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)

craft94 02-25-2016 08:16 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
When I mention Capricorn, I'm referring to all these ads, and all this government spying. Corruption is nothing new, but the internet is symbolic of Aquarian age, imo, and while the Internet HAS been used to connect people and bring down corruption, it has also been used for governments and corporations to spy on us. I don't know...maybe, hopefully, this will all go away once the age starts really kicking in, but I see it as technology (Aquarius) being used for the wrong purposes (Capricorn). I don't know. My only real concern is the lack of privacy. People are saying it's dead. The Scorpio in my chart is not okay with this but the Libra is happy to be finally entering an age of social justice (if that is what's hapening - still a long way to go)

Sweet Pea 02-25-2016 08:19 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Does anyone think it significant that we're moving into the third decanate of Aquarius, which is Libran?

This could play into the social networking, extreme need for relationship but done online and impersonally, extreme focus on beauty, appearance, 'selfies', photoshopping photos to look better, the cult of narcissism that is appearing in the youth of today especially.

And if the entire Aquarius/Leo axis is being "constellated", then the third decanate of Leo is Aries, which brings in the cult of "Me".

I cee 02-25-2016 09:29 AM

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

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea (Post 660818)
Does anyone think it significant that we're moving into the third decanate of Aquarius, which is Libran?

This could play into the social networking, extreme need for relationship but done online and impersonally, extreme focus on beauty, appearance, 'selfies', photoshopping photos to look better, the cult of narcissism that is appearing in the youth of today especially.

And if the entire Aquarius/Leo axis is being "constellated", then the third decanate of Leo is Aries, which brings in the cult of "Me".

Selfies, extreme narcissim and wanting to be famous for 2 seconds is surely the not so good side of Leo.
I also think teenagers need to be narcisstic, its part of growing up and getting to know oneself, there bodies are changing and this, I think makes for acute attention to themselves,..for good or bad.
Sweetpea, how are we in the 3rd decanate of aquarius?

Cold Fusion 02-25-2016 02:59 PM

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

Originally Posted by I cee (Post 660823)
Selfies, extreme narcissim and wanting to be famous for 2 seconds is surely the not so good side of Leo.
I also think teenagers need to be narcisstic, its part of growing up and getting to know oneself, there bodies are changing and this, I think makes for acute attention to themselves,..for good or bad.
Sweetpea, how are we in the 3rd decanate of aquarius?

Try Capricorn, not Leo:

http://www.constellationsofwords.com...ions/Pavo.html

http://www.constellationsofwords.com...ockdisplay.jpg

Peacock

Sweet Pea 02-25-2016 04:00 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I cee - we're going into the Age of Aquarius backwards, as it were, from the sign of Pisces. So we encounter the third decanate first.:biggrin:

craft94 02-25-2016 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I cee (Post 660823)
Selfies, extreme narcissim and wanting to be famous for 2 seconds is surely the not so good side of Leo.

My thoughts exactly.

Sweet Pea, what "extreme need for relationships" are you talking about? I see that with individuals but unless you mean an extreme need for attention, I don't see it collectively. I may be biased but I see the exact opposite. Hook-ups are what's popular these days. There's not even a pretense of romance involved.

waybread 02-25-2016 09:08 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Would it be cost-effective? Just kidding, just kidding.

I think we have to be careful about assigning various ideas to the Age of Aquarius. I am a real Trekkie (TNG only) and disease has been eradicated in the 24th century. Music is widely available to be heard or played.

Maybe the future will include both.

david starling 02-26-2016 03:26 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I want my own Holodeck!

Flapjacks 02-26-2016 03:45 AM

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

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 660811)
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]

Elitism isn't what that group is promoting. Here are values the Effective Altruists promote:

Quote:

OPEN-MINDEDNESS
Consider all causes and actions, and then act in the way that brings about the greatest positive impact.

CRITICAL THINKING
Apply evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to improve the world.

GLOBAL EMPATHY
Value all sentient life, regardless of nationality, creed, ancestry, religion, or species.
How can you not see this as Aquarian?

