Research, Sources & Technical Credits

I care about giving credit where credit is due.

The work I create comes from a mix of long-term study, hands-on experimentation, research, writing, design, coding, testing, and a lot of time spent figuring out how these different pieces fit together.

Some of the foundations I work with are ancient. Astrology itself has centuries of history behind it. Some of the research I use is contemporary. Some of the technical tools are open-source projects built by developers whose work makes modern chart calculation possible. Some influences are literary or philosophical and help me think more carefully about language, meaning, and human experience.

I want to be clear about all of that.

This page is where I document the sources, traditions, research, software, and technical foundations that have meaningfully contributed to the work I publish at BonnieSorsby.com.

It is also where I draw an important line between what I have learned from or used and what I have built myself.

The specific methodologies, interpretive systems, evidence rules, software structures, editorial frameworks, visual experiences, product architecture, and written material I create are independently developed unless I say otherwise.

Listing a source here does not mean that source created my work, endorses my work, or validates astrology. A research paper can help me think more clearly about a concept. An ephemeris can calculate a planetary position. A historical astrology technique can give me a symbolic foundation. None of those things automatically determines the final interpretation, product, or methodology I build from them.

My goal with this page is simple: to be transparent about the foundations of my work, accurate about what each source contributes, and clear about what is mine.

Transparency, Accuracy & Constructive Feedback

I want my work to be transparent, but I do not want transparency to become performance.

I would rather show my sources, explain my reasoning, document the tools I use, and correct something when I get it wrong than pretend every part of a creative or technical process appeared fully formed and beyond question.

I make a real effort to:

trace important claims back to original or authoritative sources where possible;
distinguish calculation from interpretation;
distinguish historical theory from contemporary research;
distinguish established astrological techniques from the systems I have developed myself;
verify licensing and attribution for software, research, and other third-party material;
be specific about what a source contributes rather than borrowing its authority for something it does not support;
revisit and correct information when better documentation or stronger evidence becomes available.

That matters especially because my work crosses a few different worlds at once: astrology, astronomy, software, writing, research, and interpretation. Those areas do not all use the same standards, and I think it is important to say clearly which standard is doing which job.

I also genuinely welcome constructive feedback in this area.

If you are a researcher, astrologer, developer, writer, historian, creator, rights holder, or simply someone who notices that I may have credited something incorrectly, misunderstood a technical detail, misstated a license, overlooked an original source, or described something in a way that could be more accurate, I want to know.

The most helpful feedback is specific. If you can point me to the relevant source, documentation, publication, repository, or license, even better.

I may not agree with every interpretive opinion, and not every disagreement will lead to a change. But if something is factually wrong, technically wrong, poorly sourced, or incompletely credited, I take that seriously.

Accuracy is not something I consider finished just because a page is live. It is absolutely something I keep working on.

How I Use Sources

The work referenced on this page generally contributes in one of several different ways.

Astronomical calculation helps establish objective chart data such as planetary positions and other celestial measurements.

Astrological tradition provides much of the symbolic and technical language of planets, signs, houses, aspects, rulership, timing techniques, and other established astrological methods.

Psychological, philosophical, and human-experience research can deepen the vocabulary available for thinking and writing about complexity, meaning, ambivalence, continuity, difference, and other dimensions of human experience. It does not determine what an astrology chart is allowed to say.

Literary, rhetorical, and editorial research informs how a supported idea can be developed with greater clarity, precision, nuance, structure, rhythm, and depth.

Software and open-source projects may provide technical infrastructure that makes calculation, visualization, or interactive experiences possible.

The source has to be appropriate to the job.

A psychology paper does not become astrology evidence. A literary technique does not create permission for a stronger interpretation. Astronomical software calculates positions but does not decide what those positions mean.

Astronomy & Chart Calculations

Moshier Ephemeris

Certain astrology tools and calculation systems on this site use software from the Moshier ephemeris lineage to support astronomical calculations.

The implementation used in my development work is Moshier Ephemeris ES6 Re-implementation by 0xStarcat and contributors. The project is an ES6 reimplementation of Mivion’s JavaScript implementation, based on the astronomical work of Stephen L. Moshier.

The project is distributed under the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPL v3.0).

Astronomical calculation software is used to establish chart data. It does not supply the interpretive methodology, customer-facing meanings, report architecture, editorial logic, product structure, or written interpretations built from that data.

Project: Moshier Ephemeris ES6 Re-implementation
Developer: 0xStarcat and contributors
Based on: Mivion’s JavaScript implementation and the astronomical work of Stephen L. Moshier
License: GNU General Public License v3.0
Repository: github.com/0xStarcat/Moshier-Ephemeris-JS

Additional astronomical or technical calculation resources will be documented here as they are incorporated into my work.

Astrological Tradition & Methodology

My astrology work draws from established Western astrological traditions and techniques, including natal astrology, planetary symbolism, signs, houses, Whole Sign houses, traditional planetary rulership, aspects, essential dignity, lunar nodes, transits, progressions, angles, planetary cycles, and related techniques where appropriate to the particular tool or interpretation.

