Random thoughts on an analogy for Air signs…

In NYC, where I live, we have bodegas. They’re like your local corner store, stocked with a fresh meat deli and a sustainable mix of perishable and non-perishable items in about 800-1000 square feet.  It’s mostly for those items you need in the moment and don’t want to go far to get.  Unfortunately, you’ll only have as much choice as space will provide. This is like Gemini for me.

A conventional supermarket would be like Libra.  It’s bigger and you have more choices–with more opportunities to be indecisive too.  The grocer/owner is in partnership with you to provide your needs, but it’s definitely a me (grocer) vs. you (customer) affiliation.  I’m never paying nearly at cost as much as the markup. Everyone is in relationship, but there’s no matched intention other than to sell the grocer’s food at his/her/their desired prices and net profit.

A co-op supermarket would be more Aquarius. It’s literally a co-operative venture between the members who own, staff and shop at the market. There is a collective intention to provide the best possible food at the lowest possible cost to increase members’ savings, not just a profit margin.  The downside may be a different level of variety than what you experience at a conventional market and not as much of the convenience of being nearby.  Of course, I think of my old food co-op in Park Slope when I think of this model.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Random thoughts on an analogy for Air signs…”

  1. Heather Rowe Says:

    Im not to sure Im feelimg this anaology at all. As someone who loves astrology I always try to explain other elements and signs in a way that I know won’t have a chance of possibly offending someone. Each sign is different and plays a major part in the world we live in, and no sign is more interesting or lacking in depth more than the other.

    • return2thesource Says:

      Thanks for writing, Heather. I’m glad you’re sensitive to not offending anyone. I work around that by telling people never to confuse themselves by wholly identifying with any one sign. They have all 12 signs of the Zodiac within, just at different proportions.

      But I fail to see how this analogy is any more offensive than what’s embedded in the signs already by common descriptions. Also, although I do believe some signs are more complex than others, it doesn’t mean that they are inherently better. It depends on one’s preference. (If there is the temptation to then infer that some people are more complex than others, than see the first statement above. People aren’t signs. Ever.)

      For instance, I used to belong to a coop. It was okay, although people rave about them. But ultimately I prefer bodegas and markets. I didn’t need the power of the collective, though I did benefit from it at the time. I enjoy the convenience of the bodega and markets than saving a few dollars at a coop. And a lot of the better produce and products there I didn’t eat that much anyway.

      However, we can’t ignore the deeper fact that there already exists a bias in description of each element and within each element. In classic astrology, earth was at the bottom of the elemental table and fire was at the top. Likewise, with each trigon or triplicity, there was the articulation of how each part of the trigon was an essential for the manifestation of the triplicity, but at different levels. On the theme of identity, Aries was the first breath and breakthrough of being; Leo represents the consolidation of that being and the natural creative authority of that being; and Sagittarius was the crowned wisdom and understanding of that being. Different things and certainly different levels of complexity.

      In modern astrology, which correctly aspires to see all people as equitable, I think it errs in attempting to do the same thing with the signs. And it sucks at it. This is a random description of Gemini from astrology.com:

      Gemini-born are intellectually inclined, forever probing people and places in search of information. The more information a Gemini collects, the better. Sharing that information later on with those they love is also a lot of fun, for Geminis are supremely interested in developing their relationships.

      Here’s Aquarius from the same site:

      These folks are humanitarian, philanthropic and keenly interested in making the world a better place. Along those lines, they’d like to make the world work better, which is why they focus much of their energy on our social institutions and how they work (or don’t work).

      Now, do they sound equally complex to you? I don’t think so, and empirically no anthropologist worth his/her salt
      would agree if they were a tribe. One collects data, according to this, with no great emphasis on what happens with it. That’s data entry. The other deals with institutions and looks to take the data and put it to ideally philanthropic use. Even by these descriptions, which are commonly used, one sign thinks and the other meta thinks, because it has to think about how the total assemblage of data works. And this is correct. Is one better? No. If Gemini doesn’t collect data and communicate, then Aquarius can’t and won’t meta think.

      I think it is important not to offend people and show that people are as fascinating and interesting as they allow themselves to be; but signs are a different matter. All signs are created equal, but not necessarily in complexity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: