I take an interest in astrology - I don't do predictive astrology, but I connect observation of creativity, imagination, flexibility etc. with people's birthdates, and for a very long time now I have been finding patterns not only consistant with the better books of astrology, but consistent in themselves.

One example is the difference between Deena Larsen and John Cayley. This is not meant in any way as a psychological analysis of either, so bear with me if you think astrology is projection and wishful thinking, or return.

Deena Larsen is Aries, John Cayley is Cancer.

Aries is a fire sign, Cancer is water. And "family" as I ppercieve it... is what you create and maintain to support yourself.

Aries like all fire likes to move, to act, to do something. But like fire is confined to somehow remain rooted in the same spot unless it can find combustible material to escape confinement. Aries will thus emphasize freedom, and reproduction, by making a larger family.

Cancer is water and like water encapsulating all and everything into an inner "oneness" - an emotional owership. Cancer quite naturally IS the core of the family, and will as such demand attention, and reward attention with all that is good.

Deena works a lot with recognisable story elements and stories that remain rooted within a set world, yet retain a sense of unlimited freedom of approach, giving much freedom to the user. They are simple stories, and as such bridge past and present on the basic level that form the lives of all. They are works of sensing.

John works from quite composite intent, producing work that require little physical interaction as the user reaction is already calculated into the work, but inversely open up doors to greater understanding if the user donates time and mental/emotional interaction. They are works of teaching.

As all artists, who truly work from the base of what they are, towards what they need to become, do, be, both are unique in their work, and their choice of tools. It is not wrong to say they are their tools, and as such not easy to learn from, but in the years to come their individual characteristics will no doubt filter into the art community as regular tools: Deena on the edge to analog world, going digital (mind), John immersed in digital, going analog (body). Deena a christmas tree with branches in all directions, and John a circle with portals. As behavioral forms very similar to other Aries' and Cancerians I know, who also for some reason share similar interest, their level of human complexity dependent on other factors such as educational knowledge, early experience of adult attention and present age.

Those who reject astrology often do so out of fear of being typecast, thinking they will loose their individuality. They are the ones I pity, and envy at the same time, and not because of astrology - it could be any other esotheric tool or recognised psychology: Behavioral charateristics are only one step up from the fixed shape of the body. To imagine not to have realised that the problem in life is not retaining individuality, but finding common ground!

I am aquarius. Another such is James Joyce, who in Finnegan's wake took away all known literary crutches and made it definitely impossible for anybody to analyze the content without analyzing him/herself. There was a great manipulator and liberator. I claim no other kinship than that of astrological sign, and I made this report like I normally do when I have fun seriously: I strive for a line of reasoning  which I will emphasize in great detail, and then inject little deviations to sow doubt about the whole prospect. I don't care what people know - as long as they doubt on accasion. I know this is how it should be. I do. I really really do. Really. I mean it - really!