The Unredeemed and Vampire Venus



“Undoubtedly these aspects give persuasive power; but it is only the foul power of hypocrisy. It rests upon illusion. All that is dim and faery in Neptune, instead of being confined is made horrible by the essential falsity and worthlessness of the unredeemed and vampire Venus…” – Aleister Crowley on Neptune and Venus

I came across these words while browsing the internet for… I can’t recall what it was.

“With regard to the more general qualities of the mind, there should be a dangerous degree of unreliability. You can never tell what such a person may do next, because you never know what he may think next. He will probably be unpunctual from sheer incapacity to understand the value of lime [I was tempted to edit this, but it struck me as highly appropriate and amusing, since to me time may as well be lime… and what is the value of lime, I must remember to do a search on this]. He will probably be unable to follow out any definite course, because of the power which every new impression makes upon him. He will go out to dinner and find himself going for a long walk in the country instead. The smallest matters attract his attention and he flies off at a tangent.” – Aleister Crowley on Neptune in the 3rd House

Does it really matter what I was searching for, surely what I found on my wanderings, what caught my attention is where the attention should rest.


Spending what seemed like hours but was in fact only mere minutes, perusing the astrological writings of Aleister Crowley, less for his astrological insight and more for the sheer joy of the turns of phrase which he used.

“…but the Neptunian intellect carries it on to adult life. It seems incapable of seeing things in due proportion and a man, instead of attending to his business, will be rummaging around the old curiosity shop in search of snuff-boxes.” – Aleister Crowley on Neptune in the 3rd House


Checking out Aleister Crowley’s natal chart to see the personal astrology which was influencing his words. I always like to know from where a person is coming, especially when they seem so certain of their convictions. Who are they, what makes them tick, what impulses, motivations and intentions are colouring their words, their views, and so on. Do they live what they say or live by saying it yet not doing it.

Someone as impressionable as I am…

“It is extremely likely that he is a good hypnotic subject. His mind, never strongly and sanely fixed upon anyone subject, easily passes into a semi-conscious state. He probably spends his time in day-dreams. You will see him agape in the middle of his daily task. Long trains of disconnected thought pass through his mind in unwearying succession. Even in the middle of a conversation he is likely to lapse. As the saying is, ‘his wits go wool-gathering’.” – Aleister Crowley on Neptune in the 3rd House

…likes to know who is making an impression on me.

I have explored the work of Aleister Crowley before. He intrigues and offers alternative perspectives.

“People who have him [Uranus] in this position are nearly always of an extremely independent and original turn of mind. Their point of view is almost always different and radically so from that of the mass of mankind. Such people are invariably what their friends call ‘characters’. But when this is at all accentuated or when the surroundings of the native are ultraconventional a certain antagonism may develop and he may be described as eccentric or even something stronger.” – Aleister Crowley on Uranus in the 1st House


I had indulged this exploration I somehow found myself on a news site reading a story about a criminal whose beautiful face and soulful eyes has captured the imaginative minds and hearts of all those who have seen his image floating across the internet.

The story intrigued me – not his story per se, but the story of all those strangers who are fascinated by the face, the physique of this man. He, his face, has become a lightening rod, not for lightening but for our collective and personal projections.

He is striking to look at, and most recently it has been reported that he has been offered a modelling contract.

If he was ordinary in appearance, and not so appealing to our eyes, would people be interested in his story, in him, in his future… wishing for him to be redeemed. Would we decide that someone with such soulful eyes must have a good heart and it’s not his fault he’s a criminal, but life, someone else, circumstances… and every other excuse we can invent to make ourselves feel less guilty for finding someone who is a criminal and thus bad in society’s view so incredibly attractive.





Ah… Venus… whether in female or male form… how you challenge us, our opinions, prejudices, judgments, thoughts, feelings… make our minds and hearts battle, make reason and logic feel so useless against the illogical and unreasonable. Like a vampire you charm us with your glamour and make us beg to be bitten in the neck, to drink our blood.

