Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Sungem and Everyone,

I?ve transplanted the Fate and Free Will thread from Mundane Astrology and World Events, http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=870, to this Philosophy and Science forum, as Sungem had originally intended. It also seems as though the FFW thread has transformed over the past few postings into a discussion about the rulerships of the modern planets. I?ll try to pick up some of the pieces that I found most interesting and get back on track.

Because natal astrology stakes a claim on knowing oneself and guiding one?s progress through a meaningful life, it is inevitable that astrology needs to deal with certain issues of fate and free will that come with this territory. The public would be correct to turn to astrologers for insight into the philosophy of fate and free will, and astrologers need to develop the full panoply of definitions and concepts to intelligently deal with the issues.

What are the limits of free will and fate, and how do fate and free will interact? The following quote from David McCann?s article, http://www.skyscript.co.uk/saturnmyth.html, is particularly useful (thank you Sungem!).

In ancient Mesopotamia the planets were seen as gods in their own right. The Babylonian name for Saturn was Sagush and the associated god was Ninurta. When the Tablets of Fate, which held the laws of the universe, were stolen by a dragon, it was Ninutra who rescued them and was henceforth placed in charge of fate and law.

In the ancient times cited in this quote, natural laws are associated with fate. I have a question for modern philosophers. Are modern natural laws the inscriptions of fate? Are modern scientists, which is to say those who are now in charge of the laws of the universe, pursuing a fatalist concept?

The power of science is the knowledge that some things are inevitable, some things can be consistently predicted. The feeling today is that the natural laws and physical constants discovered by science are so invincible that we might as well resign ourselves to them as fate. If you throw a stone up, the gravity law says it is fated to come down. If you fly a spacecraft, the law of fate does not allow you to exceed the speed of light. We are so familiar with these natural laws and limitations in the modern world that we have lost the connection to them as items of fate.

Fate n. 1 the development of events outside a person's control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power. 2 the outcome of a particular situation for someone or something, especially the end of a person's life. 3 (the Fates) the three godesses (Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos) who preside over the birth and life of humans. v. (be fated) be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way.

The first definition of this dictionary quote ascribes fate to ?supernatural power.? Is this correct? By not recognizing that natural laws are also outside a person?s control, doesn?t this quote seem quaintly out of date? Doesn?t this suggest that the modern world has lost the true and complete meaning of fate, and in some way denies the reality that we are immersed in scientific fatalism in our everyday lives?

Fate and fatal are connected words hence the negative connotation.

OED uses the root word fatal for fate, ergo negative.

We?d rather exclude the idea of fate from our lives because it is negative. And yet scientists are excited by the discovery of natural laws, which are then inscribed on the modern day equivalent of the Tablets of Fate. We cannot escape these laws and yet we don?t seem to think of them when we consider the concept of fate.

Fate encompasses all the known natural limitations that you just have to resign yourself to live with because you cannot change the laws of the universe. Those who are resigned to the circumstances and the development of events are, naturally, the fatalists.

But hold on a minute, what exactly is written on the Tablets of Fate? Some fatalists go too far and are resigned to the development of some events that are not fate. They resign themselves to limiting beliefs. Beliefs are not the same as the laws of the universe, and are not fate. That?s where astrology comes into the picture. Astrology provides perspective to the development of events, and uses that perspective to separate beliefs from fate.

I generally think Fate is what happens to you when you don?t deliberately choose to make conscious decisions. When you consciously choose to respond to life, it becomes Destiny

Destiny or destined are more neutral words. Though they are more often used in a positive sense.

Destiny is not synonymous with fate, except for the fatalists, to whom of course fate is pre-destined. When you consciously choose to respond to life (instead of resign yourself to circumstances), you exercise your free will. When you become free of your limiting beliefs, then to a large extent you can take control of your life and make things happen the way you want them to. This is how you participate in creating your destiny.

Fatalism = resigned to what happens
Free will = overcoming limiting beliefs
Destiny = conscious, creative participation in your life

We need to use the concept of destiny to understand and describe the interaction of fate and free will. You need realistic goals (a ?destination?) in order to control your destiny. You cannot control fate. Fate is the movement of the planets according to the laws of the universe.

When I had my practice, this is the formula that worked for me. I would try to find the unhealthy limiting beliefs of my clients by examining fatalistic attitudes. I would urge the clients to discover and use their free will so that they could create goals, which would become their chosen destiny.

KennethM

Hi TS and Everyone,

I?ve picked up some more of this thread, which had strayed over into Mundane Astrology and World Events.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15

It also occurred to me that although I have seen "as above, so below" (fate) oft quoted through the threads, the other maxim that was drummed into me when I was learning was the one that runs "the stars impel, they do not compel" (free will).

As above, so below; as within, so without; the micro as a reflection of the macro and so on ? mankind is not separate from the world, the cosmos, the uni-verse (one-song), to which it belongs.

