Tag: astrology

Cancer Season 2024: Aquarian Age Turns Toward Oppositional Non-Duality

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

As I write the gist of this, there is a rare but refreshing humidity in the air with scattered thunderstorms, opposite of the norm here in Arizona. This is an appropriate conclusion to the synchronous events over the past month which were accompanied by a very rare moon cycle. This force of opposites saw the full moon in the same sign (Capricorn) twice within a single tropical sun season (Cancer). Since I happen to be so intimately familiar with these particular positions, I’ve felt compelled to reflect on this 2024 Cancer season for you in a spiritual context that I hope anyone, astrologers and laypeople alike, can take value from. I would also like to maintain throughout that my reflections here are merely that, and that they may help to enrich your journey through life in some way would be a great honor, albeit an inadvertent consequence.

That said, this article isn’t solely about astrology, but rather is about an overall shift in consciousness that has taken place. This shift is not the effect of any astrological cause, but is simply in synchronous coherence with it. As with anything, what we deem causal is only an arbitrarily chosen target by our ego-mind’s attention and not a cause at all. It is one of infinite events that exists by its own accord, and combines in 3D with all of those others to represent the “perfect conditions” for every other event to also manifest. In some subjective regard, we really can “manifest our own reality”, but that doesn’t make it true. This causal, spatial-temporal sequence of observations is an illusion. It stems from our disposition toward linear, dualistic thought, and the bare-minimum survival needs that gave rise to that disposition at some point in our evolutionary past.

In my experience, astrologers are just as guilty of dualism as anyone, and in some cases even more so. After all, to layer ancient knowledge over a human ego can be dangerous! They often complain about the struggles of the full moon because the full moon brings us into touch with oppositional forces, and the tension that results from one’s misperception of duality everywhere in the universe, including that which is mirrored back within ourselves. Upon digging deeply enough, dualistic judgment – e.g. this or that, either/or, true or false, good or evil – is the root of all depression, anxiety, fear, and grief. This special Capricorn cycle has brought us in touch with itself and its opposition, Cancer, for the second time over the past month to grant us a divine message or two, and strangely, I haven’t heard of many people complaining! This is probably because the struggle came in the first instance, and finally, in the second, we surrendered to its process instead of ignoring it and having to face it anew again next year as we do with most cycles. Moon cycles are quick, so they’re easily lost to mind, but so are the lessons that they bring when our egos get defensive against forces beyond our control.

Time itself raises another key problem with “mind”. We often tend to look at our “past” with strong reaction. It can serve as inspiration to build a better future, correctly or not, or it can trap us in depressive attachment to many things we cannot change. Regardless, astrological symbolism is a way of understanding time itself as something both significant and illusory. It provides us with symbolic checkpoints for marking, not events themselves, but event forms which repeat over time via different material vessels, some over imperceptibly long periods. That we value time so dearly, yet we’ll never come to terms with enough of it to understand the full context of things within any given paradigm, reveals the paradoxical relationship between our limited, potentially narcissistic perceptions and the divine permanence of Truth within each of our souls. For example, your birth chart shows the unique lens through which you see the same world that everyone else sees. There is truth in that there are an infinite number of ways that we can perceive anything, but only insofar as the objects of our perception remain eternally the same, whether they manifest before our eyes or remain in their own potential. Without any objective constants, we would not have reference for our unique orientations.

And that is just on the level of individual perception. There are many other shifts that we are all subjected to, and the uniqueness and rarity of them to some extent indicates how universally significant the concordant events will be. This double-Capricorn full moon month is a good specific example of an indication that a new perspective or two will reveal itself, but as the moon goes through its entire cycle, and therefore every part of each of our charts, every single month, the particulars of that event will manifest differently for each of us just as each of our moods might be affected differently by a northeasterly breeze (Capricorn moon people aren’t all that affected by a northeasterly breeze, by the way). On the other hand, the most general example of perceptual shifts can be represented by the concept of “astrological ages” which change signs once every ~2,000 years as part of a ~24,000-year cycle. These ages outline the very broad, stylistic, collective themes of how the authority of Truth is valued in immanence, and therefore how Truth is expressed and conflict is resolved in manifestation.

For the 2,000 years before Christ, as represented by much of the Old Testament and the city-state of Sparta, the age of Aries saw much overt bloodshed in the name of “courage and honor”, without anyone’s knowing (except for a few spiritual sages) toward what such actions were intended. The error of this age was an appeal to experience itself as the arbiter of knowledge – face your opponent in battle, and if you live, only then might you learn something. Even knowledge itself had limited context in the eyes of the otherwise advanced state where Socrates met his fate. The age of Pisces, beginning with Christ, saw Truth take the form of a personified God, where conflict was resolved either by crucifying “non-believers” (in Him or the prior state) or by creating further division regarding that God-person’s form – depending on which “side” to which you were faithful. Although Truth then was rightfully raised to the level of a kind of consciousness, it was still too local to our own experience for the ineffability of Truth to be conveyed, so God was proposed as a person who favored one tribe over all others in numerous us vs them conflicts. The error here was the fundamental spiritual fallacy of dualism, and this resulted in the birth of hundreds of religions over the span of just a few centuries, none of which encapsulate the essence of Truth in its totality, due to an overemphasis on material relics, rituals, documents, and other mechanisms which were vulnerable to being subverted by the unconscious. Still to this day, we can’t seem to drink enough black coffee to cure this spiritual hangover.

