Home is a name, a word; it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, or spirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration.
~ Charles Dickens

We continue our journey today exploring the gifts and challenges of the Fourth House of the astrological chart.

As most awakened people realize, we create reality based on what we give our beliefs and energy to. We are constantly weaving spells that shape our life’s experiences, based on both what we know we know, and the subconscious beliefs we carry. Also, to one degree or another, we are interwoven into the consensus beliefs of our larger society.

Let me emphasize that unlike some New Age thinkers, I do not believe we are omnipotent or infallible with this gift. Randomness and Mystery work in unseen ways that we cannot always anticipate or control.

Still, it is true that our core beliefs become so much a part of us, we hardly realize they are there; they become embedded in our personal energy field. They are the water in which the fish dwells without really seeing it. This is the place that we call Home.

Deeply connected to our first home of origin, Home is the pole star around which our life is anchored. It is one aspect of the Fourth House of the astrological Wheel, and is sometimes called the Seat of the Soul.

What does Home (yes, with a capital H) mean to you? In what ways might your childhood home have shaped your present reality? Is it what you most desire? Or do you need some new interior design?

For instance, what if, when they were little, someone absorbed a belief that people are never to be trusted? Over time, they might accept that this is just “the way things are.”

This becomes an internal assumption that they are no longer consciously aware of. And yet, as they are projecting that belief into the world, the energy of it acts like a magnet, pulling towards them people and situations that reinforce that assumption.

Thankfully, though, people are awakening to the fact that in many cases, by changing their core beliefs, they can change their life experiences. As you change your inner reality, your outer reality follows suit.

Even more interesting, though, is the dawning of our understanding that by changing our outer reality, our inner experiences can change as well!

In her beautiful classic, Sacred Space, author Denise Linn notes that the key place to begin making those outer changes is our home. For, she explains, our homes are a metaphor for who we are.

“By changing the energy in your home you create an energy template,” she suggests. “Working with your Intention and your furnishings, you can create a new pattern or template that will penetrate deep into your subconscious. This template can help change deep subconscious negative programming.”

More tomorrow!

Share the Magic:

The conjunction is probably the most simple astrological relationship to see. An aspect is a relationship between placements and the conjunction just means near to the same degree (I use an orb of about 8 degrees). When planets are conjunct they flavor each other. Each planet has its own function and its own flavor. Taken together they add up to something new. They still retain their integrity but with the added extra impact of the other.

(...)
Read the rest of The Conjunction: “Add It Up” by Satori (279 words)

---

© Satori for ElsaElsa.com, 2010. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Beginners, Conjunction

I'm assuming a bad aspect to Mercury since Gemini is ruled by Mercury and Gemini rules the lungs? Help please!

As you probably know by now Libra is ruled by Venus and is a sign renowned for balance, artistry and fair play - they are the lovers and procrastinators of the zodiac.  One curiosity of the sign is that it is masculine by polarity (an outgoing 'yang' type nature) and yet ruled by a feminine planet.  This idiosyncrasy is very evident in Libra natives - the men have a natural charm with women, identifying strongly with 'Venusian' qualities themselves, and may come across as slightly effeminate in this regard.  This gender confusion can be a source of conflict for him - Mars lies in his shadow and, if not expressed easily, it can surface as flakiness.  With Libra women, the opposite tends to be the case - they shun the rather shy, demure, retiring aspect of femininity, instead displaying a certain direct and bold nature.  In truth, for both sexes, the interplay of Mars and Venus by sign, aspect, polarity etc. is a major determining factor in their personality makeup.  As I write this, Mars and Venus are in conjunction orb in Scorpio and hence will be in effect for all solar returns for Libra's this year - a year to get to grips with the shadow.

It is important to remember that any sun sign makeup has 'qualities' derived from the other signs.  To illustrate this let's trip through the zodiac for Librans:

A Libra has material concerns (note - not necessarily materialistic, merely that it is of upmost importance and value to them).  They are perhaps possessive or secretive with money and stubborn when required to share themselves emotionally - that melting pot of truth might scare them somewhat.  Sexuality and sensuality are a joy and their relationship with their own feelings is very complex.

Open and cordial relationships with siblings.  They might enjoy the thrill of travelling - nothing fancy, trips to the shops for indulgence maybe.  At school they may be athletic and fiery and have wider interests in history, geography, philosophy or theology.  They are often broadminded and flexible with their beliefs.

This rather ties in with the gender difficulties (for want of a better phrase) mentioned earlier.  They are likely to have an unusually strong (positive or negative) relationship with the parent (or caregiver) of the opposite gender.  Proverbial mummy's boys and daddy's girls.  In later life this dynamic could surface as a rigidness about where they live - a stable and secure home base is very important whilst their career and outer persona may be sensitive and easily hurt (particularly socially).

Librans are highly sociable - mixed company with lots of friends around that they relate to well.  They may have eclectic hobbies, fight for some justice or perhaps their offspring may be the source of the unusual.  In groups, when comfortable, they show themselves as expressive, gregarious creative thinkers.

This is where the term 'lazy Libra' comes in.  Finding routines tiresome they'd much rather drift off into a fantasy world (usually romantic).  They do however recognise that long term growth comes with the price of hard work and craft.  The combination of Pisces/Cancer on the career points suggest an up and down working life - never quite satisfied.

And of course, last but not least (for a change) - Aries rules the 7th House.  They are attracted to daring, bold and spirited individuals that provide excitement and are able to hold their wandering eyes!

So, Libra is a strange conundrum.  The zodiac is turned on its head for them (notice how each sign is in its opposite house).  Gaining understanding and perspective of this innate duality is key - in a funny sort of way, they are quite radical, yet you would not think it.

Happy Birthday Libra :-)

Thanks for earlier feedback. Here is updated draft.

4 GOING NUCLEAR

Suppose Mike is involved in a debate about the truth of his own particular New Age belief system. Things are not going well for Mike. His arguments are being picked apart, and, worse still, his opponents have come up with several devastating objections that he cannot deal with. How might Mike get himself out of this bind?

One possibility is to adopt strategy I call Going Nuclear. Going Nuclear is an attempt to unleash an argument that lays waste to every position, bringing them all down to the same level of “reasonableness”. You try to force a draw by detonating a philosophical argument that achieves what, during the Cold War, used to be called “mutually assured destruction”, where both sides in the conflict are annihilated.

There are two main variants of Going Nuclear: sceptical and relativist. I’ll begin with skeptical versions

1. SKEPTICAL VERSIONS OF GOING NUCLEAR

Skepticism about reason

In philosophy, a “skeptic” is someone who denies we have knowledge, or justified beliefs, in a given area. Here is a classic example of a skeptical argument:

Whenever we argue about the truth or falsity of a belief, we apply our powers of reason. But why suppose that reason is itself a reliable route to the truth? We might attempt to justify our use of reason, of course. But any justification of reason that we offer will itself rely on reason. Relying on reason to justify our reliance on reason is a bit like taking a second-hand car salesman’s word for it that he is trustworthy – it’s an entirely circular justification, and so no justification at all! So it turns out that our reliance on reason is entirely unjustified. It’s a leap of faith!

From the claim that our reliance on reason is unjustified, it is seemingly then but a short step to the conclusion that no belief is justified:

But if reliance on reason cannot be justified, then, because every rational justification relies on reason, so no belief can be justified. But if no belief is justified, then, ultimately, everything is a faith position! But then your belief is no more reasonable than mine. Get out of that!

Whether or not this is actually a good argument for the conclusion that no belief is justified is not a question I’ll address here. The point is, at first sight, it does look pretty persuasive. It’s not easy to spot precisely where the argument goes wrong, if, indeed, it goes wrong at all. This means that if Mike’s belief system is taking a beating, rationally speaking, Mike can adopt the last-ditch tactic of employing this skeptical argument. Mike can then admit that his belief might not be justified. But he can insist that his opponent’s belief system cannot be justified either. The skeptical argument offers Mike a wonderful “get out of jail” card. It allows him to walk away with his head held high, saying, “So you see? In the last analysis, our beliefs are equally (ir)rational! They are both ‘faith positions’!”

You can see why I call this strategy “Going Nuclear”. Once Mike plays the skeptical card, all his opponent’s hard work in constructing arguments against Mike’s position counts for nothing. Kaboom! At one stroke, Mike demolishes them all. He lays waste to every rational argument, bringing every belief down to the same level.

In order for Mike’s opponent to deal with his Going Nuclear, they will now have to refute his philosophical argument. That is a difficult, perhaps impossible, thing to do. They are certainly going to struggle. As a result, any audience to their debate will be struck not only by Mike’s sophistication in employing such a devastating philosophical objection, but also by his opponent’s mounting frustration as they wrestle with the thorny philosophical conundrum Mike has set them. It’s quite likely Mike will be perceived to be the intellectual victor in this exchange. At the very least, he won’t be thought to have lost.

This version of Going Nuclear can be employed in defence of a wide variety of beliefs. Believe in the curative powers of crystals, or that there’s a family of fairies living at the bottom of your garden? If you find yourself on the losing side of the argument, you can always employ Going Nuclear as a last ditch, face-saving strategy.

So what, exactly, is wrong with this version of Going Nuclear? After all, it might be that the skeptical argument Mike has employed really is a good argument. Perhaps every belief system really is as rational as every other. So, if Mike finds himself argued into a corner, why shouldn’t he employ such a skeptical argument?

Because it’s almost certainly a intellectually dishonest ruse. Those who press the nuclear button rarely do so in good faith. Bear in mind that, in such discussions, playing the skeptical card really is the nuclear option. By Going Nuclear, Mike avoids defeat, but only by utterly annihilating the rationality of every belief. All positions, no matter how sensible or nuts, come out as equally (ir)rational.

If Mike is to be consistent, he must now accept that that the Earth is flat, that the Earth is round, that milk makes people fly, that it doesn’t, that astrology is true, that is isn’t – that all these beliefs are equally (un)reasonable. Now of course, Mike almost certainly doesn’t believe any of this. The fact is, he does think reason provides us with a fairly reliable tool for establishing what is true and what isn’t. We all rely on reason in our day-to-day lives. In fact, Mike constantly trusts his life to reason, whenever, for example, he trusts that the brakes on his car will work, that a bridge will support his weight, that a medicine will save his life, and so on.

Indeed, those who employ this version of Going Nuclear are usually quite content to rely on reason to make their case just so long as they are not losing the argument. It is only when the tide of rationality turns against them that they reach for the nuclear button. And of course, once their opponent has left the room, they’ll start using reason again to try to prop up their belief. That’s downright hypocritical.

So this version of Going Nuclear is, in truth, almost always a ploy. Those who use it don’t usually believe what they’re saying about reason. They say it only to raise enough dust and confusion to make quick their escape.

A religious example

The skeptical version of Going Nuclear outlined above crops up quite often in debates about the truth of religion. For example, responding to rational arguments raised against his beliefs, one Orthodox Jew writes:

The belief in reason seems no less a dogma than any other.