The stars impel, they do not compel ? impel = drive, pulse or propulsion from ?in? ? compel = coming together to drive, usually perceived as a gathering of forces beyond one?s control.

So this suggests the stars (and wandering stars?) drive or pulse from ?in? ? the energy they reflect is in one?s control. This gives rise to responsibility and participation (action).

I would agree with TS that the axiom ?As above, so below? is not so much a principle of fate as it is a supposition that the microcosm is a reflection of the macrocosm. It?s what allows astrology to map events from the microscopic world of the individual to the macroscopic world of the planets and stars, and the other way around. This mapping is done with the astrological frames of reference: signs, houses, and aspects. This axiom serves astrology very well as the mapping principle and can be accepted as simply that. Fate is something else.

The other axiom mentioned is ?The stars impel, they do not compel.? This leads to a consideration of the distinction between ?impel? and ?compel,? and TS clarified this quite well and makes connections to free will.

I have also seen this second axiom worded slightly differently as, ?The stars incline, they do not compel.? I don?t know which version is earlier, or whether it matters, because both versions seem to support each other. It?s easier to make a distinction between ?incline? and ?compel? than ?impel? and ?compel.?

That the stars ?incline,? or merely ?impel? rather than ?compel? presupposes that astrology interprets the planets and stars not only as urges (that ?impel? from within) but as propensities (inclinations). These propensities and urges are to some considerable extent within the control of the individual, and can be overridden by the freedom of independent choice or will.

Because we are always compelled by fate, this second axiom clearly means that astrology is not a fatalistic worldview, but is engaged in finding propensities, tendencies, and trends that define the planetary urges.

KennethM

In Jataka Desha Marga the odd signs are male signs and the even signs are the female signs. The Sun, Mars, and Jupiter are masculine planets; and the Moon, Venus, and Saturn are feminine planets. Mercury is a male neutral planet and Saturn is a female neutral planet regarding the birth of children. These are also the general natures of the planets according to Vivian Robson: maybe Robson was familiar with Indian astrology. Some authors have written that Saturn is 'the mother and giver of all forms, both mother and father, and possessing qualities of both sexes.' So Saturn really is a drag!

So Saturn really is a drag!

Lol!!! Yes, would seem it can be ... as the "gate-keeper" gates can swing either way ... and appearances can be deceiving ... 'Victor-Victoria' or perhaps 'Dame Edna'?

Thanks Kenneth, and my apologies ... guess that's what happens when 2 is missed (in this instance page 2 of other thread) ... get to repeat it ... have moved it here where it's more fitting ...

While many of us are not quite sure just when our free will is exercised.

Free will is excercised each time it encounters, assimilates and passes a boundary ? and in assimilating something, one expands until such time another boundary is encountered. If the boundary is not assimilated, it doesn?t get passed (the 'will' isn't liberated from the boundary) and the exercise is repeated.

It also occurred to me that although I have seen "as above, so below" (fate) oft quoted through the threads, the other maxim that was drummed into me when I was learning was the one that runs "the stars impel, they do not compel" (free will).

As above, so below; as within, so without; the micro as a reflection of the macro and so on ? mankind is not separate from the world, the cosmos, the uni-verse (one-song), to which it belongs.

The stars impel, they do not compel ? impel = drive, pulse or propulsion from ?in? ? compel = coming together to drive, usually perceived as a gathering of forces beyond one?s control.

So this suggests the stars (and wandering stars?) drive or pulse from ?in? ? the energy they reflect is in one?s control. This gives rise to responsibility and participation (action). "An it harm none".

If the stars impel, drive the pulse from ?in? (as reflected by their containment in a natal chart), then how can those very same stars gather force without a person's participation?
They can be perceived as having such force if regarded as being separate to, or external to a person. But if they?re from ?in?, how can they be separate to?

And if perceived as separate to, then doesn?t this perception carry through to the individual perceiving self as being separate to the body, the world, the cosmos, to the nature of that which he/she belongs?
Separation being perception of matter, ie. physical boundaries.

The boundary of the body of an individual, the world, and the cosmos, offer 3 physical limitations to perception.

And perhaps it?s this that partly gives rise to the idea that the material is but an illusion, ie. division is but an illusion ? an illusion of ?necessity? that perhaps gives rise to the notion that mankind is separate to the world/cosmos to which it belongs in line with the limiting concept of that which can physically be seen is 'real'.

It is ?real? as it pertains to ?reality?, but not the totality of reality ? as our other senses reveal. Eg, because I can?t see the function of my heart that doesn?t make it, or it?s function, less ?real?.
So in this context, because something is not apparent ? but the results of it?s working are apparent ? what?s 'in'-visible to the naked eye can also be considered ?real?.
Its results manifesting in reality, or within a certain physically defined boundary.

So, is the 'in'-visible propulsion of my heart more or less real than the visible result?

Perhaps the more mankind tunes ?in'-wards to the energies that pulse ?in? it, then each time a person encounters, assimilates and passes a boundary to arrive at a new balance, he/she conforms less to the physical limitations suggested by his/her chart.

