posted June 19, 2009 02:10 PM
Aspects, in order to be considered thematic, generally need to be within an orb of 5 or 6 degrees, unless the Sun or Moon is implicated; in which case, an orb of 8 or 10 is reasonable. The oppositions to your Sun/Venus/Jupiter are relatively active, but I would only consider them thematic on account of the placement of Chiron on one side of your chart. Since the North Node is not an instinctive point of expression, as the South Node is, your Chiron is probably even more isolated than mine. The squares to the Midheaven are neglibible, in my opinion, especially when you've got that perfect Uranus trine. The Mars opposition to your NNode is very significant. This also suggests a reservoir of self-will, perhaps developed in past-lives, and an ability to initiate and lead, without being bogged down with unnecessary reflection. However, the tendency is over-developed, and a departure is needed, from the aggressive disciplinarian role, played by Mars in Capricorn, to the reflective nurturer, played by the NNode in Cancer.
quote:
Advanced degrees imply mastery in the areas they show up in.
That's interesting. Do you recall where you read or heard this?
I hate to keep disagreeing with you, but Saturn is indeed responsible for your mature tastes, particularly in Libra. It cannot account for all of your tastes, or for every aspect of your tastes, but it certainly inclines you toward an appreciation for "the canon"; the time-tested masterworks; Saturnine words. The strong Jupiter, conjunct Sun and Venus, also plays a part here, as does the sextile of Neptune to Saturn.
It looks like disagreement will be thematic, lol. Well, as long as we can disagree respectfully, it may be enlightening... The mechanical operation of choice is undeniable, but to call that "free will" is a stretch. The source of those choices is rooted in the unconscious and determined by factors which transcend the individual. Whether or not this is convenient or sympathetic has no bearing on whether or not it is true; though I would argue that, in many ways, the complications it illuminates are decidedly inconvenient and unsympathetic. We are not talking about people having their choices interfered with, or anything on a surface level. We are talking about a very basic principle of logic, -- perhaps the most basic and primary. It is so obvious, it is overlooked by nearly everyone. Schopenhauer explores it admirably in his "The Four-Fold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason". One philosopher articulates it thusly: Everything that happens has a reason for being such as it is, and a lack of reasons for being other than it is. The arguments to support this are endless, because it is the very foundation of all argumentation. Every cause is also an effect, and when we seek to locate a cause within the individual, we are denying this fact; imagining that the individual exists within a vacuum, as a causeless cause; something godly. Its hubris, and its a denial of our dependence on the natural order.
What is remarkable is that we admit the power of our internal and external environments only in extreme cases: We see that a madman is not responsible for his choices, but we fail to see what is more subtle; that all men are mad; all operating from various levels of unconsciousness, and basing their decisions on whatever material arises from the unconscious. We say that one man is innocent of murder by reason of insanity, while another is guilty, but we overlook the flaw in our logic, which essentially tallies as: "murder is sane". We say that we do not expect everyone to be a saint, effectively confessing that there is a difference between the "free will" of saints and that of average men, but we still have expectations for the man; more or less arbitrary, based as they are on observations of others (whom we expect the man to resemble) and not on the subject under consideration; the man himself.
I propose that we cease to hold people responsible only in the sense that we do not hold a hurricane responsible for devastating a town. We do what we can to prevent hurricanes, and to protect the town, but we do not add insult to injury by blaming, and holding a personal grudge against the hurricane. We can see this principle everywhere in nature, as it relates to our use of language.. We say that the leaves rustle, but the leaves dont really do anything; they are moved by the wind. We say that the wind blows, but the wind is moved by atmospheric pressures, which have their origin in still more distant causes. All things, including human beings, obey the same laws of dynamics. We say that something could have been different, but, if we take just an instant to reflect upon this statement, we will be shocked by its absurdity and superficiality. In order for things to have gone differently, some factor, some cause, would have to have been different, -- but, in order for the cause to have been different, it would have to have been preceeded by another different cause, and so on, ad infinitum. In fact, what we are really saying is that the entire universe could have been, and could be, different. Very simply, determinism is about seeing and accepting what is; without imagining that what is could've been otherwise, or that it suggests what might have been, rather than what has been.
While this way of seeing admittedly flips the script and turns our assumptions about people and the world on its head, it is, nevertheless, factual; founded on pure logical observation, and not any personal desire to escape from responsibility. Whether or not my motive in promoting this view is personal, and less than noble, is secondary and debatable. The fact remains that the logic is sound. And you will find that, if you are, by nature, a responsible person, then this philosophy will not deter you from fulfilling what you see as your obligations. History is full of socially-conscious determinists.
quote:
Still, the root of it appears to be nothing other than plain selfishness.
There is nothing plain about the root of things. What you have offered here is what may be called "an operational definition". To say that selfish behavior is caused by selfishness is really to say nothing at all. Its like saying the sky is blue because of the color blue. Selfishness is the very thing you wish to understand, but you abort the process of understanding selfishness as a behavior when you are satisfied to arrive at selfishness as an orientation. The question still remains, "what is the cause, or root, of the selfishness?" The great diagnosticians of the soul of man have placed the causes for these things deep within the constitution of the individual; in psychological or physiological imbalances, inherited from nature and largely encouraged by culture. But we must have an eye for detail, or we will refuse to admit these causes; for instance, we will see that one man attributes his deplorable condition to an unloving mother, while another man is able to rise above far greater adversities, and, without taking their differences into account, we will interpret the success of the latter as a refutation of the "excuses" of the former. In fact, the two men are different. Likewise, we will have sympathy for a child, but not a man, under similar circumstances, without regard to the real differences between that man and that child; because we judge according to assumptions and probabilities, and without observing the unique factors of each particular situation. External appearances notwithstanding, the most important determinants of behavior are internal. Internally, it may be that the man is more of a child than the child. Forced by frustration to admit the reality of this, many people will agree that the man is indeed a child, but not without a feeling of superiority, scorn, and revulsion; and not without judging the man somehow more responsible for his childishness than a child would be. Rare is the person who sees this reality in its depths, and who is moved to compassion for the man, and to consider him much as he would consider a child; as innocent. Could we force him to "grow up" by making him answerable to gruelling circumstances? Perhaps. But we can do the same thing to a little child, and it would be, perhaps, no less of a tragedy, or a hastening of natural processes for the sake of unnatural ends.
I appreciate the encouragement, but I've no desire to write a book of rebuttals, or to revive Johnson, who, while a very clever wit, with an encyclopedic mind, and an amusing (and imposing) jocularity of spirit, was consistently belligerant and wrong on nearly every position he pompously took. It is unfortunate that he was not able, more often, to combine wit and truth, but relied on absurdities in order to exhibit witticisms. He is a character, worthy of a place in history on account of his Dictionary and his Shakespearian criticism, but altogether very over-rated as a thinker, particularly in his own mind. Boswell impresses me infinitely more.
Thats great that you are going to teach a class on fantasy. What better indication can there be of the atrophying, disinheriting, and devaluing of the imagination (and its representative; the artist, or artist-seer) in our present culture than the refussal to take fantasy literature seriously? The artist is the free-thinker par excellence, and the artist of fantasy is the artist par excellence, because she is not tied down even to the thoughts prescribed by reality and truth. Her sphere is not the intellect, with the limitations it imposes, but, the imagination, and the limitations it dissolves. Is it any wonder that this creature is hunted in a thoroughly patriarchal, right-brained society? Its nice to agree with you. 
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted June 19, 2009 02:10 PM
posted June 22, 2009 10:43 PM
