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)

Mark 06-03-2011 12:23 AM

Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I'm not sure whether or not this thread has been done before, but I haven't seen one lately. I would like to discuss the real qualities of Aquarius and how they would most likely manifest in the world as built. I made a post stating my position in a separate thread. If I am enough of an ***, which I am, I'll quote myself here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark
As to the age of Aquarius, some might argue that it isn't all flowery. Some would say that an Aquarian can easily be an "humanitarian without compassion" because of impersonal thinking. It's a fixed sign, so the expressions may be dogmatic and rigid. Aquarians often base friendships on common goals, so we still have fertile ground to harbour those who would make themselves "elites." Though things will certainly change, the fundamental things that need to change may not go so quickly.

I didn't even get to the fact that Aquarius is an air sign. I've also read some who have said that a bad attitude for an Aquarian might be: "everyone should be free to be just like me." That doesn't sound like the rosy salvation plan described in most discussions on the subject. Personally, I think that Aquarius will bring us more of the same tyranny, plunder, and abuse. Actually, I think that it will intensify those terrible things in order to purge them, like the human body killing a disease with fever and swelling. My thinking, as stated in numerous other places, is that the big transition will be on the Capricorn/Aquarius cusp. The Aquarius/Pisces cusp marks the beginning of the purification by fire. How do you find goodness? In suffering.

thefridayknight 06-03-2011 01:04 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Well from what I understand. The age of Aquarius is supposed to explain all the technological advances..computers and such. Uranus is also supposed to be "the exposer"..when truths are revealed. I would say that a whole lot of lies from the past are now being revealed. Also ..under the influence of Uranus..tables turn. In other words.. whatever is on top goes to the bottom and visa versa. So that could mean that the people who are the underdogs of our world (blacks, people of color, women, the poor) will rise to the top under this influence and the people who are on top (europeans, whites, men , the wealthy) will take 2nd place in this age. Is it possible that the elite is aware of this and explains thier desperate and quickening attempt to push thier agenda? Maybe they know thier time is up? Your application of Aquarius's character to predict what that might mean in the Aquarian age was very interesting.

juicey J. 06-03-2011 03:51 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Yeah Mark, Aquairius at its dark side is a sign of ruthless and detached intellect. Aquarius at is darkest has no problem starving hundreds so thousands more can prosper.

Mark 06-03-2011 08:36 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I'm taking a little bit of this logic from work with planetary aspects. Generally speaking, the approaching phase of an aspect is a "build up" phase of sorts. When you reach the time of exact aspect, something "snaps" and the potentials begin to manifest. The separating phase of the aspect is when you'll really see the aspect being played out in physical form.

If we generalise this principle to all astrological influences, then it would seem that the age of Aquarius would be the preparation time for all the things mentioned. If we treat an astrological age like an aspect, then we would see all the things we associate with Aquarius when Aquarius is on the way out, not on the way in. If this is correct, then what would the time of preparation for such a "flip" look like? It seems likely to me that the problems would intensify throughout the age of Aquarius, much like an aspect, until we hit the point of manifestation and the changes start to show.

There's also the thinking that if the people of this world ****ed the age of Pisces this badly, then they'll probably do the same to Aquarius. People are free to choose greater or lesser expressions of their influences. If the world continues choosing the lesser expressions, Aquarius could be just as bad as Pisces. What shall be done about that?

AspieTaurus 06-11-2011 11:19 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I laugh at how folks back in the 60s and 70s were going ga-ga about the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius". *CUE SONG FROM "Hair"*

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.

For a real look at the future, look at "impersonal" social networking as well as Transhumanism.

thefridayknight 07-01-2011 01:38 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
@ Mark and Juicy. What you guys are saying about the detached and impersonal thinking of Aquarius and how it can apply to tha Aquarian age makes alot of sense. It definetly fits the character of where science seems to be going with the life extension technology, cyborg nd transhumanism technology. The idea that we would more than likely express the more negative traits of Aquarius as a society like we did with the Piscean age is a good point.

@ Mark. It was interesting when you made the point about Aquarians forming relationships based on common goals because Aquarius rules the cusp of my 11th house and that is exactly how I form my friendships. ALL of my friends are either co workers/ colaboraters that do the same thing that i do or failing that are on the path of awareness and knowledge like I am. I have no time for you if you dont fit into those categories. (Saturn and Chiron are placed in my 11th). Interesting, never knew that about Aquarius.