Part of the tuning being to actively listen to the rhythm of nature, one?s own nature, in accordance with the uni-verse ? and in doing so one?s inner authentic self becomes more clearly defined each time one assimilates and passes a boundary, ie. ?Know Thyself?.

So while, with age, our physical body fades from one perception of reality, our authenticity becomes more clearly defined ? more whole (uni) ? at one ? in tune with the ?one-song?. 1-2-3 ? ashes to ashes, dust to dust ? as a physical limitation is passed a way of being and/or understanding expands/spreads.

Perhaps the question of Fate vs Free will has just as much to do with the question of what is it that lies beyond a limit perceived as a finite line ? as much as questions about what?s to occur within that definable limit.

And perhaps to a certain extent such questions are driven by a fear of the unknown as to what lies beyond that physically definable limit ? the unknown diminishing the more one comes to know one?s authentic self. Trust.

As above, so below ? the stars impel, they do not compel ? mankind is not separate from the cosmos or uni-verse to which it belongs.

Separation being physical illusion, for how can something that works from ?in? be separate to that from ?in? which it works?
And how can something that?s in-tegral be compelled to be anything else?

?Finally we arrive at Saturn, the slowest of the visible planets, ruling the positive sign of Aquarius and the negative sign of Capricorn. These two signs are opposite to those of the Sun and Moon. It is for this reason that Saturn is said to be the greater malefic and an enemy of life, since he opposes the forces of creation, "in a diametrical aspect not consistent with beneficence".?

I?m very interested to know when Saturn received it?s exclusively masculine designation that seems prevalent today? And why signs (celestial houses), the adjectives if you like, get overlooked.

Aquarius is a masculine/positive/yang sign ? the corresponding celestial sign that helps describe a planet?s energy/operation.
Capricorn is a feminine/negative/yin sign ? yet the prevalence of Saturn being referenced as a ?he? also often results in Capricorn being referenced as a ?he?. It?s not, in keeping with tradition, the Sea-Goat ? or the ?goat-fish? ? goat with a fish tail ? is half earth half water, feminine, receptive, or yin, ie. it?s a ?her?.

So, when referring to Saturn as a ?he? are we in fact referencing Aquarius in accordance with the traditional rulership scheme of things?

Confusion between the masculine/feminine ? perhaps via the Romans and their association with the masculine Janus, a Solar God? As compared with the lunar calendar? A shift from matriachal to patriarchal ? or the "Man in the Moon" to the "Moon in the Man" for assimilation before a new balance is arrived at between left and right?

As indicated in the diagram presented in Andrew's link on the other thread under Mundane and the article's subsequent text, masculine and feminine (or positive and negative, or yin and yang) alternate with each sign.

Aquarius opposite Leo ? masculine opposite masculine, or two positive poles do not create life.
Capricorn opposite Cancer ? feminine opposite feminine, or two negative poles do not create life. Usually it requires a positive & negative to create new life.

Aquarius is inconjunct Cancer ? inconjunct indicates an adjustment, suggesting an adjustment needs to be made within the masculine fixed air principle (Saturn) to embrace the feminine (Moon).
Likewise Capricorn is inconjunct Leo ? an adjustment with the feminine principle (Saturn) to embrace the masculine (Leo).

So when is Saturn a ?she? instead of a ?he??

Perhaps this is brought into clarity through the ?modern? discovery of Uranus. And while the discovery of this planet is ?modern?, it?s namesake is not.
Uranus (masculine) is overthrown by Cronus (masculine) who is subsequently overthrown by Zeus (masculine).
An idea that begins with the father, severed and redirected by the son, and expanded upon by the grandson.
Evolution of the masculine principle? And one that?s also been reflected in society. Yet this evolution (and the corresponding evolution of the feminine principle) appears to be one that takes us back to the very roots of astrological tradition.

So when we talk about exaltations etc, are we referencing the masculine or feminine associated with the planet?

Saturn is exalted in Libra (a masculine, air sign). Saturn in the context of Aquarius (masculine) being exalted in a masculine celestial domain ? a fixed idea being directed to achieve a social balance? Uranus in the masculine domain of Libra? Couldn?t that fit the exaltation too ? ie. the high social ideal.
Or Saturn as the feminine principle ? the feminine form (or body - the body is a boundary) exaltation in a masculine celestial domain?

And this place of exaltation being somewhere the energy evolves to through the signs, the above example being one of maturity.
If we look at Saturn in it?s Fall, Saturn as the mature masculine principle (Aquarius, fixed idea) is in it?s Fall in the celestial domain of Aries (youth).

?There is an unreflective trend in modern astrology which seeks to oust the traditional rulers of signs by giving exclusive rulership to the trans-Saturnian planets.?