These techniques belong to a much larger historical astrological tradition.

I do not claim authorship of planets, signs, houses, rulership systems, aspect meanings, traditional techniques, or the fundamental symbolic building blocks of astrology.

What I develop independently is the way those building blocks are selected, bounded, combined, tested, interpreted, written, visualized, and turned into a particular methodology or experience.

Independently Developed Astrology Frameworks

My personalized astrology products and tools include original methodology developed through chart research, writing, software design, iterative testing, population-level quality assurance, and editorial review.

This includes work developed for experiences such as Your Beautiful Birth Chart™, Your Contribution Pattern™, Your Personal Pattern™, and related astrology tools and educational resources.

Depending on the project, independently developed elements may include:

evidence-selection systems;
section-specific interpretive jurisdiction;
claim boundaries;
deterministic selection logic;
synthesis architecture;
authored interpretive content systems;
reinforcement and contradiction handling;
chart-specific evidence tracing;
visual chart highlighting;
interactive report structures;
editorial and quality-assurance standards;
methods for showing customers which parts of a chart support a particular interpretation.

Traditional astrology provides much of the symbolic source material.

The architecture used to transform that material into a specific product, interpretive system, software experience, or body of writing is separate creative and technical work.

Psychology, Philosophy & Human Experience

I sometimes consult psychological and philosophical writing to broaden the vocabulary available for thinking about human experience.

This research may help me think more carefully about ideas such as coexistence, ambiguity, differentiation, complexity, continuity, meaning-making, competing legitimate demands, and the ways apparently different qualities can exist within the same person.

These sources do not diagnose customers, determine astrological conclusions, or scientifically validate astrology.

A psychological concept may help provide language for understanding a form of human experience only after the astrology independently supports that kind of interpretation.

Historical & Philosophical References

Historical sources consulted in the development of my broader interpretive and editorial thinking include:

C. G. Jung

Psychological Types

Used as a historical and philosophical reference when thinking about psychological complexity, polarity, differentiation, symbolic thought, and the coexistence of multiple tendencies.

Jung’s work is treated as historical psychological and philosophical material.

William James

The Principles of Psychology

Consulted as a historical source in the study of attention, experience, continuity, habit, and the complexity of human consciousness.

William James

The Varieties of Religious Experience

Consulted as a historical and philosophical exploration of subjective experience, meaning, spirituality, and the variety of ways people interpret interior experience.

Inclusion here does not mean I accept every theory proposed by an author or apply that author’s psychological framework directly to people receiving my work.

Contemporary Psychology & Human-Experience Research

Contemporary research is used primarily as a conceptual and empirical reality check, helping distinguish historical psychological language from current research and providing more precise vocabulary where appropriate.

It is not used as scientific validation of astrological interpretation.

Selected research currently informing this broader work includes:

Oh, S. & Roh, S.-C. (2019)

“A Moderated Mediation Model of Self-Concept Clarity, Transformational Leadership, Perceived Work Meaningfulness, and Work Motivation.”

Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1756.

Used as a contemporary reference concerning self-concept clarity, coherence, and perceived work meaningfulness.

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Molina, I., et al. (2023)

“Current research trends on cognition, integrative complexity, and decision-making: a systematic literature review using activity theory and neuroscience.”

Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1156696.

Used as a contemporary research reference for integrative complexity, differentiation and integration of information, and the broader research landscape surrounding complex cognition.

License: CC BY 4.0

Kam, C. & Bellehumeur, C. R. (2022)

“Grasping the paradoxical nature of wisdom through unconscious integrative complexity.”

Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1028951.

Used as a conceptual reference concerning complexity, paradox, and the coexistence of apparently opposing information.

License: CC BY 4.0

Pillaud, V., Cavazza, N. & Butera, F. (2018)

“The Social Utility of Ambivalence: Being Ambivalent on Controversial Issues Is Recognized as Competence.”

Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 961.

Used as research concerning ambivalence and the social interpretation of holding multiple positions or considerations simultaneously.

License: CC BY 4.0

These sources help inform an independently developed framework for thinking and writing about human complexity. They do not empirically validate astrology or determine the meanings assigned to astrological placements.

Contemporary Clinical Terminology

Where contemporary mental-health or clinical terminology needs to be checked, I prefer current professional, governmental, or primary research sources rather than treating historical psychological language as modern diagnostic fact.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is among the sources I may consult for current mental-health terminology and research orientation.

My astrology work is not psychological diagnosis or mental-health treatment, and astrological placements are not used to assign clinical conditions.

Writing, Rhetoric & Editorial Craft

I also study writing itself.

The purpose of this research is not to imitate an individual author. It is to understand the more durable mechanics of good prose: how a thought develops, how qualification can increase precision instead of weakening an idea, how paragraphs move, how complexity can remain readable, how syntax creates rhythm, and how an interpretation can be explored fully without claiming more than its evidence supports.

