Our new friend Ukraine

Last week I was coaching someone from Prague and at the end of the session we were discussing the situation in Ukraine and how to deal with Putin. He felt that it was naïve to suppose that Putin would stop at the Crimea and that we needed to be strong in Europe to deal with him. He was influenced by the experience of being under Russian domination for many years. This week I was running a programme with someone from Russia who explained that the number of people who were in favour of Putin in Russia was very high and that she was in a very small minority of people who did not like what Putin was doing. She pointed out that her parents like the way that Putin is operating like a new Tzar and creating a more old style powerful “mother” Russia.

It does all sound very worrying and my friend in Prague was worried. From his perspective, the possibility of war and the danger of Russia and Putin were not to be underestimated. However, he did get me thinking about the issue more deeply. He felt I was in danger of taking a naïve western European view.

So how did we get here and how does the West (are we still the West if it includes a lot of Eastern Europe now?) respond? My friend in Prague felt we needed to show our strength and stand up to Putin. Yet, as we discussed it, it occurred to me that we in Europe had much more responsibility for the situation than perhaps we were conscious of. If I had a close and old friend who lived next door to me and someone else came along to my friend and said “I am a much better friend than Nick, why don’t you come and be part of my gang? Everyone is deserting Nick and we are a much better bet than him – look at all the friends from Nick’s circle who are now part of our gang”, I think it is likely that I might not respond terribly well. Do this to a country that feels that it is losing all its former power and influence in the world and sees all its former allies deserting it and it would be wise not to expect a positive response, particularly if you have a leader who feels so vulnerable and fearful of being seen as weak that he has to compensate by trying to prove to everyone how strong and powerful he is.

Thinking back, it was obvious that our thoughtless and emotionally unintelligent response in the EU would produce this result. So how could we have dealt with it more wisely? Dealing with it more wisely would have involved caring just as much about Russia as Ukraine and talking to both of them and reassuring them that they were both important to us and that we didn’t want to do anything to damage their relationship (and of course acting on that).

All well and good to learn from our mistakes but what now? Now, we could take responsibility for our mistakes and the role we played so that Russia and Putin recognise that we are genuinely sorry for hurting them and making them feel insecure. I know that my Prague client might see this as weakness and point out that Putin would take advantage of this ridiculous naïveté and that he would see us as weak but this goes to the heart of what real weakness is.

It is clear at the moment that from my clients, my own experience and from the Putin example that we are learning how to deal with conflict, competition and revolutionary change (Mars-Uranus-Pluto-Jupiter grand cross) with compassion and understanding (Neptune-Chiron trine Jupiter) or at least, that is the opportunity.

In the client I was seeing today this is playing out very forcibly. My client is a large law firm and in one of their offices the performance has been particularly bad this year. The particular individual I am coaching is Moon-Uranus conjunct in Scorpio and also Sun-Venus-Mars conjunct in Scorpio with Saturn transiting it. This client instinctively (Moon) tends to fight people in authority (Uranus). The leader of the office has the Sun in Cancer and he is feeling very much under pressure but does not like conflict. My client arranged a meeting for many of the partners to address how to deal with the issue (mostly the partners were younger partners). My client’s approach involved a degree of self-abnegation for the collective good and so people listened. With two others, this client then went to see the managing partner. Unsurprisingly he did not respond well; here were the young bucks arriving to overthrow the old stag. When a meeting of all the partners next happened my client took the opportunity to attack the managing partner more aggressively, feeling, probably quite rightly, that he was in denial about the situation. In this equation he was clinging on to power and felt uncomfortable inviting in the new generation. The result of my client’s aggression was that they lost any support they had previously had, so they then went and apologised to the managing partner and at this point he began to listen. Navigating the current calls for change and revolution globally, locally and individually is going to be difficult. It requires a lot of sensitivity and emotional intelligence. If we are to play these current energies out instinctively or unconsciously then there is likely to be a heavy price. Yet it is worth recognising that this has been the same game we have been playing out and learning since the early days of the Pluto-Uranus square and the situation with Gaddaffi in Libya.

At a personal level, this is playing out for me in my relationship with my friend Steve. We have worked together for some twenty or so years and have a deep friendship and often run training programmes together. The main issues that play out for us are in terms of competition and Steve often feels frustrated that I overshadow him and am more confident in group situations (Steve has sun in Aries in the 7th and I have the Sun rising in Sagittarius). This has been re-inforced by the fact that until just recently, he would always be working together with me on my clients. Now, the tables have turned and Steve has asked me to work with him on a leadership programme for one of his clients. We talked about it and recognised it might be asking a lot of our personalities to navigate it successfully. Steve wanted me to shine because he was keen for the programme to go well but he did not want me to shine too brightly because he did not want it to lead to me taking over. Since I have a personality that likes to shine then this was going to be difficult for me. The programme went very well but there was some tension between us. I felt hamstrung because Steve had had all the conversations with participants beforehand and all the discussions with the organisation about the design. My Sun rising in Sagittarius was distinctly uncomfortable and feelings of resentment and jealousy bubbled up on a few occassions. When we discussed it, Steve, with typical Aries honesty admitted that he had kept the pre-programme conversations with individuals to himself to give him more opportunities to coach and that he had done the same with the design conversations since he felt otherwise I might overshadow him.   He has nobly worked since to re-allocate these. I realised it was good practice for me to see how Steve might feel at times dealing with someone who is Sun rising in Sagittarius. What we then spoke about was the fact that it was important in working together that we were both sensitive to each others personalities and need to shine and express themselves and that it was also ok for us to conclude that operating as two suns in one solar system won’t work and to go our own ways open heartedly. This felt a valuable conclusion – we worked together for 3 days this week on one of my clients and it went very well and on Monday and Tuesday we work together on Steve’s client . The grand cross is hitting off Steve’s chart strongly and transiting Chiron is aspecting my chart strongly so we will see how we get on. Yet, the point for me is, can we play at a level of friendship beyond the promptings of the current astrological energies? If we do not know these energies it is unlikely since we will be blind to their effect. At the same time, it is only through consulting the I-Ching (and my training with Chrissy) that I have been able to gain sufficient perspective not to get caught and played by these energies or at least to play them more wisely. Once again, I have been struck how discussing and dealing with these uncomfortable conflicts has deepened my friendship with Steve rather than damaging it.

So now, in my normal style I want to go on to a related (I hope!) tangent. As part of the programme Steve and I were running this week we were discussing the real internal dialogue that is going on in our heads and the real emotions that influence our actions. The participants were struck by how much their internal dialogue and actions are dominated by defensive fears, needs, anxieties, neuroses. In particular we were discussing the Transactional Analysis Drivers of Please, Be Strong, Try Hard, Hurry Up and Be Perfect. The participants could not believe how much the drivers described their deepest motivations and actions. Yet at the same time, discussing all this childish emotional stuff had the effect of producing lots of laughter, insight and a strong sense of compassion for and understanding of each other – it broke down the barriers between us all. The programme included participants from across Europe and Russia and previous programmes have included many participants from Asia, the Middle East etc. The experience was the same on the previous programme. Over the last few weeks, I have been particularly watching my mind chatter and observing the sheer absurdity of my constant fears and neuroses. Steve and I noticed that the more open we were as facilitators about the reality of all the ludicrous antics of our own personalities the more everyone opened up and the greater the insights generated across the group.

So what does all this have to do with Putin? The connection is that in order to navigate successfully through relationships it requires a sensitivity to all the real emotions that we all feel and a care for this part of us. Instead much of our approach is to pretend that none of this exists and to be “grown up” – tough and logical. Yet, the situation in Russia is entirely about these emotions. I connect the situation in Ukraine with the Be Strong driver which I associate with Neptune (and Saturn of course). Russia in my mind has always been a country that I associate with Neptune as well – the drinking, the corruption, the idealism of communism, the literature and art, the music, the chaos and excesses.  Neptune at its best is the source; the well of human love and understanding that connects us all. It is the recognition that we are really all one and the boundaries between us are illusions. Yet this lack of boundaries and empathy with others can make us feel so vulnerable that we have to hide this behind our defensive boundaries (Saturn).  The Be Strong driver stems from a fear of weakness of being taken advantage of by stronger personalities. It is very much connected to the Karpman Drama Triangle of Victim, Persecutor, Rescuer. The only way out of the Karpman Drama Triangle is not to play any of the roles and not to see anyone as a victim – to be on everyone’s side. The irony behind Be Strong is that in true Neptune style it seeks unconditional love and merging. Sadly, the defensive driver achieves the opposite, often isolating the individual behind walls of cynicism designed to defend against the cynical unfeeling reality of others; thus it becomes the very thing it fears. It is very clear from Putin’s behaviour – the publicity photos of him bare-chested hunting and his desire to take on Tzar like status to protect Russia – that there is a Be Strong driver playing out. It is a compensation for a feeling of intense vulnerability.

(I suddenly had a twinge of anxiety and thought I had better look up Putin’s chart in case in turns out that he has no strong Saturn-Neptune influences and the astrologers who might read this would disown me! Looking at his chart I was stunned to find that he is Sun-Saturn-Neptune-Mercury conjunct in the twelfth house square Uranus. How amazing is astrology, who could possibly think that it does not work or it is vague and general??)

