Pluto Back Into Aquarius: Shifting the Universe

Transcript

 

Hey everyone, this is Adam Elenbaas from Nightlight Astrology. Today, we are going to take one final look at Pluto's entrance into the sign of Aquarius, which happens again in late January. We have been looking at Pluto's entrance into Aquarius and the meaning of Pluto and Aquarius through the lens of a brilliant essay that was written by the archetypal psychologist James Hillman, who inspired a whole group of astrologers who would end up founding what is now known as archetypal astrology.

So, in this essay, we've been looking at some of his ideas as a jumping off point for the exploration of what Pluto's entrance into Aquarius might mean for us over the course of the next two decades; you don't have to have seen the previous episodes in the series to get something out of this. So you might want to look at those to get the other parts of the essay, which also offer some very different and unique reflections on Pluto and Aquarius. Anyway, that's our agenda for today.

Before we get into it, don't forget to like, subscribe, and share your comments and reflections. We'd love to hear from you. You can find a transcript of any of my daily talks, including today's, on the website nightlightastrology.com. Well, you guys know we are trying to get to 1777 backers by New Year's Eve right now; as of the time I'm recording this, we have 668, which means we still need 1109 by New Year's Eve.

Thank you so much to everyone who's already donated; we really appreciate you, and we're on a good pace toward our goal. But we still have a lot of ground to cover. So, if you haven't yet, we would really appreciate your donation; you can find the link to the Kickstarter pinned to the top of the comments section or in the description of this video.

When you go over there and pledge, pick up a reward, pick up one of our talks, or pick up a class pass through 50% off the normal rate when you use the Kickstarter, they go up to about 75. When you get a bundle of classes, they don't expire. You can use them anytime you want, and you can transfer one to a friend. It is very flexible. So we would really appreciate your support in helping us reach our goal.

We have just about 12 days left, so we need a bunch of support still, as we reach the finish line here. I think we can do it, I really do, but we still have a ways to go, and every last donation helps us get there. So, thank you so much.

Okay, well, today I wanted to talk a little bit since Pluto is entering Aquarius. I thought, you know, it'd be interesting. As I've been doing these little get to know us, I want you to get to know me, the channel, and the values behind the channel that you're supporting through the Kickstarter.

Today, I thought I would address the question of where do you see astrology going in the next decade? Well, here's where I see astrology going in the next decade. What do I see as the role of Nightlight, a content creator like myself, and the school that my staff and I run? What role do I see us playing in astrology, let's say, story or its development in the next decade or two with Pluto and Aquarius?

So anyway, the first thing that I believe is that there's going to be more public conversation, more popular assimilation, more attention. I see astrology on a similar trajectory to yoga and psychedelics as medicine, which are two other fields that I have been personally involved with and had my finger on the pulse of at different times.

My participation in a variety of communities, Reality Sandwich, writing a book about ayahuasca, touring the country, being something of an advocate for psychedelic medicine for a long time. I watched it become more and more common and acceptable, and as that happens, of course, there are a lot of things that happen along the way.

Yoga was very similar. When I first got into yoga studio management and the world of yoga and then owned a studio for ten years, I watched it grow more and more popular. Now, it was already growing popular by the time I got into it. But with yoga again, I watched it become more and more popularly understood and accessible. So anyway, as that happens, what naturally occurs is that where there's more interest, there are also more questions about the best representations, like there are more misconceptions that can come about.

I believe that the intention of the goal of Nightlight and this channel is to be a heart-centered place in that development and in that sort of the developing popularity of astrology that people can say, Oh, you know, I found astrology, and I don't know, it seems kind of wacko. It seems very general; it seems sensationalist. It seems exaggerated. I'm not sure I believe it. The planets are causing everything to happen. I don't know.

Someone could if someone recommends Nightlight and they come here; I think what they're gonna find is astrology that is not about sensationalism. That's grounded in an open-minded, intellectual, and spiritual approach that's heart-centered. So you know, that's what I hope we're doing here.

I hope that as astrology I see astrology becoming more popular, more accepted, and more utilized. Nightlight can be a place that people go to that helps heal, maybe just gently guide the conversation from a heart-centered space, a space that counters some of the misconceptions that may naturally come up.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see, you know, as something like astrology becomes more popular, there may be ways in which people want to make it more impersonal. By using I don't know programming and artificial intelligence, and you know, the more popular something like astrology becomes, the more that it might be tempting to take the human element, the artful craft of the individual practitioner, out or to reduce its role because we can write a program that generates horoscopes and I don't know.

