I am sorry about the late answer, my mind has been unwrappable for
awhile! :-)
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonI do not know if you read my other post on the importance of accepting
geocentrism, at least for (non-heliocentric) astrologers. In a way I
am saying something similar here to what I said in that post: local
truth and global truth may differ in appearances, but each is true.
Equally true, one not being more true than the other. And that
reality is only mindstuff the Platonic, Neoplatonic, Vedantic,
Buddhist view is true only on the level where it is true. That level
is NOT the lived and incarnated level but the abstract and
spiritual level. It may be God's view, but it is not an individual
person's view and both are equally right in their opinion! (I know,
many would say I am trespassing into the sacrilegous here.)
I don't see it as sacrilegious...
I do think we're saying vaguely similar things about perception- that
it is the foundation of a person's reality.
Yes, and no. Perception is the foundation of what a person *thinks* is
his reality. I would however not say that it is the foundation of his
*actual* reality. That means that there is room for a discrepancy
between his thoughts as projections onto the world and what the world
itself is. His projections may not accord with reality, as in
consensus reality, which I strongly suggest does exist.
The person may think he is threatened by a situation, for instance,
even if this is not the case. I would however say that no matter hos
unreal in reality, IF he really and truly experiences this to be true,
his chart will show his experience, not the truth. (It may, however,
contain pointers about his lack of sense of reality.)
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonPost by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonThat said, even if we DO introduce karma, we are still not entitled to
put the blame on the victim. In the Hindu universe there are at least
three kinds of karma; personal, global and one in-between that I think
is national or for your particular caste. There might be others, but
these I know about.
It's not blame, though it clearly goes to that extreme in many
people's minds- it's accountability, which is how we 'acquire' power.
If we are responsible, then we can change conditions that don't suit
us.
That is precisely what is problematic with your point of view (from my
POV); the idea that we can (always) change things. The implication of
that idea is that we hold every key in our own hands, if we but use
it. That is, however, not the case at least not on the individually
lived, incarnated, level.
I think we can always change things. I don't think most people take
the time to understand what it requires, much less put in the effort.
I disagree. There exists points of no return, where change can no
longer be affected. It may have been possible, in principle, to escape
Nazi Germany for every single Jew, but in reality it was not. And it
certainly was not generally possible up to the moment of facing a
concentration camp, or beyond that moment.
That is why Kairos has a lock on the forehead but is bald on the back
of his head. If you do not seize the opportunity, it is gone. And I
would say this is extremely so in astrology; the precise combination
each of us encounters at any single moment is unique and cannot be
postponed to be used later. Carpe diem is a rather heavy obligation
if one really thinks of it.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kairos
In my perception astrology is a chairotic art (or science, if you
will). That, in turn, implies that reality is too.
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonStrictly speaking (admitting that there are mixed cases), people are
not hit by lightning because they did not assume responsiblity but
because they were standing in a place where lightning happened to
strike.
Who made the choice to stand in a certain place? If we think in terms
of karma, is that a sometimes-applicable and sometimes-not phenomenon?
Sometimes those choices are rooted far beyond our individual choices.
A clear example is profession. It is not uncommon for people to choose
a line of profession in harmony with what their parents did. They are
already familiar with music, or astrology, or mechanics, and it comes
natural to them.
But that choice is dependent upon the choices their parents did. And
that goes not only for profession but for where we happen to live and
all sorts of things. We just did not choose the whole set-up we were
born into, or at least not in the sense of having chosen any of the
specifics. What choice there may be in choosing to be born cannot
reasonably (I think) be said to include a detailed road map of what we
are about to expect.
If we make a choice, it is that of incarnating the forces of time
and place and carry those into the world.
Post by CFASpeaking of which, I believe the foundation of karma is a person's set
of beliefs, not primarily their actions.
I don't really want to take a stand on karma in the sense of something
beyond this life, but in the sense of present-life-karma I think
actions are highly included. Again, one must seize the opportunity,
and if one does not, it is gone. (Thankfully, for most of us, there
are more than one single opportunity so we can compensate by trying
again.)
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonWe do not have the ability or option! to unchoose
whatever is given us. We can with a lot of things, but not with all.
There are limits to what a human being can do, and in part they are
given by the birth chart.
Well, I would say a person's biases are reflected in the chart, but
isn't the point of chart study to learn how to grow past what might be
considered limitations?
You could express the negation of that sentence and it will sound just
as plausible:
Isn't the point of chart study to learn how to accept and work with
and within the limitations we are given?
I am not saying it is either way, but here clearly one's degree of
Saturnness would come into play in what version one would choose.
I do not think, like I think was a popular idea mid-twentieth century,
that we can grow out of our chart and somehow leave it behind. When
we are enlightened we become impossible to pin down to Ascendant or
Sun sign is an instance of such a belief.
I would also say that limitations are not that bad. Without the
pentameter Shakespeare would not have been the same. Saturn is part of
our set-up for a reason, not just to be outgrown or left behind.
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonPost by CFAIf someone else is responsible for something going on in our
lives, then they are responsible (hold the power).
It must not be that someone is responsible for what happens, as in
causing the events. Many events are made up of many causes coming
together, the event being a confluence. The previously mentioned car
accident may be completely without anyone responsible for having
caused it, its cause rather being an unhappy confluence of weather,
wind and other coincidences.
