And wouldn't you just know that he studied philosophy? The one "science" where they make a point of never defining what the words they use actually mean, so they have managed to get a taxpayer-supported living for 100 years arguing about the different meanings of "the" and "the" (I honestly wish I was joking) -- turns out to believe in astrology! I wouldn't presume to argue with someone whose entire adult life has been consumed with two idiotic things.

Nor do I plan to try to convince him. I've met people like this before. Spend six months convincing them that their current enthusiasm is stupid, and the next week they're off to something else equally idiodic.

Happily, they normally don't vote.

(If I'm being too rude here, I have to honestly say that I am probably not being rude enough. There are a lot of "highly educated idiots" out there.)

I'm a Capricorn, and we Caps are too hard-headed to believe in astrology.

Me, too. I'm a double Pisces with a Gemini rising, and we are far too complex to be stereotyped.

--Croakmore

I tend to get along with Pisces froggy, and they're the one sign that can easily deceive me. I've got a pisces moon too, although in the twelfth house (which is a nasty placement, good for little more than addiction, flakeyness, and madness). What house is yours in froggy?

My sun is in the fifth house of cancer, and my rising sign is aries, which makes me simultaneously hypersensitive and bumblingly arrogant. The one nice thing you can say about American cancers is that we seem to have a certain gut sense of our own country (America is a cancerian country), provided we manage not to allow it to drive us to madness (see the note above about Hemingway and Crane; Hunter S Thompson and I were born on the same day of July). But if anyone wants to see cancerian tendencies at their worst just look to the oval office and its current occupant. He's everything that's wrong with cancers. He's excessively sensitive, hides inside his shell to insulate himself from criticism, and his foreign policy represents the cancerian tendency to go apeshit crazy while simultaneously trying to remain in one's shell when attacked (notice he was something like an isolationist before 9/11 [isolationism is the other cancerian tendency...noted isolationists John Quincy Adams and Calvin Coolidge were both cancers]; now he's an isolationist turned inside out [notice how *little* his Iraq policy hinges on engagement and actual interaction with the Iraqi people? our troops all hide in heavily fortified bases until they go out in heavily armored vehices and drive around for a few hours at a time at 100+ mph...it's all very cancerian, and un-FDR-like...FDR was an aquarius]). I can usually barely stand to be in the same room with other cancers from my year. They make me crazy. I imagine that goes both ways.

The only really benevolent placement in my chart is jupiter, in the eleventh house of aquarius, which means good fortune with friends and wishes. I always had better luck with friends than I deserved.

I love hearing about what placements other people have though. I wish people would talk about it more here.

Also, maybe Eric would like to share his thoughts about how the astrological background of the leading candidates for 2008 might change American policy in the so-called war on terror and for the regeneracy. Hillary I notice is a scorpio. Giuliani is a gemini. John McCain is a virgo. Wes Clark is a capricorn.

For historical reference, Adams (Sr), Polk, Garfield, and Teddy Roosevelt were all scorpios. JFK and George Bush Sr were geminis. America has never had a virgo president, and the illustrious trio of Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Nixon were all capricorns.

As I peruse the list of presidential sun signs, I notice that all our aquarian presidents either died in office or there was an assasination attempt made on their lives (Harrison, McKinley, FDR, Reagan). This is a kind of random thought, but the reputation that aquarians have as being all radical leftists seems misplaced. Reagan was very much the ecumenical aquarius with libertarian leanings, comfortable around people from all walks of life, whether they be Hollywood stars or evangelicals down south. Falwell was on the payroll, but he had his portrait painted by Andy Warhol. He described himself as an evangelical, but his white house was you'll note the first in modern times to invite an astrologer in.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

I'm a Capricorn, and we Caps are too hard-headed to believe in astrology.

That goes perfectly with Cdr. Adama (from Caprica) saying flat out that nobody in the fleet would take Pres. Roslin's 'religious crap' seriously (on a recent BSG episode). :wink:

And yet a third of the fleet followed Roslin back to Kobol, and now Adama has found that he (and the rest of the fleet) will have to do likewise - Cylons or no Cylons. :twisted:

Religion can be a mighty force. Consider that any groups whose religion urged practices that helped the long-term survival of the group at the expense of the short-term good of the individual were more successful than those that didn't (all other things being equal!) and you have some mighty powerful memes!

