This is the 3rd email in the 3-email series with frequently asked questions from readers and students.
What’s really important in the natal chart?
There are variations of this question:
“Where do I start when I look at a chart?”
“What are the most important aspects?
“Do we include asteroids in aspect patterns?”
Astrology websites and mobile apps give us a loooong list of chart placements, aspects and transits. These software are designed to list every single aspect, every single transit. And when we see all these chart details listed, we assume that they all carry equal importance or significance in the chart.
They do not.
All celestial bodies influence us in some way. All minor aspects shape us to some extent. All transits trigger our chart to some extent.
But the question is – to what extent?
Where do we start when we look at a chart?
Out of all the placements, aspects, transits etc. – what’s really important?
The “BIG 3”
And to answer this question, let’s talk about the “BIG 3” – not your Sun, Moon and rising sign – but the BIG 3 of the physical world: volume, time, and space.
VOLUME:
When it comes to planets, size matters!
The larger a planet or celestial body is (as seen from Earth) the more influential it is. That’s why the Sun and the Moon shape our personality most profoundly – they are BIG.
As a basic rule – if you can see it in the sky – the planet – then you want to pay attention to it. If you don’t see it (outer planet, asteroid, etc.) less so (at least in natal astrology, transits work a bit differently).
When you read a chart, we recommend focusing on the personal planets. These are the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus and Mars, plus the chart ruler (the planet that rules your Ascendant sign).
Giving each celestial body the same ‘weight’ in chart interpretation can lead to overwhelming, confusing messages, and even blatantly wrong chart interpretations.
So focus on these “big” planets first.
Your Sun, Moon and chart ruler will tell you 50% of the story of the chart. Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus and Mars – 80%.
TIME:
Planets move at different speeds.
Slow-moving planets have longer cycles (e.g. Saturn’s cycle is 29 years, Uranus’ cycle is 84 years) – so when we have a slow-moving planetary transit, the influence of that transit is more long-lasting, for the simple fact that a slow-moving planet spends more time at the same degree of your natal chart.
Time is a relevant dimension when we look at transits (i.e. how the ongoing movements of the planets interact with the planets in your natal chart.)
If in chart reading, the big, visible planets are what we want to focus on, – when it comes to transits, it’s the slow moving planets (Jupiter, the Nodes, Saturn, Chiron, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) we want to pay attention to.
SPACE:
We wouldn’t have a natal chart if we didn’t have space. Space is the vast backdrop against which the planets, the Sun, the Moon, move and form patterns. Without space, there would be no coordinates.
In astrology, the coordinates of the natal chart are the 4 angles – the Ascendant, the Descendant, the Midheaven, and the IC.
The angles give us the 12 houses – and as we learned, houses are the most personal areas of our chart.
In cook book astrology, we always get descriptions for planets in signs and houses, but angles are often omitted.
Angles are the big elephant in the room. But they shouldn’t be. Angles are THE most sensitive points in our chart.
If you have a planet conjunct an angle, that planet is going to influence every aspect of your life (not only the house it sits in). It will be a core driver, shaping your personality and life path.
Similarly, a transit to an angle will trigger major events and experiences that are significant turning points in your life.
When we understand the “BIG 3” everything falls into place. Reading charts becomes easier, and our analysis more accurate – because we understand the underlying dynamics and we just “know” what to focus on.
Natal Chart Reading Tips WEBINAR
If you want to learn some “secret” chart reading tips from a professional astrologer with 30+ years of experience, join Caro for the “Natal Chart Reading Tips” webinar on Saturday, September 23rd, 2023.
We offer the “Natal Chart Reading Tips” webinar at two different time slots:
Option 1: September 23rd at 9:00 AM PDT / 12:00 PM EDT / 6 PM CEST (Americas and Europe)
Option 2: September 23rd, at 9:00 AM CEST / 5:00 PM AEST (Oceania, Asia, and Europe)
To register for the webinar, click on the link corresponding to the session that best suits you (one-click registration). You don’t have to click on both links (to avoid double booking) – just on the option that best works for you:
” My grief says that I dared to love, that I allowed another to enter the very core of my being and find a home in my heart. Grief is akin to praise; it is how the soul recounts the depth to which someone has touched our lives. To love is to accept the rites of grief.”
