The more posts I write, the more natal charts I inspect, the less I'm inclined to attach clearly defined labels on the zodiac signs when part of a natal chart. Sign labels, keywords handed down through the centuries, are available in astrology textbooks, but real life characteristics of any zodiac sign are almost always modified. Other than for a tiny group of people born with all personal planets and ascendant in a single zodiac sign, text book descriptions are going to seem from a touch off course to miles adrift in a sea of confusion. Pisces, like its neighbour Aquarius, has two potential rulers: Pisces' traditional ruler being Jupiter, with modern astrologers holding that Neptune rules Pisces.
Neptunian traits (e.g. love of the sea, potentially addictive personality, highly creative, dreamy, foggy, links to film/photography etc.) do not, automatically, apply to any person born with a strong emphasis of Pisces in their natal chart. If Neptune is linked by aspect to personal planet(s) there's more likelihood of recognising at least some Neptunian traits in that person. Jupiter's keywords, for example: expansion, lucky breaks, generosity, optimism, philosophy, links to religion or legal matters are not often mentioned as textbook Pisces attributes, yet the Age of Pisces, where we are now, and will be for some time to come, is defined in the West by religion: the rise of Christianity.
Due in part to Pisces' astrological element Water, mutable mode, and being the 12th and last sign in the zodiac circle, the sign itself is thought to represent: gentleness, sensitivity, an emotional nature, empathy, possible psychic ability, prone to shyness. These are descriptions for the essence of the sign, but once part of a natal mix the essence become modified by the chart's configuration and other planetary positions. So, writing more words about the essence itself, which hardly ever exists in pure form in real life, doesn't seem useful.
What I'm trying to say, in convoluted fashion, is that although every zodiac sign is said to have an intrinsic meaning, as a zodiac sign, it's unwise to assume that the sign's intrinsic meaning will manifest clearly enough in a human being to be discernible by others.
11 comments:
quote::
What I'm trying to say, in convoluted fashion, is that although every zodiac sign is said to have an intrinsic meaning, as a zodiac sign, it's unwise to assume that the sign's intrinsic meaning will manifest clearly enough in a human being to be discernible by others.::
I agree for the most part with what you said- except in the case of Leo's :) they seem very easy to spot within minutes of meeting one.
Sonny ~ Regarding Sun in Leo people - maybe so, I haven't met enough of them in person to know. If Sun sign shines through strongly enough for any sign, then I'd guess it would be Leo! Husband with Moon and rising sign Leo would certainly not be easily spotted as having Leo strongly present.
I always play a guessing-game when I meet someone...hmmm...what is their Sun-sign?! And of course you're right, the guesses get muddled by other planets, not to mention the disposition of that individual for-and-against their environmental factors. I have to say that in my experience, it is rare to find an individual that does not express their Sun-sign in some fashion. The same can be said of an individual's ascendant, which all too often adds confusion to my Sun-sign guessing-game.
The Age of Pisces into the Age of Aquarius has an interesting variation that I've read about...the Age of Pegasus as an intermediary between Pisces and Aquarius. We are fully into Age of Pegasus now according to sources I've read.
http://astrologyking.com/constellation-pegasus/#age
http://academysounds.blogspot.com/2010/06/age-of-pegasus.html
mike ~ Sun sign recognition by others - maybe accuracy depends a lot on one's own planetary line-up in relation to the person's under scrutiny. Have acquaintances of yours correctly identified your Sun sign? I don't think any acquaintances of mine have identified mine (but then hardly any knew enough astrology anyway) - I've been told more than once, but online, that I come across more as Capricorn (my Mercury placement or Sun sidereal placement).
I hadn't come across the theory on Age of Pegasus before - thanks for the links. I will likely add them to a post on fixed stars in Pisces, when I get around to properly preparing it. I'd already noticed that a star conjunct my natal Jupiter is in constellation Pegasus. I suppose we could be said to be living in a blend of Ages: Pisces/Pegasus/Aquarius, with gradually receding/increasing emphasis on one or other as each century passes. What any of it means is up for grabs really though, isn't it? Our human brains aren't constructed to take in, define and understand time spans as long as "Ages".
Well, it seems that we are living, regardless of the Age of Pisces-Pegasus-Aquarius thingy, so it matters not I suppose.
