Rambles

[candid]

I?ve received an incredibly in-depth astrology analogy, compliments of LiSe. I?m only about half way through it, and am stunned but its uncanny accuracy. This really brings home to me that while our appearance and behavior patterns define who we are in the outside world, the manifest world, it is only relatively so when compared to the whole picture, that is, the whole picture of our self beyond the time and place of our birth, and the whole picture as we are joined with everything ?outside? of ourselves.

On a personal level, as it pertains to this community, I?m amazed that you even put up with me. I say this not to in any way demean myself, but seeing myself through the eyes of this chart, I?m not the easiest guy to deal with, or even get along with at times. (laughin a little here at the irony) Not that there aren?t positive qualities to this being called Candid, or Bruce, just that this is a complex individual who will likely spend his life searching for and fighting for those things which to him are empirical in value, relative to the subjectivity of the moment, though the moment may last days, months or years.

Knower, know thyself, and after you know thyself, know that you are only another tree in the forest, each unique individually but common in unity. goo goo gachoo

[candid]

?scuse: analogy = analysis

[chrislofting]

Candid,

Astrology is derived from basic dichotomies applied recursively and as such reflect generic meanings as does the IC, Runes, Tarot, etc etc etc

Just as the WHOLE of the IC is applicable at any moment so is the WHOLE of all of the others, be it IC or Tarot cards etc.

In Astrology we do use the WHOLE chart to map out patterns. The focus on 'spreads' in the Tarot reflect the focus on a constellation within the whole rather than the whole - same deal in IC patterns.

Our consciousness is too particularised to deal with the whole and so focuses on patterns in parts. It does not comprehend directly the amount of information applicable to any moment - it selects the 'best bits' and in doing so excludes small elements that may be useful to know in understanding.

ALL of the maps of the esoteric have their roots in recursion of dichotomies and so the basic qualities that the species uses to derive meaning. Specialisation will elicit a unique language for each map, we relabel qualities to fit the specialisation.

In more recent times, as people attempt to be more precise in the realm of the esoteric we find the MIXING of specialisations, Astrology is recruited to flesh out Tarot, IC, etc etc etc and so extending bandwidth without breaking out of the 'esoteric' realm, the general focus on the figurative etc etc.

See such essays as The Logic of the Esoteric - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/esoter.html

Chris.

[heylise]

This horoscope has been made by a program. A very good one, but it misses what all programs miss: intuition.
It gives all possibilities, without knowing what you chose yourself, or what has been strengthened or weakened by circumstances, heredity, education and so on. It is as if you come in a restaurant, and they bring everything they have on your table, instead of just the one-person-meal you ordered.

So everything it says is actually there, but some things hardly discernable, others very visible. You will have to use your own discernment by lack of the astrologer. But my experience is, that it is a lot more interesting to find out yourself. Because some of the faint options may be interesting, they never caught your attention, but when you see them, it might be possible to develop them.
And astrologers who are as blunt as this program, telling you all the bad things too, are in the minority. They try to, but do it cautiously, so it can always be waved away.

And about 'bad' things: they are the ones which give you the energy to live and act. The nice constellations are great, but the squares, oppositions, fierce planets and such are the interesting part.

LiSe

[candid]

Chris, so then anyone should be able to apply my astrology reading to themselves, and I should be able to apply anyone's reading to myself? Or am I misunderstanding here?

LiSe, I've noticed what you're speaking of here in terms of discernment. I placed less weight on the lesser significance, as instructed by the reading, and greater upon the greater. Would have to, due to the contradicting characters. Its not difficult to see and apply that which applies.

Still no white sage yet? (for other readers: that's the plant not the hero figure)http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[chrislofting]

Hi Candid,

>
> By Candid (Candid) on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 12:38 pm:
>
> Chris, so then anyone should be able to apply my astrology
> reading to themselves, and I should be able to apply
> anyone's reading to myself? Or am I misunderstanding here?
>

No. you will have differences at local levels reflected in relationships but that depends on the resolution power of the chart. IOW others WILL be able to read your chart and apply it to themselves.

Astrology AS METAPHOR is a good typology but what it comes up with are same as the more 'accepted' typologies - thus you can have Aries types as you can have NTs but the lingo is different and a lot of metaphor in Astrology is taken literally.