— Francis Weller, The Wild Edge of Sorrow: Rituals of Renewal and the Sacred Work of Grief
The Wild Edge of Sorrow: Rituals of Renewal and the Sacred Work of Grief
Noted psychotherapist Francis Weller provides an essential guide for navigating the deep waters of sorrow and loss in this lyrical yet practical handbook for mastering the art of grieving. Describing how Western patterns of amnesia and anesthesia affect our capacity to cope with personal and collective sorrows, Weller reveals the new vitality we may encounter when we welcome, rather than fear, the pain of loss. Through moving personal stories, poetry, and insightful reflections he leads us into the central energy of sorrow, and to the profound healing and heightened communion with each other and our planet that reside alongside it.
The Wild Edge of Sorrow explains that grief has always been communal and illustrates how we need the healing touch of others, an atmosphere of compassion, and the comfort of ritual in order to fully metabolize our grief. Weller describes how we often hide our pain from the world, wrapping it in a secret mantle of shame. This causes sorrow to linger unexpressed in our bodies, weighing us down and pulling us into the territory of depression and death. We have come to fear grief and feel too alone to face an encounter with the powerful energies of sorrow.
Those who work with people in grief, who have experienced the loss of a loved one, who mourn the ongoing destruction of our planet, or who suffer the accumulated traumas of a lifetime will appreciate the discussion of obstacles to successful grief work such as privatized pain, lack of communal rituals, a pervasive feeling of fear, and a culturally restrictive range of emotion. Weller highlights the intimate bond between grief and gratitude, sorrow and intimacy. In addition to showing us that the greatest gifts are often hidden in the things we avoid, he offers powerful tools and rituals and a list of resources to help us transform grief into a force that allows us to live and love more fully.
“I must have flowers, always, and always.” ― Claude Monet
“Color is my daylong obsession, joy, and torment.” ― Claude Monet
“Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love.” ― Claude Monet
“The more I live, the more I regret how little i know” ― Claude monet
“What keeps my heart awake is colorful silence.” ― Claude Monet
“It’s on the strength of observation and reflection that one finds a way. So we must dig and delve unceasingly.” ― Claude Monet
“Everyday I discover more and more beautiful things. It’s enough to drive one mad. I have such a desire to do everything, my head is bursting with it.” ― Claude Monet
Oscar-Claude Monet (November 14, 1840 – December 5, 1926) was a French painter and founder of impressionist painting who is seen as a key precursor to modernism, especially in his attempts to paint nature as he perceived it. Wikipedia
Heartbreaking pleas that no Party heeds: this is what happens when you ignore voters’ needs.
For the first time, more people are classifying themselves as “Independent” rather than as affiliated with a political party:
Fewer Americans than ever are happy with the directions the traditional parties are going.
The above graphic does not show the full danger of the discontent: almost half of younger voters now describe themselves as independents.
This is the political environment of the future: increasing trends towards independence, combined with a leaning by the next generation toward open appeals from ‘outside’ interests. And with the rise of the billionaire class, there are many elite rich power-seekers who would be happy to step in. Trump was one; it was fortunate for America that he was a moron. The next wealthy Mussolini may be crafty enough to end democracy without anyone noticing.
That is why it is important to funnel the ‘independents” into a movement that they can believe in and can hold accountable for results. A third political party that heeds their needs.
The biggest drop in support is with the Republican Party, which lost one-third of its believers, but even the Democrat lost one-tenth of their number.
Yes, there is a case for saying that the Trump Horror has driven the Republican numbers down, but that is not the complete answer, for it has not led to a rise among Democrats…even the Mango Molester was unable to drive Democratic numbers up.
The Democratic sag may have to do with the lack of appeal of the current President, or it may be related to a more general cause.
