Why Intellectual Dishonesty is Hurting Astrology Today

Why Intellectual Dishonesty is Hurting Astrology Today

9:45 PM 9/19/05 Mon

In light of my recent essays regarding the very real and palpable Left leaning view extant in the American Astrology Community today, and noting that my essays in this regard have raised a bit of a ruckus, I'd like to take things a step further in this essay, why I posit that intellectual dishonesty is hurting Astrology today.

There are several key points/themes that I would like to address myself to, that are often brought up in various astrological circles, and that I feel are at best spurious if not out and out dishonest. They are as follows:

1. Wanting no discussion about anything "other than Astrology"

2. Affirmative Action Astrology (and I'll explain exactly what I mean in a sec)

3. Taking a "No-Judgement" view with Astrology

4. Taking a so-called intellectual/academic approach in Astrology groups and forums (what I called Pseudo-Intellectualism)

5. Claiming to want Astrology to be more relevant to the general public

Let's address these points one by one.

Wanting No Discussion About Anything "Other than Astrology"
If you're part of an online community of astrologers and the like, you're bound to hear this partyline. Sometimes, there is a certain spin put on it ("this is a forum for learning astrological principles, etc."), but what is really meant by this is that whoever is calling the shots simply doesn't want to deal with the implications of that which was brought up. This can be for a variety of reasons, but usually it's due to what I call the "selling soapsuds" quotient. By that I mean, that oftentimes, many of these folks who own forums and the like use these as vehicles to peddle their wares and/or services, so if you mention something that might piss some or all of their potential clientele off (with, say, wanting to know the astrological implications of Class or Race, etc.), off with your head. As for the whole "learning" line, well, let's just look at it this way: in this age of Internet search engines, easy availabilty of computers and widespread access to astrology books and information from here to next Sunday, anyone who wants to learn the rudiments (or finer points, as the case may be) of Astrology can do so, often for FREE. And if neither the profit motive nor the so-called interest in learning motive doesn't do the trick, there maybe some other esoteric (or egocentric) reason given. What such folks need to do is be very upfront about the fact that they arean't really interested in dealing with, say, the Career/Vocational situation in ALL its dimensions, but instead are just interested in hawking their wares on "how-to" see a doctor, lawyer, Indian Chief in the chart. Or that they are in reality a Leftist in astrological drag, and so get all hot and bothered when someone asks hard astrological questions on the political front or presents something astrologically relevant on a current and hotly charged topic such as abortion. Chalk it up to all my years in Sales, or maybe just a liftime of growing up in the Hood, but nothing is worse than someone trying to get over by playing a bad game of Three Card Monty.

Affirmative Action Astrology
By this I mean, the idea or notion that ALL Astrology (and by extension, astrologers) is equal; even more to the point, the idea that all astrologers are equal, and that we must respect all points of view even if some don't make any damn sense at all (and we all know it). NOT!!! Take for example, the Solar Return. This is a method that has been around for ever, and even though folks who've worked with Astrology for eons know that a clear use of Transits trumps a Solar Return any day of the week, still we have to put up with this notion that Solar Returns are as viable a method as Transits. Ugh. The reality is that there are some astrologers that are good, others great, and a whole lot that just suck. But of course, you can't say that nowadays, because "astrology isn't supposed to be competitive". Of course, those who espouse such a view are either ignorant of Astrology's past (where guys like Lilly jockeyed for position all the time against other well known astrologers) OR they're being intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to simply and clearly state your view, that as a member of the Astrological Left, you don't think there is a such thing as a good or bad astrologer, or that some astrological systems and ideas just don't work as well as others; but to try to present them as Manna from Heaven is really a stretch at best, downright disengenuous at worst.

Taking A "No-Judgement" View With Astrology
Oh, I love this one. That's because it's yet another example, astrologically expressed, of the Left. If you're on the Left, you're in essence a Relativist - "eveything's relative", which translates into, everything's the same, which translates into, nothing is better or worse than something else, nothing is good or bad...and in astro-counseling terms, you simply cannot make a judgement about someone's behavior because, well...nothing's good or bad, it just is - right? Rubbish. Astrology's history, East and West alike, are full of examples where the astrologer clearly explained where the native went in one direction when he/she should have gone in the other and so on. If you're an astrologer that simply sees no inherent difficulty with Outer Planets, for example, then I'm pretty sure you're a "no value judgement" astrologer. What's really interesting about such folks though, is that their value judgemental hackles suddenly raise to the rafters when someone such as myself comes along - I guess the no judgement approach only goes but so far.
Taking A So-Called Intellectual/Academic Approach in Astrology Groups and ForumsThis is kind of a reiteration of my first counterpoint above, because those who claim that they want a more academic approach to Astrology often does so with the "no discussion other than astrology" canard. These folks wouldn't know academics if it pistol-whipped them in broad daylight. I say that because one of the hallmarks of the Academy is the free and open Debate of Ideas - and many who espouse such a view want anything but. I like to think of them as astrologers with a Soviet twist, you know, Astrological Totalitarianism. Yeah, yeah, I know, there's Kepler and there's the ACVA, and there's this and there's that group and so-and-so. Okay. But just you try to bring up some of the points I've made in previous essays, and you'll see what I mean (and this has happened with regard to some of my colleagues who scoffed at my thoughts in this regard; they're starting to wear yolks on the grill now). Pseudo-Intellectualism is rife in the Astrological Community today.