I have Jupiter in Pisces, probably meaning all my illusions are in the realm of power and prosperity. Or perhaps - Pisces being a water sign - it means my plumbers (the house is an early-wave Boomer!) are getting rich from my delusions about older houses!

"The Money Pit - a documentary, not a comedy."

Originally Posted by Milo

I tend to get along with Pisces froggy, and they're the one sign that can easily deceive me. I've got a pisces moon too, although in the twelfth house (which is a nasty placement, good for little more than addiction, flakeyness, and madness). What house is yours in froggy?

My sun is in the fifth house of cancer, and my rising sign is aries, which makes me simultaneously hypersensitive and bumblingly arrogant. The one nice thing you can say about American cancers is that we seem to have a certain gut sense of our own country (America is a cancerian country), provided we manage not to allow it to drive us to madness (see the note above about Hemingway and Crane; Hunter S Thompson and I were born on the same day of July). But if anyone wants to see cancerian tendencies at their worst just look to the oval office and its current occupant. He's everything that's wrong with cancers. He's excessively sensitive, hides inside his shell to insulate himself from criticism, and his foreign policy represents the cancerian tendency to go apeshit crazy while simultaneously trying to remain in one's shell when attacked (notice he was something like an isolationist before 9/11 [isolationism is the other cancerian tendency...noted isolationists John Quincy Adams and Calvin Coolidge were both cancers]; now he's an isolationist turned inside out [notice how *little* his Iraq policy hinges on engagement and actual interaction with the Iraqi people? our troops all hide in heavily fortified bases until they go out in heavily armored vehices and drive around for a few hours at a time at 100+ mph...it's all very cancerian, and un-FDR-like...FDR was an aquarius]). I can usually barely stand to be in the same room with other cancers from my year. They make me crazy. I imagine that goes both ways.

The only really benevolent placement in my chart is jupiter, in the eleventh house of aquarius, which means good fortune with friends and wishes. I always had better luck with friends than I deserved.

I love hearing about what placements other people have though. I wish people would talk about it more here.

Also, maybe Eric would like to share his thoughts about how the astrological background of the leading candidates for 2008 might change American policy in the so-called war on terror and for the regeneracy. Hillary I notice is a scorpio. Giuliani is a gemini. John McCain is a virgo. Wes Clark is a capricorn.

For historical reference, Adams (Sr), Polk, Garfield, and Teddy Roosevelt were all scorpios. JFK and George Bush Sr were geminis. America has never had a virgo president, and the illustrious trio of Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Nixon were all capricorns.

As I peruse the list of presidential sun signs, I notice that all our aquarian presidents either died in office or there was an assasination attempt made on their lives (Harrison, McKinley, FDR, Reagan). This is a kind of random thought, but the reputation that aquarians have as being all radical leftists seems misplaced. Reagan was very much the ecumenical aquarius with libertarian leanings, comfortable around people from all walks of life, whether they be Hollywood stars or evangelicals down south. Falwell was on the payroll, but he had his portrait painted by Andy Warhol. He described himself as an evangelical, but his white house was you'll note the first in modern times to invite an astrologer in.

Milo, why do we go there in the first place? For the froggy life of me, I can't see much worth in astrology. But I can't see much value in evangelical religions, either, or teenage driving and daylight savings time. Yet there is one thing about astrology that I do like: how it seems to have anticipated the 12 basic formulae of classical physics -- i.e., the most fundamental expressions involving length (L), mass (M), and time (T).

