Read an Excerpt
Steven:� In a matriarchal culture, one images the universe as feminine, and in a patriarchal culture, one images the universe as masculine. Both of these, of course, are anthropomorphic projections. Clearly, if we can assign gender to the universe, we have to assign both genders in equal balance, a yin-yang kind of phenomenon. That�s a simple observation of natural law. But it seems irrefutable historically that astrology arose from a matrix of "mother images" of the universe. And when we imagine the universe as the Great Mother, then the universe exists to nurture us, to care for us, to help us grow, as would a literal mother.In a Goddess-oriented, matriarchal vision of the astrological universe, the universe itself exists to meet our needs physically but also spiritually, psychically. And the universe is bending over backwards to help us grow, spiritually. And so the universe doesn�t send out one single system of symbols that we need to have interpreted for us by an elite priesthood. The universe instead sends out a multidimensional spectrum of symbols, all of which are valid, all of which can be followed, all of which lead into higher states of consciousness, lead back to the Source. The universe is bending over backwards to communicate to us.
Can you see how this paradigm shift out of patriarchal and into matriarchal imagery instantly resolves our "problem" about all the different, successful kinds of astrology?Our ancestors, the first ones coming into human consciousness, looked at the sky and noticed that this red "star" was moving. Mars. And they began to wonder, "What could this red star mean?" And they thought: red....heat...blood. Violence, passion. Enthusiasm. Red things. Feel how easy that is? Now why? Was the universe constructed to generate consciousness in us? To trigger consciousness in us? Can you feel that?
The Moon is always changing. What part of us is always changing and going through phases? Your feelings, right? Instant Moon symbolism. Look at the Sun. You�re lying in your backyard reading a book on a gray day. And then the clouds part over your head. And the sunlight hits you as you lie there. What do you do? You drop the book to your chest, you smile, and you just kind of take it in. Can�t you just feel that? When the sunlight hits you, you open to it, it energizes you. So what does the Sun mean? The life force itself. That to which you must be true if you�re going to be energetic and engaged with life.Pure astrological symbolism is really obvious. Are you with that? The universe is trying to tell us something because the Goddess universe cares about us. See how nicely that umbrella covers all these arguments about Koch and Placidus and the rest of it, and puts them in a context where we can say, "Yes, they are all right." Yes, they all work. And that makes sense.
Jeffrey: And the reason they all make sense is because astrology is a natural science. A natural science is a science based on correlation and observation, not theory or hypothesis. If I spend enough time observing life with some tree twigs in front of me, and I watch how they change pattern with the wind over great lengths of time, I will begin to find meaning.So, relative to Steve�s point about the Koch system or the Placidus system or the Porphyry system or whatever: they�re all observational and correlated in the last analysis, meaning you can make any system of correlation and observation work. Any. So from that point of view, which one is right and which one is wrong? You see?
Let's agree, if we open our eyes here, that we�re clearly in a phenomenal universe of maximal diversity. And astrology or any other correlation system is going to fit that observed reality. And if that observed reality is diversity itself, how can one sit back and say, "Oh, it�s just this one way." Do you see the absurdity here? But how many people on this planet have exactly that thought? It�s just this one way. That comes right back to this operational archetype in patriarchal consciousness: self-interest and exclusion. Do you see how it works?Suppose we had a consciousness of sharing, giving and including�and in fact, naturally, our consciousness is still defined this way, and we actually can operate that way�would we still have any wars, not to mention any conflict?
I would ask you another rhetorical question. How many of you would like to live in a collective reality which was defined by sharing, giving and inclusion, versus the collective reality we have now, which is defined by self-interest and exclusion? Who would opt for the one defined by sharing, giving and inclusion? How many want to hang out here with this old patriarchal thing, self-interest and exclusion?Not all of you raised your hands. Does that mean some of you are somewhat still ambivalent? (laughter)