Perhaps belief in reason is, ultimately, a dogma. However, if this person relies on reason in every other aspect of their life, and appeals to reason whenever it appears to support their particular religious beliefs, then they are guilty of hypocrisy. Playing the skeptical card is merely a ruse they selectively employ in order to avoid having to admit that what they believe has been revealed, by the standards that they accept and employ in every other aspect of their life, to be false.

Skepticism about the external world

There are several variants of the skeptical version of Going Nuclear. Sometimes a different skeptical argument is employed. Here’s another example.

Suppose a theist finds herself in the losing side of a debate with atheists about the existence of God. Her own arguments for the existence of God have been shown to be weak, and she is struggling to deal with the evidential problem of evil raised by her opponents. As a last-ditch strategy she may try this: admit that her own belief involves a leap of faith, but then add that her atheist opponents make a similar leap of faith when it comes to trusting their senses.

Atheists, after all, believe they inhabit a physical world filled with mountains, oceans, trees, houses and people. But they believe this only because that is the kind of world their senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell and so on seem to reveal. How can they know their senses are a reliable guide to the truth? How can they know that their experiences are produced by a real world, rather than, say, a supercomputer generating a sophisticated virtual reality, as in the film The Matrix? After all, everything would seem exactly the same, either way. So, it seems atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world. But if atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world, then they don’t know that such a world exists. Their belief that there is such a world must involve a huge leap of faith.

Having set up this skeptical argument, our theist may then add that she happens to enjoy, not only sensory experiences, but also a God experience. God, she supposes, reveals himself to her. But then, precisely because she trusts her God experience – she supposes that it is not a delusion but genuinely reveals God – she doesn’t then have to place any additional faith in the reliability of her other senses. Why? Because the kind of God she seems to experience is no deceiver. She can be sure that, if there is such a God, then he will have provided her with senses that are fairly trustworthy. So, for such a theist, trusting her senses does not require any further leap of faith.

In which case, our theist may conclude, for someone who has such religious experiences, belief in God need be no more a faith position than the atheist’s belief in the external world. The two beliefs are actually intellectually on par. It’s leaps of faith all round.

Notice, incidentally, that our theist may make the same suggestion about the atheist’s use of logic and reason. She may say that atheists just assume that their use of logic is reliable – they cannot ultimately justify it (for the reason we saw above). But, because our theist places her faith in her God experience, she doesn’t have to make a leap of faith so far as her use of logic is concerned. Her God would not allow her to be deceived about the reliability of logic.

Criticism

Perhaps it is true that atheism is a faith position because any belief about how things stand outside of our own minds is ultimately a faith position (though this is certainly controversial – some philosophers would say we are justified in supposing there is a physical world of mountains, oceans, tress, houses, and so on because that hypothesis provides the best available explanation of what we experience, a better explanation than the Matrix-type hypothesis that it’s all an elaborate computer-generated illusion). However, even if any belief about the external world involves a leap of faith, it does not follow that it is as reasonable for a theist to place their trust in their God experience as it is for atheists to trust their senses.

First of all, note that, while we have no obvious grounds for supposing our ordinary senses are highly untrustworthy, there are very obvious grounds for supposing that such religious experiences are, as a rule, untrustworthy (see the chapter entitled,“I Just Know!” for details). The content of the religious experiences people report appears very largely to be a product of their culture, and often also the mind-altering practices they tend to engage in, rather than any sort of divine reality.

Secondly, and still more significantly, even if our theist’s assumption that she is experiencing God leads her to trust her other senses, her other senses then appear to furnish her with ample evidence that there is no such benevolent God. There is, for example, the evidential problem of evil – surely an all-powerful and all-good God would not have created a world containing so much appalling suffering. So, unlike the assumption that our other senses are reliable, her theistic assumption ends up undermining itself.

In short, this version of Going Nuclear doesn’t work. The theist’s assumption that her God experience is reliable appears, on closer examination, to be much less reasonable than the atheist’s assumption that our other senses are reliable.

Beyond Going Nuclear

There is an interesting twist on Going Nuclear popular in certain religious circles – a twist that involves combining Going Nuclear with “I Just Know!”. It runs as follows.

God, some theists maintain, has provided them direct and certain knowledge of his existence. So, they suppose, they don’t have to assume God exists. They know he does (see “I Just Know!”). And, armed with this certain knowledge that God exists, she can then justify her reliance on logic and her senses. The God she knows exists would not allow her to be deceived in her use of logic and her senses. But the atheist, she thinks, has no such justification. So the atheist must remain mired in skepticism.

Such a theist may be tempted to respond to her atheist critics by saying, “Ah, you are attempting to using logic against me, but of course, unlike me, you are not entitled to are you?” This is one of the main argumentative strategies of one well-known commenter on various religious and atheist blogs who, in response to any rational criticism of his Bible-literalist brand of theism, typically ignores it, saying:

I submit, that your worldview cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, which YOU presuppose in all of YOUR arguments, whereas mine can, and does.

Notice that, though our theist is playing the skeptical card here, he is not, strictly speaking, Going Nuclear. Going Nuclear involves bringing all positions down to the same level of rationality. The claim made here is that only the atheist ends up mired in skepticism. Our theist plays the skeptical card in order to undermine the arguments of his atheist critics. However, our theist (he supposes) achieves a literally miraculous escape from skepticism himself. With one bound he is free – saved by the grace of God, whom, he supposes, provides him infallible knowledge of God’s existence, knowledge that can then be used to justify his own reliance on logic.

This way of dealing with criticisms of theism also fails. Whether or not our theist is right to claim atheists are mired in skepticism, he is still obliged to deal with their arguments and objections. Suppose an atheist appears to have provided what looks like an excellent argument that his God does not exist, or powerful evidence that he is deluded in supposing that he “just knows” his God exists. For our theist to just ignore such arguments and evidence and say, “But you are using logic which you can’t justify but I can!” is pure evasion. Whether or not the atheist is mired in skepticism is irrelevant. It may be the atheist’s argument is still good. The onus is on the theist to explain why it isn’t. And of course, if the theist can’t deal with the argument, then they’re dumped back in the skeptical swamp themselves.

2. RELATIVIST VERSIONS OF GOING NUCLEAR

We have looked at two skeptical versions of Going Nuclear, one based on skepticism regarding reason, the other based on skepticism about the external world. However, there are also non-skeptical versions of Going Nuclear based on the thought that truth is relative.

Relativism about truth

Relativism is the philosophical view that what is true is relative to believers. There’s no objective Truth with a capital “T” out there to be discovered. Rather, truth is a construction – our construction. There’s your truth, my truth, his truth, her truth. There is, in short, not one Truth, but many truths.

In its simplest form, this sort of relativism says that what is true is what the individual believes to be true. Suppose I believe we are visited by angels. Then, says such a relativist, for me it is true we are visited by angels. If you believe we are not visited by angels, then for you it’s true that we’re not. There’s no fact of the matter as to which of us is actually correct.

Another form of relativism about truth makes truth relative not to individuals, but to communities. Most scientifically-minded Westerners believe that stars and planets have no astrological influence on our lives. But in other cultures it’s supposed that the stars and planets do have such an influence, and that astrologers can use star charts to accurately predict the future. According to this kind of relativist, that the stars and planets have such an influence is false for such Westerners, but true for those other communities. Truth is a social construct. Scientific truth is just one truth among many, all of which are equally “valid”.

These kinds of relativism about truth are popular in certain circles, and they might provide Mike with another get-out-of-jail-free card. If Mike finds he is losing the argument about the ability of astral plane therapy to cure disease, he might say:

Well, that astral plane therapy cures disease may not be true for you, but it’s true for me!

The implication being that what’s true about astral plane therapy is a matter of what certain individuals or communities happen to believe about astral plane therapy. Mike’s opponents now not only have to figure out what Mike means by this cryptic remark, they’re then faced with the job of refuting the relativist theory of truth to which Mike has, in effect, signed up. These are complicated tasks that will require time and patience to achieve. In the meantime, Mike’s out the door, leaving his opponent bogged down in the philosophical mire he has created.

Notice that this is also a version of Going Nuclear, because, like the sceptical version, it brings every belief down to the same level, rationally speaking. Every belief is as “true” as every other.

The absurdity of relativism

It’s worth making a detour at this point to explain just why this kind of relativism is absurd. One reason relativism can seem attractive is that there are is a small percentage of beliefs for which it might, actually, be true. Consider wichitee grubs, for example – the large larvae eaten live by some aboriginal Australians. Some aboriginals consider the grubs a delicacy. Most Westerners, on the other hand, find them revolting (when Jordan, the British glamour model, was challenged to eat several large squirming grubs on a TV programme, she said the experience was “worse than childbirth”).

So what’s the truth about wichitee grubs? Are they delicious, or not? The truth, perhaps, is that there is no Truth-with-a-capital-T about their deliciousness. For those who enjoy the taste of wichitee grubs, it’s true that they’re delicious. For those they don’t it’s false. That’s because the property of being delicious is ultimately rooted, not objectively in the grubs themselves, but rather in our subjective reaction to them.

So, yes, a very small and select band of truths may be relative. But not all (for then, as the philosopher Plato pointed out, the truth that all truths is relative would itself be relative, which entails that, if I believe it’s false that all truths are relative, then I am right!). One or two people might genuinely believe that individuals create their own reality – that reality is whatever the individual takes it to be. The actress Shirley MacLaine, for example, writes

I have learned one deep and meaningful lesson: LIFE, LIVES and REALITY are only what we each perceive them to be. Life doesn’t happen to us. We make it happen.

Clearly, the Shirley MacLaine view of reality on which reality is whatever we believe or perceive it to be can’t be correct. I cannot make it true that I can fly just by supposing that I can. Suppose I jump off this tall building, convinced I can fly. I mighty even believe I am flying as I plummet to the ground. But the sad fact is, I’ll still end up a crumpled heap on the pavement below. Even if I jump off holding hands with my community, every member of which is convinced we’ll fly, we will all still plummet to our deaths. Before Copernicus, was it true that the Sun really went round the Earth, because that’s how it looked to people? Had Neil Armstrong, and enough others, believed the Moon was made of cheese, might the Eagle have landed on a sea of Camembert? Obviously not. When it comes to whether or not we can fly, whether or not the Sun goes round the Earth, or whether the Moon is made of cheese, how things appear, and how things really are, can, and do, come apart.

The selective appeal to relativism

So while one or two truths might be relative, most are not. Nevertheless, the view that all truth is relative is supposedly widespread. According to the academic Harold Bloom,

[t]here is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.

Actually, I doubt that almost every student really believes this. What I don’t doubt is that many students have learned that relativism offers them a very useful get-out-of-jail-free card when they find themselves cornered in an argument. They have learned that, by saying “Hmm, well, that may be true for you, but it’s not true for me” they can generate enough intellectual confusion to make quick their escape.

