|8 1 19|
Bleating sheep of too conform lifestyles
Abraham Maslow concluded that the majority of humans is not a good standard for man. They do not represent the best health, best moral, and so on. See what conformity tends to do to you unless you are guarded. The best are rather deviants from the average or common, Maslow found.
No one should diminish his or her essential worth while trying to please for boons.
Life and wife are had in he living, and it often takes time to evolve, and environmental factors influence the outcomes, for at bottom you may be one up against many and along with only a few in your web of interactions, and much conformity may stultify, also if it is much of a so-called good conformity. The most likely reason is, interestingly, that conformity is not much individual, and development of the inner sides of man requires freedom from ties, to be oneself, to evolve oneself but how? The individuality of a person is something unique in the world. That suggests why even good conformity finally must be superceded, or what?
A sheep of too conform lifestyle is much to rise above, but how is it done? Also, there is a need to estimate the cost of blooming after budding, or take the expenditures in strife.
Also, embedded in our stratified and culturally contingent niches, we had better keep pace with the good neighbours, or they will stop talking with us, and that tends to bring on many harmful side-effects.
Most people today and onwards tend to be herded in conform school environment from the age of 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7. Maybe they form protecting shells from being herded with not much regard of individual fares. To the degree it is so, primitive shells formed early in life may not be easily dissolved or done away with later if they exist in the naivity field. However, it may soon prove fruitful or plausible to connect such subtle shell formations with later cramping, and cramping makes nervous. Nervous youngsters and adults have to show signs of their nervousness. What may such signs be? The new uses of mobiles for feeling, for confirming you exist and are part of some group is that it? Who can say what are its causes, if so?
I regret to say: As long as we lack good data in this field, the only way to handle such an insight is by terming it "speculation", that is: much unproved. Speculation may be controversial first, and later become mainstream. For example, in cosmology the concepts of dark matter and dark energy were speculative only thirty years ago, and today they are mainstream. This is to say that speculation is not necessarily of a faux pas kind, only that good evidence is largely lacking or missing.
Somehow unfulfilled so what? What are its possible dangers?
Much stereotyped parenting and much similar over-all environment tend to give rise to a conform, quite similar impression. Most persons brought up under strict supervision and study that is imposed on man, hardly have the nerve and guts to break loose and seek to evolve from within, if they get in touch with major inner pressures or sides to themselves. Tranquillisers will not solve problems from inner demands for maturing or development in a good way that is my credo. The vast majority of conform ones are almost wholly result of upbringing and feigning and role-acting for benefits and so on unless the exploitative large society reflects who we are and how we are: Greedy, maybe psychopathically unconcerned like big corporations have been described as, putting on airs, and somehow unfulfilled. We could perhaps do better after venturing to wonder to what degree so many, many modern men and women get rather stulted inside where individual outlets are supposed to reside, maybe clipped and not allowed to shine as themselves in any major way, maybe rotted asunder who knows? Mature exceptions could be hard to find, and they may be grossly misunderstood for years, according to Maslow (op.cit).
A stultified show thrives on the backs of stunted individuals.
A majority of conform men and women today hardly ever evolve from within at all and as a result potentials are likely to be blunted or dwarfed, and getting cramped is probably a forerunner. Neurotic use of money and connecting apps could be a hint. Maybe it is time for great concern. Maybe nervous and neurotic symptoms that many show, reflect stultified growth potentials to some degree, in some fields. So it makes sense not to let neuroses get the best of you, but what can you do?
Maybe it is time to have a fresh look at an old devise, the birth chart, or horoscope.
A horoscope consists of things you hear about yourself: supposedly good sides, bad sides, traits and patterns to evolve, among other points to deal with.
The sun, moon and planets are allotted major values in a birth chart, and exactly where they are located and their angles to one another as seen from earth, is said to matter, for such factors are said to reflect the inner soul that has taken birth at the moment its exact horoscope confirms. a chart is drawn, and then interpreted as seems fit to someone. [Alk]
The sun, moon and planets are projected onto a thought-up belt far away in outer space we project moon, sun and all the planets onto such a theoretical concept of rather slowly moving stars far away.
The placement of the sun at birth against the sky belt the sun traverses in a year, is described by use of the concept of starry constellations. The constellations pertain to so-called fixed stars "fixed" because they are far away and only slowly changing and driftig away from one another. What we make out of constellations is another thing.
We divide the ring in the sky that the sun traverses in a year (as seen from earth), in thirteen sectors of unequal length, and call these parts constellations, or star images of the zodiak. "Zodiac" comes from Greek, and means "Circle of animals". The thirteenth constellation, Ophiuchus, lies between Scorpius and Sagittarius, and is narrow.
At this point it might help to bear in mind that constellations and star signs are different. Constellations are star fields (areas marked by stars), and they are of varying shapes and forms and take up varying widths of the ecliptic. There are 88 constellations in all, and the sun "passes through" thirteen of them. The thirteenth, Ophiuchus, goes largely unrecognised for some reason.
The twelve star signs on the other hand are abstractions, and of equal width each. In Indian astrology, the twelve signs are associated with constellations. In Chinese astrology the zodiac of signs is allotted other animal symbols, suggesting other sides to the twelve gross personality types that are into astrological signs. What is more, the twelve Hindu zodiac signs and corresponding Greek signs are nearly identical.