In his book, The Geometry of Meaning, Arthur M. Young (designer of the Bell helicopter) argues that the signs of the zodiac align with the 12 basic physical formule this way:

Aries ~ acceleration = L/T^2
Taurus ~ mass control = ML/T^3
Gemini ~ power = ML^2/T^3
Cancer ~ velocity = L/T
Leo ~ force = ML/T^2
Virgo ~ work = ML^2/T^2
Libra ~ position = L
Scorpio ~ momentum = ML/T
Sagittarius ~ action = ML^2/T
Capricorn ~ control = L/T^3
Aquarius ~ moment = ML
Pisces ~ moment of inertia = ML^2

I found it interesting that astrology groups Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn as the "Cardinal" signs, while classical physics groups acceleration, velocity, position, and control as "Actions." Futhermore, Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, and Aquarius are "Fixed" signs, while mass control, force, momentum, and moment are "States," in classical physics. The remaining four astrological signs are considered to be "Mutable," while the remaining four physical formulae were said to be "Relations."

That's about as far as I can go with astrology (except during cocktail hour if she happens to be pretty enough).

--Croak

To each his own froggy. To each his own.

One can't prove or disprove it, and things will always interest some more than others.

But wait, Milo, isn't there a need to ask about cause and effect? What exactly are the forces at work in astrology? Those old gods look pretty thin to me.

If astrology has any merit it would seem to be in describing correlative rather than causal relationships.

For all you nomad swingers born between 1968 and 1975:

"Uranus was last in Libra from 1968 to 1975. This generation has some rather non-traditional ideas about marriage and partnership. They tend to be non-committal and unpartisan in their affiliations. They seek excitement and variety in their relationships and see them as stepping stones to personal growth. As a result, they tend to have a wider social circle than most. They tend to bring with them the "free love" and flower child ideals of their parents. Their relationships will become especially rocky in middle age when Uranus enters Aries and they want to do their own thing. Those with inner planets in close aspect to Uranus in this sign will tend to be known for free spirited ideals and unique personality.

In a diurnal chart, the heat and dryness amplify the power of Uranus to disrupt the status quo and engage in unconventional standards for relationship. Marriage may not be a closed monogamous ideal to these natives and they will frequently prefer open relationships. They dislike jeolousy and consider it a sign of a lack of understanding and insecurity.

In a nocturnal chart, the cool and wet nature of the night go against the hot and dry nature of Uranus. There tends to be more moderation of social values and they seek a middle ground between tradition and avant garde in relationships. They tend to be a little more conservative than their diurnal counterparts. In some cases, when change happens in their relationships it takes them by surprise because they were not conscious of the need for it."

This is apparently especially true of people who have a "natural" chart, with aries rising, and uranus in the seventh house of libra (the house of marriage).

Here's a really funny description of the downsides of each sun sign:

http://www.bemyastrologer.com/sun_sign_downside.html

I like your correlations, froggy. If anything it shows that astrology taps into some archetypal principles, just as generation theory and the philosophy circle does, and the correlations you have shown with them. As Milo pointed out, astrology is not based on cause and effect in the Newtonian sense. But it suggests there are other aspects of the universe to be taken account of than classical physics. Like synchronicity and archetypes. And perhaps, given your correlations, they are more basic than classical physics!

But what you can accept depends on your worldview.

As to Milo's question, I'm not sure we know yet who will run in 2008. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to be the only viable candidate from my point of view, although she is playing it too safe, and this may sink her this time. She has Uranus on the Ascendant like FDR, (and like me). Her Moon is in the 10th house (also like FDR, and me). There are good aspects from the Sun to Uranus and from Jupiter to the Moon. She would be a charismatic leader. She is also well known for being a bit of a dragon lady, and likes to be in charge. This is shown by Mars, Pluto and Saturn in fixed Leo, in square to Mercury and Venus in Scorpio. So things would be bumpy if she was able to win, and domestic polarization would increase. The election would be close, given the hatred in the red states for her. But after 4 years of Bush, lots of people will be ready for a change. She might be very innovative. Moon in 10th house suggests fluctuating fortunes, and a link to the consciousness of the common people.