The danger with defence mechanisms in general is that they invite the very response which traps us down deeper in them. If we respond to Putin and Russia by demonstrating our power, we increase their insecurity. The paradox of Be Strong is that it takes real courage and strength to take responsibility for ourselves, to be vulnerable and to admit our mistakes. Yet when we do open up and admit to the vulnerability of being absurd emotional human beings, it creates a wonderful sense of connection with and empathy for each other. We realise we are all the same, that there is just “us” not “us and them”. If we take responsibility and apologise for our insensitivity it leaves Putin without justification for his response to our actions and when we can take responsibility for our own faults, it is harder for others to avoid responsibility for theirs. We tried to seduce Ukraine away from its friendship with Russia and this has been the result; it has split Ukraine apart and damaged our relationship with Russia. Now, we might suggest that Putin had a covert agenda to get the strategically important Crimea into Russian hands but then how is that different to our agenda to get the Ukraine to join the EU? If we take responsibility for our motives then if Russia has ulterior motives these become exposed. It also means that if we criticise Russia it is not from a point of hypocrisy that they can justifiably ignore. Perhaps if we can see this situation clearly we won’t repeat the mistake in the future.

2 Comments

Filed under On Life the Universe and Everything

The nature of reality and consciousness

I have been thinking about consciousness and reality stimulated by a programme on You Tube entitled The Holographic Universe.  Some of the experiments it describes I was aware of but not as fully as the programme describes.  The main tenet behind the concept is that reality is a hologram that is generated by the brain’s interaction with or interpretation of a field that exists as potential in the universe.  This is based on the idea that electrons exist as a wave of potential until observed by a conscious observer, at which point this observer collapses the wave function into matter at a particular (in both senses!) point in time and space (the electron becomes a particle).  This in turn gives rise to the idea that the brain is actually a holographic generator; that what we experience as “reality” is a holographic projection from the brain based on information from this infinite field of potential.  There were three main sets of experiments quoted which gave rise to this notion.  The first was the experiments of Ben Libert at the University of California at San Francisco which first gave rise to the notion that brain activity to begin actions occurred before we thought we had consciously made a decision.  The second was the work of Dr Dean Radin at Saybrook Graduate School who was demonstrating an experiment that measured our physiological response to randomly generated pictures on a computer screen which were either emotionally arousing or emotionally mild.  The experiment demonstrated that our response began up to 6 secs in advance of the picture – before the computer had even generated the image.  The last was part of a BBC documentary in 2010 which echoed the Libert test and showed that monitoring brain activity allowed scientists to predict accurately a decision you were going to make about pressing either a left or right button around 6 secs before you pressed it.

As part of the first part of this Holographic Universe series an image was shown from an IBM film made back in the 70s that I remember from my childhood which showed a man on a picnic in Chigaco and focused on his hand.  The image then zoomed out at regular intervals to reveal the Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way and finally the Universe.  It demonstrated that when you zoomed out from the man to the universe you got a constant pattern of space interspersed with tiny amounts of matter in the form first of planets, then stars, then galaxies.  It then zoomed in again to the man’s hand and on down to the atomic level where the pattern appeared very similar with small electrons and protons with relatively large areas of space in between.  What occurred to me here is the implications for Astrology.  The point of the film was to show that what we think of a “solid” matter is not as solid as we think and is very similar to that which we see as the universe, ie. that matter is made up of mostly space with very small amounts of matter.  However, they did not really address the conundrum that even these small amounts of matter are themselves composed mostly of space and therefore really matter is energy as Einstein pointed out and the I-Ching suggested many years before with the concept of Yin and Yang.  But back to Astrology; if you link the notion of the field which is generating the holographic potentials which our brain converts or projects as the physical world then it is not difficult to suppose that the solar system and the Universe is representative of a field which exists at all levels and that this larger field influences our day to day activity – particularly if what we experience as the solar system is part of the hologram created by the field.  Secondly, the fact that we appear, from the experiments, to be reacting unconsciously to phenomenon up to 6 or 7 secs prior to becoming conscious of them might be no surprise to astrologers given that in Astrology all phenomenon have an orb where an aspect is apply and then separating – ie. that astrological phenomena have an epicentre to which they build and then from which they recede – much like ripples in a pond, or waves of potential.  I have suggested in a previous article that I think that the chart describes the nature of consciousness for each individual – the constellation of our particular consciousness given an overall background (wave?) of all potential astrological phenomena.  It is also easy to wonder whether the chart might not be describing in our natal birth chart our particular interference pattern (an interference pattern being the means by which holograms are formed) and the hologram that this will create.  Not only this but the transits would then describe the interference patterns that interact with this initial interference pattern (or hologram) to create further interference patterns – or at least, the play and dance between them.  Thus a square between Neptune and Mercury describes a particular interference pattern.  It is still a wave of infinite potential and specific to the individual because it in that it occurs in a specific time and place and no two charts or transits to a particular chart could ever be the same, ie. no chart is identical to another chart nor could the transits all be identical at any point to that particular chart – I think!  Since Astrology rests on archetypal energies (infinite potential waves) that then coalesce and are described by a chart at a particular time and space (this is the core of astrology), one can see that in drawing up a chart one is capturing the point at which the wave of astrological possibilities becomes particular or forms a holographic reality.

Yet, I wonder if there is also something more here.  This something more is the fact that consciousness might be more like an epicentre rather than cause and effect in a linear way.  I notice that we often don’t understand or become fully conscious of what is happening in a transit until it is has built up to an exact aspect.  I also notice that it is not acting which seems to be key to our lives but what Don Juan in the Carlos Castaneda books called “seeing”.  In my own life and coaching others, it is not the acting that makes any difference to our lives – since we are doing that all the time – but rather the reflection on our actions; that is just the act of becoming conscious or perhaps more precisely, “aware” that is important.  Don Juan suggested that “seeing” was the only important thing in the end.  Perhaps it is the case that our awareness allows us to adjust the lens on our interference patterns or at least our viewpoint so that we see a fuller picture.  As part of the Holographic Universe programme they showed an extremely realistic holographic image of a tiger’s head with open mouth.  What was intriguing was that as the camera angle moved around the tiger’s head we got to see behind parts of the image that initially blocked our view yet it was a projection on to a 2D screen!  Is it perhaps the case that the field is sophisticated enough that it is taking into account what we are learning? So that when we watch a film, we love to discuss the film and what is going on and what we thought of it and we are gripped by it when it is happening and often commenting on it – at least in my house that is the case!  We do not know the outcome or precisely what will happen (at least the first time we watch it) yet we would be aware that we cannot influence the outcome, however much we might identify with the characters or be completely involved.  Indeed we cry, get angry, grip our seats at key points, even though we know it makes no difference.  Yet it is possible that we might be able to change our angle of viewing the film (if it is a holographic film) and see it more deeply and be aware of completely different elements of the film that we would not otherwise have seen?  Most of the learning I have taken from the wisest traditions I have studied in terms of religions, philosophers and wise people, seems to suggest a similar theme and certainly my friend Chrissy has banged this theme into my head on a regular basis and that is not to identify with my personality or my story or drama.  This is not to say that we cannot avoid playing the game or the drama, any more than we can physically put our hand through a tree but that we are less identified with it, as we might be watching a film.  So is it possible that we have somewhat missed the point in thinking that the whole point of the drama is about acting (if you will excuse the pun) rather than awareness.  This doesn’t mean that we don’t act since this would be impossible (not acting is in itself an action).  No the point is that even if it is projection it is in effect “real” for us.

The deeper question is what sits behind all of this – how was this game set up and more pertinently why?  The answer to this is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything which as fans of Douglas Adams know is forty-two.  However, if our experience of life is a projection of a two dimensional framework to appear three dimensional then 42 must be two dimensional.  This means the axes must be 6×7.  It is like a cryptic crossword – what could the answer to a 6 letter by 7 letter phrase be which supplies the whole framework of warp and weft for the three dimensional, cosmic mind that we experience?  Thinking very deeply about it, I realise that I have the answer.  The answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is that it is a B-L-O-O-D-Y   M-Y-S-T-E-R-Y.  I think there is enough infinite interference pattern in these two 6 and 7 letter words to cover the entire field of Life, the Universe and Everything – or at least that is what my limited projector is telling me.

1 Comment

Filed under On Life the Universe and Everything

Nature

I have been contemplating Nature recently and our relationship with her.  When I work with clients I work on the basis of a model I adapted from Tim Galwey’s work and Chrissy Philp.  This model has four concentric circles with the individual in the middle, the immediate environment around them and the background cultural conversation around that.  This is then all encompassed by Nature.  What I am interested in doing is helping the individual understand their own nature, the nature of the people they interact with, the nature of the organization and society in which they operate and the nature of life itself.  I explain that the reason for this is that we are much more effective when we work with the nature of things rather than against it.  Yet this seems oddly against the grain of modern thinking.  In the modern Cartesian world of “I think therefore I am.”, nature and reality are there to be defined, created and controlled by man.

Looked at another way, it is possible to see these concentric circles as being about personalities; our own personality, the personalities of others we interact with, the personality of the organisations or societies we are part of and the personality of life or nature itself.  This came home to me strongly recently in coaching two people at one of my largest clients – an international law firm.  The first was a new partner in his first year.  He was in a somewhat vulnerable position in that his path to partnership had been forged by working very closely as the right-hand man to a very successful partner but he was now tasked with building his own practice.  His approach to this had initially been to treat it as a task and set objectives for it.  On this basis, he needed to go and target clients and decide on the practice areas he wanted to focus on.  Instead we took an approach based on the idea that he was discovering the nature of his practice and the people he was going to work with and that instead of worrying about all the things that he should be doing to achieve his goal, he focused instead on dealing with the day to day challenges that Life brought him and reflecting on the emerging insights in terms of the relationships he attracted, the work that came his way and most importantly, managing his fears that got in the way of this and caused him to push.  For most of my clients this is initially counter-intuitive since it is so much against the prevailing model of seeking to impose our picture on the world and control it.

