Astrology: New Age Nonsense or Scientifically Plausible?

About a year ago, I began my quest into the dubious but fascinating domain of astrology in an effort to seek answers to the queries I had of my own life and the people in it. It seemed like a logical thing to do... If everything else on the planet could be scientifically explained, personalities should be, as well. In the middle ages, astrology and astronomy were essentially synonymous subjects. Although society has come a long way since the "flat world" pedagogy, there still must be something to the old ways for them to endure the test of time.

Regardless of daily horoscopes, many people claim to identify with their "sun signs." Whereas most reasonable people tend to squash the concepts of astrology and dismiss them as "new-age, imaginative fluff," The Blonde Philosopher has philosophized a great deal about the validity of astrology (disclaimer: The Blonde Philosopher does not claim to have any scientific background whatsoever, nor does she harbor any intense interest in many of the subtopics of that field). She has not yet reached a plausible conclusion, but found herself contemplating the following ideas with her fellow blonde philosopher, Abby....

If the sun has been scientifically classified as a "star" which both sustains and affects all life on this planet, why can other "stars" not serve similar functions? If the radiation emitted by the sun is what causes this sustenance, why can not other, less significant stars emit their own radiation like the sun (though their radiation power may not be as great as the sun) at the precise time of one's birth to affect humans by creating their personality and characteristics?

If the full moon reflects the radiation of the sun, causing insanity in humans and animals, why would not other stars' emissions of radiation act in the same way? Since the earth moves, we would therefore see different heavenly bodies at any given minute. The alignment of these heavenly bodies and the radiation they create together could possibly have an affect on human life.

If the moon can control something as all encompassing as the tides, then why can the heavens not influence the tides of our lives???

Has It All Been Done?

The lyrics of the Barenaked Ladies song from the 90’s echoed through the cavity of my skull… “It’s all been done, whoo hoo hoo….!” I recall the simple refrain whenever I discover that the notion I had originally supposed a brilliant idea has already been thought out and implemented into the fibers of society.

I often comment that if I lived in yesteryear, I would be exceptional- revolutionary, in fact. I would throw myself into the jail cell of Susan B. Anthony. I would defy the role of my gender and adorn a coat of union blue. I would be like a Alice Roosevelt and smoke, drink and swear just because it wasn’t proper; I’d do it for spite. Nowadays, I can smoke, drink and swear without anyone batting an eyelid (well…some might twitch an eyelid...). The point is, socially, whereas we still have a lot of work to do in many spheres, “it’s all been done.” The wars have been fought. Have they been won?

“The songs have been sung, the books have been written, the paintings are hung,” I often console myself when the well of inspiration becomes a desert of artistic diminution. “It’s all been done!” The stigma of being a distraught, washed up and hung out to dry, suffering poet appeals to me. In one of my “philosophical upheavals,” as I call them, I grumbled my opinion about modernity’s threat to the integrity of art and creativity to my boss. “No,” she disagreed. “Everything is a continuation.”

Ah-hah! Could that be the answer? In my own ignorance, was I indulging in the bitter and unripened fruit hanging from low branches? I began to delve further into my own mind....After all, how many songs are written in response to others? How many songwriters and poets are influenced by their predecessors? How many writers allude to the “great works” in their own scribbling? Look at all the paintings that have spurred admirers to react with their own palette and brush. Think of all the inventions that have been improved. Without the impact of those who came before, art could not be created over and over by posterity. The wars may have been fought, but that doesn’t mean that they have been won just yet.

I still become irked when I have a great idea and “google” it, only to find that such an idea already exists. However, my mind can only become stronger and my vision sharper, as I continue to strive for the originality that is becoming lost in this big, wide world. In that trying, I continue to learn, contemplate, and realize that the 21st century mind does not have to resign itself to being an empty vessel which has given up the pursuit of enriching endeavors. Instead, it can be a powerhouse of knowledge, wisdom and flourishing.

Feminist or Womanist?

Someone asked me a most thought provoking question the other day: “Are you a feminist or a womanist?” Having graduated from a very liberal, intellectually stimulating all women’s college, I had always beamed with pride as I proclaimed myself a feminist. “In my heart, I feel a woman has two choices: either she’s a feminist or a masochist.” Gloria Steinem’s words became my mantra. She did not suggest “womanist” as being an option, so would that mean a “womanist” identifies with the “masochist?”

