Selfishness

Selfishness is that detestable vice which no one will forgive in others, and no one is without himself.(Henry Ward Beecher)


I never loved another person the way I loved myself.
(Mae West)





Section headings from: 5 Signs You Are Selfish - detail at the link.

1.Unaware of Imbalance in Relationships
2.Control Freaks and Manipulative
3.Hate Team Work
4.Only Think About Yourself
5.Constantly Give Negative Feedback and Get Nagged

What had astrologer C.E.O. Carter to say on selfishness in his book An Encyclopaedia of Psychological Astrology, first printed 1924, re-printed many times during 20th century?
Mr Carter first directs the reader from "S" for selfishness to "E" for Egoism.

Egoism and Selfishness are essentially exaggeration of our instinct of self-preservation and of the individualizing principle. These probably come respectively under Cancer and Aries, but the faults of egoism and selfishness can hardly be ascribed to one sign more than another; they occur in all of them,except where the ego is of a relatively high type. Even many martyrs and protagonists of causes are essentially egoistic (although not selfish). It has been said that "it is really setting a rather high value on one's opinions to be willing to die for them!"

In a very general sense it may be said:

Aries is usually egoistic, but not necessarily by any means selfish.
Taurus is good natured but selfish and lazy.
Gemini is egoistic, but also often selfish, frequently in a rather childish way.
Cancer is as a rule neither one nor the other, although Saturn in affliction with the Moon is often very mean.
Leo is, in good types, very unselfish, affectionate and ready to help others; but it is frequently egoistic in the extreme.
Virgo is self-centred.
Libra is often lazy, and dislikes contact with the sadder aspects of life, but is distinctly unegoistic.
Scorpio goes to extremes, but is usually devotedly selfless towards its special idols.
Sagittarius is generous with material help, but often careless of others and slapdash in manner.
Capricorn acts from principle rather than from the heart; it is self-protective, and is seldom willing to do more for others than is strictly due to them.
Aquarius is unselfish in the service of causes and ideals, rather than individuals; it is not egoistic, but in present day types the Saturnian rulership often causes a good deal of selfishness; in good types the reverse is true.
Pisces is good-natured and as a rule far from selfish; it can, however, show a certain amount of egoism in its liking for preaching at others.

Turning to the planets, afflictions to the Lights or to Mercury are always liable to produce an over-accentuation of the individualist tendency. Mars and Uranus tend to self-assertion and extreme independence; Saturn narrows the sympathies and general outlook: hence the Moon or Mercury afflicted by Saturn is a common feature in the nativities of tyrants and absolute monarchs.

The great star Sirius, now [1924] in about 13 Cancer, [in 2015 Sirius is at 14.17 Cancer] has relation to inordinate self-opiniativeness, self-esteem, and self-will. This must be considered principally by conjunction and opposition, above all with the Sun. (Note: This may, however, be a "degree-area" value, and in no way connected with Sirius. Henry VIII, who had the Sirian characteristics, had Sun in 14 Cancer, but in his day the star was in about 7 Cancer.)

I don't understand what Mr Carter meant in the note to the last paragraph relating to Sirius.

With regard to his remarks about each zodiac sign, I think it should be added that the Sun, in astrology, is directly related to one's core self, so when investigating "selfishness" one's Sun sign could be more directly and strongly related than when investigating other psychological issues, when other planets in signs could have equal or more importance than the Sun's sign. It's still worth bearing in mind, though, that extra emphasis on a sign other than the Sun's placement (e.g. a sign/planet on the ascendant or mid-heaven or opposite angles, or a tight cluster of 3 or more planets in a sign) will have importance here too.

I doubt that any human on Earth could, hand on heart, proclaim that they are not selfish, at least in some ways. Without a certain amount of self interest we'd be squandering our precious time here. In my opinion the ideal will be found in balancing a healthy amount of self interest with the interest of others - others both close and distant, those related by love, friendship, profession, race, creed, and not forgetting those simply related by inhabiting the same planet.