“Venus, it is true, means love, beauty and grace, tenderness and the rest: but unless these qualities are stiffened by some male element [I giggled at this, tsk, tsk], they mean in practice, mere weakness, sloppiness, sentimentality. The old alchemists described Venus as having ‘external splendour and internal corruption’ and astrology bears this out. Venus is the false gold, the corrosive and poisonous copper.” – Aleister Crowley on Neptune and Venus




  1. Very interesting. Because from my perspective (having Neptune conjunct Mercury in the 3rd House) everything Crowley says about Neptune in the 3rd is totally wrong for me, but what he says about having Uranus in the 1st is spot on.


    • Crowley had Uranus in the 1st (in Leo with Leo rising), so he could draw on his own experience to understand the position. Whereas his natal Neptune was in the 10th house, so his interpretation for Nep in the 3rd seems to be based on observation of those who had that position – but when we observe others we can only see them from our perspective which is an external one rather than an internal one.

      For me his Nep in the 3rd interpretation is fairly accurate, but then again I also have Mercury in Aquarius influencing the mind and it has a tendency towards airhead-ism. And my natal Nep is involved in a T-square with Venus and the Moon, with a Pisces/Nep theme to it.

      This bit – “The task of education will probably have been difficult. The child will not have taken his work seriously, will have preferred to amuse himself with all kinds of fancies and if he takes up any study at all, that subject will probably have been fantastic and unpractical.” – had me chuckling very loudly because as a child I couldn’t do my homework unless I spun a story around the act of doing homework 😉 And I often conclude that my intellect excels in areas which are completely useless/impractical and stumbles around stupidly in areas which are useful/practical.

      Crowley had Merc in Scorpio – do you think his writing reflects that position – aspecting Pluto, Uranus and Saturn (there is more than one version of his chart with slight variations between them, I’m using the astrotheme one – ). There is a certain need he expresses in his work to penetrate the hidden, whether he does it accurately or not for others is another matter (I have a Mercury/Uranus aspect and with it the mind has a tendency to think it’s having a flash of genius insight when actually it may not be having one at all) I’m sure he felt that he could penetrate the mystery of life more deeply than anyone else and see things that no one else was as capable of seeing (Merc/Pluto).

      Did you read what he wrote about Neptune with Mercury – “The aspects of these two planets are very favourable. ~Mercury lends intellectuality to the mystic planet and Neptune redeems the cold brilliancy of the star of reason.” – the first half of his Nep/Merc interpretation is in love with this position, the second half takes it apart rather critically in a yes-but manner.

      I love exploring the charts of astrologers to see what influences their interpretations, what their bias is, it gives another level to their views.


      • “Crowley had Merc in Scorpio – do you think his writing reflects that position – aspecting Pluto, Uranus and Saturn”
        I don’t really know, I probably haven’t read enough of his astrological writings to be able to really comment or form an opinion. Although, that said, I do have his tarot book of Thoth and find it to be wonderful and pretty deep, so from that perspective, yes, his writings in that do reflect the Scorp/Pluto/Uranus influence.

        “Did you read what he wrote about Neptune with Mercury – “The aspects of these two planets are very favourable. ~Mercury lends intellectuality to the mystic planet and Neptune redeems the cold brilliancy of the star of reason.” –

        I did but now can’t find it again. 😦


  2. Hey Ursula,

    AC reminds me so much of very powerful minds from various disciplines (biology, physics, philosophy, poetry, literature, etc.) in that he really likes to fix ideas. What I mean by this is that he leaps forward into precision when there may not be a way to defend the idea or claim as it was precisely stated.

    From a psychological point of view, the strong desire to “overclaim” (i.e., fix an idea with a level of precision and imbue it with a unusual level of confidence) could be a function of a million different things, depending on which psychological framework on has ready to hand. But the functional benefits of placing a stake in the ground (i.e., overclaiming) can be immense. Put differently, if you state your view with unqualified confidence and in a fashion that alienates those around you that may have even slightly different views, it is amazing what you can illuminate. In other words, even dogmatism can help one see things that often remain unseen.