I still expect men to hold the door. I think it polite when a feller offers his seat to a lady on a crowded train. I believe that men, if in a financial position to do so, should pay for a first date. These are topics associated with the practice of good etiquette. In our society, if a man acts in a compliant manner to any of the situations listed above, he is labeled as a gentleman- a respectful and well brought up human being. After all, no woman wants to date or marry a cad, and simple gestures such as those mentioned above suggest that the man in question is probably not one (it is, however, entirely possible that a man may very well be a cad and still conduct himself within the arena of what would be called “good etiquette.”). A man might also not exemplify himself as a “gentleman” in the afore mentioned situations and yet, he may still actually be a decent human being or a good catch (it may be more likely that the author of this blog is being much too charitable). Do my expectations of men mean that I am an anti-feminist since it seems that I am advocating gender roles? No, it simply means that I am in favor of good manners (I, after all, have held the door for hundreds of men thus far in my life and expect the gesture to be reciprocated by laws of common decency in the very least.).

Do feminism and womanism have to compete as separate philosophies? A feminist, for certain, is also a womanist. Is a womanist, however, a feminist? Not necessarily so. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/), “feminism” is defined as “1. the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes; 2. organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.” Whereas, “womanism" (which, by the way, is not a word recognized by spell-check... could this possibly be a reflection of our technology driven, male dominated society?!) is defined by Dictionary.com as “believing in and respecting the abilities and talents of women; acknowledging women's contributions to society.” The definitions are therefore separated by sociological implications. A man can be a “womanist” if he believes that women are just as capable and talented as men, but does not support the political aspects of the matter, even if he maintains the philosophical. It is important to remember that both terms should not be strictly limited to women, as the practice of feminism encourages respect of both genders and dissuades animosity toward either (no matter how hard that seems at times!)

Despite conflicting ideologies, there is no one way to be a feminist. Feminists come into battle adorned with the armor of many different opinions, faiths, political ideas, etc. The common ground they share is the desire for the betterment of women. Feminists simply have different ideas about what is "best" for the gender. For example, there are feminists who are pro-life, as contradictory as that may sound to pro-choice feminists. In a lesser known branch of feminism known as “Eco Feminism,” those who follow the theories constantly find themselves at odds with each other in the case of this issue. “Eco-Feminists” (very briefly) view the planet as a female entity and see the “rape” of the land, Mother Earth, as the symbolic rape of themselves. They view females as being particularly responsible for the welfare of the earth, as they are the vehicles of creation.

There is not a right or wrong way to be a womanist. Man or woman, a womanist welcomes and encourages women to participate at the forefront of the many facets in our society. Therefore, I believe that a feminist is just as much a womanist.

Many people today may view the "Feminist" quest as outdated- something associated with spinsters and Friedan's 1960's society-changing work, The Feminist Mystique. Even many women, I am flabbergasted to report, seem to take little interest in feminism in its modern form. They either do not see the matter as integral in their lives, or no longer relevant. They feel we have achieved the ultimate goal of women's rights in procuring suffrage. Ah, we have not only achieved- but we are still achieving. I recognize that the idea of "feminism" is a work in progress every time I am privy to my male friends' conversations. I am frequently the sole female entity among my circle of companions, and being such, I am offered a candid view into the male psyche which I find quite valuable for my own informal research. Many men (not all... it is paramount that you, dear reader, realize I am not stereotyping all men- but let's face it- the stereotype is out there for a reason. So, if you do not want to be lumped together with the uncouth, unevolved, cavemen-like, bottom feeders of your gender, join the revolution!) view women as a sexual conquest and little or nothing more. It is often difficult for women to rise above the stigma that men as an unidentified whole have created for them. It is everywhere- magazines, movies, media. Adolescent girls are brainwashed into thinking that they must fit some kind of mold created by society and they try to conform to it throughout their lives. It begins with Barbie in the early years (this notion will be continued in a future edition of The Blonde Philosopher). For me, this is the stuff feminism is made out of; subjects so frequently overlooked that are still mountains of relevance despite the amount of progress we have made.

