Are cats allowed in Heaven?

[Kjell Pettersson]

Two decades ago someone in Sweden had a hit with a song with the
lyrics saying: "Can I bring my dog with me into Heaven?". Though the
song was no dissertation, the topic of whether animals have a soul is
indeed one that has been discussed by learned and philosophers
throughout millennia.

A few months ago my beloved cat Laban, whom I became custodian to
after my mother died in 2008, died. I recently checked what my charts
were saying at the time, and was surprised to see that there were
indicators that have been present when my parents or other people
died, or similar indicators.

Examples: Transiting Saturn was squaring my Ascendant, and Saturn
conjoining my Ascendant was associated with death, and that time of a
human being, not an animal. My natal Sun was ’eclipsed’ by the
progressed Moon, and similar ’eclipses’ usually occur in my charts
when someone close dies.

It is this thing with lunisolar connections that I am thinking of in
particular. The joining of the Luminaries is, among other things,
associated with an opening to the worlds beyond, to let souls pass
(coming or leaving). I think that idea is found already in Plato
(though I do not have a reference right now). It's a very old one
anyway. At the New and Full Moons, and at eclipses, souls arrive and
leave Earth.

Anyhow, assuming that the ancients were on to something and knew
something about those things it would seem possible to make an
interpretation that allows for my cat actually having a soul. I know I
am stretching it, but I rely upon how I have seen similar
’hypothetical eclipses’ in my charts in association with the deaths of
people, humans.

What do you think? If this finding could be repeated in the charts of
others, would you accept the idea of pets (at least cats) having
souls? Would you allow for astrology to say (or ”prove”) things about
metaphysical matters?

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Two decades ago someone in Sweden had a hit with a song with the
lyrics saying: "Can I bring my dog with me into Heaven?". Though the
song was no dissertation, the topic of whether animals have a soul is
indeed one that has been discussed by learned and philosophers
throughout millennia.
A few months ago my beloved cat Laban, whom I became custodian to
after my mother died in 2008, died. I recently checked what my charts
were saying at the time, and was surprised to see that there were
indicators that have been present when my parents or other people
died, or similar indicators.

The key phrase is 'what my charts were saying'. They describe your
response to the situation. It could have as easily described your loss
of a beloved _________ or other possession.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Examples: Transiting Saturn was squaring my Ascendant, and Saturn
conjoining my Ascendant was associated with death, and that time of a
human being, not an animal. My natal Sun was ’eclipsed’ by the
progressed Moon, and similar ’eclipses’ usually occur in my charts
when someone close dies.
It is this thing with lunisolar connections that I am thinking of in
particular. The joining of the Luminaries is, among other things,
associated with an opening to the worlds beyond, to let souls pass
(coming or leaving). I think that idea is found already in Plato
(though I do not have a reference right now). It's a very old one
anyway. At the New and Full Moons, and at eclipses, souls arrive and
leave Earth.
Anyhow, assuming that the ancients were on to something and knew
something about those things it would seem possible to make an
interpretation that allows for my cat actually having a soul. I know I
am stretching it, but I rely upon how I have seen similar
’hypothetical eclipses’ in my charts in association with the deaths of
people, humans.
What do you think? If this finding could be repeated in the charts of
others, would you accept the idea of pets (at least cats) having
souls? Would you allow for astrology to say (or ”prove”) things about
metaphysical matters?

What I've been told is that there is more of a group consciousness, of
sorts, and not so much an individual ego.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

---

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
A few months ago my beloved cat Laban, whom I became custodian to
after my mother died in 2008, died. I recently checked what my charts
were saying at the time, and was surprised to see that there were
indicators that have been present when my parents or other people
died, or similar indicators.

The key phrase is 'what my charts were saying'. They describe your
response to the situation. It could have as easily described your loss
of a beloved _________ or other possession.

I see what you mean, though I do not think I would have had the same
response to a possession (a thing and not a living being, not
considering my cat a "possession"). However, I do not agree. I think
that the chart does not only speak about one's own internal state of
mind but that it also says something about the external reality. That
need not mean that cats have souls though! But it would mean that what
is seen in someone's chart is not only "in the head" of the chart
owner.

That's why I think that if one would see this occurring in several
charts, that would somehow make the finding "objective". The
interpretation can be challenged if it occurs only in one single case,
but if seen in other charts as well, then I think that would be
harder.

---

Post by CFA
What I've been told is that there is more of a group consciousness, of
sorts, and not so much an individual ego.

