The Dumbest Rash Decision I Ever Made

❧
A couple of days ago I got an invitation to join an e-mail discussion list on Yahoo Groups. The invitation was from a handle I am is a little familiar with peripherally, but it's never been the apple of my eye. The nayme of the group signified directly that it's topic of discussion was Gnosticism. Since I was unsolicitedly invited and didn't have to audition, and I can unsubscribe faster than it takes to go through submitting an application to subscribe, I decided to click my way through to blindly joining another discussion group about the Gnostic gospels found in Egypt in 1945.

This is getting to be a staid subject for me. I'm emotionally invested in Christianity from how I was raised to be a moderate Protestant Christian from childhood. But, during the pubescent stages of being a teenager I rebelled mightily against all authority figures and predatory influences. Hence, for a long time the religious training of my childhood became a focus of my contempt and derision, and stayed that way until the arrival of my second Saturn Return. It's beginning to appear as if I was invited to join this group in order to be humiliated, then banned, and somehow taught a nebulous, strained lesson about netiquette.

I seem to have become incensed by the contemptible behavior of the hypocritical adults in charge of bringing me on home to Jesus who were in no way Christ-like. I sorta think I decided to show them how it was done, and that may truly be the dumbest rash decision I ever could have made in all of my life. The truth of it is that I'm not a very good model of Christ-like virtues because I'm not in charge of how those selfsame souls interpret my rude, rustic behaviors.

Strange thing I just wrote in the paragraph above. It scares me to think I may have actually made such a decision. That comes along, I think, with having Mercury in Aries in my natal chart. Its written that natives with this particular configuration of Mercury by sign and house are possessed by certain chief features when it comes to residing in the 5th house of romantic love, and subliminally masquerading itself as a sleepy, well-fucked male lion only a fool would rudely awaken. He needs his rest to recuperate and exemplify the beastliness of his pride. Harumph!

Back when I was actively studying astrology and driving the few friends I had crazy by turning every effort they made to have a friendly chat, into a lame excuse to enter some insufferable diatribe about how brilliantly the practice of astrology put brilliant little ol' me orders of magnitude above them, and the other little people. I may be a little conservative about how arrogant I felt I had to be to satisfy my inflated image of my Self.

This idea I'm presently exploring is the opposite of the stage line I memorized to play the part of Colonel Cotchipee in the black play Pearly Victorious! The referenced line I uttered on stage was, "How low can you go, Gitlow?" Gitlow was the main character in the drama.

My query is about becoming a prima donna/diva in one's chosen field of endeavor as a necessary phase of mastery of any craft. Recently this theory was supported to some degree by watching a documentary on PBS about the tenor Pavarotti:

http://www.lucianopavarotti.com/

I've always been a chump for great operatic tenors. Hate operas. Love the singers. As a kid I saw the movie The Student Prince and I fell in love with the very idea of being able to be-co-me with showing myself off that way. I kid you not. I paid for singing lessons that never got legs. I am/was a big fan. Pavarotti was just the very best, and I never saw him in person. I never saw any of those guys in person. I might be grossly disappointed in their dismal humanity.

It was a passing mention in the documentary about Pavarotti that as he matriculated into the power of his art and his popularity he became vain and tripped the light fantastic with parading himself as a Diva. I became overwhelmed with autistic joy (as I'm apt to do in front of witnesses, dammit!) His response supported my conjecture that going over the top is a necessary part of the deal. How can one know they've gone far enough if they don't go tooooo far?

I feel like such a fool. But, that's how it is when you have Mercury in Aries. Aries is the ho-me of the Greek god of war. Natives can become extremely excited on a frivolous impulse or by a passing charismatic rabble rouser. Contrarily, the suffering incurred by unthoughtful reactions to frivolous impulses makes it hard to staunch the bleeding afterward. Where is my mother Athena with the ambrosia to heal me when I need her?

"Sometime I feels lak a motherless chile,
Sometime I feels lak a motherless chile,
Sometime I feels lak a motherless chile...
so far away from ho-me."

~ Old Spiritual Hymn

It intrigued me that Albert Einstein also had Mercury in Aries in his natal chart. Since his Sun was in Pisces it fits that he would. Mercury never gets more than two signs away from the sign where the Sun is framed in that singular moment of one's birth.

In Einstein's natal chart Mercury in the first sign Aries races ahead of his Sun in the twelfth sign Pisces. In effect this is reminiscent of the Star Trek spam about "going where no man has gone before". Einstein just followed his nature. It's a hard act to follow, man. '-)

In my natal chart the Sun is in the second sign Taurus while Mercury lags behind in the first sign Aries. This configuration with the Sun leading Mercury does the opposite of "going where no man has gone before", it's going where Everyman has gone before, and using that accumulated database as a frame of reference for separating the wheat from the chaff at the point of arrival of the in-co-me-ing.

Ti-me for my discounter. You gotta know I'm making this shit up as I go along, right? I attempt to capture drifting thoughts (like the new one in the foregoing paragraph) with words (woes-to-the-id). You do know about the id, right? Stuff that brings woes to the id (as cosmic soup) does not spread oil upon the waters to calm them down.

Tossed word salad... anyone? In the bejinning was the woe-to-the-id, and the woe-to-the-id was WITH God. Okay, okay... the demiurge.... No? Demiurge? Ahh, with the capital D... Gotcha! Graven images. What a bitch they can be if you don't nip them in the bud.

How could I be expected to contemplate my own life if I don't compare it with Einstein? The run above where I brought into play how his Mercury in Aries might differ from my Mercury in Aries has been delightful. I've forgotten the lingo real astrologers use when they consider whether a planet lead or follows the Sun in their calculations.

There are two other boilerplate considerations in this regard, and that's whether a planet/s is located in between the Earth and the Sun or whether it's located on the other side of the Sun from Earth and considered in it's unseen esoteric forms.

It's easily clear to me that it doesn't matter where or why the principles inherent in such considerations are place in any one location or considered at any particular ti-me. Astrology, along with every other system used to organize thought only ex-is-t as an abstract construction and the particulars of any system can be as flexible as any individual operator of any particular system can do as they please with the parts, and it will still all co-me out in the wash.
❦