Saturday and Sundry Thoughts on Communicating Massively

There are still a few of us around who are able to recall life before computers, and therefore before the internet. Heck - I can even remember life before television! Mass communication, in those days, came via newspapers and radio, and to a lesser extent via film and newsreels at the cinema. First time I saw a TV working was for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. A few neighbours, my parents, grandparents and I piled into the home of a local business woman who had the only set in the village where my grandparents lived.

I do remember when the very first mention of computers reached my delicate ears, in 1966/7. I'd been working for a few months for a local Devonshire (south-west England) 'bus company in the accounts office. One of the senior employees had been sent on a training course, on his return he regaled us with tales of the binary system leaving our brains limp and imaginations reeling. All we had to work with in those days were very basic mechanical adding machines, one step up from the abacus. Having, out of necessity, trained my non-mathematical brain to add long columns of figures in hotel ledgers during the few years previous, I often opted to "do it in my head" rather than tackle the awkward adding machine.

None of us could have possibly envisaged the amazing developments we've seen during ensuing decades. Online banking, shopping, social networking, the dreaded Facebook, smartphones, ipads..... spam, porn sites, viruses, malware, Twitter - the good, the bad and the ugly of it all. I am well aware that my own life turned in a very unexpected direction, all due to the internet, for it was through the net that husband and I met.

There's a downside to these developments and changes though, there's always a downside.

Television should be the last mass communication medium to be naively designed and put into the world without a surgeon-general's warning.
Alan Kay

Over roughly the same time span: from TV sets becoming commonplace, followed rapidly by computer development, up to the present, corporate power has risen in tandem. Now multinational corporations own media, at least they do in the USA and have tentacles worldwide. TV has become a major arm of the corporations' mass brain-washing system. Oh, they'd been doing it before TV, but the opening up of mass communication made it so much easier! As more time has passed evidence has continued to emerge that we are under constant surveillance. Recent developments relating to Facebook's gathering of personal information is disquieting to say the least. Perhaps nobody senses danger if all the stolen information is used simply to target a few adverts for shoes, bandages, bras, toasters - whatever it was we were searching for online last. But the feeling that there could be other, darker, uses for the information gathered is not a happy one. Facebook is currently at the centre of discussions on this front, but Google and others are also quietly gathering our personal data, and have been doing so for years.

The solution? For ordinary souls such as I, and passing readers who do not wish to divest ourselves completely of access to television, computer and internet, all we can do is be aware of the potential "weaponry" in our living rooms, remain vigilant, never forgetting possible sub-text, and remember to keep in mind, always, this question: who is "paying the piper"?

When discussing this topic, several years ago, and before Facebook became the monster it now is, a friend observed that as we become increasingly under cyber influences, man-made (or manipulated), the structure of the human psyche will probably transform - over time. Sensibilities will increase and entirely new avenues might open up. Aquarian Age stuff to come?

My view: humans will, almost certainly, evolve psychologically due to the highly technological world they've been born into. We are at the slimmest end of the science fiction wedge of that eventuality right now. It must be happening, week by week, year by year, decade by decade.

My husband's opinion:

"Follow the money!" You can tell which industry is making the most money by the number of TV spots they are running. These ads can cost as much as a million dollars a minute. Cars, pharmaceuticals, insurance, smartphones, political candidates; who’s on top tonight?

I read a piece about the rise and fall of a country once. The one thing that I remember most is that the aggressor took over mass media first. Radio, newspapers, television...town criers to internet... mass communication is first to go. So, money has taken over our mass media. Have we been conquered?

Communication & Arrival

“Language is the dress of thought” wrote Samuel Johnson in 18th century England. Languages, national, international, ancient, modern, written, spoken, technical, speciality, and even slang, how they evolved, how they are written, how so much diversity exists - all of this presents a constant source of wonder. Accents, side-kicks of language, add an extra layer of fascination.

In astrology, these matters are ruled by planet Mercury, planet of communication. Astrology has its own language, with a vocabulary capable of confusing "outsiders", as well as the occasional "insider". The computer, internet and social networks have their own special vocabularies too.

More important than language itself, or accents, is nuance of understanding or misunderstanding arising between people, even when using the same language in the same accent.

Here's where astrology, as well as life-experience, can play a part, with particular emphasis on Mercury's natal position. As Anais Nin wrote:We don't see things as they are. We see them as we are. I'd paraphrase that and say that we don't always perceive words, phrases and concepts as they are commonly defined, but as we are, via our uncommon natal charts.

The above paragraphs, edited from a 2010 post of mine, came to mind after we'd visited our local cinema to see the new movie Arrival, which did, after all arrive there. I'd been expecting we were going to miss it, at least until DVD or Netflix release.

The movie Arrival has its main focus on a new language conundrum, when visitors from another planet and civilisation land in 12 locations on our planet Earth. How to communicate? Dr. Louise Banks, a linguist played by Amy Adams, is recruited by the US government for her translation skills.