I lean toward the latter, because I think there are deeper currents sweeping through the American political system…currents that go all the way back to the original intention and vision for America.
“We The People” opens the Constitution…
Not: “We The Wealthy.”
Let’s be clear from the outset that this new pro-profits attitude is not restricted to America…this is an attitude that pervades global capitalism. “Globalization” spread an infection among all economies — including the allegedly ‘socialist’ economies like China — that workers only existed to give maximum profits to the business owners or national rulers.
Listen to Australian real-estate-mogul Tim Gurner. Gurner is the genius who once said that people weren’t saving enough because they were spending their money on smashed avocado toast instead of banking it. Research found (of course it was done) that you would have to save on eating more than 600,000 avocado toasts to buy a house in New York. (If you saved on eating four per day, it would take you 410 years to save enough to buy that house. In case you were wondering… These are the numbers that count.)
Gurner now says that we need to raise our current unemployment rate of 3.7% by 40–50% to reduce “arrogance in the employment market…There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them. We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.”
He added that governments around the world are working together to see that the pain level will increase.
That of course triggered a backlash from people like US lawmaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Reminder that major CEOs have skyrocketed their own pay so much that the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay is now at some of the highest levels ever recorded.”
This crystallizes the big change in social outlook that the champions of business have been engineering since America was founded.
America was NOT founded to promote business interests.
America was founded to promote the interests of every citizen (at the time, that meant white males, but that has come a long way).
How does that stack up against the political interests being pushed today by the two major parties?
The Republicans are about property — they are totally outside the loop of accountability to the cause of America. They are performing treason against the purpose of the United States.
The Democrats stand for people. They too, however, have strayed. They no longer meet the needs that today’s citizens insist on.
When people are asked for the essential political structure they need in order to survive, they are clear:
Healthcare Support: Two-thirds (63%) say that the government should provide health care coverage for all, and more than half view the quality of care as unfavorable. This has been rising steadily for a decade.
Freedom of Reproductive Choice: 80% say abortion should be legal in most or all cases; this has been steady over the past five years.
Economic Justice: 75% would support fairer economic opportunities such as a national paid family leave policy that covers all workers.
Control Over Gun Violence:71% say gun laws should be stricter, and 60% say there should be a ban on selling assault rifles at all.
Reduction of Corporate Influence: Three quarters of Americans want new laws that would reduce the power of corporations in public life.
Overhaul of the Supreme Court:Two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe, and say it has been captured by Republican interests.
Let’s dive in a bit on the top three pain-points: healthcare, reproductive choice and economic justice.
One no-nonsense indicator is that the U.S. military does not put up with for-profit healthcare; it is a socialist organization.
Members of Congress get a single-payer system, which they deny to us.
There are also massive savings in government spending after implementing Medicare for All. TRILLIONS can be saved. In the US 20% of the GPD is spent on healthcare, v.s.10–13% in the EU. And the general health of the population in EU is higher.
Single payer healthcare is so complicated that America is the only nation that can’t use it.
If one wanted to be even more progressive, you could move beyond single-payer, where the providers are still private firms, to one where the healthcare providers work for the people and no profit is involved. We could probably double the number of people giving care, while dropping the cost.
Average life expectancy in Canada is now 81 years, putting it above the U.S. at 76.6 years (2021). And Canadians have the same poor-diet lifestyle as Americans. I’ll take gravy on that poutine.
Freedom of Reproductive Choice suffered a blow at the hands of an unrepresentative Supreme Court, aided by a President who stood aside as the ruling happened. Frankin Roosevelt, by contrast, threatened to fire them if they got in the way of his “New Deal”. They backed down. Much of the rage in American politics today comes from that event.
Whenever the issue of women’s rights is put to the people for a vote in any of the state elections, the rights have prevailed. The court created a permanent, subjugated role for women into law — to transform them by law — into a perpetual class of second-rate citizens. It is aligned with the religious convictions of the majority of the Court; we are struggling today with the evil of the Trump legacy.
