posted August 19, 2007 11:40 PM         

I think you misunderstood my point. You are familiar with the law of correspondences? All I am saying is that the planets correspond to us just as an object corresponds to its shadow. The wind blows, and they both move. Is the tree "causing" or "influencing" its shadow, or are both responding to the wind? So, all I'm saying is that the breath of God moves both the planets and ourselves.

This would corroborate your experience of feeling a certain way while the Moon is in Virgo.. not because the Moon's transit through Virgo encourages you to be health conscious (or picky, or clear-headed, etc.), or because your choice to be health conscious is encouraging the Moon to transit Virgo, lol, but, because the Moon and yourself are both hands on the self-same celestial clock. One might conclude from your health consciousness that the Moon is in Virgo, just as one might infer from the Virgo Moon that you are becoming health conscious. This does not necessarily suggest a causal relationship, one way or the other. It only suggests a relationship that defies coincidence, like the one shared by an object and its shadow.

------------------------------------

NosiS,

Your post raises another very profound issue, which I am not entirely prepared to address. That is: Should a worldview be accepted because it is functional, or because it is true? And, without digressing too much, I would suggest that a solid argument could be made that the two are, in fact, one and the same (i.e. "the truth shall set you free"); in any case, I want very much to believe this, as I would be hard-pressed to choose between conforming my understanding to utility and reality. You reminded me of two of my favorite quotes:

"Here the ways of men part: If your desire is for happiness and peace of mind, believe. If you wish to know the truth, inquire."
- Nietzsche

"As long as your desire is pleasure,
and you cherish your desire,
carry on playing like a child;
you are not man enough for this."
- Sanai

Anyway...

I'm not as well versed in these things as I'd like to be. I thought Leibniz was the one who said that this is "the best of all possible worlds", or was that someone else? Anyway, I took that to mean, not that this is Paradise, but, that Paradise is not a possible alternative. I know Voltaire was a staunch Determinist, and his advice to cultivate your garden is not contrary to that. Its interesting that you associate his view with being motivational. I've always heard people argue that Determinism is fatalistic and encourages indolence, although I believe this opinion is only held by those who lack a proper grasp of what Determinism means. To quote Annie Besant, on one of my favorite Determinists:

"A summary of Spinoza’s views is that God 'is not a personal being, existing apart from the universe; but Himself in His own reality, He is expressed in the universe, which is His living garment'. All things exist as He willed them to be; evil is not positive; there is 'an infinite gradation in created things', 'all in their way obedient'.

"Two things in Spinoza have repelled the emotional - his steady, logical, destructive analysis and calm acceptance of its results, and his theory of necessitarianism. The latter has been called fatal to morals, the former to devotion. Yet Spinoza was so far from being incapable of strenuous devotion that he was described by his enemies as 'a God-intoxicated man', and his lofty, serene virtue and calm acquiescence in the law of life as he saw it were in themselves evidences of the fine fibre of his soul."

- Annie Besant
'The Spiritual Life'

But, okay, I'm totally digressing tonight... Partly because its nice to encounter someone new (new to me) who thinks about these things, and I want to snatch the opportunity to share some treasures close to my heart. But, to respond more directly to the points you raised...

I do not know enough about Liebniz to say anything about his philosophy with certainty, but I would find it hard to believe that he intended his philosophy, radically optimistic or not, to indicate a lax approach toward personal and social responsibilities. Whether or not this is the conclusion to which his way of thinking, at its culmination, leads, I cannot say. But I would suspect that the man himself devised some safeguard to keep his philosophy from reaching such an extreme, or, - at least, imagined that he had.

It would be interesting to consider Liebniz's behavior as a man, although I would not conclude that his life, markedly moral, immoral, or amoral, was a clear reflection of his philosophy. The life of a man certainly seeks to accord itself with the lives of his heart and mind (as both struggle to accord with each other), but I suspect he does not often succeed in bringing the three into perfect harmony. We are all very complex, and constantly becoming more so. No honest man has ever put the finishing touches on his philosophy (or his mind, for that matter).