Mark 07-04-2011 07:12 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
A starting point requires inspiration, but all the progressive steps afterward are rational and orderly. Deduction requires induction and induction requires deduction. While I don't have a particular respect for Blavatsky (too much induction, not enough deduction), I am interested to know what you're describing. Please do tell.

waybread 07-04-2011 10:51 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Like any sign, Aquarius has positives and negatives. The previous astrological ages since the dawn of recorded history have all had their share of "man's inhumanity to man." Although we might expect the times to change, we can't ask too much of human nature.

The Internet is surely changing lives for good. Every invention has been put to use in the service of sleaze, but arguably IT has brought more good than harm. However, Aquarius tends to go more for acquaintances than best friends. It's not that Aquarius cannot be loyal (it's a fixed sign) but that it needs to live outside of the herd.

It interests me how IT is changing inter-personal communication. Those 1950's love songs about pay phones, passenger trains, and "hard copy" letters might as well have come from another era. Could we rename their revivals? "My baby sent me a twitter." "I'm going to sit right down and write myself a twitter and make believe it came from you." "Rocking robin, tweet, tweet" still works.

I think friendships are changing. Skype is a super way to keep in touch. On the other hand, some people substitute flesh-and-blood relationships for Internet forums. Children are getting repetitive strain injury in their thumbs from constant text-messaging, after hours.

I am not so worried about the Age of Aquarius as I am about global environmental deterioration. Possibly there's a link.

skywarrior33 08-03-2011 03:45 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Hi.
Who came up with the material world striving for wealth and senseless destruction of yourself in the Age of Aquarius.? This world is material and is working on tough business. This Age of Capricorn. But the blind do not mind discriminating things in their ignorance think sensibly attributed it to Aquarius.

Rebel Uranian 08-18-2011 07:27 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
I am an extreme Aquarian, and I am not here to argue. I am here to say that I am glad that someone else thought of the same thing I did. If we messed up Pisces so badly, what will make Aquarius that much better? Pisces is not causing the general greed in the world or any of those problems. That's American culture and a mix of different things (mostly American culture.) Oddly enough, America is a super Cancer with a Sag AC, Libra MC, and Aqua moon, and both Pisces and Cancer are water signs. However, I think we should stop sitting and waiting for a few hundred years to pass and do something about out problems right now. The Aquarian Age is not going to solve anything. It might give _us_ a better shot at solving things, but it itself is not going to solve anything.

Also, not very on-topic, but I think it's technically sensical but symbolically ironic that the Age of Aquarius (the future) comes before the Age of Capricorn (the past.)

waybread 08-18-2011 07:56 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Actually, the precession of the equinox goes backwards in time.

Very roughly:

4000-2000 BC Age of Taurus (the original sacred cow!)
2000-0 BC Age of Aries (religions turn to shepherd and sheep metaphors)
0-2000 AD Age of Pisces (Jesus befriends fishermen, walks on water, multiplies fishes)

Ruka_5 08-18-2011 11:42 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
No age is all good things anyway, there's always a mix of good and bad in everything, so I'm honestly surprised that anyone would be surprised that the age of aquarius won't be perfect. :lol:

david starling 09-05-2015 06:24 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
A description of the Tropical Ages is posted in the Research and Development forum. Tropically, the Age of Aquarius is preceded by the Age of Capricorn, since the Tropical Ages develop in Direct order. In switching from Sideral to Tropical Ages, it's necessary to stop thinking Age of Pisces and start thinking Age of Capricorn. Not easy for most; it's the same dilemma Siderealists face when urging people who have identified themselves with a Tropical Sun-sign their entire lives that they should switch to a different (Siderealy-measured) Sun-sign. The Age-Rulership also changes, from Neptunian (or Jupiterian if you're Traditionalist) to Saturnian. So, Tropically, we're currently in the Age of Capricorn on the cusp of the Age of Aquarius.

CapAquaPis 09-05-2015 08:29 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
One thing in regards to the Aquarian age is our changing stance of morality and ethics, like in what society finds to be taboo. In the last age (of Pisces), society is taught to stay away from topical or subject matter regarding sexuality, death, bodily functions, religious dogma and political authority. But in the age we're headed to (of Aquarius), society is becoming intolerant of prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping based on race or ethnicity, sex or gender, sexual attraction or orientation, religious or denominational beliefs, and physical or mental disabilities. Which do we find most offensive? sex or war? colonialism and slavery? movie violence? what about viewing private parts/sex organs or even a childbirth viral you can find on Youtube? It all depends on what astrological age or personal opinion. I rather view a baby being born than a shock gore horror movie.

If it's OK now to be non-religious, yet you can't express your opinions openly if it offends minorities with their own religious beliefs, are we really free to express ones self? The western or free world is more tolerant of religious diversity while we're increasingly secular and irreligious. In the last age, atheism was viewed as immoral, but today fundamentalism is increasingly seen as such. Piscean age values contradict with Aquarian age ones, hence we have culture wars and controversies about what's right and wrong, and between conservative traditional and liberal progressive viewpoints. This is true in US politics and in college/university campuses. Free speech is a heated debate full of challenges in public places, even when guaranteed by constitutional law. Is it morally right to be against the government or the concept of God...or can one be openly racist or homophobic? The Aquarian age might have its own limits on freedom, even when Aquarius itself is symbolically libertine and libertarian.

JUPITERASC 09-05-2015 09:53 PM

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

Originally Posted by Mark (Post 289792)

I'm not sure whether or not this thread has been done before, but I haven't seen one lately.
I would like to discuss the real qualities of Aquarius
and how they would most likely manifest in the world as built.

I made a post stating my position in a separate thread. If I am enough of an ***, which I am, I'll quote myself here.


I didn't even get to the fact that Aquarius is an air sign.
I've also read some who have said that a bad attitude for an Aquarian
might be: "everyone should be free to be just like me."

That doesn't sound like the rosy salvation plan described in most discussions on the subject.

Personally, I think that Aquarius will bring us more of the same tyranny, plunder, and abuse.

Actually, I think that it will intensify those terrible things in order to purge them,
like the human body killing a disease with fever and swelling.

My thinking, as stated in numerous other places, is that the big transition will be on the Capricorn/Aquarius cusp.
The Aquarius/Pisces cusp marks the beginning of the purification by fire. How do you find goodness? In suffering.

Ancient working Astrologer VETTIUS VALENS
chronicled traits of the sign of Aquarius
in his currenly two thousand year old ANTHOLOGY


by the way the entire text is in the public domain ~ copyright expired
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf


Following QUOTE is from a chapter on
The Nature of the Twelve Zodiacal Signs :smile:

'......Aquarius is the celestial sign which is masculine, solid, anthropomorphic, somewhat damp, single.
It is mute, quite cold, free, upward-trending, feminizing, unchanging, base, with few offspring,
the cause of troubles arising from athletic training, carrying burdens, or work in hard materials, an artisan, public.
Men born under this sign are malicious, haters of their own families,
incorrigible, self-willed
deceitful, tricky, concealing everything
misanthropic, godless,
accusers, betrayers of reputations and the truth,
envious, petty
occasionally generous (because of <this sign’s> flow of water), uncontrollable....'

david starling 09-06-2015 10:27 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Using the retrograde Sidereal Age model as if it applies to the Tropical zodiac causes misconceptions about what a Tropical Age of Pisces would be like, and by implication, what the Tropical version of the sign is like. It's simultaneously doing the same thing regarding the Tropical Age of Aquarius. If you're a Sideralist you should be using the retrograde Sidereal Ages, but with the polarity combination (ie Pisces/Virgo). If you're a Tropicalist, the direct Tropical Ages obviate the need to distort the nature of the Tropical signs and rulers to make them fit the Sidereal Age paradigm which has similar but also different characteristics compared to the Tropical Age sequence. Neither a Tropical Age of Aquarius nor a Tropical Age of Pisces would so concerned with the material world; both would be extremely tolerant about knowledge and beliefs ; and both would be (will be) extremely humanitarian and kind to other species as well. Since around 400 AD it's been the Tropical Age of Capricorn which was resisted by the Fall season of Ages' tradition and is now finally able to manifest it's true materialistic, Saturn-driven effects. Tropical Aquarian Age coming up next will be extremely different in a good way.