Insofar as they are believed to have a non-physical life at all, that
is the same as I have heard. But the idea that they are completely
soulless is not unheard of, though I find it unconvincing, and thinks
it bespeaks human hubris. Descartes idea that animals were but a kind
of machines is an especially repugnant example.

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
---

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
A few months ago my beloved cat Laban, whom I became custodian to
after my mother died in 2008, died. I recently checked what my charts
were saying at the time, and was surprised to see that there were
indicators that have been present when my parents or other people
died, or similar indicators.

The key phrase is 'what my charts were saying'. They describe your
response to the situation. It could have as easily described your loss
of a beloved _________ or other possession.

I see what you mean, though I do not think I would have had the same
response to a possession (a thing and not a living being, not
considering my cat a "possession"). However, I do not agree. I think
that the chart does not only speak about one's own internal state of
mind but that it also says something about the external reality. That
need not mean that cats have souls though! But it would mean that what
is seen in someone's chart is not only "in the head" of the chart
owner.

Right, though what is 'in the head' must manifest as external reality.
Our thoughts and beliefs 'create' our reality, in that order- we make
decisions and choices based on those beliefs.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That's why I think that if one would see this occurring in several
charts, that would somehow make the finding "objective". The
interpretation can be challenged if it occurs only in one single case,
but if seen in other charts as well, then I think that would be
harder.

You describe why it may be impossible to come to an overall agreement
about the precise meaning(s) of chart symbolism. Reality is as much
subjective as it is objective. The same transits from your chart would
probably have different meanings for others. Why is it that astrology
books speak in semi-specific terms? I believe it's because that's as
definite as it's possible to be over a broad collection of
individuals.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
---

Post by CFA
What I've been told is that there is more of a group consciousness, of
sorts, and not so much an individual ego.

Insofar as they are believed to have a non-physical life at all, that
is the same as I have heard. But the idea that they are completely
soulless is not unheard of, though I find it unconvincing, and thinks
it bespeaks human hubris. Descartes idea that animals were but a kind
of machines is an especially repugnant example.

I called it group consciousness. Animals do indeed respond to love or
not-love.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The key phrase is 'what my charts were saying'. They describe your
response to the situation. It could have as easily described your loss
of a beloved _________ or other possession.

I see what you mean, though I do not think I would have had the same
response to a possession (a thing and not a living being, not
considering my cat a "possession"). However, I do not agree. I think
that the chart does not only speak about one's own internal state of
mind but that it also says something about the external reality. That
need not mean that cats have souls though! But it would mean that what
is seen in someone's chart is not only "in the head" of the chart
owner.

Right, though what is 'in the head' must manifest as external reality.
Our thoughts and beliefs 'create' our reality, in that order- we make
decisions and choices based on those beliefs.

I do not see it as a one way-street. External reality exists without
me, was in existence before i joined the party. If what is in my head
creates reality, it is in the sense of *co*-creating that reality. My
choices and decisions affects reality, but *it* also has an effect on
me. The relationship is reciprocal. In fact, it must be if I want to
use the word "relationship", reciprocity being the very essence of
what relationships are about. That holds true also for relationships
that are not with other persons but with theoretical entities as well.
This also leads to the thought that what is not real cannot influence
me. (If I am scared by nightmares I am scaring myself, because
nightmares are only inventions of my mind.)

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That's why I think that if one would see this occurring in several
charts, that would somehow make the finding "objective". The
interpretation can be challenged if it occurs only in one single case,
but if seen in other charts as well, then I think that would be
harder.

You describe why it may be impossible to come to an overall agreement
about the precise meaning(s) of chart symbolism. Reality is as much
subjective as it is objective. The same transits from your chart would
probably have different meanings for others. Why is it that astrology
books speak in semi-specific terms? I believe it's because that's as
definite as it's possible to be over a broad collection of
individuals.

I think those semi-specific terms is a recent innovation. From what I
have seen there was no hesitation to be blunt in earlier times. Of
course, earlier times did not have "scientific method" to worry about,
but I think we could get rather straightforward astrology "cookbooks"
if we only had the resources to make the research. I do not think the
problem is in astrology itself, though I confess I am aware that it is
not only a science, there is a need for artistry on the behalf of the
astrologer as well.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
What I've been told is that there is more of a group consciousness, of
sorts, and not so much an individual ego.

