by
Gargatholil
Simone Weis and the Uranian Archetype
Now
Available!
A new book by Gargatholil--Mapping the Human
Psyche--A Depth Astrology Approach to Planetary
Meanings
Available on Smashwords.com
Also Available!
A new book by Gargatholil--The Pouring, or How the
Universal Mind Reached Out to a Generation: A Commentary
on the Counterculture Lyrics of the Sixties
Available on Smashwords.com
Also available in 3 volumes on Amazon
Sign-to-Sign
Dynamics: A Depth Astrology Approach is now published!
(be sure to buy both volumes if you purchase
the e-book on Amazon)
To purchase this book, Go to Smashwords
– Sign-to-Sign Dynamics: A Depth Astrology Approach – a book
by Gargatholil 
To purchase Depth Astrology: An Astrological Handbook (vol. 1 - Introduction; vol. 2 - Planets in Signs; vol. 3- Planets in Houses; vol. 4 - Planets in Aspect) go to Smashwords.
Both books are also available in print editions from Amazon (be
sure to order part 2 of volume 4 of Depth Astrology)
In her treatise,
The
Need for Roots: Prelude towards a declaration of duties
toward mankind (L’enracinement,
prelude aune declaration des devoirs envers l’entre humain),
Simone Weil
states that the idea that a just society is based upon a set
of fundamental
human rights is a wrong concept.
Instead, she proposes that a society should be based
upon a set of
fundamental human obligations.
This
Substack will explore the implications of Weil’s proposition
and relate her
ideas to the Uranian archetype.
Part 1 – Simone
Weil: Rights and
Obligations
Simone Weil
(1909-1943) was a French philosopher, social critic, and
mystic. Her
writings were known only to a small
circle of French intellectuals, socialists and labor
unionists, and Catholic
monastics until after her death, when most of her works were
published. Her
thought influenced such divergent persons
as Albert Camus and Pope Paul VI.
Weil traces the
idea of fundamental rights to the 18th century
Enlightenment, and
more specifically, to the French Revolution.
Of course, this concept predates the French Revolution,
as is evidenced
by their reference in the American Declaration of
Independence and
United States Constitution, which were greatly influenced by
the French
philosopher Jean Jaques Rousseau.
Earlier versions of the concept have their origins in
English common
law. Still, the
concept of inalienable
human rights gained traction during the latter part of the 18th
century.
Weil sees the
concept of rights as inherently divisive and blames their
enshrinement in the
modern Western consciousness for much of the social and
political conflict that
has plagued the modern era.
We can see
how Weil reaches this conclusion.
Rights are
essentially assertive in nature, particularly when they are
considered
inalienable rather than granted.
We say,
“my rights” and, therefore, our concept of rights is
ultimately ego-based. A
right that is not asserted ceases to be a
right in any active sense.
In other
words, an unasserted right is a right that is abdicated,
unless and until it is
asserted. The
individual who asserts
their rights takes on the role of ultimate enforcer or
guarantor of their own
rights.
The seed of the
conflict springing out of the individual’s possession of
rights lies in their
subjectivity. Although
the rights held
by the individual may be defined by the collective, the state,
each individual
interprets the scope of the rights that they believe that they
possess. Because
individuals will tend to maximize the
scope of their rights, it is inevitable that situations will
arise where on
person’s idea of the scope of their rights will intrude upon
another’s concept
of the scope of their rights, thus generating
conflict.
Conflict is
generated not only between individuals, but also at the
collective level. This
occurs when individuals form groups
based upon a commonality of perceived rights, or a group that
is naturally
formed shares a vision of the rights they possess in common. A classic example of
a collective clash of
rights is the contending rights of employee and employer. Though from one
perspective this clash may be
viewed as between individuals over the terms of the “contract”
between the
individual employer and the individual employee, in practice
the commonality of
rights claimed by members of each class results in broader
conflicts, such as
between trade unions and industry organizations. More broadly in this
vein, the contest over
the supremacy of rights manifests as class struggle.
Conflict spawned
by disagreement over rights also exists between the individual
and the
collective. This
occurs because the
collective, in the form of the state, attempts to regulate the
individual’s
exercise of their rights in order to ensure social stability
and peace. It
does this by establishing laws that define
and place limits on the individual’s rights.
Individuals, nevertheless, persist in subjectively
defining their own
rights. When
these definitions differ
from the definitions imposed by the collective, conflict
between the individual
and the state occurs.