I also want Nightlight to be a place that emphasizes the personal the artful, practitioners of astrology have always been something like cosmic poet, philosopher, musicians with words and symbols and patterns and I want Nightlight to be a place that represents astrology in this kind of artful, personal heart centered way.

However, as the popularity of astrology develops, I just see our presence as being something that can be a contrast to anything that feels impersonal, sensational, mechanized, or, you know, where any of those kinds of misconceptions about astrology come up. My hope is that it will be a place that will sort of counter that narrative.

Anyway, I thought you guys might be interested to hear my thoughts about that there. It's kind of general. I don't really know where it's all going, of course, but this is what this is my sense. I had a similar sense and feeling and watch similar things happen with psychedelics as medicine, which are way more mainstream now.

But of course, when things like this become more mainstream, you know, there are problems that come along with it, and all I can hope for is that we will be contributing positively to the story that is developing with astrology in the collective. Anyway, we so appreciate your support for the Kickstarter.

It is a deep honor for me to make this content and to think of it as something as I'm making it that can contribute positively to each of you as you walk through your day, keeping an open heart because you feel like you have a closer connection to the cosmos around you. On that note, I hope you will enjoy this final installment of our exploration of Pluto's re-entrance into Aquarius today, and we'll see you again soon.

All right, let's go ahead and get into it. Today, we are continuing our exploration of Pluto into the sign of Aquarius as we also finish up the essay by James Hillman that we've been looking at called Cosmology for Soul from Universe to Cosmos.

So, in this four-part series, we started with an essay by James Hillman, a very brief one, and then we've taken the last two episodes to look at this essay Cosmology for Soul, and we're wrapping that up today.

We're using his essay as a starting point, a jumping-off point from which to reflect upon Pluto's entrance into Aquarius, and especially some of the shadows that Pluto in Aquarius may bring. Why focus on the shadows because that's what Pluto tends to bring up, shadow. Pluto is Hades in Greek mythology, the ruler of the realm of shades and shadows, and so over time, as Pluto works its way through any sign, it often helps us to understand some of the shadows that come along with that sign.

So, it's a good time to reflect on that. That does not mean that we will only experience the shadow side of Aquarius or that this series will cover all of the shadows of Aquarius. We're taking some specific angles, but there are many others, and all of that is just to say that in qualifying, there will be other ways of looking at Pluto and Aquarius, some more constructive, some more positive, and hopeful.

This has been a very critical look at some of the shadows of Pluto and Aquarius. But we have more room to grow in our understanding of this upcoming transit, and of course, we'll be doing so there will be more to this series.

In fact, I have a few other ideas about where we can go based on a few other very interesting passages from astrologers that I love and so forth. So, just because I know that some people are probably waiting to take some different angles on Pluto and Aquarius, so know that we will.

Alright, that being said, Shifting the Universe is the last part of the essay, it is about a page longer than the other two sections, so bear with me, and then we'll offer some reflections on the end and maybe some final thoughts about this essay overall and again, reflecting on Pluto and Aquarius.

This, by the way, comes from Philosophical Intimations, which is a collection of essays that were put together after James Hillman did a series called The Uniform Editions, and they contain a lot of his shorter essays. He wrote a lot of books, but he also wrote a lot of essays.

So this comes from that, in case you're interested in picking it up that's filled with really great essays. If you like this kind of reading, some of you may not, and that's fine, too.

As always, remember this is for your consideration, not indoctrination, right? I don't agree with every last thing that just about anyone says, you know, like, who does? So, use this to stir the pot alchemically Right. Or anyway, here we go.

Shifting the universe, we are appropriately tired now. Little wonder, for we have been shifting the universe, a straining task to imagine cosmology of fresh and fine language for this imagining. But we are not as tired as Atlas, who carried the universe on human shoulders. We have long ago put down that heroic fantasy.

The very first result of the shift from universe to Cosmos will appear in the language of our thought. We no longer have to find articulations for the fantasy have an all encompassing system to embrace the horizonless ocean called universe in which float discrete islands of phenomenon requiring complex explanatory connections.

But there is a difference between the discreteness of atomism and the eachness of cosmos. Connections may be imagined in quite different language than here, for they would be implicated with the cosmos of anything that is not ever discrete, elementary or cut off. Its arrangement takes notice of its lay. The patterns of its time and space are not private, sealed off, but belong to the signification of its virtue for virtues for other things.

