Astrologers' Community

Astrologers' Community (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php)
-   Spiritual Astrology (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37082)

CapAquaPis 09-12-2015 09:58 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I'm a firm believer in the epoch theory: every 26,000 years of the 12 ages in astrology, it's actually an epoch of the history of humanity. Since the birth of Christ 2,000 years ago: the age of Pisces (or Virgo), we're in the transitional period in this age in the third epoch of humanity under the signs Cancer (or Capricorn). There were 6 manned lunar landings in 1969-72 on the Moon ruled by Cancer, and Capricorn indicates a scientific technological savvy epoch has began. Both the Saturn-Uranus ruled signs Capricorn and Aquarius are about research and discovery.

Then there are those astrologers who felt millennia has their signs: the first millennia AD was under Aries, the second under Pisces and now in the third we're under Aquarius. This is a 12,000 year cycle restarted 2,000 years ago and already 54,000 total years of modern humanity's history went by. The Age of Aquarius (or Leo) represents innovative, progressive and radical changes, while Leo represents the symbol of humanity became as "powerful as God" (scientific breakthroughs) or the Sun which rules the sign Leo and is the detriment for Aquarius.

JUPITERASC 09-25-2015 11:09 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 633433)

Yes! The retrograde movement isn't the problem for Sideralism as it would be for Tropicalism,
since the constellations aren't numbered in seasonal order (which is why it's fortunate the Tropical Ages exhibit direct movement).

However, locating the Sidereal-sign boundaries is a serious problem
and that's where it's a real and important Matter of Opinion affecting not only when the Ages begin and end,
but where all the sign-indicators are located in the chart.
It's most noticeable regarding the Sidereal Age-indicator because of it's extremely slow shift in position,
but it changes all Sidereal indicator locations.
As usual, you've gotten to the crux of the situation.

There follows potentially useful and interesting info for you David Starling :smile:

QUOTE

'.....Ptolemy and Hephaestion, when they talk of the Zoidia, they begin their texts with the phrase
"the Dodekatemorion of Aries is...", "the Dodekatemorion of Taurus is...." and so on......'



QUOTE

'.....The Dodekatemorion concept was developed
so that boundaries between the zodiacal asterisms could be drawn,
since the zodiacal asterisms cover each other
and no clear boundaries exist on the sky....'
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewto...3a9c7b3a045a5e

Oddity 09-26-2015 12:33 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Precise timing of this isn't really an issue in astrology, unless you are of the belief that the physical is a perfect representation of the spiritual.

I think most of us don't look at it quite that way, and certainly the ancients and the medievalists - and the very ancients, the ones who first realised this whole 'zodiac' thing - they didn't, either. That's why we have representational zodiacs.

Tropical ties to the seasons, sidereal (depending on the ayanamsa) ties to a fixed star - at the start. But it goes with the same 30 degrees per sign, and we know that isn't tied to the stars and constellations. To tie it directly to the stars, we'd have all different lengths of signs, because the constellations aren't even. This is where the '13th sign' folks are coming from.

But even if you believe the physical is the perfect form of the spiritual, we don't have orbital theory quite good enough to say that an age begins on such-and-such a day. Because that kind of statement is representational.

david starling 09-26-2015 06:30 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
"Nutation" is a relatively fast back and forth movement that accompanies the much slower movement known as "precession". So in the case of Sideralism's Precession of the Equinoxes, Modern Siderealists use the "mean ayanamsa" instead of the yearly one. The overall movement is one degree retrograde in 71.6 years. It's a judgement call to use this Median point to regularize ayanamsa. This method is also used in regard to Dark Lilith, which is the location of the Lunar line of Apsides, where it crosses the zodiacal circle (the Ecliptic) at it's Mean Apogee. I'm using it as well, centering Gaia's Trident (see a description in the R&D forum) on the Mean Point of Earth's Perihelion. So, the Trident's first point moves from Tropical Capricorn into Tropical Aquarius in the year 2028; then the Nutation caused by the Moon swings it back into Capricorn. The Mean start-year for the Tropical-Trident Age is 2149; the Mean 27 degree Capricornian cusp was reached in 1975 (which I consider a threshold Chart-changer). All of which is to say you're correct about not really Knowing the "Hour and the Day". However, since I accept the Mean Point method as astrologically valid, I have no problem locating the Trident's Tropical-Sign positions, and House positions as well. I have my own informationally-informed-intuitional-opinion concerning "What It All Means" when it comes to the Ages. Atleast I don't have to get involved in the argument over where the Sign boundaries are, since I'm doing this Tropically.

