images-1Incarnation is a lifetime process during which my soul travels downwards through the chakras from the Sun to Saturn and back up again:

  • Down: Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
  • Up: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Sun.

I engage (or not) with this process with every thought, decision, and action that I take.

Whilst it is a given that I will arrive at Saturn ( first Saturn return = aged 29.5 years), it is less certain how far I’ll go on my return journey. Indeed, the round-trip may take several lifetimes; there’s little doubt that I’ll get stuck along the way.

The Saturn Chakra represents the material world. Here I’m tested as to whether I can manage life at its most basic level. Those stuck here have not yet managed to make enough of a living by which to get by.

To consolidate Saturn, I look to Jupiter –  a chosen career and/or life path. Jupiter is the place of  philosophy, the guru and/or the guide. Jupiter is also place of the lawyer – i.e. one who masters the laws of Saturn; many lawyers (like me) get stuck in the Jupiter chakra, so pleased are we with such mastery.

To consolidate Jupiter, I determine what brings meaning to my life and then master the skills by which to achieve it. Sadly, book learning is never enough. Instead I must resist thinking too much and instead get in touch with my feelings. Never fear, however, because by the time I’m working on Jupiter I’ll have a few Jupiter returns (i.e. 12-year cycle) under my belt.

For help with Jupiter, I look to Mars – the planet of engagement and commitment. Now I must tie the knot; devote myself to my chosen life path and /or settle down to (a happy) marriage. Sounds easy – but in reality it’s a huge jump from intellectual Jupiter to the intuitive nature of Mars. Worse, even though I’ve committed to both my life path and spouse, I must relate to both with a clear, open mind –a complete acceptance of my chosen situation. I assure you that this is difficult. For help, I look to the next chakra, Earth.53e

The purpose of incarnation is what is known in esoteric circles, as to ‘gain the earth’ – i.e. to master the external world; the buck stops here, so to speak. This is not accomplished with arrogance and egoism  but instead with confidence and contentment. The Earth chakra = the heart of spiritual meaning and balance = the best that I can hope to achieve during incarnation. I assure you that I have not achieved this – I may have glimpsed it through spiritual teachers, but I have not managed grasp it for myself. Luckily I’m in good company. Most of us will remain stuck in either Saturn, Jupiter, or Mars.

To achieve/stabilise the Earth, I would look to Venus, which is the first of the ‘inner’ chakras. There is no way to materially grasp what Venus represents – it is an inner reality –  nothing less than being able to love everything and everybody, regardless. From what I’ve read, (Astrology of the HeartAstro-Shamanism by Michael Erlewine), I can aspire to Venus through Mercury, i.e. cosmic consciousness.

The Sun, centre of all, is more than a planet or chakra. It is the source of all creation – as it says in the Prologue to the Gospel of John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

 

Executive Summary

Ptolemy identified six levels of fame/success depending on the location and condition of Sun and Moon and their ‘attendants. Unfortunately, although both Donald Trump’s ‘luminaries’ are in masculine signs, neither they nor their ‘attendants’ are particUnknownularly strong. Indeed, the strongest, Mars, is in own terms and hence promotes only violence. Jupiter does what it can mainly by helping Trump achieve a high social profile because of women. Overall this leaves Donald Trump as the level of ‘undistinguished’ and although he may be rich, he will never attain a real leadership role such as president.

imagesPtolemy’s Basics

Ptolemy identified six levels of fame/success:

1.Kings and Prince

Both luminaries in masculine signs and at least one of them to be found in an angle. This alone is pretty good. However – as well, they (both) be attended by a doryphory (including rays) composed of all five planets – then this is REAL GOOD. In addition, this rank is helped if the planets in the doryphories are also in the angles or configured with the MC.

2.Chieftain

The Sun only masculine with the Moon feminine and only one of them in an angle. If both, however, have good doryphories as described above, then the person will reach chieftain level, with the power to judge life and death. NOTE – a good doryphory has benefics in good shape or on angles (or ruling them).

3.Governor or Commander

If the natal chart has the luminaries as for a Chieftain but the doryphories do not involve the angles, these people will not be invested with sovereignty, but will reach eminence.

4.Civil Leader

If neither of the luminaries be in the angles, but both have good doryphories which are in the angles or ruling the angles, they will have a leadership role in their community. Councilor, President of a club, Mayor of a small town and so on.