Really? I thought for the most part those who embraced the trans-Saturnians to write/publish material about them already had a sound grasp of the traditional principles following many years study and it was upon this structure that they were building ? what was published for public consumption being based upon years of having studied the tradition and their published works corresponding to market demands and the attention span of the masses.
However, by seeing the end result only ? instead of also encapsulating all the cumulative knowledge that led to the conclusions, the progressive developmental steps were leap-frogged. Again, there is only so much information that can be contained in single volume format.
Any newcomer to astrology sees the end result of those years study if heading straight for the outers ? rather than starting at the beginning like they did. And by starting at the outer-most limit, the time comes when they have to retrace their steps back to the beginning to understand the logical progression. Perhaps the danger of trying to run before one learns to crawl?

Re the idea that modern seeks to ?oust? the traditional rulers ? how can something that?s integral to astrology, that forms part of astrology much like the skeleton of a person?s body, be ousted?

If there is a ball that sits on the line that defines the outermost horizon of our physical vision, we don?t see it clearly. That ball is brought closer to us when that outermost horizon/limit is extended to the next ball, and the ball after that.
By extending the horizon beyond the first ball, the closer the ball gets, and the clearer we see it. The clearer we see it, the greater chance we have of understanding it. Once upon a time the small circle of a village was the boundary of life and understanding ? that village now encompasses the globe, it?s global.

So perhaps there is something to the theories (such as those put forward by David Talbot and others) that in ?The Age of the Gods? or ?The Golden Age? ? 2nd-3rd millennium BC, Saturn resided above the North Pole before it went nova. A time when Saturnian principles were closer to home and more equally embraced ? those principles now coming back into clearer focus as the limit of our view out to the horizon of the cosmos is extended.

?Do attempts to incorporate the outer planets into the traditional philosophy of astrology disregard its integrity??

I don?t believe so ? astrologers are human, and humans differ in terms of their boundaries. We all work within certain boundaries until such time we?re able to assimilate them and pass them. Assimilation being a process that integrates a division and passes on to greater understanding. Personally I think the integrity resides within whether astrologers can respect and accept others' boundaries.

?For example, in ancient mythology Uranus ruled all the heavenly spheres, and was the father of Saturn. Its period of eighty-four years is the product of the number of the signs multiplied by the seven planets over which it 'rules,' i.e., 12 x 7 = 84.?

If one Saturn return was the approximate equivalent to the life-span during the middle ages, what age were we in when two Saturn returns equalled the average life-span, and where will we be (are we at) when the average life-span equals three Saturn returns ? in the age (84) of Uranus?

?It seems to me that this depends upon which outer planets one might wish to incorporate, the underlying rationale for their selection and inclusion, one's understanding of what constitutes a traditional philosophy of astrology (not to mention one's selection of one's preferred astrological system and philosophical worldview), whether one's understanding of traditional philosophy is rigid and inflexible or pliant and adaptive, the latitude of interpretation one permits oneself in articulating an understanding of tradition, and whether one's practice is congruent with one's convictions (or if indeed this latter state of affairs is at all important).?

I agree.

Perhaps it?s the all-encompassing discipline of astrology that should be used to validate science rather than the other way around? Afterall, ?necessity? is the Mother of all invention.

Best Wishes,
TS

This is absolutely and totally hysterical!!

I leave you guys alone for 5 minutes and there's chaos (even if it is intended to be "neater" Kenneth).

I have no problem with moving it, even tho we'd trained everyone to look in the wrong place! 2 subjects in 1 thread over 3 forums - it's certainly well-travelled, but thanks for getting us back on track, it's hard to have a discussion when everyone agrees

I really just hopped on to say it's Monday morning at work in Australia and because of committments after work I won't be back on until Tues night Aust time - gosh I'm glad I did - wouldn't want you to think I'm offended and have gone off in a snit!!

Thank you for starting my Monday off with an (unintended) chuckle!

Hi Sungem -- got the message -- won't say another word about the outers for a while yet!

Actually -- I'm not sure there's really much more that I could say anyway! I think I've stated over and over again (ad nauseum) my opinions on the matter -- but some of the discussion is interesting -- I can already feel my brain dripping out of my ears -- so who knows?...

I?ve gone back to snag a couple of more thoughts from this chaotic and well-traveled thread. Then maybe I can imagine that I?m helping to tidy up and make some reasonable sense of this seriously deep philosophical discussion.

Let?s go back to the idea of free will.

While many of us are not quite sure just when our free will is exercised.

That?s a good observation Sungem.

I generally think Fate is what happens to you when you don?t deliberately choose to make conscious decisions. When you consciously choose to respond to life, it becomes Destiny... just an off thought to throw out there.

Thanks Granny. I think this is true and will try to extend this thought a little farther if I may.

The points where we consciously choose to respond to life are where we exercise free will. I think the term ?free will? carries a connotation of risk, sort of, ?You are free to think/do what you wish, but you?d better know what you?re getting into, because you could be sorry later.?

If free will is going to work well for us, it should be a result of conscious choices, where we engage memory and experience to weigh the potential risks and possibilities. Healthy free will is the beginning of a learning/growing experience. Each of us must exercise free will, and then learn from our choices, in order to mature as a person. Free will should carry us through the limitations of our personal or collective beliefs.