Historical works consulted in this area include:

Aristotle

Rhetoric

Consulted for enduring questions of rhetoric, argument, structure, persuasion, audience, and the development of ideas.

Aristotle

Poetics

Consulted as a historical work concerning structure, coherence, development, and the way parts contribute to a meaningful whole.

William Strunk Jr.

The Elements of Style, original Strunk-only edition

Consulted as an early writing and composition reference.

This credit refers specifically to the original public-domain Strunk edition and not the later Strunk & White revisions.

Additional literary, rhetorical, compositional, and editorial research will be documented here as that work develops.

Artificial Intelligence & Computational Assistance

I use computational tools and artificial-intelligence systems as part of some research, development, editing, software, and quality-assurance workflows.

Tools such as ChatGPT and Claude may assist with activities including code development, debugging, research organization, comparative analysis, testing, editorial review, and iterative methodology development.

I do not treat an AI-generated statement as a research source simply because an AI system produced it.

When a factual, scholarly, historical, legal, licensing, astronomical, or technical claim matters to the work, I strive to identify and evaluate the underlying source.

AI assistance also does not determine the interpretive boundaries of an astrology methodology. The methodology determines what evidence may support a claim, and editorial review determines how that claim is ultimately communicated.

Open-Source Software & Technical Acknowledgments

Some interactive tools on this website incorporate or depend upon open-source software.

Open-source projects are used according to their applicable licenses. Where a license requires attribution, preservation of copyright notices, license text, source availability, or other obligations, those requirements are separate from this human-readable research and credits page.

Currently Documented Component

Moshier Ephemeris ES6 Re-implementation
0xStarcat and contributors
Based on Mivion’s JavaScript implementation and the astronomical work of Stephen L. Moshier
GNU General Public License v3.0
github.com/0xStarcat/Moshier-Ephemeris-JS

This section may expand as additional technical dependencies are identified or introduced.

Images, Media, Data & Other Third-Party Materials

Where photographs, illustrations, icons, datasets, archives, fonts, historical documents, or other third-party resources require attribution, credit may appear directly with the material or on this page depending on the applicable license and the context in which the material is used.

I make a good-faith effort to preserve required creator credits and license information rather than treating material found online as automatically free to reuse.

Original Work & Intellectual Property

I have spent substantial time researching, organizing, testing, writing, designing, and developing the work published here. Giving credit to the sources and technical tools that have helped inform that process is important to me, but that transparency should not be mistaken for permission to reproduce my work.

Unless otherwise stated, the original writing, software, visual design, documentation, product experiences, interpretive frameworks, and other original materials created for BonnieSorsby.com remain my intellectual property.

I do not claim ownership over astrology itself, historical astrological techniques, public-domain material, published research, open-source projects, or the independent work of the people credited on this page. I do ask that my own writing, code, products, documentation, and original implementations not be copied, republished, distributed, or commercially reproduced without permission.

I want to be open about what has informed my work while still protecting the work I have spent years developing.

A Note About Research, Influence & Original Work

No serious creative or intellectual work develops in a vacuum.

I care about acknowledging the people who created the tools, scholarship, ideas, texts, and technical foundations that make deeper work possible.

I also care about being precise about what those sources contributed.

A research paper that helped me think more carefully about complexity did not write an astrology report.

An ephemeris that calculated a planet’s longitude did not decide what that placement means.

A centuries-old astrological technique did not design a modern interactive interpretation.

An AI tool that helped test software is not the author of the methodology being tested.

The finished work comes from making decisions about how those pieces belong together, which claims are supported, where the boundaries belong, how the system should behave across many different charts, and how the resulting meaning should be communicated to another human being.

That process of research, organization, interpretation, development, testing, writing, design, and refinement is a substantial part of the work itself.

Research Corrections & Constructive Feedback

This page is deliberately public because I want my work to be accountable to the standards I say I care about.

If you believe I have:

attributed something incorrectly;
overlooked an original creator or source;
mischaracterized a license;
documented a technical dependency inaccurately;
made an astronomical or factual mistake;
relied on a source that deserves stronger context;
blurred the distinction between historical theory and contemporary research;
or otherwise represented something here in a way that could be improved;

I welcome thoughtful, constructive feedback.

Whenever possible, please include the source, documentation, publication, repository, license, or other information that will help me investigate the issue.

I cannot promise that every disagreement will result in a change, particularly when the disagreement concerns interpretation rather than a factual or sourcing issue. But I will take good-faith corrections seriously and review them on their merits.

Accuracy is not something I consider finished once a page goes live.

It is an ongoing responsibility.

Ongoing Research

This is a living page.

My research, software, and creative work continue to evolve, and additional sources or credits may be added as new tools, products, methodologies, and writing frameworks are developed.

I also periodically revisit older source information as editions, licenses, software dependencies, scholarship, and my own understanding change.

If you are an author, researcher, developer, creator, rights holder, or other knowledgeable person and believe something on this site has been incorrectly attributed, incompletely credited, or described inaccurately, I welcome the opportunity to review it.

Contact me here.

Last updated: August 2026.