Dear Friend and Reader:

It’s Monday morning, and Mercury is applying in a square aspect to the Galactic Core. The aspect is exact tomorrow, but it’s in full effect right now, and to make things interesting, Mercury is precisely square a point called Hades today. Hades is a touch of the dark side, and it’s likely the collective mind is grappling with a bit of that.

The Galactic Core is friendlier, but difficult to grasp. Since most people have not heard of the Galactic Core, I’ll link to an article about its discovery in 1932 from The Spiral Door, last year’s annual edition. It has a position in every astrological chart — approximately 26 degrees of Sagittarius. It is a fixed point. It does not move with the seasons or decades; it precesses very gradually as the Earth wobbles.

Normally when we think of God, we think of Him as being “up there, in heaven.” I am Quaker and we are the crazy lot who thinks of God as existing within — the Inner Light, as we call it in our little book, Faith and Practice. Many traditions teach this, from A Course in Miracles to Buddhism; God is something you carry with you, and which leads you to make loving decisions. This is contrary to the paranoid, divisive notions of the ego.

However, if there is a God “out there,” it is probably in the approximate direction of the Galactic Core. If that is not literally true, we may feel the pull in that direction. The Galactic Core is the center of our very small island of 30 billion stars in the vast, endless deeps of space.

If anything should have what we think of as POWER in astrology, it is the Galactic Core. It is huge, it is broadcasting on nearly every frequency, and plainly visible all summer long. But more to the point, it source of “the force” that holds together our safe haven in space, without which our Sun would go flying off with all its planets. Thanks to the Galactic Core, we are held in a stable orbit along the galactic plane.

Now Mercury in Pisces is coming along and making a 90-degree angle to the Galactic Core. This is like the mind being at odds with the idea of God, or playing God, or violating its own inner spiritual guidance. It can feel like delusional judgments, or like the pressure to make a decision that violates one’s own instincts.

Astrology always presents us with a choice. We don’t have to play along with this, but if you’re feeling upset, freaked out or wondering where you fit into the picture, consider what you are doing with your mind.

Someone pointed out the other day that the entire planet is in a low-grade state of depression. We are quite literally held down — depressed, which means pressed — by some force, inner or outer or both. This is on a cultural level. I have been doing what I do since the mid-1980s — writing about issues, editing publications for a medium-sized audience, serving in communities in many contexts, and relating to people one-to-one. It is getting more difficult all the time to get anyone excited about anything — to get any response or even reaction at all.

It is difficult to notice nearly anyone looking forward to anything except their next vacation (if one is forthcoming) or cup of Starbucks (more within reach of most people). True, there are always the persistent ones whose good mood and positive outlook pervades funerals, train wrecks and stolen elections. There are the ones who get up and paint, take pictures, write and spread good vibes every day. If you’re not one of those people, you can be if you want.

But something is holding us down collectively. Call it sleep, or ignorance, or being exhausted from life. One of my editorial assistants is pretty sure it’s all about mood stabilizers, which tend to suppress both mood and affect, while lubricating our sense of worthlessness so that we can get through the day. This is Neptune in Aquarius at work, by the way. At a certain point, we have to live for another reason than that — a reference to Chiron in Aquarius, which is here as the awakening antidote.

Here are today’s aspects. My own writing project for the day is the Aries birthday letter, which will go out to subscribers first thing Tuesday morning.

Monday, 31 March 2008

Venus (22+ Pisces) trine Pandora (22+ Scorpio Rx)
Eros (28+ Aries) trine Juno (28+ Sagittarius)
Pallas (10+ Aries) trine Pholus (10+ Sagittarius Rx)
Juno (28+ Sagittarius) semisquare Nessus (13+ Aquarius)
Sun (11+ Aries) septile Chiron (19+ Aquarius)
Mercury (25+ Pisces) square Hades (25+ Gemini)
Sisyphus (27+ Libra Rx) septile Quaoar (18+ Sagittarius Rx)
Jupiter (20+ Capricorn) trine Sedna (20+ Taurus)
Amor (19+ Aries) sextile Chiron (19+ Aquarius)
Eros (29+ Aries) sesquiquadrate Great Attractor (14+ Sagittarius)

Mar 01, 2000 - CANCER - Monthly

Much of what we call the spiritual path involves a process of “finding oneself,” which is another way of saying being secure in who you are, or more accurately, who you are becoming. While unexpected or sudden change is not your favorite experience, these years have seen you accumulate so much sameness, so much predictability and, though it may not have felt that way, stability, that you seem to have forgotten how to change. Now, for an extended period, you will be reminded. But it’s worth mentioning just how stable you truly are, deep within, through any process of change that shakes your foundations. Much of that stability rests on what great friends you have, and how much they have to offer you, and how much you love them.

