Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Astrologer Ingrid Lind on Aquarius

Before we went away last week I ordered, from the UK, a used copy of a little book, long out of print: British astrologer Ingrid Lind's Astrology & Commonsense (1962). I didn't expect it to arrive for several weeks. It appears that packages from the UK to the USA are being held by the Department of Homeland Security for assessment/investigation before passing them on for delivery. A scare due to some terrorist threat from the Yemen is the reason for DHS's intervention, according to a source online. DHS are said to have hundreds of thousands of packets backed up; delivery can take anything up to 2 months. An item I ordered from the UK before Christmas has still not arrived! This slim paperback slipped through though (possibly because it contains no metal or liquids?) It was waiting for me on our return home. Marked 3/6 net (3 shillings and sixpence in British "old money"), well-worn, pages browned with age, but no worse for that.

I first became aware of Ingrid Lind via another used book I bought last year: Astrology by Louis MacNeice. I can find no information about her online. I'd love to have her birth data if any passing reader knows of it.

I'm impressed by Ms Lind's approach, to which I can relate very easily. Her continual emphasis that the Sun sign is not "all there is" is refreshing. She is the astrologer from whom I picked up the term -type: Taurus-type, Aquarius-type etc in preference to the more usual Taurean, Aquarian. Her ?-type is a far more accurate and less misleading mode of expression, in my opinion.

As the Sun is now in Aquarius, let's look at what Ingrid Lind had to say about the sign. She does lapse into using "Aquarian" here. It's not easy to avoid, and perhaps her use of ?-type came later. We ought to bear in mind that, as Ms Lind explained in an early chapter, "no-one is solely and wholly Libran, Taurean, Arien or whatever sign it may be that corresponds to the birth-month. As I have insisted, the Sun in a given sign does not necessarily give the most prominent feature in the make-up......." I feel fairly sure that she would prefer the reader to take any reference to "Aquarian" as "Aquarius-type".

I've broken the piece into paragraphs which dont exist in the book, but I suspect this makes for more comfortable reading online.

From Astrology and Commonsense by Ingrid Lind (1962) :
AQUARIUS: Quality: Fixed. Element: Air. Ruler: Saturn. Positive. (Modern astrologers consider Uranus as ruler).

It seems to me that the combination of Air (communication and intellectuality) with Fixity is the key to the Aquarian personality.

Aquarians are the most determined and independent people and they can be obstinate, headstrong and perverse. They show certain qualities that to my mind cannot be deduced from the ingredients unless Uranus is added as co-ruler.

Everything that can be deduced from the Quality and Element plus Saturn is applicable and I feel no doubt that Saturn is concerned, for there is a cold detachment about the reasoning powers that can be related to this Planet; but if we stop there we miss out many of the strongest characteristics of the Sign. I would suggest that there are Aquarians who might be termed Saturnian Aquarians and others who are Uranian. The former are serious and hold very firmly to their views. The latter have the Uranian urge to disrupt. They are the revolutionaries, the visionaries, or, if they go wrong, the fanatics and perverts, the people who go against law and order through an instinctive revolt against restraint.

But, and I cannot repeat this too often, no one person is wholly of one Sign; and in character interpretation we find generally that the effects of a Sign on the Ascendant, or of a Sign containing the Sun, are modified by other prominent Signs and the general shaping of the chart and planetary pattern.

We talk, then, of Aquarian characteristics, knowing they could manifest through a group of Sun-Aquarians in differing intensity. But a common feature would be independence, detachment, and a wide interest in humanity. Nobody with this sign strong likes to be pinned down to intimate personal relationships for longer than such a thing is felt as a personal need. They are like horses that must be ridden on a loose rein. If they feel that they are making the decisions and working in their own method all is well, but at a hint of coercion they turn into rebels. They cannot act a lie and are thus often considered unconventional.

Aquarian Qualities
Fixity of purpose.
Ability for scientific & abstract thought
Voluntary faithfulness.

Aquarian Faults
Perversity: Separatism
Reminder: If anyone has knowledge of Ingrid Lind's birth data I'd be very grateful to receive it.


Gian Paul said...

Is it that my frequenting of astrologers (e.g. you, Twilight, and even an Aquarian by Sun-sign) makes me feel quite "aquarian type" as well. Or my Mars placement in Aquarius? Or my angular Uranus in Gemini? This thing with the Sign-types is intriguing indeed. And also may go by cycles, at least with the transits of slow moving planets. Imagine being a Leo for some time and then a Libra or even an Aquarius???

Rossa said...

A very interesting post T and her words are still very relevant to today.

I've recently been looking at Soul Astrology via and the Ascendant is the sign used for your Soul's purpose.

Mine is Capricorn and I have Saturn in Capricorn so the ancient ruler is in my Soul sign, though I would consider myself to be a Uranian Aquarian...what a mouthful that is.

A combination of the old and the new would be appropriate though others may say otherwise.

Glad you had a good trip. R

Twilight said...

Gian Paul ~~ You have some strong Aquarius credentials there GP!

Re sign-type cycles - not sure about that - but maybe. Do you mean progressions? I'm not impressed by progressions - I'm uncomfortable with the theory.
sounds too much like making astrology into some kind of board game to me! As Popeye used to say: "I Yam wot I yam!" ;-)

Slow moving planets, though, might have a bearing - intensifying key natal placements as they conjoin them. Yes!

Twilight said...

Rossa ~~~ Thanks - yes, she appeals to me a lot. Her name isn't as well-known as some other British astrologers (CEO Carter for instance). Wish I knew a bit more about her. She was one of a group called The Wessex Astrologers I think.

Soul sign....hmmmm Soul purpose is a hard concept for me to get my head around. Natally mine would be Cancer (re-located to USA it's Aquarius) I am not fulfilling my Cancerian purpose to be maternal and nurturing though. Ah well - screw-it ! ;-)

Old and new fits me too.

I especially agree with Ingrid Lind's remark about the common feature of ALL Aquarius-types ~~
Nobody with this sign strong likes to be pinned down to intimate personal relationships for longer than such a thing is felt as a personal need. They are like horses that must be ridden on a loose rein. If they feel that they are making the decisions and working in their own method all is well, but at a hint of coercion they turn into rebels. They cannot act a lie and are thus often considered unconventional.

Yep. that's us! ;-)

Gian Paul said...

Did not think of progressions but actual transits of slow moving, outer planets. Have personally had Neptune in my third house/Aquarius for quite some time now. Received many "aquarian insights". To the point of being "teinted" now...

Twilight said...

Gian Paul ~~~ Oh yes! I agree that transits of the slow movers are the ones we actually "feel" - and arguably the only ones. :-)

Rossa said...

Couldn't agree more T.

Currently have 2 men chasing me, plus 2 ex-boyfriends keen to stay in touch, my Dad, and an old friend from college (male) has also been in touch again. So I know what you mean about a loose rein.

Not sure any of them quite knows what they're getting themselves into with me and that includes the father that has known me all my life!

It's fun, though I've never been caught...yet!

Twilight said...

Rossa ~~~ LOL! In my unattached days the interpretation fitted well. Once "attached" though I think most Aquarian-types (unless some contradiction appears in their charts) remain loyal to the chosen one. That's when the significant other has to prove good at using a loose rein - with regard to decision making etc. Trying to tell an Aquarian-type what to do or how to do it is not a good idea. ;-)

Need for independence and freedom are my two certainties as common factors for Aquarius-types. But that doesn't mean that, like Greta Garbo, they "want to be alone" - it means they need to experience the feeling of being unfettered....and will extend the same to others.