This is precisely what Mike does above, of course. Like most people who play the relativist card when cornered, Mike doesn’t really suppose that truth is whatever we believe it to be. If pressed, it would almost certainly turn out that Mike doesn’t really accept the absurd view that if he really believes he can fly, then he can. Nor will Mike play the relativist card while the argument seems to be going his way. Mike’s relativism is merely a convenient guise that he selectively adopts whenever he’s on the losing end of an argument.

The “What is truth?” smokescreen

Here’s a related argumentative strategy. Rather than playing the relativist card, simply ask what truth is. Truth is a philosophically thorny notion, and it is by no means clear how to define it. So, if Mike finds his New Age belief system is taking a pasting, intellectually speaking, he could try saying this to his critics:

Ah, you claim these things are true. You think you can show they are true. But let me ask you a more fundamental question - what is truth?

Mike’s opponents will no doubt be disorientated by this sudden change of direction in the conversation and baffled by the thorny philosophical question they have been set, giving Mike enough time to head out the door.

Just this tactic seems to have been employed by Pontius Pilate. When he interrogated Jesus prior to the crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed, "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (John 18:37). Pilate replied, "What is truth?" and left. As the philosopher Francis Bacon put it in his essay "On Truth":

“What is truth?” said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.

This kind of use of the question “What is truth?” is the intellectual equivalent of throwing dust in your opponent’s face to make quick your escape. When arguments are going our way, we are generally quite happy to say that we have good grounds for supposing that what we believe is true. Only when things start going badly for us does it suddenly occur to us to ask, “Yes, but what is truth?!”

This is not, strictly speaking, a version of Going Nuclear, as it’s not actually claimed that all beliefs are equally reasonable or equally true. However, it’s related to the relativist version of Going Nuclear, in that it involves the selective use of a philosophical puzzle in order to generate enough confusion to make quick your escape.

Conclusion

Going Nuclear..

by Lynn Hayes (art from the Symbolon Tarot)The Virgo New Moon occurs Wednesday morning September 8th at 6:30 am Eastern (10:30 am GMT) on the heels of a beautiful aspect from Venus, the planet of love and beauty, to Chiron and.

4 GOING NUCLEAR

Suppose Mike is involved in a debate about the truth of his own particular New Age belief system. Things are not going well for him. His arguments are being picked apart, and, worse still, his opponents have come up with several devastating objections that he cannot deal with. How might he get himself out of this bind?

One possibility is to adopt the intellectually dishonest strategy I call Going Nuclear. Going Nuclear involves playing a general skeptical card. In philosophy, a “skeptic” is someone who raises doubts about our claims to knowledge in a given area. Here is an example of a skeptical argument:

Whenever we argue about the truth or falsity of a belief, we apply our powers of reason. But why suppose that reason is itself a reliable route to the truth? You might attempt to justify our use of reason, of course. But any justification of reason that you offer will itself rely on reason. Relying on reason to justify our reliance on reason is a bit like taking a second-hand car salesman’s word for it that he is trustworthy – it’s an entirely circular justification, and so no justification at all! So it turns out that our reliance on reason is entirely unjustified. It’s a leap of faith!

From the claim that our reliance on reason is unjustified, it is then but a short step to the conclusion that no belief is justified:

But if reliance on reason cannot be justified, then, because every rational justification relies on reason, so no belief can be justified. But if no belief is justified, then, ultimately, everything is a faith position! But then your belief is no more reasonable than mine. Get out of that!

Whether or not this is actually a good argument for the conclusion that no belief is justified is not a question we’ll address here. The point is, at first sight, it does look pretty persuasive. It’s not easy to spot precisely where the argument goes wrong, if, indeed, it goes wrong at all. This means that if Mike’s belief system is taking a beating, rationally speaking, a last-ditch tactic Mike might adopt is simply to throw this skeptical argument at his opponent. Mike can admit that his belief might not be justified. But he can insist that his opponent’s belief system cannot be justified either. The skeptical argument offers Mike wonderful “Get out of jail”. It allows him to walk away with his head held high, saying, “So you see? In the last analysis, both our positions are equally (ir)rational! They are both ‘faith positions’!”

You can see why I call this strategy “Going Nuclear”. Once Mike plays the skeptical card, all his opponent’s hard work in constructing arguments against his position counts for nothing. Kaboom! At one stroke, Mike demolishes them all. He lays waste to every rational argument, bringing every belief down to the same level.

In order for Mike’s opponent to deal with Going Nuclear, they will now have to refute his philosophical argument. That is a very difficult, perhaps impossible, thing to do. They are certainly going to struggle. In which case, any audience will be struck not only by Mike’s sophistication in employing such a devastating philosophical objection, but also by his opponent’s mounting frustration as they wrestle with the thorny philosophical conundrum that Mike has set them. It’s quite likely that Mike will now appear to be the intellectual victor in this exchange.

So what, exactly, is wrong with Going Nuclear? After, it might be that the skeptical argument Mike has employed really is a good argument. Perhaps every belief system really is as rational as every other. So, if Mike finds himself argued into a corner, why not employ such a skeptical argument? Why is Going Nuclear typically an intellectually dishonest ruse?

Because Mike almost certainly does not press the nuclear button in good faith. Bear in mind that, in such discussions, playing the skeptical card really is the nuclear option. By Going Nuclear, Mike avoids defeat, but only by utterly annihilating the rationality of every belief. All positions, no matter how sensible or nuts, come out as equally (ir)rational.

If Mike is to be consistent, he must now accept that that the Earth is flat, that the Earth is round, that milk makes people fly, that it doesn’t, that astrology is true, that is isn’t – that all these beliefs are equally (un)reasonable. Now of course, Mike almost certainly doesn’t really believe any of this. The fact is, he does think reason provides us with a fairly reliable tool for establishing what is true and what isn’t. Indeed, we all rely on reason in our day-to-day lives. In fact, Mike constantly trusts his life to reason, whenever, for example, he trusts that the brakes on his car will work, that a bridge will support his weight, that a medicine will save his life, and so on.

In fact those who Go Nuclear are usually quite content to rely on reason to make their case just so long as they are not losing the argument. It is only when the tide of rationality turns against them that they reach for the red button. And of course, once their opponent has left the room, they will start using reason again to try to prop up their belief.

So Going Nuclear is, in truth, almost always a mere a ploy. Those who use it don’t usually believe what they’re saying about reason. They say it only to raise enough dust and confusion to make quick their escape.

Going Nuclear can be employed in defence of a wide variety of beliefs. Believe that there’s a family of fairies living in your biscuit barrel or that that you are visited by ghosts? In each case, if you find yourself on the losing side of the argument, you can always employ Going Nuclear as a last ditch, face-saving strategy. It crops up particularly in religious circles. For example, responding to rational arguments raised against his beliefs, one Orthodox Jew writes:

The belief in reason seems no less a dogma than any other.

Perhaps belief in reason is, ultimately, a dogma. But that’s really beside the point. This person almost certainly relies on reason in every other aspect of their life, and will no doubt appeal to reason whenever reason appears to support their religious belief. Their skepticism about reason is not genuine; it’s merely a ruse they employ selectively to avoid having to admit that what they believe has been revealed, by standards that they accept and employ in every other aspect of their life, to be false.

Trusting our senses

Here’s an interesting variant of Going Nuclear that is sometimes employed by the religious when confronted with intellectual challenges to what they believe. They admit that believing in God involves a “leap of faith”. But they then add that atheists have to make a “leap of faith” when it comes to trusting their senses.

Atheists, after all, believe they inhabit a physical world filled with mountains, oceans, trees, houses and people. But they believe this only because that is the kind of world their senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell and so on appear to reveal. How can they know their senses are a reliable guide to the truth? How can they know that their experiences are produced by a real world, rather than, say, a supercomputer generating a sophisticated virtual reality, as in the film The Matrix? After all, everything would seem exactly the same, either way, wouldn’t it? So, it seems atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world. But if atheists cannot justify their belief in such an external world, then they don’t know that such a world exists. Their belief that there is such a world must involve a huge leap of faith.

Having set up this sceptical argument, a theist may then add that they happen to enjoy, not only sensory experiences, but also a God experience. God, they suppose, reveals himself to them. But then, precisely because they place their faith in their God experience – they suppose that it is not a delusion but genuinely reveals God - they don’t then have to place any additional faith in the reliability of their other senses. For such a good God wouldn’t allow us to be systematically deceived by our senses. We can be sure that, if there’s a God, then our senses are trustworthy. So, for such a theist, trusting their senses does not require any further leap of faith.

In which case, our theist may conclude, for someone who has such religious experiences, belief in God need be no more a “faith position” than the atheist’s belief in the external world. The two beliefs are actually intellectually on par.

This is an interesting argument that may contain an element of truth. Perhaps it is true that atheism is a faith position because any belief about how things stand outside of your their mind is ultimately be a faith position. However, even if any belief about how things stand outside your own mind requires a leap of faith, it doesn’t follow that it’s as reasonable for a theists to place their trust in their God experiences as it is for atheists to trust their senses.

Even if there weren’t very good grounds for supposing that religious experiences, unlike our other senses, are highly untrustworthy (see “I Just Know!”), the fact is that, while the theist’s assumption that they really are experiencing God might lead them to trust the deliverances of their other senses, those other senses then appear to furnish them with ample evidence that there is no such benevolent being (I’m now referring, of course, to the evidential problem of evil outlined in the introduction – surely we observe far too much suffering for this to be creation of an all-powerful and supremely benevolent deity). So, unlike the assumption that our senses are reliable, the theistic assumption ends up undermining itself.

Variants of Going Nuclear: (1) “What is truth?”

We have looked at two skeptical versions of Going Nuclear, one based on skepticism regarding reason, the other on skepticism about the external world. However, there is also a range of non-skeptical versions of Going Nuclear.

For example, rather than raising philosophical doubts our knowledge of what is true, Mike could instead try raising a philosophical question mark over the idea of truth itself. Truth is a philosophically thorny notion, and it’s by no means clear how to define it. So, if Mike finds his New Age belief system taking a pasting, intellectually speaking, he could try saying to his critics:

Ah, you claim these things are true. You think you can show they are true. But let me ask you a more fundamental question - what is truth?

Mike’s opponents will no doubt be disorientated by this sudden change of direction in the conversation and baffled by the thorny philosophical question they have been set, giving Mike at least enough time to head out the door.

Just this tactic seems to have been employed by Pontius Pilate. When Pilate interrogated Jesus prior to the crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed, "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (John 18:37). Pilate replied, "What is truth?" and left. As the philosopher Francis Bacon put it in his essay "On Truth":

“What is truth?” said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.

This kind of use of the question “What is truth?” is the intellectual equivalent of throwing dust in your opponent’s face to make quick your escape. When arguments are going our way, we are generally quite happy to say that we have good grounds for supposing that what we believe is true. It’s only when things start going badly for us that it suddenly occurs to us to ask, “Yes, but what is truth?!”

Variants of Going Nuclear: (2) “It’s true for me”

Another variant of Going Nuclear involves, not asking what truth is, but simply proclaiming or implying that truth is relative.