    An example from my own life. I have a sensei who is fond of saying “what I am about to say is just a string of words, try to absorb them instead of processing them straightaway.” What she means by this admonition is that every human being deserves to have his or her speech welcomed by the recipient before having it analyzed or deconstructed. If you don’t absorb and engulf, you cannot grow.

    I’m not sure that AC would agree with my sensei. But I do myself value absorbing words first, letting them sink in before I examine them more closely. Doing so not only helps me meet more evolved versions of me, it also serves as a constant reminder that language is a very new, blunt instrument.



    • Hi Logan,

      Thank you for sharing your perspective, experience and the view of your sensei. I find it inspiring and thought-provoking, which is my favourite combination 🙂

      I do something similar to the ‘absorb before processing’ when it comes to listening. I like to pause before reacting and explore the different ways of hearing what has been stated or said. To put it in diverse contexts, to view things from the eyes and life of the speaker, and try to grasp the array of perspectives between self and other.

      I have to confess that I often enjoy words from another more when they challenge my views, especially if they annoy me, because of the potential for growth through creative friction. I love to argue, but not seeking a right or wrong, just to see where it leads, and it often pinpoints somewhere I may be stuck or blinkered – things which I strive to open up.

      I remember when I first came across AC and his Thelema work. Part of me thought his view was brilliant, and a part thought that he was a fruitcake… that latter view pushed me to look further into the time in which he lived and what the generational and societal influences were which were at work. Who were the other ‘great minds’ of that era, what was the history of that time, and how did their views and work lead to where we are now, our views, our history, our work.

      I love the way that you think, how your mind works, it is all-embracing, yet analytical and independent. You absorb, explore different perspectives, acknowledge others and their views and perspectives, and then think for yourself, sharing your own perspective. This to me is an essential part of being human, being part of a collective, yet also being an individual. We flow together yet also apart, like a river delta and drops in an ocean.

      Your view of dogma is excellent. I’ve noticed that my reaction to certain types of dogma expose my own type of dogma – I can choose to hide it from myself or challenge it or any number of variations. And yet at times a certain version of dogma is necessary – this is something which I’m learning which has challenged my tendency to prefer to be flexible and see things from everyone else’s perspective almost to the detriment of my own perspective. I’ve struggled a bit with standing by my convictions due to being able to see where others are coming from and allowing that to undermine my position. There is a balance between extremes, and so on. Still working on this… some types of progress take a lot of time, especially when you are not sure if you’re progressing or regressing – and maybe regression is needed as a form of reviewing something you may have skipped over.

      And this – language is a very new, blunt instrument. – fantastic!

      A while ago I was researching the evolution of language, seeking to understand why it exists in so many different forms and things like that, partly inspired by my feeling that I am not particularly adept where communication is concerned, and wanting to develop a more cohesive way to communicate. What I find fascinating is how intricate communication is, verbal communication in particular – how one word can have so many different meanings, in one language and in others. How some languages have certain words which mean hundreds of things, while others are more limited in their meanings. One article I came across spoke of an experiment where people could not talk with each other, but could use any other means but words to communicate, it was designed to look into the other ways which we communicate which often go unnoticed because of words and yet which play a part in verbal communication.

      You have a talent for brainstorming!