Roots of Phobias ?

 Hat-tip for pic:  here

Another random look at a page of 20th century astrologer C.E.O. Carter's "An Encyclopaedia of Psychological Astrology", first published 1924, re-printed at various points throughout 20th century. This time I opened the book at the "M"s, and on the page containing his ideas on possible astrological roots of morbid fears or phobias. As most of us have at least one of these, I flexed my copy-typing fingers and.....

Morbid Fears (Phobias)

These diseases, partly mental and partly physical, are at the present moment somewhat before the public owing to the prominence given to them by the modern psychologist, who claims to have treated them with considerable success. They consist, generally speaking, of irrational fears or aversions. The native may be in other respects to all intents and purposes strong and healthy, but under special conditions he is attacked by fears or nervous seizures which are not justified by those conditions from the standpoint of the normal human being. Their study is of great interest to astrologers, although I am not aware of their having as yet received from them the attention they deserve.

We might expect to find these conditions indicated basically by Neptunian afflictions to those portions of the horoscope that have influence upon the health (the three hylegiacal [see below for explanation] points and the 6th and 8th houses mainly). One might also expect the watery signs to be to the fore, and also Gemini and the 3rd, owing to their mental relation. Further, it may be expected that in nearly all cases a neurasthenic condition will be shown (v. Neurasthenia [see below]). The precise nature of the "fear" will probably be best shown by the horoscope as a whole, although further investigation might reveal this as depending upon certain recognizable features.

In so far as the psycho-analyst regards these phobias as being due to the efforts to rise into consciousness of supressed complexes, formed in the "unconscious" around some event, generally in infancy, which has been forgotten by the conscious mind, we might expect Scorpio the "repressed" sign par excellence, to figure prominently, as well as Pluto, and Saturnian action might be anticipated, since Saturn binds down and is active in all self-control.

But in point of fact any indication in a horoscope of a struggle between positive and negative elements - especially between Fire and Water, since these are emotional and instinctive - may set up conditions which can develop into some trouble such as we are discussing. The danger is still greater if the houses corresponding to the watery trigon are involved.


Neurasthenia
This covers a variety of conditions of different degrees of severity and originating in many ways. We nearly always find them characterized by Mercury being afflicted in or from a Saturn sign, 26 Aquarius appearing particularly severe in this respect, or by Saturn itself. Degrees commonly involved are 10 Taurus and 25 Gemini-Sagittarius, and one or both of these I have found involved in nearly every case. The worse the afflictions the more severe the malady.

Wikipedia on Neurasthenia

Skyscript on "hylegiacal"

An 'hylegiacal' or 'aphetic' place relates to the houses in which Ptolemy claimed that any planet to be admitted as hyleg must be located. These are (in order of preference): - the 1st, 10th, 11th, 7th or 9th house.

I've been trying to apply the above to my own chart. While I don't like flying insects, or scampering mice, I don't really class these as serious phobias. I'm scared of deep water - that's a definite phobia traceable to a couple of occasions when I felt as though I were drowning, during my childhood, once in a swimming pool, once in a popular local swimming place close to a waterfall. The obvious antidote to this would have been to learn to swim well, but I couldn't be enticed back to a swimming pool in order to do so! Another dislike, stress-incuding, but hardly a phobia, is having involvement with doctors and hospitals, this I can conquer, the deep water thing, I cannot.

So - the deep water thing: Neptune (he ruled deep water) in Virgo in my chart is inconjunct/quincunx Aries Moon, but sextile Mars in Scorpio, maybe between those two mildly contradictory aspects lies the answer? Houses involved could be 4 or 5 and 10 or 11 depending on exact time of birth.

Anyone else have a phobia they'd care to relate to astrological factors in their natal chart?