Each rock face says how it may be climbed. Which plants it allows. What wind it withstands it's top a meadow, it's base the tidal shores. All cuts between these inherent connections are aesthetic needed to envision form, giving a thing an edge. Borders there are, but contiguity and succession suggest literally isolated events wrapped into themselves, and singular isolation is not consequently necessary to borders. Every border implies its other side. Borders afford to their other side the display of an events intelligibility. or else a thing could have no intrinsic Cosmos nor a face remaining surely an external object to each other thing.

Even this cosmology is not self-contained but brings with it internal connections to other cosmologies, showing their reflections in its face cuts. Yes, these are pragmatic, dialectic, aesthetic, but not literal.

As there is no cutoff thing in here so, there is no separated other out there, and into the abyss it's it has itself created falls the subject-object relation, and no wholly other either that breaks through with revelational epiphanies into the interior castle of the unrelated individual requiring connections no islands, no castles, no paranoia.

The idea of Cosmos spares philosophy, so much of its efforts, the philosophical questions when and why and what for would no longer govern our inquiry; we would not greet the stranger, a newly met phenomenon, asking for its origin, its composition, the ground of its possibility, its usefulness and how it fits into the overall scheme of things.

Indeed, inquiry itself would be felt to be unbecoming, rude, perhaps shameful and therefore so inappropriate to the idea of cosmos as to be self defeating to the construction of a cosmology. Instead of inquiry, interest, respect, welcome praise, even attachment to greet each event with desire, wanting it to stay so as to give all the attention it claims is this love, and if this be loved, then questions of connection dissolve in the actual attentiveness, attachment is a stronger, more radical and disapproved term for Augustine's love, Kierkegaard faith. Heidegger.

Attachment remembers that the passions of the soul become central to the cosmological impulse and must have a major place in cosmological construction because passionate participation, called mixes and Crassus by pre-Socratics and Stoics projection by psychology, describes the actual world.

Detached inquiry cannot suffice. Dispassionate methods fall short; transcendent categories of reason, scientific objectivity, mathematical purity, symbolic logic, as well as the religious disciplines that ground the mind and pure Earth, accomplish their aims by omission or submission of desire.

Psychology calls this repression, yet the mind cannot entertain that which its methods prevent it from entering, lift repression and the cosmos appears as it is, untransformed, incomplete, unwholesome in its actual truth, beauty and goodness.

But this actuality has not been acknowledged because it is obscured and repressed by the methods of detachment and the idealization of pure thought, and note right here that he's speaking specifically about archetypes that Aquarius often embodies in the shadow of all of this is what he's talking about.

To lift repression, therefore, means to abandon the language of idealization all hold pure ground, real oneness, ultimate absolute perfect, as no actual occasion fits a syllogism, no event of perfection or measurement. It's mathematics methods that themselves fall short.

Nevertheless, because of idealization succeed in embarrassing phenomena with their supposed imperfections. This language that has so long governed the formulations of cosmology belongs to the very cosmological constructions we have sacked, and we would rather be homeless and William James sense than find suppose it shelter in a fantasy that one psychologically repressive and spiritually inflating that wrongs the soul by posing the wrong inspiration for its formulation.

Abandoning idealizations, lifting repression, allowing desire, admit the profound attachment of our minds to things of things to each other and their desire to enter and be held in the mind. Their innate allure to be perceived name known love, the joy and the animals that Adams recognition they're ennoblement by being spoken of.

Each thing needs other things, one once called the sympathy of all things, attachment is embedded in the soul of things like an animal magnet, magnetism, a cosmic longing or Eros of the Greeks and Freud, the souls longing does not call for deliverance.

Rather, it reports cosmic dependence, declaring, frankly, that clutching and clinging are ecological passions of the soul, keeping things in the embrace of each other and maintaining the intercourse of their self-revealing conversations. I just feel like he started to sound like a Led Zeppelin solo to me. I get so worked up; I love it.

At last, we would realize that cosmology offers the soul a home. What we asked for at the outset of this paper does not require an altered theory of the universe, a newly modeled home. We have torn down the very idea of home in the hope that that would build one to offer soul higher rank rather than the usual seller of bass passion and attic of mad imagination keeps it still in the same old house, the universe.

Neither raising souls' place in the hierarchy of emanations, declaring it axiomatic for deducing the world, or anointing it with immortality recognizes the psyche as intrinsic to the very idea of the cosmos. That soul is precisely the eachness of everywhere at any instant in anything in its display as phenomenon and only in this eachness the soul exist and Cosmos show itself.