Wes Clark is not really qualified to be president, and is a poor campaigner. But his chart is not bad in some ways. If he were to win, which is doubtful because certain aspects in his chart make him liable to campaign mistakes, he would be a strong leader and a visionary who initiates many things (very cardinal), with tendencies to paranoia and hence poor relations with his subordinates. Both Wes and Hillary are control freaks. Their charts look something like Crisis or 4T leaders, whereas McCain is a moderate and may be too flexible or indecisive. He is also a Silent, while Hillary and Wes are semi-ruthless Boomers.

If McCain were to win the Republican nomination, which is doubtful, he would be a shoe-in if his campaign went well. I don't know his chart well though. I have it on good authority that he is the reincarnation of leading "compromiser" Henry Clay. I know McCain is a militarist though, and so he would have trouble if he doesn't have a good answer for getting us out of Iraq and keeping us out of wars, which might be the main issue in 2008. But he is a capable leader, and so much smarter than Bush. I'll have to get back to you about his chart, which I don't remember. I studied thoroughly the 2004 candidates, but not the 2000 candidates.

Given McCain's and Clay's generational position, he might not be a 4T president; but he could be a president who has the full Crisis come down around him. Milo points out that McCain is a Virgo. LBJ was also a Virgo. Virgo is a mutable sign, and not really suited to dealing with crisis. It is also a militaristic sign, which fits with LBJ too.

I know nothing about Giuliani. He's not qualified to be president, though, so I don't expect him to go far.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary Rodham Clinton ... has Uranus on the Ascendant like FDR, (and like me). Her Moon is in the 10th house (also like FDR, and me). There are good aspects from the Sun to Uranus and from Jupiter to the Moon. She would be a charismatic leader. She is also well known for being a bit of a dragon lady, and likes to be in charge. This is shown by Mars, Pluto and Saturn in fixed Leo, in square to Mercury and Venus in Scorpio. So things would be bumpy if she was able to win...

Just curious, Eric, have you ever performed any blind tests of character predictability? How often have you studied charts of famous or infamous people without knowing who they were beforehand? I suppose you remember the French test where numerous astrologers were invited to interpret a chart of a person they all knew, who turned out to be a particularly nasty convicted killer. The astrologers could not see that in his chart, and they laid a big bad egg for all to see.

Can you prove astrology's principles by way of this kind of experimentation -- call it "blind chart testing"?

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary Rodham Clinton ... has Uranus on the Ascendant like FDR, (and like me). Her Moon is in the 10th house (also like FDR, and me). There are good aspects from the Sun to Uranus and from Jupiter to the Moon. She would be a charismatic leader. She is also well known for being a bit of a dragon lady, and likes to be in charge. This is shown by Mars, Pluto and Saturn in fixed Leo, in square to Mercury and Venus in Scorpio. So things would be bumpy if she was able to win...

Just curious, Eric, have you ever performed any blind tests of character predictability? How often have you studied charts of famous or infamous people without knowing who they were beforehand? I suppose you remember the French test where numerous astrologers were invited to interpret a chart of a person they all knew, who turned out to be a particularly nasty convicted killer. The astrologers could not see that in his chart, and they laid a big bad egg for all to see.

Can you prove astrology's principles by way of this kind of experimentation -- call it "blind chart testing"?

--Croak

Very true, but then there's the famous "Mars effect" which has never really been debunked (to my knowledge). There's also the question of whether or not astrology has ever claimed to be able to recognize homicidal tendencies, and whether the alleged chart configurations of said tendencies are common knowledge among astrologers. That said, astrology makes so many claims its overall veracity is difficult to prove or disprove. A better test might be to find a single claim that is agreed upon by astrologers and determine if it has empirical validity. For instance, the traditional indicator of marriage is (as I understand it) a sun/venus conjunction in the progressed chart, and it would be rather easy to test whether couples were married when one or both of them had this aspect.

I still like astrology for its archtypal significance. But the level of believership required to go there is black diamond slope for me. I have enough trouble sorting out the believerships in science -- evolutionary biology is rife with them. I use the Bushian method for deailing with those faithful insurgents: Kill 'em all first and sort 'em later.

Here's my position. Science knows less than one percent of nature's secrets, and half of what it knows is wrong. Until I can improve upon that I don't see much value in dabbling with the nature's meta-secrets. Can't we just be real?