Attention Aries men who responded to my request for contact — I’ve devoted most of next week to writing chapter one of Mars Calling…so I plan to be back to you with an email by Monday.

Thank you for responding, and for your patience. I’ll be asking you about what, in your mind, are the ideas about Aries that you most relate to as a man; and what are the ones that you are working to transcend or integrate. Please check the email you sent me. If it does not have “Aries” in the subject header, it’s unlikely that I’ll find it, so please resend it with that one little word in the subject line. Thank you again, my brothers! — efc

Dear Friend and Reader,

Sometimes I am stunned by my horoscopes. I am a customer of the service mainly through the Oracle.

The columns that are current or recent never seem like much. It’s impossible for me to judge their relevance beyond the very obvious because I’m so close to all the contexts that the horoscopes exists within: history, relationships, growth, constant change, and the current aspects.

Then I click that Oracle button and something just leaps out of the past. This is what I got in response to an inquiry specifically for this page today, from nearly nine years ago:

Sep 10, 1999 - ARIES - Weekly

Among the many fine lines in this world is the one separating power and the abuse of power. This is slippery, because for the most part we are taught by parents and schools how to be victims and not assert ourselves, so when we have that first taste of authority or impact, the tendency is to see how far we can take things. I don’t recommend such a course of action right now. At the moment, there are far too many matters of deep inner concern, issues that could truly be called spiritual in nature because they involve the meaning of existence and facing some of the allegedly darker, but really just deeper, sides of your nature. Focusing your attention inwardly as much as possible, and on noticing what you don’t normally notice, will result in your taking concrete, measurable steps toward your freedom.

I mean, what can I really say except that while I was rearranging the computers in my space an hour ago, I realized that I had come to my real critique of feminism through the process of writing Friday’s Astrology News article, “Eris Notebook: Dancing with Discord.” What would that be? Well, it’s related to the Aries theme that is coming from behind every picture frame: starting things and not finishing them.

It is that feminism, the Movement, as I’ll call it, rarely addressed solutions. I am speaking of 70s feminism, the history I address in “Dancing with Discord.” Certain individuals at the time did offer some solutions, and I am here to acknowledge a few of them. For the most part, feminism pointed out problems; but without solutions, problems are useless.

Now, the critique was pretty smart, even at its most fopish or reactionary. Casting relationships as political or politicized institutions was right on; and for my part, I see the marriage contract as being the ultimate tool of the body politic in love.

Feminism was onto this for a while, recognizing that the marriage grants a property right that basically makes equality impossible. On another level, the integrity of individuals in a marriage can go a long way toward making the state second in priority to common sense and loyalty. But it rarely trumps the state’s power; too many of these contracts end in litigation, which really needs to be calling our attention to a problem. We do not need a state license to love or have sex. We “know” this, but look around and it’s obvious that we don’t know it.

The sex of marriage is intercourse. That is what marriage sanctions; that is the license you get, that makes fucking neither adultery nor rape nor libertinism. Perhaps the politics of state-sponsored relationship have encrypted themselves in this most private experience of relating.

The reason the state has an interest in penetrative conjugal coupling involves (as anyone who has made it two weeks into Anthro 101 knows) the movement of property; wills and trusts; dowries and inheritances and various other shared resources that gather around reproduction. Masturbation, to give an example of something that can’t get you pregnant, is irrelevant because it’s hard to see how cash can be transacted in the process.

(Actually I have some fun stories about this, playing with sex workers in Amsterdam.)

Most people, however, get the stuff for free.

Masturbation would be the most democratic form of sex, but most people don’t consider it sex; they consider it sexual, but somehow not relational. And what is the point of sex, if not to relate? Well, consider this — it’s a form of relating to yourself. That’s the gift — clearly spiritual in nature. Masturbation’s most subtle value is emotional. It is release, but you can take it deeper. You can set yourself free in there.

