Astrolabe of Symbolic Intelligence by Astrrid and AI
23rd September 2026
This article was originally published in an earlier form. This version has been substantially revised and expanded to include more of my own lived experience and the path that led me into symbolic systems. The original, shorter version remains available here.
I am incredibly fascinated by ideas, patterns, and symbolic intelligence. I honestly just can’t help it. It feels like part of the air I breathe. And the more I study symbolic systems, the more interested I have become in what sits behind them.
For much of my life, my relationship with the more esoteric side of symbolic systems was something of a peripheral one. I would dip in and out, explore particular ideas, then wander off elsewhere again. Yet over recent years, that has changed considerably and I have found myself not only diving far more deeply into these subjects, but increasingly building both my professional practice and so much of my everyday life around them. I now find that what was once something I explored at the edges has gradually moved much closer to a central organising principle. And I’m thoroughly enjoying every step of the journey!
Like many esoteric explorers, I did originally approach astrology, numerology, and the many other symbolic traditions largely as separate disciplines. Each individually with its own rules, language, history, and internal logic. Yet the more I have explored, the more I have noticed that as I understand each system to a deeper level the more difficult it has become not to see the questions these systems appear to share. Yes, different traditions might use very different symbols/calculations/cosmologies, yet again and again they seemed to return to similar concerns around identity, timing, relationships, purpose, transformation, and the wider patterns through which a life unfolds. Because of the way my brain works, it is difficult for me not to notice these similar functions. Indeed I find myself increasingly becoming less interested in asking which system is the most accurate reflection of a person’s life and consciousness, and instead gaining in curiosity around why human beings have created so many symbolic frameworks in the first place.
If we firstly consider astrology which was quite possibly my first great love within symbolic systems. Once one begins exploring it seriously you very quickly discover that there is no single thing called ‘astrology’. Instead there are many astrological traditions from across the world - each with their own languages, cosmologies, and techniques. At one end of the spectrum we might look towards the Sacred Mayan Calendar traditions of Mesoamerica such as the Tzolkin and the traditional Cholqij. Or across the other side of the world towards what we tend to collectively call Chinese astrology. But this actually has its own regional variations, such as Vietnamese astrology where even familiar symbolic animals can change (e.g. the rabbit becomes a cat). Then there is Vedic astrology, or Jyotisha, which generally works with a sidereal zodiac anchored to the fixed-star framework. Yet even here there are different schools and different Ayanamsha calculations (to account for the precision of the equinoxes), meaning there is no single universally agreed sidereal reference point to calculate from resulting in some differences in zodiac degree placements on a chart.
Western (or Tropical) astrology contains another whole collection of traditions within itself. For example, some of the types such as Hellenistic and traditional astrology, modern psychological or humanistic astrology, evolutionary astrology, and esoteric astrology all look at the same chart through quite different philosophical lenses. And this is before we even begin considering the various house systems, timing techniques, and specialist approaches that sit within them. Then we have the more recent systems such as Human Design which has drawn astrological information into entirely new symbolic frameworks again, combining it with other traditions and creating yet another way of interpreting the same moment of birth.
Being the curious and knowledge-hungry type I am, I explored as many of these as I could. To date, some have been at a fairly surface level, whilst others have involved incredibly deep study. Despite their many differences, what fascinated me was that they did not simply collapse because another system used a different zodiac, house system, or interpretative philosophy. Quite the opposite - most of them appeared to ‘work’- though often at different levels or by illuminating different aspects of experience. However, over time I gradually discovered the astrological approach that worked most coherently for me - not because I had proved the others wrong, but because its structure, language and way of organising the chart most consistently matched the way I understood people and lived experience. I guess one could say that what I practise now is something of a flexible hybrid, drawing most strongly from the approaches that have continued to prove meaningful and useful within my own work, whilst still exploring wider systems and bringing in new techniques and ideas as they are validated against both clients and my own lived experience.