The power that we have is not in assuming responsibility (as the word
is usually used), but in how we choose to respond; respondability
which is quite another thing. The power lies in what we do WITH what
happens, but not what happens and would happen regardless of our
presence and consciousness. And some things do. We human beings, as
individuals, are not the authors of reality.
To me, this is the description of a partially-realized person. On the
other hand, I don't know that we need to change objective reality-
much of it already works pretty well. I think it's more that we need
to practice working within the possibilities of it.
I really do not want to come across as if I thought changing reality
was a good thing. The very thought is anathema to me. Marx reportedly
said
"the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to
change it"
but that is an idea I oppose from the bottom of my heart. The attempt
to change reality is, I think, the very source of all problems there
are. We must accept reality, not change it. That is, I agree with your
answer here.
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonWe do not move the stars of Pleiades or Orion, nor call forth the
seasons.
Only because we don't invest the time it takes. Or maybe we do- maybe
the seasons happen because there is basically worldwide agreement
about them.
I do not disagree here. But if there is a worldwide agreement, we are
no longer speaking of individuals such as you and me but of aggregates
of individuals working together in a completely de-individualized
sense. Such aggregates may be angels, for all that I know, but they
are not you or I.
I do not think this moving of the stars works on an individual level.
On the individual level we are (at least generally speaking)
restricted to affecting our own bodies and through them the external
world.
Post by CFAI know all this is radical, and I haven't seen any reason it's not
true- except beliefs to that effect.
If nothing about life is guaranteed, then *everything* works on faith.
Nothing I have said means anything else, from my point of view! :-)
Post by CFAFaith in limitations yields limitations. Faith in limitlessness at
least offers the possibility of same.
If limitlessness was true in any real sense, then an individual life
could have no particular purpose. But we all have. In astrology we
speak of the Medium Cli and I think that believing that the
individual life has a purpose is a natural part of the astrological
worldview.
If limitlessness was true, then a person could choose just any
purpose, or none. But we are not free to make such a choice, because
we are defined beings; defined by our birth charts and individual
zenith's. Only divine beings can claim limitlessness. Human beings
cannot.
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonPost by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonLike the newborn babies of today,
who are quite unlikely to have created nuclear disasters or worldwide
pollution. No matter how many times we assume they have lived before,
they are still very unlikely to have done this to themselves.
I agree, they didn't do it to themselves. At that age, they are a part
of their environment.
And they, we, will always, to some extent, be like babies. There is no
point where we finally leave our fundamental innocence behind, except,
possibly, at death. We partake in reality, but we are again not
the authors of it. It was here before we came, and will still be here
when we have left. Reality is not a projection.
That appears to only paint part of the picture. Another part is our
response to those conditions. And that's what I'm addressing.
Perceptions - conscious and unconscious - form a huge part of
subjective reality. I'm not talking about denying the need to eat and
such. I'm talking about how we respond to possibilities...
I don't have much beef with subjective reality. It is when the idea of
thoughts as projections defining consensus reality I start to react.
Recalling the Pleiades and Orion I'd say that such projections would
have to be made at a level beyond the individual.
Post by CFAFor instance, there is a deep financial recession in the western
countries, and yet there are many people who are unaffected by it. Not
all middle-class people are struggling, for instance. They basically
refuse to be limited by 'conventional wisdom' or conventional
experience.
Hm. It may be that the jury is still out on how many will be affected
by the current recession. Anyhow, I see your point, but I also thinks
it is dangerously close to making things a bit too simple.
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonPost by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonThat would, in my perception, make for each person a self-sufficient
solipsism. And while solipsism may be an intellectually pleasing
answer, Ockham to the power of infinity, it just doesn't ring true.
I wouldn't go that far. I'm just saying what exists, exists.
Disagreements occur in attempts to define it.
Certainly we are debating points which to many are beyond even the
esoteric. I do however sense that we are disagreeing not only
formally, because we have chosen different but somehow equal
definitions, but that we really hold mutually exclusive ideas within
this area. Which is good for discussion! :-)
This is the longest I've been able to discuss it with someone here
without a meltdown of some sort :-)
I've had one this September (toothache has made August and September
into morphin months for me), but it was completely unrelated to this
topic, I promise you! :-)
Post by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonPost by CFAPost by Kjell PetterssonIt MAY be that whom we see as a victim IS responsible for their own
fate in precisely the way you have described, I do not disagree on
that -- what I am saying is that it NEED NOT be like that. Projection
is not the only cause of events, and may at times be irrelevant to
invoke.
The idea that makes the most sense to me is that we experience what we
expect to experience, whether those things are good bad or
indifferent. 'Expectations' is the operative word, many of which have
slipped into subconsciousness or unconsciousness.
I largely agree, with the small proviso that this is not the entire
truth.
Limitations?
I think I have covered them in the above. As individuals we are
definitive and defined beings and this unlimitlessness sets the
protocol to a large extent. And even if the movements of Pleiades are
the result of our projections it is of OUR projections, as a vast
group of minds, not anything that is within reach at the level where
individuals operate. Plus a general thing about liking Saturn. :-)
/Kjell