Therefore phenomenon are not to be conceived as sparks of an oversoul are grounded in pan psychism is imminent soul for these are again spiritualize generalizations instead phenomena, such as they are a psychic facts for what else is an image but a psychic fact.

Facts are hard, real, naked, true, and not metaphors for interpretation that hint at suspicions about the animal. There are only facts, as the animal is itself a fact, and to be effective is to be fully they're fully intelligible. When a cosmos is understood as the arrangement and expression of things as, the patterning order of each event presents embellishing each event with its own kind of time and fitting space. Cosmos becomes the interiority things bring with them rather than the empty universal envelope into which they must be brought.

Remember, in the first part of this series, we talked about Kairos versus Kronos. He says each event presents embellishing each event with its own kind of time and fitting space. That's Kairos.

The physics of space and the logic of inclusion can fall apart. Containment would not be literalized to mean held in by something greater like vast space or the flow of time. Instead, cosmic containment would mean inherent patterns of order, aesthetic form, and moral appropriateness, that psychic geometry of animals called instinct.

Cosmos would be the shine and display the beauty attesting to the presence of soul. The face that claims the form that shapes the tension that holds the pathology that limits and the immediacy afforded by the phenomenon to one another. There is intelligible truth here; truth shifts from poetic and universal coherence to the inherence of behavior, remaining true to itself, true to form, true to its nature in law, abiding truth in law, indistinguishable from beauty and the horror.

What of the plague, enslavement, torture, senility, what the Buddha saw? What about pathologizing and its Telos from what has gone before? We know we may not give a universal answer to afflictions, attributing them to an evil principle, a mysterious God human illusion, or meaningless chance, nor may we grasp suffering under the rubric of death conflating and thereby inflating affliction with religious purpose and perhaps ultimate reward.

We may not attribute any defined purpose to affliction without again deserting psychological purposiveness For a little literal objectification of it. Besides affliction, death, and wisdom belong together in the Buddha's mind to the Buddha's mind. But suffering takes place without dying, and dying without suffering, and both may or may not distill to wisdom. We have to relocate suffering to distinguish what the Buddha saw from the way he saw it.

The idea of suffering can be cut loose from all purposes and be considered simply as a cosmic principle, parallel with Plato's and unUke in the time as a necessity inherent in in fitting with cosmic order.

That's a hard one, right? It's so hard to just imagine that all the difficult things are just part of reality. That doesn't mean that you condone them like them or that you don't suffer them. But it also means that you don't try to do away with them through huge paradigms of good and evil fighting it out in a redemption storyline.

I mean, you can, but you have to recognize that that whole paradigm is one of many archetypal paradigms that start with the problem of evil rather than recognizing it as just a part of reality. It's a problem to be solved at the start of those paradigms.

He's saying that maybe it's not a problem to be solved as much as it is a reality to be lived and contended with. There's a slight difference there, and I find that incredibly challenging personally. But it's interesting to consider. Anyway, let's keep going.

Let us suppose that pathologizing too were interwoven in the cosmos of each event just as its beauty, its virtue and its truth pathologizing necessary in intrinsic, a shadowy fourth emitted by Plato the lived by Socrates its particular function, not its Telos depending on its particular context.

In one instance, affliction may single signal disease at another in the form of danger, or it may heighten awareness or narrow it promote fantasies of freedom, or cease in oblivion, constellate hopelessness, motivate courage, and do sympathy or bring to mind the sage who asks about purpose.

Pathologizing as intrinsic to Cosmos, of course, implies that no event is without this shadow that pathologizing is cosmic. That essential to the arrangement of whatever is, as the Buddha said is decay. Everything eats and destroys each thing, including Blake's grain of sand, which can hurt and be hurt. For each thing to be true, good, and beautiful, it must also be pathological.

That great biblical sufferer Job, no young witness of it like the Buddha, but himself an old man afflicted with loss, betrayal, and pain, has given God's cosmic response, which is an aesthetic answer.

God gives no explanation for Job's ruin but showers him with images of the world's display. The beauty and terror of snow and hail, thunder and lightning reminds him of the ostrich, the eagle, the horse and wild ox, look at the monstrously pathologize beasts Leviathan and behemoth and look not merely at the animal world but look as an animal at the world.

For the tale concludes by placing Job himself within this animal context by a numerating his camels, oxen, and sheep; JobJob is reinstated within an animalized Cosmos, coherence all gone, too things fall apart into themselves, each according to its kind, Noah saves the variety of animals, and Plato must mention at least a dozen.