Through my explorations of astrology, one of the questions that gradually began to arise for me concerned the fixed nature of the birth chart itself. Yes, one could argue that the natal chart does develop through time. As we develop. For example, transits activate different parts of it, progressions describe internal development, and other timing techniques can show changing phases, opportunities and points of transition. Yet the underlying birth/natal chart remains the symbolic imprint of the moment we arrived. So we may grow into it differently, express it more consciously, or encounter different parts of it at different stages of life, but the chart itself does not change.
This is where numerology became exciting to me, as it opened up a very different question for me, particularly through the subject of names. I discovered that a name is not necessarily fixed in the same way, and that changing it can create a deliberate shift in numerical expression. That immediately caught my attention, as if astrology could describe the underlying architecture of a life and introduces time and space into ones blueprint, what happened when one of the symbolic identities operating within that life was consciously altered? Could a name change signal, support, or reflect a different expression of themes that were already present within the birth chart, rather than somehow replacing them? To test this I took the decision to change my own name which made this question considerably more than theoretical. This then spurred me on to began exploring numerology in much greater depth and breadth - not only in relation to personal identity, but also across business, timing, and even something as seemingly ordinary as the number attached to a house.
Yet that deeper exploration quickly revealed that just as with astrology, there was no single system called ‘numerology’. Two of the main approaches I encountered were Pythagorean numerology (probably the most familiar within contemporary Western practice), and Chaldean numerology which has retained a particularly strong presence within Indian numerological traditions. Although there are points of overlap between them, they calculate and interpret names differently. As I explored in greater depth I found myself increasingly drawn towards the Chaldean system. Its distinction between compound and root numbers (I’ll write about these later), together with the greater individuality it seemed to preserve between numbers that would otherwise reduce to the same digit, gave me a richer symbolic language to work with.
This was also where astrology and numerology began to feel less like separate systems sitting alongside one another and more like different symbolic languages describing related territory. Astrology gave me the fixed architecture and its unfolding through time; and numerology - particularly through names - introduced the possibility that one layer of symbolic identity expression could be consciously changed. That relationship between what is given, what develops, and what can be deliberately altered became far more interesting to me than asking which system was somehow more ‘correct’.
So just studying these two symbolic systems in depth gradually changed the nature of the question for me. Instead of only asking what astrology or numerology says, or how one symbolic tradition differs from another, I became more interested in the wider phenomenon they all appear to belong to. Why have symbolic systems appeared so consistently throughout human history? Why do people from very different cultures seem to have created ways of organising experience through symbols, cycles, archetypes, and patterns? And why, even when we have access to more scientific knowledge than at any previous point in history, do these systems continue to hold such fascination for so many people?
These questions are not really about astrology or numerology at all. They are questions about symbolic systems themselves and perhaps about the human need to find meaning within experience.
What Are Symbolic Systems?
If we briefly look back in history we can see signs and evidence that human beings have always searched for ways to understand themselves and the world around them. Long before the development of modern scientific disciplines, people sought patterns within nature and observed the changing cycles of the heavens. They created myths to explain the forces they encountered. They developed rituals around significant transitions, and built symbolic languages that helped organise experience into forms that could be remembered, communicated, and shared. These traditions emerged in different places and at different times - often without any direct contact with one another. Yet despite their apparent diversity they continue to occupy a remarkably consistent place within human history.
Many of these ancient traditions remain familiar today. We’ve already looked at astrology and numerology, yet there are many others - perhaps mythology, tarot, sacred geometry, alchemy, and the I Ching are among the better-known examples. Many cultures continue to hold symbolic relationships with animals, landscapes, ancestors, seasons and natural cycles. Yet modern society often treats these as entirely separate disciplines, each belonging to its own tradition and attracting its own community of practitioners. We speak about these traditions as though they occupy different intellectual worlds. In many many ways they do, yet stepping back for a moment reveals another way of looking at them. Before considering what any one of these traditions says it is perhaps worth asking what characteristics they share, why they have appeared so repeatedly throughout human history, and what this tells us about the way people have always attempted to make sense of reality.