Insofar as they are believed to have a non-physical life at all, that
is the same as I have heard. But the idea that they are completely
soulless is not unheard of, though I find it unconvincing, and thinks
it bespeaks human hubris. Descartes idea that animals were but a kind
of machines is an especially repugnant example.

I called it group consciousness. Animals do indeed respond to love or
not-love.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you were holding the view of
animals as automata! And, thinking about it, I think that group
consciousness is something that is true for humans, so of course it
would be true for animals as well. However, I think that group
consciousness and individuality can co-exist. The question is whether
it can do so only in humans, or if it is possible for animals as well.
I would like to think the latter.

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The key phrase is 'what my charts were saying'. They describe your
response to the situation. It could have as easily described your loss
of a beloved _________ or other possession.

I see what you mean, though I do not think I would have had the same
response to a possession (a thing and not a living being, not
considering my cat a "possession"). However, I do not agree. I think
that the chart does not only speak about one's own internal state of
mind but that it also says something about the external reality. That
need not mean that cats have souls though! But it would mean that what
is seen in someone's chart is not only "in the head" of the chart
owner.

Right, though what is 'in the head' must manifest as external reality.
Our thoughts and beliefs 'create' our reality, in that order- we make
decisions and choices based on those beliefs.

I do not see it as a one way-street. External reality exists without
me, was in existence before i joined the party. If what is in my head
creates reality, it is in the sense of *co*-creating that reality.

Well, yeah, but we're talking from a personal perspective. The 'other
half' has to exist to even have a personal perspective.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My choices and decisions affects reality, but *it* also has an effect on
me.

Only what you give it. We're free to make up anything at all about our
universe, ultimately.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The relationship is reciprocal. In fact, it must be if I want to
use the word "relationship", reciprocity being the very essence of
what relationships are about. That holds true also for relationships
that are not with other persons but with theoretical entities as well.
This also leads to the thought that what is not real cannot influence
me.

Or it can, depending on the meaning you give it.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
(If I am scared by nightmares I am scaring myself, because
nightmares are only inventions of my mind.)

Like that.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That's why I think that if one would see this occurring in several
charts, that would somehow make the finding "objective". The
interpretation can be challenged if it occurs only in one single case,
but if seen in other charts as well, then I think that would be
harder.

You describe why it may be impossible to come to an overall agreement
about the precise meaning(s) of chart symbolism. Reality is as much
subjective as it is objective. The same transits from your chart would
probably have different meanings for others. Why is it that astrology
books speak in semi-specific terms? I believe it's because that's as
definite as it's possible to be over a broad collection of
individuals.

I think those semi-specific terms is a recent innovation. From what I
have seen there was no hesitation to be blunt in earlier times. Of
course, earlier times did not have "scientific method" to worry about,
but I think we could get rather straightforward astrology "cookbooks"
if we only had the resources to make the research. I do not think the
problem is in astrology itself, though I confess I am aware that it is
not only a science, there is a need for artistry on the behalf of the
astrologer as well.

Oh I think it goes way beyond scientific method or not. I think it
requires a wholesale philosophical revolution at a cultural level.
General society isn't ready to deal with this level of self-awareness.

Consider the fight going on about evolution, for instance. Or the
strict literal belief in the Bible (the earth is 6000 years old). Or
other examples of willful ignorance. And some people put astrologers
in that category :-)

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
What I've been told is that there is more of a group consciousness, of
sorts, and not so much an individual ego.

Insofar as they are believed to have a non-physical life at all, that
is the same as I have heard. But the idea that they are completely
soulless is not unheard of, though I find it unconvincing, and thinks
it bespeaks human hubris. Descartes idea that animals were but a kind
of machines is an especially repugnant example.

I called it group consciousness. Animals do indeed respond to love or
not-love.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you were holding the view of
animals as automata! And, thinking about it, I think that group
consciousness is something that is true for humans, so of course it
would be true for animals as well. However, I think that group
consciousness and individuality can co-exist. The question is whether
it can do so only in humans, or if it is possible for animals as well.
I would like to think the latter.

I agree.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not see it as a one way-street. External reality exists without
me, was in existence before i joined the party. If what is in my head
creates reality, it is in the sense of *co*-creating that reality.

Well, yeah, but we're talking from a personal perspective. The 'other
half' has to exist to even have a personal perspective.

Bringing it back to whether cats have souls or not (disregarding that
we have not defined the concept of "soul", which may certainly be
problematic to some), I would say that regardless of my perception of
the fact of the matter, there would have to be a yes or no answer to
that question. At least if I have put the question right and the
question itself is not meaningless.

