I’ll be reposting (lightly edited) today a paper I wrote about eighteen months ago for my Vibrational Astrology program, conducted by the internationally renowned astrologer David Cochrane. David was very generous in responding to my paper, so I’ll quote some of his response as well.
I’ll preface this with the explanation that David through his 45 years of research came up with unique interpretations of each of the zodiac signs. We spent most of a semester on this. They are not how the zodiac sign is ‘traditionally’ interpreted by most astrologers, so this is new information, although I only focus on two signs in the paper — Capricorn and Aquarius.
“In this paper I want to focus on Aquarius and Capricorn. Aquarius for my late dad who was born on February 19, 1924 and is (barely) an Aquarius; he also has Mercury in Aquarius, but that’s it. Capricorn also for me as I have Moon and Mercury conjunct in Capricorn.
“Therefore, my dad has 8 points in Aquarius and I have 8 points in Capricorn. Hardly ‘extreme,’ but significant nonetheless. In fact I was drawn to my Dad’s Aquarius as a result of your description in last week’s class and how perfect it was, and I want to dig in on that basis.
“My dad had grown up in a Catholic household in the Pittsburgh suburbs, but he left the church before attending college. He majored in Political Science, graduating in 1946, moved to New York City and floundered for many years, with psychological problems, before discovering his life as a teacher, getting two Masters’ degrees at Columbia University, and teaching in New York City public schools. He retired ~1990, thinking of himself as a failure as a teacher. (He might not have remembered that he worked on the teaching paperwork, the evaluations, well into the night after coming home from work).
“My parents who had attended the Ethical Culture Society for most of my childhood started attending the Unitarian Fellowship in Huntington, NY in the mid-1980s and generally went to most of the Sunday services for the next few decades. My dad was especially involved. He and I had disagreements about ‘groups.’ I was more of an individualist than he was, since he joined groups and identified himself as a ‘group’ person. There was a group for everything, it seemed. It seemed strange to me that somebody would think that groupthink was more intelligent than people coming up with solutions on their own.
“There were many groups both inside and outside the Fellowship. His commitment to the several groups in the Unitarian Fellowship was outstanding – he completely identified with its purpose and his role. Perhaps the most salient of such groups was the one that ran “Hi-Hi,” which I don’t remember the official name of but that gave shelter and food to undocumented migrants, mostly originally from Latin America, who were homeless. He had so much to say about social justice issues, his PoliSci degree being the thing that initially brought him into this world, but he spoke at length about day laborers from other countries and their struggles finding work and trying to survive in a very racist and insular part of the NY metro area. He was also very committed to the cause of African Americans, gays and lesbians, and those who were otherwise disenfranchised.
“It reminds me that in the last few months of his life that I made sure that the current minister for the Fellowship, a relatively young man named Jude Geiger, knew that my dad was very sick, bedridden and in the hospital. I made sure that he visited, and my dad, especially before his stroke in the middle of this 3½ month period, made sure that the institutional knowledge that my dad had accumulated for the previous 25 years, was handed down to Jude and that Jude was made aware of many important things that he needed to know. Jude, at the service, noted that “Frank was not a casual volunteer.”
“My dad, the ‘voice’ of the groups that he was a part of, his group identity being part of his consciousness. That was obvious in my understanding of him. His commitment to social justice seemed to encompass every possible issue. (He cared so much.) It encompassed every issue not only within the Unitarians, but in his orientation toward American politics, including during Republican administrations. (I am glad that he didn’t get to see Trump elected; it would have broken his heart). He was especially concerned about global warming in the last few years of his life. In fact he was not especially radical but more of a mainstream “bleeding heart liberal”. It was his commitment to orient himself relative to the American system, the actions of an active citizen – the network of the United States, and the world. The universality of it.
“I want to focus the rest of my paper on my Capricorn emphasis:
“Moon and Mercury conjunct in Capricorn, trine my Saturn, which rules Capricorn, in Taurus. The trine with Saturn should magnify the Capricornian emphasis.
““Capricorn is about detachment. The ability to perceive objectively, and it gives the ability … to do things with greater objectivity and less subjective passion that can blur or obscure clarity about what is effective. The Capricorn way of life is to reflect, see clearly and manipulate or manage, orchestrate, plan or execute something.”
“I also thought of my friend Shona, whose Sun is in Capricorn although she only has Mercury as another planet in Capricorn. She is a scientist, so her work involves using the scientific method. She has to be objective in her work every single minute of every single day. I got the sense that in her personal life, her personal relationships, she also tends to be objective and see clearly.