It is the top Cause — beyond an “issue” — for women across the country.
The Red states banning abortion rights and now trying to end no-fault divorce are the same ones that intentionally constructed economic policies featuring weak labor standards and underfunded and dysfunctional public services. These states are economically disemboweling workers. They are trying to claw back no-fault divorce, for example, because it allows a woman to walk away from an unhappy marriage without having to prove abuse, infidelity, or other misconduct. Lyz Lenz wrote in her newsletter, “Maybe 70 percent of women file for divorce because having a husband adds seven extra hours of housework, work that a wife is expected to do.
“Abortion restrictions are planks in a policy regime of disempowerment and control over workers’ autonomy and livelihoods, just like deliberately low wage standards, underfunded social services, or restricted collective bargaining power.”
I have gotten a lot of support for an article saying that the vote in 2024 will be ONLY about re-establishing women’s right to control their bodies. Trump is a side-show. More than 84% of Republican voters do not want the abortion ban. In Red states, voters have repeatedly rejected abortion bans, only to have male-dominated GOP legislatures force them through anyway, even by blocking the rights of voters to weigh in directly. This has nothing to do with moral conviction; it is about control over women.
The ”Republican War Against Women” has not changed since it was adopted in 1980 and used by Reagan and Bush. Even Republican women support moves against themselves…throwback Ann Coulter regrets that women can even vote.
Economic Justice: 75% would support fairer economic opportunities such as a national paid family leave policy that covers all workers.
Billionaires are welfare queens. Walmart closed 60 stores in order to pocket an extra $2-billion. And its workers have to apply for federally-funded healthcare and food. In fact, part of the hiring process at Walmart is showing employees how to sign up for government assistance programs because their pay is so bad. If Walmart paid a living wage, gave their workers health insurance and retirement planning, and then paid an appropriate income tax, they could single handedly improve the economy, stock market and health insurance industries overnight — AND STILL STAY THE RICHEST FAMILY IN THE COUNTRY.
Poverty has gotten so desperate that Walmart is building a police station inside one of its Atlanta stores…retail theft has to be brought under control, after all.
But the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision allows corporations to buy votes.
The richest 1% evade $163-billion in taxes every year. The U.S. has a yacht deduction allowance.
For the Supreme Court, a coalition of more than 30 progressive groups has sprung up calling for structural changes. It is pushing against “an unaccountable, unethical majority on the Supreme Court that is behaving as if the rules don’t apply to them.”
He has no idea what’s coming. He is one of the most information-limited people on the planet. His news comes from Fox TV, and he can barely operate a computer. He would have turned Ukraine over to Russia if he had still been President. He understands and admires dictators. He wants to be one himself. But he lost the popular vote by more than 7-million in 2020 — almost double the amount he lost in 2016. And he will lose the next one by more than a factor of ten above that.
In the eyes of his own party leaders (Mitch McConnell) Trump is ignorant, corrupt, incompetent, and unstable.
This is the leader that Wealthy America is counting on to save them from equality.
Trump could get a vote count that would put him in the range of traditional third-party candidates like Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian), who got 2 million votes in 2020.
Average citizens get side-swiped by events outside their control, like a housing shortage (and higher rents) brought on because the wealthy have bought up the properties while not raising wage income.
Economic justice may be coming sooner rather than later.
And we need change that is driven by changing the legislatures themselves, not policies.
Spending to influence policy through federal lobbying alone by the wealthy cost $1-trillion in the first quarter of 2023 — a number that has held steady for almost 20 years. In its infinite wisdom, the Supreme Court declared that unlimited spending by wealthy donors and corporations would not distort the political process. They reasoned that limiting spending violated the right to free speech. They assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt (!) and that the spending would be transparent (!!). Both assumptions have proven to be incorrect. It overturned spending restrictions that dated back more than 100 years. It triggered the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.
“In a time of historic wealth inequality,” wrote one observer, “the decision has helped reinforce the growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that democratic participation for the vast majority of citizens is of relatively little value.”