Symbols as Ways of Organising Reality
At its simplest, a symbolic system is an organised framework in which symbols are used to represent ideas, relationships, or processes that would otherwise be difficult to communicate directly. Yes, that description may initially sound rather abstract yet symbolic systems surround us every day - often in forms we scarcely notice. For example, a national flag is not simply a collection of coloured shapes, because over time it becomes tied into ideas of country, history, identity and belonging. Nor is a wedding ring just a piece of metal, as I am sure anyone who has ever lost one can agree with. Musical notation, mathematical equations, maps, architectural drawings, and even written language itself all rely upon symbols that represent something beyond their physical appearance.
Their usefulness lies not in the marks themselves, but in the shared understanding that has gradually developed around them. It could be argued that this ability to compress complex ideas into relatively simple forms is one of humanity’s most sophisticated intellectual achievements. Rather than repeatedly explaining every detail from first principles we can create symbols that allow entire networks of meaning to be recognised almost instantly. The symbol becomes a doorway into something much larger than itself, and once we understand the language being used, we are able to move quickly between the individual symbol and the wider system to which it belongs.
The same principle lies at the heart of astrology and numerology. A planet, a number, or an archetype is rarely intended as an isolated concept. Yes, each holds meaning in its own right, yet each also exists within a much wider structure of relationships that gives it context and modifies how it is expressed. Understanding the individual symbol therefore always involves understanding the system of which it forms a part, and this is where symbolic traditions begin to move beyond simple lists of meanings into something far more relational.
Beyond Individual Symbols
This relational quality is perhaps one of the defining characteristics of symbolic systems. They rarely concern themselves with isolated facts because their real interest tends to lie in the way different elements interact to create larger patterns. Let’s use astrology as an example. Although people often ask what a particular planet or zodiac sign ‘means’, experienced astrologers know that no placement can be understood entirely in isolation. Every chart is a web of relationships in which planets, signs, houses, aspects, and timing cycles continually modify and contextualise one another. In effect, the significance of any one factor depends upon the wider pattern within which it appears.
The same is true within Chaldean numerology. Whilst individual numbers possess distinct characteristics, they gain much of their significance through their relationship with other numbers within the chart. A Life Path holds valuable information, yet it cannot be fully understood without considering the wider numerical architecture surrounding it. Or a single name vibration has its own expression, yet it will sit within a much larger network of numbers associated with identity, development, and timing. Consequently, the overall pattern often proves more revealing than any individual component considered alone.
Take my own chart for example. I already have a Mercury-ruled chart, and one of the timing techniques I use is Secondary Progressions which symbolically advances the birth chart one day for each year of life, revealing inner development and unfolding life phases. My progressed Moon is currently in Taurus, but will move into Gemini in 2027, with a progressed New Moon taking place around 10 degrees during the year. This is already an interesting symbolic marker of a new developmental cycle, but it becomes considerably more meaningful when placed within the wider chart. It falls in my 10th house of public life and vocation, alongside an increasing concentration of progressed planets in Gemini - including Mercury, Venus and Saturn, whilst also moving towards territory occupied by my natal Moon and Saturn. Suddenly, what might otherwise have been interpreted as a single timing event begins to look like part of a much larger pattern around communication, writing, teaching, visibility, and the gradual shaping of something more substantial in my professional life. The individual factor still matters, but it is the relationship between all of those factors that gives it depth.
When we consider that many forms of modern analysis often seek understanding by breaking complex subjects into increasingly smaller pieces, so this way of thinking differs quite noticeably. Symbolic systems tend to move in the opposite direction - encouraging us to ask how apparently separate elements participate within larger wholes. The real interest often lies not in the individual component itself but in the pattern that emerges through relationship. In retrospect, my attraction to this way of thinking is probably of no great surprise as towards the end of my corporate career I had increasingly begun moving into Organisational Design, and at one point was seriously considering academic study in Systems Thinking. These both are concerned with understanding how individual parts behave within wider structures rather than treating them in isolation, so perhaps one method of symbolic systems was never going to be enough for me. And perhaps this relational quality is also one reason symbolic systems have continued to appeal across such different cultures and historical periods. Our human experience itself rarely arrives in neatly separated categories as our identities, relationships, decisions, bodies, environments, and life circumstances constantly interact with one another. Instead, symbolic systems offer one way of thinking about that complexity without pretending that it can always be reduced to simple linear explanations.