JUPITERASC 09-06-2015 11:47 AM

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

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 633152)

Using the retrograde Sidereal Age model as if it applies to the Tropical zodiac causes misconceptions about what a Tropical Age of Pisces would be like, and by implication, what the Tropical version of the sign is like. It's simultaneously doing the same thing regarding the Tropical Age of Aquarius.
If you're a Sideralist you should be using the retrograde Sidereal Ages, but with the polarity combination (ie Pisces/Virgo).
If you're a Tropicalist, the direct Tropical Ages obviate the need to distort the nature of the Tropical signs and rulers
to make them fit the Sidereal Age paradigm which has similar but also different characteristics compared to the Tropical Age sequence.

Neither a Tropical Age of Aquarius nor a Tropical Age of Pisces would so concerned with the material world;
both would be extremely tolerant about knowledge and beliefs ;
and both would be (will be) extremely humanitarian and kind to other species as well.
Since around 400 AD it's been the Tropical Age of Capricorn which was resisted by the Fall season of Ages' tradition
and is now finally able to manifest it's true materialistic, Saturn-driven effects.
Tropical Aquarian Age coming up next will be extremely different in a good way.

Every Age has had humanitarians who have been kind to other species :smile:
and who have been tolerant regarding the knowledge and beliefs of others as well

and furthermore

There are multiple and different estimates for the 'beginning of the Age of Aquarius'

SUMMARY OF A FEW OF THE ESTIMATES OF 'THE BEGINNING OF THE AGE OF AQUARIUS'

According to C.C.Zain the age of aquarius already started in 1889

S. L. Magregor Mathers ("Golden Dawn" Mathers) specified the year 2050 as the 'beginning of the Age of Aquarius'

Cheiro, well known 19th/early 20th century occultist, astrologer and palmist also specified the year 2050 as the 'beginning of the Age of Aquarius'

Sidereal ayanamsa times for the 'beginning of the Age of Aquarius':

Hipparchus ayanamsa hypothesis - Gould et al - specifies 2040 as the 'beginning of the age of aquarius'

Vedic Lahiri ayanmsa specifies the 'begining of the age of aquarius' as the year 2475

Fagan/Bradley Western sidereal ayanmsa specifies the year 2444 as the 'beginning of the age of aquarius'

Finally, dr. farr said that the almost unknown Alcyone/Krittika estimate which starts the sidereal count from 149 BC, says that the Age of Aquarius already is upon us, having begun in March of 2000 AD

so as usual and not unexpectedly it is simply a matter of opinion

david starling 09-07-2015 07:11 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
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.

david starling 09-08-2015 08:23 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
First, I'm including this "matter of opinion" phenomenon as "Matter of Intuition " (MOI) ...This could also be labeled "My Own Intuition ". So, MOI tells me: We live on a living planet which is influencing our psyches, and this is what the Ages are all about; that the locations of the Age Indicator along the Zodiacal circle can inform me as to what sign-rulership combinations are being enhanced by the Earth itself for everyone on the planet, and, in a personal chart, what Houses are terrestrially enhanced; that some charts are extremely compatible with this enhancement (where "enhancement " is defined as an increase in receptivity), while others are opposed to it but are still affected by it; that it's like which way the wind is blowing and the tide is flowing; that most go along with it and follow those who are most enthusiastic about it; and that this is why Earth's Ages leave their mark on the development of human culture and are a major factor in current human behavior.

Bunraku 09-08-2015 10:28 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
@Mark
Your concerns are valid. I think before the start of the new age, massive catastrophes, and massive loss of lives, happen.


@CapAquaPis

I'd be surprised if religions such as christianity or islam were to still be alive at the end of the age of Aquarius, or even Pisces.

I wonder what the Pluto in Sagittarius generation will do about religion when they reach their first Saturn return. I also wonder what will happen when Pluto will reach Aquarius. :andy:

CapAquaPis 09-11-2015 04:29 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
[QUOTE=Bunraku;633672

@CapAquaPis

I'd be surprised if religions such as christianity or islam were to still be alive at the end of the age of Aquarius, or even Pisces.