5.Undistinguished

If neither luminary is in an angle (Sun still masculine and Moon feminine), and the attending planets are not involved with the angles by placement or ruler-ship, then the person will lead a humble life.

6.Lowest Level

If neither luminary be found in a masculine sign, nor in an angle, nor attended by any benefics they will live lives of “quiet desperation” and obscurity.

Analysis of Trumpdonald trump

How does Donald Trump stack up?

  • With Sun at 22 Gemini 56 and the Moon at 21 Sagittarius 12, both luminaries are in masculine signs. Yet neither is on an angle and neither is in rulership or exalted. The Sun is dignified by face but not by term and the Moon benefits from neither. With Leo rising, the Sun is the chart ruler. Good but could be better.
  • Doryphory is an interesting technique focusing on the ‘retinue’ of helpers either of the two lights or luminaries (i.e. sun or moon) have in their ‘train’. The more planets in the retinue, the more helpers and if, additionally, those helpers are themselves strong the more help they can give. Imagine yourself a feudal lord trying to raise an army to fight a foe – the stronger and richer the neighbors (i.e. able to raise their own armies) you have supporting your cause, the more likely you are to succeed.
  • Note that when considering if a planet throws a ‘ray’ into the doryphory, benefics (Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, and the Sun) can only do so by sextile or trine and the malefics (Saturn and Mars) can only do so by opposition or square.
  • Because the Sun’s retinue PRECEDES him, to determine Trump’s solar doryphory, we look at planets either in Gemini (23-30) and Cancer:
    • Mercury in Cancer – neither dignified nor exalted and succedent (not angular)
    • Saturn in Cancer – in detriment (damaged) and succedent (not angular)
    • Venus in Cancer – neither dignified nor exalted and succedent (not angular)
  • Because the Moon’s doryphory FOLLOWS her, to determine Trump’s lunar doryphory, we look at planets either in Sagittarius (1-20) and Scorpio.
    • Mars in Leo casts a ray into Scorpio by square – Mars not only is angular but is dignified by face and term. But Mars is a malefic and so instead of helping the Moon, it is likely to give trouble. Mars here is out of sect (the Sun is above the horizon and Mars is a nocturnal planet) and hence causes damage to the father and the father’s line. Mars in the terms of Mars suggests that Trump will be exalted and glorified in the way of the ‘sword’ – aggressive at times violent – he will have enemies and will die violently.
    • Jupiter in Libra casts a ray into Sagittarius by sextile – Although not angular, Jupiter is dignified by triplicity and term and because it is a benefic can help the Moon. Jupiter is also in reception to the Moon (the Moon is in Sagittarius, a sign ruled by Jupiter) and so happily gives all that it can in service to the Moon. Trump’s Jupiter in Libra (succedent in the 2nd house) is in sect (the Sun is above the horizon and Jupiter is a diurnal planet) and in fairly good shape – and hence should be expected to bring riches and happiness linked with glory. It will also help Trump receive benefits from woman and he may even have a high social profile because of women.
  • A solar doryphory of three planets isn’t really bad but neither of the two benefics (Mercury/Venus) is dignified in any way and the malefic (Saturn) although in sect, is badly damaged. Overall, this doesn’t give the Sun much in the way of strong helpers.
  • A lunar doryphory of just two planets is not so good but at least they have some dignity albeit neither are angular. Jupiter in Libra gives all that it can to the Moon which comes as the result of benefits received from women. Mars only creates trouble.

Conclusion

Overall, this probably leaves Trump as ‘undistinguished’. Although both luminaries are in masculine signs, neither is involved in the angles. Although the Moon has a small doryphory, at least Jupiter has something worthwhile to give. But Mars, the stronger of the two because it is on an angle, is not only a malefic by nature but also in its own terms and hence only promotes violence. Even if we were to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and bump him up one to Civil Leader, this is not the stuff of which leaders of any nation are made. Hence we cannot expect him to ever become president.

imagesRose is a rose is a rose is a rose’.

This sentence was written by Gertrude Stein as part of her 1913 poem, Sacred Emily and, when queried as to what it meant, Stein replied that although once a poet could use the name of a thing and the thing really was there, now poets call on these same words only to find they are nothing but worn-out literary phrases. Stein was keen to point out that although she was quite aware that in daily life no one goes about saying ‘…is a…is a….is a’, nonetheless it was her opinion that with this sentence, the rose was red for the first time in English poetry for a hundred years.