david starling 09-27-2015 06:56 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Mark, thanks for starting this thread. Excellent title, controversial but open to opinion. Something you wrote caught my undivided attention: "My thinking, as stated in numerous places, is that the big transition will be on the Capricorn /Aquarius cusp." That's where I believe we are now, Tropically . Might help if I explain how this method evolved. First, a very Piscean (Tropical) chart, and a tremendous attraction to the Aquarian Age coupled with easily seeing and feeling it's predecessor as Capricornian. Then the hypothesis that there just might be Tropical Ages as well. Then placing the two types of Zodiacs together, hold one fixed, let the other rotate; designate a Tropical sign-boundary to mark Sidereal Ages, already in place as the first point of Tropical Aries, and a Sidereal one to mark the Tropical Ages. For the Aquarian Age to resonate so strongly for Tropicalists, that would be the boundary between Sidereal Sagittarius and Capricorn. So, Precession would cause an Aquarian Age to occur simultaneously for both coordinate systems, one preceded by Pisces, the other by Capricorn; easily conflated with one another because of the lower Piscean (Capricornian) fish. Next, explaining the obvious overlap of Ages by using both first and last boundaries of Tropical Aries and Sidereal Sagittarius to designate foreground and background Ages. And, finally, noticing on a star chart that the center-line of Earth's elliptical orbit could be used to center a new creation, an Age Interval, replacing Sidereal Sagittarius. And, Siderealists could replace Tropical Aries the same way, since many of them don't believe there even is a Tropical Aries (!)

craft94 09-27-2015 06:16 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AspieTaurus (Post 291913)

Many of the aspects of society the Hippies of the 60s were attacking were, in fact, the Aquarian aspects: technology, a coldly impersonal and hyper-institutional society, etc. It seems to me that the 60s Counterculture was actually Aquarius' opposite, Leo, mixed in with non-Western Pisces Age spirituality.
.

That's what I always say! New Age hippies are actually a lot more "Piscean" than "Aquarian". I'd actually argue that they have a glamorized, Neptunian view of Aquarius....

I don't think any age is good or bad. It simply is what it is. Aquarius is all about revolution and humanitarianism, so I can understand, to some extent, why people romanticize it so much. It seems like people are finally "waking up". Hidden knowledge is being brought to light and a lot of society's negative influences will be destroyed as we move further on into the age, but it's naive to sit around and wait for some kind of magic Aquarian savior, when the Aquarian Age will bring it's own problems as well. It just kills me when New Agers talk about "Aquarius" when in reality, the Aquarian Age is more scientific and rational than anything else..

Aquarius is about community and technology and it's opposite sign, Leo, is all about individuality. In a way, so far, I'd say the internet is the "God" of this age. We use it as a way to showcase our narcissism while at the same time, getting caught up in groupthink and losing touch with our true selves.

I, too, suspect transhumanism will become the norm as this age progresses.

JUPITERASC 09-27-2015 06:37 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 636748)

Mark, thanks for starting this thread.
Excellent title, controversial but open to opinion.

Something you wrote caught my undivided attention:

"My thinking, as stated in numerous places, is that the big transition will be on the Capricorn /Aquarius cusp."