Anyway, this is part of an age-old debate in philosophy. I'm more familiar with how it has manifested in Religious Philosophy. In India, there is discussed two ways - the way of the kitten and the way of the monkey... In Japan, it is called tariki (outside strength) and jiriki (inside strength)... In China, we see the division most clearly in Toaism and Confusionism... The first relies on God's help, the second seeks to help oneself.

The synthesis of the two is evident in that old story about the flood - you know the one; a man is stranded in the midst of a rising tide, and people come by in a boat and offer to take him to safety and he declines, saying, "God will save me," and after this happens a couple more times, the man drowns and God in Heaven says to him, "Dude, I sent you three boats!"

Zen Buddhism is considered an example of jiriki, but it is also somewhat unique in how it blends the two paths into one. Zen is a division of Mahayana Buddhism, which is less strict and ascetical than Theravada Buddhism. Zen still emphasizes the importance of personal effort, but it combines this with an emphasis on allowing things to happen. For instance, zen koans are intended to ignite a sudden illumination in the person who contemplates them, and this sudden enlightenment is aimed at just as squarely as gradual enlightenment, which is believed to result from entire lifetimes of devotional practices and good works.

In the West, we see this debate articulated in the religious language of "grace" and "works" (although, to be fair, there is a great deal more to these two concepts than can be hinted at here). Luther's literary debates with Erasmus centered around this issue, with Luther taking the position that God's Grace performs all things, and that a man, when he is ready, allows God to move in him, and does not pressume to approach the Lord. Luther himself spent many years forcing himself to observe extremely strict rules of spiritual conduct, until it nearly killed him, and he came to a realization about grace. He realized that nothing he could do would make him agreeable to God, - that he was already agreeable to God, and that all a man could do is to understand this, forgive oneself, and allow the influx of God's love to empower him. One might argue that the attention to works in Luther's previous manner of life had prepared him for the realization of grace that came later. Luther was a Determinist who interpreted "grace", and many passages in the Bible, deterministically, while Erasmus was stuck on "works" and free will.

Sorry, I just reread what I've been writing and realized how disorganized my thoughts are tonight. Unfortunately, this realization was not accompanied by a corresponding enlightenment, and I remain disorganized as ever.

Anyway, there is always a middle ground, so keep seeking. The Greeks described three stages of logic: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Once you have a thesis, its not hard to find an antithesis, and, once you have a thesis and an antithesis, the birth of synthesis is inevitable. Either that, or schizophrenia. Incidentally, I think an understanding of this trinity introduced by the Greeks could inform quite a few Catholics of the secrets underlying their own symbolic three-in-one.

To answer your other question, - yes, every choice we make is utterly determined by the circumstances in which we find ourselves, including both inner and outer conditions.

I like what you said about not underestimating our importance. There's a lot more I could say about this, but I've talked a lot and its late. Suffice to say, balance in everything - which is not the same as moderation; but thats another story.

Nice conversing with you.

HSC

posted August 20, 2007 12:51 AM         

HSC,

Your response is more than I expected! The ideas raised, at present, make me feel like I've bitten off more than I can chew. School is starting for me this week and I will be kept busy, but I am excited about the further exchange of ideas! I tend to take time with my posts so forgive me if my response is not immediate.

to you all!

posted August 20, 2007 01:22 PM         

With our free will we often make the wrong choices out of our emotional conditioned responses to things that happen in our lives that call for a decision or choice on our part.

Our emotions or conditioned responses, as Randall said in so many words, is what often trips us on in the use of our free will to make choices and decisions. It is why we often make the wrong choices and thus have to suffer the consequences of our choices. The choices we all make affect not only us but others and the world as well.

It's true what you said, HSC, that with free will we would always seek the good. That's because humans were created good so we will always seek the good. For that reason even when we sin, or do wrong, it is because we find something good for us or what we "feel" is good for someone else in our actions. We do not sin because we are attracted to or seek evil. Being created good evil normally repels us.

What we feel or think to be good when we exercise our free will to decide or make choices is not always the case. Many times when we think something to be good for us or others it turns out to have the opposite effect in the long run. That's due to what Randall said. On the most part 99% of the world population acts and reacts out of our emotions and less on our logic and reasoning abilities. We do not operate on the most part out of intellect. We operate on our emotions and our conditioned responses from past experiences. Our psyche is what controls us on the most part.

