Theory about free will and astrology
Kjell Pettersson
interact, coming to the conclusion that just as the personal chart is
unique, so may our relationship with free will be.
In my own life, and with my own chart, I have found that the chart
reflects occurrences to an exceedingly exact degree. I can no longer
number the number aspects coming true, unexpectedly, on the precise
minute of the hour they "should" come true. Everything from phone
calls about someone who died in an accident to the post arriving with
checks I had no idea of.
This exactness, however, does not seem to be a fact for everyone else
with a birth chart. Everyone else, that is. Some have this exactness
in their charts, but it doesn't seem to be widespread even among
astrologers. I have asked myself what in my chart might be behind
this, and I have arrived at the perhaps not too unexpected idea that
it may have to do with exactness within the chart itself.
I have three partile aspects, two of whom are perfect. This does not
seem to be that much, but adding the midpoints created suddenly there
are a gazillion combinations possible. As with every other combination
of four planets (as the case is here). But starting with exact aspects
the whole midpoint picture becomes more coordinated.
I have an acquaintance born a few days earlier than me who has a chart
even more extreme; he has an aspect pattern of six planets placed in
the same degree in various signs. He is a fatalist if anyone, and his
chart certainly bears this out if one accepts my attempt at a theory.
The idea is probably oversimplified, but the main gist is this:
Orb equates free will.
The tighter the aspects in the chart, the less time will be given you
to act upon events happening, while with looser aspects you will have
more time to ponder and relate to events.
As you see, I relate free will to the amount of time one has to make a
choice. When an orb is zero, you will have no time at all, and the
event will be "destined", you having no choice whatsoever in the
affair.
I would be grateful for any and all feedback, not least from those of
you who feel you can relate (or not) this to your own charts.
/Kjell
CFA
This echoes the aspects, in a way. Conjunctions are often interpreted
as "self"- qualities that are generally easy (or easier) to see as
parts of self. Oppositions and squares often look like situations or
qualities others 'force' us to deal with, and that don't seem to be
part of self.
if there's any similarity, it's that we project the idea that exact
aspects seem impossibly compelling, because they are so deep in our
nature. Looser aspects usually aren't experienced with the same, uh,
pressure, so that they seem easier to integrate and/or make choices
and/or 'control'.
I suspect we're heading, again, to the idea that either argument (free
will or no) can be supported, which really means to me that we have
the free will to believe there's no free will, absolute free will, or
something in the middle, etc.
>/Kjell
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
>
> This echoes the aspects, in a way. Conjunctions are often interpreted
> as "self"- qualities that are generally easy (or easier) to see as
> parts of self. Oppositions and squares often look like situations or
> qualities others 'force' us to deal with, and that don't seem to be
> part of self.
I am of the somewhat impossible conviction that even though all of a
person's chart can be said to be his "self" (inner, outer, conscious,
subconscious etc), solipsism is not a consequence, because the chart
is, simultaneously, a representation of that person's external world.
Charts are like the pearls in Indra's net.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indra%27s_net
In my view, this means that a terrorist such as this Norwegian
extremist, though he was part of the external world to his victims,
that does not mean he was also a part of their selves in any
meaningful way. It's back to this thing we touched upon in another
discussion, that victims are not to be seen as having caused what
happens to them. Seeing things in any other way would, as I see it,
destroy the idea of personal responsibility. Any murderer could claim
"He/she/they asked for it."
> if there's any similarity, it's that we project the idea that exact
> aspects seem impossibly compelling, because they are so deep in our
> nature. Looser aspects usually aren't experienced with the same, uh,
> pressure, so that they seem easier to integrate and/or make choices
> and/or 'control'.
I agree with the general thought here, but I think that there are
"thresholds" where "compelling" goes beyond all possibility of choice.
Typically that would be hard aspects with a small orb.
> I suspect we're heading, again, to the idea that either argument (free
> will or no) can be supported, which really means to me that we have
> the free will to believe there's no free will, absolute free will, or
> something in the middle, etc.
Yes, both can be supported. What I thought of as new -- at least to me
-- is the idea that the free will versus fate quota is individualized,
as per our birth charts. Whether compulsions or external events drive
us on, the range of choice is narrowed for some, and for some not.
