An Interview with Dennis Elwell

by Garry Phillipson

Dennis Elwell: An Introduction and Appreciation

This interview was recorded in 1999 for my book, Astrology in the Year Zero.1 Its publication in The Mountain Astrologer was already scheduled before Dennis’s death on November 13, 2014, and perhaps its appearance now will serve as a reminder of his remarkable contribution to astrology. With the hope of bringing this a little more into focus, I would like to preface the interview by looking at three particular facets of his contribution.

In the first place, when it comes to interpreting astrological charts Dennis was a virtuoso — blending a rigorous approach to technique with a creative, even playful, engagement at a symbolic level. It would not, however, do justice to his astrological analyses to treat them only as rich samples of the science/art of astrology, for in Dennis’s hands the real significance of astrological work is that it yields hints and intimations of “the activity of an all-pervading cosmic mind” and of our relationship to it.2

This brings us to Dennis’s second contribution, namely that he was a profound thinker about astrology and its deeper philosophical and cosmological significance. He worked as a journalist for many years, and the ease and fluency with which he expresses himself may sometimes disguise the depth of his thought. For instance, here is one of many insights in his book, Cosmic Loom, which has the power to take any astrologer down a philosophical rabbit hole:

Perhaps (astrology) would be further along the road had not man made the facile and arrogant assumption that the heavens must be speaking his language … the cosmos has concepts of its own which, by an effort of imagination, we can begin dimly to discern.3

Thirdly, no account of Dennis would be complete if it failed to mention that he was a feisty and controversial fellow who crossed swords with many astrologers and critics of astrology over the years. After all, when Project Hindsight was becoming established as a prime mover in the recovery of ancient astrological methods, this is the man who suggested that what we really needed was a “Project Foresight” to focus on astrology’s future.4

It may be in order to consider why this might be counted as part of Dennis’s contribution to astrology. In my experience, Dennis was never about argument for argument’s sake. When he was provocative and disputatious, he aimed to jolt his interlocutors out of comfortable habits of thought — to get us thinking and talking to one another and perhaps even setting off in pursuit of truth. The interview for Year Zero provides a case in point. Shortly after receiving his contributor’s copy, Dennis got in touch with me to say that he was unhappy about the relentlessly critical perspective on astrology included in a long interview with Geoffrey Dean, Suitbert Ertel, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, and Rudolf Smit. For Dennis,

It was as if we were invited to a convivial meal, only to find Hannibal Lecter among the guests.5

Although Dennis and I had very different ideas about the best way to deal with criticisms of astrology, he readily agreed that we should try to talk this through. Our differences didn’t entirely succumb to the ensuing discussion, but we challenged and questioned our assumptions, and I believe that, from Dennis’s perspective, this is the most important thing.

For him, truth is not picked up like a pebble from a beach, but forged through engagement, participation, and sometimes grappling — with our fellow beings and with life itself. This helps to explain why he was so impatient with many of astrology’s critics who attempt to exclude human involvement from tests of astrology. For Dennis, creative and constructive engagement actually helps to form reality, since

What we experience is not external reality per se but our interaction with it, so that in a very real sense we are constructing our universe from out of ourselves …6

The central role of consciousness in Dennis’s thought gives us a clue to how he would want us to think about his passing — and this notwithstanding that he will be terribly missed. For Dennis,

External events can be seen as modulations of consciousness … all contributing to a complex multilayered evolution of consciousness,” from which ground he questioned whether death itself might really be “an expansion of consciousness, with new realisations.7

Dennis was, and will remain, a Promethean figure bringing fire in the forms of symbolic virtuosity, deep thought, and always challenge. I feel somehow confident that he would want his death to inspire in us, not sadness alone, but also an impulsion to reflect on and participate creatively in this mysterious dance of consciousness.

An Interview with Dennis Elwell

Note: This interview was originally recorded on March 21, 1999; it was reviewed and slightly revised on February 2, 2006. This version has been somewhat shortened and lightly edited.

Philosophy of Self-Fulfilment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chart Reading and Techniques

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

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

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

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

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

Predictive Work

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

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

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

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

As a journalist, I knew it was pretty feeble merely to proclaim that sea disasters were imminent. Such disasters are not uncommon, and as I say, with so many sibylline voices in the marketplace, why should yours be given special attention? Not only that, I did not want to create the impression that I believed in absolute predestination; on the contrary, I think there is usually room to manoeuvre, because astrology shows us where the hidden levers are. So, it was a question not so much of oracular pronouncements as issuing written warnings of the possibility of a Titanic-like disaster to specific companies to see how they would react. One was P&O, who had recently acquired the Herald of Free Enterprise, and the other was Cunard, about to relaunch the Queen Elizabeth 2 (QE2) amid much media hype. (The charts of these companies indicated that they were suitable for such an exercise.)