      • Hey Ursula,

        Thanks for the kind words. Even though your words are read, and not heard, they have a warming effect on me. So I appreciate them in ways I cannot share with you, in or through mere words. 🙂

        The life and eyes of your interlocutor are worth exploring, worth allowing to present themselves to you. In my previous engagement with the sociopath, I found it confounding to attempted that process with her. But through being blocked, effectively and without exception, by her, I learned to identify how many ways one can explore the life and eyes of another human being. And now I have (the beginnings of) a beautiful taxonomy of human co-understanding: a taxonomy of how one can identify, empathize with, reason in accordance with (or against), feel along with (or against), resist with, allow with, and attune to the same degree as another. It’s a little like having a diagram that allows you to identify all the ways to move closer to (and withdraw from) the way another person feels, thinks or emotes in relation to a particular person, place or thing. Like a book of recipes that you must learn how to use and finely tune. In a nutshell, my experience gave me a much richer understanding of (what I will roughly call) co-understanding.

        As for dogma, it reminds me so much of small children throwing tantrums. At the moment the tantrum is performed, it’s the most important thing in the world. The child is expressing herself, showing the world her power and subjectivity without any cloak or buffer. And yet the truth of the tantrum is expressive, which is to say it’s usually transient, and only of permanent value if you locate the tantrum (dogma) against a wider arrangement of activities (or in the case of dogma, a wider arrangement of beliefs and attitudes) and then ask what the tantrum (dogma) means. On this model, dogma is not the answer, it’s (surprisingly) the question.

        One final thought spurred by your remarks on language. When I was small I loved Spiderman. The way his lithe body slid silently through the air, as if his acrobatic mobility were a representation of something much more important than physical prowess. Now that I’ve had years to think on that early thought, I have an idea of why his movement captured my attention so: The way Spiderman glides through the air provides a frame, a metaphor, for how we wish we could maneuver through the emotional, intellectual and social worlds we inhabit. We wish, in other words, our instincts were as well attuned to our form of life as Spiderman’s physical gifts are to his calling. That we are unrequited is another way to distill this thought even further.



        • Thank you 🙂

          I love your thoughts on your connection with Spiderman. That’s visionary!

          I have often explored some of my childhood mentors and loves to see what role they were playing for me, what they taught me and represented. I often chose characters who had a strong personal value system which they lived by – they walked their talk and beliefs. It was a balance to the value systems which the adults around me had, especially my parents, which for me reflected values I did not want to absorb, emulate and live by. I had a huge crush on Steve McGarrett from the original series of Hawaii Five-O. I wanted to be like him. I also chose characters who seemed to understand the multiple facets of being human, who understood that people could not be easily defined, that there were many hues between black and white, and that it was black and white rather than black or white. The social world I inhabited in my childhood was always black or white and do as I say not as I do and don’t challenge the hypocrisy, double standards, contradictions and inconsistencies. When I moved form my childhood social world to a bigger social world, I found a similar theme and it bothered me, I did not agree with – the end justifies the means, greed is good, and choosing To Have over To Be. There just seemed to be too much splitting and compartmentalisation, and I was searching for something all-inclusive. A whole which embraced all the separate parts. A field beyond good and bad.

          One of my favourite characters from literature is Edmund Dantes, The Count of Monte Cristo – particularly what he discovers at the end of the book.

          I also found it interesting when exploring some of my favourite fictional creations, that I sometimes chose characters which had a Sociopathic/Narcissistic tendency. I did not like these characters, but they fascinated me, as though somehow by studying them I would find answers to questions which I had not yet formed in my mind. Fantomas was one of these characters. And most recently I found Alice Morgan from the series Luther very fascinating – that series has some incredibly varied and fascinating studies of characters.

          It’s intriguing what resides within our psyche, and how by exploring our own psyche it helps us to understand that of others. The more we accept of ourselves, the more we can accept of others – accept in a detached manner, as an understanding of what it is to be human and experience everything which that entails.

          Speaking of Sociopaths, I came across a series of posts recently which was rather interesting in a – I’m not sure what to make of every aspect of this, I shall just observe and absorb for now – kind of manner:

          I’m still not sure what to make of the author of the posts (the author whose work was excerpted interested me less than the person using those excerpts), there seemed to be some undercurrent which I have yet to put my finger on – it’s a similar undercurrent to the one I find sometimes in the work of those writing about the subject of NPD, especially from a personal angle. I can’t quite see if that undercurrent is in my posts about NPD too, mostly because I can’t read my own words without knowing what I was thinking, figuring out, and going when I wrote them.