What is an author?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary an author is both (1) a ‘writer of a book or other work’ (OED I 1 a) and (2) a ‘creator’ in the sense of giving rise to something (OED II 4 d). Neither definition suggests that an ‘author’ is one who gives meaning however much some might cherish that thought. Stein appears to be suggesting that the meaning of her most famous sentence speaks for itself – not because of anything that she as its author has done – but rather because at the end of the day, a rose really is a rose. As Jennifer Ashton (582) notes, for Stein poetry is ‘a vocabulary entirely based on the noun’; because it is the job of a noun to name something, it should not be a leap of faith to presume that when a noun is invoked it is intended to mean that for which it is its job to name.

Naturally it is not that simple and Stein went on to question the relationship between author, text, and meaning. At least two other thinkers, Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, have also weighed in on the subject. Whilst many commentators focus on Barthes and Foucault, I suggest that it is Stein who offers the more comprehensive and enduring elucidation with her ideas concerning the operation of Zeitgeist (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). Not only that but, according to Curnett (4), the poetry and fiction written by Stein is perfect for examining issues of authorial intent because her work is so complex that it defies decoding in ordinary ways. By relinquishing any attempt to exercise ‘authority’ over her words, Stein did what no other author has had the courage to do (Curnutt, 5-6).

After TS Eliot dismissed ‘the importance of authorial intent’ in the 1950’s, the question of ‘what is an author’ has come under increasing scrutiny in the sense of ‘authorial intent’ as an interpretive heuristic (Curnett, 5). The question heats up when, with his 1967 essay, Death of the Author, Roland Barthes eliminates not only (1) ‘authorial intent’ but also (2) the ‘Author’.[1]

Barthes argued that inherent within any text is a multitude of ‘indiscernible’ voices and that the ‘Author’ is nothing more than a shaman or bard who, as in days of old, channels these voices whilst taking no authority or ownership over them. Hence Barthes suggested that rather than allowing authority and ownership to reside with the Author, we instead must transfer them to the reader. The apparent reason that someone must be assigned authority and ownership over words and their meaning is that in the capitalistic ideology underlying much of Western society, ownership equals power (Butler, 25-26).

This idea of words as power is taken up by Michel Foucault when he suggests that knowledge and power are joined by discourse – a set of interlocking and mutually supporting statements, ideas, and concepts (Butler, 45). According to Foucault, we are created through discourse, or the sum of the knowledge we accumulate. Worse, discourse is used to exclude and control – to obtain and retain power (Butler, 45). Society’s power holders – scientists, politicians, the media, and even our parents – decide what we’re told and thus ‘communicate’ us into being. Is it thus any wonder that in his 1969 essay, What is an Author?, Foucault’s opening parry is ‘what difference does it make who is speaking’? Likewise, is it any wonder that Foucault suggests that authors have no God-given message for which readers should be waiting and that it is imperative to realise that an ‘author’ is simply a function (albeit with a culturally accepted pedigree) by which someone – or something – wields enormous (and dangerous) political power?

According to Bennett & Royle (23), these essays by Barthes and Foucault must be considered in their cultural and historical context – as ‘providing a simplified but forceful articulation of a variety of intellectual positions that merged in the 1960’s, in France and elsewhere’. Is it any wonder that these two essays are held to have spelt the ‘death’ of the ‘author’ (with or without the corresponding ‘birth’ of the ‘reader’) given that the most pressing postmodern ethical argument concerns the relationship between discourse and power (Butler, 44)? If knowledge and power are, indeed, joined by discourse then in the spirit of the postmodern is it not better to locate that knowledge and power where it is most effectively controlled – i.e. in readers? Is it not better to take back our Cartesian ‘selves’ as the giver of ‘meaning’ – the pride of the Enlightenment – rather than allowing our ‘selves’ to be controlled by ‘meaning’ (Butler, 50)?

For Barthes and Foucault, texts constructed by a reader have the political advantage of doing away with a dangerous author viewed as, he or she necessarily must be, the bourgeois, capitalist, owner and marketer of his or her ‘meaning’ (Butler, 23). Indeed some have suggested that in keeping with the postmodern thought emerging at this time, the pursuit of textual uncertainties (including the work of Barthes and Foucault) was reactionary against a ‘manufactured consensus of the established political order’ (Butler, 24).