To explain: relativism is the philosophical view that what is true is relative to believers. There’s no objective Truth with a capital “T” out there to be discovered. Rather, truth is a construction – our construction. Thus there are many truths. There’s your truth, my truth, his truth, her truth.

In its simplest form, this sort of relativism says that what is true is what the individual believes to be true. Suppose I believe levitation by the power of the mind is possible. Then, says such a relativist, for me it is true that it is possible. If you believe it is impossible, then for you it’s true that it is impossible. There’s no fact of the matter as to which of us is actually correct.

Another form of relativism about truth makes truth relative not to individuals, but to communities. Most scientifically-minded Westerners believe that the stars and planets have no astrological influence on our lives. But in other cultures, it is supposed that the stars and planets do have such an influence, and that astrologers can use star charts to accurately predict the future. According to this kind of relativist, that the stars and planets have such an influence is false for such Westerners, but true for other communities. Truth is a social construct. Scientific truth is just one truth among many truths, all of which are equally “valid”.

This sort of relativism about truth is popular in certain circles, and it might provide Mike with another get-out-of-jail card. He might say:

Well, that astral plane therapy cures disease may not be true for you, but it’s true for me!

The implication being that what’s true about astral plane therapy is simply a matter of what certain individuals or communities believe about astral plane therapy. Mike’s opponents now not only have to figure out precisely what Mike means by this cryptic remark, they will then have to refute the relativist theory of truth to which Mike has, in effect, signed up – complicated tasks that will require some time and patience to achieve. In the meantime, just like Pontius Pilate, Mike’s out the door, leaving his opponent bogged down in the philosophical mire he has created.

The absurdity of relativism

It’s worth making a detour at this point to indicate just why this kind of relativism is absurd. One reason why relativism can seem attractive is that there are a few beliefs for which it might, actually, be true. Consider wichitee grubs, for example – the large larvae eaten live by some aboriginal Australians. Some aboriginals consider the grubs a delicacy. Most Westerners, on the other hand, consider them revolting (when Jordan, the British glamour model, was challenged to eat several large squirming grubs on a TV programme, she said the experience was “worse than childbirth”). So what’s the truth about wichitee grubs? Are they delicious, or aren’t they? The truth, perhaps, is that there is no Truth-with-a-capital-T about their deliciousness. For those who enjoy wichitee grubs, it’s true that they’re delicious. For those they don’t it’s false. That is because the property of being delicious is ultimately rooted, not objectively in the grubs themselves, but rather in our subjective reaction to them.

So, yes, some truths may be relative. But not all (for then, as the philosopher Plato pointed out, the truth that all truths is relative would itself be relative, which entails that, if I believe it’s false that all truths are relative, then I am right!). One or two people might believe that individuals create their own reality – that reality is whatever the individual takes it to be. The actress Shirley MacLaine, for example, writes

I have learned one deep and meaningful lesson: LIFE, LIVES and REALITY are only what we each perceive them to be. Life doesn’t happen to us. We make it happen.

One of the oddest and most disturbing examples of someone apparently quite sincerely embracing a MacLaine-type view of reality is provided by George W. Bush’s senior advisor Karl Rove, who seems to have learned the same deep and meaningful lesson. Rove once told journalist Ron Suskind that Suskind was a member of what Rove called the

“reality-based community”, which [Rove] defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” ... “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

Rove’s view seems to be that there is no need to observe and study reality in order to try to figure what is and is not true, or what is and is not likely to work, policy-wise. For there is no such independent reality. Bush’s leadership team create reality. Just like Shirley MacLaine.

Clearly, the Shirley MacLaine view of reality cannot be correct. I cannot make it true that I can fly just by believing or imagining that I can. No matter how convinced I may be that if I jump off this tall building, I’ll soar gracefully into the air, the fact is, if I jump I’ll die. Even if I jump off holding hands with my community, every member of which is convinced we’ll fly, we will still all plummet to our deaths. Before Copernicus, was it true that the Sun really went round the Earth, because that’s what everyone believed? If Neil Armstrong, and enough others, had believed the Moon was made of cheese, would the Eagle have landed on a sea of Camembert?

Obviously not. When it comes to whether or not we can fly, whether or not the Sun goes round the Earth, or whether the Moon is made of cheese, what we believe, and how things really are, can, and do, come apart.

The selective appeal to relativism

According to the academic Harold Bloom,

[t]here is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.

Actually, I rather doubt that almost every student really believes this. But many students have learned that relativism offers a very useful get-out-of-jail card when they cornered in an argument. They have learned that, by saying “Hmm, well, that may be true for you, but it’s not true for me” they create enough intellectual confusion to make quick their escape.

This is precisely what Mike does above, of course. Like most people who play the relativist card when cornered, Mike doesn’t really suppose that truth is whatever we suppose it to be. If pressed, it would almost certainly turn out that Mike doesn’t really accept the absurd view that if he really believes he can fly, then he can. Nor will Mike play the relativist card while the argument seems to be going his way. Mike’s relativism is merely a convenient guise that he selectively adopts whenever he’s on the losing end of an argument.

Here is an astrological glyph legend. This is the simplified chart for the Pisces Full Moon. It’s easy to see how the Sun and Moon aspect so many planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Chiron, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. You can tell because either the numbers are in close proximity (in the 2-3-4 range) or in the case [...]

This is from a consultation with a gal in regards to her young daughter..

“I am sorry if this stresses you but I do think it’s something you should be aware of.  Venus in Virgo is the quintessential, Persephone figure and the Pluto square can be played out in bad ways. It can also be played out in good ways (she attracts power and I mean BIG power because Jupiter in involved) so I think you get the idea. Don’t let Roman Polanski near your daughter.”

Do you have Venus in aspect to Pluto in your chart? Have you come across power themes in your relationships? Tell us!

---

© Elsa for ElsaElsa.com, 2010. | Permalink | 15 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: persephone, venus-in-virgo, venus-pluto

how compared to the shape of the symbol for Jupiter? are these BOTH shaped like a "Sickle"?? why for that? and what it means whenever Saturn transits to an aspect, planet or point in chart...is it "harvesting" what has been "Sown" in previous transits by other planets? or how different for Jupiter transits to planets? please explain what you can about the symoblism thanks for your answers!

He who cannot give anything away cannot feel anything either.
– Friedrich Nietzsche

Back for another visit, the Six of Pentacles appears on this New Moon and shows us a picture of resources given and received. We could call it a portrait of charity.

The Pentacles deal with the literal, physical, material world, and the Sixes are about reciprocity, exchange, and restoring equilibrium.

So we see a well-to-do merchant (some speculate this is the same character as in the Nine of Cups) who is dropping coins into the outstretched hand of one of the two beggars on their knees. Are these two the same lost souls that we see in the Five of Pentacles? This could easily be the case, since the Sixes are often the resolution of the conflicts of the Fives.

With the current astrological aspects continuing to be extremely volatile, this card’s appearance hints that this week may have a lot of focus on resources, wealth, security and financial markets.

On a more personal level, it might be time to take a good look at what we offer and what we receive.  How do we bestow what we value upon others? How do we ask for what we need? How do we wield the power of give and take?

We cannot be benefactors, unless there is someone to receive. The pleasure of sharing is lost, if no one wishes to take what we offer. By giving what we know is of value, we receive blessings in turn. Thus, although there appears to be an imbalance of power between the merchant and the beggars, the scales in the card say otherwise.

However, there is also a shadow aspect to this card. Moses Maimonides was a medieval Jewish philosopher, physician and all-round intellectual giant of the 12th Century. He was the first to write a systematic code of all Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah.

According to his hierarchy of giving, the second most favorable form of charity is when the giver and recipient do not meet one another. And the most virtuous form is that which enables the recipient to become self-reliant.

That is not what we are seeing in this card.  Instead, there is the danger of co-dependence, domination and weakness, and the darker side of how we wield and are affected by the power of money.

For instance, in order to play the role of magnanimous benefactor, who is required to play the role of humble supplicant?  We are certainly being invited to see the role-playing here,  since this is another of Pixie Smith’s “stage” cards (in which, if you look closely, the figures appear to be standing on a theater stage).

As in all the cards of the Tarot with multiple figures, who do you identify with most right now? Are you the wealthy one, able to give? By your giving, who must you choose to exclude? Who will have to wait for your favors?

Or are you feeling more like the two figures on their knees? And are you the one receiving, or are you helplessly looking on, hoping that eventually, it will be your turn?

Beware of hubris. Be mindful that the tables can turn. Who has and who has not, at any given moment, may switch. All of life is an exchange, often with one up and one down. Over time, what will be needed to keep the balance?

"A Sword Day, A Red Day, and the Sun Rises!!!!"
     King Theoden - Lord of the Rings

Jupiter enters Aries on 7th June at 07:27 Universal Time beginning a new cycle of the zodiac as Uranus had done a week ago.

Jupiter is a giant - a planet that is 11 times the diameter of the Earth and the largest planet in our solar system.  Astrologically then, it represents reach - the way we extend beyond ourselves and our perceived limits; to reach for what we desire and to learn and grow.  It has associations with travel (long distance travel) and learning (higher learning) and extending socially and culturally - for example religion and faith are Jupiterian themes.  The planet rules the sign Sagittarius - he of the shooting arrow to the sky and exerts a 'generally' benign and optimistic influence just like Sagittarius himself.

Considering Aries as the first sign of the zodiac we have a double whammy of growth potential with this ingress.  Jupiter blows upon, and ignites Arian flames to reach out with spirit and attain your desires - Jupiter is perhaps known to 'pontificate' but whilst he's in Aries he is inclined to bluntness and a much more direct 'just do it' attitude.

On June 8th he conjuncts an equally direct Uranus in Aries at 0 degrees (known as the Aries Point).  This really does signify big new starts born from the ashes of the old.  There is a significant lack of temperance here and this aspect can be utilised to strike out, make a fresh start and be innovative and creative (particularly with technology) and extending beyond our personal boundaries - it has limitless potential.

There is a downside of course - excessive selfishness, inappropriateteness and over optimism can trip you up.  The grand cross that is in the sky now should help resolve some of these issues - the Jupiter/Saturn opposition helps to reign in when reaching too far, the Saturn/Pluto Square provides depth to 'oil' the cogs and Uranus provides the radical shifts of position.

If you have a big idea - then now's the time to get cracking on it.

I have also written about Jupiter/Uranus in Aries and the entertainment industry here.
Are you interested in Astrological Poetry? Then click here

Picture Copyright Eva Schuster

Making music by the Mongolian Steppe

The kamlanie at the spring, with Zoya, gave Chimit the answer to his onstage visions.   He was being called.  It was more than an invitation.  Individuals who were singled out to become shamans could always decline.  But Chimit knew that usually, they would suffer sometimes a succession of illnesses, or just one big, long affliction.

