Today is the Scorpio New Moon — that is, Moon conjunct Sun in Scorpio. The conjunction is at 24+ degrees just past a square to Neptune in Aquarius at 23+ degrees. That is ‘square’ enough for Neptune, which does not stay in any container for long, particularly one that is rectangular. As I mentioned yesterday, Chiron is also right in the mix, conjunct Neptune, and Jupiter is close behind. Said another way, this New Moon is square the conjunction going on in Aquarius, which is about to come to its second peak (that happens far in the future — December).
This is the New Moon associated with the Saturn-Pluto square also mentioned yesterday; that square from the Sun to Neptune is suggesting that things are not quite what they seem, and it is therefore better to pay attention than not. Of course one cannot always live like one is being watched, but it is better not to text and drive, in its many current forms.
There is a lot of 90-degree energy in the sky right now — 90 degrees being the action point of astrology, which begins within but which also suggests that ‘something happens’ or as the case may be, something finally happens. It can be stressful; emotionally, mentally, or on your body. Inner conflict can get projected into relationships. Venus and Mars are also square one another, and the lunar nodes. (These are in Cancer/Cap) are creeping into a square with Eris (in Aries, along with this thing conjunct Eris called 1992 QB1, which sounds unceremonious but which was the first bit of space matter in our solar system ever discovered beyond Pluto. If you know that, you know some significant astronomical history of the 20th century. The discovery of QB1 was the discovery of the Kuiper Belt, which brought us Varuna, Sedna, Quaoar, Eris and many other significant minor planets orbiting beyond Pluto.)
One interesting aspect I’ve been watching is Juno conjunct Uranus in Pisces. Juno has many different marriage themes, but its main theme is the old kind of marriage; the kind that a bi woman’s mother keeps asking if she’s ever going to do. Pisces is the sign of visioning and dissolving. Think of it as the water that melts the watercolor paints that we thought of as reality; but instead an artist (you or me) is going to paint something new in our lives.
There is a concept or model of marriage that is dissolving; disappearing, like a Jell-o desert into the ocean. Yes, 31 states can pass referendums informing us that theirs is the one and only kind of union allowed; and we must program all the kids to believe that, lest they turn out to be sexters; and it’s the kind of thing that school kids of the future will laugh at or puzzle over when they read it in history books (in 25 years max). The concept in question is ‘marriage is one man and one woman’, and we all know this is either bullshit for us, or bullshit in the world at large; that is, while you or I may choose the ‘one man and one woman’ getting together as an option, everyone knows that everyone else doesn’t do that. Heck, I know a lot of people that literally would choose one man and one woman, but I don’t think that’s what they have in mind.
This conjunction, which has involved a long retrograde of Juno and Uranus, is really a revolution of marriage; a reinvention of marriage, and it is happening on the emotional/intuitive level first. What happens in Pisces is the invisible thing that everybody sees, or the obvious thing that nobody notices. Just ask any Pisces about that one.
Anyway, at the moment there is mad action brewing in two signs in close relationship — Scorpio and Aquarius, which is a combination that feels a bit stressful, the stress that is provoking the change — it’s the other kind of grand square; a lot of planets focused in two signs, making a square, and that square contains the attempt to reconcile the emotional and the intellectual; the feeling behind something and the idea behind it, which may correspond, but it’s work to get there personally.
There is also a grand trine — New Moon in Scorpio trine South Node in Cancer trine Uranus/Juno in Pisces. That can feel like a vortex of change. It does not kick our ass per se; it’s more like slipping on something and getting pulled down a vortex.
So watch where you put your feet, watch what you eat, keep it at least a little green and cheers to Mercury in Sagittarius.
Yours & truly,
Eric Fwaancis
I loves ya E, because you’re a Pisces with stones. I like a man to have a pair, and to be absolutely fair, I am fond of women who have found their ‘inner’ stones as well.
It takes courage to have convictions, it takes a whole other brand of bravery to put them into writing. People have forgotten why the Constitution and Amendments were conceived and put into writing, we take for granted that because many of the rights we have are ‘self-evident’, that we simply should have them.
So when the Patriot Act comes along, we don’t notice what’s happening even when it’s happening to us immediately and directly.
Marriage is changing, will change, perhaps has never been the ‘ideal’ we were socialized to believe it was…but, in fairness me thinks it’s much more than the socialization of having a ‘not ruined life’, as much as it is having the ‘fairy tale’.
It’s not just we ladies that have wanted for it, I know some gents that would have been perfectly happy to be have been some princess’ knight in shining armor, both for one night, and for happily ever after.
