly, perhaps once a year. They were very favorably impressed with the potential of astrology to offer useful information. However, I did not propose that astrology is a science because at the current time I believe that astrology is not a science. However, many things are not know but that does not mean that pursuing the ideas is worthless. We do not have a cure for cancer and many other diseases and this is precisely why they need to be studied. Similarly, astrology shows great promise and for this reason astrology needs to be studied more intensively within academic circles.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You have created the “Cochrane degrees” and thus your name is now listed next to those of Elsie Wheeler's, Marc Edmund Jones's, Isidore Kozminsky's, Andrianno Carelli, and others. I have to say that’s incredible work! We've been meaning to translate the “Cochrane degrees” for our Greek audience so it would be really helpful if you could give us an insight or an illustration of how we could actually “see” their meaning take action in birth charts and whether the meaning could be different regarding, for example, their house position.
David Cochrane: Thank you. I do think these degree meanings are accurate and the intepretation is improved if you think about the "internal signs" that I have hypothesized are the basis of the degree meanings. For example, consider the Sun and Moon positions of former US President Ronald Reagan. The Cochrane degree meaning for this Sun is "Noble and individualistic, perhaps a social reformer. Rebellious against authority. Self-conscious and perhaps egotistical. Good leadership qualities.". Reagain was nove and individualistic but he was conservative and not rebellious against authority. The 30th harmonic sign is Leo-7. The "7" indicates that it is in the 7th house in relationship to the Aquarius sign of his Sun. The 12th sign is Libra-9. I need to update the degree meaning because it is really not very rebellious but rather is personable and philosophical, and Reagan was known for his personal style of communicating. He introduced the concept of identifying individuals who exemplify a situation and every President since Reagan has followed this idea. The Cochrane degree meaning for his Moon describes Reagan incredibly well: "Commands respect through his quiet, sincere, and magnetic disposition. Capable of wielding a psychic or magnetic influence over others." Reagan was known for his soft, sincere voice. He was called the "teflon President" because criticism seemed to bounce off him. Even if you disagreed with him, his sincere and magnetic voice seemed very convincing. The 30th harmonic sign is Scorpio-7 and the 12th harmonic sign is Virgo-5. The 30th harmonic sign is a kind of "real inner you" and both is Sun and Moon have a 30th harmonic sign in 7th house relationship to the sign, so he influenced others very effectively (regardless of whether you agree with his political beliefs and policies). Although the degree meanings can use some editing and updating, I believe that they are very accurate. Astrologer Pam Gallagher once had her students evaluate the accuracy of many degree meanings but without being given the author of each one and the Cochrane degrees made the most sense to her students. I have heard of other people getting similar results.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: There are many Western astrologers that are quite skeptical regarding the harmonic technique's tendency to downplay the signs and houses and focusing solely on the geometric relationships of the planets. John Addey was the harbinger of this process, which focuses on aspects, even the minor ones, to give an astrologer a better sense of one's true drives and motivations. I find it quite revealing and illuminative and the way a birth chart unfolds is truly awesome! What would you say to those who believe that harmonics is some kind of trick to prove astrology right when the traditional birth chart interpretations fail to correspond with reality?
David Cochrane: I would say that they should listen to the 13 hours of lecture that I gave recently before they continue the criticism. Information about the lecture is at HARMONIC ASTROLOGY SEMINAR DVD (http://www.astrosoftware.com/harmonicDVD.htm) I think that anyone who listens to this lecture will have a much better understanding of the capability of harmonics to interpret charts and can then see if they still think that it is some kind of trick. Also, On this coming October 3 (October 3, 2010) I am giving a lecture on the zodiac signs as part of an Online Astrology Conference. See Internet Astrology Conference (http://forumonastrology.com/) for more information on the conference. Although not the main topic of this lecture, there are a few references to how the zodiac signs are better understaood when harmonics are taken into account.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: Having touched on the issue of harmonics charts, do you think that it is appropriate to perform a bi-wheel analysis of a harmonic chart and a birth chart? Given the fact that harmonics mainly focus on the planetary aspects, do you think that it is wise or proper to interpret the harmonic charts based on a planet's new sign or even new house position?