Independent Traditions, Shared Questions
One of the more intriguing features of symbolic systems is not simply that they exist, but that they have arisen independently across so many different civilisations. Western astrology developed within a very different historical context from Vedic astrology. Chinese astrology follows its own symbolic principles, whilst Mayan systems emerged from an entirely different cultural world. Chaldean and Pythagorean numerology likely grew from similar traditions, yet developed into different numerical system with some very different underlying principles.
These traditions are not interchangeable, nor do I think they should be treated as though they all describe reality in exactly the same way. Rather each possesses its own language, assumptions, and methodology, and respecting those differences is an important part of understanding them. Yet there is also something rather striking about placing them alongside one another. Despite their independence, many appear to explore remarkably similar aspects of human life by enabling exploration of questions surrounding identity, purpose, timing, relationships, cycles, transformation, and personal development. In fact, these appear repeatedly, even though the symbolic languages themselves may differ considerably.
One of the things that fascinates me is how often different systems seem to take me back to the same underlying question. In my own case, astrology repeatedly highlights themes around movement, adaptability, curiosity, and change - yet also a strong need for structure and containment. Numerology describes something very similar through an entirely different symbolic language, with dynamic and exploratory numbers sitting alongside others concerned with form, stability, and endurance. Neither system says exactly the same thing, but both seem to be illuminating the same tension from different angles - how much structure do I need in order to support freedom, rather than restrict it?
Whether this represents coincidence, shared human concerns, similar structures within human consciousness, or something deeper is not a question that can be answered quickly. Despite all of my study, I am now in a place where I am increasingly comfortable with that. In fact, I think part of what interests me now is that I no longer feel any particular need to rush towards a conclusion. The question itself is actually interesting enough. So instead of asking only what each symbolic system says, we might also begin asking why so many of them seem drawn towards similar kinds of questions, and whether their similarities tell us something not only about the systems themselves but about the people who continue to create and use them.
Thinking in Patterns Rather Than Certainties
One of the things I have noticed is that discussions surrounding symbolic traditions often become dominated by a single question - are they true? Whilst this is understandable, I increasingly feel that this can narrow the conversation before it has properly begun. Yet many of the models we already use every day are not intended to reproduce reality in its entirety. A map is useful precisely because it simplifies the landscape, scientific models evolve as new evidence emerges, and economic theories, organisational frameworks and psychological models all attempt to illuminate particular aspects of reality without necessarily claiming to explain everything.
So perhaps symbolic systems can also be approached in this way. Rather than immediately asking whether a tradition is universally true or false, I find it more interesting to ask what it appears to be modelling, which aspects of human experience it seems particularly good at describing, and what kinds of relationships or patterns it helps us notice. In addition to this I am equally interested in where its limitations become apparent, where another system appears to reveal something different, or where two traditions using entirely different symbolic languages seem to arrive at a remarkably similar underlying theme.
My own position on this too has shifted considerably. I find myself far less interested in trying to prove that symbolic systems are ‘right’, and much more interested in observing what happens when I actually work with them. Sometimes one system illuminates something in lived experience that another barely touches. Or several appear to converge around the same question. Sometimes they seem to disagree altogether. Yet I no longer see those differences as something that necessarily needs to be resolved as they may simply suggest that the systems are operating at different levels, asking different questions, or describing different aspects of the same experience.
For me, that has become a much more interesting place from which to work. It shifts the emphasis away from belief and towards inquiry, while still allowing the systems themselves to be taken seriously. Instead of requiring one framework to carry the entire burden of explanation, it leaves room for comparison, observation and development. Also for the possibility that understanding may emerge - not from forcing everything into one perfectly consistent model, but from paying closer attention to the patterns of agreement, difference, and relationship between them.