It is all of this that Paul of Tarsus was speaking about when he stated, " It is not the things that I wish to do that I do. It is the very things that I do not want to do that I do. Wretched man that I am!"

We definitely all do want paradise and only wish the good for us and everyone else ( because that is the way we were created to be ) but the thing is that what I deem to be paradise for me and others is not what others deem to be paradise. Based on what? My psyche and everyone else's psyche. How we all see events in life, other people and the world in general. For that reason in the exercise of our free will and because we are all broken and inwardly separated from God, ourselves and each other we often make the wrong choices.

Wars are seen as a good to many people who support them and those in government that start them. To those people the end justifies the means. They look at what they see as the good in the end result. To me and others who see the death and destruction of wars and feel that the end does not justify the means and consequences of war we would make a different choice.

The road to hell in our own lives and the world is ALWAYS paved with good intentions. We create evil and destruction in the world not because we are evil or because we are attracted to evil. We create it unintentionally based on our free will choices and those choices are 99% of the time based on emotional responses to what we see as an outcome to the good. In short, we mess up a whole lot when we make choices. We and the rest of the world suffer the consequences of those emotional choices. But we never do it intentionally. We seek happiness and what makes us happy. Often what we think will make us and others happy is not the real case at all. It often makes us and others unhappy, hurts us and others.

I do not believe in fate. Only the things of nature are predestined to happen. We create our own destiny. Though Free Will is the way we are created in the image of God, our will is not the same as God's Will. We cannot will things to happen and they do and we cannot will things into existance out of nothing as God can. It's God's Will that keeps the earth rotating and everything in the universe in motion and in place. We cannot do that. Our free will is for each of us to make choices. Once we make the choice of God as our fundamental option in life, all our choices, even our goof ups in those choices, will ultimately produce an outcome based on love. Trouble is that we mostly choose ourselves and what we deem good for us.

posted August 20, 2007 11:57 PM         

The concept behind the composite chart - or, as Erin Sullivan sometimes calls it, the compost chart - is that it represents the relationship itself as a third factor. Two people create a third thing between them. The composite chart is like an energy field, which affects both people and draws certain things out of each individual as well as imposing its own dynamics on both.

The composite doesn't seem to describe what either person feels about the other. In this way it is very different from synastry, which describes the chemistry between two people in terms of how they affect each other. When we are exploring the synastry in a relationship, we say, "Your Venus is on my Mars. You are activating my Mars and bringing a Mars response out of me, and I am activating your Venus and invoking a Venus response in you. Consequently we feel a certain way about each other." When we are looking at a composite chart, we are not exploring what two people activate in each other or feel about each other. We are interpreting the energy field they generate between them. The composite chart is like a child, a third entity which carries the genetic imprints of both parents but combines these imprints in an entirely new way and exists independently of either of them.

Because the composite has all the same features as a birth chart, we need to approach its interpretation in more or less the same way. The composite chart has a core identity which signifies its "purpose" (the Sun) and a characteristic set of emotional responses and needs (the Moon). It has a mode of communication (Mercury) and a distinctive set of values and ideals (Venus). It has a mode of expressing energy and will (Mars). It has its own way of growing and expanding (Jupiter) and it has innate limitations and defence mechanisms (Saturn). It has a specific vulnerability to the collective due to patterns from the collective background of the relationship (Chiron). It reflects certain collective ideals which strive for change and progress (Uranus). It has innate aspirations which reflect certain collective fantasies (Neptune). It has a bottom-line survival instinct which can prove supportive to the relationship's continuity but can also be destructive if the relationship is under threat (Pluto). It has an image or role to play in the eyes of society (MC), and it has a "personality" which will express itself in certain characteristic ways to the world outside (Ascendant). The signs in a composite chart describe the basic stuff or "temperament" of which the relationship is made; the planets describe the motivating energies; and the houses describe the spheres of life through which the planets express themselves. All this is basic astrology, and it is no less applicable to the composite than it is to the individual birth chart.