And I think that, in principle, it would be possible to determine from
someone's birth chart what is the state of their external reality—in
itself. With statistics, proper definitions and a genuine
understanding of astrology, it should be possible to reinvent
astrological specifics, and to find answer to new ones, such as my
question on whether cats have souls or not.

After all, when the foundations of astrology were laid, that must have
been more or less how the work was done. Collecting data, comparing
with reality, applying principles...

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My choices and decisions affects reality, but *it* also has an effect on
me.

Only what you give it. We're free to make up anything at all about our
universe, ultimately.

I do not believe that. We move within constraints, and one example of
how these look would be the birth chart. I cannot "unthink" gravity,
or my need for oxygen.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The relationship is reciprocal. In fact, it must be if I want to
use the word "relationship", reciprocity being the very essence of
what relationships are about. That holds true also for relationships
that are not with other persons but with theoretical entities as well.
This also leads to the thought that what is not real cannot influence
me.

Or it can, depending on the meaning you give it.

If it does, it only seemingly does. Because it is I who affect myself,
through a detour, not the imagination itself. It does not have a real
life of its own.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
(If I am scared by nightmares I am scaring myself, because
nightmares are only inventions of my mind.)

Like that.

The nightmares are not "un-me". If my nightmares scare me, I am
scaring myself.

Then again, nightmares caused by health issues would be something
else. (Myself I always get nightmares if I get a fever, and the fever
may originate with an external virus, being "un-me".) Perhaps
nightmares wasn't the best example.


[---]

Post by CFA
Oh I think it goes way beyond scientific method or not. I think it
requires a wholesale philosophical revolution at a cultural level.
General society isn't ready to deal with this level of self-awareness.

I don't think that is necessary. People accept modern medicine and
space travel without being able to "understand" them. The same could
go for astrology, as long as it was accepted by the establishment. The
problem is not that astrology is in some sense special, it is rather
that it is made special.

Post by CFA
Consider the fight going on about evolution, for instance. Or the
strict literal belief in the Bible (the earth is 6000 years old). Or
other examples of willful ignorance. And some people put astrologers
in that category :-)

Yes, there exists a problem, I can't deny that. We would probably need
to find a new and fancy name, and an explanation as fancy. "Quantum
improbability weirdness when dealing with the observer effect" or some
such! :-)

(Actually, and on a more serious note, an "observer effect" of sorts
may certainly be involved, making the astrologer something of a magus,
"creating" the reality he sees, by seeing it.)

/Kjell

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
What I've been told is that there is more of a group consciousness, of
sorts, and not so much an individual ego.

Insofar as they are believed to have a non-physical life at all, that
is the same as I have heard. But the idea that they are completely
soulless is not unheard of, though I find it unconvincing, and thinks
it bespeaks human hubris. Descartes idea that animals were but a kind
of machines is an especially repugnant example.

I called it group consciousness. Animals do indeed respond to love or
not-love.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you were holding the view of
animals as automata! And, thinking about it, I think that group
consciousness is something that is true for humans, so of course it
would be true for animals as well. However, I think that group
consciousness and individuality can co-exist. The question is whether
it can do so only in humans, or if it is possible for animals as well.
I would like to think the latter.

I agree.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My choices and decisions affects reality, but *it* also has an effect on
me.

Only what you give it. We're free to make up anything at all about our
universe, ultimately.

I do not believe that. We move within constraints, and one example of
how these look would be the birth chart. I cannot "unthink" gravity,
or my need for oxygen.

Actually you can, in your own perception. Clues to that phenomenon are
part of the experience we call denial. 'in your own perception' is the
key. Denial doesn't change the existence of gravity, of course, but
people are free to act like it. As to oxygen... yes, denial that is
extreme enough is self-correcting. Bless Darwin's little head :-)

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The relationship is reciprocal. In fact, it must be if I want to
use the word "relationship", reciprocity being the very essence of
what relationships are about. That holds true also for relationships
that are not with other persons but with theoretical entities as well.
This also leads to the thought that what is not real cannot influence
me.

Or it can, depending on the meaning you give it.

If it does, it only seemingly does. Because it is I who affect myself,
through a detour, not the imagination itself. It does not have a real
life of its own.

You appear to keep blurring the difference between objective and
subjective. Perception is the determining factor. There's an
anthropological maxim that echoes this: if it's real in one's
perception, it's real in one's experience. Nothing about objective
reality need impinge on one's perception of personal reality.