Way back in my younger days, many of my friends were into astrology, but we usually confessed our Sun-sign almost as part of our name. The Uranus conjunct Pluto days of the mid-1960s into the 1970s greatly popularized astrology and "what is your sign?" became a cliche, particularly as a conversation starter. I have correctly identified others' Sun-signs on first try, but I'm more likely to get their astrological element, then continue to break it down by sign. I keep it all to myself, inside my head, then way later, work the conversation toward clues to their birth information. Often, someone will state their actual birthday in conversation or that their birthday was last month, or next month, etc...then I try to pin-down whether the first three weeks of the month, or the last week. My Scorpio Dick Tracy at work...LOL. When I've known someone well enough and they know I have an interest in astrology, I'll inquire about what year they were born, and maybe the essential time of birth for the complete picture. I don't provide unsolicited astro-advice...I keep their upcoming, positive or negative transits to myself. Invariably, those transits DO show-up in their actual lives...sometimes just as I would have predicted, but often as something similar, but different than imagined by me.
I have no friends that I can talk shop with at this late date in my life, but the internet provides relief, particularly your blog, as we discuss things back-and-forth quite often. In my younger days, when I was fresher to the astrology cult, I knew less, yet felt more comfortable with it. Now, after all these years, I've acquired much more information, but feel more unknowing...LOL. I do my best work when I don't ponder too much and keep the essentials of astrology to a minimum. However, my greater interests lie in knowing the arcane tid-bits...more colors and hues on the astro-palette to play with.
mike (again) ~ I didn't have anyone to chat with about astrology until my mid-30s, when I joined the civil service. Then 3 workmates with astro interest, and more knowledge than I'd gleaned up to that point, deepened my interest - in tarot too. But really, my first home computer bought in 2001/2 was the major spur for me.
I don't know whether it's possible on line to define Sun signs more easily than in person. I doubt it, because we don't share our expressions, gestures and appearance, physical attitudes etc. I do recall some people on astrology message boards proposing that it can be easier online, without distraction of appearance.
I'm grateful too for the opportunity to chat online with like minded cyber-friends. I admit that some of my enthusiasm for some parts of astrology has waned, no particular reason that I know of. I'm more aware of how little we really know about anything, especially mysterious arts such as astrology. It's all supposition, sometimes it works, sometimes not - but there could be other reasons why it works than those we rely on currently.
Still, as long as that "something going on" seemingly from celestial bodies above us, carries on going on, I'll always be intrigued by it. :-)
oh GAH!, mike. I had been considering lately whether to request your email from Annie so as I kin larn me some 'real' astrology. The Arcane is my Gem MC downfall: from Crux Draconis to black holes and asteroid city, my brain's been befuddled by TMI about astrology. I once read some astrologer who said the whole thing's in the angles - just check em out - and I can't help wonder if that's not the truth of the matter. And that Pegasus thing reminded me, inter alia, of the late Steve Nelson -
http://gaiaastrology.com/cosmic-timing/
(You know, I think inter alia should be my middle names.)
Annie, I think it's cool you stand by 'cuspy', cuz peeps aren't measured in degrees, are they. My experience informs me there is something to Sun sign astrology, but if we divide the 7 billion inhabitants of earth by 12 signs, no, I don't think we're going to convince the 'scientists' of anything much. But it irritates me no end that those scientists don't bother to acquaint themselves with astrology basics but then decry the Sun sign newspaper nonsense. In a way, newspaper astro is cool with me cuz my Sun is in the 12th and my signs are all in their opposite houses so I just read as if my Sun was in Libra and then the 'wandering' planets are where they belong. As for knowing the 'signs' of peeps one meets, no, I can't imagine asking anyone but a friend.
I have Pisces on the 6th and 7th. The sixth, I like how that way I get to 'rule' both small, household pets, and large animals. The seventh, it hasn't been very good for my non-careers or medical treatments or my magnetic attractiveness and attraction to, well, Pisceans. I do love water. I was looking for answers, systems of thought, since forever, but in astro, only comprehensively since 2008. I think there is 'something there' or 'something in it' but the lack of rigour even in the most basic definitions drives me mad. I have actually read opposing meanings attributed to the same transiting aspects. And, of course, astrology was once read like a modern day weather report, but now it's just all ex post facto, and anyone can rationalize the past through any lens, so what does it really signify without its predictive quality? Death seems to be the big dividing line: most astrologers claim ignorance of which, yet a few confirm their ability to foresee it, albeit quavering about sharing their 'knowledge'. All of which is enough to give me pause. Too bad, it's rather like those non-sciences of psychology and politics and economics and meteorology. Or, then again, maybe it's just as well....
Anyway, I reiterate my declaration of enjoyment of your blog, and share your gratitude for online friends and your intrigue with the goings-on above our heads.