Whilst I am not suggesting that the work of Barthes and Foucault has not been valuable in expanding our understanding of the relationship between author, text, and meaning, I am suggesting that their work was at least as much politically motivated as it was academically motivated and should be viewed as such. Bennet and Royle (23) have suggested that Barthes’ essay was not as ‘systematic’ and ‘rigorous’ as it might have been and despite having admitted it would be unrealistic to assume that ‘the fictive would operate in an absolutely free state’, Foucault was unwilling to entertain parameters by which it might operate other than in regards to power relations (Walker, 552). I believe it telling that however much Barthes and Foucault railed about the connection between ownership and the ‘meaning’ of a given text, they were both unwilling to abandon the notion that – somehow – somewhere – meaning and ownership exists.

Like Foucault and Barthes, in her 1929 essay, Composition as Explanation, Gertrude Stein suggests it is wrong to focus on a finished work and extrapolate about its author (or vice versa). But unlike Foucault and Barthes, Stein does not feel the need to do away with the author (or convert him or her into a theoretical function). Instead she simply states that which I suggest is not only logical but fairly obvious – an author is not the same thing that he or she has ‘made’ (24). Stein goes further by positing that (1) nothing is ever really ‘made’ but instead only ‘seen and that (2) this ‘seeing’ (i.e. the making of meaning) is never accomplished by individuals but by successive generations based on ‘how everybody is doing everything’.

Bassoff (77) links Stein’s argument to the findings of anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss in that there does appear to exist a formal relationship between societal structures and their art and that such relationship lies at the base of their ‘social reality’. As Stein (24) notes in her essay, every period differs from any other period ‘not in the way life is but in the way life is conducted’ (emphasis added). Bassoff (77) suggests that by this, Stein means that each society will see various things (including texts) as a ‘rework’ of their own conditions. Bassoff (78) likens Stein’s argument to that made by Jacques Derrida suggesting that the meaning of a text is constantly being produced or developed in the sense that there is always ‘something to be added afterwards.”

Whether this ‘reworking’ constitutes ‘Zeitgeist’ – the ‘spirit or genius that marks the thought or feeling of a period or age’ (OED, n), I am in no position to suggest. What I will suggest, however, is in her essay, Stein posits that it is neither the ‘author’, in the OED sense as writer or creator, nor the reader (or any group of readers) that gives meaning to text. Instead, meaning is and will continue to be given by whatever it is that lies at the base of that generational ‘reworking’. I further suggest that this view is more (1) comprehensive (in the – OED adj, 1a – sense of larger in scope) and (2) enduring (in the OED adj – sense of lasting) than that of either Foucault or Barthes.

As Bennet and Royle (23) point out, rather than solving the problem of interpretative authority, Barthes has simply transferred it to the reader whilst for all intents and purposes, Foucault has transferred it to a theoretically constructed function (Walker, 551). Stein has done neither. Her argument allows for ‘real life’ readers and authors to continue as they always have been presumed to been operating in regards to text and meaning whilst also acknowledging that (1) such meaning is made and (2) will change over time. As Bennet and Royle (23) point out, the essays of Barthes and Foucault must be ‘seen’ in ‘cultural context’. By contrast, Stein’s essay ‘is’ cultural context. As Stein (27) herself writes, ‘As I have said in the beginning, there is the long history of how everyone ever acted or has felt and that nothing inside in them in them in all of them makes it connectedly different. By this I mean all this.’

‘Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose’.

In replying to the query of what this sentence meant, Stein referred to ‘all those songs that sopranos sing as encores’ about ‘I have a garden! Oh, what a garden!’ Although she did not put too much emphasis on that line, she did point out that ‘you all know it; you make fun of it, but you know it.’ Equally although successive generations of readers have been familiar with both Stein and her work, it is precisely because they have failed to understand it and thus laughed at it (and her), that she has been made famous (Curnutt, 4).