I wonder what the Pluto in Sagittarius generation will do about religion when they reach their first Saturn return. I also wonder what will happen when Pluto will reach Aquarius. :andy:[/QUOTE]

Pluto generations Leo (the Baby-boomers) vs. Sagittarius (millennials) will have a rivalry, because both are fire signs. When the Boomers were younger in the 1960s, they clashed with their elders: Pluto in Aries and Taurus generations (19th century) and Gemini (early 20th century). Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius are fixed signs, while Taurus-Scorpio and Leo-Aquarius are opposites. Generation gaps when they have their own ideas of making the world a better place: the old establishment wants to preserve the status quo vs. the new youth about to inherit the world. Debates and arguments on politics, religion, economics and sociocultural beliefs, values, mores and rules tend to intensify in our endless culture wars involved differing generations, esp. if their Plutos are in fire signs (Aries, Leo and Sagittarius) or opposite fixed signs. Currently, Pluto is in Capricorn in between Sag and Aquarius, the calm before the storm, and right when we're entering the Aquarian age.

david starling 09-11-2015 07:56 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
CapAquaPis, excellent insight concerning the Pluto generations; I'm adding it to my store of astrological information. I do have one question: What exact setting of the Sidereal zodiac are you using to get the start-date for the Aquarian Age? The Standard Version uses the 1st Point of Spring when it reaches a sign-boundary, and if you believe the Age will begin when Pluto enters Tropical Aquarius, that would mean your setting of the Sidereal signs is about 6 degrees closer to the First Point of Spring than the Vedics or Modern Siderealists. Doesn't mean they're "right "--I'm just interested in any Sidereal setting used by a practicing Sideralist regarding the Aquarian Age and what that Sideralist is using as an Age indicator. I firmly believe the Age will affect each individual differently, depending on the Age-Indicator's House location and how it's Aspected in an individual's chart.

CapAquaPis 09-11-2015 11:33 PM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
David, Pluto has an irregular orbit, so it may stay in a sign longer than another. When Pluto was first discovered in 1930, it was in astronomical Leo and astrological Cancer, while most of the 1930s and 40s children are under Pluto in Cancer. Pluto was in Libra when I was born (Feb. 15, 1980), so the generation "Y" of the late 1970s-early 1980s are under the influence of Pluto in Libra. Pluto was in Gemini (opposite sign of Sag) in the turn of the 20th century-1900s and around WW1 (1914-18). And in between Taurus and Capricorn so far are the generation of Pluto in Virgo, the so-called generation "X"ers born between the years 1964 and 1975. The gen X were highly skeptical of government, but without the rebellion and social turmoil associated with Pluto in Leo Baby-boomers born in the 1950s. Correcting this post from reading ephemeris info. I obtained online, I learned the generation born under Pluto in Aries was the mid 19th century, long before the baby-boomers, but the Pluto in Aries era established America as it is.

david starling 09-12-2015 06:20 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Thanks! Pluto doesn't have the regularity of that amazing Neptune/Uranus combination. I'm in the Libra/Gemini group; I noticed the difference in friends born in the Libra/Cancer period. With a very Piscean chart, tracking Neptune was easy: Civil War,Aries; Land Rush and cattle ranching, Taurus; advancements in communication and transportation, Gemini; child-labor and food quality regulations, Cancer; World War I followed by the Roaring Twenties, Leo; the Great Depression and the start of WWII, Nep's "afflicted" position, Virgo; "Peace and Love" generation, Libra; the tumultuous "Soaring Sixties", Scorpio; the flamboyant, high-energy, visionary Seventies, Sagittarius; the expansion of Establishment Corporate power, Capricorn; the Knowledge revolution, Aquarius. And now, time to watch what happens with Nep in its own sign. Too bad it's paired with Uranus in Aries and Pluto in Capricorn (both bad fits), Uranus in Taurus much better. Anyway, thanks for reminding me about Pluto (Leo for me--toughens me up lol). With Moon and Venus in Aquarius in my 12th house, I'm fascinated by the Aquarian Age as a concept. With no planet in an Earth-sign, the idea of Earth's Ages connects me to the crutch called "Reality" lol! I'm going to correlate with Pluto, thanks to your helpful insight.

david starling 09-12-2015 09:28 AM

Re: Age of Aquarius May Not Be So Great
 
Um, just realized we've departed from this forum's topic, so I'll add this: The Age is the most shared of all Astrological influences; it's measured in centuries, not in decades. I view these outer-planetary permutations within the context of being on the cusp of the Aquarian Age--twists and turns, and ups and downs along the Road of Ages.

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 08:28 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.