          Oh, btw, I just noticed that you have a Wp now… 😀


          • Hi Ursula,

            Many fictional characters are written in a way that allows them to master multiple human talents, attitudes, and competencies. I’ve also enjoyed that about fiction, whether it’s written or on the silver screen. In the modern world, of course, we tend to think of moral behavior in terms of compliance with rules. But those fictional characters – when well drawn – reflect a more dynamic conception of living well, akin perhaps to the virtue ethics Aristotle advocated.

            Regarding the link that you provided, there is one thing that resonates with me: Sociopaths definitely do not want to let go of the special mask they created while they were manipulating a prior source of attention. It is really creepy the lengths to which they will go to keep tabs on someone. Too many examples to count, but the essential thing is that to them, a modicum of complete control – even over someone or something that is in and of itself trivial – means everything.

            Is there a way to send you a private message/email? Mine is:



            • There is a logically thought out reason (logical for me) for why I don’t have an email to go with my blog. And whenever someone asks to message me privately my avoidance tendencies go into overdrive 😉

              I’ll email you, however be warned, I don’t reply as quickly, regularly or as mindfully to emails as I do with comments on my blog, so email correspondence with me tends to fizzle out.

              Speaking of fictional characters with multiple talents, I came across this amusing article which ticked many of the boxes on my list of pet peeves where fiction on film/TV and how it influences our views is concerned –

              Have you ever visited – – they have several entries related to sociopaths as well as narcissists since these are commonly used characters in plots –

              I was recently watching the series – Ray Donovan – and they pretty much have it all sociopaths/narcissists and the consequences of how they affect others, especially within a family. I particularly liked reading how the main actors viewed the characters they were playing, because actors often enjoy playing sociopaths/narcissists and it is intriguing to see what they think of who they are pretending to be, it adds an extra level to characters who tend to pretend and act a part within the part.

              I have a passion for exploring layers.


              • Hi Ursula,

                When I read the first link, I recognized Patrick Jane (The Mentalist) immediately. I wouldn’t lump him in with House or any of these other asshole-geniuses, however. Jane is depicted as acerbic and a quite emotionally callous, but there is always a non-selfish purpose behind his actions. Typically, he’s trying to put an opponent (usually a mentally well-endowed opponent) in a frame of mind that will force a mistake of some kind. Of course, Jane is also drawn as having a kind of pathological anger/insecurity, a trait that never allows him to truly relax. (That last claim may strike some as implausible, but think about it: Jane is the only character that is constantly on his A game, never allowing his vigilance to drop for any reason.)

                On the issue of experts and confidence in one’s opinions (raised by the Cracked link), I could not agree more. True experts are circumspect and careful. They do not quickly announce answers to complex questions before pressure testing those answers against other alternatives. It is also infuriating on a show like House how easy it is for the writers to minimise the negative impact of the protagonist’s lies and schemes.

                No worries on the personal email practices you have put in place. If they serve you well, then they are valuable and worth keeping.



                • Hi Logan,

                  Have you seen the film – Deceiver(1997) with Tim Roth. There are certain crossovers between that film and his character in Lie To Me. It’s a cat and mouse type of film.

                  If you like The Mentalist, you might enjoy Wire In The Blood. It’s a UK series based on the novels of Val McDermid. It’s a little bit more dark, twisted and intricate than a show like The Mentalist. The main character isn’t always The Smartest Guy in the Room, relying on everyone else except the ‘super clever’ baddie to be stupid to highlight his intellectual superiority. Although I quite liked what the writers did with the Jane character, I felt they sacrificed the development of other main characters to support the lead, and it created too much of a formulaic imbalance of the in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king variety.

                  One of things which I find most fascinating about TV & Film, and certain types of characters, plots and genres, is how it reflects and also influences what is going on in the collective consciousness.

