Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Astrological twins - a near-miss

An astrological shock - and a little enlightenment:


Whilst researching the net on another issue, I noticed that Germaine Greer and I share a similar birth chart.

She was born 2 days after me in the same year - but in Australia, of course.
Germaine Greer born 29 January 1939 Melbourne, Australia 6am
Me born 27 January 1939, Hull, England. 2.27pm

I found it a little disconcerting looking at someone else's chart in which most of the planets are within a degree or so of my own. Her ascendant and Moon are different. Her ascendant is Aquarius, her Moon is Taurus. My ascendant is Cancer, Moon Aries. This, of course, sends her planets into different houses from my own.

I Googled on, in order to read a little more about this woman, of whom all I knew was that she is a feminist and has written books on the topic. The more I read the more I disliked her. I do not recognise anything from what is written about her or from her own words, as being in any way similar to me.

Using what little astrological knowledge I have, I studied both charts to see why we have developed into two such different characters. You'd think there'd be some broad similarities!

Her Aquarian ascendant, importantly, accounts for her more avant garde approach to the world in general. My own Cancer ascendant inclines me to a softer, and I hope more compassionate approach. This is one big difference.

I read that Greer married in 1968, but the marriage lasted only 3 weeks. This doesn't coincide with my own experience. I first married in 1962, that marriage failed after a couple of years. There is no corresponding experience in 1968 for me, 1970 was the next time I linked with a partner, with whom I was to stay for over 30 years until his death, then married again in 2004. Greer has remained single, I understand. I have no children - I think the same applies to Greer.

Greer's attitude to the opposite sex, and her way of expressing herself are alien to me. I find her attitudes in general quite incompatible with my own. She is undoubtedly a highly intelligent woman, however, far more so than me. She has been highly educated, I wanted to be released from full-time education as quickly as possible. although I had no difficulties learning and was a bright student, I found school environment very difficult to take - too restrictive. Greer obviously did not have this difficulty.

So, what is the main astrological reason for our differences? Ascendant and midheaven and houses - her time of birth ?.

Background, environment? Perhaps the fact that she grew up in Australia, and I in a war-torn England might have some bearing on our differences ?

Germain Greer is, in one way, more stereotypical of Sun Aquarius than I am. Perhaps all the essence of her Sun is allowed freely into the outer world via her ascendant. Since moving to live in the USA my own ascendant has moved into Aquarius, yet I do not find myself in more agreement with Ms Greer because of it. I'm convinced that we are two people of entirely different natures.

Perhaps the few degrees difference in our planetary placements makes a big difference - aspects might be more or less close as a result. We are both in the same decanate of Aquarius, the first.

Could the fact that she was born in the southern hemisphere account for what I see as an enormous difference in our personalities?

There is an article here:
http://www.fallon.demon.co.uk/text-hemisouth.html
in which it is proposed that the zodiac signs should be inverted for births in the southern hemisphere - that is, an Aquarius Sun would be a Leo Sun, a Capricorn would be Cancer - complete opposite of our usual understanding.
Using this theory Greer would be Leo Sun and Leo ascendant, which might account for her fame/notoriety, but would not account for her stance on the matters she writes about, which, to me seems exaggeratedly Aquarian.
Her Moon/Uranus would be Scorpio instead of Taurus - this fits!

The inversion theory might fit Germaine Greer very well, but does it fit everybody born in the southern hemisphere I wonder ? Why isn't this theory more widely known? Why don't astrologers use it?

Yet another article here:
http://www.astrologycom.com/qual.html
This has a different version. The author proposes that in the southern hemisphere the zodiac signs retain the qualities of their archetype, but express it in slightly different ways from their counterparts in the north. A southern Aquarian might be more of an ideas person than a team player, according to this article. If the Sun sign is expressed in a subtly different way, then so perhaps is the whole chart ?
This theory may be more widely acceptable, but it's not well known as far as I'm aware.

There are more questions than answers in astrology!

No comments:

Post a Comment