I natal astrology at least, when we examine the transits or progressions, we try to weigh the possibilities and make conscious choices that will develop personality and arrive at worthy goals, by creating a desirable (root sidereal) destiny. We aim for maturity and competence.

I haven?t done much horary astrology, but I never got the sense that free will, or developing maturity or competence, ?becoming a better person? ever enters into it. Is there any place for free will or destiny in horary?

KennethM

Hi Kenneth,

I wish I had more time than I do today to give a thoughtful reply to this. I work primarily as a horary astrologer (in fact, my client-based astrological work is exclusively horary). And yet I have no interest in telling someone what is going to happen to them. In my opinion horary is all about examining creative and destructive options. Because of the way that astrologers write about horary to each other, it can often seem creatively ?dry? and a matter of stating something like ?it looks like this or that is going to happen to you? or ?it looks like you will do this or that?.

But in reality that?s not the kind of situation I deal with or the approach that is taken. Most of the people I do horary work for are emotionally or mentally blocked and feel desperately stuck with a situation that they don?t know how to manoeuvre or accept. I think astrologers can get a false notion of horary if their exposure to it is mainly to the questions that are being asked by astrologers for themselves ? because the type of question that a budding horary astrologer asks (with their easy access to its technique) is not the kind of question that drives clients to seek astrologers out.

In real life most well adjusted people are happy to take some gambles in life ? take the question ?should I accept the new job??. I?ve had this question quite a lot, but always from friends, family, colleagues or astrologers. I?ve never had a stranger seek me out, wanting to use astrology for the first time, to get some kind of reassurance about whether to accept a job offer or not. One time I had something similar, but it soon became clear that the fear attached to the job opportunity was rooted in a history of sexual abuse that the client had never been able to confess to anyone. The horary revealed where the real relevance of the issue lay, and that?s one of the reasons why I don?t consider it terribly important how the question is phrased. The most important thing is to get into that chart until the chart comes alive, and every single part of it fits together. When that happens there is a tremendous energy-rush.

Another thing ? I have often said that in all my experience as a horary astrologer, I can think of very few instances where what I have said hasn?t connected with something that the client already knew for themselves at some deep level. Because of their upset or confusion, they have lost touch with what they know and the consultation is firstly a process of rediscovery. It?s amazing what strength people can draw, in even the most difficult situations, when they become sure-mined and get back in touch with their own knowledge.

The bottom line is that I maintain horary is all about empowering people and helping them to make effective choices for themselves. As far as I?m concerned no other branch of astrology is anywhere near as revealing at those special moments when you get someone who really needs a consultation and is ready to open themselves up to a new perspective.

Sure, horary can be used in more trivial matters, but so can natal work with its irritating and arrogant ?tell me more about myself!? demands. And no astrologer can claim to make someone else a better person, but if the sense of that comes out of gaining maturity, accepting responsibility and developing confidence; then horary facilitates all those particularly well, especially since the moment that the astrology is used is based upon a client acknowledging their fragility, opening up for advice and counsel, and being willing to be an active part of the process.

If the client is ready and the astrologer is willing, both natal and horary can be used with great effect. I much prefer the approach of horary though ? taking a close and detailed look at something significant through the focus of a problem, than the broad outline approach of natal work. And the reason I no longer do natal work for clients is because most of them haven?t primed themselves to look at the difficult issues as square on as they have with horary ? where the whole thing opens up with an admission of a problem.

Thankfully, I?m short of time today or you?d have had a much longer response here !
But take my word for it, when there is a real need for it, horary is not a technique that should be dismissed lightly.

Deb

Thanks Andrew.

TS ? I suggested to Andrew that we temporarily suspend discussion on trans-Saturnians and save it for a separate thread when FFW is done with in order to lessen some of the confusion. So for that reason, I?ll not respond to that portion of your post if you don?t mind ? but hold the valuable thoughts!

Kenneth & TS,

Lest you think I don?t have an original thought in my head, let me explain that I see no reason to try to paraphrase that which I find already perfectly expressed, hence some lengthy quotes will follow ? (or perhaps I live in perpetual fear of being the one who transforms ?send reinforcements, we?re going to advance? into the message? send three and fourpence, we?re going to a dance? )

Since I got into this with a somewhat throwaway comment which TS, and then others, took up, it was probably inevitable at some stage to come back to ?core belief? so I offer the following because it expresses so succinctly how I view fate, free will and destiny in my ?core belief?. The particular view quoted was freely available and quite popular in certain circles 25 years ago (and possibly still is), but stubborn and perverse to the end I avoided most of those books at that time (possibly the child?s ?but I want to do it myself!?) ? and so when they popped into my life again two years ago, I took notice of the ?nudge? and read, only to find it confirmed more beautifully than I could possibly hope to express, everything in the point of view I?d spent the last 25 years developing!

