Tarnas's corpus is documented: Prometheus the Awakener (1995) argues the astrological Uranus, revolution, sudden awakening, technological brilliance, fits the Prometheus myth and not the sky-god Ouranos. Cosmos and Psyche (2006), building on thirty years at Esalen and the California Institute of Integral Studies, presents planetary archetypes as correlated with cultural epochs, expressly archetypal rather than causal: the planets do not push, they index.
The documented critique: archetypal astrology's correlations are selected in hindsight, every turbulent decade contains liberation and shadow, every era yields Promethean figures, and no pre-registered prediction from the system has been tested. Critics, including sympathetic historians, note the 1960s fit any archetype you name beforehand. Tarnas answers that archetypal patterns are multivalent and the method is hermeneutic, not predictive.
The newest layer, from Jorjani's Austin 2026 Thanosis talk: astrology as a feature of the simulation, planetary and zodiacal patterns not pushing matter but indexing generative rules already written into the world's code, Gauquelin and Tarnas cited as the pattern's two witnesses. It is the oldest defense, acausal correspondence, wearing the newest vocabulary: rule set, engine, initialization event at birth.
When the pattern-matcher has Harvard credentials and footnotes, who checks the telescope?