Vox has a review of the movie HERE
From the beginning of that review:

Science fiction is never really about the future; it’s always about us. And Arrival, set in the barely distant future, feels like a movie tailor-made for 2016, dropping into theaters mere days after the most explosive election in most of the American electorate’s memory.
But the story Arrival is based on — the award-winning novella Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang — was published in 1998, almost two decades ago, which indicates its central themes were brewing long before this year. Arrival is much more concerned with deep truths about language, imagination, and human relationships than any one political moment...........

We thought the movie interesting, glad to have seen it, but I wouldn't go along with the level of praise most reviewers are according the film. It's a tad unbalanced, in that too much time is spent hovering on screens filled with nothing much, in the early part of the story, time which could have been much better used later in the film. The closing scenes felt too rushed for the average audience member to fully catch up. There's a "twist", though part of it it wasn't too hard to guess, another twisty part can temporarily tangle the brain.

There are a number of reviews, and even a video, with "spoilers" around the net for anyone curious and unlikely to see the movie. The concept revealed by the ending is one quite familiar to sci-fi fans, but maybe not to the average viewer.

The movie is well worth seeing but, all in all, I much preferred Interstellar.

Trailer:

WORDS ~ GEMINI

Sun's in Gemini. Gemini is ruled by Mercury. Mercury connects to communication. Communication uses (among other things) words. Words, and our choice of words is more important than we sometimes realise.

Words are tools. They can be used to gain access to our emotions or intellect, for noble purpose (as above), or for insidious manipulation (as in politics). Another reflection of the "twin" symbolism of Gemini.

Words - so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.
~Nathaniel Hawthorne

If You Twitter Are You A Twit?

Yet another mode of communication is rapidly gaining a head of steam on the internet: Twitter. Blogging buddy Robert Phoenix must have been writing a post on the topic around the same time I was drafting this. Robert's excellent assessment is here: "Is Twitter the Killer App for Jupiter in Aquarius?". I had already decided not to post my somewhat jaundiced views and scrap my draft when I came across Robert's piece yesterday. But what the heck - let's celebrate synchronicity!

I have trouble in seeing Twitter's value. When do folks have the time to Twit - or is it Twitter, or it is Tweet? They already seem to be speaking on cellphones for much of their waking lives, writing or reading blogs, or contributing to message boards, Face Booking, My Spacing, instant messaging, and/or chatting in chat rooms.

As far as I can tell, Twitter is something of a hybrid of message boards and instant messaging facilities, miniaturized to 140 character bite-size.

Much of Twitter's charm appears to be in catching "followers" or in becoming a "follower". Here lies my own initial feeling of antipathy to Twitter. I dislike the "follower" idea. It smacks of schoolyard cliques, which I avoided like the plague, and still back away from anything similar.

Let's consider who, astrologically, would be most inclined to gravitate to Twitter.

Lots of Gemini input, of course would be any astrologer's first thought on the matter. Not necessarily Gemini Sun, but Gemini (or 3rd house) somehow prominent in a natal chart would propel a person towards Twittering.

A glut of expansive Sagittarius influence could do it too - excess of communication -enough is never enough!

Prominent Leo and Aries natally, natural leaders of the zodiac, would love to gather lots of followers, so Twitter might appeal to individuals with those signs featuring strongly in their charts.

Followers might come from the soft-hearted, empathetic or diplomatic groups - those with Cancer, Libra or Pisces-heavy charts would enjoy the following aspect of Twitter, I suspect.

Although Virgo is ruled by Mercury, the communications planet, I doubt that 140 characters would be sufficient to satisfy Virgo-led personalities for long. Their search for perfection and accuracy would soon gain upper hand.

Capricorn-led folk, down to earth as they are, would be likely to see Twitter as a waste of valuable time; in some circumstances though, they might see it as a PR tool to drive people to their own websites or businesses - so could swing either way. (Don't let a Capricorn boss see you Twittering in his time though!)

What's left? Aquarius, Scorpio, Taurus - three Fixed signs. Some with these signs prominent in their charts might initially be drawn to Twitter for a variety of reasons, of course, but in general I suspect they'd be less likely to be attracted to the idea. Aquarius, though amused by its novelty, is too analytical to be satisfied by 140 characters for long. Scorpio's too intense, and likes secrecy - again, novelty might attract, but not for long. Taurus, who would rather be doing something more sensual, might use Twitter as a tool for flirtation.

As for me - I already spend enough time on-line, researching or writing my own blog posts, and reading those of a select few others. I doubt I'll be Twittering any time soon....but maybe that makes me the twit!

Politics For The Rest Of Us

Why is it that Barack Obama has the ability to inspire the adulation of around half of all Democrats in the USA, while meeting a virtual brick wall when attempting to appeal to the other half - even with media firmly on his side, and his campaign spending vast amounts of money? This week's primary contest in Pennsylvania provided a good example of this phenomenon playing out.