Conflict over
rights takes different forms depending on the parties involved
and the nature
of the conflict. At
the individual
level, conflict can manifest as competition, various forms of
deceit or other
strategies to try to assert the dominance of one’s own rights,
arguing and
quarreling, or various levels of violence.
To avoid these negative ways of manifesting conflict, a
dispute over
rights may be adjudicated.
Most of the
civil cases brought before the courts involve disputes over
rights. The
courts are also involved in determining
whose rights shall prevail when the parties are individual and
collective, or
when two collective entities are in dispute.
War is the most
extreme measure taken to determine whose right will prevail
when the parties
are collectives (tribes, peoples, nation states). Of course, war has
existed way before the
concept of rights was formulated, but though the concept may
be absent, war is
still a conflict over the supremacy of rights.
In nearly all cases where conflict over rights exists,
might is the
ultimate determiner. Even
in the courts,
it is the more powerful entity that usually wins the case.
If it is the ego
that claims rights, obligations are oriented toward others. We have obligations
to. Obligations
are a claim on our actions.
If we claim an obligation from others, that
is us asserting a perceived right.
Obligations are accepted, not claimed.
They are a submission and a surrendering of the ego’s
will.
A society based
upon mutual obligation is naturally harmonious, cooperative,
and just. It is
just because everyone gets what they
need,, regardless of their position in society.
A society where might is the usual determiner of who
can exercise their
rights can never be just.
Simone Weil
enumerates the basic obligations a society has to its members
(and that its
members have to each other).
These
include the obligation to provide adequate food, housing,
medical care, and
education. Other
obligations are to
ensure everyone has meaningful work, leisure, and
opportunities for
creativity.
Ultimately,
obligation is based on love.
Without
love, obligation is burdensome, but with love the sense of
obligation flows
freely from the heart. It
is first of
all the individual who is obligated to meet the needs of
others to the extent
that they are capable of doing so. It is
this sense of mutual obligation to each other that binds
society together. It
is the fulfillment of
Jesus’ command to love one another (John
13:34-35).
To the extent
that
individuals fail to or are unable to meet their obligations to
their fellow
members of society, the state is obligated to step in and
fulfill those
obligations. Inevitably,
there will be
instances where collective action is called for. Collecctive action
may be organized by groups
of individuals but there are some instances where the most
efficient method of
providing basic human needs to all, or organizing the means to
do so, is to
have the state do this. If,
however,
individuals are fulfilling their obligations to the best of
their abilities,
the role of the state is minimized.
When the system
of
mutually fulfilled obligations is working as it should, the
potential for
conflict is greatly reduced when compared to a society in
which competing
assertions of individual rights is the norm.
Because the fulfillment of obligation is based on love,
the desire not
to harm anyone is prevalent and, so, the tendency of each
individual is to
yield to the other when situations that may lead to conflict
arise. To the
extent that nations also share in the
sense of responsibility to humanity in general, wars will not
arise, as war is
essentially a conflict over the control of resources. If resources are
shared in order to provide
for basic human needs, the cause of international conflict is
absent.
Of course, this
is
a utopian vision. The
smooth functioning
of a society based upon mutual obligation depends on almost
everyone fulfilling
their obligations to the best of their ability.
Those who are holding on to their “rights” will not do
this; and the
rich and powerful have more incentive to do just that because
more will be
asked of them. Any
sense of entitlement
must be replaced with noblesse oblige.
Those who insist on their rights instead of
fulfilling their
obligations would be analogous to the reactionaries and
counter-revolutionaries
of the periods following the Russian and Chinese communist
revolutions.
When there are
hold outs or “free riders” who avoid their societal
obligations, the state must
employ remedies. Punishment,
confiscation,
or coercion are the ultimate remedies, and these should be
avoided if possible. A
more benign form
of confiscation is taxation of excess wealth.
In other words, to paraphrase a song by Ten Years
After, tax the wealthy
until there are no wealthy anymore. But
that is not to say that there must be perfect equality. Differences in
accumulation of wealth can
certainly exist, as long as everyone’s basic needs are being
met.
Part 2 – Uranus:
Evolving Archetypes
We will not show
how both these constructs – rights and obligations – are
expressions of the
Uranus archetype. Simone
Weil has strong
Uranian signatures in her natal chart and it is appropriate
that her ideas can
be corresponded to the Uranian archetype.