I have recently been reading Philip Pulman’s reworking of Grimm’s fairytales.  In this nature is a key component.  This can be in the form of animals, trees, plants etc.   The key is always in the patience and character of the protagonists; it is a kind hearted act or morally upright one which causes animals, trees, birds to help them.  Those not in harmony with nature or who treat small apparently insignificant aspects of nature cruelly or indifferently are always repaid for their actions.  These days we would see such stories as naïve or rationalise them as having direct causal impacts – ie. if you treat someone well they will be kindly disposed towards you and might tell others etc.  We distrust the notion of anything beyond causality.  Recently, I was coaching an aspiring partner at a client who had been told that he needed to develop his ability to win work to stand a chance of becoming a partner.  Indeed, the pressure from senior partners above him was intense in terms of being more “aggressive” in building relationships.  He was very nervous about his ability to do this and the need to compete with others.  Like most before him, his fear was of ending up lacking integrity in his relationships with others and finding himself making friends with others simply for the purposes of winning work.  He also could not imagine how to fit this in around the huge volume of work he was already doing or where these people would come from.  I realised that the main work I could do was to reduce the pressure this mad approach was causing and to help him examine the truth of this view of the world.  When we examined how many client relationships people actually had in the firm, it became clear that most, even the most successful, only had a couple or even one main relationship.  When I asked him to look at where this had come from the answer was that it never seemed to be one that they had consciously cultivated initially.  To relieve the pressure he was under, I suggested instead that he drop any focus on relationships and instead just focus on the work he was doing and see what relationship naturally developed without his conscious effort.  Within a couple of months, a friend of a friends in a social context asked him about some of the work he was doing.  This person turned out to be working in company that my client had been targeting for many years without success and as result of his conversation they were asked to pitch to go on to the panel of advisors for the firm.

At our subsequent coaching session we involved the senior partner who was sponsoring this individual.  He adamantly put forward the view about having to work hard on building relationships and being more aggressive in the marketplace but when I began to carefully challenge him about this view and the way relationships actually developed, he agreed that he was very uncomfortable with it and it didn’t reflect his experience.  Yet, when it came to talking about the opportunity that the individual had just created, he went back to trying to describe it in terms of a conscious and systematic effort which demonstrated the need to work hard at cultivating relationships and turning one’s network into potential work opportunities, even though it was clear that he did not really believe what he was saying either.

Both these people were highly intelligent, so how could they and most of the rest of the people I encounter subscribe to such a distorted view?  Do we really want to create a world where we see each other only as objects to be manipulated to achieve our own ends?  Yet, this is endemic in much of our current way of thinking.  The natural sciences were originally studied from the perspective of understanding nature and the nature of reality.

In a recent article entitled Dragon Kings in the New Scientist the author was describing the work being done on extreme events in systems, like the stock exchange or weather systems.  They had called these sudden and extreme events Dragon Kings to distinguish them from “Black Swans” (events which happened infrequently but could not be predicted).  These Dragon Kings were more frequent but equally disruptive.  Being able to model them, meant that it might be possible to predict them and control and prevent them.  The article concluded with the thought that controlling and preventing them was the point of science.

In the past, our attitude towards Nature has been that our role is to cultivate it, ie. to understand and work with it in order bring out the best of it.  Instead our focus is on subduing and controlling nature to harness it to achieving our own ends.  In the past, in fairy tales and stories, morality and nature were closely linked – unnatural was a term for describing someone immoral and most evil characters in fairytales were undermined or found out through the auspices of nature.  Part of the issue seems to be that we no longer have any awe for nature or her laws.  The world is seen in terms of inanimate matter.  Once we see nature as inanimate, it is only a resource.  Our conversation reflects this, talking as we do about the Laws of Physics or Biology or Science rather than the Laws of Nature or the Anima Mundi.  I think our religions have failed us in this regard.  Growing up as a Christian, I was always troubled by the way that people around me would turn up at church on a Sunday, be holy and “good” and then carry on in quite appalling ways during the week having done their moral bit on Sundays.  They seemed to divorce spirituality and morality from their day to day lives.  Yet in many ways this was understandable in that it was something we had collectively done.

What do I mean by this?  What I mean is that we had made religion and nature abstract concepts, connected to good and bad and also with consequences that only applied outside the realm of nature.  So, the enticement to good behaviour arose out of the concept that you would go to Heaven if you behaved well and to Hell if you behaved badly.  These moral inducements were entirely abstract and had no real basis in the day to day reality of people’s lives.  God himself became divorced from nature and lived in some abstract world separate from direct human experience.  I think this is pertinent to the debate over the climate.  I am wondering whether the more violent natural episodes we are experiencing in terms of extreme weather reflect our repression of nature, that we are attempting to pave over the world, light the nighttime, control and bend nature to our will and she is responding by rebelling. This came home to me in a small way with my father when came to visit us for Christmas and my next door neighbour.  My father had brought wellingtons with him to wear when we went for walks so that he could keep his other shoes and clothes clean.  Yet, when we arrived back from our walk my father was in a big condundrum because now his wellingtons had mud on them.  He found it difficult to resolve his dilemma or be able to let go of the fact they were now muddy, even though he had brought them specifically for this eventuality.  I will return to this after my neighbour as there is more to this anecdote.  My neighbour has spent all the time we have known him fighting a constant battle with nature.  He is by nature very fastidious and his house and garden, like my father’s is kept to an extremely high standard.  Yet, this is the source of difficulty for him, because nature is forever intruding on his perfect environment no matter how hard he tries to control it.  He has even gone to the length of buying coyote urine as a deterrent for the deer that come over the garden wall and eat his roses.  The very day after he told us that he started to use this in his garden, my wife and I opened our bathroom window which overlooks his garden to see a dear only yards away contentedly chewing his flowers!  We also installed a cattle grid on our shared driveway to prevent the cows that roam freely from our common damaging his garden, only for the cows in the field behind to push down his garden wall and run riot on his garden.  Even with the cattle grid, we are the only house in the neighbourhood where the cows walk over our cattlegrid and still invade the garden.  It sounds like a tale from Grimm about the man who wanted to keep his perfect garden and for me, it is exactly that.

So, back to my father.  My father has been suffering from a severe depression for the last eighteen months.  This has involved psychosis, delusions being committed to a psychiatric unit and almost dying.  He has been given ECT, anti-depressants, anti-convulsive drugs etc., etc.  I was discussing this with friends over lunch one day, who described that their parents were similar and the fight to keep them on the drugs to control the problem.  “Why wouldn’t you take your medicine if you knew it was making you better, I just don’t understand it?” one of them asked.  The other friend said it was because they didn’t like the drugs, they said they made them feel disconnected and drowsy as though they weren’t really alive.  The discussion got me thinking about depression and how we define depression and mental illness generally.  Most of our definitions of mental illness and certainly of depression are that you do not conform to the current norms within society.  The doctors who treated my father did so from the point of view of seeing someone ill.  According to the current definition, he was unnatural, there was something wrong with him.  Yet, for me, I struggled with this.  The reality for my father was that he felt he could no longer cope with running a large house, the day to day demands of the world overwhelmed him and he wanted out.  Yet at the same time he was frightened of his desire to leave, death terrified him, he did not see the point of old age.  His personality was well and truly split apart.  The effect of the ECT and the anti-depressants was not to solve these issues – they persist to this day – but simply to dampen down the level of agitation he displays about them.  With other friends who are depressed I notice the same phenomenon, the anti-depressants and diagnosis of illness rendered them unable to move forward in their situation, they felt there must be something unnatural happening to them.  How does this connect to nature?  I think it is part of the difficulty we face in having relegated nature to a material source.  It is like a teenager who sees Mum, not as a human being to be respected but just as a provider of material resources!

Where does this all leave us in terms of Nature?  I think the difficulty in our current approach to the climate is that the rationalist viewpoint achieves very little.  We all know rationally that smoking is “bad” for us, similarly we all know we should be polite, respectful, kind etc.  Yet knowing these things rationally does not translate into change in our attitude.  It is like a toothless religious inducement to be good or not be bad.  They remain abstract concepts requiring conscious effort.  On the other hand, a respect and awe for something monumentally powerful and intimately part of our lives, produces a different response.  When we reconnect with the beauty, wonder and sheer aliveness of nature; the integral relationship between matter and spirit, that life and consciousness could not exist without matter and vice-versa then there is balance in our approach.  When we separate them or relegate one aspect we are lost.  I am an advocate of Science, an advocate of curiosity, wonder and awe.  I am not an advocate of imposing our notions of nature and reality on nature and reality in a fixed way.

Finally, I recognise that it is in the nature of things for us to be dealing with the world this way currently, so in that sense there is nothing to be done about it.  We are learning just what we need to learn and who I am to think it should be different?  What would I have to write and think and learn about and what clients would I have to coach?  As the Tao Te Ching says, “Do you want to change the world?  I do not think it can be done, the world is already perfect.”  Perhaps we are going to have to suffer for our hubris; as the saying goes, “Pride comes before a fall” and if my individual experience is anything to go by, leads to a fair bit of valuable learning and a greater level of humility!  My own rational plan was that I was going to be spending my time this week skiing; the forces of matter decreed that the nature of my experience would actually be haemorrhoids which took skiing off the agenda.  A literal pain in the backside but then I would not have written this blog otherwise.

I think this way of looking at the world is causing a huge amount of disease, but not the disease that most of us think.