Gads, sorry-my mind wanders and I want to respond to all the articles in one post!
What a joy this place is.
Bless you Eric, my fishy friend-and blessings to each of you with your words and your courage! What an honor to be alive with all of you just now!
OE
Is it just me or is it the Scorpio New Moon; this title for Sarah Palin’s book “Going Rogue”? I mean why would she choose “rogue”?
Eric uses the word to describe the centaurs (in general, not so much Chiron) and he means it along the lines of Webster’s words: 1. vagrant, tramp, 2. a dishonest or worthless person: scoundrel, 3. a mischievous person: scamp, 4. a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave (ah ha!), 5. an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation.
Well, I checked out the centaurs in Sarah’s chart, noting that at this moment transiting Chiron is conjunct her natal Sun (which means conjunct her Mars & Saturn also). This means that the New Moon in Scorpio is square her Sun (Mars/Saturn) as well as the Chiron, Neptune, Jupiter (transiting in Aquarius) planets.
What I found is that her natal Chiron at 13 Pisces 6 is opposed her natal Pluto at 13 Virgo 27 rx. If that weren’t roguish enough, she also has Nessus (who is seriously roguish) at 0 Gemini 51 rx opposed Juno (a no-nonsense queen) at 1 Sagittarius 9.
Well, I guess she just didn’t look it up. I guess that’s why the “press” is being so critical in its examination of her book. And I get the feeling she’s telling us more about herself than she meant too. Dag nab it!
Bottom line, my instincts tell me Sarah doesn’t give a ratz ass about being president. She’s out to become rich and famous and she’s got it all going for her right now. Silly us for worrying about her running the country. Ain’t gonna happen.
LOL! Is that what the (my) problem has been this whole lifetime?
Re: “What happens in Pisces is the invisible thing that everybody sees, or the obvious thing that nobody notices. Just ask any Pisces about that one.”
We Pisceans are going to be laughing loud and long and LOVING to quote you on this for eons, Mr. E. Frawwwwwnces!
(Is that from All Dogs Go To Heaven? Frawwwwwances. 😉
“What happens in Pisces is the invisible thing that everybody sees, or the obvious thing that nobody notices. Just ask any Pisces about that one.”
Quite possibly the best description of Pisces I’ve ever seen. Perhaps because you are Pisces, but your take on Pisces is by far the best astrology writing around. It’s quite frustrating to be in a world where the obvious is so invisible to the majority, but there’s our work for this lifetime.
Letter to CNN producers that I sent this morning.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/16/acosta.militias.cnn
Ladies, Gents, Producers:
I have left a message with the Futures Desk [that is what CNN calls its news desk] about this as well — it will be form Eric Coppolino and the phone contact is (845) 797-3458. I’m an editor in NY and I’ve have been watching CNN since the first days.
Regarding the militias piece currently running on the US front page — I am truly impressed with how, well, how outrageous this piece is. I get the concept; it’s a cool idea to cover militias, and there is a lot there — but I think you need to be a little more careful about how you do it. In effect, you give them credibility they don’t deserve; and you therefore stoke the fears of people who don’t know better.
For example, you show these guys with guns, concerned their rights may be taken away — but they only right they talk about is their right to have a gun. Steve Colbert had fun with this last week — the ammo shortage caused by the fear of an ammo shortage.
I have never heard about gun rights being questioned once by any current administration official. So it’s a red herring; they “have an issue” but there is no issue that you can point to. Is that really relevant?
Let’s say I was a web artist concerned my free speech rights might be taken away, and organized 30 people to meet with their laptops once a month in defense of the First Amendment. Would that be a story, or would it be ridiculous? The only thing that makes this a story is the Russian assault rifle and how paranoid they are. Did anybody get the irony of a Russian gun? They’re worried about Socialists and Commies — and they use Russian weapons?
For the other side, you quote one guy from the SPLC [the Southern Poverty Law Center], which hints that they’re a little nuts; that this is reactionary; but again we need more substantiation of that. The piece misses the point of the Second Amendment, which is to have a well regulated militia in place, in the days before a standing peacetime Army; not bands of dudes roaming the woods like Civil War re-enactors and live ammo.
Did you ever do a piece during Bush about people concerned their rights were being taken away? For example by the PATRIOT Act, which in fact does curtail civil rights?
Thanks for your time.
Eric F. Coppolino
Planet Waves, Inc.
cc: Steve Bergstein, contributing editor
Jim Acosta