Since the beginning of the age of Aquarius in 2012, one of those religions had already been on the rise for a few hundred years and has already made many infectious attempts to stake its claim as the ultimate authority. That one religion is – in perfect accordance with the Aquarian attempt to be objective, along with its aloof and condescending attitude in its unevolved state – scientific materialism. This religion states that if something cannot be observed or measured by the tools of the scientific mind, then it lacks the “quality” of being real. This dogmatically Newtonian belief system fails on a number of fronts which have been fleshed out by the greatest philosophers of our recent age’s past. Just a couple of those refutations include (1) The quality of measurability itself cannot apply to those things which are most dear to us and which all souls seek, such as love and peace, and (2) Logically-speaking, “real” is not a quality at all, despite the fair sophistication of our language to describe things; reality just is.

It is fair to say that, in holding materialism (or scientism, as my advisor Roger Scruton coined) as the ultimate truth, we are currently quite “unevolved” as Aquarians who ironically pride ourselves in objective, cultural awareness, for the great water-bearer is too high among the clouds to see beyond himself. We’re even employing the same crucifixion methods today that we did in the latter stages of the previous age, but for far less severe offenses – e.g. saying something of mere fact online, or being Jewish… again.

Well, maybe being Jewish has always been “problematic”, but the point here is that we aren’t that different now than we were in the times of the Old Testament, much less just over a decade ago.

Although we have a new and exciting way of gauging authority, we are so narcissistic in our attempt to own truth and condemn others, that we end up doing the opposite of what our conscious minds would intend – i.e. claiming that truth and goodness are merely relative – all the while making many of the same specific mistakes that our recent ancestors did in their process of disrupting establishments. That said, we seem to be even more similar around the cusps between astrological ages than we are over the course of observable, linear time, regardless of the particular age in which we find ourselves. There is a degree to which we begin every astrological age worshiping the intellect and thinking we got this, to find out rather quickly that we definitely don’t got this, and the cycle of playing consciousness catch-up repeats, just with different astrological themes.

You’ll notice that these astrological ages move backward through the zodiac, unlike the sun and the moon which always move forward. This on its own has great significance. Whereas all other planets move forward too, despite retrogrades and stationary periods, so do the more conscious areas of life that they represent, such as our measurement of time itself (Saturn), the birth and growth of everything in nature (Venus + Mars), and the sense of progress you feel in reading through this article word by word (Mercury + Jupiter). However, this “forward movement” is only in our perception, for we are always left to ask “in reference to what?”.All astrological events happen from our geocentric perspective so that our geocentric concerns can be made more clear, while in fact they’re all just moving in constant, cyclical orbits around their energy source just like any life form. The forward movement is also illusory because there are far greater astrological symbols at work which move backwards, balancing our spatial-temporal minds and offering our soul’s journey an opportunity to find the actual stillness that is implicit in karmic Truth and the peace that engrosses us when we aspire to it. These backward-moving astrological markers are, as we have discussed, the age through which we all live as “history repeats itself”, and, more individually, the nodal axis as it uniquely shows up in each of our charts, proclaiming the roles and duties we must fulfill both to leave a positive mark on the world as well as to feel fulfilled by the end of life.

So, what comes in 2,000 or so years, after the age that has only just begun, and of which we’ve realized we’re making a royal mess after exactly one Jupiter cycle? What will be left to aim for after we’re all dead and gone and have made mistakes that our descendants will be so desperate to correct? Does it even matter? Shouldn’t we all just focus on having a good time?

I’ll answer all of those questions at once: the age of Capricorn comes next, so yes it matters, and NO, of course we aren’t here just to have a good time! The age of Sagittarius will take care of that in 4,000 years, don’t worry. The archetype of Capricorn for now, as well as the Saturnian themes that it accords with, is the lasting legacy of the divine after which our own legacies should be modeled. Because Capricorn’s opposite, Cancer, along with its correspondence with the moon, represents nature’s maternal patterns, there is something more masculine, permanent, and stoic that it must be balanced with so our Mother doesn’t devour Herself. That is the grandfather of time, Capricorn, who more mystically than the crab merges land and sea, contemplates the ineffable over a pipe and whisky by the fireplace, speaking only true words only when they’re needed, and passing the gift of integrity down to his granddaughter as to guide her children, even if he won’t be around to see it through. Capdaddy trusts the natural unfoldment of time, dutifully responding when called, not to interfere.

Whether we take this wisdom straight to heart, find it in other myth, or simply learn this underlying message through painful trial and error like your Aries sun BFF does time and again, the more conscious we are of our duty to “nurture all things from timeless integrity”, the sooner the world in our own time will improve and the better prepared our descendants will be for their age. This is precisely the lesson from this full moon thingy I keep talking about, by the way. It is a foreshadowing of the things to come by appealing to principles which always were.