She is an Aquarian, with Mercury also in Aquarius (Weil
was dominated by
her intellect and was highly emotionally detached and had
strong intellectual
beliefs). Uranus
is in her first house
conjunct Venus (which reflects her strong Uranian values). It is opposed her
Moon-conjunct-Neptune (see
my Substack on Uranian and Neptunian concepts of the soul for
more insight on
the relationship between these two outer planets). Her Uranus is also
trine Jupiter, which amplifies
her Uranian qualities. Her
Aquarian Sun
is at the point of a Yod with Jupiter and Neptune (both
planets being connected
to her Uranus as indicated above).
Uranus was
discovered in 1781 during the height of the Enlightenment and
just prior to the
French Revolution. Its
“influence” was
undoubtedly being felt for several decades before its
discovery. Much
of what Uranus has come to symbolize
astrologically is associated with Enlightenment ideas. These include
freedom, especially the freedom
of the individual; revelation from the higher mind (which in
18th
century Europe meant reason, as opposed to superstition and
blind dogma);
scientific progress and, thus, technology, innovation, and the
nouvelle.
Rational thought
was viewed as the source of revelation.
In other words, it was the method by which truth and
what is real would
be revealed. The
higher mind was almost
deified as Reason. Enlightenment
thinkers
speculated that it was because humans are rational beings that
they
possess certain rights, and the concept of individual rights
was one that was
deduced rationally by the Enlightenment thinkers.
Uranus is also
associated with change, and with radical change in the form of
revolution. The
American Revolution had occurred five
years prior to Uranus’ discovery, which independence achieved
the year that
Uranus was discovered. The
French
Revolution began eight years after Uranus’ discovery, in the
same year in which
the U.S, Constitution was adopted. Each
of these events was concerned with the establishment of
individual rights, the
rights of citizens. The
American Declaration
of Independence declared, “We hold these rights to be
self-evident, the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The French
Revolution spawned the motto “Liberte,
eqalite, fraternite,” and the U.S. Constitution enshrined the
Bill of Rights in
its first ten amendments.
The whole era,
obsessed with the rights of the individual, was infused with
Uranian energy.
This is the
historical background of the association of the rights of
human beings with
Uranus. We will
now look at this
association considering the transformative process symbolized
by Uranus. Each
of the outer planets symbolizes a
transformative process designed to help the soul overcome the
limitations of
the ego-self and raise the consciousness to its original state
of Oneness and
purity. Uranian
transformation uses
change, separation, and revelation to move the ego-self
through a
transformative process that results in the realization of the
True Self.
While the
transformative process symbolized by Uranus occurs for the
individual, it is
necessary that some critical mass of individuals undergo this
process, to some
degree at least, in order for society to collectively evolve. The relationship
between the individual and
the collective works in both directions.
The individual is influenced, if not conditioned, by
the collective, and
the character of the collective is determined by the
individuals composing it.
Thus, in order for the social contract to evolve
from one in which the masses are thoroughly subjugated, to one
in which
individuals possess certain rights, to one in which there is
an ethos of mutual
obligation, to a truly utopian society, there must be
individuals who have made
those transitions internally.
The first step
in
this process is the individuation of the self from its
identification with the
conditioned collective. Individuals
submerged
in the conditioned collective can hardly be termed individuals
in the
complete sense of that word.
They are
akin to what is described in the 1950s book, A Nation of
Sheep. The
conditioning goes far beyond any
political conditioning, however.
Individuals caught in the conditioned collective
receive nearly all of
their beliefs, all of their values, all of their behavioral
habits, all of
their tastes, likes and aversions from the collective,
conditioned in these
modes by family, education, culture, and societal norms. There is very little
thinking for oneself,
even if there is the appearance of making decisions and
exercising free
will. Those who
identify with the
conditioned collective think what they are conditioned to
think. They
follow the path through life that they
are supposed to follow, that everyone else is following,
without questioning
it. They are
individuals in name only –
different faces, different roles, different stations in life,
but all equally
conditioned by the collective.
At this first
stage, the Uranian process is one of breaking away from the
collective. It is
finding our identity separate from the
collective It is
discovering our own
uniqueness. It is
establishing our
difference from the collective.