Relationship as an entity
We do not usually think of our relationships as independent entities. More often, we think in terms of our own feelings and attitudes, or the feelings and attitudes of the other person. Yet every relationship creates its own ambience. None of us behaves in the same way when we are half of a couple as we do when we are operating solo. We might have characteristic behaviour patterns when we are alone, but the moment we are with our partner, a certain kind of energy dynamic is set in motion and we behave in particular ways which are sometimes very noticeable in the company of other people.
Liz Greene - Relationships and how to survive them
Order her book at www.midheavenbooks.com

Two people in relationship create an atmosphere around them, not by conscious choice, but because that is simply what happens. Other people will often reflect this back to us. "The two of you seem such a lively, attractive couple," a friend might say, or, "What an exciting life the two of you must have!" Meanwhile, one is thinking to oneself, "What on earth are they talking about? That isn't how I feel." We might see something like composite Jupiter rising in Sagittarius and Libra at the composite MC, and other people perceive the relationship as an exciting and glamorous Jupiter-Venus entity. But one's partner's Saturn might be conjunct one's Moon and opposition one's Sun, and the synastry between the birth charts might make one feel more like Sisyphus and his rock than Mick Jagger and Jerri Hall. The opposite can also occur. The composite may have Saturn rising and Chiron culminating, and the world sees something quite heavy when one is with one's partner. But the synastry may involve lots of Venus-Jupiter-Uranus contacts, reflecting an excitement within the relationship which both people personally feel but which does not express itself to others.

We can learn a lot about the angles of the composite chart for an important relationship by asking other people how they see the relationship. Often we might be in for quite a shock, because the answer may not reflect how we actually feel about the other person. The composite, like a natal chart, presents itself to the world according to its Ascendant and MC. It has a ruling planet which will focus the expression of the relationship in a certain house or sphere of life. The houses of the composite work in the same way they do in a birth chart, reflecting spheres of emphasis through which the dynamics of the relationship are manifested. When composite planets highlight a composite house, that area of life will be extremely important to the relationship, and both people will be impelled to focus on it, even if the same house is empty in both birth charts. A relationship can push us into having to confront certain areas of life, even if natally we are neither predisposed nor well equipped to cope in that area.

Composites have their own laws and energies, and these have nothing to do with whether we are "well matched" with someone. A composite in itself will not tell us about compatibility. That is what synastry is for. The composite won't reveal whether the relationship is "good" or "bad" in terms of the chemistry between two people. The composite says to us, "If you choose to enter this relationship, here is its meaning and pattern of destiny. This is what it is made of and what it is for." If we want to get a sense of whether or not that meaning and destiny are going to make us feel good, we have to compare the composite with our own chart.

If we examine the synastry between the composite and the chart of each individual in the relationship, we can learn a lot about how the relationship makes each person feel. We can also take a third party and compare that person's chart to the composite. This is a fascinating exercise. Let's say that I am in a long-term relationship, but also have a lover. I can take that third party's chart and look at how it affects the composite chart between me and my partner, and I can get a very clear picture of how my lover affects the relationship. We can also look at the chart of a child in relation to the composite between the parents. This is very useful in terms of understanding family dynamics. Some children have a way of really disrupting the parental relationship, while others help to glue it together. We can see this by looking at the child's chart in relation to the parents' composite. We might not see this dynamic by merely exploring the synastry between the child and each individual parent.

Freedom and fate within relationship
Working with composites makes us think in terms of something larger than ourselves as individuals. Wherever we go, we create interfaces with other people, and we may not have the same amount of choice in dealing with those interfaces as we might when we deal with our own personal issues. If one has a Sun-Saturn square in the birth chart, one can actively do something with it. One doesn't have to be its victim, or live solely from the darker side of it. It may be a difficult aspect in early life, and it may reflect deep feelings of insecurity or inadequacy. But one can say, "I know that a lot of my self-doubt is connected with my father and my childhood. I sabotage myself because I am sometimes afraid to aim high. I am often too hard on myself, and expect too much. But I'm going to try to work on these issues. I'll make an effort to understand what they are about. I may need some psychotherapy to help me to learn to trust myself more. And I'll try to develop my Saturn sign so that I have more confidence." Gradually one can shape that Sun-Saturn square into something very strong and creative, if one is willing to put the necessary effort into it.composite

But when a Sun-Saturn square appears in the composite chart, the relationship cannot go into psychotherapy. The relationship cannot say, of its own volition, "I'm going to work on these feelings of limitation and self-doubt." The relationship does not "feel" self-doubt. Both individuals can work on their own Saturns. But neither may have a Sun-Saturn square, and neither may really understand why, when they are together, something in the relationship thwarts and frustrates their joint goals. The external limitations which often accompany a composite Sun-Saturn may seem strangely impersonal and beyond one's control.