That's where I believe we are now, Tropically . Might help if I explain how this method evolved. First, a very Piscean (Tropical) chart, and a tremendous attraction to the Aquarian Age coupled with easily seeing and feeling it's predecessor as Capricornian. Then the hypothesis that there just might be Tropical Ages as well. Then placing the two types of Zodiacs together, hold one fixed, let the other rotate; designate a Tropical sign-boundary to mark Sidereal Ages, already in place as the first point of Tropical Aries, and a Sidereal one to mark the Tropical Ages. For the Aquarian Age to resonate so strongly for Tropicalists, that would be the boundary between Sidereal Sagittarius and Capricorn. So, Precession would cause an Aquarian Age to occur simultaneously for both coordinate systems, one preceded by Pisces, the other by Capricorn; easily conflated with one another because of the lower Piscean (Capricornian) fish. Next, explaining the obvious overlap of Ages by using both first and last boundaries of Tropical Aries and Sidereal Sagittarius to designate foreground and background Ages. And, finally, noticing on a star chart that the center-line of Earth's elliptical orbit could be used to center a new creation, an Age Interval, replacing Sidereal Sagittarius. And, Siderealists could replace Tropical Aries the same way, since many of them don't believe there even is a Tropical Aries (!)

david starling, all posts are timed and dated
so
notice that Mark
to whom you addressed your comment
started this thread more than four and a half years ago on 6 March 2011 :smile:

and furthermore
any dialogue with Mark ended 4 February 2012
because according to Mark's profile page
that was the time of 'Last activity'
i.e.
Mark ceased activity on our forum nearly four years ago

david starling 09-27-2015 11:22 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Sorry about that--wasn't paying enough attention.

I cee 02-23-2016 02:57 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
.....what a great thread, because I have been thinking the very same thought!
I am appliying for jobs at the moment, and I am REALLY feeling the aquarian detachment thing.
Years ago when I would apply for the type of job that I am now applying for, it would be that the person who is your manager or supervisor, would be inducting the interview.....so you would be showing them what you know, why you would be good for the job etc, but now its really quite weird and very very impersonal.
Basically you have someone interveiwing you and writing notes which are then sent to HP, (note the hyphenation), everything is reduced to small letter, how very detached and impersonal.
So I am giving this person my soul, hoping they will see me, and she/he is just looking for the 'code' words that he/she can mail to the HP department......they don't know you.....they will not be working with you.....?
The questions are the same and they could be directed to a robot, in fact, I might as well of not been there!
If I got the job, I would be working with and under this person, and yet, she has no say in the final yes/no, its past on to another department, who knows nothing of the nitty/gritty job or me the potential employee who will be making the BIG COGG work.
I keep having this image....I know nothing of that era....but I will look into it, but I keep thinking of those fantastic paintings of the 20's, the art nouveau movement, on industrial revolution...forgive me if I have the era wrong, but I keep seeing this in my minds eye........and I know somethings wrong.
If we are to move into a new era, then surely we must not forget the fundemental/positive qualities of the pisean age and the opposing sign of aquarius.....we are all unique and together we are a force to be reckoned with.....but this must be done with the goodness of all and compassion of all.
We are not a faceless commodity that can be cast aside.......this will not do......as shown by revolutions for the people, so in the past for the virgo face of the pisean age.
We will become faceless and I do not think this is the future envisioned for our true destiny......I just hope we are in 'the nappy years' at the moment and eventuall we will get it together.
An astrologer once told me I would love the coming aquarian age because of my sagg influence.......but I am struggling and I feel like a foreigner in a foreign land.
The zodiac is an unfolding story and aquarius is just part and not the whole, we must remember this....there is the+ and the - of everything.
And then theres the business's using the vibe of the aquarian thing, ya know....lets all be a 'team' but still treat you all with no respect (leo) and you are one of the team (no identity) making you feel you are part of something.....but really you are just a "means to an ends" and mark my words......there will be repercussions of this.....people know when they are being used and abused.
IT has solved nothing in my view, it has just given the masses an excuse not to deliver true meaning.......'oh it must of got lost' or lets blame it on technology ,cos I can't be bothered to think
.......if we are so 'connected'....why are we texting instead of talking??
Its a dead end.....no back turn and its not the 'aha' we think its going to be.
.....the aquarian age is at best an infant.....drooling at the moment

david starling 02-23-2016 05:16 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
[IMO] People are creatures of habit, and what the onset of the Aquarian Age is asking of us is so different, we are as yet unable to comply. But, we're getting there, little by little, by little by little....

waybread 02-23-2016 05:18 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I cee, maybe you would prefer to be self-employed.

craft94 02-23-2016 06:12 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Job applications are usually online now and many interviews take place over the phone.