The devil is the details of how to carry out such values, because on the surface they look pretty positive. That is why I gave the example of how actual chapter members are using these values (i.e. deciding that art doesn't help people enough and so should be disregarded as important to support with their money).

The philosophy bothers me because of the slick veneer, and I'm more of a transcendentalist. In today's society, I feel like I am always pushing back against the strong incentives to give myself up to a collective and hive-mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by craft94 (Post 660814)
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.

Yes, this is exactly it. :)

A lot of cookbook astrology paints Aquarius as individualistic, which is exactly opposite of what Aquarius stands for. Individualism is a Leo preoccupation.

If you are going to look at one sign, it is interesting to see what is lacking. When talking about an "age" it isn't only about what is going to be prominent but also what is going to be difficult or absent. Individualism is difficult for Aquarius, but Aquarian ideals are reigning (as Cap will fade away).

A great book that discusses (without intention) this Aquarius vs. Leo dynamic is "You Are Not a Gadget" by Jaron Lanier.

david starling 02-26-2016 04:12 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I have rather extreme expectations for the Aquarian Age. Transcendental expectations. This Age is beyond hope, even more-so as it lunges toward its conclusion. Altruism is nice, but it's just a band-aid. [IMO] The AoA will transcend the need for it, because no one will need anyone elses help. We'll all be tapped into the Source. Until then, it's all about Cap.--on the cusp of Aqua., but still Cap. [IMO] My sympathies and admiration for those with Cap. prominent in their charts. Paired with Libra, Capricorn is capable of a tremendous amount of altruism.

Flapjacks 02-26-2016 06:25 AM

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

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 661060)
I have rather extreme expectations for the Aquarian Age. Transcendental expectations. This Age is beyond hope, even more-so as it lunges toward its conclusion. Altruism is nice, but it's just a band-aid. [IMO] The AoA will transcend the need for it, because no one will need anyone elses help. We'll all be tapped into the Source. Until then, it's all about Cap.--on the cusp of Aqua., but still Cap. [IMO] My sympathies and admiration for those with Cap. prominent in their charts. Paired with Libra, Capricorn is capable of a tremendous amount of altruism.

Altruism itself doesn't has much to do with anything here. Just because I mentioned a group with "altruism" in the name doesn't mean I think altruism is the hallmark of the Age of Aquarius... Altruism has its roots in Aries/Libran archetypes in my view, because it boils down to fairness. But that is an entirely different topic.

"No one will need anyone's help." Why is this an ideal? Tapping into a Source is a Pisces actualization.

I don't understand why so many people give spiritual overtones to Aquarius. It isn't spiritual in essence; it's impersonal and intellectual... an air sign.

craft94 02-26-2016 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flapjacks (Post 661076)

I don't understand why so many people give spiritual overtones to Aquarius. It isn't spiritual in essence; it's impersonal and intellectual... an air sign.

OMG yes. That's what I was saying! We're supposed to be leaving The Age of the Pisces (capricorn would make more sense with this tbh) yet everyone projects Piscean (all of that spirituality, mostly) traits onto what the Age of Aquarius is supposed to be. Very ironic.

david starling 02-26-2016 08:51 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Flapjacks, I should have specified what "Source" I meant. You were right to call me on it! In Sanskrit, it's called Prana, the Universal Life Force, emanating from the Sun and "...connecting the elements of the Universe."-(Wikipedia article entitled "Prana"). It also means "Breath". The word "Spiritual" is from the Latin, "Spiritus", which also means Breath. Air is what we breath, and most Astrologers draw Natal Charts from the moment of first breath. Air, Water and Fire Signs are all spiritual in nature, but especially Air Signs.
A direct connection to the field of Prana would enable us to live without devouring living organisms. No starvation, no disease, would make altruism far less necessary. It's really an ability we already have, but is currently "off-line", or in some cases functioning at low capacity. And it's really "just another Age". Sun, Moon, Planets aren't going anywhere, and neither are all 12 Signs. [IMO] It's Earth's enhancement of the effect of the Uranian vibration, and a major increase in our ability to receive and process it, that will bring the AofA into our Charts, thereby enabling us to absorb Prana directly. But we'll still have emotions, and need each other, just like we do now. Except, it's on beyond the Saturnian vibration of dearth and death, that we're currently enthralled by and unable to withstand.
Extreme expectations indeed! But I can feel it coming in the Air.