What is an author?

images-1In summary, although the ideas of Barthes and Foucault are useful in understanding the relationship between author, text, and meaning, Stein’s ideas about Zeitgeist as ultimate determinant of meaning are more (1) comprehensive in the sense that she was not compelled to spell the ‘death’ and/or ‘birth’ of anything or anybody but instead has looked beyond such theoretical particularities to realistic generalities and (2) enduring because unlike the work of Barthes and Foucault, Stein’s ideas are not wedded to the political ideology of any particular period but are consistent with the fundamental anthropological understanding about human society, amen. Finally, let us not also not forget that whilst Barthes and Foucault were both unwilling to abandon the notion that – somehow – somewhere – meaning and ownership exists, Stein practiced what she preached by relinquishing any attempt to exercise ‘authority’ over her words.

[1] Barthes’ use of a capital ‘A’ is often taken to mean that with his death sentence he was referring not to an individual author but to the concept of author and the functions associated with authorship.

___________________________

Bibliography

Barthes, Roland. The Death of the Author (pp. 142-148). Image-Music-Text. ed. and trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1978.

Foucault, Michel. What is an Author? (pp. 205-222). Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology. ed. by James D Faubion, trans. Robert Hurley and Others. New York: The New Press, 1998.

Stein, Gertrude. Composition As Explanation (pp. 21-30). Gertrude Stein: Look at Me Now and Here I Am – Writings and Lectures 1909-45. ed. by Patricia Meyerowitz. Hammonsworth: Penquin Books, 1967.

Ashton, Jennifer. ‘Rose is a Rose’: Gertrude Stein and the Critique of Indeterminacy. Modernism/Modernity, Vol 9, No. 4, pp. 581-604.

Bassoff, Bruce. Gertrude Stein’s “Composition as Explanation”. Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 24, No. 1, Spring 1978, pp. 76-80.

Bennet, Andrew and Nicholas Royle. The Author (pp. 19-34). Literature. Criticism and Theory. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 4th Edition (2009).

Butler, Christopher. Postmodernism – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Curnutt, Kirk. Parody and Pedagogy: Teaching Style, Voice, and Authorial Intent in the Works of Gertrude Stein. College Literature, Vol 23, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 1-24.

Walker, Cheryl. Feminist Literary Criticism and the Author. Critical Inquiry, Vol 16, No. 3, Spring 1990, pp. 551-571.

The TowerWith the Sun in Virgo (perfection) and the Moon in Leo (aspiration), today is a ‘Tower of Destruction” day.

Throughout history, there have been plenty of examples where hubris (i.e. excessive self-confidence, OED, n) has been the cause of a disastrous fall. Check out The Icarus Syndrome by Peter Beinart for insight.

Yet if in today’s world we’re pushed to ‘be all that we can be’ (and more) then where ought we draw the line between well-deserved success and hubris?

Meditations on the Tarot (A Journey into Christian Hermeticisim) provides a thoughtful answer:

Every Christian has been taught that man was ejected from the Garden of Eden for desiring more ‘knowledge’ than God wished to reveal.

Yet why was it so important to have such knowledge?Meditations on the Tarot

Origen (circa AD 185) suggests this is hard-wired in our souls – i.e. we are built to push the boundaries of nature with the purpose of breaching them – i.e. for example through scientific research.

According to the Hermetic tradition, this is dangerous for if God wished us to have such knowledge, He would have revealed it.

Does it mean that we should never strive for more than we’ve been given?

Of course not. The StarAccording to Hermetic wisdom, it is absolutely necessary for us to work and grow – to think and await the ripening of our thoughts – to cultivate and maintain ourselves as we would care for our garden – wherein we realise all will grow and be harvested in its own time.

So why do we push ourselves more than we push our gardens?

Hermetic wisdom suggests that (through ignorance), we identify ‘self’ with ‘ego’ – ‘I’ must have this or that because ‘I” want it (not because I need it or because it is good for me but because I WANT) – and such behaviour is further fueled by advertisements suggesting you should want whatever is for sale for no other reason than because ‘You’re worth it’.

Danger – danger – danger !!!!

What will you be ‘worth’ after your personal fall?

If on a ‘Tower of Destruction’ day, you’re tempted to push beyond your boundaries- beyond the bounds of your own nature  – and like Icarus, fly too close to the sun, resist and be heartened.

In the tarot, the card following ‘The Tower of Destruction’ is that of The Star’ – a kneeling woman with two urns being poured in equal measure so as to achieve balance and equilibrium.

Alchmey‘So as above then as below’ is a basic tenet of all occult work.

That inherently there is both good and bad in all things created is a tenet underlying the work of alchemists and Jungian psychologists alike.