You go to a store, self check outs. You go to a restaurant, you can order your meal on a tablet.

Sex is impersonal too. You meet up with people on Tinder, hook up, and never see each other again. People are just bodies, objects to use and then

Everything is done online now. If it was up to me, I would throw my computer away, but I have to use it. There's no escaping. It's not that I don't like to use the internet. I'm using it right now. But it's distracting. I'm supposed to be writing a short story, not a boring activity, yet I have 5 windows open and can't stay focused on any of them.

I'm an introvert and in some ways, looking at Facebook by yourself feels like a more extroverted activity than hanging out with a small group of friends. I don't need to know all of this stuff. It gives me a headache. I'm an air sign, so I value communication, but real communication takes place when you're alone, with just one other person, imo. People are more likely to be themselves when no one is watching, but these days, everyone's watching, the government's watching, companies are watching, ads everywhere, its like the Illuminati all seeing eye thing, Big Brother 1984. Sometimes, I think we're entering the age of Capricorn. Facebook is performance. You might as well be on TV.

duenderoja 02-23-2016 06:46 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
When will the next age begin?

waybread 02-23-2016 08:15 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Craft, I am on no social media. Hey, it works for me.

The astrological ages are roughly 2000 years long, and there is some disagreement about when they start and stop. They are based on the precession of the earth's equinoxes, which gives them a retrograde motion. The previous age of Pisces is now followed by the age of Aquarius.

Depending whom you ask, the complete revolution takes about 24000 to 26000 years, or roughly 2000 years-plus in a given sign. http://www.crystalinks.com/precession.html

The next age (of Capricorn) should begin some time after the year 4000.

david starling 02-24-2016 04:01 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Waybread, these Ages you're talking about are manifestly Sidereal, and I believe you yourself are using the Tropical Zodiac. The Age i:confused:ndicator you just alluded to is the one and only Vernal Equinoctial Point, which locates 0 Tropical Aries. 2148 years from now (from the generally accepted, current rate of Equinoctial precession) it will still be at 0 Tropical Aries. Since it has no Tropical transit, it's of no Tropical value. So, "sorry Tropical Astrology, but, no Aquarian Age for you!" Not if it's based on precession of the Equinoxes. A lot of Siderealists, who could claim the Age of Aquarius for their own Zodiac, don't even bother with it--go figure. Vedic Astrologers don't use the V.E.P. for Ages, even though they could as well. They do have "Yugas" which last many thousands of years, but are calculated in mysterious ways, very likely involving some kind of use of Equinoctial precession. The Kali Yuga, now in it's final stage, is the worst possible Yuga, where we are experiencing the greatest lack of spiritual connection. Some say it began around 3100 B.C.E., and is either nearing an end, or has just ended. Next up...any Vedic Astrologers care to join in?

david starling 02-24-2016 10:08 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
The Fagan-Bradley setting of the 12 equal (30) Signs is Sidereal. The Vernal Equinoctial Point's position in this Zodiac is known as the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.), and it precesses (transits) retrograde at the rate of 50.3" of arc per year, or 1 every 71.6 years. Using the S.V.P. as the Age Indicator (if a Sideralist cares to include it in a Chart) results in the start of the Sidereal Aquarian Age in the year 2368, +/- 24 years, allowing for the back-and-forth motion caused by the Moon, called "Nutation". Compare this date to the much earlier ones, like the Year 2000 or 2012 or 2149, bandied about by Tropical Astrologers and non-astrologers alike who aren't using any version of a Sidereal Zodiac for an actual Astrological Chart. Meaning, they're making up a bogus[IMO] setting for Sidereal Signs that they themselves are using for the sole purpose of satisfying their "intuitive sense" that an Aquarian Age will begin centuries earlier than Fagan-Bradley Sideralism (or any other well-known version of Siderealism) says it will. Anyway, according to established Siderealism, what we're experiencing now is the last five or six degrees of the Sidereal Age of Pisces, not the real beginning of the Sidereal Aquarian Age. Make of it what you will, but these are
the facts. Just tellin' it like I see it. Alternative opinions welcome!