The Herald capsized ten days after P&O wrote back to say the company’s safety procedures were designed to cope with an emergency from any quarter, thank you very much. There followed a good deal of self-publicity on the theme of “the warning ignored,” with newspaper and magazine articles and interviews on radio and TV. Needless to say, journalistic scepticism had to be overcome by a careful scrutiny of the relevant correspondence and so forth. One journalist wanted to know what else the sage could see, so I said that in the autumn I was worried about disasters on underground transport, and that such companies should be examining their safety and security. I also mentioned this danger in an Astrological Association lecture.8 The basis for these fears was the upcoming eclipse which had Mercury conjunct Pluto, with trimmings.

The morning after the terrible Kings Cross fire (November 18, 1987), the regional evening paper, Express & Star, rang to ask if I recalled the interview I had given them, in which I had cautioned about such a tragedy, and they carried a report to that effect alongside their front-page story.

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

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

It has to be remembered that there had been considerable publicity regarding the Herald, and Cunard knew they had received the same letter from me. One of the stewards on board the QE2 for that journey later told me the ship had been abuzz with the tale of the astrologer’s warning. Cunard were put in the amusing position of having to explain to one newspaper that the ship would have changed course even without the astrologer’s advice! But who is to say that my letter might not have helped to avert a disaster — after all, the Titanic had ploughed on into the ice, regardless.

On the BBC’s Kilroy show, I was asked if I had expected P&O to listen to me. Of course not! But you have to start somewhere, and perhaps eventually a sound astrology will be given a respectful hearing. People also wanted to know if P&O had come back to me afterwards, to seek advice. They did not, and I did not expect that, either. But I got my revenge when the company came to launch their new flagship, the much publicised Oriana. A very negative Neptune sky! I wrote to say that, if they had come back to me after the Herald capsized, I would have counselled against launching Oriana at that time and that, in particular, I would have urged them to check certain inboard systems. Well, Oriana’s troubles began when she scraped her bottom leaving the German shipyard. She did not sink, but P&O’s reputation did! Later that year, after a passenger mutiny, the chief engineer complained that there were 700 things wrong with the ship — including the very systems I had cautioned about. To watch astrology working can give you a certain grisly satisfaction.

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

DE: No, I was not particularly tuned-in to world events in 1987. I don’t rely on tuning in, just the application of simple rules which anyone can follow. I do have Neptune in the 10th house, so perhaps it is appropriate that my five minutes of fame should be connected with events on the high seas — disasters, since Neptune is afflicted! But these things were just party tricks, not matters of particular pride, and involved a lot of teasing out (of the astrology) and a little luck.

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

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

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

Beginnings

GP: How did you get interested in astrology?

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

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

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

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

Notes and References:
(All URLs were accessed in October 2021)
1. Garry Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero, Flare (London), 2000. Dennis made some minor changes to the interview in 2006.
2. Dennis Elwell, Cosmic Loom: The New Science of Astrology (2nd edition), Urania Trust (London), 1999, p. 275. This passage does not appear in the first edition of the book (London: Unwin Hyman, 1987). Cosmic Loom is currently available in its 2008 reprint by The Wessex Astrologer.
3. Ibid., p. 13 (p. 14 in the first edition).
4. http://astrologyclub.org/millennium-dilemma/
5. www.astrozero.co.uk/Elwell_Phillipson.pdf
6. Elwell, Cosmic Loom, p. 41 (p. 24).
7. Ibid., pp. 141–142 (p. 112).
8. “How Far Can the Future Be Predicted?” in The Astrological Journal, Vol. XXIX, No. 6, p. 263.

Published in: The Mountain Astrologer, Apr/May 2015.

Author:
Garry Phillipson has practised astrology since 1976. He also has a long-term involvement with spiritual enquiry, particularly through Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. His book Astrology in the Year Zero (Flare Publications, 2000) presents the perspectives on astrology of 30 astrologers and critics of astrology. Garry is currently finishing a Ph.D. about astrology and the philosophy of truth at the University of Wales, Trinity St. David, where he is also a tutor for the Sophia Centre’s Master’s program in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology. His website is www.astrozero.co.uk

© 2015/2021 - Garry Phillipson

All articles at a glance