                  The rise in popularity of Vampires and Zombies coincides with the rise in awareness of the existence of Sociopaths and Narcissists.

                  We need the ‘bad’ guys and gals in our lives to be endowed with something supernatural, a power that no ordinary human can resist or counteract, as this excuses our naivety and many other things which allow us to pass on accepting our personal power, responsibility and accountability, in certain situations. We also need them to be born ‘evil’ in some way. And we also need a ‘superhero’ to come along and save the day. Basically we want someone else to sacrifice their life to save us. But where do our allegiances truly lie? Why do we secretly root for baddies and need them so much in stories? Would there be a need for superheroes without villains, and who is truly the hero and the villain?

                  Things such as the typical Romantic Comedy actually feed idealism about the perfect man or woman, the ideal love, which in turn may cause people to fall for a narcissist in favour of someone who isn’t a narcissist.

                  Someone who isn’t a narcissist is more likely to be a character in a Mumblecore or Indie film, a character who is not easily defined, who is neither all good nor all bad, but lives in the grey area between the two. Whereas a narcissist will study what is a part of the mainstream, popular media culture and will emulate it. They live in a world of black or white, no grey areas allowed.

                  Those who are looking for a Mr. or Miss Right are more likely to be fooled by a narcissist than those who are aware that there is no such thing as the ‘perfect cookie’. That last bit I heard the other day while watching a twist on the typical RomCom – The Five Year Engagement – which included a man faking an orgasm. Very funny.

                  The world… multiple versions of reality… which humans create is very intriguing. What is real and what is not? Perhaps Solipsism answers that, but then again that’s just another human creation created to answer our creations about life.

                  And so it goes… 🙂


  3. I started to feel a bit sick in the tummy when I began to read this, because what came back to me were all the criticisms, especially from my ex, but going back to childhood about my own Mercury Neptune square, like you with Neptune in the third too… owning it and being able to celebrate it is quite a journey… and when Mercury is retrograde that just throws another spanner in the works. Then Iook at the sheer creative magic that is your sign and the fertility and profoundity of it and think, dear old AC…. what was he thinking? (I mean this jokingly :))


      • Did you read his take on Mercury/Neptune contacts, he saw the two as being beneficial for each other (or at least that’s how I understood it). Neptune may confuse Mercury, but it also infuses it with something more than Mercury could have on its own. Neptune connects the mind to the collective consciousness. And Mercury helps Neptune to take that which is diffuse and give it form. So, all in all, a good combo once you learn how they work together and how they don’t work together, and don’t try to force them to flow where they don’t want to flow.

        I’m finally learning how to stop trying to get myself to think like I can’t think, and to appreciate how I do think and see what that offers.

        TY for the compliment about my blog, btw 🙂 It’s where I let everything within come out to play and just be as is. I am indeed doing what I wilt!


    • AC had a Venus/Neptune opposition in his chart, and his words reflect it. He was in essence speaking of his own chart, and his aspects and planets were speaking through him. No matter what we think we’re speaking about, how detached we may tell ourselves that we are from ourselves, we’re always talking about ourselves.

      He was also expressing the generational views and influences of his time.

      However I would say that his take on astrology was quite progressive at the time considering some of the astrological texts which came before the modern astrology which we have today. If you look at your chart through the eyes of early astrologers it is enough to make you run away from the subject and agree with all those who debunk astrology and consider it to be a load of nonsense. His work was sort of moving towards a more psychological astrology. Yet it still had a way to go.

      When you consider some of the things which were trending during the time in which he lived, it kind of makes you realise how bonkers our ancestors were… and it makes you look ahead and wonder what future generations will make of all the things which are trending in our generation. 😉

      I think he knew he was a bit bonkers, and in typical Uranus in the 1st style, he liked it and shared it. ‘Do what thou wilt…’ is very Uranus in the 1st. And he had Leo rising!


Comments are closed.