The
transformative
or evolutionary purpose of this separation from the collective
is to free the
self as much as possible from the conditioning that has been
imposed on the
self by the collective. This
conditioning
causes the self to think and believe, and to act and react
unconsciously, in the sense that we are unaware of our
motivations and,
therefore, blindly follow the conditioned impulses coming from
our subconscious
mind. The
ego-self cannot begin its
journey of transformation to realize its True Self unless and
until it is freed
from the dominance of these subconscious impulses.
The external
effect of this process of separating from the collective is
the creation of the
individual apart from the collective.
Often, this individual may feel different or set apart
from the
mainstream of society. It
should be
noted that a certain amount of individuality exists within
ordinary society,
without the characteristics listed above being present in the
individual. Society
is never entirely conditioned by the
collective. There
is a continuum between
total conditioning and total individuation and most people
fall within this
continuum, although generally closer to the conditioned pole
of the
continuum. Even
in a heavily conditioned
society, individuals are distinguished from each other, have
different
personalities, and are in some respects unique.
This is the condition of most people and can be viewed
as an incomplete
stage of Uranian separation from the collective.
At the
socio-political level, and historically, the distinguishing of
the individual
from the collective results in the creed of individualism. It is individualism
that gives birth to the
concept of rights. As
long as, and to
the extent that each person is no more than a component of the
collective, they
have no rights. They
are subjects of the
collective, whether a body functioning with unconscious
awareness or the base
of some hierarchy, ruled from the top of that hierarchy. The concept of
rights does not exist
independently of the concept of the individual as an
autonomous member of
society, free and unconditioned (at least in the ideal state).
It is
interesting
that the two signs in natural sextile position to Aquarius –
Aries and
Sagittarius – are associated with ways in which society can
deal with the
emergence of Aquarian individualism and the assertion of
rights. On the
one hand, we have Aries assertiveness,
with its ultimate expression in war/the warrior. On the other hand,
we have Sagittarian wisdom
and judgment, and the Sagittarian ninth house association with
the courts.
Returning now to
the individual and their transformative journey, when the
sense of separation
from the masses of society becomes too extreme, individuality
may manifest as
bizarre behavior, arrogance, or rebelliousness – all
characteristics of Uranus
at its more negative pole.
Another
manifestation of extreme individualism is alienation. When alienated, the
person feels alone and
isolated. Being
separated from the
collective, they are cut off from their roots.
Having rejected their conditioning, they are adrift
with no sense of
bearing. Deprived
of their points of
reference, they become lost in a sea of meaninglessness.
This state of
alienation can provoke
an existential
crisis. One
resolution of this crisis is
to adopt an attitude of heroic individualism.
Such is Nietzsche’s Zarathustra.
More commonly, a person will seek to find meaning in
life, though not
returning to the conditioned values and meaning that they have
left
behind.
This search for
meaning often will lead to the second stage of Uranian
individuation which,
paradoxically, involves association with a group. This second stage
may also be an alternative
pathway to going through the first stage of breaking away from
the
collective.
In the first
instance, when a person has gone through the first stage,
there inevitably will
be some degree of alienation that must be remedied in order
for progress toward
transformation to continue.
The
alienated individual must be reintegrated into the collective,
but at a level
where there is significantly less conditioning.
The individual recognizes that isolated individualism
is unhealthy and
seeks, as an individual, to form bonds with their fellow
humans. This
involves commitment to a human entity
that is greater than the ego-self. It is
a commitment to a collective that engenders mutual obligation. The individual
incurs obligations to the
group, as well as to the individual members of that group.
In the second
instance, when the individual skips the first phase of
separation from the
collective, the Uranian power employs a gentler method of
individuating a
person from the conditioned collective than the radical
separation from and
rejection of the collective.
This is a
process of transferring one’s identity from simply being a
member of the
collective, with an identity that has been formed by the
conditioning from the
collective, to identifying with a group that is distinct from
the
collective. The
process is evolutionary
and ascending to broader and broader levels of group
identification. It
may begin with an association with a club
or social organization and continue to identification with a
community, an economic
unit (such as a profession or trade union), a class or race or
people, a nation
state, and, finally, with all of humanity.
These stages are
not necessarily chronological and are often overlapping or
simultaneous. At
each stage, the ties to the particular
group becomes more diffuse, and the obligations to the group
and its members
become more impersonal. As
these ties
loosen, they become less and less dominant over the
personality. In
other words, they condition the individual
less and less.
There is still a
danger that a person’s identification with the group, with an
entity larger
than oneself, will result in the individual being conditioned
by the values and
expectations of the group.