Sabina ~ "anyone can rationalize the past through any lens" - Yes that's troubling at times. I've said it in a different way, often: "it's possible in astrology to make anything mean anything." So I try to stick to stripped down basics without some of the additional tools available. I've never been too confident about the predictive side of astrology, preferring the personality outlining via natal chart. There's much room there, too, to make anything mean anything, but there are some placements, planets and signs that do have a narrow enough meaning; when I notice these fit, again and again, it's then I feel justified in carrying on.
I suspect scientists will uncover something to clarify and explain what we and our ancestors have called astrology - in fact I'm sure of it, but not likely to happen in my lifetime. Meanwhile it's a tempting mystery.
I'm glad you find something of interest here, Sabina. It's always a pleasure to read your comments. If you ever fancy offering a guest post by yourself, on any subject at all, please do let me know in a comment.
Sabina (aka inter alia) - Thanks for thinking I'm knowledgeable, but you seem to know your astro Ps & Qs, too! You said, "...astrologer who said the whole thing's in the angles", and I agree with that to a hefty extent, assuming the astrologer was meaning planets and not houses. The abundance of various house systems has been a concern for me. When I first began studying astrology, I assumed Placidus was THE house system, but only because that's what most of the astrologers used. I had preferred Koch over Placidus, but nowadays I'm leaning more toward whole house, which is not the same as equal house. All house systems will provide the AC, DC, MC, and IC...those four points are the same regardless of house system. Planetary aspects to each other and to those four points are always valid, regardless of house system. The planets are the energy and the houses are where the energy is dispersed, so I'll leave it to you to determine the 2,3,5,6,8,9,11,and 12 houses...LOL. Quadrants of the natal chart is another view, too. A consideration of house systems like whole house, Koch, et al, is concerning to me, when an AC,DC,MC, and-or IC in the later degrees of a sign. 27* Libra on the ASC puts a lot of Scorpio in the first house and a lot of Libra in the twelfth. Whole house puts all of Libra in the first house. Even if the ASC is 15* Libra, there is probably going to be a large portion of Scorpio in that first house by Koch and Placidus, and influenced even more should that first house containing Scorpio have planets there. And do we disregard the 15* Libra in the 12th house, which will have a stronger influence should that portion have planets, too? Whole house puts that 15* Libra into the first house.
Twilight, I just read your comment to Sabina. I DO believe that astrology can be utilized for prediction, albeit generalized and sometimes specific. Just look at the influence of the Uranus-Pluto conjunction in the mid-1960s and their square of the years extant. All of it textbook. Now the Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune T-square (more the Saturn-Neptune square) is very evident in our current politics. These are more generational planets and aspects, so a collective reaction would be anticipated as evidence. Sabina's comment regarding "...astrologer who said the whole thing's in the angles", is apropos to these transits...there does seem to be an astrological cause, with an effect on the populous.
The astrology of prediction for individuals may be more difficult when it comes to specifics. My previous comment to Sabina regarding house systems, in itself, makes it difficult to know where the energy of transits to the natal chart will occur, but that energy will dissipate somewhere in an individual's real life, though at the moment of aspect, it may go unnoticed and only recognized in retrospect. I think that trending is a better method than prediction toward forecasting the astro-weather.
I do agree with you, Twilight, that there's MUCH more (or less!) to astrology than meets the human consciousness at this time. However, astrology as-is, provides some characterization and trending abilities. Astrology has many similarities to political science, economics, social science, and psychology, as these disciplines can be utilized to form qualitative assessments, but are not always quantitative.
Our current political campaigns in the USA have been of great interest to me, as pundits keep repeating that nothing is normal about this election cycle, nor was it during 2008. This bears the theme of Uranus-Pluto and Saturn-Neptune. Random coincidence or an actual correlation?
mike (again) ~ Gerneralised prediction (-ish) works, in mundane matters, but can be seen clearly only in hindsight - as Sabina wrote. Did any astrologer of the 1930s or 40s predict that the 1960s would be as they turned out to be, I wonder? I'm not completely skeptical about prediction, just wary. I agree that trends are a safer bet!
The angles thing came via Gauquelin and his "sectors" I recall. The areas within 10 or so degrees of the ascendant, MC and opposite angles are said to be the most powerful places for planets in a natal chart.
2016's political campaigns carry a whiff of change within them, for sure, but how far the whiff of change and any abnormal feelings about situations will continue, before being wafted off by the establishment, could show whether Neptune's illusions and delusions are stronger than Uranus' rebellions and unexpected turns. :-) Only in hindsight will we know this. ;-)
Post a Comment