So in posing an answer to your following questions:

? What are the limits of free will and fate, and how do fate and free will interact?
? Are modern natural laws the inscriptions of fate?
? We are so familiar with these natural laws and limitations in the modern world that we have lost the connection to them as items of fate.

I offer the following because I think it speaks to the centre of our discussion and your points above and I quote because I simply don?t think I can put my view of the matter more clearly than is expressed here.

The whole of life is regulated by natural laws. Nothing is left to freakishness, to miracles or to chance. All is cause and effect, sowing and reaping, otherwise the universe would be chaotic. You have evidence of an infinite plan, of an intelligence in the natural laws wherever you look.

It is to be seen in the sequence of the seasons, the movements of planets and galaxies, the ebb and flow of tides, the growth of a myriad forms of floral life, where natural law rules supreme. So there is the limit which the divine power has placed because nothing can occur beyond the framework of natural law. But there are laws within laws. There are not only physical laws there are mental and spiritual ones.

It is part of the plan that you should have an element of free will, the power and ability to make choices in certain circumstances. Used for its best and highest, you can play your part in the spiritual unfoldment and evolution of the race, the world, the universe and the cosmos because your spirit is part of the Great Spirit.

You share in the divinity that is responsible for all that exists everywhere. You are the Great Spirit in microcosm. All that the Great Spirit has of that infinity you have and you will have infinity in which to unfold it.

You can wake up tomorrow morning at an hour earlier or an hour later, or you can stay in bed if you like. You can go for a walk or drive a car. You can lose your temper and hope to find it again. There is a variety of things you can do for which you have free will.

But you cannot stop the sun from shining, you cannot halt the tempest; these are beyond your power. Your free will is limited because your choice is restricted. There is another limitation placed on your free will. It is the mental and spiritual stage you have reached in your development. You are free to kill, but your character will ensure that you refrain. So that when you have choices you are limited by who and what you are at the time. Like many things in the universe you have a paradox. You have free will within limitations all the time.(. . . )

It is part of the complementary aspect of the law that man and woman help to make the whole. Intuition can help where reason cannot give the answer. You are being given the opportunity to fulfil yourselves. You have free will. You may make the choice.

Life is not chance, accident or even coincidence. The whole of life is governed by immutable natural law. Whatever aspect of being you examine, it is due to natural law. Human beings are not outside the operation of natural law. They are integral parts of it.

There is free will up to a point, but it is never a free, free will. It is a free will that is conditioned and restricted by certain circumstances of spiritual growth and evolution. (. . .) There is free will within certain limits ? you can choose which path you take at a certain moment and either hinder or advance your spiritual progress. (. . .) It is the way you settle your problems that develops what is within you. You do not develop the spirit when everything is easy and smooth, but when you have difficulties.

Both of you picked up my comment:

While many of us are not quite sure just when our free will is exercised.

And I think both of of you made comments which sort of bear out the above

Kenneth: I think the term ?free will? carries a connotation of risk, sort of, ?You are free to think/do what you wish, but you?d better know what you?re getting into, because you could be sorry later.?

TS: Free will is excercised each time it encounters, assimilates and passes a boundary ? and in assimilating something, one expands until such time another boundary is encountered. If the boundary is not assimilated, it doesn?t get passed (the 'will' isn't liberated from the boundary) and the exercise is repeated.

Of course the above also supposes one believes in a ?higher power?. Well, I for one don?t believe in the four score years and ten, then POOF! The End writ large. Otherwise what would be the point of all the laughter and tears, the heartbreak and happiness, the sorrow, tragedy and comedy, the very heights and depths of human life?

As I?ve noted before, my life map (I made that up but it?s as good a name as any for the idea that was described) may be different from someone else?s. I appreciate there are differing opinions and beliefs and I?m not out to convert anyone to mine, I?m just offering an alternative interpretation because at this point it seems pertinent that if I?m going to take a stand at all, then I should be clear about where that is (for the moment anyway). One thing I happen to concur with is that yes, free will operates within destiny.

Question: To what extent does destiny play its part in man?s earth life? Is predestination an outside force or your own choice?
It could be both. An outside force helped you to make the choice. You can have free will and destiny at the same time. If you are content to accept that earthly life is the sum total of physical existence, then so be it. But it is conceivable that the spirit which inhabits your present earthly body has existed before, with not necessarily that (same) facet of spirit.

To digress momentarily, while it is popular to talk of mind, body and spirit ? and to be involved in astrology at all I think signifies that we have each contemplated this to a greater or lesser extent ? there is a fourth leg which makes that 3-legged stool a chair. Just as it is uncomfortable to sit on a stool through a 2 hour lecture, so we would not choose to sit on a stool through a movie or television programme. If we have an option, we choose a comfortable chair ? the fourth leg is emotion. Whilst I acknowledge that this can be uncomfortable for some, (chairs have infinite variation but I don?t want to get side-tracked any further), for any degree of comfort there needs to be 4 legs to a chair ? physical, mental, spiritual and emotional, and when balanced provide a level of comfort exceeding that of a stool. This adage passed through my email the other day and reminded me of something half known ? ?Once what you have learned finds its emotional place, it is never forgotten? (F.Tirenz, whoever s/he was).