Of course, the idea of becoming a shaman attracted him.  It gave status and power, and if not exactly popularity, it meant small-scale celebrity. He could see how it would fit in with his personality.  He could carry it off with style.  When he shamanised it would be a powerful performance.

At the same time, he knew it was a serious business, a serious step to take.  There were pressures and stresses which went with the job. He would be dealing with the uncertainties and dangers of the spirit world, daily.  And there was the shamanic politics.  There was always the shamanic politics.

Shamans tended to be fiercely proud to the point of seeing sleights in the smallest gestures of other shamans. Sometimes the fights were sneaky affairs, black magic behind closed doors.  But every now and again it was a full-scale public call-out like a western gunfight.

Then each shaman would chant his or her own kargysh – a personalised invocation or curse - in an attempt at destroying the other with black power.

But Chimit thought he could handle all that.  He was used to fighting.  He was a powerful man, capable of silencing opponents with a hefty punch.

So he agreed to begin his apprenticeship with Zoya.  He left  his wife Irgit, and daughters Nelli and Natasha in Kyzyl and moved back to Erzin for a month, staying with an uncle, not far from Zoya’s home.

There were no concerts or tours planned for another two and a half months, so he had time, and there was enough money left over from the last European tour to tide the family over.

It was like going back to school.  Zoya was thorough and strict.  She felt she had to control Chimit’s flare for extravagant gestures and showbiz posturing. Although there has always been a strong display aspect to Tuvan shamanism, Zoya thought that Chimit had more than enough already, and clipping his flamboyant wings would not reduce his effectiveness.

Zoya also believed in doing things by the book – except that there was no book, only a tradition which was interpreted more liberally by some shamans than others.  For Zoya, every ritual had to be performed with the right words, the right procedures, in the right order.

Again this did not sit easily with Chimit’s more fluid approach to life.  But he was decided on one thing.  He was going to do this with conviction. And as Zoya was his teacher, he resolved to follow her instructions with respect. She started by looking at Chimit’s astrological background.  There were two systems.  The first is the familiar 12-year cycle – the year of the dragon, the snake, the horse – used by the Chinese and others. The other is an unusual system which probably arrived in Tuva from Tibetan Buddhists, via Mongolia. The Tuvans called it the nine menge method, menge meaning a dot.  So in the nine year cycle, Chimit was born in an eight white-dot year, also in the year of the snake.

It meant, said Zoya, that he was a deep thinker, but a rowdy reveller. She went on to build up a picture of Chimit, and the origins of his power, and she told him he had to study these astrological methods in order to help people.

“If you use the astrology alongside your shamanic power, you will be able to give more positive help to people,” she told Chimit.

She showed him an old book of charts combining both systems, a book she had been given by her own teacher who had added notes in the margins of nearly every page, and she told Chimit to copy it out for his own use.

Although Chimit knew the differences between black and white shamans, Zoya insisted on spelling it out.

“You will become a white shaman. You have the power to go to the white sky.  There you can find white energy to bring back down to give to people who are ill.

“Only black shamans can deal with black spirits.  Sometimes people you shamanise for will be ill from black spirits.  You should not try to fight these spirits.  You will lose and become ill.

“Instead you must find and use as much white energy as you can to help the sick person. Usually the white energy is enough to cure that person.

“After some time, it is likely you will find something that you are especially good at doing.  Maybe you are good with children, or people with problems of the spine.”

Zoya effectively worked out an intensive shamanic course for Chimit designed to last the month he would be in Erzin.  He would visit her house each day at two in the afternoon, they would talk mainly, sometimes going outside to walk in the steppe land, and in the evening Chimit would act as an assistant when people came to Zoya’s house for help.

A shaman's kuzungu

She insisted that Chimit get a new dungur.  The dungur he had was fine, but tainted with rock and roll.  So in the mornings, Chimit had to find a goatskin and prepare it, then start working on the drum itself.  He also had to make himself a tos-deer - the ritual spoon with nine small hollows in it for sprinkling salt-milk tea to the nine skies.

Chimit was a well-respected stone carver, but he was equally adept with wood.  He began carving an elaborately designed spoon with interlocking patterns reminiscent of Celtic knotwork.  He was so pleased with it, he decided to do another, as a present for Zoya.

He also went hunting, shooting a steppe owl, preserving its claw as a protector eeren.

But there was one essential part of the equipment which was still elusive – the kuzungu or copper-brass mirror.  A lot of shamans say the kuzungu is even more important to them than the drum. It helps them to see into the future, to heal people by amplifying energy, and to fight black energy.

Chimit asked around, going to blacksmiths asking if anyone had the metal so he could make one. But there was nothing around.

Then he was speaking to Vova, another school-friend of his who happened to mention that his grandmother had been a shamanka, and he thought her drum and costume and equipment had been hidden in a cave during one of the purges in the 1930s.

They went to Vova’s home, and spoke to his father. Vova explained that Chimit was apprenticed to Zoya, and needed a kuzungu. His father described a ridge about fifteen miles north-east of Erzin where the cave was.

If they found it, Chimit could keep and use any of the implements  that were there. Vova’s father was only a baby when his mother’s paraphernalia was hidden, but he remembered her telling him about it when he was a teenager.

She told him precisely how to find the cave by following a stream, and that nobody should try to retrieve her instruments until it was safe.  But such a long time had passed, nobody in the family had thought to go and look for it.

Next morning, Chimit borrowed one of his uncle’s horses, and together with Vova, he rode to the ridge. It was dry and dusty, and shortly after leaving Erzin, they were in wide open wild country.  They headed north towards the old capital of Tuva, Samagaltai, then soon took a track to the east towards the hills.

As they rode up on to higher ground, the still-luscious steppe turned into scrubby sandy ground, becoming more rocky interspersed with loose scree.

They found the stream, tethered their horses and walked up towards the spot where the cave should be. It was hot, and the ground was steep by now, and they stopped to drink from the stream and wash their faces.

Ten minutes more climbing and they found the cave. It wasn’t much of a cave.  The entrance was half-hidden by a boulder and the opening was only three foot high.

Chimit began to crawl in. After four feet or so the cave opened out becoming wider and higher. The torch illuminated bare walls.  He edged further forwards and there, on his right, was a wooden box about two foot square, and on top of it something looking like a bundle of cloth.

Chimit reached forward and began dragging the box towards him.  Then he gradually reversed out of the cave, pulling the prize with him.

At the entrance, he passed out the cloth bundle to Vova, then crawled further back out, bringing the box into the open.

It was a green-painted box with red and gold painted decoration in the familiar interlocking design.  There was a hasp, but no padlock.  It opened easily.

Kara-Ool - one of the most influential shamans in Russia

Inside, the first thing they saw was a headress of feathers, the Tuvan shaman’s hat, just like American indians’ warbonnet, but smaller.  The black eagles’ feathers were still intact, but dry and brittle.

Carefully they lifted the cap, and underneath was a black cloak with faded ribbons attached and small bells.

And finally, underneath resting on the bottom of the chest, were three black cloth bags.  In the first they found a dried steppe-owl claw just like the eeren Chimit made a few days ago.

In the second bag was another bag of stiff leather. Carefully they opened it out and inside they saw black and white stones. They both knew there would be  41 of them. They were used for khuvaanak - a traditional method of divination by stones.

Chimit opened the last bag, but even as he picked it up he knew what he was going to find.  He could feel the weight of a flat disk about four inches across, and when he brought it out into the daylight it was a kuzungu - dusty, dirty and faded like the purple, yellow and blue plaited ribbon attached to it.

They shifted their attention to the bundle now, and as they began teasing out the dirty black cloth, they heard a jingle of a tiny bell. A dungur. It had been a magnificent dungur.  On the faded blackened hide skin they could make out a painted dragon.

Vova took out his clasp-knife and slashed the drum head.

“Maybe my grandmother thought she would be able to use the dungur again some day.  But she is gone now, so I must release the spirits of the drum.

“I will take it home to my father.  But you can have any thing else here.”

Chimit said he would take the kuzungu and the stones.

They put the costume back in the box, wrapped up the dungur in the cloth and silently descended back down to the horses.

Now Chimit had something else to do in the mornings.  Polishing the kuzungu first with emery paper, then with toothpaste and water.  After three or four days it was transformed into something brilliant and precious.

Zoya said that at the end of the month, they would take Chimit’s new drum and all the other instruments up to the arzhan where they had the first kamlanie and she would purify them all.

Gradually in the last few days, Zoya moved from the theoretical to the practical.  More than assisting by tending to the juniper incense and observing Zoya’s shamanising, Chimit was being asked to make diagnoses when patients came to her house in the evening.

He was learning how to seek out imbalances in the body by running his hands over a patient.  And he began healing patients by redirecting energy from one part of the body to another using his hands again.

And they started shamanising together. If someone called asking for help for a relative in Novosibirsk, say, Zoya would later shamanise to send distant healing.

Late at night, Zoya and Chimit would shamanise together. Drumming, going into light trance, flying up to the white sky together.  And they would see things while they were shamanising, and compare experiences afterwards.

And slowly Zoya’s disciplinarian demeanour changed. She had been watching Chimit closely over the past month.  And he had changed too.  The more he worked on his craft, the more serious he had become about it.

He did everything with respect.

On the last day, after they had gone to the arzhan where Zoya had sanctified the accoutrements, they sat together in Zoya’s house.

She poured two large glasses of vodka and proposed a toast.

“Chimit, you were called through visions.  And in the past weeks you have worked hard to understand the mysteries of Tuvan shamans.

“What you have achieved in these weeks is more than others have achieved in some years.  But it is only a start. You have a lot more to learn and now you will go back to Kyzyl.

“There are many temptations there, as you know.  I hope you have the strength to be modest about your new work.  I hope you find a way to work to help people, and to carry on learning.

“There are others who can help you, and others who can put you on a wrong path. But you know enough and have learned enough to make good judgements.

“I salute the work you have done, and the work you have yet to do.”

They drank the vodka.

Chimit presented the tos-deer spoon he had carved for Zoya.

He picked up the black bag containing his new dungur and his other instruments, and said goodbye.

Tomorrow he would be back in Kyzyl. 

Black Sky, White Sky is awaiting a publisher

All photos (c) Ken Hyder

Sideboxes

'Read On' Sidebox: 

Vilmos Dioszegi Tracing Shamans in Siberia, (Oosterhout:Anthropological Publications, 1968)

Andrei Znamenski, Russian Records of Indigenous Spirituality (Kluwer Academic Publicatios, 2003)

Piers Vitebsky The Shaman: Voyage of the Soul, trance, ecstasy and healing from Siberia to the Amazon (Duncan Baird, 2001)

Sidebox: 

Black Sky, White Sky deals with rivalry among shamans in Tuva as they come out in public after years of working in secret. The shamans form group-practice clinics, but jealousy and power-struggles lead to in-fighting – with deadly consequences.

The book cuts across genres and seeks to set out the landscape of the mind, culture and spirituality of Siberia allowing the reader to identify with and understand the action - which often takes place in the altered states of characters, most of whom are shamans.