Thus Aries types do NOT have to be born in Aries (these days that is Pisces so something is being ignored for convenience!). The Western Astrology mapping to recursion and so the IC reflect the 4s bifurcating into 8s but the sum is taken as the set of 12 types etc (ever read "Arachne Rising"? it gives 13 types! - and the ancient charts of Rome, Sufism etc had ... 8 types! -- and then there are the issues re being born at the Nth or Sth pole regions etc etc!)

reviewing from the IC:

yin = earth, yang = air.

diagrams: (all yin) earth : water : fire : air (all yang)

the above are the cardinal signs (and so fire = ARIES)

trigrams: fixed:mutable signs of each major cardinal. IOW FIRE bifurcates into Sagittarius and Leo. (thunder and fire).

Thus the attributes of, the qualities of, aries get refined into sagit/leo qualities BUT can also be interpreted in a hexagram in the form of digrams, thus we have:

-- -- FIRE
------ FIRE
------ AIR
------ AIR
-- -- EARTH
-- -- EARTH

and you can derive meaning from this OR switch to trigram analysis etc (air sign over earth sign).

Did you read the essay through the link I supplied? - the patterns are reflected in Tarot, QBL, Runes etc etc where specialist elements come up but the general is in all and it is that general that allows us to make analogies, to use one system to describe the other, or to mix systems etc etc.

the 'big five' psyche tests cover 32 types. The MBTI covers 16. The ICPlus goes as deep as we can without losing resolution - IOW the WHOLE of the IC is applicable TO YOU and that means 4096 characteristics... or 16+million... or 8... or 64 - how deep do you want to go? ;-) IOW the structure of personality is not only spanning all members of the species (and so specialists) but also WITHIN each member of the species (and so we can all be generalists). CONTEXT will then elicit 'highs' and 'lows' and so differences in expressions. - Through IDM expressed in IC we can extend the MBTI to the same number as the IC (and we can do that to the 'big five' as well)

The advantage of Astrology is that it is specialist with over 3000+ years of 'associations' being made and so a whole world of relationships being expressed but that all 'reduces' to blending, bonding, bounding, binding - and so nouns/verbs, differentiate/integrate, WHAT/WHERE. LOCAL details give DIFFERENCE but the general is all the same.

The disadvantage is all of the 'gaga' elements that are taken literally. (Gaqualin's work on PLANETS was interesting, suggesting encoding of 'constellations' of planets that affect development of cells and so 'encode' a cellular dynamic that is reflected as a 'persona' bias - but any focus on star constellations etc was found to be an issue. Now, you can create a universe 'in here' that contains all of these relationships and so we find 'meaning' where, outside of ones local mindset, there is none)

Tarot seems to have three layers at work re type, with the court cards of the minor arcana 'best fitting' the MBTI 16 - and the number cards of the minor mapping to the elements of the IC etc etc etc.

OF note is a LOT of these systems avoid getting into details re one's 'dark side' ;-)

Chris.

[heylise]

anyone should be able to apply my astrology reading to themselves . .
No. you will have differences at local levels . .

Once I guessed someone's birthday very close: "end of September" and it turned out to be Sept.27. She made me think of someone who was born on Sept.27, must be one of those local levels who happened to be identical?

LiSe

[heylise]

Thus Aries types do NOT have to be born in Aries (these days that is Pisces so something is being ignored for convenience!)

You are right, there are more Aries types, because other planets or cusps can have a stronger influence together than the sun sign. But 'something wrong' because of the precession is not right. Aries is the segment of the year from spring equinox until April 21, a part of the year of the sun, and not a constellation where the sun is at that moment. When astrology started, the stars, which the sun traversed in that time, were called Aries, because the people of that period had those qualities. It was not the other way around. Some constellations look like their name, for example Scorpio, but in old times Scorpio was called the Eagle, and the same constellation, which looks so much like a scorpion, can also look like an eagle . . Depends how you look at it.

LiSe

[arien]

Oh, the old argument that astrology doesnt work because constelations are out of there original place now... I think its a bit shortsighted. I know an astronomous that states it like he found some amazing evidence to descredit astrology. Obviously these people have not given astrology a try in the first place, or they would realise that is a false question

In any case, its not the specific constelation of aries that confers the qualities of aries, its that whole slice of space, that section in the sun's yearly travel. If in the old days people felt the need to name that portion of space, it would seem logical to take the symbols (constelations) that were there at the time, but its the whole angle up to the end of space that matters, not whatever stars happen to be passing by.

[candid]

I've found plenty of 'dark side' in the reading that was provided to me. As with any oracle, its a matter of honest introspection to understand what applies and what to do with that application. I imagine it as a roughed out form in clay, which makes up the core of that person's (me in this case) nature, and which is a composite of unchangeable traits and changeable potentials. I view the reading as sculpting tools.