One vision may imagine a universe, but an appreciation of cosmos requires the very crowded arc of the teeming cosmological imagination. For, after all, the cosmological impulse rises like an ark.

It is a majestic response to the broad flood of living. Any cosmology is an imaginative act, a piece of rhetorical construction, displaying the souls' delight entails about itself as well as the delight in the soul of things to be told into imagination.

Cosmology tells the tallest of tales. It is mythos logos and places on the grand scale, only like cures, so the overvalued idea called cosmology must be met with embellishments. Ours has not been an attempt to understand nature, not an inquisitive search for lasting meaning or theological justification for any God, but rather an animal display.

One, however, which is peculiar to the human animal, a display like the Lear birds fanning feathers in the bower birds invitational dance like any dressing for an occasion, the psyche tells cosmologies as one of its most gorgeous acts of imagination. A cosmology is a display in the art of thought, similar to the rainbow in the art of nature, the wheeling night sky to the parade of four-footed beasts.

I personally love that essay so much because it shifts me out of, you know, things that have been very common to me throughout my life in religious upbringing as someone who's interested in mysticism and who's had what I would consider mystical experiences, especially through psychedelics.

Those experiences tend to focus me on that universal, the ground of being the spirit of which we are all apart, the oneness in which we all share things like that, which, at times, I have to say, you know, for myself, have drawn me out of isolation, have drawn me out of the ego, and into a sense of unity, a sense of transcendence, which has drawn me out of the trappings of my, you know, physical and material, you know, conditionality and I think there's a really important place for that, and please don't hear Hillman in the wrong way. He was someone who respected and was friends with mystics, theologians, and philosophers who universalized.

But he also wanted to stick up for imminence going in the opposite direction, and imminence we don't know the idea is like, if you look through the archetypal lens of imminence, you're looking through the world like an animal, and in from that standpoint, what does it mean to imagine the best possible world which Aquarius is prone to do? What does it mean to imagine the best possible form of government or the best possible policies or laws, the best cultural advancements, the best scientific revolutions, and breakthroughs in medicine? What does it mean to advance our humanity?

Well, from the imminent perspective, the soul perspective that Hillman provides us with, don't forget that all of these activities that the human is doing, and often taking so literally, is nothing more than human animals; it's akin to you know,, the peacock fanning out its feathers; this is something we do; this is part of our nature, and it's interesting because Aquarius was so frequently provide us with this tension between our nature in the way we are, and an idea, an imaginal idea about how we should be how we could be.

The problem is that if we don't remember that all of this ideating and imagining of best possible worlds and best possible humanities and breakthroughs and so forth is still in the end, from an kind of animal earthy perspective, it is us showing our us creating our rainbows just like the sky creates a rainbow, it's us, showing our feathers or doing a dance, just like different animals have ways that they show themselves.

It's an instinct in us as much as it is an instinct in other forms of life to imagine worlds, imagine ideas that can carry the, you know, the species or the culture forward in some way. If we forget that perspective, that, you know, in a sense that this is a phenomenal Cosmos, that doesn't have to be advancing towards something that doesn't have to go from, you know, good to better or worst to best.

If we can recognize that none of those things are in any way absolutely necessary, or everything's damned or screwed. Then we can imagine those worlds and create them with a looseness, you know, with a kind of freedom. Because otherwise, again, as we've said so many times throughout the series, the shadow is fanaticism. The shadow is dissociation from nature. The shadow is the objectification of ourselves and nature, the world, and the animal kingdom that we are part of, and the shadow is also hubris, weaponizing ideas and splitting.

So, in the sign that presents us with some of the most beautiful and truly progressive ideals, and I mean that truly progressive ideas in Aquarius can take us forward into a better place. That's a real part of Aquarius. But it is just that time when the shadow has to be recognized, and the shadow is that we are also perfect just the way we are. Because there's a there's a kind of perfection that doesn't belong to the transcendent domain or the transcendent function, but it belongs properly speaking to the cosmos, to the animal world that simply displays itself to the animal world that includes pathologizing that includes destruction that includes darkness, you can't condemn those things, and weirdly enough progress is somehow ultimate like ultimately in all the great philosophical traditions teaches Taoism in the in philosophy, Western hermeticism that you have to be able to hold the tension of the opposites for a kind of evolution to take place.

Speaking of animals, my puppy wants to go out; hold on.
Ashley came up into the office out there, and she likes to greet everyone in the house. Whoever enters the door she has to go into greet, and that's it, man. That's it. It's just that simple. You know what I mean?