Kenneth says: We?d rather exclude the idea of fate from our lives because it is negative.

Well, I tried to leave this alone because I?m sorry, I ?m still not sure fate is necessarily negative in and of itself. Granny pointed out ?fate and fatal are connected hence the negative connotation?. At the end of the OED entries for both fate and fatal refer to fatum

FATE
origin ME: from Ital. Fato or (later) from its source, L. fatum ?that which has been spoken? from fari ?speak??
FATAL
origin ME: (in the senses ?destined by fate? and ?ominous?): from Ofr. or from L. fatalis, from fatum (see fate)

So who spoke it? And I?m not entirely sure that I agree the scientists are the final arbiters of fate just because they are finally able to prove to themselves that a natural law exists.

Kenneth: The first definition of this dictionary quote ascribes fate to ?supernatural power.? Is this correct? By not recognizing that natural laws are also outside a person?s control, doesn?t this quote seem quaintly out of date? Doesn?t this suggest that the modern world has lost the true and complete meaning of fate, and in some way denies the reality that we are immersed in scientific fatalism in our everyday lives?

Quite possibly, but you?re going to have to take it?s quaintness up with the editors of the OED! (I?m using the Tenth edition, revised 2001). I suppose it depends on your interpretation of a true and complete meaning of fate. Doesn?t ascribing fate to a ?supernatural power? recognize that natural laws are outside a person?s control? I for one believe that ?Infinite? or ?Great Spirit? (I prefer this term as it stops me thinking of some grey-bearded old man ? gosh, you?re not are you? ), was/is in fact responsible for natural law, so I think that?s where I get my understanding of fate.. But I do see your point.

Kenneth: Fate encompasses all the known natural limitations that you just have to resign yourself to live with because you cannot change the laws of the universe. Those who are resigned to the circumstances and the development of events are, naturally, the fatalists.

Not necessarily just the known ones and I still don?t like the term fatalists, but I understand that it?s probably an accepted one for many, and you in particular, so I'll try to work around it. However I most definitely do not consider myself a fatalist believe it or not, because of the existence of free will in the mix. Which comes back to my core belief ? that we are basically spirit that has lived before and will live again, therefore what we are here to do in this lifetime has an outline, a destiny, in order to progress the spirit. How well we achieve that destiny is largely up to us, and the "nudging" we receive when straying too far off track, and how we exercise our free will within the natural laws that exist.

Kenneth: Beliefs are not the same as the laws of the universe, and are not fate. That?s where astrology comes into the picture. Astrology provides perspective to the development of events, and uses that perspective to separate beliefs from fate.

Yes, I do agree with this?beliefs are not the same thing at all. If astrology has anything to offer I think it is very much in the re-interpretation of what many consider to be their destiny (because they believe it to be unalterable), and an acknowledgement that free will can and does take a hand in the outcome.

When you become free of your limiting beliefs, then to a large extent you can take control of your life and make things happen the way you want them to. This is how you participate in creating your destiny.

Okay, I think I can concede this by rephrasing it slightly :

Fate = natural law
Free will = ability to proceed or regress (make decisions) within natural
law in order to achieve to a lesser or greater degree our
Destiny = spirit?s progress

So yes, I do seem to have changed my belief that fate=destiny now that I?ve been made to think it through to the nth degree. For that I thank you all and ?bless your little cotton socks? for yet again proving how valuable it is to exchange ideas and to actively listen to someone else?s point of view. (Which I sincerely hope I've done since I have immense respect for those put forward).

The Law is perfect in its operation. Effect always follows cause with mathematical precision. No individual has the power to alter by one hair?s breadth the sequence of cause and effect. That which is reaped must be that which is sown. . .

The law of cause and effect is basic, fundamental and unalterable because you can only reap what you have sown. Effect must follow cause with mathematical accuracy; it cannot be otherwise. In turn, the effect becomes the cause by which another effect is set into motion, producing another cause. The process is a constant one. The flower will always be constant to the seed.

And I think you had an admirable formula Kenneth, which obviously worked for you in the context in which you explained it.

I would agree with TS that the axiom ?As above, so below? is not so much a principle of fate as it is a supposition that the microcosm is a reflection of the macrocosm. It?s what allows astrology to map events from the microscopic world of the individual to the macroscopic world of the planets and stars, and the other way around. This mapping is done with the astrological frames of reference: signs, houses, and aspects. This axiom serves astrology very well as the mapping principle and can be accepted as simply that. Fate is something else.

Both go to the top of the class.

I actually don?t have a problem with either of the sayings and more to the point, don't think I ever questioned them. I just found it interesting that no-one had mentioned the one that went ?the stars impel/incline?? since it seemed to come from the same era, or is my understanding of that erroneous too? My reading of this is simply that it is reiterating that within the microcosm, we have free will i.e ?they do not compel?.