The impersonal feeling of the composite may be very uncomfortable for us if we are psychologically inclined, because psychological astrology implies individual responsibility and a belief that we can change many things in our lives if we are prepared to do the inner work. Because we view the birth chart as an inner picture, we can take responsibility for how we express it, and consciousness can make a huge difference. A psychological approach to astrology allows us to transform many things if we make sufficient effort. But one can be deluded by the fantasy that one can change anything, and some things lie beyond the individual's scope of influence. I am not suggesting that composites are not psychological, or that we should abandon this approach when interpreting them. But "psychological" does not always mean free, and change may mean a change in the attitudes of both people toward the relationship, rather than a change in the endemic pattern of the relationship itself.

We can do nothing to change the fundamental patterns in the composite chart. Of course the same may be said of an individual chart. But we seem to have more room to affect the levels on which we express our natal patterns. This gives us the inner sense - valid or not - that we have the power to participate actively in, or even create, our own future. Maybe we do, at least in some areas of life. But a composite presents us with a different experience, if not a different reality at core. We can change how we react to the patterns in the composite, and we can make the effort to provide creative outlets for its energies. But even with the maximum cooperation with a partner, the patterns of a composite still feel "outside" our sphere of personal influence. A composite will not say, "This is a bad relationship - get out of it." But it may say, "This relationship has got an inherent restriction which neither person is going to be able to alter. If you want this relationship, accept this issue." If the composite chart has a Sun-Saturn square or a Sun-Chiron conjunction, it contains built-in limits, often of a very concrete kind. These limits may prove to be creative and positive for either or both individuals. But they feel as though they have been imposed on us. A Sun-Saturn square or a Sun-Chiron conjunction in the natal chart also contains built-in limits, but we experience them differently.

Let's take composite Sun-Chiron aspects. I have seen these many times when a relationship involves the unavoidable inclusion of limits from the past. The past may be an ex-partner who wants big maintenance payments, or it may be children from a former marriage. These situations can cause a lot of pain, especially where children are involved, because no matter how mature and conscious the two people are, there will be conflicts, divided loyalties, hurt feelings, and perhaps also financial restrictions. It is not a question of altering attitudes; a priori families, for any couple, are a built-in fact which will always impose limits. If a couple do not experience limits in such circumstances, then we probably won't see Sun-Chiron in the composite chart.

We know that Chiron is connected with experiences of wounding, particularly those which seem unfair and unmerited, and which are a product of the state of the collective at the time rather than some particular person's fault or act of malice. Sun-Chiron contacts in a composite suggest that the relationship itself carries an unhealable wound, usually from the past of both parties, or from the nature of the world in which the two people are living. At the same time, the relationship may provide deep healing for both people, or for others who come in contact with the couple, because the inherent limits invoke suffering and consequent understanding and compassion.

I have sometimes seen Sun-Chiron in a composite when two people want very badly to have children but are unable to do so. This is a wound which can make people think much more deeply about who they are and what purpose their lives serve, because they do not have the collectively sanctioned "purpose" of a family to give them a direction in life. Another example might be a partnership where there is a great age difference, and the younger partner must watch the other grow old and frail. No amount of love and commitment can turn the clock back. Or there might be a physical handicap in one partner which may be genuinely and deeply accepted, but which limits the mobility of both people. Yet another example might be a racially mixed marriage, or a homosexual relationship, both of which may provoke animosity among neighbours who are xenophobic or too rigid in their definitions of normality. Xenophobia and rigid opinions are characteristic of many, many people, and no amount of agonising or raging will alter this unfortunate flaw in human nature. Both people may be hurt through the relationship, not because it is "bad", but because there is something about the way the relationship "sits" in the collective which limits its possibilities.