We’re only just beginning the age of Aquarius, but Capricorn is also just upon us, in the greater context of karmic reality. All of the sign archetypes are always with us, really, but Capricorn has had a unique role to play in this shift because it represents the style of valuing Truth that is most-nearly out of reach from our current paradigm. Capricorn might be considered “the sage of our age”, not in reference to any particular individual (although Capricorn ascendants have been totes killing it lately… Russell Brand, Vic DiCara, Ariana Grande, myself, and based on our same hairdo, Jesus could make a comeback too), but in terms of a guru whose form is beyond the linear, causal, and personified sources of knowledge to which our limited mental capacities are accustomed, just as the Aquarian essence was during the age of Pisces – in a mature states like witchcraft during the middle ages, as well as in its overreaching expressions as political and technological revolutions of the 20th Century.

While astrologers will say that the moon is “in detriment” when in the sign of Capricorn, that’s not to say there’s anything wrong with it, but that given the right context and power of will, it is well worth the hard work to revive that wisdom which was lost in the ages of the signs after it under the illusion that we have progressed. The rise in consciousness over the past month or so will continue on a long but consistent path, I am sure, though some struggle will ensue while our intellectualist dogmas fall away. Perhaps having more than a touch of “oppositional conditions” this season, including two full moons in Capricorn and a few thunderstorms in Arizona, is what we needed to spark the spiritual homeostasis necessary for growing out of the infancy of our current age.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion”

Britton William Frost1 Comment

The other day, I read this PsyBlog article that attempts to explain a psychological study which, according to the author, seems to imply that humans are mechanical robots merely controlled by neuronal impulses in our brains, and that free will is an illusory conception that humans have constructed to cope with death. There have been numerous studies, including the one described in that article, which show that neurons in the brain begin to fire before the person can report being conscious of their decision to pick up a pencil or before they can predict exactly which one of five circles on a computer screen changes color, for examples (the latter example is the experiment referred to in the article). The article also mentions the term ‘unconscious’ several times, and the usages imply that ‘unconscious’ should be defined merely as ‘the mechanical workings of the brain’. My aims in this post are to explain why that is an oversimplified and unsophisticated definition of ‘unconscious’, and also to suggest, partly on that basis, why these studies not only do not imply that free will is an illusion, but that they have virtually no bearing on what constitutes free will to begin with.

A Less Trivial Definition of ‘Unconscious’

There is one thing that the article (and anyone who would agree with it) gets right: we are not in total control of what we see, understand, and believe. However, this truth cannot be maintained to every degree of analysis imaginable (the highest degree being the ontology of free will and morals, arguably). This raises a semantic problem. Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes “unconscious” and even “free will”. The level of analysis that the article attempts to operate on is one of moral ontology, but it fails. Instead, it maintains the assumption that all that exists in us are mechanistic processes, and those processes are “unconscious”. We are our brains, and our brains are computer processors that take in data and organize that data for output, and when we are faced with stimuli relevant to our experiences, we merely react in accordance with our pre-organized data. Eh, well, partially correct! We are more nature than nurture after all. But, how does this imply that we don’t have free will? Let’s step back first. What can we infer from this article’s usage of ‘unconscious’?

“Neural activity is unconscious”, materialists will hold. Yes, we know that to the same extent that we know that digestion in the intestines is unconscious, and it need not be overstated. It is merely a biological process per se. However, biological processes tell us very little about our conscious world — the reality that we actually experience. They presuppose that the origins of our behaviors and decisions are pre-programmed inside our brains, and the neuronal activity is the first step in activating those programs (which we call decisions). This is an assumption, albeit a rather interesting one. Those who believe that this process is the causal origin of our behavior commit the most basic fallacy in science: correlation without causation. Why do they assume that the brain is the beginning when the brain requires the world to gather information to begin with, and why would anyone assume that we are disconnected from objective reality to the extent that we are separate and not intimately connected to it in a way that our actions most likely have ancient origins. What is left over when we commit to this materialist view of perception?

A lot, I would say. In fact, one can control some aspects of even these biological processes. If I am lactose-intolerant, I can consciously avoid dairy so my digestion maintains a regular track. In the same way, I can somewhat control what my brain “processes”. If I am at a music festival, for example, and I have to decide whether I want to attend the concert of a band I have already seen or that of a new band I haven’t yet seen, my decision will affect what my brain processes. If I choose the familiar option, I will go into the show having certain expectations based on what I have already processed from previous shows of theirs. If I choose the unfamiliar band, (which is statistically less likely), then I am choosing a new path. My experience will not be dictated by any biases, and, in a way, the show will present a challenge — a challenge to what I already know and expect in music generally. It is not only those biological processes that are necessarily unconscious, but so are some of the decisions we make which come prior to those processes. We can, however, take control of those decisions if we think about learning and decision-making in the right way. So, let’s think about it like this: perhaps the origins of our behavior and decisions are in the world, but not in the minute-by-minute, stimuli-centric world that neuro-materialists would like to believe. If it were that way, then we would not even be able to inquire about how our minds work as we’re doing now (which requires temporarily stepping outside of them), much less to overcome social pressure to leave our friend group at a music festival to see the band we want to see, alone.

What I am dancing around now is the more nuanced meaning of ‘unconscious’ that we find in fringe psychology and spiritual circles.

