Midpoint Interpretation and Context © Ruth Brummund, Dipl Psych Translation from German by L Blake Finley, M.A. Linguistics

In 1979 "Whose life is it, anyway?", by British playwright Brian Clark was performed in Hamburg.  The piece deals with a very delicate theme -- where a young man, after 6 months of hospitalization, remains paralyzed due to a traffic accident, and his only remaining physical functions are those of his brain.  At this point, among the few medical measures still taken are the administration of sedatives.

With a feeling of hopelessness about his situation, he seeks to bring an end to his life.  But how?  To do even this, he needs the help of others.  Doctors are legally restrained from performing euthanasia -- and the patient proceeds to a lawyer to seek advice about the law.  Dismissal from the hospital would lead to certain death, as he would no longer be hooked up to the life-support machines.

Subsequently a petition for release is submitted to the courts.  Two specific professional codes of ethics are confronted.  The physician is ethically bound to preserve the life of the patient, and the courts are bound to defend the inviolable personal rights of the individual.    The latter requires legal intervention whenever the mind no longer functions. 

In this situation, it must be determined whether the patient's mental faculties are functioning effectively enough for him to make a lucid decision.

The patient is conscious enough to convincingly assert that he is deprived of all his natural functions and can no longer operate as a normal member of society.  While he hangs on to life like others, his condition leads him to the sole conclusion of death, so as not to lose his dignity beforehand.  The question of why he cannot make his own choices runs through his mind as he states, "Whose life is it anyway?"

Reference to the theme of this theater piece serves to more clearly understand the following concepts.

The context of this story (i.e. the stage setting, in this case) includes a hospital bed occupied by a young man directly facing and speaking to the audience.  To either side of him are side-tables, the overall arrangement symbolizing a planetary picture in the form of a symmetrical axis.

We now mentally substitute an astrological factor for each piece of furniture on the set, where the body of the patient is symbolized by the Sun, the table to one side the physician, and the table to the other side the patient's sister.  The result is this configuration:

SU=VE/KR

All discussions revolve around the patient, since he lies in the middle.  The center of gravity at any given point in time lies with the individual speaking.  In the overall situation, the energies of the three individuals intermingle, and the predominant energy emits from the speaker or most active participant.  Essentially, whenever additional people appear on stage, they too affect the patient.  At every instance, there is a different pattern of energy exchanges, and in each case the patient is at the focal point.

As we conceptualize these interactive dynamics as a planetary picture, isn't it therefore logical that we should apply this to model as we interpret plantery midpoints?  Let's take an example of configurations involving Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn from various interpretive texts:

.

.

The objective critic will recognize that the dominant planet stands at the middle in the Ebertin interpretations, and in the minus position in the Lefeldt interpretations.  Otherwise, among the transposed variants, there are repeated concepts which vary only in slight nuances from each other.

To someone engaged in metagnosis (analysis in retrospect of isolated cases), these nuances might seem highly significant.  For prognosis, however, it is more critical to recognize core concepts and fundamental principles.  This provides a more comprehensive picture of the various possible real manifestations.

Unifying concepts were in fact repeated in the aforementioned texts.  For this reason, the interpretations are unified at one location in the Brummund Rulebook.   They can be compared to the the aforementioned interpretations.

.

Now we are able to compare the interpretations of each individual author before making a determination.

We should not forget, while interpreting these planetary trios, that they rarely stand alone on a given planetary axis, as there are also other pertinent midpoints.  These midpoints interact with each other as they radiate their energies to the individual.

Here is an example of how a second planet lying directly on a planetary axis might affect the outcome:

Here we have combined the interactive midpoints.  Since they affect the Sun as well as Venus, they are noticeable at both levels.  For any given question we can formulate a specific approach to the planets in order to answer where free-will choice lies in determining their manifestation.  Thus we elucidate the various potential manifestations.  The perceptions of the astrologer should facilitate others in seeing these options.

As we return to the original hospital scenario, we can compare it to the approach to the planetary axes in other charts.  The astrological factor at the center of the axis largely determines the priorities of the moment.

The Special Uranian Astrology program, designed in cooperation between Ruth Brummund and Blake Finley, dispenses with ineffective historical techniques and focuses on those techniques which have proven their value via recent testing and research.  The Special Uranian program will include the text of the Brummund Rulebook by Spring Equinox 2004.  For more information, click here.

Whoever has questions should direct them to:

*Ruth.Brummund@t-online.de