1 Comment

Filed under On Life the Universe and Everything

Evolution

Is evolution really connected to survival of the fittest?  I have been thinking a lot about evolution recently.  The first thing which sparked my interest was an interview with Richard Dawkins on the radio.  As a young student at Oxford University, he described how he felt he had fallen into the most wonderfully rigorous and challenging environment, where seminars with his tutor exemplified this notion of survival of the fittest.  Each individual’s ideas would be subjected to rigorous challenge to test their validity and one visiting expert who came to address them got no further than his opening sentence before being challenged about his assumptions and did not get any further during the ensuing hour of debate.  With Dawkins Sun exalted in Aries, it is easy to see how this environment felt like manna from heaven.  He went on to explain that he had developed his theories contradicting Group Theory when realising that animals or insects (as vehicles) are working on behalf of genes which seek to replicate themselves.  Thus a gorilla might fight or kill to ensure the survival of his genes over those of unrelated rivals.  As Dawkins talked I was struck by the fact that our theories and our view of the world are strongly informed by our pre-dispositions.  Without the value of a tool like Astrology, which unlike other tools posits variations in the way we think without judging other positions to be simply wrong or misguided, it is difficult not to get trapped by the bias of our own pre-disposition or to allow for it in our thinking and so step outside its prejudices.  For Dawkins, with the Sun in Aries, it has to be about survival of the fittest and what better depiction of Aries could there be than both the environment he was informed and attracted by with its intellectual rigour and his book, The Selfish Gene.  The presumption was that since this held in a number of instances it applied to all instances.  Everything was about the selfish gene.

Now this is not to denigrate Hawkins work, which has clearly been of great value but only to suggest that it is not the only way of looking at the world and it holds dangers if it dominates.  This is what I want to talk about in terms of evolution and the current square between Pluto in Capricorn and Uranus in Aries because I think that evolution and “survival of the fittest” are at the heart of this square and what it is prompting us to become conscious of.

I want first to talk about a few other factors that have prompted me to be thinking about evolution over the last year or so – no self-respecting Sagittarian jumps straight to the point without telling all the fascinating (for me anyway) threads that led to this point.  So, after listening to Dawkins, I was prompted to think about my own perspective.  Was it true, I wondered, that I would act or would be prompted to act, as a vehicle for my DNA, to preserve my genes?  I had to conclude that I would not.  Whilst I love my parents, my sister, my nephews and nieces and my own children, I would not necessarily prioritise them over others.  In many cases, I put time, energy and my resources at the disposal of complete strangers.  This is because, for me, it feels like we are all family, like there is only one of us.  So, traveling as much as I do across the world and encountering people from different cultures and backgrounds, I feel just as strong a connection with them as I do with my own family. Indeed, my money, my energy and my actions don’t tend to be exclusively dedicated to promotion of my genes, even indirectly through group or social structures.  Similarly, I might also prioritise animals or nature on a parallel footing with human beings, so it is not just species prioritisation.  Now, this is not to suggest that Dawkins is not right; it is clear that at an instinctive and practical level, a significant proportion of my time, energy, resources etc. are dedicated to my family, it is rather that this is not the only truth and nor am I, like a rat say, limited by instinctive responses, I can choose to use my consciousness to inhibit my instincts (if I am aware of them).

Some months after the Dawkins interview, I was reading an article in the New Scientist about Hipster toads.  The article explained that these Hipster Toads grow spines during the mating season and fight each other, but the winner then protects the eggs of its rival as well as its own.  The article went to convoluted lengths to attribute this to Darwinian evolution and the selfish gene paradigm.  This is not an isolated example; I have seen many convoluted attempts to bend reality to fit the paradigm of natural selection rather than keeping an open mind.  This is not to say that Darwinism is necessarily wrong, but only that there may be other factors at play that we do not yet know.  I would advocate the same open-mindedness towards Astrology.  Astrologers like Ptolemy were clearly wrong when they went to great lengths to defend the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth and this involved convoluted explanations to justify the prevailing paradigm.  Again this is relevant (I am just reassuring non-Sagittarians/Jupiterians) since it caused me to think about the real nature of evolution and how we challenge our own thinking about it.

Continuing this theme of evolution, I was also considering something which has held question marks in my mind since I was very young and that is the process by which we select our partners in life.  The research suggests that there are key traits that we find attractive and that the basis for this is because they are key to evolutionary fitness.  So we tend to find people with symmetrical faces attractive since this suggests the fittest genes and best DNA, also we tend to find slim people attractive and in some cultures well covered is attractive etc. etc. Yet, it is clear that it is not only symmetrically faced, slim people who mate and have children.  Indeed it seems to be the case that physical features are only part of the story.  When we dig more deeply it is clear that many psychological factors play a role, as do the charts for those who know astrology, so the picture becomes more complex.  Now this might be a case for the selfish gene playing out its own selfish agenda except for the fact that the propagation of the human species does not seem to be on the basis of only certain people having children so that only a certain “fit” proportion propagate, or we evolve towards certain physical characteristics.  Is it perhaps that we prioritise the human race as a whole?  Some of our actions towards other species would tend to suggest so, except that there are clearly people around who are willing to prioritise animals/insects/trees etc. over humans.  This suggests to me that the picture is not quite as simple as a case of the selfish gene and this is central to my thinking.  I do not think we are the empty vehicles of DNA as Dawkins suggest.  I think we have choice, choice to be conscious of our instincts and choose how we act on them. Or, if there is a selfish gene operating then this gene seems complicit in creating the provocations for us to evolve consciously.

The last factor I want to talk about with regard to evolution is that of tool making.  Most scientists concur that the differentiation of modern man, came with our ability to create and use tools.  Indeed, each evolutionary step in human history is associated with technological breakthroughs.  To this day, there seems to be a dominance of market forces which dictate that any human activity that can be automated will replace the need for humans to continue to labour at that task.  In response to this the bones in our bodies have become more gracile and much of the physical activity/labour undertaken by modern humans comes from choice rather than necessity.

So far so good, but what does this mean for the current Pluto/Uranus square?  One last (I promise) example of what jogged my thinking on evolution further (I like to think of this blog as an evolutionary blog – perhaps eventually as long as human history!).  I recently ran a programme on change for a leading global law firm which is one of my clients, as part of this we were asking the participants, who were support staff (administrative rather than dealing directly with clients) about the current environment in the firm.  What came out was that they felt that there had been and continued to be constant change.  On the whole, these were not changes they liked.  They felt that the firm had lost its interest in and care for staff.  It felt more impersonal and people felt there was no sense of personal loyalty or care.  The key driver was reducing cost.  As a result individuals felt they were in an increasingly pressurised environment with more expected from fewer people and interactions felt less personal and more transactional.  At the same time, they recognised the pressures on the firm as a whole of competing in a global environment where there was pressure on fees for the firm and clients were driving down costs themselves.  The leading law firms were paying higher and higher fees to partners and so the fear of missing the boat had become enormous, the fear that the firm would not be able to compete and attract talent was driving cost reductions further and further – the justification was cited regularly as the “war for talent” (despite the main research for the concept of the “war for talent” coming from Enron – a spectacular example of short-term profiteering at the expense of the company survival and the wider economy).

It is easy to feel, and many people do, that the world is going to hell in a hand basket and that we are all doomed.  Yet, each generation has seen the next generation as having lost touch with human values and being on a race to the bottom so I do not subscribe to this doomed picture of the world.  Yet at the same time, who or what is this monster that seems to be eating us all up against our will at such a rate of knots?  Can its rampaging appetite never be sated?  Stand up and take the applause Mars and its veiled partner Pluto (oh and with Capricorn and Uranus thrown in to flavour the dish).  What I began to see today was that this monster eating us up that nobody likes but everyone feels powerless to alter is none other than fear of missing the boat;  the endless, timeless pressure to compete to survive – the selfish gene.  What occurred to me is, are we really powerless to prevent this?  Well yes and no.  It is clear from history that we cannot rid ourselves of Mars or Pluto or any planet for that matter.  In that sense, ruthless and destructive as it is, we are constantly born and being killed off in a continuous cycle of death and rebirth.  In many ways it is the same for the Earth hurtling round the Sun in a manic cycle with no pause, going from Spring to Autumn – Aries to Scorpio.  On Chrissy Philp’s model of the brain she calls the Aries-Scorpio complimentary connection Time since it is a continual process of birth, of a new moment “now” and then the death of that moment.  So no, I do not think we are going to escape this cycle.  However, I have written before about the fact that I think aspects in astrology are a focus for consciousness.  What I see is that the Pluto in Capricorn – Uranus in Aries square is a focus for consciousness and what is being asked of us is how do we want to deal with competition and fear – can we bring a new consciousness (Uranus in Aries) to this age old primal urge for survival and tool making (Pluto in Capricorn)?  Wherever it is being expressed in the world, the fight is about survival of the fittest and the fear of being obliterated (of dying).  This plays out in the Middle East where those who were the most powerful (the winners of the survival of the fittest contest) cling precariously to power in the face of new combatants who want to supplant them and now feel they are fitter to run things.  Each side fears that if they do not win the result will be disastrous – they will die.  In Europe, the banks were driven by fear of missing the boat – keeping up with everyone else making profits.  In the UK ocal councils invested in Icelandic banks to keep up and get the best rate of interest, in turn Icelandic banks took on monumental debt beyond their means because they wanted to be able to compete with their bigger cousins, the global banks.  At the same time, people took on unrealistic debt to buy houses they felt they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford and so on.  It is a constant selfish gene stuck in a cycle of racing for survival.  Yet, do we have to play it this way?  At an individual level we know that our personal development rests on our ability to become more conscious of our own instincts and emotions because by doing so we have choice about whether to act on these instincts – we can inhibit them (that is choose not to act on them rather than repress them).