And whatsa "Mars effect," anyway? I worry more about the "Earth effect."

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I still like astrology for its archtypal significance. But the level of believership required to go there is black diamond slope for me. I have enough trouble sorting out the believerships in science -- evolutionary biology is rife with them. I use the Bushian method for deailing with those faithful insurgents: Kill 'em all first and sort 'em later.

Here's my position. Science knows less than one percent of nature's secrets, and half of what it knows is wrong.

I agree with you there.

Until I can improve upon that I don't see much value in dabbling with the nature's meta-secrets. Can't we just be real?

Fine for you, but not for me. I want to dabble!

I see more value in nature's meta-secrets than nature's secrets. Metaphysics comes first, and starts with my own awareness. A difference in starting point, that's all.

And whatsa "Mars effect," anyway? I worry more about the "Earth effect."

--Croak

Actually, astrology is mostly concerned with the earth. The signs and houses are earth cycles.

Your suggestion is good, and I have not come up with a reputable experiment like this yet. There are other kinds of empirical studies being done, but I don't remember the name of the person who reported his work to our local astrology club off hand.

Of course it takes skilled astrologers to succeed at this sort of test, and astrologers are still fallible. Myself, I have demonstrated at my lectures that people can guess the identities of famous people from their charts. They can also pick out the chart which I call the chart for today's humanity, and pretty much lay out the 500-year cycle and the cycle of revolution without knowing the astrological dates. I know I was able to guess my own chart beforehand, only knowing the meanings of the signs and planets; that got me interested. My empirical research focused on statistical studies of planetary cycles and their correlations in history, which I reported in my book. The stats are not overwhelming, but the correlations are greater than chance by up to 4 to one.

Astrology is not a science with the accuracy of the physical sciences. Neither is psychology or sociology. A "science" that deals with people is not going to have a physical level of verifiability, because people are more than physical beings and have free will. They don't operate on mechanical cause and effect. Neither do animals, entirely, which is why I think Darwinism doesn't get it all right on evolution. So such sciences need to make use of archetypes and patterns and verifiability by subjective experience. Empirical testing can be useful though, to check statements made about phenomena. It just can't approach the standard of a physical science; although we know, of course, that physical science too is more rife with uncertainty than Darwin or Newton dreamed of.

You're a rather conciliatory silent froggy. Silent dad would interrupt me, berate my arguments, then loudly change the subject if I might happen to be winning.

Mars Effect

Eric & Milo,

I'm confused. You're telling me that since we have uncertainties about science we should go to meta-science for our answers. Doesn't the uncertainty factor go up by way of this redirection? I'm concerned about you boys. Your minds are muddy. Both of you eshew testable procedures in favor of raw beliefs. And yet you both are so discriminating on other issues. What are your standards of value, anyway?

If there really is something to astrology can you specify any force fields, zodiac waves, or strange attractors that get me a liitle closer to science without the meta prefix? Do constellations have feather factors that tickle your tummy the moment you are born? What exactly goes on in there to differentiate a double Pisces with a Gemnini rising from a Libra sun, a Scorpio moon, and an ascending Capricorn? And what about the discovery of new planets in our solar system? Were astrological predictions affected by the discovery of Pluto?

Silent frogs need to know. We croak for clarity (I'd be happy for just one gnat of empiricism).

I'm suggesting that claims made by astrology should be researched froggy, but you have to parse out individual, testable claims agreed upon by astrologers that can be verified or disproved.

Astrology does seem to imply some sort of design to the universe, that humans have some meaningful if perhaps not fully knowable place in it, but it doesn't necessarily imply that any particular religious worldview properly describes that place, or that there is any ongoing intervention in human affairs. Astrology has been used across cultures and through time.

I won't speak for Eric, but as both he and I suggested many if not most astrology do not believe there is some causal relationship (with some kind of phsyical mechanism) between say the position of Mars at any time and the likelihood of war, but that astrology may describe a kind of correlational relationship between the position of planets and human events. Or it might not.