waybread 02-26-2016 04:52 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I suggest distinguishing between static personality traits attributed to sun-signs in individual nativities and an astrological age. Something as vast and long-lived as an astrological age can't possibly be shaped by our narrow contemporary definitions of people's sun-signs

david starling 02-26-2016 05:18 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Thanks waybread, especially in this case since Aquarius is opposite the Sign the Sun rules. Moon in Aquarius is quite different from Sun Aqua., for example. Earth's Age in Aqua. is still an unknown phenomena, which is why this Thread says "may not" instead of "will not". The views and opinions of my posts on the subject of what the Age will be like are those of the Poster, and do not necessarily represent (or invalidate) the views and opinions of anyone else.

Arena 02-26-2016 05:23 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
The ages are defined by the movement of the VE point. It is now in Pisces, so we are at the last 5° of Pisces right now. There is no question about that issue, it is in Pisces - which also means the sidereal zodiac is the accurate one to use since it counts for precession.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlVgEoZDjok

About altruism; in my view it has to do with Pisces, much more than Aq.

david starling 02-26-2016 06:18 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Arena, is retrograde movement in the Fagan-Bradley view considered as unfortunate as in Tropical? Two reasons for asking: First, in Tropical there's a seasonal motif, making direct motion seem more natural, as we travel through the Tropical year; whereas Siderealy, there's no implied directionality. Second, this Age of Sidereal Pisces, when compared with what we know about previous Ages, is one of unparalleled violence and cruelty. Even now, as the Age nears its end, all life on the planet is in jeopardy. Altruism is in short supply and ultimately ineffectual in the Age of (as you say, and I agree) a very altruistic Sign. So could it be these Sidereal Ages, all of them, including the one up next, are seriously afflicted due to retrograde movement? Because that factor, in and of itself, would explain the reason for the title of this Thread!:sad:

david starling 02-27-2016 07:15 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I couldn't find anything specifically about the Sidereal attitude toward the retrograde development of the Ages, but it appears Sideralism is actually of the opinion that planetary retrograde movement is usually a good thing. So, the question remains: Why the Age of the normally compassionate and altruistic Sign Pisces resulted in such callous and cruel World cultures. Maybe no less so than past Ages, but I would have expected better (having a Piscean nature myself). Also, a Piscean Age should, in theory, have been less about male domination. Something's missing, or something's wrong! [IMO]

craft94 02-27-2016 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 661277)
I couldn't find anything specifically about the Sidereal attitude toward the retrograde development of the Ages, but it appears Sideralism is actually of the opinion that planetary retrograde movement is usually a good thing. So, the question remains: Why the Age of the normally compassionate and altruistic Sign Pisces resulted in such callous and cruel World cultures. Maybe no less so than past Ages, but I would have expected better (having a Piscean nature myself). Also, a Piscean Age should, in theory, have been less about male domination. Something's missing, or something's wrong! [IMO]

Yeah, I feel the same way. Isnt Pisces a "feminine" sign supposedly?

Sometimes I feel like the world is a ****** up place and it's always gonna be that way no matter what "Age" we're in. I hope this is just cynicism talking but that's why I can't see the Aquarian Age as miraculous even though it's an air sign and one of my (I hate to play) favorites.