/Kjell
CFA
>On Jul 26, 7:14 am, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
>>
>> This echoes the aspects, in a way. Conjunctions are often interpreted
>> as "self"- qualities that are generally easy (or easier) to see as
>> parts of self. Oppositions and squares often look like situations or
>> qualities others 'force' us to deal with, and that don't seem to be
>> part of self.
>
>I am of the somewhat impossible conviction that even though all of a
>person's chart can be said to be his "self" (inner, outer, conscious,
>subconscious etc), solipsism is not a consequence, because the chart
>is, simultaneously, a representation of that person's external world.
>Charts are like the pearls in Indra's net.
>
>https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indra%27s_net
>
>In my view, this means that a terrorist such as this Norwegian
>extremist, though he was part of the external world to his victims,
>that does not mean he was also a part of their selves in any
>meaningful way. It's back to this thing we touched upon in another
>discussion, that victims are not to be seen as having caused what
>happens to them. Seeing things in any other way would, as I see it,
>destroy the idea of personal responsibility.
It would seem to produce exactly the opposite of that. My belief is
that negative events (among other things) in a person's life are often
projections of negative beliefs, whether those beliefs are conscious
or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_%28psychology%29
> Any murderer could claim "He/she/they asked for it."
It doesn't absolve the murderer of responsibility for his actions.
>> if there's any similarity, it's that we project the idea that exact
>> aspects seem impossibly compelling, because they are so deep in our
>> nature. Looser aspects usually aren't experienced with the same, uh,
>> pressure, so that they seem easier to integrate and/or make choices
>> and/or 'control'.
>
>I agree with the general thought here, but I think that there are
>"thresholds" where "compelling" goes beyond all possibility of choice.
>Typically that would be hard aspects with a small orb.
The only threshold I see is a person's awareness (I'm not saying I
have that mastery).
>> I suspect we're heading, again, to the idea that either argument (free
>> will or no) can be supported, which really means to me that we have
>> the free will to believe there's no free will, absolute free will, or
>> something in the middle, etc.
>
>Yes, both can be supported. What I thought of as new -- at least to me
>-- is the idea that the free will versus fate quota is individualized,
>as per our birth charts. Whether compulsions or external events drive
>us on, the range of choice is narrowed for some, and for some not.
I still think that's a function of individual awareness, not the
structure of existence.
Kjell Pettersson
> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
> >On Jul 26, 7:14 am, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
- - -
> >In my view, this means that a terrorist such as this Norwegian
> >extremist, though he was part of the external world to his victims,
> >that does not mean he was also a part of their selves in any
> >meaningful way. It's back to this thing we touched upon in another
> >discussion, that victims are not to be seen as having caused what
> >happens to them. Seeing things in any other way would, as I see it,
> >destroy the idea of personal responsibility.
>
> It would seem to produce exactly the opposite of that. My belief is
> that negative events (among other things) in a person's life are often
> projections of negative beliefs, whether those beliefs are conscious
> or not.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_%28psychology%29
You are saying that all perception is also projection. Applied within
psychology I do not think there would be much agreement with that
point of view. All perception need not be the result of some kind of
denial, and so all perception need not be projection.
That said, and I will repeat this, I am convinced most of us have no
idea to what extent perception IS denial, and so projection. I
certainly believe this makes up the major part of how we perceive
existence.
But if all perception was denial, denial would be total, and I do not
think ”totality” is compatible with denial. The theological angle,
unavoidable if we introduce such terms, would be that ”totality”,
”absoluteness”, ”oneness” etc can only be divine. Perception does not
seem to me to be on such a level, a level I would prefer not to
introduce more than necessary.
> > Any murderer could claim "He/she/they asked for it."
>
> It doesn't absolve the murderer of responsibility for his actions.
In a solipsist's world, there would be no murderer, the murderer being
but a shadow of myself.
However, again, I absolutely see your point, and to a large extent I
would agree with you – but not to 100%. If one follows this idea all
the way one will land in the examples of newborn children dying from,
say, sexually transmitted diseases or drug addiction inherited from
the mother.
And to avoid moral complications one would then have to invoke some
mechanism like karma, for there would be no other way for them to hold
responsibility to being born like that.