A third party that is not in the pockets of the wealthy needs to be voted into power to make fundamental changes.
Green parties — once seen as radical outsiders — have increasingly claimed a place in mainstream politics, especially in Europe. Greens around the world have evolved from single-issue environmentalists into broad-based political parties capable of winning elections and serving at the highest levels of government.
In the past the Green Party has been treated a “fringe”, but now more “independents” are available who could make it into a major alternative. Third party candidate Ralph Nader’s performance in Florida as a ‘fringe’ candidate arguably hurt America, for example, swinging the election to George W. Bush, who claimed the presidency with Florida’s electoral votes by less than 600 ballots. (Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida that year.)
Jill Stein’s total Green Party voters exceeded Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory. In other words, if every Stein voter had voted for Clinton instead, she could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and the presidency.
But a better way of looking at it today is to say that if a traditional candidate like Hillary stepped out of the way to let Jill’s Greens lead a truly responsive party, Jill could have beaten Trump.
The polls also said that Bernie would have beaten Trump. But I am only capable of one dream at a time.
The upshot is that we are no longer a country of strong party loyalties, and the enormous growth of independents is the signal that change is not only possible but achievable.
The Republican Party effectively does not exist; its remnant is a lynch mob of anti-democratic, white supremacists, election deniers and armed militia members.
The Democratic Party can’t guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion or create strong gun regulations. What is the point of carrying it on?
Ignore both those non-representative parties.
Everyone in Federal politics should have to run as an independent or nonpartisan, the way they do in local government, like school boards, mayors, city council seats and for judges up and down the ballot.
Think of a group of candidates selected from among the mayors of American cities and towns…people who are used to politics but untinged by big money.
Then ban all election spending except for an equal amount provided by an elections board.
That’s one way to go about it. All ideas are welcome.
But the crises is urgent; we don’t know how many more election cycles our struggling system can go through! If too many people aren’t behind it, democracy may not seem worth the trouble.
And that would be a horrible mis-judgement for one of the best Constitutions that humankind has devised throughout history…
This is the 2nd email in the 3-email series with frequently asked questions from readers and students.
Which house system to use?
I personally use both Whole Sign Houses and Placidus. Other astrologers in the Astro Butterfly team use Placidus, Whole Signs, or a mix of Placidus and Equal houses. We are house-system inclusive.
But this question keeps popping up: WHICH house system – which one is better?
To make it clear – I don’t claim I have the answer. I will simply explain my thinking around this topic and my personal experience with using different house systems.
Now, if you’re just starting with astrology, you may not even know what houses are, and this topic may feel a bit complex. Keep reading anyway – because if you have an interest in astrology, houses are the next most important thing you want to study, after planets and signs.
First Things First – What Are Houses?
Houses are divisions of the celestial sphere that represent different areas of life. Think of them as the stages on which the planets (actors) perform.
Unlike signs, which are cycles of time we cannot “see”, houses are more tangible. If you go outside, you can create a mental representation of the houses: the Eastern Horizon (where the Sun rises) is the 1st house.
The Western horizon (where the Sun sets) is the 7th house.
The highest point where the Sun culminates around noon is the 10th house, and the point directly opposite it is the 4th house, representing the nadir or the deepest point below us.
We can then split these sections into 12 imaginary areas of the sky. These are the houses.
We can actually “see” the houses; and what does this tell us? That houses, unlike signs, are more concrete, tangible expressions of planetary placements. If the Sign placement tells us how a planet feels and expresses itself, the house placement tells us what a planet actually does.
Libra Sun, Sun in the 5th house, vs. Leo Sun, Sun in the 7th house
Let’s say we have 2 people, a Libra with the Sun in the 5th house, and a Leo with the Sun in the 7th house.
Which one of them is the marriage counselor?
Hint: it’s not the Libra!