Of course, I have that "intuitive sense" of an earlier Aquarian Age myself, and I trust it.
So, for me, it comes down to explaining it without disrespecting the Sidereal Zodiac's S.V.P. and the Vedic ayanamsa.

david starling 02-24-2016 04:32 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
It just occurred to me that I should clarify three things: First, waybread was just explaining the general opinion, not necessarily agreeing with it, as I might have appeared to imply. Apologies! Second, if the Sidereal setting you're using for Charts is not well-known, or "established", I have no problem with that whatsoever. And third, the reason I believe my comments are in keeping with this Thread is about its description--it doesn't necessarily assert that what we're seeing now actually IS the Age of Aquarius--just "what will it be like when it occurs". And knowing what I know about the Sign Aquarius, it will [IMO] be much, much better than the way the World is now. Proof for me that it hasn't really begun yet.

waybread 02-24-2016 04:53 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 660604)
Waybread, these Ages you're talking about are manifestly Sidereal, and I believe you yourself are using the Tropical Zodiac. The Age i:confused:ndicator you just alluded to is the one and only Vernal Equinoctial Point, which locates 0 Tropical Aries. 2148 years from now (from the generally accepted, current rate of Equinoctial precession) it will still be at 0 Tropical Aries. Since it has no Tropical transit, it's of no Tropical value. So, "sorry Tropical Astrology, but, no Aquarian Age for you!" Not if it's based on precession of the Equinoxes. A lot of Siderealists, who could claim the Age of Aquarius for their own Zodiac, don't even bother with it--go figure. Vedic Astrologers don't use the V.E.P. for Ages, even though they could as well. They do have "Yugas" which last many thousands of years, but are calculated in mysterious ways, very likely involving some kind of use of Equinoctial precession. The Kali Yuga, now in it's final stage, is the worst possible Yuga, where we are experiencing the greatest lack of spiritual connection. Some say it began around 3100 B.C.E., and is either nearing an end, or has just ended. Next up...any Vedic Astrologers care to join in?

OMG, David: you're right! :surprised:

I had never thought about this before. But that's OK, I was never taken with the hype from the musical Hair, anyway. ("This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius....") A New Age of peace and love still seems like a distant hope.

From a historical-religious perspective, there does seem to have been a sort-of age of Taurus (cattle worship) ca. 4000-2000 BCE and age of Aries ca. 2000-0 BCE (cf. all the allusions to shepherds in the Old Testament as well as the rise of the Egyptian ram-headed god Ammon.) Interestingly at the dawn of the sidereal age of Pisces, the New Testament has a new divinity, the son of the Good Shepherd who befriends fishermen, walks on water, quells the sea, and multiplies loaves and fishes. The book of Revelation, encoding the constellations as a sort of celestial apocalypse, says "we're going back to the Triumph of the Lamb, and that's that!"

So we get the emergence of the tropical zodiac at a time when astrologers could see the vernal equinox had left the constellation Aries for Pisces. By this time, astrologers were also using signs rather than the constellations.

I cee 02-24-2016 06:52 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 660623)
what we're experiencing now is the last five or six degrees of the Sidereal Age of Pisces, not the real beginning of the Sidereal Aquarian Age. Make of it what you will, but these are
the facts. Just tellin' it like I see it. Alternative opinions welcome!

Of course, I have that "intuitive sense" of an earlier Aquarian Age myself, and I trust it.
So, for me, it comes down to explaining it without disrespecting the Sidereal Zodiac's S.V.P. and the Vedic ayanamsa.

Could that mean then that we are getting close to a critical degree, and the turmoil is maybe hyper negative virgo/pisces neurosis at its worse..
Events are coming to a crisis like they would in a personal chart just before the change of signs, the end of one sign into the next, something happens that eptipimises that sign but we would still see the computer age slowly seeping in.

I cee 02-24-2016 07:01 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by waybread (Post 660513)
I cee, maybe you would prefer to be self-employed.