I am not against the idea of reincarnation and karma as such, but I
think we should be able to explain reality without having to introduce
extra hypotheses as evidence. That good ol' Ockham that I usually so
despise told me so once.
That 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.
The conclusion is that you can be affected by karma not because you
have individually done something or been thinking the wrong thoughts,
but simply because you share fate with others – and they may have
created the fate that befalls you. Like 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 with the general thought here, but I think that there are
> >"thresholds" where "compelling" goes beyond all possibility of choice.
> >Typically that would be hard aspects with a small orb.
>
> The only threshold I see is a person's awareness (I'm not saying I
> have that mastery).
That would, in my perception, make for each person a self-sufficient
universe not in communication with other persons/universes. In a word:
solipsism. And while solipsism may be an intellectually pleasing
answer, Ockham to the power of infinity, it just doesn't ring true.
> >> I suspect we're heading, again, to the idea that either argument (free
> >> will or no) can be supported, which really means to me that we have
> >> the free will to believe there's no free will, absolute free will, or
> >> something in the middle, etc.
>
> >Yes, both can be supported. What I thought of as new -- at least to me
> >-- is the idea that the free will versus fate quota is individualized,
> >as per our birth charts. Whether compulsions or external events drive
> >us on, the range of choice is narrowed for some, and for some not.
>
> I still think that's a function of individual awareness, not the
> structure of existence.
I do not really think, considering your argument above, that you would
disagree with me if I said that the structure (or contents) of (an)
awareness is also the structure (or contents) of (its) existence. You
seem to be saying so earlier in the argument, and to a very large
extent I agree.
The only thing is that it is but a partial truth. I would apply
Goedel's incompleteness theorem:
1. If the system is consistent, it cannot be complete.
2. The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system.
I am aware the theorem concerns a specific area of mathematics, but I
am confident that any larger system of thought, at least one touching
upon the mathematical art of astrology, in theory would be possible to
express in a way that makes the theorem applicable.
Perhaps I should add a final point:
It 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.
/Kjell
CFA
I basically agree- all projection isn't denial. It's just how we all
see the world- we project our beliefs on the world. 'Reality'-
what it means- is subjective. Just ask three witnesses to a car wreck
what they saw :-)
>> > Any murderer could claim "He/she/they asked for it."
>>
>> It doesn't absolve the murderer of responsibility for his actions.
>
>In a solipsist's world, there would be no murderer, the murderer being
>but a shadow of myself.
>
>However, again, I absolutely see your point, and to a large extent I
>would agree with you – but not to 100%. If one follows this idea all
>the way one will land in the examples of newborn children dying from,
>say, sexually transmitted diseases or drug addiction inherited from
>the mother.
>
>And to avoid moral complications one would then have to invoke some
>mechanism like karma, for there would be no other way for them to hold
>responsibility to being born like that.
>
>I am not against the idea of reincarnation and karma as such, but I
>think we should be able to explain reality without having to introduce
>extra hypotheses as evidence. That good ol' Ockham that I usually so
>despise told me so once.
>
>That 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. If someone else is responsible for something going on in our
lives, then they are responsible (hold the power).
>The conclusion is that you can be affected by karma not because you
>have individually done something or been thinking the wrong thoughts,
>but simply because you share fate with others – and they may have
>created the fate that befalls you. Like 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.
>> >I agree with the general thought here, but I think that there are
>> >"thresholds" where "compelling" goes beyond all possibility of choice.
>> >Typically that would be hard aspects with a small orb.
>>
>> The only threshold I see is a person's awareness (I'm not saying I
>> have that mastery).
>
>That would, in my perception, make for each person a self-sufficient
>universe not in communication with other persons/universes. In a word:
>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.
>> >> I suspect we're heading, again, to the idea that either argument (free
>> >> will or no) can be supported, which really means to me that we have
>> >> the free will to believe there's no free will, absolute free will, or
>> >> something in the middle, etc.
>>
>> >Yes, both can be supported. What I thought of as new -- at least to me
>> >-- is the idea that the free will versus fate quota is individualized,
>> >as per our birth charts. Whether compulsions or external events drive
>> >us on, the range of choice is narrowed for some, and for some not.
