4,79 €
Mehr erfahren.
The Devil in the Detail is Volume 4 in a series of astrological essays from some of astrology's leading lights. In this essay, evolutionary astrologer and psychotherapist Mark Jones analyses the creative power and global impact of the Pluto in Virgo generation (1956–71).
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020
Ähnliche
CONTENTS
THE DEVIL IN THE DETAIL
The Pluto in Virgo Generation
Mark Jones
In order to understand the Pluto in Virgo generation we need to understand both the nature of Pluto and the nature of Virgo. The view of Pluto I use here has been explained at length in my book Healing the Soul: Pluto, Uranus and the Lunar Nodes,1 yet can be referred to in brief as the deep structure of the Self – the core unconscious security patterns that predominate within the Self. The Self is a notoriously complex thing to define. Ken Wilber, in his Integral Psychology, uses the phrase ‘the archeology of the Self’ to denote the complex layers of potential meaning. The deep Self that is referred to through the archetype of Pluto can be likened to the soul, as it is both beyond our conscious ego sense yet it retains an individuality that may be surrendered as we approach the realm of spirit. In Wilber’s words:
Not yet infinite and all-embracing, no longer merely personal and mortal, the soul is the great intermediate conveyor between the pure Spirit and the individual self.2
This individuality (soul) contains psychological complexes and attachments from prior lives, from Bardo (states between lives) and early uterine (womb) states to all the underlying material from the formation of our individuality in childhood in this lifetime. Soul is therefore a significator of depth, individual depth at a level beyond the Moon (the ego) and yet an intermediary to Neptune (spirit, the collective consciousness).
To understand the Virgo archetype at this level of depth (enhanced by Pluto), we can explore multiple approaches – one being the view of the archetypes as an expression of the development of the Self, both in psychological principle and as a temporal event in the progression of the human life from infancy to old age.
Aries to Leo: the Formation of the Individual Self
The self starts out relatively undifferentiated from its environment. That is, it cannot easily tell where its body stops and the physical environment begins… Somewhere during the first year, the infant learns that if it bites a blanket, it does not hurt, but if it bites its thumb, it hurts: there is a difference between body and matter. The infant differentiates its body from the environment, and thus its identity switches from fusion with the material world to an identity with the emotional–feeling body… As the conceptual mind begins to emerge and develop (especially around 3 to 6 years), the child eventually differentiates the conceptual mind and the emotional body…3
Here Wilber denotes the three earliest stages that are symbolized by the first three signs/archetypes: Aries (instinctual body/environment), Taurus (feeling body, internal needs) and Gemini (the development of conceptual mind and language). These three bodies (physical, emotional and mental) in their earliest formation coalesce into an overall personality that Wilber calls the ‘rule/role mind’ that can be seen in the Moon, Cancer and the 4th House: the formation of the ego, or conditioned Self through the experiences of the early childhood, parental and societal structures. From this nascent ego sense and through conditioned belonging develops what Wilber calls the ‘self-reflexive ego’,4 the self-awareness and personal creative peak that we link in astrology with the sign of Leo. In the Leo archetype, the ego birthed from the home-life in Cancer becomes a creative force for the good of the individual, a necessarily selfish (full of self) phase of individual development. 3
Virgo
We can see the progression from Aries to Leo as a developmental process of the individual self. In following on from Leo, Virgo can be seen as an archetype in transition, as a bridge between the individual identity in Leo and the birth of the social self in Libra.
In order to make this transition developmentally the Self must learn to upend the pyramid of the self-expression achieved within the Leo archetype and humble the self through the recognition that it is just one of many; this is the necessary adjustment in order to be able to meet other people as equals in the archetype of Libra that follows.
Virgo is found 150° from Aries, the Ascendant/starting position of the natural (or archetypal) zodiac. The 150° aspect – the quincunx, or inconjunct – is one of crisis. Virgo has a relationship to crisis because all that the Self has achieved must now be humbled before the other. In regard to the collective need, the Virgo archetype represents a potentially profound crisis on an individual level; a crisis of the personal will.
This crisis is exacerbated when Pluto is in Virgo because, as the ruler of Scorpio, Pluto is also inconjunct the Ascendant within the natural zodiac. With two inconjuncts that are sextile each other, we have an archetypal Yod formation (Virgo and Scorpio applying to Aries/the Ascendant of the archetypal zodiac) that is echoed in the Pluto in Virgo generation. This magnifies a sense of crisis and speaks of a need to humble the personal self before larger forces: in Virgo, the sublimation of the personal will to the other, and, in Pluto/Scorpio, the sublimation of the social will to transpersonal forces.
Suggestions as to the Nature of any Potential Crisis: Pluto in Virgo through the Houses
(Note the word ‘potential’. Here I am looking to find what may be blocking someone’s self-expression and happiness, not to dream up new burdens.)
Pluto in Virgo in the 1st House
Potential crisis as to how to achieve personal freedom to understand one’s needs on an instinctual level. The crisis occurs through past restrictions of this freedom and resulting internal messages of ‘not being good enough’. There’s the potential for relationship crisis, as relating – while being desired to promote freedom – is subconsciously feared as a restriction to that same need.
