Two explosions have hit a peace rally in the
Turkish capital Ankara, causing multiple casualties, reports say. Turkish news
agency Dogan said that at least 20 people have been killed. Photos posted on
social media show a number of bodies at the scene. The blasts took place near
the city's central train station. The target appears to have been a march
calling for an end to the violence with the Kurdish separatist group, the PKK. 10 Oct.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34495161
As the Sun
begins its opposition to Uranus, the waning Crescent Moon catches a Grand Cross containing the Uranus-Pluto
square on the horizon axis at Ankara. In his essay Uranus-Pluto: War and Violence, Bill Herbst [1] explains the two
diametrically opposite manifestations of the square that the news from Turkey
illustrates.
In its most basic symbolism, Uranus in Aries
indicates the awakening into action at the individual level. Considered from
that very general standpoint, the implications are not particularly shocking or
disturbing. The rebellious, revolutionary impulse of Uranus in the context of a
square to Pluto from Aries to Capricorn indicates the great likelihood that
selected individuals will commit themselves actively to challenging authority,
institutions, government, and the status quo of cultural rules and regulations.
Whatever the “ordinary” amount of individual disobedience against authority
would be, during the decade of the 2010s, this tendency will likely be enlarged
in quantity, heightened in dramatic quality, and made more eccentric and
willful. That’s easy to understand from the essential symbolism, interesting,
and significant, but not particularly worrisome. Aries also “governs” war and
violence in general. When Aries is activated as the provocateur in the
Uranus-Pluto square in the dynamic tension of juxtaposition to the institutions
of society associated with Capricorn, the symbolic possibilities dramatically
increase that we would see increased war and violence. That’s a given. The
other side of the coin, however, is that war and violence may become the target
of various movements to change the status quo of what is considered acceptable
in civilization. Anti-war movements have always existed — they ebb and flow
from time to time — and non-violence as
a way of life is always embraced by some, but both of these have remained in
the minority and are generally disenfranchised, mocked, or otherwise given
short shrift by the mainstream culture. This decade represents a possible
exception to that marginalizing.
Comments
Post a Comment