It is at least for now an art, not a science, and it implies no particular moral or cultural values. Unlike various fundamentalisms, it does not have a political agenda.

And because it lacks empirical merit to the extent that it may or may not imply some kind of order to the universe does not mean that creationism, whether we call it that or something else like intelligent design, has any place in the teaching of biology. Even if many of the claims of astrology were shown to have some level of statistical significance whatever that implied about the universe would still be irrelevant because the claims of the intelligent design crowd need to be addressed on their own terms. Unless God herself appears in the parking lot of the Mall of America and proves to us that this is Her disaster creationism/ID has no business being taught as science.

In any event, proponents, detractors, and agnostics of astrology should be willing to put its claims to the test. At least some of its claims are in fact testable. One can't say the same thing about creationism/ID.

That you're inclined to dismiss it out of hand is fine, but such a dismissal neither proves nor disproves anything. It seems to be there is a kind of at least subtle teleogy in Strauss and Howe's theory - a discernible order to what in empirical terms ought to be a random flux of events - so you seem willing to accept at least some level of order in history. What is the mechanism there? The same is true of complexity theory, which has been the darling of some of the smartest scientific minds in the world over the last couple of decades. That stuff has teleology written all over it, however loathe its proponents are to admit it. They're the ones talking order without a mechanism, or purpose. Science really only has the tools for asking how, not why. If being willing to entertain the idea that there is some order to the universe is muddy thinking so be it, but what seems to bother you is that anyone would even raise the prospect.

If you want to know what I personally think, it is that civilizations come and go. Religions come and go, and none of them has probably gotten it right. There are certainly patterns to these rises and falls, but they don't seem to be entirely knowable. There may be a soul that outlives the body, or there may not. There may be life after death and there may not. Astrology may describe a universe with some level of order relative to us, or it may not. There may be some point to all this or there may not, but even if there is it seems likely we'll never know what that is. The universe is billions of years old. Perhaps ours is the only one. Perhaps there are an infinite number of them. Perhaps there is some intelligence behind its creation. Perhaps there is not. In any event, humankind evolved from lower life forms, and if we don't get the hell off this rock one day the moon is going to drift so far from the earth our atmosphere will go haywire and life will become unsustainable, if we haven't been obliterated by an asteroid or each other first.

Milo & Eric,

OK, I'll suspend my arguments against astrology until it shows overt signs of sociopathy like that spewed forth recently from the 700 Club. Most astrologers I ever knew were kind and gentle people who never listened to my criticisms anyway. All I ever tried to do was to objectify that which is hopelessly subjective. This is my folly. And, yes, teleology runs rampant in Generations theory, too, making it all the more subjective (but none the less interesting).

Maybe my biggest mistake is to demand too much objectivity from subjective world views. If people like their subjectivity better than their objectivity who am I to question that? As a scientist, I am a frequent user of the null hypothesis (aka, hardcore skepticism). And if I can find good reason to abandon it I'm delighted. Nothing excites me more than to to be proved wrong. So I'm usually stalking that wild pendulum.

Sorry to have stompted through your garden so carelessly. Double Pisces tend to blunder around that way (don't we?).

--Croak

Spoken like a kind, true silent froggy.

After all my expressed doubts about astrology, an astrological thing happened to me a few days ago. My girl friend, who happens to appreciate subjective values, took my birth details to an astrologer friend of hers who did not know me, and they charted me in a clandestine manner and against my will. Worst of all, my girl friend reported back and said the astrologer's interpretation "... suited me to a T."

I guess you could say this was a blind test, although I have not yet learned the details of whatever suited me to a T. But I am a bit troubled by the suggestion that I am transparent to an astrologer. Frankly, I don't want to be frightened by those details.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

After all my expressed doubts about astrology, an astrological thing happened to me a few days ago. My girl friend, who happens to appreciate subjective values, took my birth details to an astrologer friend of hers who did not know me, and they charted me in a clandestine manner and against my will. Worst of all, my girl friend reported back and said the astrologer's interpretation "... suited me to a T."

