[Carl Jung and Astrological Ages]

The psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung [1875 – 1961 AD] drew attention to what he described as a ‘synchronicity’ between the birth of Christ and the start of the Age of Pisces. In this he had rather a different view from the earlier work of Gerald Massey. Below are excepts – all from Aion – of what he wrote on the subject. [Aeon is Latin for eternal, hence Eon, a very long period of time.]

In a private conversation with Margaret Ostrowski-Sachs concerning Aion, published in Conversations with C.G.Jung, Jung told her:

“Before my illness I had often asked myself if I were permitted to publish or even speak of my secret knowledge. I later set it all down in Aion. I realized it was my duty to communicate these thoughts, yet I doubted whether I was allowed to give expression to them. During my illness I received confirmation and I now knew that everything had meaning and that everything was perfect.”

Definition: [Astrological Ages]:

Exactly one-twelfth of a Great Year. The length of a ‘Platonic’ month equals 2160.4 years. [2002 AD] The term appears to have first been coined by Carl Gustav Jung in Aion – where, in footnote 84, he gives us its calculated length: 2143 years. Two centuries earlier Voltaire had proposed the concept, but not given it this name.

How did Jung Calculate the time span of a ‘Platonic’ Month?

This can be calculated – as Jung did – from the processional rate, as follows. In Aion, Jung used a processional rate of 50.3608 arc seconds per year [an arc second is one-sixtieth of one-sixtieth of a degree]. This he took as the angle by which the Vernal Equinox Point changes, as seen against the stars, each year. Divide that angle into the full circle of 360º and you have the number of years which it would take to make a complete precessional cycle: 25 734.3 years. Divide that number of years by 12 for a “Platonic” month and you get 2 144.5 years – Jung’s math is out by a year.

However, the techniques to measure precession are now much more accurate than they were in the 1940s. The currently accepted value of the precessional rate [2002 AD] is 49.989 arc seconds per year, a fraction less than the one Jung was using. This gives a ‘Platonic’ month of 2 160.4 years and a Great Year of 25 925 years.

Is a ‘Platonic’ Month Equal to an Astrological Age?

No. However, this question has excited a lot of debate amongst astrologers and quite a few would say that the answer to that question was “yes.” If your particular answer to this question is “yes,” then the calculation of the date of the beginning of the next Astrological Age, the Age of Aquarius, is normally done as follows…

Simply add 2160.4 years on to the date on which the Age of Pisces began. [See New Ages for dates ranging between 2000 and 2100 AD calculated using this approach. Even Jung himself, in Aion [C G Jung Aion Chapter IV, The Sign of the Fishes, Footnote 84, 1951 AD ] had a go at this same calculation, coming up with dates between 1997 and 2154 AD.]

Of course, even if you believe that this is the right way to find the start of the Age, the problem with this approach is… when did the Age of Pisces begin? This depends on where the constellation border lies between Pisces and Aries. The logical flaw here is obvious: the original Aries-Pisces boundary is a stellar one, not based on “Platonic” Months. How can you use one type of boundary for one Age and another type of boundary for the next? Of course the answer is that logically you can’t. It doesn’t work.

Why is a ‘Platonic’ Month Not Equal to an Astrological Age? Because of the definition of an Astrological Age. Jung stated that “it refers to the actual constellation of fixed stars, not to … the zodiac divided into sectors of 30º each.” The Real Solar Zodiac constellations have two properties which rule out a ‘Platonic’ Month being an Astrological Age: first, there are thirteen of them; secondly, they are all different sizes, not “sectors of 30º each.”