I am not saying that it is a static picture. As far as healing is concerned, it depends on what you mean by the word. Chiron's wounds do not heal in the sense of going away. Something has been permanently twisted out of shape, even if the poison has been released and cleansed. One cannot regain innocence once it has been destroyed by the kind of wounding this planet reflects. But one's attitude toward the wound can change, and greater tolerance, compassion, and wisdom can result. That is a kind of healing; but it cannot undo the past. One cannot, for example, make one's children by a former partner vanish in a puff of smoke. One can try to numb the wound by cutting off from the children emotionally, and never seeing them again; and then there is another sort of wound that must be dealt with. Or one can work very hard to face all the emotional complications, and eventually establish rewarding relationships with everyone concerned. But there will always be compromise and sadness and a sense of loss. Such aspects in the composite chart do not mean that the effects of the difficulty remain static and unchanging. Both people may be deeply and permanently transformed. But the past cannot be remade.

The composite chart progresses like a birth chart, and this reflects changes within the relationship just as it does within the individual. But the composite chart as an entity doesn't have the same capacity as an individual for deciding of its own volition to change or fight against something. It is not a conscious individual. Both people may work to become more conscious, and the ways in which they experience the relationship may change accordingly. But the basic patterns of the relationship unfold like a seed growing into a plant, with a natural inevitability that may feel alien to our ego-centred consciousness.

Taken from
Liz Greene:
Relationships and how to survive them.
Part One: The Composite Chart, Part Two: The Eternal Triangle
CPA Press, London.

You can order this book at: www.midheavenbooks.com

The Relationship Horoscope
by Liz Greene is based on a combination oftp composite and synastry. This is an integrated interpretation of the composite horoscope. You will learn about both the "chemistry" between the partners and the "third thing" which they have in common. (astro.com)
AstroText Partner by Robert Hand is based exclusively on the composite horoscope. You can order the full version in the AstroShop or read the Short Report Partner in the Free Horoscopes area. (astro.com)

posted August 22, 2007 12:55 AM         

Do you side more with soft determinism, hard determinism or another perspective on it? I still have not found the ordinance to respond properly. Alas, very soon...

posted August 22, 2007 10:45 PM         

I honestly dont know (or care) what arbitrary collection of ideas the academics are lumping under the name of "Determinism" (soft or hard) these days. I dont subscribe to any set of tenets. All I intend by "Determinism" is a belief that nothing in the world exists or acts independently of anything else in the world; that there is only One Thing; and that we, as humans, are mere pockets of consciousness, mezmerized by subjectivity into thinking we are free. I do not say that there is no God, or that phenomena traditionally labelled "supernatural" do not exist. On the contrary, I define "God" as that which is all things, contains all things, moves all things, and, in a manner of speaking, transcends all things, and I believe in many "supernatural" phenomena.

posted August 24, 2007 01:56 AM         

The quotes by Nietzsche and Sanai are quite fitting. Buried deep within the spectrum of the choices we make from moment to moment lies a single root that is the source of those choices. Perhaps this is the only real choice we are truly capable of making? Regardless, many a time has life displayed to many a person that this choice would not always be "as clear as day". With such a structure, it would be plain to see how it might not be so clear. One may not effectively redirect the flow of cause and effect by the implementation of one action alone. As simple and obvious as that may sound, we have often entertained the comfort that stems from this mistake. Yet, without a firm foundation, every choice we make only causes us to be encircled further by the darkness of the unknown. Whether we conform to utility or reality or nothing at all, the call for action is ever in place. For angels and demons, a step in any direction is an effort worthwhile.

Spinoza was a genius, no doubt. There are some things I disagree with him about, but I am not ready to address them.

I find that my own interpretation of the philosophies I study are often inaccurate to their designer's interpretations. You are right. Liebniz was the one who said that "this is the best of all possible worlds." He also felt that the ideas of free will and determinism were compatible with each other. I cannot say that I completely agree with his logic, but he does raise some interesting points.

This age-old debate you mentioned has spoken profoundly to my heart. I have been thinking of several things lately that I find somewhat cohesive with this. 1) Can a perfect vacuum truly exist? How can there be an absence of matter when everything is made of it? 2) According to the most popular belief in quantum physics, the Universe has been calculated to a state that is seemingly expanding. If this is the case, then what is the Universe expanding into? What the hell is beyond the entire Universe?

Synthesis, Antithesis and Thesis.

I am worn. Good night.