You can deny my argument all you like, but history and anthropology support my argument. So does categorical logic (Aristotle's logic).
These two philosophers are interesting...
The fantastic is, of course, most closely related to the imagination (Phantasien), but the imagination is related in its turn to feeling, understanding, and will, so that a persons feelings, understanding and will may be fantastic. Fantasy is, in general the medium of infinitization (Kierkegaard, p 60-61)
Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness Unto Death. Trans. Alastair Hannay. New York: Penguin, 1989.
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.
 An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.
 It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
 And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature. (Hobbes, p 444)
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.
Perhaps my understanding is misguided, however. Clearly, I understand the idea that that which is intangible cannot be seen from a sensual (senses) aspect. In other words, the face of God, nor a man's soul cannot be accurately described in physical terms. I also understand, from the first philosophers POV, that feelings and emotions are "fantastic". That is, based in fantasy. In other words, whether derived from experience or environment, our mental reactions, even our personal bias of memory, are dependent solely on the individual and his or her spiritual convictions. i.e. Buddhists think of Karma, Christians think of sin.
But perhaps you could explain why astrology is relevant to this argument?
- Carl Jung