So if we are able to exercise consciousness we can examine our instincts and choose whether to continue to be dominated by playing them out.  In fact everyone of us has choice.  This work is what the I-Ching calls “Work on what has been spoiled”.  I was discussing this with a partner in Germany at my global law firm client who felt very much overtaken by the monster of “the system”.  He described how prison guards at the concentration camps felt the same way – that they had no choice; the system demanded it and no doubt they thought they were doing the “right thing”.  I had been reading him a quote from Viktor Frankl, which was topical given his comment about the concentration camps, since Frankl had been a survivor of the Auschwitz and Dachau.  The quote was from the book he wrote – Man and his search for Meaning.  Frankl’s great discovery, during his experience of concentration camps, was that there was one great freedom that could not be taken away from human beings no matter how appalling the circumstances and that was to choose their attitude towards the experience.  He noted that all in the concentration camps faced the same situation (the guards included) but that as humans we are not unconscious victims of our circumstances, products only of our environments, we have choice.  This is not control over our environment or circumstances but rather choice over how we respond.  The implication for Frankl was that the very worst of human experience in the concentration camps could be turned into something meaningful through our consciousness – Work on What Has Been Spoiled indeed!

When I was twenty-three I was caught in a black hole about “missing the boat”.  I was so confused about what to do with my career and there was the pressure of watching peers “catching the boat” and starting to build their careers and the weight of expectations of parents and others.  Now, I had the great good fortune to be in wise company (the I-Ching and my friend Chrissy’s input).  As a result of my great good fortune, I took to heart the I-Ching’s perspective that “you cannot lose what truly belongs to you even if you throw it away”.  I sat down to do a visualisation; I got nice and comfy sitting on the bank of a river, doing nothing and admiring the beauty of the river.  Then I imagined a boat moored by me with all the people I knew on it – friends, family etc.  After contemplating it, I then unmoored the boat, threw the mooring rope to all my friends and family on the boat and watched it sail away down the river whilst wishing them all well.  I consciously set about missing the boat.  I gave up on getting a career, getting a girlfriend and set about dealing with what was in front of me – sorting out my finances and taking responsibility for myself.  This involved applying for jobs and giving up on being in film and TV work (which only sporadically paid and did not seem as fulfilling as I had hoped).  Each day I applied for three jobs.  After a week of this, I received a phone call out of the blue from a temping agency I did not know I had signed up with.  They said they had a semi-permanent job doing time-sheet reconciliations for a firm of accountants.  It sounded the antithesis of any career aims but just what I was looking for financially.  So for ten months I did time-sheet reconciliations.  Unbeknownst to me, my career had begun.  My job was in a department run by Administration and Personnel at Ernst and Young where I was to work in Human Resources (a fancy new term for Personnel) for the next thirteen years.  So when I was fretting and worrying and trying to catch my boat, I was busy missing it, when I decided to give up on my boat I was busy catching it.  I realised there was a different approach to take to Life and it was not one dominated by fear and competition but it took courage to hold one’s fear back and not act on it.  Viktor Frankl reached a similar conculsion:

Don’t aim at success. The more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one’s personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run—in the long-run, I say!—success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it.

Looked at through this lens, the current situation we find ourselves in – increased focus on cost and competition and a widening gap between rich and poor where the rich bankers, accountants, lawyers, consultants (oh no that’s me…!), are just as caught by fear and feel they have no choice – is a set up.  It is a set up to provoke us to become more conscious, to consider our instincts and their consequences.  Personally I am noticing a similar pattern at the Law firms to that which I have seen before in the Accountancy sector and in the Banking sector.  I was at Ernst & Young when I saw the profession lose sight of being independent accountants and decide they were businessmen and their aim was profit.  In vain, I asked partners at Ernst & Young why they did not value Ernst & Young’s qualities of modesty, integrity and friendliness but saw themselves rather as a pale shadow of the more aggressive and confident Arthur Andersen.  The result was Enron and the collapse of Arthur Andersen.  The government had to step in to regulate an industry that could no longer regulate its own self-interested greed.  Indeed, when I asked at a workshop shortly after how the environment had changed the accountants described that their profession had gone from being one viewed with respect by the community to being seen as something corrupted and close to the worst double glazing salesmen.  Some years later (about ten years ago) I was working on a leadership programme with Lloyds Bank.  We ran a workshop where we were asking them to think about the broader environment and market place and where they found themselves.  In the discussion during the programme they were obsessed with HBOS and how they needed to change away from their current focus on service, ethics and their current strategy of not overextending themselves which came from their experience of having been burned by third world debt lending in the past.  I challenged them, saying, what if your current strategy proves to be the right one in the long term – I even used the example of Ernst & Young but no-one wanted to listen.  They were a business they said and over the course of a few years working with them I noticed that it was more and more difficult to focus them away from targets, profits and sales.  They talked about the customer only as a means to the end of increasing their “share of wallet” – a hideous term meaning, that customers were only of value as a means to line their pockets.  In the end the government (us, since what else is the government and where else does it get its money from) had to step in to regulate an industry which had become obsessed with its own self-interest.  I notice a very similar pattern now with the Law firms.  As one of the partners I spoke to described it “a once noble and important profession has become all about profit”, I see that the same is also true of sport – many now positively value aggression and a “winning mentality”, yet we all feel that something has been lost and very topically, newspapers.  Where organisations and individuals put their own self-interested greed first they assume they can do so without repercussions.

In talking to a taxi driver going between clients recently,  I was mentioning the Jeremy Paxman interview with Russell Brand.  We were talking about the fact that neither of us fully agreed with Brand but that he had hit a chord when talking about the polarisation in society.  It was clear Paxman seemed to feel the same way.  The taxi driver said that he was not against capitalism but it had now become too dominant and it needed balancing – he agreed with me that we had become too polarised in the gap between rich and poor.  We talked about the fact that much of this is to do with competition and fear of not surviving or keeping up.  The trouble is that this is a vicious circle, the bigger the gap, the bigger the fear of not keeping up and the fear of loss so the gap widens. and the more we are in survival mode, the more short term and cynical our approach becomes. Yet, I am also conscious that most new awareness or consciousness comes in the form of polarisation which forces us to examine the situation more closely.  Perhaps there is an opportunity to evolve here; to use this evolutionary provocation to examine evolutionary provocation and take more conscious responsibility for it.

According to Chrissy Philp’s model, the 6 lines of the Creative (the 1st hexagram in the I-Ching) relate to male signs in the Zodiac ascending according to her model of the brain and the 6 lines of the Receptive (the second hexagram in the I-Ching) relate to the six female signs in the Zodiac.  Looking at the I-Ching lines correlating to Pluto (or Scorpio), Capricorn, Aries and Uranus (or Aquarius), we get the following four lines:

Pluto/Scorpio

Hidden lines. One is able to remain persevering. If by chance you are in the service of a king, Seek not works, but bring to completion. If a man is free of vanity he is able to conceal his abilities and keep them from attracting attention too soon; thus he can mature undisturbed. If conditions demand it, he can also enter public life, but that too he does with restraint. The wise man gladly leaves fame to others. He does not seek to have credited to himself things that stand accomplished, but hopes to release active forces; that is, he completes his works in such a manner that they may bear fruit for the future.

Capricorn:

Dragons fight in the meadow. Their blood is black and yellow. In the top place the dark element should yield to the light. If it attempts to maintain a position to which it is not entitled and to rule instead of serving, it draws down upon itself the anger of the strong. A struggle ensues in which it is overthrown, with injury, however, to both sides. The dragon, symbol of heaven, comes to fight the false dragon that symbolized the inflation of the earth principle. Midnight blue is the color of heaven; yellow is the color of earth. Therefore, when black and yellow blood flow, it is a sign that in this unnatural contest both primal powers suffer injury.

Uranus/Aquarius:

Arrogant dragon will have cause to repent. When a man seeks to climb so high that he loses touch with the rest of mankind, he becomes isolated, and this necessarily leads to failure. This line warns against titanic aspirations that exceed one’s power. A precipitous fall would follow.

Aries:

All day long the superior man is creatively active. At nightfall his mind is still beset with cares. Danger. No blame. A sphere of influence opens up for the great man. His fame begins to spread. The masses flock to him. His inner power is adequate to the increased outer activity. There are all sorts of things to be done, and when others are at rest in the evening, plans and anxieties press in upon him. But danger lurks here at the place of transition from lowliness to the heights. Many a great man has been ruined because the masses flocked to him and swept him into their course. Ambition has destroyed his integrity. However, true greatness is not impaired by temptations. He who remains in touch with the time that is dawning, and with its demands is prudent enough to avoid all pitfalls, and remains blameless.

All four lines contain important warnings about the dangers we face.  When I look at the four of them they seem very pertinent to our current world view and its dangers.  When Pluto moves into a new sign it is calling for transformation in that area of life.  We are invited to drag up from the underworld all that has been unconscious and become putrid.  When Pluto was in Sagittarius, religious fundamentalism and the role of religion and the way it had become corrupted from something which inspires us to a universal, loving acceptance of each other, had become distorted into something which separated and divided us.  As Pluto has moved into Capricorn from 2007 we have been invited to look at the corruption in government and business.  With Uranus in Aries squaring this, it has been a major call for new consciousness since Uranus in Aries rules violent shifts and revolutions.  The top line of the Receptive is key here.  Tools and structure are here to serve us, as is business.  In most businesses profit has become the driving motivation.  It has usurped the the true role of businesses, which is to serve us and their customers.  Indeed, business is extoled and seen as the model for every area of life.  Modern business leaders are consulted on every subject; Education, Sport, Government, Architecture and cost and profit have become the dominant factors, yet each of these areas is corrupted if the dominant focus becomes money.  This is the point that the I-Ching is making, that Capricorn (embodying the Receptive on Chrissy Philp’s model) must serve rather than lead.  To see the results for our wider society of putting profit first we only have to look at the collapse of the banking system, where a focus on profit as the guiding principle and competition as the guiding instinct impacted us all.  In the same way, we can see the impact of our modern approach to building houses, where estates of low cost, uniform housing create ugliness all around us.  We are being challenged to see that we cannot escape the broader responsibilities of our actions.  That lining our own pockets on an individual basis creates consequences for all of us, including ourselves.  Big businesses have lost sight of morality or their broader responsibilities to society.  The recent scandals in terms of the evasion of tax on the part of large businesses demonstrated that they do not view tax as a contribution to the societies they gain their profits from.  But they are not alone.  Businesses reflect our individual attitudes.  Like the prison guards at Auschwitz and in any similar situation, there is always individual choice.  It happens because we are all unconsciously acting in our instinctive self-interests.  How has this state of affairs come about?  How have we become so detached from the consequences of our actions?  For this, I want to refer to Rick Tarnas, who describes the way that we have lost touch with the Numinous.