There?s still much of what Chris talks about that resonates with me. There?s also much that leaves me in the cold. I understand that human traits apply to the whole species, and that it can expand one?s potential through emulation, practicing character features which further, and also that there are specific traits that apply specifically on a local level, some of which can not be changed.

[chrislofting]

What makes an Aries as compared to the other types is the METHOD used to categorise and THAT is rooted in recursion. I can put this into a compass format, or linear format or some other geometric format but the QUALITIES used in the descriptions are all sourced in our brains.

IOW for each sign in Astrology you will find, as you zoom-in for details, expressions of ALL of the other signs - within the parts is the whole.

The generic mapping of basic sign types is to the digrams of the IC:

double yin = earth
yang over yin = water
yin over yang = fire
double yang = air

I do not need to 'look out there' to create these sorts of category systems in that the METHOD alone determines all meaning and for our brains that method is recursion of 1:many type dichotomies.

Over thousands of years these simple processes take on an overload of labels, 'local' associations etc and so they act to hide the basic qualities of our method in deriving meaning.

Chris.

[arien]

I personally feel that focusing on human traits as a mean for change, is already falling under the primordial misconception that there is something to change, that we are not changed already, or ultimately perfect in this present state

If I may stress one more time, only because I find it so fulcral, the mere intention of changing anything prevents any significant change from happenning

intention does nothing more than distract us from our deepest wish, most profound vow, by aluring us to focus in the past, by identifying with our past actions and their results, blaming, complaining, or to focus in the future, antecipating, worrying, hoping for something more

how many times have we fought after something, only to see it constantly slipping through our fingers, and then when we reluctantly gave up, it almost out of magic just fell on our lap?

we dont need intention to change, if our deepest wish, our innocent intention is for the change

we cannot change on the surface, we need to change on the deepest level; our shallow thirst cannot be killed, but a drop of dew from the morning mist may be enough to satisfy our deepest thirst for good

...

I'm starting to live on a different level.. The kongming told me "stop saying that youre not there yet", and so I did. Im there already. Its not so different as I thought, Im doing pretty much the same things, good and bad, but deep down I feel the current has changed. I just dont care as much for some things I used to base my life upon and were not so good. Some other things are growing and taking all my concerns. I keep doing mistakes, why would I need to be following some vow if I didnt? I may get back to the darkeness eventually, it doesnt matter. I can always get back in. God doesnt care. Ask and it shall be given. Its so amazingly simple to just ask that we fail to understand its power. Wish I never forget what needs not be remembered. Wish you do too.

[candid]

Arien, thank for showing your thoughts and guts on the matter. I can agree with what you're saying, but only in as much as uninhibited nature is concerned. What of the will, as in 46?

[candid]

And then there's the matter of the light in a box. Sure, we can't change the light; its already perfect and in need of no alteration or intent. But its the box that is not perfect, or as it should be. Why not use the available tools to mold it to match the light as best is humanly possible?

[arien]

Let me see if I can address this (Im not pretending to be able to grasp it all already)

"What of the will, as in 46?"

what is the will?

one thing is to want something deep down in our guts, and then there is not much need for effort or purposeful action: your natural responses will be governed by your innermost will without such a deliberate effort

this is will, but it may be best described as profound desire, or deepest wish. What you wish from your bones, good or bad, inevitably comes true

Then there is another will, which is basically just forcing us to act in ways that we dislike. Sure, nothing can be achieved without effort, its one of the branches of the 8-fold path: correct effort, or the determination to correct one's faults and maintain wholesome mental states.

But when this will tries to contradict what our deepest wishes command, we have a conflict. Using this will in antagony to what we deeply desire is just a waste of time and energy. The conscious cannot rule the subconscious, which is the same of saying that if you want to practice your will you should act on the deepest level, molding your subconscious intention, instead of try to change the river course by operating on the shallowest level of the current. Something like trying to channel the river somewhere else using a bucket.

So this will you talk about, is nothing more than resistance against what we are, and it cannot have an effect on the deepest levels of our personallity, merely on the intellectual, shallow ones. This shouldnt be interpreted as a free-pass to do whatever we please, or not using our will to develop further. But it should be noted that this will is merely an instrument of our deepest will, and should be used in accordance to it.

Of course things arent exactly linear, but most important than having the will to do something, is being able to stop, calm down, and connect to our inner core, where our true desires may be heard. You dont need will to follow your innermost desires, they will come naturally if you just let them. But we must exert will to free ourselves from the distracting thoughts, the other will, the intellectual will, which most frequently just gets in the way due to our failure to understand how to operate it.