Towards Symbolic Intelligence
This is also where the idea of ‘symbolic intelligence’ has gradually become more important within my own work. I don’t see symbolic intelligence simply as the ability to interpret astrology, numerology, or any other particular system. Instead I approach it as the capacity to recognise patterns, relationships and correspondences across different forms of symbolic information, whilst still retaining enough discernment not to collapse those systems into one another. Different traditions may illuminate similar territory but that does not necessarily mean they are saying exactly the same thing. So part of the skill lies in understanding both the points of convergence and the places where genuine differences remain.
I think this is also where my own work has started to shift. I still value astrology and numerology as distinct disciplines. I can most definitely say that I remain very interested in the integrity, methodology, and internal logic of each system in its own right. Yet more and more I find myself drawn to what happens in the space between them. Where do they reinforce one another? Where do they reveal different layers of the same question? To notice where one system appears to illuminate something that another leaves largely untouched. Subsequently, the deeper I go, the less my attention seems to sit solely within astrology or numerology themselves, and the more it moves towards the wider patterns that begin to emerge when several symbolic perspectives are considered alongside one another.
Increasingly this is also how I find myself working with clients too. Rather than expecting one system to provide the whole answer, I am more interested in noticing what becomes visible when different symbolic languages are allowed to sit together. To consider how the different systems provide different layers. What interests me most is not forcing varying perspectives of different systems into agreement, but instead trying to understand what each is contributing to the larger picture.
This is why symbolic intelligence is beginning to feel less like another subject to study and more like a way of working with symbolic information itself. It involves enough openness to notice correspondence, yet also enough discrimination to preserve distinction. It allows different systems to inform one another without assuming they are interchangeable, and leaves room for the possibility that they may be modelling different layers of the same experience. For me, that feels considerably more useful than keeping each tradition in a completely separate compartment - particularly when lived experience itself rarely arrives in such neatly divided forms.
There is also something rather compelling about viewing astrology, numerology, mythology, and the many other symbolic traditions not simply as isolated disciplines, but as members of a much larger human project concerned with how we understand ourselves, the world around us, and our place within it. The symbols themselves are fascinating but perhaps the deeper question is what we are doing when we create, inherit, and work with them. In doing this we are taking experiences that may be complex, intangible or difficult to describe and giving them form whilst looking for relationship, pattern and meaning in areas of life that do not always lend themselves easily to straightforward explanation.
Although the systems we have created differ enormously, the impulse behind them appears remarkably persistent. In that sense the study of symbolic systems may ultimately tell us as much about people themselves as it does about astrology, numerology, myth, or divination. And perhaps more than anything, that is what continues to hold my attention.
~ Astrrid
Continuing the Conversation…
The more I explore symbolic systems, the less interested I become in treating them as isolated bodies of knowledge. What continues to fascinate me is the relationship between them: where they appear to illuminate similar territory, where they diverge, and what becomes visible when several symbolic perspectives are considered together.
This increasingly shapes the way I work professionally. My consultations bring together astrology, Chaldean numerology and broader symbolic frameworks to explore identity, timing, transition and the patterns that sit beneath a particular question or stage of life. If you would like to explore how these systems might illuminate your own circumstances, you can find out more about my services.
You can also subscribe to The Astrrid Journal (below) for new articles, reflections and occasional reports exploring astrology, numerology, symbolic intelligence and the wider patterns that continue to capture my attention.
Further Reading
If you would like to continue exploring some of the themes raised here: -
The Architecture of Numbers 0–9 in Chaldean Numerology — a deeper look at numbers as qualitative principles rather than simply quantities.
The Relationship Question Hidden in Your Chart — an exploration of how apparently separate chart factors begin to reveal more when considered as part of a wider pattern.
Spiritual Awakening Needs a Container — on the relationship between openness, structure and the need to give meaningful experience somewhere to land.
Can Support and Freedom Coexist? — a broader reflection on one of the recurring tensions that symbolic systems can help us recognise from different angles.
This Symbolic Life - For more personal essays, reflections, and shorter explorations of the ideas behind my work, visit This Symbolic Life on Substack.