IVIV. p.40 Coy's not dead?

[Otto]

Uranus square Neptune / Neptune square Uranus - astrological aspect

Astrology aspects - Uranus square Neptune / Neptune square Uranus The
last square aspect happened during the period 1952-56, and influenced
the people born during that phase. This was the second phase of
post-war children, born into a time of relative stability and
reconstruction, when the memories of the war were ebbing away into
past history, even though the Korean War was rekindling some of them.

This group received a psychic impression from the collective, which
embodies a form of social confusion then prevalent which was
reflective of the collective mind. Social direction was the issue. The
defear of Churchill's government after the ending of the war, a
government which seemed to represent the past, and the introduction of
the post-war Labour reformist policies such as the Welfare State
seemed to herald a new vision and direction. But the collevtive was
torn between dreams and fears of a new world, and a rejection of
painful memories of man's inhumanity; a clash between the future and
the past, the unknown and the known.

Reflecting this collective conflict, the individuals born at the time
received a pattern of rebellion (Uranus) which was mixed with
confusion (Neptune) over what to do, which direction to travel in, how
to achieve objectives, even what these objectives actually were. The
only model that could be absorbed was that of their parents and peers,
which offered conflicting and confusing social messages.

The problem in later life would become ambivalence; they would be torn
between a need to revolt against authority and the establishment, and
a need to feel socially secure. Purity of ideals would become a
challenge, especially when confronted with the pragmatic demands of
economic and family life.

With this aspect there is an aversion to leaders, who, it is felt,
lead people into blind obedience and conformity, which to the Uranian
spirit is anathema and opposed to the Uranian principle of freedom.
Peronsal freedoms are paramount, and their repression may lead to a
struggle to assert them. Yet this group eventually fragmented into
various types. Some were reluctant revolutionaries, eventually being
reabsorbed into the social 'mainstream'; some were 'rebels without a
cause', social misfits with no direction except that of aggressive
reaction. Members of this aspect group were attracted to the existing
hippie and drug couter-culture, in the later phase after 1968; others
became early leaders of the mid-seventies' punk movement, an anarchic
reactionary youth revolt against conformity; and perhaps most
significant of all became part of the spreading of the New Age
movement which incorporates the ecological Green political groups.

In fact, many of those who were early adherents of the hippie ideals
have become part of the New Age culture, which is expanding throughout
society through alternative health therapies, mind training, healthy
foods, and an ideology of individual and collective wholeness. It is
in this way that the core group of those born during the period 1952-6
is active in taking control of their own lives and influencing
society.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-aspects/uranus-square-neptune.php

2009/9/5 Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>:
> 90 degree aspect, the unluckiest of all:
>
> Identifying Planetary Triggers: Astrological Techniques for Prediction - Google Books Resultby Celeste Teal - 2000 - Body, Mind & Spirit - 364 pages
> Then, it must form a 0-degree aspect for the conjunction; a 60-degree aspect for the sextile; a 90-degree aspect for the square;
>
> Yea, squares are one of the very unlucky---4 right angles---signs in TRPs work.
>
> The Doc gives a riff about perilous times for dopers, particularly high school ones, who never want to believe that someone they loved---or even took a class with---could be dead. Reminds me of TRP in Slow Learner about
> certain kind of immature youth, even writers, who have not internalized death yet. ...."disconnected denial" doc calls it here.
>
> More seemingly authorial intent out of the mouth of Doc, yes?
>
>
>
>