Most relational situations involve another person. The politics of love sneak in, and we all know where they sneaks in from, or through, or with — that would be sex. Sex can be used to work a lot of things out; such as the comingling of egos, a complex task. But usually we get in deeper than we’re ready, or go straight to familiar territory. There seems to be no middle of the tree — we are either all the way in, or all the way out. Everyone knows relationships are subtler than this.

Yet sex has a polarizing effect. It’s pleasure is enough to make it the ultimate drug.

Common sense tells you that there are numerous inequities between any number of people of any number of genders; and we’re not a bunch of little driods all of whom have the same wattage.

Erica Jong tried to depoliticize sex by making it zipless: anonymous and unattached. In that z concept, which we claim to so deeply abhor but so dearly want, there is autonomy; there is self-direction; there is mutual choice by two individuals free of any other agenda. Zipless means it matters not how much money someone has, unless that fact turns you on. You’re not going to marry into that money, so whatever. He could be a bastard, but hot. She could be a shameless bitch and hot and you can deal with it, for a night. You might be married to someone else; there is no actual conflict because you don’t go shopping for curtains on Saturday morning.

By many, this kind of sex is considered suicidal conduct in today’s world, thanks not only to Aids but also to the community’s response to its existence: a response mixed with prejudice, ignorance, fear, stupidity and missing a great opportunity to earn or rather learn something new about ourselves. For most people, zipless is rendered impossible by Aids, such that the editor of one the Net’s most radical erotic sites once wrote about how it would be unthinkable to have sex with someone the first day you met them. Which is the whole point.

The thing zipless is free from is politics. It is free from jealousy, this most coveted emotion, which would need to be abandoned entirely in a world where equals relate sexually. This is what we mean when we say that sex messes up friendships: it creates an opportunity for the people to not give one another a fair shake, with as much efficacy as money does the same thing if things get a little weird.

Of course, you could get pregnant from sex with someone you don’t know, or a disease, and that would most likely become political: who pays, etc. So depoliticized sex involves a measure of health awareness and also the ability to restrict pregnancy. (This is why Roe vs Wade is so crucial to women’s equity: they get to decide on their own whether pregnancy creates that lifelong bond with a man.)

Feminism never really addressed any of this, at least not with men in the room. Kudos to the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective for making one amazing book — Our Bodies, Ourselves, available to women. There is no equivalent book that I know of for men, and one is distinctly necessary; and I think men need this particular book as much as women do (so they understand something about how women’s bodies work).

One of feminism’s best writers (Erica) had a sexual vision, but the topic never really came up as collective property of the Movement — what would sex, or relationships, be like in a world where men and women are basically equal?

Feminism did provide a partial answer — it would look like lesbianism. Yet all the woman-on-woman 69s in the universe are not going to stop men and women from wanting to fuck. Plus, she reverts to a kind of romanticism and concedes that there may be no such thing as sex between equals. (Somewhere, I have a copy of her article from Penthouse titled, “Is Sex Sexy Without Power?” and the answer she proposes is no, it is not — we crave power inequity.)

Those who are into it know this is an extraordinarily hot form of eroticism. The main reason it’s hot is you get to be sexual and you get to be yourself — entirely and explicitly yourself; and presumably, you do it for this reason. We so often say we want to be seen and recognized for who we are in our relationships; this an opportunity to take that in.

Common sense tells you that there are numerous inequities between any number of people of any number of genders; and we’re not a bunch of little driods all of whom have the same wattage. Powerful women are pleasantly shocking to many men: we all crave a strong mother-figure, and that fits the bill. That is, however, different than fraternity (as Germaine Greer put it) — the trick of cooperation. Part of that cooperation is consciously sharing the gender burden and its many inequities. And that, as anyone who attempts it soon discovers, requires a lot of effort.

So what would it look like, sex in a world of approximate equals? It might look like masturbating together. Not masturbation as maintenance; masturbation as relating.

Those who are into it know this is an extraordinarily hot form of eroticism. The main reason it’s hot is you get to be sexual and you get to be yourself — entirely and explicitly yourself; and presumably, you do it for this reason. We so often say we want to be seen and recognized for who we are in our relationships; this an opportunity to take that in. And being given the privilege of witnessing another person at his or her most inwardly expressive is the ultimate opportunity for empathy. That, by the way, is the emotion I think we need to bring most generously into sex. We say we want to bring “love,” but “love” has all kinds of baggage and expectation. Empathy is about beholding a person for who they are in that moment.