“To know oneself is to make the unconscious conscious.” — C.G. Jung

We can observe, in my field of birth chart astrology, that people live out their charts until they seek knowledge about them. The birth chart represents one’s innate set of perceptions and predispositions for responding to different aspects of reality. Someone is likely even living out their transits when they come to me for consultation — i.e. there is something external compelling them to learn about themselves at a particular time — but free will is clearly expressed in how they make use of the information I give them. The better one knows oneself, the more opportunities they will have to express their free will. There is still no guarantee, however, that they will. As I always say, I don’t tell people what to do; I help them own what they choose to do.

There is a strong case that it is not when someone is acting from their proclivities, but rather only when someone acts against what is normal and comfortable for them, that they are expressing free will. This “opposition to the self” kind of behavior must be founded on moral principles, boundaries, or in the very least, external rules. These represent three different degrees of self-governance and the spectrum of our human relationship to that concept, and only one fully shows that free will can be expressed in any case. In the next post, I will describe these three levels and show the connection from free will to that one of them, perhaps revealing something about the origins of autonomous decision-making that evaded us in the beginning of this article.

Why Venus is Exalted in Pisces

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

The planets in astrology represent different parts of our personality and perception, and none of them can stand alone. As the planet of structure, discipline, and conservatism, having too much focus on Saturn in a chart leaves one cold, rigid, and lacking in social tact. Too much emphasis on the sun makes one extremely egocentric. Likewise, when Venus is overemphasized, it makes one hedonistic, materialistic, and superficial. At its low manifestation, Venus is the wild woman who merely uses men and the world for her own pleasure and resources. She needs the sun and Saturn (a father and grandfather), for example, to maintain her sense of identity and to have discipline for what is sustainable, respectively.

The signs of the zodiac possess an intrinsic evolutionary quality. Each sign has something that the one before it lacks, but it overcompensates for that trait. For example, Aries is often too fast and impulsive, and Taurus over-corrects by being slow and stubborn. It follows, then, that by the time we get around to Pisces, the last sign of the zodiac, ultimate balance has been found. We are able to observe this in those with strong Pisces in their charts. There tends to be something spiritual about them. They’re typically patient, good at listening, creative, and unique. A conscious Pisces seems quite evolved, albeit otherworldly.

Although dominant or ruling signs are often heavily emphasized in descriptions of the planets, and having such placements catches one’s eye in observing a birth chart for the first time, the exalted signs of each planet indicate a more developed and well-rounded expression. Just because someone has Mars in the ruling sign of Aries, for example, doesn’t mean that they’ll maximize the potential of Mars. Rather, they’re more likely to naturally express the negative effects of it, and in many cases, it will take extra work to temper that planet’s energy. We think of Venus as being much softer than Mars, as it is the more feminine surface expression, but the ruling signs of Venus can produce difficulties of their own – ones which are much more covert, being as femininity per se is more covert in its expression than masculinity. For example, someone who’s natal Venus is in Libra will have a softer, more compromising social style as opposed to an Arian one that takes a deliberate, “me first” approach.

The darker sides of Venus are more difficult to detect than those of the sun, Mars, or Saturn. This would be the case, for one, because of the things that Venus represents – e.g. love nature, social style, likes and dislikes, etc. Paradoxically, they are exemplified most clearly in their two ruling signs of Taurus and Libra, even though the planet’s strengths are also exemplified by these same signs. They are so, however, in a way that is more narrowly focused, much like how Mars’ blunt, warrior energy is most clearly expressed in Aries.

We look to the qualities of each ruling sign of Venus to understand the scope of its strengths and weaknesses. Taurus is the fixed earth sign, and appropriately, we can observe that Taurus reveals the “mother nature” side of Venus, and the native’s connection to the physical, sensory realm. Nature is fixed in its ways of being as it will whether we like it or not. Changes come slowly and incrementally, through an evolutionary process of proving that they’ll serve the whole of nature over time. Taurus is cautious in matters of change, and while this can serve as a useful vetting process for new functions, it can also express itself as sloth, stubbornness, and refusal to change due to lack of foresight beyond the physical.

Libra has a very different set of qualities, showing the other spectrum of significations of Venus. As the cardinal air sign, it expresses itself through the mental realm. It initiates change more consciously from a need to achieve balance in its social environment through connection in relationships. They’re more likely to flow with fashion trends than to dress in a way that is simply comfortable as Taurus does. Both Venus rulers seek comfort: Libra seeks comfort through acceptance while Taurus seeks comfort through sensation. The danger of appealing to social acceptance is that Libra sacrifices its sense of self and becomes superficial in its expression.

As one of the traditional “feminine” elements, it seems fitting that Venus would be exalted – and therefore produce its most ideal form – in a water sign. Because the combination of Taurus and Libra express the things of Venus in rather specific ways, and neither shows the full potential of social, romantic, and value expression, it is imperative that Venus travel through the entire zodiac to prevent itself from becoming too pleasure-seeking, superficial, and in lack of sustainability. It needs to learn higher values through the lessons that each of the other signs provide. For example, fixed Leo shares the quality of stability with Taurus, but with its fire inspires Taurus to grow and be more creative. Cardinal Capricorn shares the quality of initiation and leadership with Libra, but it provides a framework of logic, practicality, and discipline to Libra. A water sign, however, offers a quality of being able to fill a container – not just any container, anytime, but the right container, in the right way. As a mutable sign, Pisces has that trait of adaptability in detailed tasks, but it is also big-picture focused enough to know when and how to adapt. Venus is about what we want, but without the broader framework within which to manage our desires, what we want lacks tact, purpose, and life.