Our current dominant Scientific paradigm is one which sees the Earth as inanimate and discreet.  Religion is dismissed as unscientific (Dawkins God Delusion is symbolic of this trend).  Many cannot conceive that the world is alive or that there are repercussions to our actions.  Our dominant philosophy is one which sees the world in terms of a random series of cause and effect, with no sense that our actions have wider or more universal repercussions.  Only one mode (for all that it is important) of understanding the world is seen as valid, instead of integrating that powerful and important mode as part of a number of modes of understanding the world.  Science and technology along with business has fallen prey to the dangers of leading rather than serving us.

How do we change all this?  Paxman asked Russell Brand what the new model was.  Brand was unable to respond and where he did, his responses mirrored age old political dividing lines rather than genuinely new models.  Yet, Paxman’s demands reflected the difficulty of the situation.  When I worked at Ernst & Young and in the work I did at charities and other institutions, I began to see that replacing one system with a new system does not work.  That only a shift in consciousness creates change.  Once individual consciousness shifts then new systems and structures to serve that end emerge.  This is the point, that Capricorn (systems and structures are there to serve us not to lead).  It is the age old battle between Uranus and Saturn.  Saturn or Capricorn solidifies and serves new ideas and concepts (Uranus) but over time these gradually stifle and calcify, until they become an impediment to progress.  At this point Uranus is needed to bring new energy and revolution.  Yet, if Capricorn resists and fights, there is damage to all, as the I-Ching describes.  It is easy to see this in the Middle East where there is damage caused to everyone by the fights going on.  Instead, what is needed is a shift in consciousness, an awareness that the universe is alive, that there is a consequence to our actions beyond our full understanding.  We need to be shaken by the awe of knowing that we do not know and guided by our intuitive connection through our hearts to the whole universe.  Above all, we need to become conscious of our fears and instincts and to choose whether we want to act on them – to work on what has been spoiled in us.  We are entering a new phase where the companies we operate in and the challenges we face transcend our local and national boundaries.  With this new challenging environment, comes greater competition, greater fear, greater impersonality, yet we do not have to fall prey to fear and to the pressure of fear for survival that this new context brings.  We need instead to focus on that which is universal to all mankind.  The language of “winners”, “ambition” and “aggression” which has become so prevalent in business is a language of division and isolation.  The I-Ching says instead that “you cannot lose what truly belongs to you even if you throw it away”.  Only when we realise this and we realise that we are all one in our heart can we move away from the idea that we can profit at the expense of others without hurting ourselves as well.  It is called enlightened self-interest.  I think it is time for an enlightened selfish gene!  I leave the last comment to the I-Ching:

Thus the superior man reduces that which is too much and augments that which is too little.  He weighs things and makes them equal….in this way he establishes order in the world: he equalises the extremes that are the source of social discontent and thereby creates just and equable conditions.

1 Comment

Filed under On Life the Universe and Everything

Are we our fate?

My friend Chrissy in her book on the black hole game – One Way of Looking at Man – says that there are three key misconceptions that we suffer from as human beings: that we are our personalities, that our mind pictures are real and that we know what we need.  In my own experience and in terms of other people I have found these insights to be true.  Many people identify completely with their personalities.  The result is that they are not able to stand back from their own perception of the world and their own reactions to it, to be able to consider their emotions and reactions more objectively.  They are also not able to see the world through others eyes.  Sadly, we all fall into this trap to greater or lesser extents, but when we do so, we are unable to learn because we cannot reflect clearly on our own point of view to see it as just that.  The second point that we think our mind pictures are real is a tricky one.  Even scientists espoused to view that they perceive the world open mindedly on the basis of evidence get caught on this one.  Only by realising that all our perspectives are just that, including what we determine to be real or true can we keep an open mind.  Of course, paradoxically, the perspective that all truth is relative is also a mind picture – it might not be…!  Humour seems the best response to this one – not taking ourselves too seriously.  Lastly, if I look back at my own life and reflect on the experiences that have been most valuable and which I have learnt most from, I have to conclude that I do not know what I need, since I would never have chosen these experiences for myself at the time!

As well as these three misconceptions applying to ourselves they also apply to our view of others.  We tend to identify other people with their personalities; we can get caught in thinking other people’s mind pictures are reality and we tend to think we know what other people need.  Talking to people that I have met over the last few weeks about Syria and reflecting on my own and others black holes recently (I have Chiron conjunct Saturn) I realised that there might be a fourth common misconception and this is that we are our fate – we also assume others to be their fate.  It is Bashar al-Assad’s fate to be a tyrant killing his own people in Syria.  It is easy to identify him with his fate.  Fate and personality are intimately connected here.  To a large extent our personality is our fate (as most astrologers would recognise); we do not consciously choose our charts but we cannot escape them either.  Since we tend to treat other people as if they were their personalities – if they are abrasive or awkward we dislike them or avoid them – we in effect treat them as if they are their fate.  In this respect again Astrology is so valuable.  Once you know they are Venus-Saturn rising in Aries for example, you immediately appreciate the difficulty the human being has being landed with this personality.  Similarly, we cannot escape our transits.  When you look at poor Bashar al-Assad’s chart, you can see that he was born on 11th September 1965, with the Sun exactly conjunct Pluto-Uranus opposite a Saturn-Chiron conjunction in Pisces (with his moon probably involved as well).  He is also born on 9/11, the anniversary of the Twin Towers.  At the moment Chiron is conjunct his Saturn-Chiron and probably his Moon opposite his Sun-Pluto-Uranus conjunction and it is only going to tighten again in the coming year.  What a fate!  It would be very easy to identify the poor man with his fate.  This is perhaps the dangerous side of Saturn – that we judge others and measure them according to their fate, rather than seeing them as human beings with a particular fate.

Personally, I think Bashar al-Assad deserves our compassion – who would swap places with him?  That is not to be naive about his personality but to be compassionate to the human being.  I have a particular vested interest in this compassion on the basis that I think all those poor people born with the Sun tightly aspecting this extreme and uncomfortable opposition in 1965 deserve our sympathy and understanding, particularly those born exactly 3 months later with the Sun on the ascendant t-squaring this opposition – imagine how difficult that must be!  Especially when you know you should be working but you’re spending your time writing a blog….

1 Comment

Filed under On Life the Universe and Everything

How do you solve a problem like Syria?

I have been thinking about Syria and how to resolve the situation there in a way that does not repeat the mistakes of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

My own personal experience of dealing with conflicts both in my professional work as a coach to leaders in businesses across the world and as chairman of a charity is that the resolution of situations like these takes a shift in perspective that is counter-intuitive.  By this I mean that our key concern is not about how to we resolve Syria but rather how we choose to respond without falling into the traps that Syria represents.  If we see it as a test of our ability to show a different model for using power then we enable everyone to make a transition and we become a role-model for a different approach.  In this sense the question is not how to deal with Bashar al-Assad or what he is doing but rather how do we want to exercise power?  Since we cannot ultimately control how he chooses to respond, or all the other various parties included, we can only choose how we want to act.  Why this is counter-intuitive is that our natural inclination is to focus on how to control the other parties involved and the danger with this is it sucks us into putting control as our primary objective and attempting to control something you cannot ultimately control leads you to force.  This is the position that Bashar al-Assad is in and the Rebels.  Everyone is seeking to use force to control each other and achieve their will.

So how do we respond differently and break this cycle?  There are two things I think are important to bear in mind.  Firstly, it is possible to break these cycles and there are examples around that provide confidence that this is the case.  South Africa is one example – who would have thought that it could be resolved without bloodshed and that the white minority government would hand over power as part of a peaceful transition? Northern Ireland is another example; no-one would have envisaged Martin McGuiness, Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley working together to share power, nor would anyone during the cold war have believed that Russia and the USA would talk or that the Berlin wall would come down.  On a smaller scale, my own experience also reflects this; I have watched individual leaders shift destructive cultures and transform apparently insoluble conflicts.

What is behind the conflicts and what resolves them?   Behind each of these conflicts is an identification with “us and them”.  The parties involved forget their common humanity and become lost in identifying with the veneers of culture, nationality, religion.  They start to see the other people not as fellow human beings but as being odd, wrong, bad, monsters etc. etc.  Once the other parties are “them”, we do not have to make the effort to understand them and we can treat them in inhuman ways.  In South Africa, the white minority government genuinely thought that blacks were different, that they were from another species that they could not live alongside.  In Northern Ireland, the protestants thought the catholics were so different they could not live with them and vice versa and the Eastern bloc and the West thought they were different beings.  In each case, once they saw each other as fellow human beings the divisions and conflicts were put in perspective – the perspective that we are all human beings feeling the same emotions and suffering the same hurts, misunderstandings etc.  It is difficult for anyone to conceive now that the South African government saw Nelson Mandela as a dangerous terrorist who must be imprisoned.  Similarly it is difficult for us to see the firebrand that was Ian Paisley as the peacemaker.  The only way to resolve the issues effectively is to be on everyone’s side.  If we take sides we are lost because any action we take will contribute to “us and them” divisions that will increase conflict.  Similarly, if we act unilaterally it will create further division and tension.

