The Subjectivity Trap: a Disclaimer

In the past I have made a habit of writing articles based broadly upon the extant themes of my own life and experience, however, it appears that a number of third parties with whom I have no relationship whatever, nor have ever had any relationship, and indeed with whom I most fervently hope never to have any relationship in light of their manner of relating have determined that what I write constitutes an affront.

I have also in a separate incident been threatened with legal action for expounding my distress at being denied access to my children. My wife’s hurt, derived from our separation I have much sympathy for despite the fallout from her subsequent choices and the anguish caused me by them. I miss my children terribly, that is all, it is not a condemnation.

In light of these fraught developments I will from this point forward only explore on this journal astrological subjects that have no bearing upon my own prevailing life situation. I will instead be writing entirely private posts in a separate journal which will explore my insights relating to transits, progressions and arcs and their effects: my purpose is only to further the study of astrology and since I have no other life than my own, I rather audaciously reserve the right to contemplate it and indeed to share it with other astrologers. Working on the premise that you ought to have no grounds for complaint if you ask for a smack in the teeth and subsequently receive one, if you do not enjoy my observations then please no longer attend to them.

I will be creating this new journal to discuss – frankly and with daring subjectivity – my personal insights: I will not link it from this journal, nor will I make any traceable connection to that content; however, if you would like to be informed of my personal journal’s location then you need only send an email to: chirotic.school@gmail.com and I will respond with the new journal’s address.

If you are one of those persons who – as a result of reading my articles – has determined to take such great offence at your own inferences then please do not ask for the address. I neither encourage nor desire your subscription or the dubious benefit of your deductions about my motives, which incidentally – based as they are upon the most unreliable hearsay it is possible to conceive of – are so far from balanced and fair as to have no merit whatever. It would normally be considered the most basic of courtesies in civilised society to – at the very least – meet the accused in person before he is condemned.

I have no interest whatever in a rebuttal of a conclusion arrived at through a failure to follow even the most simplistic argument; but since “show and tell” psychology appears to be the order of the day I will briefly explain, for the benefit of those who find the written medium difficult to reconcile with a sense of proportion, the basic premise of my article on Saturn-Pluto. The key points were:

1. I have been experiencing a Saturn transit to Pluto over the last few weeks.
2. As often proves out in astrology, transits operate through third parties, ergo:
3. I have been experiencing interactive difficulties with Saturn-Pluto types, some of whom I mentioned (as is my right in an enlightened democracy).
4. The most celebrated Saturn-Pluto generation of recent times fell in the year 1946.
5. Reinhold Ebertin (not me!) determined that the organic imperative of Saturn-Pluto is calcification and Leo rules the heart in the physical body.
6. This is why heart blockage (i.e: calcification (Sa/Pl) of the heart (Leo)) is one of the key understandings of Saturn-Pluto in Leo. No astrologer on the planet would disagree with this.
7. By stating this astrological insight I am not wishing harm on any person, nor causing any biological dysfunction to them, neither am I even making any connection between Ebertin’s stated tenets and any individual or individuals except those three case studies which were discussed in the article. To claim otherwise is spurious and entirely misleading, the article stated outright that a transformed Sa/Pl in Leo had the potential to display an astonishing depth of compassion and love and to selectively determine my intent through entirely subjective reasoning is nothing more than shabby equivocation and an utterly unfair reflection of my motives and of the article itself.
8. On the other hand, it is a basic human right (in an enlightened democracy) to consider astrology to be vacuous, dangerous and misleading, which applies in just the same way to all beliefs, philosophies and dogmas. Knock yourself out. Preferably keeping it to yourself if at all possible (although I understand that it might not be entirely possible for certain individuals with anger, entitlement and boundary issues).

This afternoon I will be publishing an article on Mars-Pluto which has no especial bearing on my life, no hidden agenda, no intimation of malice toward any person or persons, living or dead. It is just an article about astrology which I have written for those people who have an interest in astrology.

Sincerely, Jeremy (not Rasputin or Mesmer).

If you enjoyed this post, consider supporting Chirotic Journal, and get access to exclusive content.