In 1990 - with another player - he toured Russia from Leningrad to Vladivostok. Later, Ken began studying shamanic music in Yakutia, Buryatia, the Altai and Tuva in Siberia. He performs and records with a shaman from Tuva, and that connection made it much easier for him to gain the confidence of local shamans who were very generous with the information they passed on.

On the 14th May at 02:04 Universal Time there is a New Moon in Taurus.  Every lunar cycle is important, reflecting the ebb and flow in collective energy and triggering events.  The cycles now especially so, as the Cardinal Grand Cross takes shape.  There is so much potency in the air.

The Taurus New Moon is a seed point for a new cycle of values, worth, connection to the earth, beauty, art and as mentioned in my Sun in Taurus post - 'the accruement of love and worthwhile sustainable possession'.  The Sabian Symbol for the Sun and Moon reads 'An Indian warrior riding fiercely with human scalps at his belt'.  Staking or claiming our ground, our earth and value system is implied here and its challenging Square to Neptune at 29 Aquarius (which is quincunx Saturn) reads 'A Butterfly emerging from a chrysalis'.  This new moon is very 'New' - in the sense that the picture is one of putting on a new set of clothes and discarding ones that no longer fit.  We feel revitalised, but it'll take some getting used to before we're comfortable in that new skin.

As this is Taurus, we look next to its ruling planet Venus in Gemini which reads 'Three fledglings in a nest high up in a tree'.  This is at the apex of a t-square with Jupiter/Uranus and Saturn opposing.  Their respect symbols read 'A Harvest Moon illuminating the sky' (Jupiter), 'A majestic rock formation, resembling a face is idealized by a boy who takes it as his ideal of greatness; as he grows up, he begins to look at it' (Uranus) and 'A man gaining secret knowledge from an ancient scroll he is reading' (Saturn).  Despite the rather harsh oppositions and squares that these planets are making at this Taurus New Moon, the symbolism is very positive.  At the moment, it seems individually and collectively, we are snakes shedding our skin.

But there is more to this New Moon.  Three days beforehand on 11th May sees Mercury retrograde in Taurus going direct.  As it was at the last Scorpio Full Moon Mercury and Pluto form an easy trine aspect that provides weight, insight and investigation to this time.  The direct station of Mercury is one of communicative power and occurs at 3 degrees Taurus - this is the discovery degree of Chiron in 1977 - a discovery that opened doors (or perhaps bridges) to new levels of awareness - this can be seen in the alternative healing movements that have arisen since then.  The symbol reads 'Natural steps up to a lawn blooming with clover'.

The sky is awash then with emerging symbolism, leadership, bravery, discovery and affirmation.  There is plenty of challenge for sure; the earth beneath our feet may well subside and crack as new paths grow.  The backdrop to this New Moon is the inflection of Chironic healing - as Lynda Hill writes in her book 360 Degrees of Wisdom "Harmony. Seasonal changes. Running around on the grass.  Bare feet.  The beauty of greenery and flowers. Stability on the path'.  It is a dreamcatcher's Moon.

I'll end this post with a poem by Rumi entitled 'Doorsill' taken from the Coleman Barks translation in the book 'Rumi - Bridge to the Soul'.  It so speaks of this moment.



Interested in more Astrological Poetry? Then click here.


Picture Copyright Saiuri

Saturn and Neptune are currently playing a cosmic dance - they have danced before of course but at the moment the music may not be to their taste.  It's a familiar story with these two - Saturn, the established authoritarian structure maker and Neptune the ethereal artist, illusionist and dreamer.  The current scene can be likened to a burly builder and a ballerina attempting to foxtrot.

The quincunx aspect compounds their natural differences.  It spotlights how unlike they are - in the dance, one does not see the feet of the other and occasionally steps on them.  In terms of their natural planetary cycle they were in full awareness or 'opposition' in late 2006.  Saturn is now waxing towards a seed conjunction - but for now, there is an irksome crossroads.  Back in 2006, they stood up - faced each other across the dance floor and accepted the invitation.  What is required now is attunement and adjustment - it is of the nature of Scorpio, which is perhaps why I write this at the Scorpio Full Moon.

Saturn quincunx Neptune asks for thorough examination, mastering your own step to accommodate the other - to breathe life and form in the dance.  It requires mental adjustment, a certain dexterity and breadth to see shape and form - to make personal change and drop 'ego boundaries' that would otherwise cause the dancers to bump off each other.

Mistakes will happen of course, no one gets it right first time - things can surprise you, upset you and destroy what you envisioned was the way forward.  Each time this happens, we have to adjust a little more.  Like the two dancers - if one steps on the others foot - well, don't put it there again!

So...what was in 'full glare' for you in late 2006?  What dream did you wish for?  What idea were you hoping to take shape? What form got washed away - losing shape?  Inner emotional adjustment is needed now - a shift in attitude.  It perhaps may be more difficult to see clearly but both sides of the coin do exist - sidestep, change and the awareness and path will open once again.

The Sabian Symbol for Neptune at present reads "A Butterfly Emerging from a Chrysalis".  This is a wonderful symbol referring to unfolding, giving birth to a dream and destiny taking shape.  But just as the chick doesn't immediately leave the nest and fly away without a parent's prod - so it is here.  Saturn's job in this dance is to protect, test strength and to play the role of parent to clash against and so test self determination.  His role is as the chrysalis to the butterfly.

The issue of control often arises in these scenarios.  We feel like we're losing a grip on the situation and seek to exert control in order to rescue it.  The true message of Scorpio here is not to allow fear to inhibit growth - that growth comes from struggle, loss and making mistakes.  Like a baby learning to walk and falling down and a butterfly stretching in the chrysalis - be thankful for failure - it helps you rise.

This article relates very well to the Cardinal Grand Cross alignment coming up - read more here

Interested in reading Astrological Poetry? Read more here


Picture Copyright Adrian (vancity197) 

While I am still in absentia, and coping with the Ten of Wands, I offer you the wise words of one of my very favorite astrologers and magical friends, Lynn Hayes.  Here are her observations for this powerful Full Moon.

The Scorpio Full Moon on April 28th features a number of powerful aspects and this lunar event is likely to carry a fair amount of intensity with it. Scorpio is the sign of intensity and passion – under the Scorpio influence we reach deep into the underworld of emotions to where our feelings are raw and true. This is no time for superficiality!

The Full Moon occurs when the Sun is opposite the Moon, and brings about the need for balance and integration. Here the center point occurs between the peaceful harmony and stability of [the Sun in] Taurus and the fiery emotional depth of Scorpio. With any opposition, integration is required as the two opposite ends of the spectrum seek expression. While we penetrate deep into the realm of feeling (Scorpio), we also require a sense of balance and serenity (Taurus) in order to gain the true power of this Full Moon.

This Full Moon features a “T-square” with a conjunction of Mercury to the Sun, suggesting that the mind is to be fully engaged at this time with reason and that understanding playing a key part in the dance.

A square of Mars to the Sun/Mercury conjunction on the one side, and the Scorpio Moon on the other, completes the T-square with a powerful burst of energy and aggression. Mars is the traditional ruler of Scorpio and this tight aspect to the lunation heightens the emotional intensity that is present at that time.

Under this Mars influence we may become aware of hidden causes of anger and frustration, and this is the time to recognize these feelings and bring them into our conscious awareness.

The opposition from Saturn to Uranus is still nearly exact, hinting that the aggression that lies at the heart of this Full Moon will stem from any imbalance that occurs between the restrictive principle (Saturn) and the principle of change (Uranus).

Fortunately, Pluto interacts harmoniously with the lunation to ensure that we process deeply anything that we need to learn at this time and that we find the inner courage and personal power that’s needed now. This Full Moon energy will be strong for the next few days, and within the intensity is a power that can be harnessed and put to good use!

* * * * *

Want more?  Additional excellent astrological views of this Moon can be found here and here.

By Len Wallick The big astrological news today is Saturn and Uranus exacting their next-to-last opposition, the last of four on the Pisces-Virgo axis. Two things to remember: first, because these two slow-moving outer planets have been in the process of opposing each other five times over two years, the aspect can properly be considered continuous; [...]

Since there really is an app for just about anything, you may not be surprised to learn about an app called DateCheck that lets users conduct background checks. With only a name, number, or email address, DateCheck from Intelius allows users to check out someone they just met. After users input the information they have, they can enter estimated characteristics such as the person’s age, to help pinpoint who they are trying to check out. At that point, the app goes through several features that reveal information on the person in question. First on the list is the “sleaze detector.” This feature looks at criminal records based on the state’s history. Secondly, the app conducts a compatibility test that includes astrological information on both parties. Thirdly, the app has a money aspect that shows property ownership information, value of home, and more. Taking the money aspect one step further, the fourth feature tells the living situation of the home and if anyone else lives there. Lastly, there is an interests’ feature that provides a summary of all the social and professional networks the person is involved with. So, if you’re wondering whether or not you should connect with a potential “date,” use DateCheck to find out more information before you make a move. DateCheck is available as a free download for the iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android devices.