The second thing that is critical is that it takes time and a long-term perspective to shift these issues.  If the culture is one of power used violently then the temptation is to use power violently to attempt to resolve it.  Even if you are successful then the culture of “might is right” is re-inforced.  The situation has to be transformed and the first transformation is not to respond in the same way.  One obvious short-term solution is removing the individuals who are causing the problem but this is rarely successful.  This is because of a misconception that it is these individuals who are causing the problem, when usually they are symptomatic of the problem.  In fact these individuals are key and understanding and working with them usually provides all the answers to shifting the underlying culture.  In this sense these individuals are like a masterclass in understanding the nature of the issues and how to resolve them.  Getting rid of them is the equivalent of chopping a head of the mythical hydra, two more crop up in its place.  The more attempts to use violence to solve the conflicts, the more new hurts and anger are bred.  A long-term commitment to a positive goal allows the flexibility not to get caught by short-term frustrations.

So what should the goal be?  Personally my goal would be to help Syria solve its own internal conflicts without the need for outside intervention and critically to involve other nations like Russia so that they start to feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for the problem rather than feeling they are being railroaded.  To do this the first step would be to win the trust of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.  Without trust it is impossible to influence people except through coercive force and this always has a cost, mostly in terms of others’ seeing that your modus operandi is force and fear.  Nelson Mandela took a different approach and created the conditions in himself to overcome “us and them”.  He did not fall prey to the desire for retribution or revenge despite twenty-seven years of provocation.  Instead he worked on staying open to all sides.  When he was released he spoke of love and reconciliation not force.  His power came from the fact that everyone trusted and respected him not from fear or coercion.  When in prison he refused to see the guards as “them”; they had to be part of the solution no matter how badly they were treating him and his comrades.  Forgiveness is very hard but without it the cycle of conflict continues and if the aim is to prevent further violence then someone has to stop and let go of past hurts.  Nelson Mandela’s approach of truth and reconciliation was key because it allowed room for people to express their pain and be heard without further retribution which would create new hurts and pain.

It takes true courage not to resort to fear and coercion because everyone around is inciting us to react and punish the perpetrators.  We fear that it will be interpreted by others as weakness but the paradox is that it takes strength to forgive and it is weakness to use force.  In psychological terms it is a classic Karpman Drama Triangle of Victim, Saviour and Persecutor.  If we come in as saviour to help the victims, we easily become the person who ends up persecuting the persectutor and they become the new victim.  To play any of the roles means to get caught in all three and then there is an endless cycle.  By being on everyone’s side and refusing to be drawn into one-sided action we can resolve it.  But, it takes real strength of character to achieve it; we have to resist the temptation to respond to provocation.

The key to the situation, in my opinion, is Bashar al-Assad.  He is in a dangerous and difficult position and is no doubt very frightened and paranoid.  When I worked as Chairman of a Charity that ran a Rudolf Steiner school, the relationship between the staff and Directors was entrenched in a damaging “us and them” culture with both sides mistrustful of each other.  The incumbent Principal of the Charity had been elected by the staff against the wishes of the board and set about firing staff and fighting the directors.  Most of the directors felt that we, as the directors, needed to assert our power and sack him and install a new Principal.  The argument of many of my fellow directors was that it would be irresponsible not to sack him, since he was committing such atrocities.  Yet, I could see that this reactive approach, whilst it might afford some short term satisfaction for the directors, would achieve nothing and result in a situation where the staff trusted us even less because they could see we would use our power to enforce our will over theirs.

To address this, and in opposition to the wishes of a number of my fellow directors, I chose instead to work with the incumbent principal.  He made it very clear that I was the last person he was interested in listening to and that he was going to fight me for power every step of the way.  I realised that the only way forward was to give him the power and to build a relationship with him where he trusted that I had his best interests at heart.  This was far from easy work.  The last thing I wanted to do was support him or spend more time with him.  Yet I considered that I was doing work to help transform these emotions and to do so I would have to transform them in myself.  I also tried to view it as work on myself – learning how to use power wisely and to transform the sense of “us and them” in me.  After two years there was a seminal moment when my fellow directors turned to me at a key meeting with staff and remarked that they would not choose anyone else to be Principal and I realised that neither would I.  Indeed he became the key to changing and overcoming the whole “us and them” culture within the charity.  In addition to this, as our relationship grew (and that of my fellow directors with him too) the level of challenge he would accept from us grew too, to the point where I was able to challenge him to an extent that I have rarely challenged anyone and he listened and responded beautifully honestly.  By the end he had become a very genuine friend and someone I had deep respect for.  Part of the key to shifting the relationship with him was to recognise that his very strong desire for power came from a feeling of deep vulnerability and powerlessness and that this was the thing to focus on.

I was thinking about this during a recent visit to Northern Ireland and was keen to ask the people I met about what had been the key to the peace process.  The unanimous verdict from Catholics and Protestants alike was that it was Ian Paisley.  Initially people had seen him as the main obstacle to peace.  Who at that stage could have imagined him working hand in hand with Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams and charming Bertie Ahern?  Situations like South-Africa and Northern Ireland look insoluble.  The temptation is to use power to remove the ringleaders of this but, as I mentioned earlier, my experience throughout organizations is that leaders are often representations of something endemic in the culture.  Remove them and replace them with new leaders and nothing changes because the underlying culture which spawned them has not changed.  What is required to change cultures is a shift in consciousness.  This requires an individual who can embody this change through their personal transformation.  Powerful individuals have the capacity for deep transformation.  It is easy but specious to make the leader the scapegoat and simply remove them hoping that the whole culture will change. Even the revolution which promises to bring relief often achieves little because it is usually based on the very power and violence that it is supposed to replace.  So it needs a fresh approach, one based on the positive use of power to transform rather than force.  This achieves real change.

In the context of Syria it requires a long-term perspective and to build a relationship with Bashar Al-Assad and to win his trust.  As a powerful man he is cornered and deeply vulnerable and his natural response is to defend himself wildly and forcefully like a cornered rat.  He knows that if he loses power and control he will be annihilated, similarly, so do the Sunni business leaders who support him.  He can see no options – no foreign power appears willing to help him.  To change this requires the building of a relationship of trust.  Putting further pressure on him without any sense of relationship simply increases his fear and willingness to go to any length to protect himself. At the charity, I took the responsibility and apologised – I explained that it was our fault as directors for not understanding the Principal and staff.  This was not what they were expecting so it surprised them.  We then worked on giving them responsibility for the challenges of the situation and making it clear we did not want to take over the power or responsibility.  Bashar al-Assad needs a motivation to change his approach.  My instinct would be to provide him with one that positions him as the potential transformer of the situation – an opportunity to leave a positive legacy.  In this I would offer him my full support (and mean it).  I would appeal to his desire for power but in such a way that he uses it positively.  I would explain that he might never be understood but he would have the satisfaction of knowing his real contribution and I would explain that if he could do it, we would know and understand the nature of his contribution.  I would also tell him (and mean it) that we would look after him and protect him but that this would rely on him working to help transform the situation and bring about a peaceful transition in Syria (this might be that he lives under house arrest but in comfortable circumstances for the rest of his life or lives in exile).  Unpalatable as this solution is, it is better than further violence and conflict.  I would challenge him to take responsibility for how to solve Syria and involve the rebels or bring together the rival factions.  I would also make it clear that we would be prepared to involve peace keeping forces to support this but only on the grounds that the focus is achieving peace and reconciliation.  This would be a long-term project – he would be deeply mistrustful and suspicious at first – and it might take many years but this gradual change is far more stable than short-term revolution or violent intervention.  It would take creativity and wisdom to do it successfully but the results would be worth it in terms of our evolution and learning about dealing with international conflict and for the Syrian people it would create the opportunity to break the cycle of power and violence.  It sounds simplistic to give Bashar al-Assad responsibility for finding a way to involve the rebels who clearly hate him and want to destroy him, yet, as I mentioned earlier who would have believed that the white apartheid government would ever sit down with and trust Nelson Mandela or that Ian Paisley would work in partnership with Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams?  Bashar al-Assad would need our help to appoint and involve people from across the spectrum in Syria.  Once the majority supports the process of transition and feels it has a stake and involvement then those who still insist on violence become a minority that all sides want to contain, rather than the default leaders for an unrepresented faction.  I mentioned at the beginning that the key misconception is that we are not fellow human beings.  In all my work, I have noticed that people use culture, race, nationality as an excuse to perpetuate mistrust and an “us and them” approach.  Work to understand and empathise with them as fellow human beings and these divisions fade away.  At the charity I mentioned, staff said that we, as directors, could not possibly understand them because we were not spiritual enough and did not follow Rudolf Steiner.  Once they began to trust us all these supposedly irreconcilable differences disappeared.  Who now says that difference between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are irreconcilable or that blacks and whites in South-Africa cannot live together peacefully?  Yet, we somehow still get caught thinking this way over Islam, Israel, China.  I work regularly with leaders in business who are based in Asia who describe their Asian colleagues as if they are from a different species; that their culture is so different we in the west cannot understand it.  It is a wonderful excuse to justify their frustrations but once they see their Asian colleagues as fellow human beings and work on understanding them they realise it is an illusion; that culture, race, religions are veneers; get caught in these veneers and you miss the deeper level at which we are all the same.