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not believe that. We move within constraints, and one example of
how these look would be the birth chart. I cannot "unthink" gravity,
or my need for oxygen.

Actually you can, in your own perception. Clues to that phenomenon are
part of the experience we call denial. 'in your own perception' is the
key. Denial doesn't change the existence of gravity, of course, but
people are free to act like it. As to oxygen... yes, denial that is
extreme enough is self-correcting. Bless Darwin's little head :-)

It seems to me now that you say what you say that we are perhaps not
so far apart in our ideas, after all. In my earlier interpretation of
what you said you would NOT have said that "denial that is extreme
enough is self-correcting".

That is close to what I want to say, the implication being that
external reality does exist and that it cannot be overrun by the mind.
The mind can do an infinitely lot of things, but it cannot violate
reality. Bless Darwin's little head! :-)

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The relationship is reciprocal. In fact, it must be if I want to
use the word "relationship", reciprocity being the very essence of
what relationships are about. That holds true also for relationships
that are not with other persons but with theoretical entities as well.
This also leads to the thought that what is not real cannot influence
me.

Or it can, depending on the meaning you give it.

If it does, it only seemingly does. Because it is I who affect myself,
through a detour, not the imagination itself. It does not have a real
life of its own.

You appear to keep blurring the difference between objective and
subjective. Perception is the determining factor. There's an
anthropological maxim that echoes this: if it's real in one's
perception, it's real in one's experience. Nothing about objective
reality need impinge on one's perception of personal reality.

In the case of examples extreme enough to be self-correcting, lack of
oxygen would impinge on a person's perception of their reality—if that
reality says that such an event could not or should not take place.

A friend of mine used to make fun of the idea of affirmations
(whenever I told him that is a good thing and he should try it) with
saying:

"I can fly, I can fly".

Of course he wanted to implicate precisely the point I want to make
here: that there are limits. Still, within those limits, set by
reality itself, we are free to (co-)create whatsoever we want to.

Translating this into astrological terms, I'd say that the Sun
(principles or what I call reality) are stronger than the Moon (the
mind). But as I write this, I realize I have the Moon in Leo, ruled by
the Sun, and that perhaps this is perfectly true

in MY reality.

(Nota bene, still meaning reality, not experience, but it might be
that the rules reality sets up differ from one person to another!)

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not believe that. We move within constraints, and one example of
how these look would be the birth chart. I cannot "unthink" gravity,
or my need for oxygen.

Actually you can, in your own perception. Clues to that phenomenon are
part of the experience we call denial. 'in your own perception' is the
key. Denial doesn't change the existence of gravity, of course, but
people are free to act like it. As to oxygen... yes, denial that is
extreme enough is self-correcting. Bless Darwin's little head :-)

It seems to me now that you say what you say that we are perhaps not
so far apart in our ideas, after all. In my earlier interpretation of
what you said you would NOT have said that "denial that is extreme
enough is self-correcting".
That is close to what I want to say, the implication being that
external reality does exist and that it cannot be overrun by the mind.

It's not a black or white thing. Don't underestimate the power of
denial.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The mind can do an infinitely lot of things, but it cannot violate
reality. Bless Darwin's little head! :-)

Yes, like breathing, eating, obvious survival skills, etc. But beyond
a few basics, it's pretty wide open.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The relationship is reciprocal. In fact, it must be if I want to
use the word "relationship", reciprocity being the very essence of
what relationships are about. That holds true also for relationships
that are not with other persons but with theoretical entities as well.
This also leads to the thought that what is not real cannot influence
me.

Or it can, depending on the meaning you give it.

If it does, it only seemingly does. Because it is I who affect myself,
through a detour, not the imagination itself. It does not have a real
life of its own.

You appear to keep blurring the difference between objective and
subjective. Perception is the determining factor. There's an
anthropological maxim that echoes this: if it's real in one's
perception, it's real in one's experience. Nothing about objective
reality need impinge on one's perception of personal reality.

In the case of examples extreme enough to be self-correcting, lack of
oxygen would impinge on a person's perception of their reality—if that
reality says that such an event could not or should not take place.
A friend of mine used to make fun of the idea of affirmations
(whenever I told him that is a good thing and he should try it) with
"I can fly, I can fly".
Of course he wanted to implicate precisely the point I want to make
here: that there are limits. Still, within those limits, set by
reality itself, we are free to (co-)create whatsoever we want to.
Translating this into astrological terms, I'd say that the Sun
(principles or what I call reality) are stronger than the Moon (the
mind). But as I write this, I realize I have the Moon in Leo, ruled by
the Sun, and that perhaps this is perfectly true
in MY reality.
(Nota bene, still meaning reality, not experience, but it might be
that the rules reality sets up differ from one person to another!)