When poised the initial question, I began to wonder if my own self declaration of feminist was the result of the pressures of my educational institution. Then, I thought, no. I was a feminist by choice from an early age. I chose the institution because I believe in the works of Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony, thousands of nameless women who fought for suffrage and maybe even my own unborn daughters. I chose feminist because I want to live in a world in which I can thrive, not just symbolically- despite my gender. I chose feminist because I want my unborn daughters to live in a world in which they can be leaders, without being subject to the anti-feminist idioms of “bitch,” “slut,” or “fragile” and will instead be replaced by “strong,” “powerful” and “determined.”

Why Blog...?

There’s little more exciting than a great thought. To capture that thought in written form somehow solidifies it…photographs it, if you will, or maybe even legitimizes it for the more insecure thinkers…it appeases our own humanitarianly narcissistic need to make ourselves known in this paradoxical world. Paradoxical it surely is as the larger it becomes, the more it shrinks- the smaller it gets, the larger it grows.

Perhaps many choose to use blogging as a window into their own lives. As the world turns faster every day, humans are left screaming at the top of their lungs in the midst of the tornado that we ourselves, ironically, create. The internet and its holdings provide a safe haven in which many feel like their voices, no matter how meek or mild, can be heard. It is a way of staying afloat in the ocean of the years that we endure on this planet. More crudely put, we all just need some attention.

I have often felt that modern society and all of its components, namely, the internet, threatens the legitimacy of, and exploits the evocation of feelings induced by art. I often ponder if one can feel the same overwhelming and sometimes unexplainable passions when their eyes are plastered to a glaring computer screen, as opposed to participating in the act of art by standing five feet from Picasso’s Guernica, or holding tangibly, Edith Wharton’s Ethan Frome. I certainly couldn’t, but perhaps I am what some might call “old-fashioned.” The devil’s advocate, however, might call the internet, and the vehicle it creates for society, art in itself. The devil’s advocate may also say that without technology, art could not thrive. For example, records, followed by cassettes, proceeded by compact discs, and now Itunes, have made thousands of songs, voices, emotions, opinions and pleasures, available to those who otherwise would not be able to hear them. Thousands of museums and other cultural institutions might not be discovered if they were not readily found by the clicking fingertips that graze the keyboard.

Two hundred years ago, in order to see one’s neighbor, one might need to travel a considerable distance. If a friend or family member decided to relocate to another state, country, maybe merely another county, they might never be seen again. It is this distance, I propose, that created closeness- a strong bond of humanity that was unshaken by miles, time zones or the elements. Fond memories and letters as physical evidence of sentiment helped maintain nearness. Today, the distance factor has been breached, yet humans have become more and more detached from one another. Or do we? Is it possible to feel the same excitement when a long awaited, quill pen written letter arrives in the hands of the mailman, as when the e-mail inbox sounds “bing” (and alerts its possessor of a typed-in-a-generic-font, paragraph deficient, with a sometimes misconstrued-tone e-mail)? Maybe it’s just different. Diverse, in the same way that blogging might be compared to journal writing, or “Facebooking” might take the place of a phone call.

Who will be the Ralph Waldo Emersons, the Virginia Woolfs and the Jack Kerouacs of tomorrow? Will they be the “bloggers” of today? With the effects of the internet, such as “YouTube,” any ordinary person can become famous. In Blogland, anyone can feel empowered, as if they have made an everlasting mark in the world by somehow sharing themselves with friends, family, acquaintances, even strangers. Then again, one might say that bloggers or “YouTubers” are lazy- insufficient of pulling up their socks to accomplish what they would like on a larger scale. Or, maybe they are contently participating in society by sharing themselves through the apparatus that connects the world.

In conclusion, why blog? Blog because this world is a paradox. Why this blog (besides the fact that I am a former English Major suffering withdrawals and would like to give my friends something to do when they are bored at their desk jobs)? To open a window, to capture a thought, to participate in art… to make myself and those who read it feel a little less alone in the wilderness that is this world.

(On a side note, I have found it utterly hilarious that my spell check device does not recognize the verb “blogging” or the noun “blogger.” How ironic that even computers cannot keep up with these times.)