Sometimes I refer to this as compersion. I am not proposing masturbating together as the end-all of sex; not exactly. What I am proposing is that it’s very much its own journey, and that it’s a way to learn compersion and to learn a measure of sexual equanimity.

Politics can enter an environment where people relate erotically and independently, but it has less power over us. If you ask me this involves both the lack of a root chakra hookup and also the absence of a whole set of expectations that come with even one experience of fucking; this includes the hope or expectation that he or she will be available again; or even call again. You would not masturbate with someone and expect them to send flowers the next day. But in that moment, you cannot hide.

What does happen is this: a fundamental equality is forged, or rather, it can be created with awareness. When it works, there is such inherent honesty in this form of relating that all other forms must follow suit, or the relationship will probably dissolve. Honesty creates equality — but not everyone can take it.

Betty Dodson was a pioneer of this relationship mode. You might say this took guts, but she was and is addressing an obvious problem. For the most part, Betty’s masturbation groups involved women only. For some reason — I am not sure she understands why (but I have a theory) — it never took off with men. (My theory is that she simply prefers women for this kind of fun.) Sharing masturbation among women is also a great way to cut through the duplicitous bullshit that women so often lay on one another, particularly about their own erotic nature.

If the concept of feminism is going to have any meaning, it must begin with women being honest with one another. And it must involve women being honest about their own desire, with one another and with men. This is where Betty Dodson and Erica Jong pushed the edge of human awareness, if only a little. Knowing that sex is political, they at least proposed side-doors out of the games and into an honest, real experience of relating and pleasure.

Each proposed a form of sex without a victim. And to most people — it is not that interesting, or it seems impossible. I have my own ideas. You can read about them here.

I would like to hear yours.

Saturday 29 March 2008 — aspects by Serennu.

Jupiter (19+ Capricorn) sextile Uranus (19+ Pisces)
Venus (19+ Pisces) conjunct Vesta (19+ Pisces)
Venus (20+ Pisces) sextile Sedna (20+ Taurus)
Pandora (22+ Scorpio Rx) septile M87 (1+ Libra)
Atlantis (25+ Libra Rx) semisquare Pholus (10+ Sagittarius Rx)
Sun (8+ Aries) semisquare Admetos (23+ Taurus)
Venus (20+ Pisces) opposite Logos (20+ Virgo Rx)
Ceres enters Gemini (direct)
Ceres (0 Gemini) sextile Aries Point (0 Aries)
Vesta (20+ Pisces) sextile Sedna (20+ Taurus)
Mercury (22+ Pisces) trine Pandora (22+ Scorpio Rx)
Sisyphus (28+ Libra Rx) sextile Orcus (28+ Leo Rx)
Vesta (20+ Pisces) opposite Logos (20+ Virgo Rx)
Amor (18+ Aries) trine Quaoar (18+ Sagittarius Rx)
Eros (27+ Aries) quintile Mars (9+ Cancer)

Priya Kale bilocational blogging — on Planet Waves and on her own website.

Dear Friend and Reader:

WE’RE ABOUT to wrap up the Friday edition of Planet Waves Astrology News, and it is a hot one. Sometimes the editions I have the most doubts about turn out to be my favorites. This week we go over, through and around the new planet Eris. Just about everyone waking around the planet today has Eris in Aries, and so right now the Sun is going over the natal Eris of everyone. If you recall, Eris is the planet that forced the reorganization of the solar system and the supposed “demotion” of Pluto.

The editor and the astrologer in me said this was a good time to write about Eris. I remembered Tracy from Serennu.com casually mentioning to me a few months ago that there had been a Chiron-Eris conjunction back 1971-72. Chiron in an aspect like this is an excellent candidate to bring out the reality of what another planet is about.

We started with the charts and biographies of several women born during this era: Sofia Coppola, Leisha Hailey, Carmen Electra and one you may not have heard of — Samantha Reed Smith. She was the little girl who wrote to the Kremlin in the early 1980s and got invited to the USSR.