Put these two tenets together, and you get an incredibly elegant step-by-step formula on how to create ‘gold’ from your unperfected self.

The heroine, Judith Shakespeare, of my new novel, Love’s Alchemy, has long been interested in both psychology and alchemy. Whilst still a teenager, she’d concluded that it was possible to change, perfect, and redeem  Picture 1herself by marrying psychology with alchemy through astrology.

Jung (himself a competent astrologer) believed that the ‘great work’ or magnum opus of alchemists was akin to the process he coined as individuation – whereby one deliberately works against the natural order of things to create the ‘Self’, an internal structure that will provide a ‘feeling of standing on solid ground, on a patch of inner eternity which even physical death cannot touch.’

The alchemists start with the elusive ‘first matter’, or Prima Materia in Latin. This is the most confusing concept in alchemy and even alchemists find it difficult to define it. Luckily, however, in regards to astrology determining the Prima Materia is easy; it’s your birth chart ! Like alchemists with their Prima Materia, your goal is to take each piece of your natal chart apart such that it can be purified, transformed, and reunited again into a perfect whole.

The first part of the process commences with the ‘Black Phase’ or Nigredo and the first stage of Nigredo is known as calcinatio.

Calcinatio is a fiery, burning process governed by Aries/Mars during which the dross is burned off to purify rather like the process during which diamonds are formed.

Psychologically, this is accomplished by frustrating your natural desires and passions (i.e. deliberating frustrating your EGO) so that you no longer are able to get your own way). It was never going to be easy to recognise (much less eliminate) your childish beliefs that everything wrong in your life is the fault of someone else.

As you become increasingly unable to blame others (i.e. project your own frustrations outside yourself) and are forced to look inside for the answers, you are literally stewed in your own ‘juices’ – frustrated and trapped – until the fire that lit your anger burns itself out.

alchemy lab 7Hence this stage in the alchemical process is often depicted as wolves with their paws cut off (instincts frustrated), serpents devouring themselves, lions eating suns, or the King being boiled alive

Needless to say this is a dark time of life and is often characterized by feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and depression – as you finally give up your egoistic struggle and slow down long enough to take that all important look inside.

Judith addresses The Black Phase or Nigredo in the first few chapters of Love’s Alchemy when because her Mars is so strong (with Scorpio rising, Mars is her chart ruler which is then also found in the zodiac sign of Scorpio which it rules by sign and triplicity), she finds herself more trouble than she’s ever known.

Like I said, this never was going to be easy.

180px-Viennese_zodiacThe Part of Daemon (or Pars Daemon) is your personal pathway to the enlightenment. It is what you need to do to fulfil your life purpose.

In your natal chart, your Part of Daemon represents how you project matter into spirit – i.e. using material resources to facilitate your spiritual goals. The more you’re pushed in the material world, the more likely you are to turn to your Part of Daemon for in essence, it encompasses your entire life philosophy.

Not surprisingly, your Part of Daemon also represents how you envisage the Divine.

Hence the Part of Daemon is the reverse formula (not simply the reverse location) of your Part of Fortune which, as discussed in an earlier post. [1]

Water – This Part of Daemon will value emotional contact and emotional bonds. The Divine is present in everyday life, in personal contact, and is emotionally involved. In Cancer, it is going to be more protective and nurturing; in Scorpio, possessive and intense – an Old Testament God – testing and zapping – very demanding and fearing betrayal; and in Pisces more devotional and mystical God is everywhere and all-knowing -devotion breeds God’s love – God is all-consuming.Jim Jones

For example, the Part of Daemon for Jim Jones, an Evangelist cult leader who led over five hundred members of his cult to suicide rather that allow the American authorities to investigate them, had his Part of Daemon at 24 Scorpio. His take on the Divine was a God who was emotionally involved with all his people and rather than allow anyone else to ‘take his people, he sent them directly to God.

Air – This Part of Daemon will value knowledge and intellect. The Divine is thinking, intelligent, has a plan; one finds their Divine through learning. Aquarius is going to endeavor to claim this knowledge; Gemini is going to endeavor to transmit or collect the knowledge; and Libra will want to disseminate the knowledge (fairly) to everyone.

Billy GrahamFor example, Billy Graham, the charismatic American Evangelist preacher who launched Revivalist campaigns across the US and UK, had his Part of Daemon at 20 Aquarius. He was convinced that people could hear the ‘word of God’ channeled through him.