David Cochrane: In my own work I do not compare harmonic charts to natal charts and in only a few harmonics do a look at zodiac signs. I do not look at house positions in any harmonic charts. However, it is entirely possible that one can do these things and they might work beautifully. In my own work I have not been able to obtain consistently good results using these ideas so I do not use them. Every astrologer simply uses some subset of ideas and I do not claim to have an understanding of most of the ideas that work in astrology. I do claim to have an understanding of a few ideas that I think work and eventually will be demonstrated to work through research, and everything else is simply unchartered territory. I have not seen convincing arguments from other astrologers that these additional methods might work, but of course in Vedic astrology the sign and house positions of the saptamsa and navamsa chart are used, so they may be useful. Note that the saptamsa and navamsa charts are harmonic charts, but many of the other divisional charts used in Vedic astrology are not harmonic charts.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: Since we could say that harmonic aspects are not actual aspects, do you think that we could use them along with transits or progressions and apply them in prediction? What's your opinion about the Age and Daily Harmonics? From what I've seen some astrologers use the Age Harmonic charts to pick up aspects between harmonic and natal (or even progressed) planets and even take into consideration the new sign and house position of the harmonic planets to draw their conclusions and perform a predictive reading. Where do you stand regarding this matter?
David Cochrane: I do consider harmonic aspects to be actual aspects just like any aspect. Many astrologers consider harmonic aspects to be minor aspects or to be something other than real aspects, but I consider them to be real aspects just like squares and trines. I have not worked very much with Age and Daily Harmonics and the few times that I did look at them I did not see anything that was convincing. This is another area that I do not have expertise in. I know that some very good astrologers, like Aleksandar Imsiragic, for example, use Age Harmonics so from this I conclude that there is a good possibility that they work. Astrology is so vast that each of us an understanding of just a piece fo the pie. Although I am an expert in harmonic astrology and Aleksandar is an expert in fixed stars and some other areas of astrology, there are cases where he may know something about harmonics that I do not know or I may know something about fixed stars that he does not know. Sometimes even a beginner in astrology comes up with an insight that is new to me!
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You are the founder of Cosmic Patterns Software, Inc. So let's talk about the three “sons” of yours, Kepler, Sirius, and Pegasus. I bet you are really proud of them! What is really fascinating is that they are comprehensive astrological tools that work for all astrologers, from the beginner (since you also included the Avalon lessons), to the professional. Are you planning further moves to advance the software? Is there more for us to see?
David Cochrane: Yes, I am proud of them, but Kepler and Sirius in particular are the result of work by dozens of different people so there are many other people who should be proud as well. We continue to work very intensively, and there are more exciting features coming in the future. We are working in many different areas such as Vedic, research, and in making tools that make it easier to see the information that astrologers wish to see.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You've built and done some extensive analysis on the AstroSignatures of scientists, musicians, actors, mathematicians, and others, together with your favorite, accidents. What about the AstroSignature of a talented and gifted astrologer and a successful computer programmer and software developer like yourself?
David Cochrane: I did research on scientists, musicians, actors, because I have lots of data to analyze (thousands of charts for each category) and I researched mathematicians because it is a relatively specific category. Researching astrologers or computer programmers is, I think, less likely to produce positive results because the group is less homogenous than, for example, mathematicians. There are many kinds of astrologers and some are more like psychologists and some are more esoteric or mystical, and some are more scientific. Some are great writers, some are great counselors, some are extraordinarily intuitive, and some have an excellent ability to develop a rapport and trust with clients. Computer programmers also are a diverse group and there is a big difference between a website developer and a person who develops new search algorithms. The more diverse the group, the less likely the research is to produce positive results. That has been my experience but other researchers may approach research in a different way and perhaps this is not as likely to be an issue. For less quantitative research one can certainly study different charts and see what the unique talent is for each person but in studying astrologers or computer programmers, each person is likely to be very unique both astrologicallly and in terms of the special contribution that person is able to make in his/her work.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: From what I can tell, you seem to love math and you dare to perform statistics in astrology, unlike many others, mostly traditional or psychological astrologers who claim that one cannot evaluate the essence of astrology using statistics. It is quite fascinating that you propose a scientific approach to astrology realizing that observation is the way to understanding and validate that which is observed. Thus, you have conducted a few pilot studies and you've come up with some quite promising results. But still, it makes me wonder, if astrology is actually valid, then why can’t we prove it?
David Cochrane: Yes, I agree with you; I am one of those who dare to perform statistics, and many astrologers feel that this research is not likely to come up with any useful information and a proof of astrology is not possible. I think that there are some areas of astrology which cannot be proven. I doubt that zodiac signs and houses will be validated scientifically, and if they are validated scientifically, it will be at least a thousand years from now and after angular distances between planets have been shown to be valid. Zodiac signs and houses are probably valid but in my opinion operate in such a psychological and intangible way, that it is difficult to measure their effect. I believe that other areas of astrology which might be supported through quantitative reseach have not been validated because our current theories are so far from being correct that we have not been able to obtain statistical significance. The 13-hour seminar presents my theories in sufficient detail to more thoroughly understand why I say this.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: You've given hundreds of lectures. Is there a question that you most fear from your audiences?