It also seems fitting that the rawest expression of the masculine planet of Mars – i.e. Aries – is placed first in the zodiac, just before Taurus, the first ruling planet of Venus. Aries is, perhaps, the one sign that Venus does not need to integrate on its own – that it doesn’t “pass through” on its journey to Pisces – but it rather serves as a complement to the things that Venus provides. After all, women are from Venus, and men are from Mars. As it turns out, Mars does quite well in Pisces too, depending on its house placement.

By evolving into Pisces through the other signs, Venus is learning how to value and organize its desires in a more conscious way. It learns that neither Taurean sensation or Libran fairness can serve as the highest value in any realm, whether social, natural, aesthetic, or moral. Venus is enlightening itself with a sense that all of the signs offer value to its otherwise singular ones. Pisces’ being, in a way, the most evolved sign of the zodiac gives a home for Venus to seek comfort in the most important way of all – the way of higher truth, thanks to daddy, granddaddy, and the rest of the family.

Different-Sign Conjunctions in Astrology: Niche-Friendly Neighbors

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

There is light in darkness. This is how we should think about the “adverse” aspects.

Oppositions are thought to be adverse, but they offer us clear opportunities for shadow work, so when we integrate those sides, ultimate power is achieved through balance.

Squares are clearly adverse, but when we learn to compartmentalize those planets rather than forcing them to work together, we learn to set firm and reasonable boundaries for ourselves as well as with others – a skill that we can and should apply to everything.

Inconjunctions are disconnected and lack a common language, but they challenge us to let go and to flow with the current of what is beyond our control, allowing greater reality to bring into harmony those parts of ourselves that seem not to be related at all.

There is always potential for congruence and growth in adverse aspects. Likewise, we cannot speak of the light of conjunctions without confronting the darkness that is present in them.

While thought of as a harmonious aspect, for two planets are brought together in the same style of expression, a conjunction brings a challenge to rise to a certain responsibility that is demanded from deep within the individual. While they do not struggle as much with knowing what their purpose is, there is tremendous pressure to fulfill that known purpose in sacrifice of many other things. It is not what the conjunction entails that causes difficulty, for in that is a natural flow. Rather, it is what the conjunction leaves out that causes anxiety. That could be… everything, if those conjuncted planets are also adversely or not at all aspected with others in the chart.

When in the same sign (as they most often are), conjuncted planets seem not to pose a problem. There is a strong sense of “this is just how I am” in whichever matters they combine to deal with. When in different signs, however, the true strength of the conjunction is revealed – one which can arise in any conjunction at any time. These placements can be seen as different but aimed toward the same goals. It is a best-of-both-worlds type of aspect. There are a few things about the different-sign conjunction that we must consider before we talk more about the overall affect that this unique aspect has.

Firstly, by being in different signs, it follows that one planet will be at the end of one sign (on or near the 29th degree), and the other will be at the beginning of the next (on or near the 0th degree). These placements on their own are significant.

The 29th degree planet has been through the entirety of its sign. It is tired and ready to move onto the next. Think of it as a senior in high school in the last few months of their last term. They have “senioritis”. They know everything there is to know about the high school phase of life and feel as though they are over it. It hasn’t actually been to college yet, however, so it is stuck in high school until it graduates. It may start mimicking college kid behavior (i.e. the personality style of the next sign), but this is hopeful, theoretical, and superficial. They would be best to use the knowledge that they have gained to finish strong. They should stay present, reflect, and be grateful for their experiences as to enhance their enjoyment of the remaining days.

The 0th degree is like a college freshman, just on the other side of graduation and into the next phase of life. They are green, enthusiastic, and ready to experience all things that the new sign has to offer. They are in sensory overload about their new environment and are not yet sure how to navigate it. They may take on too much at once, make many errors, and learn their lessons the hard way. In any case, assertiveness in this area tends not to be a problem. They just go for it, and they generally learn from that for the better. Thinking a bit before they act would benefit them, not as to have them miss out on too much, but to throw on some floaties as they jump into the deep end.

Another thing to consider, which is a consensus among many quality astrologers, is that when two planets are in a conjunction, the one that occurs at the lower degree is the one that tends to take the lead. For example, my Mercury occurs just before my Jupiter, so this conjunction, which gives me a strong ability to see the bigger picture and to communicate that to others, is expressed in a more rational, left-brained, Mecurial way rather than in a hopeful one that yields plenty of good luck. I tend to be more of a Mecurial writer than a spiritual guru. This happens under the condition that the planets are in the same sign.

The dynamic changes when we are dealing with one at 29 and the other at 0, or thereabouts. It seems fair to make a case for either planet’s taking the lead in this situation. On one hand, the fresh enthusiasm of the 0th degree planet is ready to take action, and the 29th degree planet’s desire for the things of the new sign may have it happily submit to that decisiveness. On the other hand, the 29th degree planet has a wisdom that the 0th degree planet doesn’t have, so its foresightful resistance to experiencing too many new things at once may overpower the 0th degree planet’s naivety by taking on a parental role. It depends on the planets and the signs they’re in, of course.