Fire – This Part of Daemon in this element will value action. God helps those who help themselves! The Divine is forceful, active, instigating and enthusiastic. The Divine inspires and seeks freedom of action. In Aries this will be manifest in direct and independent action – the Divine is found in martial arts or sport. In Leo, the individual can “shine” regal and proud – their version of the Divine being warm, loving, and masculine. In Sagittarius it will be focused more on inspiring themselves and others. Here the Divine is expansive and wants us to learn and philosophize – to live life to our maximum potential.

Joan of ArcFor example, Joan of Arc, the young French girl who was divinely inspired to fight against the English while at the same time serving as a inspiration to her fellow citizens and troops, had her Part of Daemon at 21 Aries. She is remembered as a saint in armor who fought the enemy in the name of God.

Earth– This Part of Daemon is going to value security and practicality. Take care of yourself and all else follows. The Divine is physically responsible for one’s physical and material well being and will ensure the well-being of all. Taurus will be concerned with the money side (money makes the world go ’round); Capricorn will connect with an institution, such as the Church; and Virgo will focus on service.

For example, Florence Nightingale who devoted her life to helping the sick, had her Part of Daemon at 20 Virgo. She followed this path after receiving what she believed to be a message from God.Florence Nightingale

[1]

 

The Part of Daemon is the reverse of the Part of Fortune:

  • Part of Daemon. Asc +Sun – Moon – for diurnal
  • Part of Daemon. Asc +Moon – Sun – for nocturnal

These formulae should be interpreted as in this way: compute the longitudes of the Ascendant, Moon and Sun as measured from 0 degrees of Aries. This is done according to the table below.

Aries Add 0 . Libra Add 180
Taurus Add 30 . Scorpio Add 210
Gemini Add 60 . Sagittarius Add 240
Cancer Add 90 . Capricorn Add 270
Leo Add 120 . Aquarius Add 300
Virgo Add 150 . Pisces Add 330

 

Let’s say someone has an Ascendant of 17 Cancer, a Moon of 13 Gemini, and a Sun at 4 Libra. An Ascendant of 17 Cancer means a Descendant of 17 Capricorn Since the Sun is between the Ascendant and the Descendant, this is a night birth so we use the night birth formula.

Ascendant 17 Cancer + 90 = 107
Sun 4 Libra + 180 = 184 Moon 13 Gemini + 60 = 73

Daemon = 107- 184 + 73 = – 4. 
This means the Part of Daemon is 4 degrees ahead of 0 Aries or 26 Pisces.

If the Sun were at 10 Cancer with an Ascendant of 19 Sagittarius and the Moon at 25 Aquarius, the chart would be a day birth so we would use the Day formula.

Ascendant 19+ 240= 259
Moon 25 Aquarius + 300 = 325
Sun 10 Cancer + 90 = 100

Daemon = 259 + 100 – 325 = 31. This gives us a Part of Daemon of 4 Taurus.

 

imagesMyths are a very special kind of story.

Expressing recurring archetypal themes, they speak straight to the heart about shared human experience.

Myths associated with your natal sun sign offer significant insight into the archetypal themes playing prominently in your life. They allow you not only to get a handle on your personal dilemmas, but also provide a chance to find new meaning in your daily struggles.

This one’s for Sagittarius. Happy birthday to you.

Chiron was the wise king of the centaurs, an ancient breed of wizards and healers; half-man and half-horse. Accidentally wounded in the leg with a poisoned arrow (dipped in the blood of the many-headed Hydra), Chiron tried desperately to heal himself.

Although his inspired efforts spurred brilliant advances in science and medicine, he was unsuccessful in his primary task.

Because he was half mortal, Chiron suffered unbearable agony.

Because he was half immortal, Chiron was unable to die.

Finally, Chiron exchanged his life for that of Prometheus who, in punishment for stealing fire to benefit mankind, had been left chained on the mountainside by the angry gods. For his sacrifice, Chiron was honoured with a place in the constellation Sagittarius.

Sagittarius is the archetype of the philosopher who through expansion of his physical, intellectual, and geographical boundaries seeks something greater than himself. Even, if like Chiron, Sagittarius never quite reaches his goal, he brings to his fellow men and women, the precious gift of hope.