It’s actually the Sun in the 7th house. The 7th house is archetypally connected to Libra (hence the marriage counseling) but it’s a more concrete expression of the Libra energy. The 7th house Leo Sun will still come across as a Leo – but will express that Leo energy, that Leo style, in the context of the 7th house.
The 5th house Libra Sun will still come across as a Libra – they will seek harmony and be people-oriented – but they will not necessarily express the individuation drive of the Sun in a Libra-like profession, because their Sun is not in the 7th house.
Of course, this is an oversimplification (charts are much more complex than this) but we used this example simply to illustrate the difference between signs and houses.
Now let’s come back to our topic – which house system to use.
If the 12 signs are pretty straightforward (we have 12 signs aka 12 lunar cycles of 29.5 days in a year) – houses, less so.
There is no 1 single house system; there are several. They all ‘work’ in their own different ways. They all give us a different ‘flavor’ of the chart. Some house systems seem to work better with some techniques (e.g. transits). Some house systems capture the more ‘fated’ dimension of our chart. Others, our ‘free will’.
The 1st house system used was Whole Sign Houses. In the Whole Sign house system, each sign encompasses an entire house. For example, if your Ascendant is in Aries, your first house is entirely Aries, the second house is entirely Taurus, and so on.
With Whole Sign houses, we simply take the same theoretical framework used to come up with the signs (the division of 12) and apply it to houses. Since we have 12 signs, we have 12 houses. The signs are the foundations.
The fact that we have the same # signs and houses speaks of an intrinsic conceptual link between the 2. The houses – conceptually – originate from signs. That’s why we don’t have 24, 35 or any other random number.
Later, new house systems were developed. Equal Houses are similar to Whole Signs (they are 30° each) but they start with the degree of the Ascendant. So if your Ascendant is 5° Aries, your 2nd house is 5° Taurus, and so on.
Later, the Midheaven (MC) and the IC were included in the house calculation. Since the MC and the IC are not necessarily 90° from the AC/DC axis (unless we’re located right on the equator), these new house systems – called Quadrant House systems – generate unequal houses.
Your houses are no longer 30° each (like with Whole and Equal houses) – they differ in size. The quadrant house systems (Placidus, Porphyry, Koch, etc.) bring a new dimension – the space – in the equation.
I started with Placidus which I solely used for approx. 15 years. Placidus is the most common house system used today. All major astrology software, as well as popular websites like astro.com have Placidus as the default house system.
If you got your chart (from the internet or an astrologer) and you’re unsure on which house system is based – (big) chances are, that is Placidus.
At some point I remember learning about Whole Sign Houses which I immediately dismissed as “ridiculous” and didn’t pursue it any further. Years passed.
I’ve been tracking my transits for years (if not decades) and after some time, I started noticing some clear patterns: every time a planet (especially a slow-moving planet) would change signs, it would immediately start activating my whole sign house.
EXAMPLE: Sagittarius is my 7th house cusp – when Jupiter, Saturn, or Uranus would enter Sagittarius, 7th house themes would immediately get activated (even if the first degrees of Sagittarius are my 6h Placidus house). Same thing with the other houses.
Then I started noticing the same pattern in other people’s charts. Nothing special would happen when a planet would transit the Placidus house cusp – but when a planet moved into a new sign, the themes associated with that Whole Sign house would immediately get activated.
If we think about it, considering that houses conceptually originate in the signs – it makes sense that there is some intrinsic connection between the two.
I now use a mix of Whole Sign houses + Placidus when I read natal charts, and use Whole Sign Houses for transits and house rulerships.
I still find Placidus an incredibly reliable and detail-rich house system. Other quadrant house systems like Porphyry or Regiomontanas are some of astrologers’ favorites – I’m convinced they work great, it’s just that I haven’t had the chance (yet) to study them. It really takes years, if not decades of research and practice to fully get a grasp of how a house system works.
Coming back to the initial question “Which house system to use”. I am a strong believer that all house systems work.
Here are some practical considerations when it comes to choosing a house system:
Familiarity: If you’re just starting your journey into astrology, it’s perfectly fine to stick with the house system you’re already using or what your astrology software defaults to. This will help you build a solid foundation before exploring other options.