The third thing to consider is the progression of the signs. Each sign is an evolution of the sign before it, but it overcompensates for the specific thing that the sign before it lacks. For example, take the indoorsy Cancer hermit crab who probably needs to get out more. The Leo lion overcompensates for that by needing to be the king of the jungle. In this case, the Leo planet will likely take the lead since it has a more aggressive style, but it will still be important not to give into the Leo planet too often and exhaust oneself, for the Cancer planet will have a need for retreat. The Cancer planet is just as important to have at one’s disposal; it offers different value from that of the Leo planet, and balancing the two energies will be vital for gaining the most from the conjunction.

Remember, a sign is a style of expression – a swagger that is shown in the embodiment of the part of yourself that that planet represents. Usually, conjunctions occur in the same sign. That relationship is led by the younger planet’s energy. The planets know their roles, so to speak. The younger planet, having more vitality, clears the path while the older planet in some sense leads from the back. When a conjunction is in different signs, there are two different energies at work being expressed in a naturally fluid way. This can reveal the perfect embodiment of the congruence between side-by-side signs which, by any other measure, tend to be almost as different as inconjuncted signs. Instead of being standoffish neighbors, they are friendly neighbors who learn to work together for no reason other than that they are forced to because they live in such close proximity.

Through this is a forced relationship, conjuncted planets in different signs see very clearly that they each have something that the other lacks, and they are likely to find a very specific common niche, interest, or hobby that they can both engage in and treat as a basis for their relationship and direction (he same can happen between inconjuncted signs, but they much less often find that common ground because of the distance between them). In a natal chart, this equates to the individual finding a very specific outlet for this conjunction to shine through and be the best at.

As with all conjunctions, there is still a great need to be able to compartmentalize each other’s different perspectives and skillsets as to not get in each other’s way. This is a crucial realization that all conjunctions must come to, but when in the same sign, it is more difficult. When in different signs, the different styles of expression are clear, so the boundaries are self-determining and not questioned.

An Astrological Aspect is a Miniature Consciousness Within Yourself

Britton William Frost1 Comment

Presuppositions

Before continuing with this short and accessible thesis, it is imperative that the reader understand and agree with the following set of presuppositions:

  1. Truth exists
  2. Truth exists on different levels of complexity
  3. God is a personified conception of Truth-itself, i.e. Truth at the highest level of complexity which contains all things known and unknown
  4. A fact is a truth at the lowest level of complexity, e.g. all raw scientific data
  5. A fact requires infliction of the human will to have meaning; facts alone are simply phenomena of nature
  6. Nature is amoral
  7. The human will, being connected to the transcendent, is the only thing that possess moral capacity
  8. As humans, it is our duty under God’s law to give moral consideration to all endeavors
  9. Astrology isn’t complete bullshit when given moral consideration and that of the presuppositions 1-8
  10. Astrologism is to astrology as scientism is to science: the former concepts are incoherent belief systems serving as gods/truths unto themselves, while the latter concepts are methods of inquiry intended for the human will to serve higher Truth

There are elaborations of these points in much of my other work from the past and future, as well as in the work of great thinkers of the past, all of which is a matter of loosely dancing around the fire of truth. This is all one can do, for to enter into that fire is to die, and that categorically should result in our facing God directly, which is not possible in this mortal life.

The thesis

There is an affinity, I have found, between astrological aspects on the specific level and consciousness on the general level. An aspect is a small consciousness within yourself.

Each planet in astrology — sun and moon included — represents a different part of your personality. The sun is your ego, Mercury is how you structure communication, Venus is your feminine nature, Mars is your masculine, etc. Depending on the constellation with which a planet is aligned, and the house in which it is situated, it will be expressed in a different style and show prominence in a different context of your life respectively.

REMINDER: It is should be the case that by reading this now, you share the aforementioned list of presuppositions and therefore are not, from a materialistic proclivity, getting bogged down by the mechanistic question of how these or any astrological connections can be possible, leading that to blinding you from the higher truths (unverifiable by empirical pursuits alone) being described here and toward which all endeavors (scientific and otherwise) should aim.

An aspect is a relationship between two planets based on how they are positioned. There are a variety of angular relationships that planets can share; each creates a new energy — a unique trait in itself. The major aspects are: conjunction, opposition, square, trine, sextile, and inconjunction.

So is the case with consciousness more broadly. Consciousness is neither a material entity inside the brain nor the same sort of thing out there in the objective world that we access with our material brain. Consciousness is a different type of thing altogether — a unique energy that is produced when one subjective being interacts with the objective world. A mind is the conscious state of being in an individual, persistent through time.

A relationship does not produce a consciousness; it is a consciousness unto itself, produced by two or more conscious beings interacting.

We speak of relationships of all sorts as entities unto themselves, do we not?

There is a unique power and energy produced when two or more people interact. It is its own thing. It may be similar with that of others who have similar traits in or out of common, but no two relationships are identical just as no two individuals are identical.