Maybe it has something to do with the Kali Yuga? Is the Kali Yuga supposed to end EXACTLY when The Age of Aquarius begins? It might account for why both ages have been so negative. Keep in mind, I know nothing about the Yugas. I'm just going off of what I read and don't mean to be offensive. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it supposed to be negative? Aren't the Yugas supposed to be larger in time span than astrological ages?

david starling 02-27-2016 05:43 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Yugas are neither agreed upon by Indian scholars nor optimistic about the future. For example, Bibhu Dev Misra, basically an "Information Technology consultant" has done considerable research on his own, and writes articles about "ancient civilizations, myths, symbols, science and religion." His article on the Yugas makes the most sense to me, but ends with civilization collapsing when the Kali Yuga ends (in his opinion according to his own research) in 2025, and a "transitional period" begins. "Cataclysmic earth changes" accompany this collapse. Not exactly what most are hoping for the dawning of the AofA!:unsure:

Flapjacks 02-27-2016 05:56 PM

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

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 661101)
Flapjacks, I should have specified what "Source" I meant. You were right to call me on it! In Sanskrit, it's called Prana, the Universal Life Force, emanating from the Sun and "...connecting the elements of the Universe."-(Wikipedia article entitled "Prana"). It also means "Breath". The word "Spiritual" is from the Latin, "Spiritus", which also means Breath. Air is what we breath, and most Astrologers draw Natal Charts from the moment of first breath. Air, Water and Fire Signs are all spiritual in nature, but especially Air Signs.
A direct connection to the field of Prana would enable us to live without devouring living organisms. No starvation, no disease, would make altruism far less necessary. It's really an ability we already have, but is currently "off-line", or in some cases functioning at low capacity. And it's really "just another Age". Sun, Moon, Planets aren't going anywhere, and neither are all 12 Signs. [IMO] It's Earth's enhancement of the effect of the Uranian vibration, and a major increase in our ability to receive and process it, that will bring the AofA into our Charts, thereby enabling us to absorb Prana directly. But we'll still have emotions, and need each other, just like we do now. Except, it's on beyond the Saturnian vibration of dearth and death, that we're currently enthralled by and unable to withstand.
Extreme expectations indeed! But I can feel it coming in the Air.

Thanks for explaining that in more detail. I see what you mean. :)

I think of Suburbanites, removed from nature and physical suffering, who have a general unease and malaise that they can't justify. They are removed from the condition that we were primed to endure for so much of our history; of disease and death and cruelty and difficulty, removed from the wild. In your view, such a malaise wouldn't exist, we'd evolve beyond that priming. I don't know if I'd view this as ultimately Good.

I have a friend who thinks it would be just peachy to create "vertical cities" where everyone lives apart from nature and we leave nature to be wild without humans screwing it up. He doesn't see himself as a part of it. In a way, I see you want to be removed from it, as well.

I ate lobster last night for a Friday treat. I imagined what it'd be like to be a creature that was bred and raised and killed at a particular age to be food for another creature, but on the whole, given all the food they want, all the air, all the opportunities to socialize and be themselves. What concept of life do such creatures have? If they were eaten by something they admired, perhaps they would consider it an honor to be sacrificed; they are happy and fulfilled by it. Yet, if they were eaten by something they loathed, they would live lives of terror and disgrace regardless of their comforts. Is this a bad life? Is it a wrong one?

What if we, in direct contact with Prana, decide we no longer want to exist? Isn't existing the ultimate captivity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by waybread (Post 661168)
I suggest distinguishing between static personality traits attributed to sun-signs in individual nativities and an astrological age. Something as vast and long-lived as an astrological age can't possibly be shaped by our narrow contemporary definitions of people's sun-signs

Yes. I was worried people were interpreting things as personality traits rather than sign attributes. Although personality traits will show differing responses to the challenges and opportunities that characterize an "age".

craft94 02-27-2016 10:57 PM

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

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 661101)
The word "Spiritual" is from the Latin, "Spiritus", which also means Breath. Air is what we breath, and most Astrologers draw Natal Charts from the moment of first breath. Air, Water and Fire Signs are all spiritual in nature, but especially Air Signs.

