This section is about the foundations of our discipline - a forum for meta-astrological questions. Someone has written something profound about astrology: does it make sense or is it hot air? What can we say about the art that makes sense? How do popular concepts like synchronicity and "As above, so below" help us understand or refine what we do? Are the models for acquiring theories about the natural world, from the rigidly Popperian to the anarchistically Feyerabendian, at all relevant? Is astrology basically a social science as Campion suggests or a framework for exploiting magical moments as Cornelius seems to believe? Are mechanism and symbolism really opposites? What is the best way to analyze the language of asrological interpretation? Who's right about astrology? Plato? Aristotle? Oresme? Pico? Dee? Kepler? Jung? Are quantum physics and neuropsychology helpful, and if so precisely how?

The above questions are merely suggestive, of course. We expect that most articles will be verbal, although it's not impossible that some mathematics or mathematical logic will creep in. It's okay to bring up a specific astrological hypothesis to illustrate a point, so long as the emphasis is to say something about astrology rather than to prove something within it.