Past a few basics, I believe so, yes.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is close to what I want to say, the implication being that
external reality does exist and that it cannot be overrun by the mind.

It's not a black or white thing. Don't underestimate the power of
denial.

I am with you. What the mind most certainly can do is to re-
interpret.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
The mind can do an infinitely lot of things, but it cannot violate
reality. Bless Darwin's little head! :-)

Yes, like breathing, eating, obvious survival skills, etc. But beyond
a few basics, it's pretty wide open.

Agreed!

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
(Nota bene, still meaning reality, not experience, but it might be
that the rules reality sets up differ from one person to another!)

Past a few basics, I believe so, yes.

We seem to have arrived at complete agreement. What did we do
wrong? ;-)

/Kjell

[~^.Saba Gracile.^~]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Two decades ago someone in Sweden had a hit with a song with the
lyrics saying: "Can I bring my dog with me into Heaven?". Though the
song was no dissertation, the topic of whether animals have a soul is
indeed one that has been discussed by learned and philosophers
throughout millennia.
A few months ago my beloved cat Laban, whom I became custodian to
after my mother died in 2008, died. I recently checked what my charts
were saying at the time, and was surprised to see that there were
indicators that have been present when my parents or other people
died, or similar indicators.
Examples: Transiting Saturn was squaring my Ascendant, and Saturn
conjoining my Ascendant was associated with death, and that time of a
human being, not an animal. My natal Sun was 'eclipsed' by the
progressed Moon, and similar 'eclipses' usually occur in my charts
when someone close dies.
It is this thing with lunisolar connections that I am thinking of in
particular. The joining of the Luminaries is, among other things,
associated with an opening to the worlds beyond, to let souls pass
(coming or leaving). I think that idea is found already in Plato
(though I do not have a reference right now). It's a very old one
anyway. At the New and Full Moons, and at eclipses, souls arrive and
leave Earth.
Anyhow, assuming that the ancients were on to something and knew
something about those things it would seem possible to make an
interpretation that allows for my cat actually having a soul. I know I
am stretching it, but I rely upon how I have seen similar
'hypothetical eclipses' in my charts in association with the deaths of
people, humans.
What do you think? If this finding could be repeated in the charts of
others, would you accept the idea of pets (at least cats) having
souls? Would you allow for astrology to say (or "prove") things about
metaphysical matters?

Yes I believe we are all souls. Animals don't have language but why
not souls. Astrology is the language to describe metaphysical matters,
and its all intertwined. If the universe gave a soul it takes it back too.
It might live on in the other form but nobody knows which form it
takes. Maybe it can be seen astrologically at the point of death.
I had bad cough health for the whole last month. Saturn was exact
I now see, a quincunx to my Asc (and Neptune is in a square transit,
and on my northern node ).
I didn't die but it sure describes the worst cough I've ever
had. I thought I was going to die, still not over it.

V

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

[Kjell Pettersson]

---

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~

Post by Kjell Pettersson
What do you think? If this finding could be repeated in the charts of
others, would you accept the idea of pets (at least cats) having
souls? Would you allow for astrology to say (or "prove") things about
metaphysical matters?

Yes I believe we are all souls. Animals don't have language but why
not souls. Astrology is the language to describe metaphysical matters,
and its all intertwined.  If the universe gave a soul it takes it back too.

I think that is reasonable.

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
It might live on in the other form but nobody knows which form it
takes.

My thought, now after having thought about this some more, is that
"life" and "soul" are more or less the same. The question would be
only that of form and just like you say, nobody knows which form it
takes.

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
Maybe it can be seen astrologically at the point of death.

That's a very interesting idea! As if the death chart would somehow be
a birth chart, of sorts, of the new form.

Post by ~^.Saba Gracile.^~
I had bad cough health for the whole last month. Saturn was exact
I now see, a quincunx to my Asc (and Neptune is in a square transit,
and on my northern node ).
I didn't die but it sure describes the worst cough I've ever
had. I thought I was going to die, still not over it.

I hope you will get rid of that last lingering piece of it soon!

/Kjell