She died in an airplane crash in 1985. All of them are really exciting, interesting women. But something more compelling got me to set that leg of the project behind — we may come back to it later in the Aries cycle.

As a lifelong Women’s Studies major, I also knew that these were intense years in the history of feminism. So working with a researcher and my cellphone (which I will use for any excuse whatsoever to call Betty Dodson) I put together a history of that era. And it turned out to be a stunning revelation of what Eris can do when you bring her power out into the open. I think this is about my fifth major article on Eris — and it is by far my favorite. Here is the link.

# # #

But today I’m here to talk about something even more fun — the current conjunction of Venus and Uranus. I summed this up last night as “life and live free.” Venus is passion, pleasure, sex, value, admiration and sex. Uranus is revolution, liberation, freedom, true group awareness. Pisces is YUM: dreamy, watery, boundless, imaginative and knows what he or she wants. True, the world is not usually that sweet. People tend to have many devotions to things other than art and pleasure. However, sometimes the world turns ON. Let’s see if anyone besides a reader of this blog notices.

When I see and feel this conjunction, I don’t know whether to ask you if you are free, or remind you it’s okay to be free. Either way. But I suggest you notice your state of being. Can you say YES to life, love and sex? Can you really? So glad to hear that! Then go do it! Save yourself and the world a lot of trouble and go for it!

Wrap your head around this: Mercury, Venus, Uranus, Vesta, Orpheus, and Ophelia are all conjunct in Pisces right now, very precisely, with Venus and Uranus in their exact moment. All of these planets are about saying yes except for two concerns: Orpheus is about sad music, reminding us that love can be a sad story. Orpheus is also the poet laureate of the gods, and the perfecter of the lyre. Therefore, bring music and poetry into your erotic expressions.

Ophelia is that moment of doubt and hearbreak — the thing that says, “don’t take the risk.” Or she gets weak, over-emotional, dependent. (She drowns in a stream.)

Yet one cannot spend one’s life in regret, in love with someone who is not there, doubting whether there is such a thing as true love or idealizing it out of existence. Well, you can, but it’s (what used to be) called neurotic — living a dead script. It is clearly time to live NO script, that is, to simply live. Drown in that stream! Pour on the water of life! And in that spirit, Venus is cordially invited to sit on my face today.

And tomorrow for that matter and a bunch more tomorrows after that.

Below are the full aspects for the day.

All hail Venus conjunct Uranus! Catch you soon — and check your inbox for Planet Waves in a little while. I’ve got it in the queue to go out in about three minutes. For instant access, sign up here.

Yours & truly,

Friday 28 March 2008

Mercury (20+ Pisces) sextile Sedna (20+ Taurus)
Pallas (8+ Aries) semisquare Admetos (23+ Taurus)
Mercury (20+ Pisces) opposite Logos (20+ Virgo Rx)
Venus (18+ Pisces) square Quaoar (18+ Sagittarius Rx)
Hidalgo (16+ Scorpio Rx) semisquare M87 (1+ Libra)
Sun (8+ Aries) septile Ceres (29+ Taurus)
Sun (8+ Aries) semisquare Neptune (23+ Aquarius)
Vesta (19+ Pisces) sextile Jupiter (19+ Capricorn)
Vesta (19+ Pisces) conjunct Uranus (19+ Pisces)
Eros (26+ Aries) trine Galactic Center (26+ Sagittarius)
Sisyphus (28+ Libra Rx) sextile Juno (28+ Sagittarius)
Venus (19+ Pisces) sextile Jupiter (19+ Capricorn)
Venus (19+ Pisces) conjunct Uranus (19+ Pisces)

Oracle: Apr. 30, 1999 - GEMINI - Weekly

In the past 24 hours, I’ve spoken with two clients about their “Slut vs. Nun Complex.” A supposed struggle between two aspects of the feminine, the alleged virgin, and the alleged whore, it drives some women to the heights of madness trying to resolve which they really are; which is more divine. Dig this: you have many other options. The Slut-Nun complex is just the adult version of a line told to many kids — ­ the one that says either you’re absolutely chaste and pure, or you’re dirt. It’s a blatant, scalding lie. In reality, sluts are merely the people who admit they like sex, and thus threaten the people who feel they must repress themselves. As for all the the nuns in the reading audience — this is a survey. Sincere question: do you masturbate?