I can hear the objections, indeed, in my experience of the Charity there were fervent objectors among the directors.  One was obsessed with the fact that we were letting the Principal get away with his behaviour and the hurt and pain he had caused staff.  He was determined that he should be bought to account for his actions and that we were setting a precedent for further transgressions among staff; that we must be tough and show that such behaviour would not be tolerated.  This comes to the nub of the difficulty in Syria.  Can we forgive?  In dealing with the situation I faced at the charity and coaching leaders in business this is the most difficult issue.  Yet, when examined honestly it is key.  The real objective of our actions has to be to prevent further transgressions; to contain dangerous or harmful elements and to transform them to prevent them spreading.  I have rarely seen violence or force achieve this.  The real emotion behind “justice” is often revenge and retribution.  Labeling people as tyrants or monsters might allow us to feel justified in treating them as if they were not fellow human beings but it does not break the cycle.  The cycle can only be broken by creating a new approach that transcends the current mode of operating.  This is what Ghandi, Mandela, Gorbachev all achieved.  On a smaller scale I have seen many others do the same throughout organizations with similarly impressive results.  Interestingly, the one director most fervent in his objections at the charity wrote to me many years later to thank me and express his gratitude that the charity had been able to make such a remarkable transformation.

It may be we are not ready to change our approach in Syria yet.  If so, I strongly suspect we will get further opportunities to practice!  There is a collective hesitation and unwillingness to step in where angels fear to tread following the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Everyone is hesitant but no-one can see an alternative.  I am suggesting that there is one and it is a positive thing that intervention is being blocked as it is forcing us to think more deeply.  I could be wrong.

However we act in the situation will send a message about how to use power.  If we use force then the message picked up will be that power is about force.  Our choice concerns how we want to use power and we have responsibility for the consequences of that.  Paraphrasing Ghandi; we must be the change we want to see in the world.

3 Comments

Filed under On Life the Universe and Everything

Further thoughts on aspects of consciousness

In talking to my friend Steve about my previous blog (I know I mention my friends a lot in blogs – this is to give them credit and also with Saturn currently transiting my 11th house to reassure myself that I do have friends despite the way it feels at times!), I began to think further about the connection between our chart and the universal background of energy that astrology represents.  At the moment, with transiting Chiron conjunct my Saturn and widely conjunct my natal Chiron setting off my t-square with Sun on the Ascendant in Sagittarius and Uranus and Pluto in Virgo, I have been realising more fully the nature of this t-square.  It has made me aware of the fact that the nature of the square between the Saturn in Pisces with its fear of loneliness and of financial loss and the Sagittarius sun on the Ascendant is irreconcilable.  If I go for financial security then my Sun on the ascendant and Uranus-Pluto feels it has lost its freedom, self-determination and integrity.  Yet, if I go with my need for freedom and self-determination (a polite euphemism for good old Pluto control and power) then my Saturn/Chiron in Pisces ends up feeling lonely and disconnected.  Similarly, if I am approached by people needing me and wanting me as a friend, my Pisces longing to be needed feels fulfilled but my Sagittarius and Uranus gets itchy feet about the responsibility and possible limitations it imposes.  Relating this to the chart, it is clear that the focus of my consciousness is entangled in the nature of the square/opposition between Pisces, Sagittarius and Virgo and the creative tension between the natures of Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto and Uranus as well as the nature of Chiron.  It is clear that in this respect my consciousness is entangled and so I am forced to grapple with these energies.  Complex stuff.  Yet we are complex beings so no surprise there. It is possible to see that my particular chart is set up to be entangled in these energies in order that through experiencing them and grappling with them I have the opportunity to contribute to the collective evolution of consciousness.  Indeed one can see that every individual’s chart is created with a particular set of entanglements with which their consciousness is forced to grapple in order to contribute to our collective evolution.  A recent argument between two close friends illustrated this.  One had Venus square a Saturn/Uranus conjunction, the other had the Moon in Taurus and transiting Chiron conjunct her Venus in Pisces.  The one with Venus square Saturn/Uranus was debating whether to accede to their partner’s request to come with them to a family event they did not want to go to.  With a powerful Saturn/Uranus conjunction they were debating whether in principle they should be doing something they did not want to do.  Yet, it was clear that the question was not as it appeared.  The question was not about them doing something against their will but rather whether they wanted a relationship with the commitments and compromises it entails or whether they wanted to be single with ultimate freedom.  In the latter case, they would have to accept the accompanying sense of loneliness that their decision entailed.  It felt on the surface like it was a question of doing something against one’s will forced by another person, but the dilemma was an internal one, for which their partner was a catalyst – the question being did they want a relationship?  For the friend with Venus in Pisces, the question was how far were they prepared to sacrifice in order to preserve relationship, since this was against a long-term background of sacrifices made on their part to accommodate the other’s need for freedom.  This also got me thinking about my own relationship since I have Venus in Aquarius and transiting Saturn in Scorpio is making a square to it.  This has been hitting me over the last 6 months and I have been coming to terms with the reality of our relationship and the consequences of my independent nature, in that my wife has built a largely independent existence and I have to take responsibility (typical Saturn) for the fact that this is in many ways in response to my own independent nature.  Since transits provide an idea of the journey of our consciousness, I wonder whether their effect and duration are in line with the time we need to come to terms with and understand them (to the extent we are able?).  I also wonder whether it is less the case that they are ephemeral (ie. that we can wait for a transit to pass and are no longer affected by it) but rather that their effects are permanent and cumulative in terms of our learning.  If Astrology is accurate then it describes the fact that our personality does not change but our level of understanding of it, through the journey of our consciousness (transits) does.

What got me thinking when discussing this with Steve was the fact that my own experience is that it is possible to empathise with everyone and all human experience.  Often when I am coaching people, they describe to me, for instance, that because they are French/German/introverted/male/female/a lawyer etc. etc. that they cannot understand the English/German/extroverts/men/women/accountants etc.  This always baffles me, because they seem to be just like me and I don’t sense any separation from them, indeed whenever I am coaching people I find myself able to relate to their experience as if it were my own, even if I have not experienced directly the exact circumstances they describe.  I wonder if this is something that is germane to us all?  I suspect that it is, but it takes work to unlock it because we get trapped in our own particular identifications.  Could it be that the reason we can understand everyone’s internal world if we choose to do so is that each individual chart contains every sign, every planet and every house?  That in this sense we are all pieces of the one and our separation is an illusion of identification (bear with me I have transiting Neptune square my Mercury in the 12th house at the moment!)?  While our chart may not contain every aspect, since it contains all the planets, houses and signs it contains the potential for every aspect.  So while we may have no planets in Sagittarius and Pisces they are, nonetheless, still square in our natal charts (or any combination of square through to out of sign trine at their extremities).  In this sense our chart contains the whole spectrum of possible energies.  Yet, perhaps the aspects in our own charts are showing us what we identify with and filter that experience through, our particular construction of “me”: our sense of identity.  So the aspects show us what our consciousness identifies with and forms a sense of individuality from.  Thus, while we all might be able to understand someone else’s struggle with the concept of the tension between our individual desires and our need for relationship – Aries opposite Libra – how strongly this figures in our own particular identities will depend on the planet placements and houses of Aries and Libra.  It is clear that some aspect of our lives will reflect it but the degree of intensity and work it creates for us will vary.  “Yes”, we might say, “I can see what you mean”, yet for the other individual, while they can see that we understand, they know that it is not the burning foreground issue which dominates their consciousness but rather a background hue which exists in our life but which does not figure prominently in our conscious awareness.  Thus it reflects (if you will excuse the pun) the way that light works.  Each object in the world reflects the visible spectrum, yet depending on the way it reflects (or in the case of black does not reflect) the visible spectrum we see a different hue, be it green, blue, red etc.  If we imagined each of the signs (or planets/houses) as different hues, we could recognise that they are part of the whole spectrum of light (possible energies) but that each sign only reflects a certain hue.  Combine these together and you might get very subtle variations of hue and indeed complex filters which reflect different hues at different times (like a more complex constellation of aspects).  In this sense our individual personalities are reflecting the entire spectrum of possible energies but filtered through a particular lens (so to speak).

Most of the wisest people that I have encountered and read seem (reassuringly) to be saying the same thing in different words and forms, namely that the path of wisdom is to separate out our identity from our personality; to identify more with the part of us that is just conscious of the whole spectrum and can see more broadly the interconnectedness of life and the true nature of our experience.  This allows us to be able to recognise our particular pattern or filter but be less identified with the dramas and problems that it creates.  Thus for someone who has filters with heavy Scorpio and Capricorn, they might see the world as truly black.  It appears to them from all the multiplicity of possible experiences in life that the outlook is pretty negative.  Similarly, a particularly Sagittarian or Libran lens might reflect the world through rose tinted spectacles.  The difficulty is that each particular lens would be accurate in its reflection of that part of the visible spectrum and yet it is not the whole spectrum.  Once we step back from identification with our own personalities we are able to see the whole of the nature of human experience.  This can at least give us the perspective to see, for instance, that what appear to be our irreconcilable and painful tensions between Pisces and Sagittarius are not soluble – Pisces and Sagittarius will not stop being square each other – but rather once we separate our consciousness out from its identification with this tension we can appreciate it’s nature (as part of life) rather than attempting to change it – in effect to try to force Sagittarius to become trine Pisces.

I often feel that astrology’s greatest gift to us gets underestimated.  Namely, that it affords us this privilege to be able to step back from identification with our own individual personalities and journeys in life (as delineated by the transits we experience) to keep our consciousness open to all life.  It is what gives us our unique ability to laugh at ourselves and life and not to take ourselves and our dramas too seriously, so that, like Viktor Frankl or a Nelson Mandela , we can find meaning and remain open even in the most extreme of human suffering or circumstances.

PS. Apologies for any mistakes in terms of typos or grammar but with Mars in the first house and the Sun in Sag rising square Pluto and Uranus in Virgo it feels like death having to go back over something and, if I do, I generally end up going off on some new interesting tangent anyway which defeats the point of checking it!

1 Comment

Filed under On Life the Universe and Everything