Some connections seem good (conjunction, trine, sextile), and others seem bad (square, opposition). Even a lack of connection (inconjunction) indicates a disconnect which can be reflected in differing values or an inability to understand each others values.

What seems good possesses difficulties, what seems bad may yield great benefit when faced, and what seems disconnected may have great potential for compromise. These dynamics or combination of dynamics are reflected in the combinations of aspects shown between areas of two or more people’s natal charts as well as in the combinations of aspects within one’s own chart.

The totality of all conscious energies combining at once — including individuals, relationships, and those resulting from groups and cultures — is what is referred to by psychoanalysts as the collective unconscious. This too results in a unique energy which is greater than the sum of all individual parts — this is the source of all things (Truth/God).

A personality trait — represented by a planet placed in a particular sign in a particular house — is to your the entire birth chart as an individual person’s consciousness is to the collective unconscious.

Astrology is split, like all disciplines are, between the authentic practitioners and the self-fulfilling ones, the truth-seekers and the fashionistas, the scientists and the materialists.

Astrology is not a belief structure — it is not scientism. It is, rather, a subject of inquiry into a specific area of reality — i.e. the human personality. It does not claim to be or to know the exact source of its truth or Truth itself. It does not stand in for God as the materialists would like to believe of science. Likewise, science more generally is a method of inquiry into one level of reality — i.e. the level of facts — containing nothing more than hope that the predictions made on the basis of those facts will prove accurate.

The predictions that contain observable patterns and regularities always leave room for admission that the patterns themselves are not emergent from the facts, but rather are emergent from some greater source that gives rise to all facts and patterns contained within it. Again, it is not the sum of the facts.

Understanding of our metaphysical reality cannot happen from the bottom-up, if at all.

Nor should we claim to know the source of Truth, for we cannot say anything more precise than ‘God/Truth/Being/etc’. To realize this is to be truly-curious and to fear nothing other than God. It is only God that should be feared, and when one fears only God, it is only then that one’s path is surely right.

In the genuine study of astrology, it is similarly understood: “the stars may impel but do not compel”. We can only accept that Truth/God exists, that moral law is final and universal, and that it is our duty to consciously accord our decisions with what is good — i.e. in practical terms to act with no motivation to produce a consequence. We may often react from fear of the Truth, but that is ok as long as it is accepted.

Astrology, like science is for the physical realm, is therefore nothing other than a tool for understanding ourselves so that we may more closely orient our action toward the good.

Simple placement descriptions — e.g. Aries sun in the 4th house — often spark a feeling of validation or rejection in us. This is a surface reaction based only in how we view ourselves, and our perspective of ourselves may be either true or untrue in nuance just as that description may be.

No wonder pop astrology focuses solely on these placements, and often only the sun at that. The sun is the ego — the most reactive placement apart from Chiron. Fashion is meant to appeal to our emotions, not to spark critical thought.

They are surface descriptions of traits isolated from the greater context of the natal chart. Funnily, the extent to which and style in which one is sensitive and reactive to a description, or to the opinion of another, is often indicative of particular elements:

Fire is volatile, water is containable, earth is indifferent, and air is unaware (or don’t care). Once the reaction dust settles, all are capable of reaching the same conclusions about what is true and untrue.

An aspect, though isolated too in its own right, shows greater complexity than a single placement but less so than that of the entire chart.

Conclusion

The new energy produced by the angular relationship of the two planets involved, being a consciousness unto itself, is of primary importance. The houses those planets are in reveal context and are of secondary importance, for an energy that is greater than the sum of its parts can transcend contexts. The sign dynamic says something about the style in which this trait is expressed. It is of tertiary importance at best since it is, in fact, already implied by the type of aspect itself and since its expression is largely context-dependent (e.g. not all Cancer sun people are the same, obviously).

The law of identity in logic states that every instance of an individual thing — material or abstract in appearance — possesses its own identity and is an expression of the abstract concept of one). As per that law, everything we can identify as being unique, occupying its own abstract space at a given time — whether a fact, a placement, an aspect, a birth chart, an individual, a relationship, a culture, or God progressively — is situated in some place within the hierarchy of consciousness between an insignificant, unconscious, context-dependent fact on the bottom and Truth/God/Collective Unconsciousness itself at the peak, and can be identified as an individual energy on its own.

We conscious beings, connected to higher Truth and consciousness, are situated somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy. So are the astrological aspects within us, but, as we must remind ourselves, they are tools at the disposal of our human wills, ultimately intended to sharpen that very will which uses it.

The Slate, the Chalk, and the Eraser

Britton William Frost1 Comment

Prerequisite reading: “WARNING: Your Kid is Smarter Than You!”

A mark of good critical thinking, let’s say, as it applies to science, is that it is always attempting to prove itself wrong. It challenges its most fundamental assumptions when unexpected results arise. We can do this in our everyday lives when we make decisions and formulate our own views. We are only truly challenging ourselves by trying to find flaws in our own reasoning rather than trying to confirm our views. It is easy to confirm our beliefs.