As an Air (Sun, Mercury, Ascendant and Midheaven) Sign myself, I can't say I object to this. I guess it's not the spirituality I have a problem with, but the lack of objectivity. Aquarius and Libra are both very idealistic signs, but they're more rational than emotional. They represent the values and ideals of the collective. Aquarian idealism is more like hope. This is the type of idealism I see with you, David, but a lot of "New Agers" seem to be viewing "The Age of Aquarius" through rose-colored glasses (and then, of course, there are those evangelics who correlate it with the end of the world). This to me is a more Neptunian kind of idealism that doesn't jive well with my Mercury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flapjacks (Post 661055)
A lot of cookbook astrology paints Aquarius as individualistic, which is exactly opposite of what Aquarius stands for. Individualism is a Leo preoccupation.

If you are going to look at one sign, it is interesting to see what is lacking. When talking about an "age" it isn't only about what is going to be prominent but also what is going to be difficult or absent. Individualism is difficult for Aquarius, but Aquarian ideals are reigning (as Cap will fade away)

Aquarius is more of a collectivist sign, but it is about innovation. Breaking the rules is often what's required if you want to advance the human race. I'm guessing this is how Aquarius developed it's current (but false) individualistic reputation.

Aquarius was ruled by Saturn in traditional astrology and while I don't really pay attention to traditional rulers, I think it's interesting how different a sign can be from it's ruling planet. I mean, there's a relation, of course, but I don't conflate the two nor do I conflate planets or signs with their ruling houses. Venus and Libra are not the same thing nor is Aries the same as the Ascendant. I bring this up because Uranus seems to have an individualistic bent to it. The 11th house, not so much. Uranus likes to shake things up, and individuals with strong Uranus in their charts tend to be more eccentric, in my opinion. Very unique and rebellious, possibly to the point of social ostracization. Donald Trump's Uranus is conjunct his Sun and opposing his Moon. Not much of a humanitarian but he definitely likes to shock and go against the grain of what most of us value...of course, his Ascendant is in Leo, but like OK, he has a packed 11th house (I don't know why I'm bringing him into this?) which I guess makes sense for a politician, but the 11th house is the house of a friends and social organizations, it's a very humanitarian house, so I'd imagine people with a strong 11th house to fit in, you know? A person with a strong Uranus most likely doesn't. I'd imagine a person with a strong 11th house to be popular (which Donald Trump is, unfortunately).

Aquarius is an interesting sign because it embodies both the principles of Uranus, and the 11th house, which sometimes seem to contradict each other imo.

I'm kind of an individualist, myself. Not in the Ayn Randian (is that a word?) sense, but like, I do my own thing. I don't really fit in anywhere. It's interesting Flapjacks should mention transcendalism, because someone recently described my politics as transcendalist....I don't know if that's how I would describe myself, but like, I hate people who can't think for themselves. I can't stand group think or shoving people into boxes which so far, the Aquarian Age seems to be doing (imo). People are treated like numbers and statistics rather than actual souls.

I would love for there to be an age of global unity where all sentient life is valued, but these sentient beings need to be seen as individuals imo in order to truly be valued. Equal and different at the same time. Community is important, but everyone all has their own individual gifts to bring to the community imo. That is the true Aquarian ideal. Of course, I'm a Libra.

OMG I sound so stupid!!!

Flapjacks 02-28-2016 01:17 AM

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

Originally Posted by craft94 (Post 661374)
As an Air (Sun, Mercury, Ascendant and Midheaven) Sign myself, I can't say I object to this. I guess it's not the spirituality I have a problem with, but the lack of objectivity. Aquarius and Libra are both very idealistic signs, but they're more rational than emotional. They represent the values and ideals of the collective. Aquarian idealism is more like hope. This is the type of idealism I see with you, David, but a lot of "New Agers" seem to be viewing "The Age of Aquarius" through rose-colored glasses (and then, of course, there are those evangelics who correlate it with the end of the world). This to me is a more Neptunian kind of idealism that doesn't jive well with my Mercury.



Aquarius is more of a collectivist sign, but it is about innovation. Breaking the rules is often what's required if you want to advance the human race. I'm guessing this is how Aquarius developed it's current (but false) individualistic reputation.