I guess you could say this was a blind test, although I have not yet learned the details of whatever suited me to a T. But I am a bit troubled by the suggestion that I am transparent to an astrologer. Frankly, I don't want to be frightened by those details.

--Croak

And I am sure Chinese astrologers will describe you "to a T", and so would animal entrail readings.

Here's an interpretation of the 4T (and the next 2T, as well) which the Eric the Green might find interesting:

Originally Posted by Phyllis Light

August 23, 2005

Information about the “intensity” people are experiencing on Planet Earth at this time....

Starting in June 2003, the earth started feeling the effects of passing through a photon belt. This is kind of a cosmic anomaly, but no accident in terms of the transformation that is upon us all.

We are all being “forced” or “helped” to grow at this time… that is, we are unable to “say no.” It is part of the path that all of us human beings are on together, at this time. What is taking place is that our individual energy fields, along with the energy field of the earth around us, is being pushed upon continually, almost like little fingers are poking at us constantly, all over our bodies, 24/7.

If there were really physical fingers poking at you constantly, 24/7, how would you feel? Bashed… interfered with…. unhappy, out of control, disturbed, jittery, interrupted, like you were being driven crazy… overwhelmed from the unwanted and unwelcome stimulation… you get the idea!

So, these are the kinds of feelings and experiences that people are having at this time. Even though the “fingers poking you” are not physical fingers, this energy is real nonetheless, and the effects of this energy are extremely real.

I can’t tell you how many people have reported that this past year or year and a half, has been the most challenging one of their lives. When I tune in and ask how many people on earth are having more problems now because of this energy, I get 95%. So most people are dealing with the extra “burden” and intensity that this energy represents.

However, on the positive side, what we’re talking about here is a MAJOR MAJOR growth opportunity. That is, our “buttons” are “getting pressed” so much, that we are having to deal with a tremendous amount of negativity that is generally suppressed and out of our awareness. It is almost as if we are being collectively forced into a corner, made to feel awful, and the only “way out” is to begin to look at ourselves, tell the truth about what’s going on inside, and start to consciously get on the path of healing and transformation, in order to come to a place of peace inside.

Thus, many, many people are beginning to wake up now who were very asleep before. This is good. For the rest of us, already awake and working on ourselves, it’s still a major growth opportunity, since our stuff is coming up BIG TIME for review, and we get an opportunity to look at ourselves and continually do a deeper level of clearing and healing. The going can get tough at times… we can feel totally overwhelmed and wish we could “get out of here” or feel like “we can’t take it anymore.” These are old programs coming up for review. Don’t take this stuff personally or reinforce it in your mind.

Call for a mini-session, work with the techniques in my books, use the Communications Breakthrough System…. whatever you need to do to feel better. Take a few minutes a day and simply FEEL what’s going on inside you, without judgment. The more you do this, the more the feelings will subside and not feel overwhelming to you.

Do something other than wallowing in the feelings, as they are simply based on old programming that is surfacing from your subconscious mind. You need to have perspective at this time. What’s up for us all is to learn to relax and flow with the changes life brings, and trust that the universe is a safe and loving place, regardless of what appears to be happening around us.

We are preparing to move into a higher age of Light in approximately 50 to 51 years, and all that we are going through now is part of that process. We will be passing through this photon belt energy for another eight years, so ultimately we either surrender to being at peace, no matter what is going on in our life, or we crack… take your pick.

Having this information and understanding can only help during these challenging, yet potentially growth-filled times. When you’re experiencing “going crazy” and feeling overwhelmed to the point of “I can’t take this anymore,” and think you’re all alone… it feels quite hopeless. When you realize what’s really taking place, you can step back and see it for what it is, and not take your thoughts and feelings so personally.

It is time to open to more love, more compassion and understanding for others and for yourself. It is all good, in spite of what you may think and feel. Take heart, have faith, and work on yourself as much as you can. And remember, all the work you do always pays off.

Many blessings.

Phyllis

The above could be seen as a (New Age) description of a 4T running from 2003 thru 2013, with the next 2T due in the 2050s.