>>
>> I still think that's a function of individual awareness, not the
>> structure of existence.
>
>I do not really think, considering your argument above, that you would
>disagree with me if I said that the structure (or contents) of (an)
>awareness is also the structure (or contents) of (its) existence. You
>seem to be saying so earlier in the argument, and to a very large
>extent I agree.
>
>The only thing is that it is but a partial truth. I would apply
>Goedel's incompleteness theorem:
>
>1. If the system is consistent, it cannot be complete.
>2. The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system.
>
>I am aware the theorem concerns a specific area of mathematics, but I
>am confident that any larger system of thought, at least one touching
>upon the mathematical art of astrology, in theory would be possible to
>express in a way that makes the theorem applicable.
Yes. "The unknowable is unknowable, and we still have to figure out
how to get to work on time..." or some such.
>Perhaps I should add a final point:
>
>It 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.
Kjell Pettersson
> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
> >On Aug 15, 12:03 pm, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
> >> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
> >> >On Jul 26, 7:14 am, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
> I basically agree- all projection isn't denial. It's just how we all
> see the world- we project our beliefs on the world. 'Reality'-
> what it means- is subjective. Just ask three witnesses to a car wreck
> what they saw :-)
But if perception was projection through and through, the witnesses
would have *caused* the event they see – only by seeing it. I do not
think that is the case, and I do not think witnesses in general see
themselves as causing what they see. That would make reality only
”mind-stuff”.
I 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.)
> >That 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.
Strictly 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. We 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.
> If 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.
We do not move the stars of Pleiades or Orion, nor call forth the
seasons.
> >Like 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 would, in my perception, make for each person a self-sufficient
> >universe not in communication with other persons/universes. In a word:
> >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! :-)
> >It 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.
/Kjell
CFA
>On Aug 26, 7:56 am, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
>> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
>> >On Aug 15, 12:03 pm, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
>> >> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
>> >> >On Jul 26, 7:14 am, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
>
>> I basically agree- all projection isn't denial. It's just how we all
>> see the world- we project our beliefs on the world. 'Reality'-
>> what it means- is subjective. Just ask three witnesses to a car wreck
>> what they saw :-)
>
>But if perception was projection through and through, the witnesses
>would have *caused* the event they see – only by seeing it. I do not
>think that is the case, and I do not think witnesses in general see
>themselves as causing what they see. That would make reality only
>”mind-stuff”.
I also don't think witnesses in general see themselves as causing what
they see. I do think they participate for their own reasons, whether
they are conscious of those reasons or not.
>I 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.
>> >That 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.
>Strictly 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?
Speaking of which, I believe the foundation of karma is a person's set
of beliefs, not primarily their actions.
>We 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?
>> If 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.
>We 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 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.
Faith in limitations yields limitations. Faith in limitlessness at
least offers the possibility of same.
>> >Like 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...
For 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.
>> >That would, in my perception, make for each person a self-sufficient
>> >universe not in communication with other persons/universes. In a word:
>> >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 :-)
>> >It 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?
Kjell Pettersson
> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
> >On Aug 26, 7:56 am, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
> >> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
> >> >On Aug 15, 12:03 pm, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
> >> >> Kjell Pettersson wrote:
> >> >> >On Jul 26, 7:14 am, CFA <bo...@alt.not> wrote:
awhile! :-)
> >I 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.
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.)
> >> >That 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.
>
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.
> >Strictly 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?
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.
>
> Speaking of which, I believe the foundation of karma is a person's set
> of beliefs, not primarily their actions.
>
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.)
> >We 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?
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.
> >> If 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.
>
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.
> >We 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.
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.
> I 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.
> Faith in limitations yields limitations. Faith in limitlessness at
> least offers the possibility of same.
>
could have no particular purpose. But we all have. In astrology we
speak of the Medium Cœli 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.
> >> >Like 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...
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.
> For 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.
>
by the current recession. Anyhow, I see your point, but I also thinks
it is dangerously close to making things a bit too simple.
> >> >That would, in my perception, make for each person a self-sufficient
> >> >universe not in communication with other persons/universes. In a word:
> >> >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 :-)
>
into morphin months for me), but it was completely unrelated to this
topic, I promise you! :-)
> >> >It 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?
>
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