[Wikipedia, s.v. "Zodiac" and "Ophiuchus"]
Table of Names
Sources: Wikipedia, s.v. "Zodiac", "Hindu astrology"]
The table shows that one and the same sign, Virgo, is represented by a maiden, snake, girl, furrow, and ear of corn. All these emblems of a sort serve as Virgo symbols or emblems. See the snake and ear of corn as one somehow, or maybe we do well to drop some of the symbols. In case, which one(s)? Here is where both deep understanding and interpretive art seems fit.|
You should also train yourself to see to what degree and in what respects a pig is a fish, a rooster is a sea-monster, a monkey is a soldier, a goat is a scorpion, a horse is a balance and a snake is a girl, and so on. That should give interpretative training.
Adding to this scenery: The centaur, archer, monkey, bow, and soldier are sides to one and the same "thing" in this world view, or maybe it is one of them that fits, or some of them? If you say the archer and his bow are different, you hold the idea that the archer monkey has not "become one with the bow" or that a soldier is a centaur, a hybrid creature. In Greek mythology a centaur is part human and part horse. A Bronze Age origin is suggested for these mythical creatures. [Wikipedia, s.v. "Centaur"]
A tree needs more than the placements of the sun to have a good time
You might find the constellation placement of your sun by subtracting ca. 25 degrees from the placement in the regular horoscope as the convenient half-guess, but since the constellations are of varying width, it is not as easy as that either, regrettably.
As for how the person is to become, a tree needs more than its own inherent capacity to fulfil itself from deep inside needs more than the power in the seed, so to speak. The welcomes have to be all right for a long time. After than it may bloom and produce fruits, even if severely cut down and sculptured into a part of a hedge: Conformity is at work in suburbs, even in play.
Besides, many seeds do not sprout for one or more reasons. One is getting too old. So fit timing is a factor to take into account too.
Backed up by these sights, what can a horoscope portray, if anything? There is an astrological typology that comes along with it. You've never heard of the rats (more or less like beavers) as a human sub-group, maybe, but you've heard of the sheep, Aries, the Ram. Maybe the idea that the ram is a rat is an agrarian worker has never crossed your mind before either. (Compare the figure). Yet the animals and worker all are used suggest sides to the first sign of the zodiac, the first spring sign.
By juggling such cognitive factors on top of the "map of heaven" at the moment of birth, we eventually come up with many assertions about the nature and inherent sides of the person we look at. You may think you can do it better by looking at him or her through a pair of eye-glasses, and that a birth certificate is seldom of much value for conformity-upbringing, and that astrology hardly has any prognostic value. Well, if a horoscope has no prognostic value for the life of people who have loomed tall and apparently actualised themselves much, it has no inherent value in education either. So it makes sense to "Look to the life first. Biographies and autobiographies happen to give much information in the matter." "If the likable interpretations from the horoscope hardly make much sense as compared with the life lived if they get almost no "looking-back" support from key happenings in the lives of people, then we are skating on thin ice, at best, even though we are thought of as professionals of counselling, upbringing and the like.
The boons of sound, fair estimates of how far some forms of horoscopy may help, seems rather lacking in the West, where psychologically self-occupied or vain persons like to be talked well of, even paying good money for it, resorting to what could be veneer descriptions. I do not say it is silly, but maybe it is careless. Besides, there are more deep-going forms of astrology than the most popular ones in the West.
A method I use to probe into existential horoscopes, is first to mark the over-all pattern of the birth chart (radix, birth horoscope) along with a graded array of markers to look into. Among the factors that most Western astrologers do not take into account, are the south node, its implications and some of its aspects. The north node is a corollary in such vital reckoning in deeply probing Indian astrology. [Cno]
The putative placement of the sun and other key markers in their constellations may be found out too, maybe by skilled guesses. In some cases such allocations is more obvious.
Strong, repeated patterns in the medley of such as planet angles and planet placements in signs and houses suggest some tones.
All in all:
Horoscope readings of an expert in Indian astrology (Vedic astrology, Jyotish) could astound a man [Evb].
We should refrain from throwing out the baby with the dirty water we bathed it in. Fit and helpful sides to astrology to the degree there are good things in birth chart astrology should be able to thrive on clarifications as to whether "birth certificate readings" can be useful, how far and in what probable settings and circumstances. To base one's future marriages and partnerships on such scheming may be favoured by a pinch of salt too.
On top of what we come up with we may form tentative conclusions according to the rules of the game that is, rational, cultivated ways of going forth.
A US survey, conducted by the National Science Foundation, concluded that 43 percent of young adults believe in astrology, that is, that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives. Hence, belief in astrology is widespread, and about one third of Americans believe in it according to several polls. So some forms of astrology flourish, persists and continue among Americans and others.
By the way, the Second Vatican Council made it clear in 1965 that to look for divine wisdom in various religions is legal and that "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions" Astrology serves more than one of the "other religions". [Omo; The Second Vatican Council: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. ◦Nostra Aetate. Proclaimed by HH Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965.]
Alk: Beck, Thomas. Astrologisk leksikon. Oslo: Teknologisk forlag, 1993.
Cno: Burk, Kevin. The Complete Node Book: Understanding Your Life's Purpose. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 2003.
Evb: Sutton, Komilla. The Essentials of Vedic Astrology: The Basics. Bournemouth: The Wessex Astrologer, 1999.
Omo: Det 2. Vatikankonsils erklæringer. Om kirkens forhold til de ikke-kristne religioner og Om religionsfriheten. Oslo: St Olavs, 1967.
USER is GUIDE to abbreviations, the site is bibliography, letter codes, dictionaries, site design and navigation, tips for searching the site and page referrals. [LINK]|
© 19982011, Tormod Kinnes, MPhil [E-MAIL] Disclaimer: LINK]