Read on Twitter
Mini rant about astrology/astrologers: One of my challenges as a teacher is to get students, some of whom have been studying astrology for decades, to think critically about what they know and monitor their language. I recognize it's hard.
It's partly difficult because astrologers write and talk funny. I mean that kind of literally. We speak arcane dialects to each other that don't translate well into commonly spoken languages, like English. This is especially true with contemporary astrology.
For instance, a student might write abt a Sun-Pluto conjunction that the native might experience transformative experiences that promotes ego strength. Sounds good...until you think about it or you picture they're talking about you. And you go, "Da fuq does that mean?"
Like concretely, how do I work my mind around that...practically or in my life? What constitutes a "transformative experience"? Is this a fancier way of saying what Nietzsche said best, "That which does not kill me makes me stronger"? Perhaps. But it also could be something else.
You could just as easily say, "Various intense life crises push you to dig consistently within to discover new avenues of power, strength and clarity. You might feel as if you're always re-inventing yourself as a result."
What I just wrote is seeking to explain. When I used the hackneyed word "transformation" for Pluto, I was diagnosing in shorthand. And even then using a particular view of the planets.
A student recently wrote, "He also has a need for accommodating fulfillment through his home (Full Moon Libra 4th)." I had to ask, "What does this mean?" I think I know what they mean, but it's too compressed and maybe too clinical for describing someone's given circumstances.
And I think that's the challenge for a 21st century astrology, like it is sort of for a 21st century academy, etc.: learning to write for humans as if we're really talking about and to humans rather than systems, machines or other geeks.
What's funny is that my geekdom might not match your geekdom. When I read more psychological astrology books, I thought I mostly understood what authors were talking about. Until I started reading more classical texts, and saw they wrote differently.
Reminds me of how I had to learn to unlearn writing like a postmodern academic. Postmodern writing is just bad writing and catchphrases. Took me years to stop saying "problematic" and just say what was a problem. Ultimately, I'm encouraging students to think simpler...not simply.
Practice your delineations as if you're writing to someone who on first blush would have no incentive to understand what the fuck you're talking about. That's actually what Twitter did for me. I learned to simplify more of my language.
That's also true for horoscope writing. But that also can veer you toward making things too simple. Anyway, that's my rant. For now.