The
perfection of this process, which avoids the pitfall of being
conditioned by
group-identity, occurs when a person retains their
individuality, holding
themself apart from the group, wile acknowledging their
obligation to the
group. At the
level of national
identity, this phenomenon is embodied in the ideal of the
citizen who thinks
freely for themself, yet their thought is directed toward
fulfilling their
obligation as a citizen.
They do not
allow the state to dictate what that obligation is, but they
independently come
to the realization of what they can do to best benefit the
nation and their
fellow citizens.
At the level of
identification with humanity, they become the true
humanitarian. Their
beneficial actions are not taken in
expectation of any reward or recognition, but simply out of
their sense of
common bond with their fellow humans, and the natural
obligation that this
engenders.
Whereas the
first
Uranian phase of breaking away from the conditioned collective
is most closely
associated with Uranus-ruled Aquarius, this second phase of
group identity and
resulting obligation is most closely associated with the
Uranus-ruled eleventh
house. The
eleventh house is associated
with groups and with the bonds of friendship.
It is also associated with societal obligation, with
one’s duties to
society, and with the establishment of the benevolent state. The eleventh house
signifies progress toward
a better society. This
progress depends
upon a growing recognition of the responsibilities that we all
have to each
other and a willingness to sacrifice our individual interests,
our “rights,” in
order that everyone should share in the benefits that social
and economic
organization bring.
This willingness
to give up rights and take on obligation will generally demand
more than simply
identifying with the nation or with humanity as a whole. Such identification
is unlikely to be total
as long as some remnants of the ego-self persist. Even achieving the
state of being a
humanitarian leaves room for imperfection and disharmony, for
humans tend to
prioritize the welfare of our own species.
Rising above identification with humanity is to
recognize our
commonality with all living things.
Beyond this, and
the ultimate goal of Uranian transformation, is to completely
shed our ego-self
and become our True Self.
When we become
our True Self, we realize that we are one with the All and so
are everyone and
all things. Thus,
we partake of all life
and every being, so that what we do for another, we do for
ourself. With
this foundation, the ideal of a mutually
obligated society can be perfected. This
state of being is illustrated in Thomas Traherne’s statement:
You never enjoy
the
world aright, till the Sea itself floweth in your veins, till
you are clothed
with the heavens, and crowned with the stars: and perceive
yourself to be the
sole heir of the whole world, and more than so, because men
are in it who are every
one sole heirs as well as you.
To summarize,
Simone Weil’s schema of a social contract based upon a
guarantee of individual
rights being replaced by a social contract based upon the
individual’s
recognition and fulfillment of mutual obligation, resulting in
a utopian
society, is mirrored by the progression of Uranian
transformation, or
alternative and co-existing Uranian archetypes.
Those transformative processes and archetypes are the
breaking away from
the conditioned collective coincident with the archetype of
the individuated
self, or the autonomous and differentiated individual; the
transformative
process of successively broader identifications of one’s
individuality with a
group or collective, and the archetype of the true
humanitarian; and the
realization of the illusoriness of the ego, replaced by the
awareness of the
One Being manifested in the multiplicity of forms, and the
archetype of the
True Self.
Note: It would
be
legitimate to assign Neptunian qualities to Simone Weil’s
vision of a society
founded on mutual obligation.
Two
schools of thought that profoundly influenced Weil were
socialism and
Christianity, particularly the Gospels.
Both ideologies are associated with Neptune. Neptune’s discovery
in 1846 coincided with
the emergence of socialism as a political and economic idea. Christianity has
long been viewed as
characteristics of the Piscean age (cf. the Christian symbol
of the fish),
Pisces being ruled by Neptune.
Surrender
and selfless service are also Neptunian and are components of
obligation. The
ideal of everyone receiving from society
their basic needs can be seen in Jesus’ injunction to feed the
poor (Matthew
25:35-40), and love as the basis for the smooth functioning of
a system of
mutual obligation resonates with Jesus’ command to love one
another. Nevertheless,
while these Neptunian elements
are present in the concept of a mutually obligated society, it
is the Uranus
archetype that is more closely associated with the structure
of society and,
particularly, with a benevolent, humanitarian, and
progressively evolving
society.
For more on the
meaning of Uranus, buy my book, Mapping the Human Psyche:
A Depth Astrology
Approach to Planetary Meanings.