That would be ideal...but I don't know If I could sustain myself.
...all I know is I don't fit......school report is saying "must try harder"
....at what though (shrug)
I am volunteering at a charity shop and I love it, I look forward to....just don't get paid for it (sigh)
I have my progressed sun and venus in aquarius and I think soon or now I have progressed moon too.....so I should be used to that energy by now?(puzzled)

Flapjacks 02-25-2016 04:54 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I thought of age of Aquarius today when I read about this: http://www.effectivealtruism.org/

I don't know what it is, but I find so many Aquarian things deeply unsettling instead of "revolutionary". More like indoctrination into a cult... an impersonal, egalitarian one that is spiritually impoverished.

Here is what one chapter of this group says about supporting the arts:

Quote:

"One of the members, Ben Schwyn, 26, a soft-spoken software engineer, reasoned: “You could attempt to quantify how much supporting the symphony costs or the probability of someone’s life being affected by that and without doing a lot of research, we don’t know what those are,” he said. “But my estimate is that they are not very effective.”

“And yet,” added Pasha Kamyshev, 28, a software engineer, “for the same amount of money you can distribute iodine for malaria through a charity to thousands in the second or Third World.”

When it comes to making the choice between funding the symphony or saving someone’s life? The choice is easy.

“Having your life changed by music is incredibly privileged,” said Van Nostrand. “People whose lives are changed by not dying — that’s a bigger thing.”
I want to punch all these people in the face.

david starling 02-25-2016 05:12 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Elitism is not an Aquarian Age trait. Look how long it's been going on--nothing egalitarian or revolutionary about it. The rich turning their backs on the suffering of the poor--nothing new about that either.
Nothing wrong with not liking the Age of Aquarius. It's a Chart thing, and many will feel that way. I don't like the Age we're in now, so for me, the Aquarian Age can't come soon enough.

Flapjacks 02-25-2016 05:34 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 660801)
Elitism is not an Aquarian Age trait. Look how long it's been going on--nothing egalitarian or revolutionary about it. The rich turning their backs on the suffering of the poor--nothing new about that either.

What is elitist here? They are being completely "rational". Use reason to decide how to best help the largest number of people.

EDIT: I've been particularly interested with Uranus lately so I looked at transits and Uranus is coming within range of my NN in Aries, currently trine natal Uranus and square my Mars. Punching people in the face, right? Bahaha. Seems Uranus will be conjunct NN exact right when Neptune finally exits my 10th house and moves to 11th (10th ruled by Uranus, 11th ruled by Pisces). That also means it'll square my Sun-Merc/Moon opposition. Watch out for Flapjacks Christmas 2017..

david starling 02-25-2016 07:03 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Elitism's about believing you know what everyone else should do. Like-minded elitists form organizations to promote their agendas. Nothing new or Aquarian about it. Also, Aquarians I know personally tend to support the arts along with environmental causes and humane treatment of other species, in addition to our own. But they aren't of the opinion that everyone has to be like them. Just out of curiosity, what's your basis for determining what an "Aquarian Age" would really be like? There's a lot of anti -Aquarian Age rhetoric out there, from evangelists and Atheists alike. I don't think the "New Age Movement" types are indicative of the upcoming Aquarian Age, although they attempt (pretty successfully) to claim it. Just my opinion.
The "Occupy Movement" had an Aquarian flair to it though.[IMO]

craft94 02-25-2016 07:39 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Don't get me wrong, I like Aquarius. I hate to be biased but I'd say they're the sign I get along best with as far as Suns go. I'm not dreading the New Age but I don't expect all of our problems to disappear either. And while some problems might go away, others might arise. I admire the idealism, I want the hype to be true but like, my philosophy is to hope for the best but expect the worst. Don't give up hope, don't give up on your ideals, keep trying, keep aiming towards what you believe to be right, but be prepared because not everything will turn out the way you want to. I'm not like "Anti-Aquarius" or whatever but I think it's good to be critical of EVERYTHING, personally. I guess it's the idealism.

Elitism isn't an Aquarian trait. Aquarius isn't about excluding people but bringing them together. But 'group think' itself can be a problem imo. Aquarius isn't about individuality. Leo is about individuality. Aquarius is about the group and I think that's what Flapjacks was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong). Do what's best for the community (country?) even at the expense of your personal values. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but what if the needs of the few are greater? What if it's a matter of life and death? Just some thoughts.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.