Chart interpretation style: Different house systems can emphasize certain aspects of your chart differently. Consider what aspects of your personality and life you want to focus on in your readings. Some systems may align better with your interpretative style.
Experimentation: For those already well-versed in one house system, experimenting with a different one can provide fresh insights into a chart. It’s like viewing the same picture from a different angle, revealing nuances you might have missed before.
Transits and Progressions: Some astrologers prefer using specific house systems for transits and progressions because they find that it resonates more with the unfolding of life events. Whole Sign Houses, for example, can be particularly insightful for tracking transits.
Personal experience: Just as I shared my journey with you, your own experiences with house systems may lead you to a preference over time. Pay attention to patterns in your readings and see which system aligns more with your observations.
Remember that there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of which house system to use. What’s most important is your comfort and effectiveness in working with the system you choose. As you continue your exploration of astrology, you may find that your preferences evolve, and that’s perfectly natural.
In my next and final email in this series, I’ll discuss the most crucial elements to consider when interpreting a natal chart. Stay tuned!
A friend had this sign put up on a vacant piece of land next to his home: This Land Will Be Given To Anyone Who Is Truly Satisfied.
A wealthy farmer who was riding by stopped to read the sign and said to himself, “Since our friend is so ready to part with this plot, I might as well claim it before someone else does. I am a rich man and have all I need, so I certainly qualify.”
With that he went up to the door and explained what he was there for.
“And are you truly satisfied?” the friend asked.
“I am indeed, for I have everything I need,” said the wealthy farmer.
“If you are satisfied, what do you want the land for?” asked his friend. Zen Story
Author UnknownAN OPPORTUNITY FOR DAILY REFLECTION BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SCHOOL OF PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
― Karl Marx
Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) was a German-born philosopher, economist, political theorist, historian, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. Wikipedia
“One can’t write directly about the soul. Looked at, it vanishes,” Virginia Woolf (January 25, 1882–March 28, 1941) lamented in her diary. But writing directly about the soul, and with tremendous insight, is precisely what she does in a wonderful essay about the essays of Montaigne — his epochal “attempt to communicate a soul,” a “miraculous adjustment of all these wayward parts that constitute the human soul” — included in her classic Common Reader (public library).
Virginia Woolf
Contemplating the soul — that most private part of us — as “so complex, so indefinite, corresponding so little to the version which does duty for her in public,” she writes:
Beyond the difficulty of communicating oneself, there is the supreme difficulty of being oneself. This soul, or life within us, by no means agrees with the life outside us. If one has the courage to ask her what she thinks, she is always saying the very opposite to what other people say.
That courage is what Whitman celebrated when he decreed to “dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem.” Only by listening to the voice of the soul — a voice by definition nonconformist, rising above the din of convention and expectation and should — do we become fully and happily ourselves. To be aware of ourselves is to hear that voice. To be content in ourselves is to listen to it. Woolf writes:
The man* who is aware of himself is henceforward independent; and he is never bored, and life is only too short, and he is steeped through and through with a profound yet temperate happiness. He alone lives, while other people, slaves of ceremony, let life slip past them in a kind of dream. Once conform, once do what other people do because they do it, and a lethargy steals over all the finer nerves and faculties of the soul. She becomes all outer show and inward emptiness; dull, callous, and indifferent.
Let us simmer over our incalculable cauldron, our enthralling confusion, our hotch-potch of impulses, our perpetual miracle — for the soul throws up wonders every second. Movement and change are the essence of our being; rigidity is death; conformity is death: let us say what comes into our heads, repeat ourselves, contradict ourselves, fling out the wildest nonsense, and follow the most fantastic fancies without caring what the world does or thinks or says.
Beyond the difficulty of communicating oneself, there is the supreme difficulty of being oneself. This soul, or life within us, by no means agrees with the life outside us. If one has the courage to ask her what she thinks, she is always saying the very opposite to what other people say.