Claiming to Want Astrology to be More Relevant to the General Public
On its face, along with the posturing of many astrologers nowadays, this line above almost sounds credible; then you take a look around and you don't see ANY of the same folks who want to be relevant to the public speak to anything that actually means something to that same public. Take the Hurricance Katrina aftermath - where are astrologers on that one, especially the whole range of issues with respect to the Black and Poor? Okay, maybe that one's too heavy. What about the deal with Judge John Roberts? Nada. Or Cindy Sheehan? MIA. Everybody talked about Natalie Holloway, but no one said a word about Latoyia Figueroa - even though pregnant women get killed by their hubbies/boyfriends all the time. Wassup wit dat??? See my point? If you really want to be regarded by the public, you have to be willing to deal with the issues and topics and things that are IMPORTANT TO THEM. No once cares much about a bunch of astrological mumbo-jumbo that even died in the wool astrology wonks like me yawn at. That's why I spend so much time dealing with things in a public intellectual sort of way rather than tying all my time up dealing with insider baseball so to speak.

I posit that until astrologers get real honest with themselves and each other, more and more people will get turned off to it, NOT because of the Religious Right, NOT because of folks being scared by the "occult" nature of it, but because so many astrologers keep falling further and further away from where the bulk of humanity is, which is the Real World.

That's it.

Salaam,
Mu

The USA Supreme Court: A Changing of The Guard...

The USA Supreme Court: A Changing of The Guard...

10:18 AM 9/4/05 Sun

By the time your eyes sees this, you will have known for at least the past few days that US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is deceased, having died of complications from thyroid cancer at the age of 80 on Saturday night. I got word of these developments early this morning on the SRN radio network. That moment was used by me to cast a horary chart, to gain additional insight:
Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist Death Radio Annoucement Sun, Sep 4, 2005 6.32AM, EDT Philadelphia, PA; Placidus 11 Vir 14; Source: SRN news report.

This is a vivid example of how Horary works, and especially how well it blends with Mundane astrology. Note that Mercury, the chart ruler, is in the 12th House in the sign of Leo, at the very last degree. Additionally, we see that the Sun, Mercury's dispositor, is rising in the Virgo Ascendant and opposed by Uranus (Rehnquist's possible death due to heart failure?). The Moon, also rising in the 1st House, is square Pluto. The 1st and 12th Houses, the Asc ruler and both Lights are under considerable challenge; death was easy to see in this map.

Pluto quindeciles the MC from the 4th - applying this chart to political considerations, this would have to represent the party out of power, the Democrats, who have been gearing up for a lengthy and ugly confirmation fight over President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts, will now fight even harder to keep the High Court from going Hard Right. With Pluto having arrived at a Station (Direct), it is highly likely that the Democrats will attempt a filibuster, which will finally prompt the Republican-controlled Senate to employ what has been called the "Nuclear Option" - the proceedural stripping of the minority party's ability to hold up "up and votes" on presidential nominees. Note that Saturn rules the 5th House of legislators and sits in the 11th House of the president's cabinet and political appointees, as well as nominees. The Moon, again, is square to Pluto, and rules the 11th(!)-it is the only square (interplanetary, that is) in the entire chart.
This is a stomp-down streetfight for power.

The 9th House merits mention here, for it represents the High Court; Venus rules the 9th, and is in its own sign Libra, and conjunct Jupiter in the 2nd House (Values and Presitge); it holds Mars in the 9th (an apt symbolism for "activist judges"!), and it in turn is square Neptune in the 6th. This is the "dissolution" of the present makeup of the Court; with Mars approaching its retrograde transit in less than a month's time, there is every indication that more current Justices on the court will step down from or die on the bench (6th House=retirement, illness). Note the exact Venus-Pluto sextile, another indication that the Democrats will stake it all on staving off a Hard Right turn on the Court.
Applying this chart (transits) to that of the USA itself, the Sibly variant (July 4, 1776 5.10PM LMT, Philadelphia, PA; 12 Sag 11, Campion), the results are striking: transit Pluto is only a degree from exact square to Neptune in the 9th (Supreme Court; Pluto ruling the 12th, national losses) and oppose the USA Mars in the 7th; Mars rules the 4th of the party out of power - the Democrats. Transit Uranus is exactly square its natal position, ruling the 3rd House of national mindset (suggesting a reversal of national thinking on issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, the role of Religion in the Public Square, etc. from previous times). And finally, transit/event Moon is tightly conjunct the USA Neptune and square the USA Mars, again highlighting the 9th Houses issues and priming the pump for the battles over it that is sure to come soon.