Wondering in New Paltz Dear Wondering, Before history, there was the Moon. Before cities, cars, dinosaurs, pioneers, Vikings, artificial light, Bjork, fire, television, goats, roller blades, the Eurostar, horoscopes and time, the Moon rose and set silently over and beneath the world. As humans established their way of life on the planet, she remained our companion, waxing and waning dependably through the months, seasons and centuries. She provided a source of mystery and inspiration, though most important, for many millennia, she was the only light available to illuminate the terrifying darkness of night. She remains with us today, as our guide and friend, lighting our inner world and reminding us of ancient consciousness. She remains as a counterbalance to all the nose, harsh contrasts, and sharp edges of the world. The Moon is where I believe the study of Western astrology is best begun, first as an experience, then as an idea. There are really two things that we call astrology. One involves delving into charts, books and concepts. That's the astrology you use to find an explanation of your 9th house Mars in Gemini, when you're hungry for knowledge and definitive meaning. It is, strangely, where most study of astrology begins and where it ends -- as the attempt to find objective truth about our most personal and unique existence. This is in keeping with our modern notions of everything being subject to scientific study, reasons and reasoning. This method contains the idea that there can be an objective astrological fact or interpretation. The other astrology is that which we feel and experience. It's the one that nobody has to tell us about or define for us, and which has no objective meaning. This astrology is the journey we all take through the phases and cycles of the Moon, through the seasons, and through the ages of our lives. It is the astrology of inspiration, of moonlight on the water, of black cats on shadowy nights, and of the stars in the sky. This is the astrology that came first. It is a subjective experience, one that is unique to each person having it, and which cannot be proven or disputed. It simply is. This astrology has a lot to do with myths, legends and folklore, and the way that we see our personal story told in the archetypes of humanity. This side of the work is a bit of an odd thing for our technically-oriented world of passwords and college diplomas, and has no standing except maybe for mystics, poets and artists -- and people who know their inner truth is not in the dictionary. When you hear people criticize astrology as being unscientific or unproven, you can be sure that they are completely out of touch with this numinous aspect of the work. Yet they are likely to be equally out of touch with the astrology that measures fractions of a degree, studies the harmonics of math and looks diligently at the strange cycles of personal and world history. Working with astrology as a tool, we ultimately make a path exactly between these two aspects of the work, drawing strength and wisdom from both equally. But the question is where to begin, and why. If we begin with memorization and facts, we approach the subject as something alien to us. If we begin with experience, then we're learning something through feeling and observation, and begin to build a relationship with it that's held in our bodies and senses. From there, it's always possible to branch out into ideas and concepts, in fact, it happens quite naturally, because quickly the study of nature quickly takes on symbolic value, and every question ultimately comes back to the question of self. Yet at least, beginning with one's personal experience and accepting that intuition is a vital part of life, the ideas and concepts that come later are grounded in something tangible. Many people struggle a long time with the study of astrology, and work diligently for years. Then, you'll often hear them they say they cannot interpret a chart. My sense is that's because astrology is not yet real to them. It is an abstraction of the mind. Real means something we can feel, something we can inquire of directly, and something we can see for what it is, like an apple tree. So start with the Moon. The nice thing about the Moon is that pretty often, you can actually see her. When you can't see her, you can discover her phase in the newspaper, or an ordinary datebook, calendar or tidal chart. And if you pay attention over time, she's pretty easy to tune into and feel. The Moon exerts enormous gravity on the Earth, its critters, plants and bodies of water. This affects every living thing and many 'inanimate' things. If you learn something about the Moon's cycle by getting a feeling for it, you'll then know something about every planetary cycle, since they all have a lot in common. By the time you get into the technical details that come fairly early the study of astrology, your knowledge of the Moon's tendencies and behaviors, and the skills you learn in reading her, will come in handy every moment. Yet this goes beyond knowledge. Once you can feel something of the Moon's reality, it will be possible to feel something about any of the planetary cycles. Mysteriously enough, most women experience a hormonal cycle that is closely synchronized with the Moon's cycle, which lasts about 27 days and 8 hours. That is, in just under 28 days, the Moon goes once around the Earth, visiting or passing through the backdrop of all 12 signs of the zodiac in that time, and returning to the point you began observing. In about the same number of days, women move through their fertility cycle of menstruation, ovulation and back to menstruation. For women, a good basic Moon experiment is to track your cycle over six months or so and see where your body and its quickly changing feelings mesh with the phases of the Moon. The beginning of the lunar cycle is called New Moon. This is when the Moon and the Sun are in the same sign and the same degree. At the exact moment of the New Moon, the Earth, Moon and Sun align in a straight line with the Moon in the middle. Its technical name is Moon conjunct Sun. When stating an aspect between two moving planets, generally the name of the slower planet is stated before the faster one. It is the faster moving Moon that is making a conjunction to the Sun. The Moon is not visible at this time; it's too close to the Sun. The New Moon always occurs in the same sign of the zodiac where the Sun is at the time; for example, the Aries New Moon must happen with the Sun in Aries. In the last days before the New Moon, we can see the thin slice of the Moon rise just before the Sun, early in the morning. After the New Moon, we can see the sliver of the Moon appear on the second or third night, in the evening, just after sunset. After the New Moon, the Moon is said to be waxing, or building in its light. About seven days into the cycle is First Quarter phase. This is when you can see half of the visible disk of the Moon lit up in the sky (sometimes mistakenly called 'half Moon' but that's really an old term for 'Full Moon'). At this time, the Earth, Moon and Sun make a right angle, with the Sun at the point. The technical name for this aspect is Moon square Sun. It often feels like a turning point. Then comes the Full Moon phase. This is the peak of the cycle, when the Sun and Moon are on either side of the Earth, at full polarity -- which people can feel. The Full Moon always takes place in the sign opposite that which the Sun is in at the time. Its technical name is Moon opposite Sun. In feeling, it is usually the most distinct of the cycles; just about any cop or diner waitress you ask will be able to tell you when it's the full phase because of how people act -- a little like lunatics, which word comes from 'Luna', one of the names of the Moon goddess. Many people do face challenges dealing with the enhanced emotions and hormones of this time. The last major phase is Last Quarter. Like the First Quarter, this is also Moon square Sun, but it's the waning Moon. This aspect marks the last week before the New Moon. (We just happened to pass this phase earlier in the week, as the Moon heads toward the Sun for New Moon and solar eclipse.) In many cultures, rituals are held at the times of the New Moon and Full Moon. Ritual takes another step toward making a planetary event real, and putting the memory of it into our bodies. Ritual marks the occasion with a gathering, be it for pleasure, for spiritual purposes, or for community. There are other lunar phases, located between the ones I've described above, but these are the more obvious turning points in the journey. The Moon in its course makes every aspect to the Sun: trines on the waxing and waning side; quincunxes on both sides; quintiles; sextiles; and others. We will get to those aspects later. Any two planets you might consider will have a cycle that is comparable to the Sun-Moon cycle. The faster planet will play the role of the Moon and the slower planet the role of the Sun. If you follow the Sun-Moon cycle for a while, you'll begin to pick up the basic heartbeat of the planet. It is like the rhythm of the bass drum. It pulses about 13 times each year. Consider that in a lifetime of 80 years, a person will experience about 1,040 lunar cycles. Following these pulses, you also may make some basic observations about how the Moon feels and how she expresses herself in the world. There may seem to be things that feel more appropriate to do or say at one phase than at another. You may notice changes on either side of a Full or New Moon. Your relationships may seem to change and shift with the lunar phases. Some people will be more sensitive to these changes than others, and we're all affected by them despite all the best efforts of the world to drown them out and make them go away. Get a sense of this cycle and you're well on the way to being an astrologer.

We have decided to start work on an astrological aspects database. There are good sources of information freely available on the internet about natal aspects, such as Cafe Astrology. The difference with our idea is that people can comment about the interpretations, and add their name to the list of people with a particular aspect.

We have decided to start work on an astrological aspects database. There are good sources of information freely available on the internet about natal aspects, such as Cafe Astrology. The difference with our idea is that people can comment about the interpretations, and add their name to the list of people with a particular aspect.

Electional astrology is the art of astrologically selecting the right time to act. In his 1653 book Astrologia Restaurata (Astrology Restored), William Ramesey publishes a table of simple elections you can do based on the Moon’s upcoming aspects. I’ve transcribed it over here (updating spelling and capitalization). Here’s how to use it. Decide what it is [...]

The lunar cycle is roughly 29 days from new to full and back to new again.  Astrologically there are various points of interest around this cycle.  At time of writing the Moon is in Cancer and is half full.  This is known as the First Quarter Moon and is a point of challenge and stress to what began at the New Moon (or soon after that) - the Sun and Moon are in Square aspect and does this twice in a monthly cycle - as it waxes to full (now) and as it wanes to new (in two weeks).  There are also points around this cycle where the Sun and Moon make easy aspects to each other.

Today however is of particular interest.  This first quarter moon is activating the Cardinal Grand Cross (any planetary body that moves into Cancer will make up the cross).  The previous New Moon was rather a pleasant one - it symbolised fresh starts and as the Sun and Mercury entered Aries the Spring Equinox began in the Northern Hemisphere.  This was the point of 'ease' in the lunar cycle.  We may have felt fresher and more active at this time and now may be wondering what happened! An 'eeewwwwww' moment!

It's important to remember that the Moon moves very quickly so won't be here for long.  It is also part of the natural Sun/Moon rhythmic cycle that happens all the time.  We also have another ally in the sky at present - a newly direct Mars in Leo Sextile Saturn in Libra.  These two provide the opportunity to dig deep and work harder; to carefully adjust to the point of challenge brought by the Cancer Moon - the benefit being that the adjustment and course correction makes us stronger and more determined - more authentic.   Use it or lose it.

Picture copyright Paul Campbell

First, I want to mention that the awesome astrology article database, AstroDispatch, receives a commission by Amazon on any purchase you make, even if it’s not an astrology book- so, if you want to buy something through Amazon (electronics! ;D ;D), take the time to do it via AstroDispatch to help Elsa and crew stay in business.

Second, I made an astrology bookstore through Amazon over the weekend. I realized that I’ve been linking to books through Amazon for almost 6 months so it just makes sense to set up shop.

1. I arranged hundreds of books into specific categories

• Books for Beginners
• Books by Author
  • Stephen Arroyo
  • Donna Cunningham
  • Steven Forrest
  • Liz Greene & Howard Sasportas
  • Robert Hand
  • Tracy Marks
  • Dane Rudyhar
• Signs
• Houses
• Aspects
• Ascendant
• Planets
  • Sun
  • Moon
  • Mercury
  • Venus
  • Mars
  • Jupiter
  • Saturn
  • Uranus
  • Neptune
  • Pluto
  • Chiron
  • Asteroids
  • Nodes
  • Transits, Progressions, Retrogrades and Returns
    • Planetary Returns
    • Progressions
    • Retrogrades
    • Transits
• Relationship Astrology
  • Composite
  • Family Relationships
  • Synastry, Sex and Love
• Special Topics
  • Astrological Keywords
  • Fixed Stars
  • Decans and Dwads
  • Horary Astrology
  • Interception
  • Mutual Reception
  • Midpoints
  • Sabian and other Symbols
  • Vocational Astrology
• Everything else!

2. It’s easier to give recommendations

3. I now have book lust

My in-text book links will still go to Amazon, as they have done for almost 6 months, but now I will receive a 4% commission on the purchase price if someone actually buys a book- that’s 40 cents on a $10 purchase. Obviously this is not a large amount of money and money is only part of the reason I decided to make the store. Most of my reasoning is that it’s a great resource for myself and for other people.

The store is at the bottom of this page, and also located at this link: AstroFix Astrology Bookstore.

It’s still a work in progress. Suggestions and comments are welcome.

I started researching the astrology of Rudy Giuliani to compare Hellenistic techniques to my own methods. He has Saturn conjunct Midheaven as a defining feature in his chart so I googled “saturn conjunct midheaven” and top of the list was Saturn conjunct Midheaven · astrological aspect · astrology aspect … from the

It's that time again, and those of us behind the scenes at Etsy would like to share our merchandising plans for March. As we continue to plan Etsy’s calendar for the year ahead with thematic merchandising, we will be incorporating many of the concepts you shared in response to February's report and continue to welcome your input. It is our goal to create a healthy balance between promotions for traditional holidays, seasonal changes, and lifestyle trends.

Do you have a date to remember that you don't see on the list? Let us know in the comments section below. We are currently working towards incorporating a more detailed calendar of international holidays into Etsy's thematic merchandising plans, so we're eager to hear which dates you would like to see included.

We’d like to hear from you!
We appreciate your support and look forward to your feedback and suggestions in the comments section below.

Recommendations from clients

Today I would like to present you with one of the most challenging hypotheses you will likely hear in the entire spectrum of astrological debate. I contend that the best possible aspect that you can have at your disposal out of the entire array of angular connections between celestial bodies is the opposition. Of course, I [...]

