posted April 26, 2010 05:42 PM         

I have been walking about 20 miles a day for 3 weeks. I quit smoking and spent all of my time (up until the last 2 days) listening to all of my favorite songs of my lifetime on my mp3 player while walking. It has been a pilgrimage and a soul journey to say the least. So many songs and their meanings to me at different points in my life...

Anyway, the last two days of the job, I walked with this book in my hand for part of the day. I had opened it blindly to this excerpt and I just knew it was time to read the entire book from beginning to end.

Saturn in Gemini

You have possible past lives as a writer, a lecturer, and a salesperson. Your possible karmic fears are of being talked about, lied to, and manipulated with words. You must structure and organize a practical and secure intellectual foundation. Constantly needing to gather information and share it, you must become a strong, trustful, and versatile communicator to share your ideas, thoughts, and philosophies. Become a communication chameleon, with the ability to talk to a variety of people with different needs. Commit yourself to being present in the moment and to exploring the possibilities of the moment to their fullest. The path to your soul mission is to intellectually create wise, challenging, and productive thoughts and communicate them with all people.

I had read this before because I looked up each aspect interpretation individually but never read the surrounding material. I had even underlined that part I just bolded, a long time ago. Yet, this time, it didn't just speak to me, it grabbed me. It was the information I was seeking. I wanted you to see it because what you said:

a talent,
not just for diplomacy,
but for distinguishing
concrete examples
capable of illustrating
the more abstract points
made by people like me.
That's the Virgo and Cap.
And that Saturn makes your
Saggie Jupiter/Neptune work
to put it's honest insights
into language everybody
can understand (Gemini).

was sooooooooo similar and such an accurate astrological interpretation just off the top of your head. Very impressive! and very synchronistic for me as well. The prologue of the book (which I am tempted to type in a new thread) is on Becoming Spiritual Adults - The Age of Aquarius.

More interesting thoughts on partnership with God... our purest Soul mate... I have a feeling this will tie into other information I have discovered in this book. Can't wait to read it (and other's responses) thoroughly. Time to make dinner for my littlest soul mate. ♥

posted April 26, 2010 05:45 PM         

quote:

---

Mostly, though, sh!t doesnt happen.
People just fear it and talk about it.

---

This is sort of applicable, (at least to me) in this conversation. I remember saying to someone after Kevin was diagnosed, "I used to worry about all sorts of things, and 9 out of 10 times they never happened. The one thing I never thought would happen, and never worried about happened. What a waste of time and energy, I spent over NOTHING! I'm done doing that, life is too precious and short."

posted April 26, 2010 05:56 PM         

I like what you wrote,
and also the quote you posted earlier,
which I was too geared-up to appreciate.
I read Care of the Soul and really
liked Thomas Moore a lot.

You make some good points.

People have been sharing their fears
about what can go wrong when there is
"too much freedom" in a relationship,
but mostly I've seen what happens when
there is too much jealousy, possessiveness,
control, and even obsessive togetherness.

People are often provoked into
going outside of the relationship, or
just ending the relationship altogether,
when it becomes especially confining, --
but when there's a freer atmosphere,
there's less of a desire to explore
beyond the bounds of the relationship.

I could list a dozen arguments,
and I probably already have, but
this is another good one.

In fact, why wouldn't a person
want their lover to explore
outside of the relationship?

Personally,
I wouldn't want to feel like
somebody loves me just because
they never get a chance to meet
and fall in love with anybody
who they might love more.

posted April 26, 2010 06:10 PM         

My prayer to God is that we have His Grace for as long as we live.

posted April 26, 2010 06:16 PM         

That's a lot of walking.

You probably already know this,
but walking is believed by some
to be a form of penance.

Prayerful penance.

Usually, it involves journeying
to some sacred shrine or holy place,
but these places are primarily symbolic.

There's nothing symbolic
about the walk you took.

posted April 26, 2010 06:34 PM         

I hate to stifle you.

I'm as effusive as you are.

But then I'm just going to collapse
into an indecipherable string of baby talk.

And start missing you terribly.

That won't do.

My English blood asserts itself,
in the press of my Russian spleen.

or something

posted April 26, 2010 07:02 PM         

this led me to cry out to the universe, begging for guidance in what i was meant to do with my life... then ultimately the knowledge came (or began... or continued after the introspection...) with the book at the conclusion of the journey.

posted April 27, 2010 04:52 AM         

To qualify you must have 5 or more of the following...

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Requires excessive admiration

Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

Lacks empathy: Is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

These people are also referred to as emotional vampires.

posted April 27, 2010 04:53 AM         

quote:

---

that makes sense because a lot of my thoughts had to do with how i had failed my daughter by not providing her with the swing sets and play houses i saw along the way... with the large and spacious rooms streaming with sunlight that i imagined inside the homes.