Turning to President Bush's current nominee Judge Roberts, we note that he was born on Jan 27, 1955 in Buffalo, NY, according to public records and the internet. No time as yet is known, but the Solarchart for his birthday reveals his Conservative leanings: he has a formidable t-square Saturn to the Mercury-Pluto axis (Saturn=Mercury/Pluto). He is known as a meticulous researcher and careful thinker, having won the majority of the cases he has argued before the Supreme Court in the past. In addition, he also considered a "strict constructionist" in his interpretation of Constitutional Law. At the time of his nomination to the Supreme Court, July 19, 2005, Roberts had SA Saturn=Pluto, while transit Pluto was just past conjunction to his Venus, which rules his Solar 9th House of Courts (and possibly square his natal Moon in Pisces). With transit Saturn opposing Roberts' Sun at the time his confirmation hearings begin, and combinated with the Saturn=Pluto arc, we can expect those hearings to be very long, arduous and tough on Roberts and his family; it will be interesting to see how these hearings eventually turn out. Most pundits are of the view that Roberts will ultimately be placed on the Court. We'll see.

Finally, I'd like to bring forward excerpts from an article I wrote about the US Supreme Court in the light of one of the nation's most hotly debated topics - Roe v. Wade. In Janurary of this year, I wrote the following:

"There is little doubt that Chief Justice Rehnquist will retire soon; additionally, there are at least two more Justices who will step down before Bush's 2nd term ends. All that is needed is just one more Conservative vote on the bench to ensure either the radical redefinition of Roe v. Wade or its overturning outright. The GOP has a clear majority - and mandate - from the American electorate, not seen since the early half of the last century. And the Democratic Party, literally a shadow of its former self, can do little to stop the seachanges afoot. In the past four years, Roe v. Wade's chart has seen a Saturn Return and a pass or two from transit Pluto in square to its Moon, and these have reflected (along with the transit square of Neptune to the RVW Asc) the "whittling away" that the pro-choicers have complained about. The shifts are only beginning.

There is every reason to expect the "re-fit" of Roe v. Wade to take place between Oct 2005 and Feb-Mar 2008; reasons for this are as follows:

Sibly USA chart - SA Moon=Saturn Oct 2005, with transit (Tr) Saturn opposed Pluto, Summer 2005, Tr Uranus square its natal position all year, and Tr Pluto square the national Neptune in the 9th (the major shakeup with respect to the Supreme Court), also all year. In 2008 (Mar-May): Tr Pluto conjunct the national MC, a major time of change of overall perspective.

Roe v. Wade chart - SA Sun=Neptune Dec 2006 (suggesting a "weakening" in this case, Roe v. Wade's power - Sun=power), with Tr Pluto square RVW's Moon late Summer-Fall 2005, Tr Saturn square RVW's Uranus and Tr Uranus square RVW's Neptune, again in 2005; SA Sun=Uranus (separation, sudden endings) exact Feb 2008; Tr Uranus square RVW Moon, Tr Saturn same.

GWB 2nd Inaugural chart (Jan 20 2005 12Noon EST Washington DC; Plac 14 Tau 02, Public Record) - SA MC=Sun (applying) 2008, with the Sun Peregrine in Aquarius (Human Rights) ruling the national 5th House! Tr Saturn-Uranus square the Inaugural Mars-Pluto conjunction in the 8th House, particularly toward the end of the year (2008). Keep in mind, Saturn rules both the 9th and 10th Houses of the Inaugural chart (the Supreme Court and President, respectively).

George W. Bush (Jul 6 1946 7.26am EDT New Haven, CT; Plac 7 Leo 7, Rodden) - SA Sun=Saturn (illumination of conservatism; keep in mind, GWB's Saturn is Peregrine yet square his MC (in Cancer, the Sign of children, family, etc.); his chart reflects the national character and comings and goings as well; Sun rules his Asc) Sep 2006 with Tr Saturn conjunct his Asc, Mercury, Pluto and Venus all that year.

In short, putting together the reality of the situation along with an extensive and impressive array of astrological evidence, it is very difficult to see Roe v. Wade continuing to exist in its current form. Change, it seems, is inevitable."

- The Astrology of Roe v. Wade: Three Decades LaterMu'Min M. Bey

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her decision to step down from the High Court on July 1, 2005; John Roberts was nominated on July 19, 2005; Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away last night, September 3, 2005; Roberts' hearings will likely begin in mid September; and the new Supreme Court Term begins in early October. With at least three other Justices at or very near the age of 80 or older (Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter in particular), indeed, the change I spoke of above some 8 months ago does seem inevitable. George W. Bush could very well be the first President since the FDR era to have singlehandedly reshaped the very nature of the Highest Court in the Land.

Stay Tuned...

Salaam,
Mu