“I can see this process operating, at times, within me. The first example I can think about is my work trying to influence the discourse in the political arena, on the FB group Indivisible. My clarity in politics requires that I be objective and not put any personal ideology in my writing. This sometimes causes conflict with people who are wedded to their ideology.
“Here’s a thread I participated in on Indivisible. The first comment I responded to is from an administrator, Tanya:
““We fail when we try for bipartisan-centrism that doesn’t excite or galvanize any voter. “If you think people want bipartisan compromise and mealy-mouthed middle-of-the-roadism, I bet you only talk to other political people.” Check out this thread on how to win elections: https://twitter.com/ZackMalitz/status/1150779276381315072”
“The link takes to a Twitter account that explains how Beto O’Rourke almost won in Texas against Ted Cruz last year. Here is my direct response to this:
““Beto was very good at expanding the electorate. He did us a great service and hastened the time by when TX becomes a purple state. He brought literally millions of Latinos/as into the political process for the first time and made them believe that they have a voice. And I think he should run for Senate against John Cornyn in 2020 — he just might win.
“What worked in TX is not going to work as well in VA-7, PA-17, or other reddish districts that we absolutely need to hold. If the priority is to hold the House of Representatives and win back the Senate, then every electorate is different and the lessons we need to learn are different for each of the 435 House and 33 Senate seats up. I think Zach Malitz’s priorities will work for many electorates, but by no means all.”
“It often comes down to the candidate. Folksy leftist populism can sometimes work in red states. But it just as often comes down to the demographics of the district.”
“Here’s another response by me on the same thread and responding to the post itself (the post included a link to a Buzzfeed article quoting progressives who took the side of House members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “the squad” against attacks from Pelosi over the past couple of weeks. I’m including the link, but I’m not quoting from it: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/aoc-pelosi-house-democrats-netroots?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bfsharefacebook&ref=mobile_share&fbclid=IwAR3ULuC5IEKZXNNqj72BqjwvLNdXk5__NfM7bOcBP-QMYUyvb3_wAShUlpU):
“Me: “I am generally supportive of Ms. Pelosi’s actions. She does superhuman things to keep a fractious Democratic caucus together. She gave AOC and the squad (all of whom I support and wish for their success) plum committee assignments which is no small thing and is more than most freshman get, and she also is doing her very best to protect the moderates in the caucus, most of whom are newly elected in moderate to conservative districts and cannot go too far left or they will lose their seats, and with it the Democratic majority, in even a mild Republican wave. (The fact of their conservative-ness is the unfair result of gerrymandering, which makes it that much harder to achieve progressive goals until we are able to successfully redistrict the seats).
“HOWEVER, I think Pelosi could have handled this much better, she needed to be MUCH more diplomatic. It was stupid of her to allow this to escalate into a public feud, which only helps Trump; she should have held private meetings with the squad and tried to work out some kind of arrangement. This whole thing was totally avoidable.”
“This comment was a little more cleverly composed as I took care to express my support for both Pelosi and “the squad” (the four freshman congresswomen, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley) but tried to be objective about the reality of the situation.
“I think it exemplifies my objectivity, but it remains a question as to whether I do this in the rest of my life. I think I do, but I’d have to think harder about examples. I’m also not sure how Moon, Mercury, and Saturn manifest in this particular example or any other examples that show clearly how Capricorn manifests in me.”
David’s response, notable for its generosity:
David, I found your paper a very engaging read with lots of good observations. First, I want to say you’ve got to be grateful to have a dad who had values and interests like that . . . I grew up on Long Island earlier than you did and the vast majority of adults at the time were simply not interested in much beyond their personal lives and a sense of patriotism and pride that didn’t go much deeper than a kind of knee jerk response to the larger world. (maybe things haven’t changed very much? ) So just that he had these interests is awesome.
I think you are seeing very clearly the Aquarius in your father and the Capricorn in yourself. I can sense the Capricornian way in which you address political issues, and it is very different from the norm where people are driven by personal passion. Many people with strong Capricorn are in areas where objectivity is needed and there is no resistance to it, such as photography, science, quality control, etc. but you are also involved in areas where people base a lot of their ideas on personal passion and not even always realize it, such as politics and astrology. Some detached realism is very much needed in these areas! your comments about Pelosi and the squad do reflect a reasonable and fair assessment. There is a great need for this and you could do well in an area of commentary, interviews, etc. because I think there is an interest in some clear reflection in politics (and astrology) rather than the Fox News kind of news which are really often more like personal editorials and biased information to fit their agenda. CNN isn’t free of this either.
I didn’t include the other ten signs (how much copy would that have taken?), but just based on these, I am hopeful that Cochrane’s understanding of the signs gets a wider audience.