Umberto Boccioni, Dynamism of a Man’s Head, 1913. Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24437397
As Chiron hovers on the critical, final degree of Pisces bringing up issues related to attachment, love, transcendence, parallel worlds, escape, release, addiction, karmic bonds, liminality, sublimation etc., for a final reckoning, it subconsciously informs the actions of the less subtle, more dramatic Uranus who is also on the brink of a shift, on the last degree of Aries where he will make one big final assertion of self-hood and free will, generating an air of anxiety that usually accompanies change. A well-expressed Chiron is off-beat in the way it interprets and re-forms its experience of hurt; Uranus is the primal male, the unencumbered (even destructive) urge to ‘seed’ — raging creativity. Whatever arises now will be eccentric, and possibly outside your comfort zone. You may surprise yourself with your own initiatives. If this strange space just now is bringing up any crisis related to existence itself, questions that need to be grappled with, I’ve a fun oracle to help you along!
These are messages for you from Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness (1956). Hope they raise some questions or thoughts uneasy enough to take your mind of your current issues. 😛 ….or I hope they help anyway.
‘If to die is to die in order to inspire, to bear witness, for the country etc., then anybody at all can die in my place — as in the song in which lots are drawn to see who is to be eaten.’
‘ In fact, since possibility precedes existence, it can be possibility only with respect to our thought. It is an external possibility in relation to the being whose possibility it is since being unrolls from it like a consequence from a principle.’
‘Therefore each relation in its own way presents the bilateral relation: for-itself-for-others, in-itself. If then we succeed in making explicit the structures of our most primitive relations with the Other-in-the-world, we shall have completed our task.’
‘Actually if solipsism is to be rejected, this cannot be because it is impossible, or if you prefer, because nobody is truly solipsistic. The Other’s existence will always be subject to doubt, at least if one doubts the Other only in words and abstractly, in the same way that without really being able to conceive of it, I can write, “I doubt my own existence.”‘
‘There remains one type of activity which we willingly admit is entirely gratuitous: the activity of play and the “drives” which relate back to it. Can we discover an appropriate drive in sport?’
‘In discussing the dyad “reflection-reflecting,” Sartre uses reflet-reflétant. Here, “reflection” means that which is reflected — like an image — and easily suggests to Sartre the idea of a game with mirrors. In the present section, however, the subject of discussion is refléxion, which means the process of mental reflection in general and in particular introspection.’
‘Fear is nothing but a magical conduct tending by incantation to suppress the frightening objects which we are unable to keep at a distance. It is precisely through its results that we apprehend fear, for it is given to us as a new type of internal haemorrhage in the world — the passage from the world to a type of magical existence.’
‘Consciousness is a being whose existence posits its essence, and inversely it is consciousness of a being, whose essence implies its existence; that is, in which appearance lays claim to being.’
‘The reflecting exists only in order to reflect the reflection, and the reflection is a reflection only in so far as it refers to reflecting.’
‘To discover oneself doubting is already to be ahead of oneself in the future, which conceals the end, the cessation, and the meaning of this doubt, and to be behind oneself in the past, which conceals the constituent motivations of the doubt and its stages of development, and to be outside of oneself in the world as presence to the object which one doubts.’
‘”Having, “doing,” and “being” are the cardinal categories of human reality. Under them are subsumed all types of human conduct. Knowing, for example, is a modality of having.’
‘This original relation between the all and the “this” is at the source of the relation between figure and ground which the “Gestalt theory” has brought to light. The “this” always appears on a ground; that is, on the undifferentiated totality of being inasmuch as the For-itself is the radical and syncretic negation of it.’