Aquarius was ruled by Saturn in traditional astrology and while I don't really pay attention to traditional rulers, I think it's interesting how different a sign can be from it's ruling planet. I mean, there's a relation, of course, but I don't conflate the two nor do I conflate planets or signs with their ruling houses. Venus and Libra are not the same thing nor is Aries the same as the Ascendant. I bring this up because Uranus seems to have an individualistic bent to it. The 11th house, not so much. Uranus likes to shake things up, and ndividuals with strong Uranus in their charts tend to be more eccentric, in my opinion. Very unique and rebellious, possibly to the point of social ostracization. Donald Trump's Uranus is conjunct his Sun and opposing his Moon. Not much of a humanitarian but he definitely likes to shock and go against the grain of what most of us value...of course, his Ascendant is in Leo, but like OK, he has a packed 11th house (I don't know why I'm bringing him into this?) which I guess makes sense for a politician, but the 11th house is the house of a friends and social organizations, it's a very humanitarian house, so I'd imagine people with a strong 11th house to fit in, you know? A person with a strong Uranus most likely doesn't. I'd imagine a person with a strong 11th house to be popular (which Donald Trump is, unfortunately).

Aquarius is an interesting sign because it embodies both the principles of Uranus, and the 11th house, which sometimes seem to contradict each other imo.

I'm kind of an individualist, myself. Not in the Ayn Randian (is that a word?) sense, but like, I do my own thing. I don't really fit in anywhere. It's interesting Flapjacks should mention transcendalism, because someone recently described my politics as transcendalist....I don't know if that's how I would describe myself, but like, I hate people who can't think for themselves. I can't stand group think or shoving people into boxes which so far, the Aquarian Age seems to be doing (imo). People are treated like numbers and statistics rather than actual souls.

I would love for there to be an age of global unity where all sentient life is valued, but these sentient beings need to be seen as individuals imo in order to truly be valued. Equal and different at the same time. Community is important, but everyone all has their own individual gifts to bring to the community imo. That is the true Aquarian ideal. Of course, I'm a Libra.

OMG I sound so stupid!!!

Your last sentence made me cackle.

I think there is a distinction to be made between individualism and eccentricity or not fitting in. That is why I mention trancendentialism. I feel Thoreau describes individualism extremely well. In essence, it is exactly as you say: thinking for oneself, and also living intentionally with full awareness of oneself within the world. That may or may not be innovative or unusual.

I find it helpful to think of the axes of the zodiac here because each axis shows a self vs other comparison. In that way, the first six signs are concerned with the self as it relates to others, and the last six are concerned with others as it relates to the self, with a different focus for each axis.

For example, creating a group fund to pay for maintenance of a communally used resource is first thinking of others, and then how it relates to the self (we need to pay for everyone, so I need to contribute to the cause). The inverse would be each person providing upkeep of the resource which results in maintenance for everyone; that would be the self as it relates to others (I need to take care of this resource because it affects everyone).

Of course, as it relates to people, there is no chart with only Aquarius in it, so it isn't a black and white situation for any person.

For Donald Trump, he has all his personal planets in the "self" oriented signs, yet in the "other" oriented houses, except for Moon, which is the opposite. That is interesting...

david starling 02-28-2016 04:12 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
[IMOWCO] As far as early entry into the AofA goes: Individualists only. Those who believe Society and/or Tradition should rule everyone's life won't answer the Call. Also, entering it or not will be an Individualistic choice, (largely dependent on how the position of the Age Indicator affects the Chart) for about 200 years beginning around 2030. As for the present Age: 10=X=Cross

(IMOWCO-In my own well-considered opinion)

Flapjacks 02-28-2016 07:01 AM

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

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 661455)
[IMOWCO] As far as early entry into the AofA goes: Individualists only. Those who believe Society and/or Tradition should rule everyone's life won't answer the Call. Also, entering it or not will be an Individualistic choice, (largely dependent on how the Age Indicator affects the Chart) for about 200 years beginning around 2030.

(IMOWCO-In my own well-considered opinion)

in·di·vid·u·al·ism
ˌindəˈvij(o͞o)əˌlizəm/
noun
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
2.
a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.

"Individualistically" joining an age of collectivism? :whistling:


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:22 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.