Planetary symbols and fields of meaning.
I have no idea whether 'fields of meaning' is a concept which has a life outside of my own head (and perhaps of those to whom I have taught astrology). I don't know enough about semiotics. But I use it as a device to get my head around planetary symbols and how to use them in the process of interpretation.
For the sake of simplicity, I visualise each symbol as having its own associated field of meaning. Attached to each field is a core principle distilled from what I have learned about planetary symbolism from books and more importantly, experience. For example, the core principle I associate with Saturn symbolism is limits. I suppose one could place this at the centre of the field. Close by one might place secondary principles such as structure and materialisation.
The field is in effect bounded by the principle of limits, or whatever its associated principle might be. Any phenomenon or thing which has limit as an essential aspect of its nature will be contained within the field. This is independent of scale and context. Mountain tops, referees, death, skin, fears, handcuffs, on and on theoretically in the direction of infinity, constrained only by imagination and mental powers.
The paradox of having a bounded field of meaning containing within it infinite possibilities is conceptually similar to a circle. This geometric construction is bounded by a circumference. However, it contains within it an infinite number of potential points constrained only by scaling factors.
It also has something in common with the concept of strange attractors in chaos theory. In fact, these provide very useful metaphors to help conceptualise planetary symbols and illuminate ways of interpreting them. But that's another story.
If one visualises planetary principles in this way, there is a major implication. When presented with the symbols in a mapping or interpretative situation, the model implies that there are infinite possible meanings available to choose from. If one is considering a placement or transit of Saturn, it can mean anything which has as an essential aspect of its nature the principle of limits, which as mentioned above is effectively infinite in scope.
So how does one home in on the meaning?
The answer is by addressing questions of scale and context. This narrows down the range substantially. A horse is different from a human or a theatre production. Traditionally this is achieved in natal astrology by looking at house placements. I tend to ask the client. For example, an imminent Saturn transit opposite Venus is under discussion. I do not assume a marriage is about to end, even if the Saturn is in the 7th house. I ask check out the territory and ask the client if she is married or in any important partnership of any kind, business, romantic, mutual enmity or whatever. If the answer is yes, that context is explored for areas where limitations might find their form during the transit. This would be based on the notion that limitations will only arise if they serve some purpose. If the answer is no, I would not immediately leave the relationship territory, but perhaps suggest that relationship challenges might still arise as a result of new developments or that a sense of loneliness might catalyse a shift in attitudes, or whatever. I would be guided by the dialogue with the client, talking with them rather than at them. All sorts of other issues consistent with the symbolism might be touched upon, but one thing I would be sure of is that in principle I don't know what the symbolism means in specific terms. At the same time, I back the idea that the symbolism will find its form one way or another in the client's life. The question is at what scale and in what context?
I see my job as guiding the client towards a recognition of its meaning while at the same time discussing options for becoming proactively engaged in the process described by the transit. More often than not, the client tells me how the symbolism will probably manifest by giving insights into life situations. Once that is established, some useful and constructive dialogue can ensue.
It is true that human nature being what it is, one can often in practice predict what is likely to happen during a particular future time frame, but only after one has a decent grasp of the relevant context. One has to be very careful what one says to a client in this respect, and also when one says it, if at all. Because the astrologer does not know for sure and often the client is only too willing to project omnipotence and authority onto the astrologer. I usually hand this back to the client by telling them that I don't actually know what their horoscope means, and that revealing the meaning will be a joint venture, albeit one that couldn't happen without me. Naturally I explain why this is the case.
I then start describing what the symbolism indicates in terms of core meanings. I expand from there by mapping these onto common fields of experience, drawing on the wisdom inherited from the tradition and the fruits of my own work. More often than not, the client, who has after all been experiencing the astrologically revealed potential for a lifetime, will quickly recognise and identify with traits which are being mentioned. Once that stage has been reached the consultation proper starts as far as I am concerned, prompted by the flow of dialogue from an intrigued and open client.
I find that the image I carry of fields of meaning containing infinite possible interpretations keeps me from manifesting hubris. It forces me to engage in a mutual exploration with the client for the meaning of the horoscope. The meaning emerges rather than being imposed. I believe that such a collaboration is empowering for the client, and is often very revealing for myself and my understanding of astrology in action.