Isn't it interesting to think that, like, okay, when someone opens the door in the house, Hilda does not like being apart. She wants to go in, and she gets like there's someone here I want to go, and isn't that amazing?

That's just instinct, animal fact, psychic fact, that's what Hillman was talking about? It can we hold a vision of ourselves with all of our high idealizing about where we ought to be and where we can go compared to where we are, you know, sort of a mess for the realm of the gods, which Aquarius is so want to do and then it's like, okay, like what Aquarius is so prone to do, I should say. Then it's like, well, what, you know, can we see that part of us being human as our animal display?

We're so quick to think that everything about us is unnatural, or we're so quick In our ideas of progress to forget that we are natural and that everything is. That there is something called a cosmos that needs no fixing. It needs no human intervention; it needs no salvation. There's no damnation at stake, and in that realm, as Hillman was saying, it's not that you don't encounter what we might functionally call evil, darkness, and shadow pathology.

But rather, it's that as you encounter it, you're able to recognize it as a part of the fabric of the cosmos, that it has its place, too. That doesn't mean that you think it's good. It's different to say something has a place than it is to moralize about its place, and it's important to remember that it is also natural for us, just as natural as it is for Hilda to run and greet someone for us to moralize and for us to think about better worlds.

Can we remember, though, that none of this makes us better sets us apart severs? Can we do this? Without objectification? That's a real challenge to me. That is the challenge that Pluto and Aquarius will present us with; it'll present us with that in the way that we rush to use a technology like AI and find thoughtful ways of using it that have been more slowly digested.

It'll be a part of how we, you know, developments in medicine, therapy, drug policies, you know, so many things, and there will be so many things that we think of as good that are slowly dissociating us from our animal, soulful, embodied, imminent nature. So that's the, you know, one of the great ways to visit an archetype is to look at everything that it says is good about itself and look at the shadow cast by what it claims to be good.

That does not mean that what it claims to be good about itself of, Aquarius was sort of like this is what's best about me that those things are false. But the brighter we make proclamations about our goodness in this realm of interacting light and dark, the more that we can be sure that there is a shadow being cast, and the purpose of the series has really been to just move into the shadow.

When Pluto goes into any sign, one of the things it does is empower us with all of the ambitions of the sign, only to slowly expose the root rot that's there in the ambitions. It can also slowly expose the shadows and have what we call good, and it's very, very good at doing that, and Capricorn did that for a long time. Right? We got to see the shadows of Capricorn for sure. But it also does so well, truly empowering us through all the best that the sign has to offer.

There's regenerative, fertile, rich, transformational virtue in Aquarius that will help us grow. It will help us realize better worlds and so forth. But remember, the world that was worth saving in the biblical story that he relates on so many occasions in that essay was filled with animals that were filled with animals. Well, that part of imminence is important.

Remember, Saturn ruled sign like Aquarius, a fixed air sign, a very platonic, geometric, abstract engineering brain of the universe, and Saturn, the dimmest, most distant planet, is beautiful in terms of its ability to think on a large scale to think in the way that the organizing archive the archetypes think that like the gods and to draw us closer to that, it'd be a very good thing for astrology, frankly.

But remember, the language of astrology itself is runs through the zodiac and the homes of the gods are temples of earthly creatures, humans, fish rams, and some man made devices to right.

So anyway, I'm gonna stop now, and I hope that this series has been thought-provoking and interesting. There's so much more to say. So I don't want people to walk away from this particular series going oh man, he really nailed the Aquarians out there.

This is not about people who are identified with symbols in the sign of Aquarius. This is about the archetypal domain, broadly speaking, what it inspires in us and what the shadows of those inspirations may be. This has been a very particular way of looking at the shadows of Aquarius, and there are so many things to look forward to as well; as someone with one of the nodes of the moon in Aquarius on my midheaven, I so appreciate the sign.

I wouldn't be into astrology if it weren't for that influence in my life. I have a family full of Aquarians, and Aquarius is one of my favorite signs. So, I don't want people to hear this in the wrong way or in a spirit. It was not intended to be delivered, and this is not a big rip on Aquarius. Any sign Pluto enters deserves this kind of treatment, and the treatment continues.

I'm saying that again because I want to make sure that people understand that when you work in archetype, you have to work it from many different angles, and it's really important, especially for Pluto again, to visit the shadow. So I hope you have found this interesting. I can hear Hilda standing outside my door, wanting to come back to her comfy bed. So I'm gonna go let her in. All right, take it easy, everyone. Bye.