for what it's worth

john ran my astrological chart tonight:

sun sign: gemini (of course)

moon sign: scorpio (oooh)

rising sign: scorpio (whoa)

(and there was a lot more but i couldn't retain it.)

...

i am surrounded by all of these systems for inferring meaning into my life.  i've been reading the physics of the soul, its smart but hardly ground breaking.  connecting quantum physics to vague, overly-simplistic and orientalist notions of monism.  and then there's this ethical system of manifesting, and its fun because it seems to work.  at least it's fun to pretend it does when you're hitching along the highway and it's getting dark.  then there is buddhism, which gets infuriatingly flaunted by the manifesto new-agers who, in between talking about the power of consciousness and the one and this and that metaphysical postulation, will indubitably throw in a good word for zen and say that its all the same and all part of a new awakening.  well they're not all the same.  buddhism is not monistic.  it does not suggest that everything is one.  in fact, it does not suggest anything because it is so fragmented and alternately popularized (in the west) or institutionalized (japan)  that to speak about a buddhist perspective is as impractical as suggesting some kind of universal christian ethic.  

either trust every book you read or trust none of them because there is nothing pure that can be named and what's real to me, is real to me, and the truth is sad when we believe in the name.  believe in the experience of truth without believing in truth itself.