xue jiye, china
My horoscope said big change is coming in the next days. It's not something to dread or look forward to. Looking frequently at my horoscope I don't ever see how it relates to a given day. There is one consideration, that one's sign changes over time; so by now, mine must have changed a few houses. Maybe I'd do well to stop looking at Taurus and move on the Gemini, check it out for awhile. If it's not it, then the next one, Cancer. I doubt it would be moved more than 2 houses. Maybe I'll read them for awhile to see if anything they say resonates with my days. I've heard that is the case, that our sign changes along the way, due to one thing and another. It could be an interesting study to read 3 horoscopes a day to see if any of them connects. I have no feeling on whether any of them will bear results. I've found horoscopes are better read after than before. After, it's a matter of connect the dots. Before, it's opaque with abstract words about principles and processes. I deal better with a lifetime horoscope from birth time with rising sign and all. The horoscope of my birth place and time is more clearly me than anything I could describe. I've paid enough attention to astrology to see that it is better at explaining the past than predicting the future. Only because it requires interpretation. It's that saying, hindsight is 20/20 vision.
Arianna Huffington, of Huffington Post, and before that she was wife of excessive wealth, and a good writer, wrote what I thought was a good biography of Picasso. It was written from a moderate feminist perspective, which I regard a valid perspective, and she used his astrological chart in exploring his character. I thought finally somebody has seen the value of astrology in biography writing. Probably several do, but only Huffington did it up front. Some male worshipper of Picasso, who wrote a 4-vol biography of him scoffed at Huffington as a fraud. Male critics came down on her pretty hard at the time. They kicked her out of the running for a writer to be taken seriously. I appreciated her approach to Picasso's life. Horoscopes tell it well. The part that seems unfair about the feminist perspective is that he was mean, even vicious to the women in his life, a Spanish dominator. Seen from a woman's way of looking at that part of him is very different from from the male perspective of the time, esp the southern European, Meiditerranean, macho man who shows his macho dominating women. Even now, that's a strong ethic, but pre WW1, it was powerful. It was the way things are, period. A man beating up his girlfriend had his rights. The woman had none.
I, a man from another place, another time, another belief system, do not respect Picasso in that aspect of himself. It's culture that I don't know anything about, but I can't say I respect it in him. I respect his ability as an artist and his ability to work regularly as he did. Nineteenth Century men were not necessarily kind to women. It was a man's prerogitive if he wanted to treat his wife or girlfriend well, but it wasn't looked up to by his male peers. Reading a biography of Gauguin, the French painter, I came to dislike him so much for his passion for little girls, including his own little girl, I quit reading it on his return trip to France from Tahiti. The men on the ship came to hate him so much they wanted to throw him over the side, and seriously threatened to. That's when I quit reading it and about threw the book in the trash. It does nothing to diminish my appreciation of his paintings, it's just that the measure of my respect is disrespect.
Saw news today of a man in Texas who responded to his 5 year old daughter's screams and found a 40 year old Mexican employee raping her. He beat the guy to death with his fists. Who would need a gun or a knife in such a moment? It wouldn't take long for him to kill him by hand. I was glad to see that the grand jury assessment was justifiable. If ever there were a justifiable killing, that one is it. If I'd come up on some guy with a little any little girl I know, or any child, I'd do the very same, on the spot, no time lapse between seeing what's going on and the assault. I'd be like a dog, you'd have to kill me to get me off him. Because I know what it does to little girls who grow up into women carrying guilt for something they had nothing to do with. For being a defenseless child in a man's world. I don't know that it needs saying, but I tell all my women friends with pre-pubescent girls to teach them about boys, that many of them are mean and sexually repressed; girls make easy targets, because girls can't fight back. I recommend martial arts as a spiritual experience and self-defence. It's not that I want them to or intend for them to, but to get the parents thinking defensively for their girls if they're not yet aware of the need, which starts right away.
My two favorite little girls in the county are safe by their daddy's reputation, but a stranger from the outside is another consideration, as in the Texas case. If I were to catch a man with one of my babies, he certainly would not be moving when I stopped, and nobody could drag me off him until he was out. I wouldn't mind if I had a heart attack beating him. Something like that takes a man outside his self-contained, under-control self. It says pedal to the metal, all you got, don't even think about it. Send this mutha straight to hell with his pants around his ankles. I don't think of such a slaying justifiable as much as necessary. How could I live afterward without at least attempting to kill him? Even on the spiritual path where murder is the numero uno no-no, I'd have to appeal to God with the two-handed Time-Out gesture, then I'd tear into him like a dog without heed for anything. When it comes to God's eye, I daresay God got the picture. King David, God's favorite, killed thousands of people. God sees the heart. I believe God would give the man in Texas a comforting hug.