David Cochrane: I would not say that I fear it but sometimes a question or idea is presented that goes very far outside the scope of what I am able to present at the time. Astrology is so vast that it is easy to go off on tangents that do not relate to the topic being discussed. I would love to be able to address each and every person's questions and interests but in a lecture this is not possible.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: Is there any particular issue or field in astrology wherein you still haven't managed to clarify or unravel its secrets, thus keeping you up at night? Would you like to share with us your sobering thoughts?
David Cochrane: I sometimes joke that I live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance. In other words, there are lots of things that I do not understand. I do not understand why the geocentric rather than parallax-corrected Moon works better in my research, why we do not use refraction of light, why aspects of fixed stars projected to the ecliptic plane should work, why classical horary appears to work, or the 8 hypothetical Uranian planets work for many technical astrologers when they do not exist. There are a great many things that I do not understand. I try not to be defensive or so emotionally attached to a particular idea that it blinds me from continuing to understand what astrology is. I want to unravel what astrology is and at this point I do not care what it is and do not want to force on reality an idea of what it is. I would just like to know the truth and I think that in the long run getting to the truth of it will indirectly be a big benefit to people throughout the world.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: What is really confusing, especially to beginners, is the fact that many astrologers try to prove other astrologer's theories are wrong. There seem to be too many theories dealing with the exact same thing. The picture gets even more complicated given the fact that there are many different schools within astrology. Why do you think astrologers have not yet arrived at one consolidated, consensual "best technique"? Do you think that we could eventually come to a point where we would be able to officially evaluate their efficacy and accuracy?
David Cochrane: All of your questions are excellent and your last question is a fitting finale to the interview and an especially good question. In recent decades we have seen a proliferation of new ideas. In the 1970's most astrologers in America knew only modern psychological astrology. Now ancient western, Vedic, harmonics, and many other approaches have grown and it seems that as we learn more, we fragment into more groups. I think that leaders in the field of astrology, such as those that speak at large conferences or who write books that are read by many other astrologers, need to consider carefully the relationship of their work to the work of astrologers using different methods before commenting on these other approaches to astrology. An astrologer can become so thrilled and inspired by the accuracy and usefulness of classical horary astrology that he or she may look in bewilderment at modern psychological astrologers who speak in vague psychological terms about empowering clients. On the other hand the modern psychological astrologer who helps real clients in their real lives and gets real results may be amazed to see Vedic astrologers and classical horary astrologers use rules in an inflexible and categorical way and give clients definitive answers. If one sees that the sidereal zodiac works, then how does one deal with the fact that many astrologers use the tropical zodiac, and vice versa. We can be "politically correct" and not criticize others but I think we need to go beyond political correctness and be really honest. To be really honest is to admit that we are not qualified to criticise another approach to astrology that we have not gained some deep understanding of. Otherwise, we are similar to skeptics who dismiss astrology even though they understand very little of what it is. If an astrologer has expertise in a given area of astrology and sees problems or limitations with that system, then I think it is good for this astrologer to voice these concerns. Concerns should be voiced with an interest towards sharing information and not to discredit others or attack the character or integrity of others. Perhaps the best way to develop agreement among astrologers is for astrological education to take a huge step forward and for more astrologers to develop expertise in several schools of astrology. I do think that there will be progress in sorting out what works from what does not work. Also, theoretical connections between seemingly disparate areas of astrology, is possible. For example, in the article at Arabic Parts (http://astrosoftware.com/ArabicParts.htm) I explain how the formula for Arabic Parts is not arbitrary or magical but rather completely agrees with the principles of harmonic astrology. That Arabic Parts, a favorite of Hellenistic and classical astrologers who in some cases have a disdain for harmonic astrology, is itself a concept that is completely commensurate with harmonics and wave theory, is an important fact that Hellenistic and classical western astrologers cannot ignore. If they choose to ignore this fact, they perpetuate divisiveness in astrology. When a point of connection is found between different schools of astrology, we should rejoice and embrace it because it is a step, even if a very small step, towards building understanding across different schools of astrology.
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz270/whisperer_m/Bancopy.gif
MyHoroscope: So, Mr. Cochrane, on behalf of myHoroscope.gr, I would like to thank you very much for the time you have kindly given us. I am looking forward to our next contact.
David Cochrane: You are very welcome. I am very impressed with the "homework" you have done in constructing these questions! Keep up the very excellent work. I do hope that some of your interviews and other work will be presented in English as well because, given the excellence of your interview questions, I am now interested in learning more about what you are contributing to astrology.
David