After reading a comment on yesterday's post, I scrambled through the archives looking for something I wrote a while ago which might prove relevant. The comment:
I failed to find what I was looking for, perhaps, after drafting it I had chickened out of posting. When putting thoughts into words, I may have been unable to rise beyond the realms of gobbledegook. It happens frequently!
This is an interesting subject to look into. A few ponderings of my own follow, and might still contain more than a hint of gobbledegook. Also, a video presentation by a "proper" astrologer, which could well be relevant to this topic.
The positions in the zodiac, and aspects between the seven planets closest to our own (Sun/Moon/Mercury/Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn) are thought by astrologers to have reflection in our personality traits. These seven are known as our "personal planets", as against the "outer planets", Uranus, Neptune and Pluto which are thought to connect to generations, unless very closely linked to a personal planet, natally or in transit.
Quite often, at least six of the seven bodies (the Moon is excluded because of its faster motion) lie within one half of the zodiac circle. Mercury and Venus, for example are never further from the Sun than the space of two signs, often less than that. When personal planet emphasis is concentrated in around half of the signs of the zodiac, and especially if that half coincides with seasonal boundaries, personality traits in people born within that span could have more broad compatibility with each other than with people born in the other half of the zodiac.
I say "broad", because beyond a mix of personal planets in the same set of signs, there are other complications and considerations - rising signs and Moon position among them.
My own experience is similar to the commenter's. I do initially connect more easily with "winter/early spring types", my own personal planets range from Scorpio, through Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius & Pisces to Aries, Moon included. The experience is going to be more noticeable if one's natal Moon and/or rising sign fall into the same half of the zodiac as the personal planets.
There's a theory, discussed by astrologer Terence Guardino in his book "The Seasons of Astrology", which might link (loosely) to my own thoughts on the subject. He explains in this video:"
The Seasons of Astrology
I've often pondered that it would be possible to create a plausible, but much simpler, zodiac based on the broad concept of seasonal astrology, combined with some finer detail culled from tropical astrology. That zodiac would have fewer signs, and rely primarily on the four angles, ascendant/descendant & midheaven/nadir. But maybe that's just my Aquarius Sun trying to cause chaos!
".......For some reason, all my children, and everyone I've had close relationships with (not including blood relatives) have, like me, had birthdays in the first half of the year.
Very strange." (comment by Anthony North of Beyond the Blog.)
I failed to find what I was looking for, perhaps, after drafting it I had chickened out of posting. When putting thoughts into words, I may have been unable to rise beyond the realms of gobbledegook. It happens frequently!
This is an interesting subject to look into. A few ponderings of my own follow, and might still contain more than a hint of gobbledegook. Also, a video presentation by a "proper" astrologer, which could well be relevant to this topic.
The positions in the zodiac, and aspects between the seven planets closest to our own (Sun/Moon/Mercury/Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn) are thought by astrologers to have reflection in our personality traits. These seven are known as our "personal planets", as against the "outer planets", Uranus, Neptune and Pluto which are thought to connect to generations, unless very closely linked to a personal planet, natally or in transit.
Quite often, at least six of the seven bodies (the Moon is excluded because of its faster motion) lie within one half of the zodiac circle. Mercury and Venus, for example are never further from the Sun than the space of two signs, often less than that. When personal planet emphasis is concentrated in around half of the signs of the zodiac, and especially if that half coincides with seasonal boundaries, personality traits in people born within that span could have more broad compatibility with each other than with people born in the other half of the zodiac.
I say "broad", because beyond a mix of personal planets in the same set of signs, there are other complications and considerations - rising signs and Moon position among them.
My own experience is similar to the commenter's. I do initially connect more easily with "winter/early spring types", my own personal planets range from Scorpio, through Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius & Pisces to Aries, Moon included. The experience is going to be more noticeable if one's natal Moon and/or rising sign fall into the same half of the zodiac as the personal planets.
There's a theory, discussed by astrologer Terence Guardino in his book "The Seasons of Astrology", which might link (loosely) to my own thoughts on the subject. He explains in this video:"
The Seasons of Astrology
I've often pondered that it would be possible to create a plausible, but much simpler, zodiac based on the broad concept of seasonal astrology, combined with some finer detail culled from tropical astrology. That zodiac would have fewer signs, and rely primarily on the four angles, ascendant/descendant & midheaven/nadir. But maybe that's just my Aquarius Sun trying to cause chaos!
4 comments:
An interesting proposition - and thanks for the link. I wonder if anyone has done a modern survey to see if this kind of thing is common with people or not.
I'm well aware that statistics are far from an exact science, but it would make for some interesting debate.
Not sure if this is relevant, but I've often pondered on its synchronicity:
I was born May 23rd, but my father, my first wife, and my son (by my first wife) were all born on September 22nd. Just coincidence? Sadly, two of the trio are now dead - my son and his mother. Father has just turned 93, and in the rudest of health.
As you know, I don't place much stock on astrology, but synchronicity interests me. (Having said that, I keep an open mind on most subjects, not closed and blinkered like certain anonymous commentators) ;-)
Hi AN ~~~ I'm not aware of a survey. Results of such a one might prove unreliable though, because its such a subjective issue - on both the half-zociac and the seasonal effect.
It'd be easy enough to determine the people with all personal planets in one half of the zodiac, or born within the boudaries of a certain season, but not as easy to get a clear answer from them about whether they are more compatible with people whose planets are in the same set of signs or same seasons of the year.
This is the trouble with astrological research, I guess, AN.
Added to which, astrology isn't the only factor in personality - by a long chalk! It's just one strand in a tangled web (as I see it).
Hi RJ~~~
Coincidentally (again) I received an e-mail this morning from my husband's daughter pointing out (after reading the blog) that my husband, his eldest son and the son's two offspring all have birthdays on 22nd (of different months). Also my husband's youngest son's birthday is 23rd.
Synchronicity,coincidence...perhaps. Astrologically 22nd and 23rd birthdays lie on the cusp of two signs. There's a theory some astrologers adhere to (some don't) that people born on the cusp often have personality traits from both signs. I can't think of any reason why this should be a trend in families/relationships, though, unless it is transferred somehow in the DNA.
If anybody reads this who has a theory I'd be very interested to read about it.
Glad you work unblinkered, RJ!
;-)
Post a Comment