It could equally be asked, of course, "Why can't Hillary Clinton appeal to a larger proportion of the Obama base?" Both candidates' supporters tend to come from specific groups who appear to be very determined about exactly who, and what, they want.

Barack Obama has wide appeal for some of the youngest voters, many of whom are college students. His base also includes a group described as "the highly educated" -those with college degrees of one sort or another. Not unexpectedly a large proportion of the African American population support Obama, they may or may not slot into the previously mentioned categories. There's another, smaller group I notice among Obama supporters, the wanna-be radicals who seem to have been over-impressed by stories of events in 1968.

Unsurprisingly Hillary Clinton appeals to women, especially older women. Also among her faithful are Hispanics, and that group called "blue collar workers" - which covers a lot of ground and includes many of both sexes who have never worn a blue collar in their lives, most are intelligent, hard-working, skilled and experienced - in a nutshell: "the rest of us".

Obama doesn't appear to have a clue how to appeal to "the rest of us". I didn't grow up in the USA, nor spend my working life here, but I can and do relate to this group. Is there a clue in his natal chart to account for this anomaly, this gap in his appeal ?



If there is an answer to be found in astrology, I need to look mainly at Mercury & Gemini (communication), the Moon (the public), and Aquarius - which relates to humanity in general and humane issues. Although Moon represents "the public" as a body, I think of Aquarius as the sign specifically resonating with ordinary, everyday people, "the rest of us". I could be wrong - but that is my own perception. Aquarius's ruler, Uranus, can indicate rebels and eccentrics, but the sign of Aquarius has connection with all of humanity and humane endeavours.

In Obama's chart Mercury in Leo is in harmonious aspect(sextile) to the Moon reflecting his ability to reach out to the public, but Mercury in Leo is also in opposition to Jupiter in Aquarius, as well as Saturn in late Capricorn. The opposition isn't an easy aspect, it can be balanced with care, but it's certainly not indicative of a natural affinity - it's the opposite in fact. Obama's natal Gemini Moon is in harmonious trine with Jupiter in Aquarius, which could have completed an ideal picture, were it not for that pesky opposition of Mercury. Somehow there's a partial disconnect.

Aquarius lies on the cusp of Obama's third house - the house of communication, a good place for Aquarius to be in a politician's chart. Uranus, ruler of Aquarius, is in Leo, quincunx to Saturn in Capricorn, both at 25 degrees. The quincunx is another scratchy aspect between two signs which don't understand each other well, they have nothing in common - in this case Leo, the kingly one and Aquarius the sign of the ordinary people. The two planets involved here also represent opposites, Uranus and Saturn - new and old, status quo and avant garde.

So Obama's chart blends some harmonious communication aspects with a couple of very scratchy ones which seem to stand in the way of what might otherwise be near to perfection, communication-wise. It's significant (to me) that the two scratchy aspects involve Aquarius and its ruler Uranus. There's an uncomfortable lack of empathy for "the rest of us" here, I feel.

Obama's Mercury was also the subject of an earlier blog - that planet seemingly has a lot to answer for!



The other side of the coin is Hillary Clinton's inability to appeal to that part of the electorate for whom Obama can do no wrong.



Clinton's Mercury in Scorpio trines her Moon in Pisces, like Obama her Moon and Mercury are in harmony, but in Water signs as against Fire and Air in his case. This is a softer, more emotional harmony with a feminine feel to it. But Scorpio Mercury squares Saturn in Leo, and more widely Pluto and Mars. Mercury also lies quincunx Uranus in Gemini. Here's the scratchiness in Hillary Clinton's communication aspects, not quite the same as Obama's, but comparable. A Scorpio/Gemini quincunx - passionate focused determination versus a more easy-going, mentally-driven theoretical approach.

I'm not clear exactly where Hillary's strong appeal to "the rest of us" comes from in her natal chart. Aquarius isn't highlighted by a planet or angle, but if 8.02 am is her correct birth time, Aquarius lies in third house of communication (same as Obama's chart). In Hillary's case, using Placidus houses, Aquarius is intercepted. (Intercepted = a whole sign trapped between two other signs within a single house, two different signs on the house cusps). In Hillary's case Aquarius is trapped between Pisces on one cusp and Capricorn on the other. That interception could be said to symbolically represent the limitations of her appeal - a kind of coralling of the Aquarian facets of her personality, allowing easy access and understanding to women (Pisces), and to the older, more traditional, working class Democrats(Saturn), but bringing a feel of blockage to others.

Whatever method one uses to try to explain these splits in appeal and loyalties, they are almost certain to continue. Attempts by the rival campaigns to effect large-scale cross-overs would probably be doomed to failure.

Conclusion: the outcome remains foggy....for "the rest of us", and for all of us.

(Small illustration at top borrowed from a CD cover of an International Tribute to the BeeGees "Ordinary People Living Ordinary Lives.)