Perhaps the more mankind tunes ?in'-wards to the energies that pulse ?in? it, then each time a person encounters, assimilates and passes a boundary to arrive at a new balance, he/she conforms less to the physical limitations suggested by his/her chart.

Part of the tuning being to actively listen to the rhythm of nature, one?s own nature, in accordance with the uni-verse ? and in doing so one?s inner authentic self becomes more clearly defined each time one assimilates and passes a boundary, ie. ?Know Thyself?.

I think you?ve explained this very well TS and I hope others may also see some correlation with what I?ve been trying to say above.

Perhaps the question of Fate vs Free will has just as much to do with the question of what is it that lies beyond a limit perceived as a finite line ? as much as questions about what?s to occur within that definable limit.

And perhaps to a certain extent such questions are driven by a fear of the unknown as to what lies beyond that physically definable limit ? the unknown diminishing the more one comes to know one?s authentic self. Trust.

As above, so below ? the stars impel, they do not compel ? mankind is not separate from the cosmos or uni-verse to which it belongs.

Again I think we?re reading from the same page? and astrology is a tool for those who have the wit and will to engage with its mysteries, which can perhaps go some way towards illuminating that which is ?perceived as a finite line?

Did I forget anything?

Thank you both,
Sungem

Hi Sungem,

Of course the above also supposes one believes in a ?higher power?. Well, I for one don?t believe in the four score years and ten, then POOF! The End writ large. Otherwise what would be the point of all the laughter and tears, the heartbreak and happiness, the sorrow, tragedy and comedy, the very heights and depths of human life?

Why do you think there has to be a point? These experiences are sufficient within themselves, so why do they need a point?

Hello Sungem,

No, I don?t believe you forgot anything ? I agree.

From etymology dictionary (on-line version):

Fate:
c.1374, from L. fata, neut. pl. of fatum "thing spoken (by the gods), one's destiny," from neut. pp. of fari "to speak," from PIE *bha- "speak" (see fame). The L. sense evolution is from "sentence of the Gods" (Gk. theosphaton), subsequently "lot, portion" (Gk. moira, personified as a goddess in Homer), later "one of the three goddesses (Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos) who determined the course of a human life."

Destiny:
c.1325, from O.Fr. destin?e (12c.), fem. pp. of destiner, from L. destinatus, pp. of destinare "make firm, establish" (see destination). The sense is of "that which has been firmly established," as by fate.


Destiny and fate being interwoven, as you and Kenneth alluded to earlier.

Destiny being the solidification of fate ? making the ?word? real. Or, 'establishing the truth' and 'practicing what one preaches'.

And it is every person?s fate to arrive at the one final destination commonly known to all mankind, one life-span is only so many years.
Many paths (ie. choices, the exercise of free will) be they conscious or unconscious, still arrive at that same single destination. As they say, it?s the journey that counts ? the importance of using one?s allotted time wisely and well. Appreciating the moment.

When considering the ?negative? attributions, I think it?s also worthwhile considering the associated polarity, ie. negative = feminine=yin.
The lesser malefic is born from the waters of the 'negative' and exalted upon arriving home in the celestial domain of the Greater Malefic.
?The one who gives birth/form to the pulse of life nutures it through to exaltation, and it's the one that embraces it at the end of the day? ? or something to that effect.
Mother Nature is constantly recycling substance and energy, and mankind is part of Nature. Celebration of life, in all it?s facets ? including the ?negatives?. The ?negatives? have a way of drawing people together, for comfort, nurturing and healing ? especially during times of darkness.

Where ?fate? is concerned, there is a difference between ?resignation? and ?acceptance? ? but either way, the time ultimately arrives when one surrenders. Surrender freeing up the circulation of energy once again.

Just back to re-cycling, Sungem, a friend (another Gemini!) once observed:
?There?s only a certain amount of air in the world, and it?s constantly being re-cycled. Just think, the air we?re breathing right at this moment is the same as that breathed by Einstein and Picasso ? it?s just been recycled.?

Your thread has been both illuminating and painted with fine, artistic and masterful strokes.

Thanks to all.

In appreciation,
TS

PS ? re ?Why do you think there has to be a point?? I?m sure Sungem will have a response, but for what it?s worth, belief extends such points beyond the span of one life ? probably has something to do with re-cycling.
For as the stars (and wandering stars) cycle and re-cycle above, so they cycle and re-cycle below ... they impel (work from in), not compel.

For anyone who is interested in this topic, I strongly suggest that you read Patrick Curry's 'Carter Memorial Address' that Deb has uploaded onto the site. I had the privilege of being at this event last year and am pleased to have the opportunity to review what Patrick had to say in his address. While I don't necessarily agree with all he has to say, it is a very thought provoking piece and well worth the time and consideration you might give to it.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/enchantment.html

Cheers
Sue