The early 20th-century esotericists G.I. Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky introduced the concept of formatory thinking to describe a lower, mechanical mode of thought—one that operates automatically, without depth or intelligence.
It is a way of processing information that relies on fixed associations, learned phrases, and binary opposites rather than genuine reasoning. A person trapped in formatory thinking reacts to ideas in predictable, conditioned ways instead of engaging in real analysis, they rely on knee-jerk reactions, clichés, and surface-level interpretations.
Gurdjieff viewed formatory thinking as the default state of the ordinary human mind—habitual, reactive, and incapable of true insight. He criticized it as a “two-dimensional” form of thought, one that gets stuck in rigid dualities: good versus bad, right versus wrong, us versus them. It reduces complex realities to simple contrasts, stripping away nuance and deeper understanding. Ouspensky, in his book In Search of the Miraculous, went further in explaining how formatory thinking is “thinking in words only”—a superficial way of processing ideas that lacks the ability to synthesize, reflect, or hold contradictions in mind.
Everyday Manifestations
Formatory thinking manifests constantly in everyday life. This is especially evident in political discourse, where complex socio-economic issues are often reduced to rigid ideological slogans. Consider the phrase, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” This black-and-white thinking eliminates the possibility of independent analysis or the acknowledgment that multiple perspectives may hold merit. Similarly, sweeping statements such as “Capitalism is evil, socialism is good” (or vice versa) collapse intricate economic realities into a moral dichotomy, ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of each system. Damagogy relies on formatory thinking for its success.
A similar pattern emerges in spiritual and New Age thinking, where oversimplified ideas often replace genuine introspection. One of the most popular examples of this is the notion that “negative thoughts create negative reality, so just think positive!” While it is true that mindset can influence one’s perception and approach to life, this statement disregards deeper psychological, physiological, environmental, and even karmic complexities.
In religious circles, a person who does not believe in God is simply labeled as an atheist or pagan and it is assumed they lack respect or appreciation for the Divine and therefore is unable to express divine qualities in their daily lives. As if a belief in God was the only measure of Divinity.
Conversely, scientists arrogantly tend to dismiss rather than engage with the fact that some aspects of human experience—such as the essence of consciousness, morality, or the nature of existence—fall outside the scope of empirical study.
By now, the reader may have realized that formatory thinking is not thinking at all. And with some sincere observation, we will find its presence in any and all areas of life without exception.
At best, formatory thinking is informative, like a nutritional value label on a package of food, the labels on a menu in a computer program, or the instruction manual on how to operate some machinery. But it has nothing to do with the thinking required to address House 9 matters or how to tackle the deepest and more complex problems of House 3.
Formatory Astrology
Would astrology be somehow immune to formatory thinking? Certainly not. This same mechanical thought approach pervades it, distorting and banalizing a discipline that was historically rooted in structured knowledge, deep analysis, synthesis, and interpretative skill.
Traditional astrology is not a rigid system of absolutes but a language of essential symbols—one that requires thought, context, and an ability to navigate complexity. Yet, in practice, formatory thinking has led to an oversimplified application of astrological principles, turning what should be flexible considerations into dogmatic rules. And this is not only about modern astrology. Generally speaking, Traditional Astrology is as susceptible.
A clear example of this is found in the so-called “Considerations Before Judgment” in horary astrology, a set of guidelines meant to alert the astrologer to potential difficulties in reading a chart.
Take, for instance, the rule concerning Saturn in the 7th house. William Lilly cautioned that if Saturn appears in this position, the astrologer should be careful, as their judgment may be impaired.
The basis of horary is that it is a snapshot of the querent’s concerns. The astrologer is not in that snapshot, unless the question concerns the astrologer. So, what was Lilly thinking? Was he thinking deeply enough when he committed that idea to ink? No, he was not. He was biased by whatever forces that were acting on him when he made the unfortunate decision to write that “consideration”.
Another favorite example of formatory thinking in Traditional Astrology involves early and late degrees on the Ascendant. Some astrologers, trapped in formatory thinking, refuse to read any chart with an early or late Ascendant, treating what was once a pragmatic 18th-century guiding principle as an automatic disqualification. “Nothing can be read from this chart!” They squawk…
Perhaps nowhere is formatory thinking more evident in Traditional Astrology than in the rigid classification of planets as “good” or “bad.” Many astrologers assume that Jupiter and Venus are good while Saturn and Mars are bad.
But traditional astrology does not deal in such absolutes; unless we practice it formatorily, of course. Saturn can describe discipline, endurance, a wall, a roof, the immune system, boundaries, and wisdom, just as Jupiter can depict excess, complacency, wastefulness, or a cancerous growth. Plus, the interpretation of any planet depends on dignity, house placement, aspects, and the overall context of the chart, be it a horary, natal or mundane chart. Yet, in a formatory mindset, such factors are ignored in favor of simplistic, blanket labels that do not refer to the essence of those symbols.
The essence of life, therefore, the essence of symbols, is not good or bad. Malefic and benefic are mental judgments, not essential qualities. Stepping outside the constraints of formatory thinking is necessary to understand that.
I hear: “But Saturn and Mars are extreme that is why they are malefic.”
That is classic formatory thinking. If those planets are extreme, call them extreme when being extreme applies to the context. What does extreme have to do with good and bad? Nothing, unless one is thinking formatorily, of course.
If you are in a war and must defend yourself by harming your opponent, you are being extreme. Being extreme is good for you and bad for your opponent. So, Mars is good (benefic) for you and bad (malefic) for the opponent. Surgery is an extreme medical intervention that is benefic to us. Jupiter or Venus can be extremely wet in Pisces. Rain under those conditions leads to flooding, mudslides, tsunamis, and other tragedies. In these cases, Jupiter and Venus are both extreme and malefic.
This type of simple analysis is something that formatory thinking is unable to do. Add some emotional attachment to ideas or the astrologers who uttered them, and we have not only an inability to think analytically but also an unwillingness to do so. A kind of melancholic traditional stubbornness.
And don’t get me going about the fixed stars. Formatory thinking gladly tells us that most people will die a violent death from poisoning or drowning… Give me a break!… No wonder so many traditional astrologers are scared to read horary charts and then create considerations and rules to justify their ineptitudes and fears.
Breaking free from formatory thinking—whether in astrology or in life—requires effort and awareness. It means resisting the urge to rely on automatic judgments and labels and instead engaging deeply with ideas in their full complexity. In astrology, this means understanding planetary dignity, placement and context rather than defaulting to fixed meanings drawn from a book we have little to no knowledge of the context in which it was written, both personally about the author and its broader social context. Or drawn from a book written by someone who was merely parroting somebody else’s even older formatory thinking.
Traditional astrology has endured for centuries precisely because it is rich, flexible, and deeply insightful. Yet, when formatory thinking takes hold, it reduces this ancient wisdom to dogma and its proponents to cult leaders. There is no easier way to get a thumbs down on YouTube than to criticize William Lilly. Lilly, the master of masters, who never sinned! Never mind that one of us here now is the reincarnation of the same soul that played Lilly then… I digress… I can hear the formatory responses to such a preposterous idea…
If we wish to practice astrology in a way that remains true to its essence, we must restore depth and breadth to our thought process. Life is not black and white; why do we make astrology so? Well, because of formatory thinking.
Parrots are beautiful in the wild, not in libraries and classrooms.