About the Book


My Take On The Book

I am not the biggest astrology person. I mean, I will take a look at what the paper says for an Aries, but I have never gone much deeper into astrology than this. Knowing this, when I was asked to read and review this book, I had no idea what to expect.
 
The book is broken down in to three sections: Section One gives background on Zi Wei Dou Shu; Section Two teaches readers to forecast life and love cycles; and Section Three covers Chinese astrological subspecialties like IChing and feng shui.

Chinese astrology still holds much mysticism to me. I will say that this book opened my eyes to a new form of astrology that I did not know existed. I found out that J-Mom and I fall under the sign of the Wood Rabbit of enlightenment which means we are blessed with good manners, diplomacy, and, above all, virtue.The wood rabbit's organ is the liver, so I guess that means that I also have to watch my alcohol intake. In reviewing some of the other aspects of my chinese sign, I was interested to find a number of traits as being ones that I tend to emulate/live on a daily basis. There also were some that I can say that I do not relate with as well.  

The book also comes with an interactive CD-ROM, which makes it easy to create Chinese astrological charts for yourself, your friends, and your family.  The life charts created with the CD-ROM help readers paint a rich personality portrait and can help readers understand their destiny and assess their life options.

This book is a treasure trove of learning for everyone from the beginner to the expert astrologist. I encourage you all to take a look at it today.

If this book sounds like something you would be interested, check it out on Amazon.com today!




Giveaway

• Blog about my Giveaway by linking back to this post (1 entries per blog post. Please leave each entry in separate comments with your URL link in order for it to count)
  
  
• 
  
  
  
• Grab my badge to your sidebar
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Subscribe to this blog either by RSS or email for one entry (top right hand corner, if you already do leave in a separate comment)
  
• Stumble this post. (leave username in comment per day)
  
• Digg this post (Leave username in comment)
  
• Follow me on Twitter (@dadofdivas) (leave username in comment)
  
• Share this giveaway on Twitter, Facebook or any forum, including the name of the prize and a link to this post. Here I'll make it easier on you, copy and paste this:" @dadofdivas is giving away Chinese Astrology by Shelly Wu  - http://dadofdivas.blogspot.com/" (Then leave the link to your post. One entry per place per day)
  
• Bookmark this post in Delicious, Digg, StumbleUpon, or whatever social bookmarking site is your favorite. (Leave comment with the info. One entry per site per day)
  
• Add me to your Technorati Favs list (one entry, leave username in comment)
  
• Become a fan of Dad of Divas on Facebook (Leave username in comment)
  

Make sure you comment separately for each task after the required entry task so you will get credit for each one ~ and leave your e-mail where you can be contacted.

This contest will run until January 21, 2010 at approximately 11:59 pm Eastern.

Winner must be a resident of the U.S or Canada.

Winners are chosen at random, if you want all your chances counted, make sure you leave individual comments, not all of them in one!

Winner has 48 hours to contact me or another name will be chosen.

All opinions expressed in this review are my own and not influenced in any way by the company.  Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider. Please refer to this site's Terms of Use  for more information. I have been compensated or given a product free of charge, but that does not impact my views or opinions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New to the Divadom?
Please Subscribe to my RSS Feed! Subscribe in a reader
Questions?Drop me a line at dadofdivas@gmail.com

It's that time again, and those of us behind the scenes at Etsy would like to share our merchandising plans for February. As we continue to plan Etsy’s calendar for the year ahead with thematic merchandising, we will be incorporating many of the concepts you shared in response to January's report and continue to welcome your input. It is our goal to create a healthy balance between promotions for traditional holidays, seasonal changes, and lifestyle trends.

Do you have a date to remember that you don't see on the list? Let us know in the comments section below. We are currently working towards incorporating a more detailed calendar of international holidays into Etsy's thematic merchandising plans, so we're eager to hear which dates you would like to see included.

We’d like to hear from you!
We appreciate your support and look forward to your feedback and suggestions in the comments section below. 

In 1996, Sports Illustrated named a 20-year-old Tiger Woods its Sportsman of the Year, and Gary Smith's accompanying story portrayed a young man who somehow combined the best parts of Doogie Howser and Buddha. It seemed like a stretch.

And today, of course, it looks downright absurd. We know now that Tiger's father, Earl, was a sly old chiseler, and that his fingerprints were all over the messianic hooey poured onto Tiger in those days. Earl was running a terrific con, and Sports Illustrated was maybe his greatest mark. Here are the 10 most outlandish selections from the story.

He said, "Please forgive me...but sometimes I get very emotional...when I talk about my son.... My heart...fills with so...much...joy...when I realize...that this young man...is going to be able...to help so many people.... He will transcend this game...and bring to the world...a humanitarianism...which has never been known before. The world will be a better place to live in...by virtue of his existence...and his presence.... I acknowledge only a small part in that...in that I know that I was personally selected by God himself...to nurture this young man...and bring him to the point where he can make his contribution to humanity.... This is my treasure.... Please accept it...and use it wisely.... Thank you."

So let us stand amidst this audience at last month's Fred Haskins Award dinner to honor America's outstanding college golfer of 1996, and take note as Tiger and Earl Woods embrace, for a new manner of celebrity is taking form before our eyes. Regard the 64-year-old African-American father, arm upon the superstar's shoulder, right where the chip is so often found, declaring that this boy will do more good for the world than any man who ever walked it. Gaze at the 20-year-old son, with the blood of four races in his veins, not flinching an inch from the yoke of his father's prophecy but already beginning to scent the complications.

[...]

Now turn. Turn and look at us, the audience, standing in anticipation of something different, something pure. Quiet. Just below the applause, or within it, can you hear the grinding? That's the relentless chewing mechanism of fame, girding to grind the purity and the promise to dust. Not the promise of talent, but the bigger promise, the father's promise, the one that stakes everything on the boy's not becoming separated from his own humanity and from all the humanity crowding around him.

Anyone, Mr. Woods? Your son will have more impact than Nelson Mandela, more than Gandhi, more than Buddha?

"Yes, because he has a larger forum than any of them. Because he's playing a sport that's international. Because he's qualified through his ethnicity to accomplish miracles. He's the bridge between the East and the West. There is no limit because he has the guidance. I don't know yet exactly what form this will take. But he is the Chosen One. He'll have the power to impact nations. Not people. Nations. The world is just getting a taste of his power."

Surely this is lunacy. Or are we just too myopic to see? One thing is certain: We are witnessing the first volley of an epic encounter, the machine at its mightiest confronting the individual groomed all his life to conquer it and turn it to his use. The youth who has been exposed to its power since he toddled onto The Mike Douglas Show at three, the set of That's Incredible! at five, the boy who has been steeled against the silky seduction to which so many before him have succumbed.

At last, the river is un-dammed, and Earl's whole life makes sense. At last, he sees what he was searching for, a pattern. No more volunteering for missions-he has his. Not simply to be a great golfer's father. To be destiny's father. His son will change the world.

"What the hell had I been doing in public information in the Army, posted in Brooklyn?" he asks. "Why, of course, what greater training can there be than three years of dealing with the New York media to prepare me to teach Tiger the importance of public relations and how to handle the media?"

"Look at this stuff!" cries Earl. "Over and over you can see the plan being orchestrated by someone other than me because I'm not this damn good! I tried to get out of that combat assignment to Thailand. But Tida was meant to bring in the influence of the Orient, to introduce Tiger to Buddhism and inner peace, so he would have the best of two different worlds. And so he would have the knowledge that there were two people whose lives were totally committed to him."

[...]

His wife ratifies this, in her own way. She takes the boy's astrological chart to a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles and to another in Bangkok and is told by monks at both places that the child has wondrous powers. "If he becomes a politician, he will be either a president or a prime minister," she is told. "If he enters the military, he will be a general."

Tida comes to a conclusion. "Tiger has Thai, African, Chinese, American Indian and European blood," she says. "He can hold everyone together. He is the Universal Child."

Because something deeper than conventional stardom is at work here, something so spontaneous and subconscious that words have trouble going there. It's a communal craving, a public aching for a superstar free of anger and arrogance and obsession with self. It's a hollow place that chimes each time Tiger and his parents strike the theme of father and mother and child love, each time Tiger stands at a press conference and declares, "They have raised me well, and I truly believe they have taught me to accept full responsibility for all aspects of my life." During the making of a Titleist commercial in November, a makeup woman is so moved listening to Earl describe his bond with Tiger that she decides to contact her long-estranged father. "See what I mean?" cries Earl. "Did you affect someone that way today? Did anyone else there? It's destiny, man. It's something bigger than me."

See, maybe Tiger can win. He's got the touch. He's got the feel. He never writes down a word before he gives a speech. When he needs to remember a phone number, he doesn't search his memory or a little black book; he picks up a phone and watches what number his fingers go to. When he needs a 120-yard shot to go under an oak branch and over a pond, he doesn't visualize the shot, as most golfers would. He looks at the flag and pulls everything from the hole back, back, back...not back into his mind's eye, but into his hands and forearms and hips, so they'll do it by feel. Explain how he made that preposterous shot? He can't. Better you interview his knuckles and metacarpals.

"His handicap" says Earl, "is that he has such a powerful creative mind. His imagination is too vivid. If he uses visualization, the ball goes nuts. So we piped into his creative side even deeper, into his incredible sense of feel."

"I've learned to trust the subconscious," says Tiger. "My instincts have never lied to me."

"That's why I know I can handle all this," Tiger says, "no matter how big it gets. I grew up in the media's eye, but I was taught never to lose sight of where I came from. Athletes aren't as gentlemanly as they used to be. I don't like that change. I like the idea of being a role model. It's an honor. People took the time to help me as a kid, and they impacted my life. I want to do the same for kids."

"That's the difference," says Merchant, Tiger's attorney and a family friend. "Other athletes who have risen to this level just didn't have this kind of guidance. With a father and mother like Tiger's, he has to be real. It's such a rare quality in celebrities nowadays. There hasn't been a politician since John Kennedy whom people have wanted to touch. But watch Tiger. He has it. He actually listens to people when they stop him in an airport. He looks them in the eye. I can't ever envision Tiger Woods selling his autograph."

For when we swallow Tiger Woods, the yellow-black-red-white man, we swallow something much more significant than Jordan or Charles Barkley. We swallow hope in the American experiment, in the pell-mell jumbling of genes. We swallow the belief that the face of the future is not necessarily a bitter or bewildered face; that it might even, one day, be something like Tiger Woods's face: handsome and smiling and ready to kick all comers' asses.

We see a woman, 50-ish and Caucasian, well-coiffed and tailored-the woman we see at every country club-walk up to Tiger Woods before he receives the Haskins Award and say, "When I watch you taking on all those other players, Tiger, I feel like I'm watching my own son"...and we feel the quivering of the cosmic compass that occurs when human beings look into the eyes of someone of another color and see their own flesh and blood.