Let’s take astrology as a personal-scientific example. Sparing you the details, based on what little research has been done to refute it, astrology is seen as invalid, and therefore, a pseudoscience, by the standards of modern mechanistic science. However, that does not preclude one from believing in it – in confirming it or any of its insights to themselves. Now, one is not thinking critically by simply believing that astrology is a pseudoscience (or that it is legitimate science). That would be to put too much trust in other people’s thinking. What reasons can you give to support your own belief, and what does it mean?

One can wake up every morning, read their daily horoscope, and upon very little reflection, come up with a reason or two for how that horoscope applies to his or her life. On one hand, those reasons might be good ones, founded on an abundance of personal experience. The horoscope’s insights might serve as something to keep in mind as one goes about his or her day, and that can be a very helpful thing. On the other hand, however, the reasons might be mere, self-confirming opinions. They might be the result of the person’s ideological belief in astrology in general. That can be harmful if the person attempts to apply astrological insights to contexts which it is inapplicable. This is an example of how the confirmation of a specific belief, not the belief in itself, can be good or bad, helpful or harmful, depending on how one thinks about it and the reasons he or she gives for it. The question of whether it is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, is neither important nor provable.

In order to formulate views that are not mere opinions, we must expose ourselves to views that oppose the ones we already hold dear to our hearts. This is difficult for adults. Most of us have been clinging to the same beliefs since we were children or young adults. This is where children have a huge advantage. They don’t yet have views of their own. The sky is the limit to how they can think and what they might believe. Their handicap, though, is that they do not control what they are exposed to. They cannot (or perhaps, should not) search the internet alone, drive themselves to the library, proficiently read, or precisely express themselves through writing or speech. They are clean slates, and that ignorance not only gives them huge potential, but it also leaves them extremely vulnerable.

The Analogy

You may have heard this analogy before, but I will attempt to add a bit of depth to it.

A child’s mind is a slate, as are those of adults (though, arguably, much less so). It is a surface on which we can take notes, write and solve equations, draw pictures, and even play games. We can create a private world with our imaginations. For all intents and purposes, there are no innate limits to how we can use our slates. Maximizing our potential, and that of children, is up to the tools we use.

First, we need something to write with, but we shouldn’t use just any writing tool. Chalk is meant to be used on slate because it is temporary. It can be erased and replaced. If one were to write on a slate with a sharpie marker, that would be permanent. One could not simply erase those markings to make room for others. A slate has a limited amount of space.

Though our minds may not have a limited amount of space in general (there is not sufficient evidence that they do), there is a limit to how much information we can express at any given moment. That, not our mind in general, is our slate – that plane of instant access. The writing tool is our voice – our tool of expression. If we write with a sharpie, it cannot be erased. We leave no room to change our minds in the face of better evidence to the contrary. If we write with chalk, we can just as clearly express our ideas, but we also leave our ideas open to be challenged, and if necessary, erased and changed. It is also easier, for in the process of formulating our ideas with chalk, we need not be so algorithmic. We can adjust our system accordingly as we learn and experience new things.

The smaller the writing on the slate is, the more one can fit, but the more difficult it is to read. Think of a philosopher who has a complexly structured system of views. One detail leads into the next, and they all add up to a bigger-picture philosophy. It might take one’s reading all of it to understand any of it. That can be difficult and time-consuming, and not everyone has the patience for it. The larger the words on the slate, however, the easier it is to read, but the less there will be, so it risks lacking depth. Think of a manager-type personality who is a stickler for rules. He is easy to understand because he is concise, but he may lack the ability to explain the rules. People are irritated by him when he repetitively makes commands and gives no reasons for them. Likewise, children are annoyed when their parents and teachers make commands with no reasons to support them, or at least, no good ones (e.g. “because I said so”).

So, the slate represents the plane of instant access and expression of information, and the writing tool, whether it be chalk or a sharpie, represents our voice – our tool for expressing information and ideas. What does the eraser represent? The eraser represents our willingness to eliminate an idea or bit of information. It represents our willingness to refute our own beliefs and move forward. It represents the ability to make more space on our slate for better, or at least more situation-relevant, information. It represents reason. If one writes with chalk, the eraser – reason – holds the power. If we write with a sharpie, the eraser becomes becomes useless.

The Analogy for Children

I explained in my last post “WARNING: Your Kid is Smarter Than You” that it is important for parents and teachers to teach their kids how to think – not what to think – but I did not offer much advice on how to actually do that. I will not tell anyone, in detail, how to raise or educate their children. Each has a different personality and needs to be catered to through different means. I will, however, offer a bit of general advice based on the analogy above.

The way to teach children how to think (after already having done it for yourself, of course, which is arguably much more difficult) is NOT to hand the kids sharpies, for they will never learn to use an eraser. Their statements and beliefs will be rigid and lack depth of understanding. Granted, this might make them a lot of money in the short-term, but it will also significantly reduce their flexibility when they encounter real-life situations (outside of the institutions of school and work) that require them to think for themselves. This will inevitably limit their happiness from young adulthood to beyond.

Instead, simply hand them a piece of chalk. It is not even important to hand them an eraser, initially. Kids will figure out, after much trial and error, their own way to erase their slates. Eventually, they will find on their own that the eraser is a very efficient method to do so. Literally-speaking, they will express themselves and reason through their problems until they find the most efficient methods – by thinking for themselves, but only as long as they have the right tool.