[arien]

"And then there's the matter of the light in a box. Sure, we can't change the light; its already perfect and in need of no alteration or intent. But its the box that is not perfect, or as it should be. Why not use the available tools to mold it to match the light as best is humanly possible?"

its all irrelevant

first of all you (we) are not the box, we are the light. You are just worrying about cosmetics and external appearance...

What they say we should do is just forget about the box entirely, and then we will realise we are the light, and the box will naturally reflect that

Trying to go the other way round is an illusion, we cannot act on the box level, because all action happens on the light level. We think it is the box that matters due to our primal misconception that there is a sepparation. The box is a reflection of the light, and there is no point in trying to change it, a box is a box, and what difference can it make what shape or colour or material it is made of?

Forget the box, it is just preventing us from seeing the light, and of course the purpose is the light, not in some million years, not when we are perfect beings already, but right here, right now
Its within our reach already!

[candid]

Arien, I won't pretend to know everything either, but it seems to me that what one desires in the gut ("deep down") IS the will. I don't believe the light has a will, other than to coordinate and bring about the will of the box. There's nothing for the light to realize, its already there. Self realization isn't anything but the box realizing the light. As such, it is the will which directs our life, for good or evil. No will - no direction, which is fine too if one desires nothing.

[arien]

Hey again, Candid,

"it seems to me that what one desires in the gut ("deep down") IS the will"

oh yes, we can name it anything we want provided we're agreeing on what we're talkin about. I was just trying to differentiate that will from the ususal volitional aspect of craving, which is also will but directed towards less comendable goals and only effective on the shallow levels of immediate action and reaction.

"I don't believe the light has a will, other than to coordinate and bring about the will of the box"

I think you got it wrong in thinking the box can have any effect at all over the light, other than obscuring it, or that there is a distinction between the box and the light (our ego's favorite trick, pretending it is us). In other words, only the light has a will than can actually be fulfilled. The box thinks it has a will but what it has are just wants and desires, which are pursued more or less vigorously in the realm of the box, limited by definition, and as such cannot ever bring complete fulfillment. We will never get what the box wills in a permanent fashion. The trick is to make the box will the same that the light wills. Then the box can have "its" will fulfilled.

"There's nothing for the light to realize, its already there."

yes, but there's a damn box covering it!

"Self realization isn't anything but the box realizing the light."

not quite. Stating it like that you are reinforcing the wrong idea that you are the box and not the light. Self realization is the light realizing there never was a box.

"As such, it is the will which directs our life, for good or evil. No will - no direction,"

words can be misleading, I may be confusing more than clarifying with my particular concept of will. The will that is actually capable of willing is not the intellectual will, or "thinking about it" will. Its the intuitive will thats hardwired into our being and that governs our ultimate actions whether we're aware of it or not.
So the true direction is already there, we were born with it, and the deepest will is also there, in accordance with this direction. Theyre inseparable.
But we loose way too much time trying to act from the conceptual plane, like that profound will could be shaped by thoughts and intentions. It cant be changed like that: all you can do is listen to it, realise what it whispers in your heart (and even for that we need to stop thinking so much)

"which is fine too if one desires nothing."

well, that was my reluctancy against it as well. But once again our thoughts misguide us. What we call desires may be no more than selfish indulgence, craving, egotism. We all know which desires we should express and which are wrong for us or others (and obviously each person has her guidelines, her inner voice to say which are which, there isnt one absolute code of correcteness that applies to all).
So if you are saying that selfish desires should not be desired, and that requires an act of (volitional) will to stop them, then ok, I agree. We're better off without those desires anyway, we all know that, even if we try to trick us into believing otherwise.

But once we are able to connect to that profound will of ours, then our true desires can be heard, and then (only) can they also be fulfilled. Not the petty desires we think will bring satisfaction but always fade away with disappointing quickness, but our true life's desires, the ones that may be harder to achieve but that give everlasting satisfaction (after all, they are OUR supreme achievments in this life)

Whatever are our deepest desires, can (and will) be manifest, even those that would be volitional desires or inappropriate desires to someone else. To each his own, because for ME (you) all that matters is MY (your) true desire

Did I make myself clear? (Im starting to confuse myself here http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif)

[candid]

What desires never fade away? Desire or will is our construct, which is our box. What the box believes or desires, the light works to manifest. Its not as though the light is good and the box is bad. Good and bad are also constructs, which ultimately manifests from the will of the box. The light merely provides what the box desires, for the good or ill according to the will.

What we have here are simply and honestly two different views on how things work.

[arien]

indeed http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif