The Inverted Structure of Discourse in Eastern and Western Divination — A Cultural Compensation Hypothesis Based on Four Pillars of Destiny and Western Astrology —

English translation of the Japanese original published at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20253704 This paper compares the discursive styles of Eastern divinatory systems, particularly Four Pillars of Destiny (shichū suimei), with those of Western astrology, and hypothetically examines the cultural structures underlying their differences. In Four Pillars of Destiny, symbolic categories within the natal chart (meishiki) are often presented in terms of presence or absence — as something one “has” or “does not have.” This gives rise to an attribute-attributing mode of discourse, as in the statement, “you possess Hiken (one of the Ten Gods, tsūhensei).” In Western astrology, by contrast, celestial bodies such as the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars exist in every horoscope, while their meanings vary according to placement, aspect, house, sign, and relative strength. This produces a mode of discourse oriented toward influence and tendency, as in “you are susceptible to the influence of Mars” or “the relationship between the Moon and Saturn may create tension in your emotional life.” What this paper draws attention to is that this divergence in discursive style appears to be inverted in relation to common cultural assumptions about East and West. Eastern cultures are often described as emphasizing ambiguity, indirectness, and context-dependence, whereas Western cultures are often described as emphasizing explicitness, analytical thinking, and logical clarity. Yet in divinatory discourse, Eastern divinatory systems tend to employ declarative and attribute-attributing language, while Western astrology tends to employ language marked by ambiguity, influence, tendency, and interpretive latitude. This paper presents this inversion as the Cultural Compensation Hypothesis: people may seek from divination a discursive style different from the communicative norms dominant in their everyday lives. In this view, divination does not simply reflect culture; it may also function as a device that compensates for forms of expression that everyday culture lacks. This paper confines itself to constructing a theoretical framework for explaining this inversion, leaving empirical analysis to future research.