---

I had nothing like this, growing up, but I always knew that my mother loved me. She did her best to spoil us on birthdays and at Christmas, to make up for what she couldn't give us the rest of the year (what she thought of as a "real" home). She did her best to make things better, moved us around in the hopes of moving 'up' a bit. I didn't mind where we lived - we always met good people, some who we consider to be a part of our family.

posted April 27, 2010 03:15 PM         

With the couple I mentioned earlier who have an open marriage... I have a huge amount of respect for them to have such deep love for each other and still trust each other enough to have that freedom...to give that to each other. To have someone give you that without control issues.. I just think that's awesome.

I couldn't do it myself...but that's me and I wouldn't judge someone for having other beliefs.

posted April 27, 2010 03:18 PM         

I stand corrected.

You're at least one exception
among at least two dozen
I can think of who fit the rule.

YOU do the math, lol.

But, I should think of amending my theory,
and including folks who have more than just
a solar aspect to an outer planet; -- maybe
they need to have a preponderance of planets
and points in the latter six signs or houses?
(Especially the signs that come after Scorpio;
the sign of "the first ego death", so they say.)
That has always struck me as significant, while
the outer planet theory is just a recent musing.

Still, I think it counts for something
that you understand mushrooms.

teasel,

The man/woman thing I was alluding to isn't so much about jealousy or whatever, though that was touched on earlier, and I do think women tend to be less visual and to identify sex with love -- or else, to think that, when there is sex with love, sex without love becomes worthless. I wasn't saying that was good or bad -- only that it is different from men. I think that difference creates confusion.

For instance, you seem to imply that, if a guy is "only" interested in you for sex, he is not a good guy. I don't see the logic there. Are you judging him because he is (only) sexually interested? Would you still judge him if he were upfront about that, or is it the ambiguity that upsets you? If a guy pretends to be interested in you for something else, in order to have sex with you, I'd agree, that's sketchy. But, then, what would you say to the guy who approached you and just said, "I think you're incredibly sexy and, if you're open to something with no strings attached, I'd love to have sex with you." Would you say anything, or just throw your drink in his face? Be honest. Is it any wonder so many men feign a different kind of interest before they make their intentions clear? So many women punish and judge them for being honest and direct. It kills the mood. What mood? The mood where she pretends he cares about her, so she can get aroused, right? If he's not interested in "more" than sex, a little pretense is just considered proper flirting etiquette, isn't it? And why? Because plenty of women will have sex with him, as long as he is not honest about "just" wanting sex from them. They don't really need him to want more from them, but the honesty is too caustic, too sordid, and they prefer a little illusion, even when they both know that's what it is. But often that understanding is not as clear as it may seem. Which brings us back to the difference between men and women.

But, yeah, what I meant in my response to you, -- or, rather, what the women who explained it to me meant, -- is that it has to do with how I say things. I tried to make that clear to you. I'm told my posts are too logical and blunt, and that this automatically sets some women against me, but that males seem to relate to my tone better. Maybe true, maybe not. I get what you're saying. My response to AG may clarify, too.

AG,

I'm all for honesty and having the choice, but I also think the matter is not entirely relative. There are certain questions and perspectives which ought to be considered, not just by people who are open to the idea of open relationships, but to anyone who thinks love and freedom are issues worth talking about and figuring out.

Putting the focus on "cheating", and attempting to play with the meaning of that word, was more of an artistic choice than anything else, designed to provoke a different way of looking at fidelity. I changed it, not because my position changed, but, because people were not able to understand that I was not being literal but was trying to indicate something which our usual definitions obscure. I can get into a lot of confusion by "manipulating" words that way -- but I can also reveal a lot, too. My position was never that lying is okay. However, I admit, I was, and am still, somewhat confused as to what is the partner's business -- BEFORE any discussion has taken place. Also, the reasons for disclosure interest me; when that discussion is in the midst of taking place, what justifications do we give for requiring full disclosure of any future romantic or sexual encounters.

I stand by my assertion that any justifications we give will bear directly on our limitations, and not on our ideal; that is, on our ego-identification, or "selfishness", and on our emotional fragility, or "weakness". We say that it is something more pure.. and I don't deny the purer elements... but I think purity, and everything else, should be defined by its distance from the perfect, or from God; -- to the extent than anything approaches that ideal, its characteristics fall away; so the ability to define anything is conditional on its having limitations; and if we are using words, we are speaking not of God or the ideal or the pure, but, of what is more or less corrupt and belongs to corrupt nature. So, that is how I approach and define these things -- by first seeing where they fall short of the ideal and how we attempt to justify their imperfections.

So, you are right, if you think we are closer to agreeing than we were. We are practically saying the same thing. But I'm trying to look at it in relation to something that transcends the individual and his/her biases. As I see it, romantic love is an inferior and limitted manifestation of Divine Love. I've been trying to discuss romantic love with reference to Divine Love. I don't know if that makes my confusion, or my insight, more apparent to you. But I hope it clarifies at least one of those. Thanks for reading and making an effort to empathize with, or at least visualize, a perspective so seemingly removed from your own.

LTT,

posted April 27, 2010 03:44 PM         

In this sweet life of ours, my dear
I can see you as Minister
And myself as the Minister's Wife.

Tender is the Grace of God
We receive so abundantly now.

I pray with a longing
That we have it forever.

I pray
In those moments we miss It
We look back and remember
What it was like to be children.