I like the new design of the magazine, which I’ve been reading for decades. However, I am surprised to find the astrology page now gone. It is one of my favorite regular sources, and I’ll be unhappy if you truly have deleted it. Say it isn’t so!
— Diane, via email
Your March issue contained two fantastic articles on the evolution of awareness that I found brave in their context and execution. “Divine Intervention,” Andrew Cohen’s take on non-duality and the need to accept and embrace the responsibility of one’s life (spirit) always bears repeating and reviewing. Also Daniel Pinchbeck’s “From Ego to We Go” stating that consciousness needs to be self-willed and self-directed is the only pragmatic use of our energy. Clearly most of us are self-guiding, as teachers on an evolved scale are such a rare find.
As a student of the late Carlos Castaneda, I understand that the perceptions and discipline required to focus one’s energy on the intent one is manifesting is a constant struggle. Thanks for reminding the world around us of the process with such great writings.
Also, please bring James Jarvis Astrology back. I get it online and pass it on to about 500 yoga students, but everyone could use some cosmic insight for guidance through this sketchy time and place we call LA.
— Yogidana, Silverlake
Ed’s reply: Thanks to all who called or wrote to express dismay at the dissolution of the astrology section. It’s loud and clear to us that astrology is a reader favorite, and so we’re working to bring it back in some incarnation in the coming months. In the meantime, you can find astrologer James Jarvis at his online home: LifeQwest.com, offering a free monthly e-zine, including astrology and personalized horoscope (or call 866.454.8199).
Eco Elite, at Whose Expense?
How can you seriously dress your model in a $1,338 eco-friendly outfit on page 64 while informing your readers on page 32 that one fifth of the world’s population lives on less than one dollar a day? It’s time for spiritually hip Angelenos to realize that genuinely compassionate fashion means making creative use of used clothing. Folks who spend a fortune on style while touting environmental or spiritual causes are hypocritical, not to mention greedy. Your “green fashion” issue could have been an opportunity to address this common gap between actions and ideals, while offering a vision of true eco-fabulousness.
— Bryce Way McDavitt, via email
I should tell you your publication surprised me recently. I subscribe to several progressive type journals, so when I came by a recent edition of Whole Life Times, I didn’t expect to see anything that striking. Two hours later... after reading the majority of it, well, nice work — it was nice to read up on the world of Ugandan co-op coffee, etc., which was powerful in more than one way.
On that note, I was kind of proud of you for February’s cover. It occurred to me that there may have been several motives that led you to run it, and certainly that “sex sells” very well may not have been it. I say provocation is a positive thing — let each viewer decide for his/herself; to raise a question is more purposeful than a pretty picture.
I’ve since read another issue — last month’s, highlighting eco-fashion. It’s a provocative concept, because it highlights a greater issue — the notion of fashion as a driver of materialism/consumerism. In essence, while eco-conscious clothing is great, if we continue to (over) buy as we have, we’re missing the point, as excessive consumption is harmful in many ways. More raw materials are taken, energy used to produce the clothing is spent, our largely superficial measure of ourselves is perpetuated, and the stress that results from having too many damn choices finishes it off.
— Corey Stoerker, Seattle
The Best Way to Go Organic
Regarding the Food For Thought column in the February issue, “Voting With Our Forks”: I don’t disagree with the points made by the author, but he left out the most glaring solution of all. Grow your own.
— Jeff Allison, via email