TEMPER

"We boil at different degrees".
(Ralph Waldo Emerson).
Are you prone to temper tantrums, sulky silences, violent outbursts quickly subdued, cool sardonic comebacks, or sweet as sunshine all the time?

From An Encyclopaedia of Psychological Astrology by C.E.O. Carter, first published 1924, Fourth Edition 1954. My copy reprinted 1963:

Temper must be judged from the rising sign, Mercury, and the general appearance of the horoscope.
The usual characteristics of the signs when rising are:

Aries - Easily angered and then often go to great lengths.

Taurus - Not readily moved, but when aroused become furious.

Gemini - Not bad tempered, but can be "waspish" and malicious.

Cancer - Not easily angered, but soon hurt. Timid.

Leo - Often hot-tempered, though affectionate.

Virgo - Temper is usually controlled and seldom violent. Often uses "the retort courteous". Tends to shun conditions that are liable to upset it.

Libra - Seldom the first to quarrel. Easily appeased.

Scorpio - Hot-tempered, especially when its affections are touched. Implacable and rarely forgets.

Sagittarius - Good-tempered.

Capricorn - The temper is generally cold, and the tongue controlled.

Aquarius - Courteous.

Pisces - Good-tempered.

In cardinal signs the temper is usually sharp; in mutable nagging, and in fixed sudden and violent. The above remarks apply, of course, to ordinary, everyday persons, Mercury, and to a somewhat less extent the Lights or ascendant, afflicted by malefics usually corrupts the temper. Fiery signs are usually the most explosive. Mars afflicted by Uranus in Fire generally causes a bad temper, and Mars and Saturn are also often evil. On the other hand, Venus conjunct Mercury, the Lights or ascendant will usually cause the moods to be harmonious and equable. Jupiter, in similar circumstances, inclines to good spirits and bodily health.

It must not be forgotten how often a bad temper is really the direct results of some functional disorder, such as liver trouble or nervous derangement.

Often the signs of good and bad temper are contradictory and in such cases a person's disposition will vary.

That's pretty accurate for my Cancer rising, with some modification from Capricorn Mercury, but Aries Moon can boil me over at times. How about you?

VIRGO ~ Sign and Type.

 Virgo from Erté's Zodiac Sign Collection

As the Sun reaches the Leo/Virgo cusp, a look at a few less commonly chanted traits of the sign through which the Sun is about to glide during the next four weeks: Virgo. Virgo's planetary ruler is Mercury. Mercury also rules Gemini.

Digressing for a moment, and considering the mystery of sign rulerships. I don't understand why communications planet Mercury doesn't rule the Air signs (Gemini, Aquarius, Libra). Air is thought to be the most mentally oriented of the four astrological elements: Earth, Water, Fire and Air.

Everything we humans do is initiated in the brain, even what seem like emotional responses, though coloured by Moon and the Watery element, actually do begin in the mental realm. As I see it, we ought to pay more attention to Mercury in the natal chart - equally as much as to Sun, Moon and ascendant.

In an Aquarian-driven, typically obtuse version of astrological rulerships, I propose that Saturn could rule the Earth signs (Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn). Fire signs(Aries, Leo, Sagittarius) would be ruled by Mars. Water signs by Venus (Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces). Mercury would rule the Air signs Gemini, Libra and Aquarius. But then, what would Jupiter do? Jupiter would have to rule over-all, in true Jupiterian expansionist fashion! It would be acceptable for Sun and Moon not to rule signs, they are luminaries, different from planets. The outer planets, Uranus Neptune and Pluto are too far away to rule anything, they will simply make themselves felt in transit when connecting with, or aspecting, personal planets.

Mercury's rulership of Gemini seems obvious: the consummate communicator, teacher, the all-round information collector. As ruler of Virgo, Mercury must be reflected as less abstract, more tangible. Virgo seeks and usually achieves near perfection in just about anything undertaken. Gemini roves around in the world of words and ideas, gathering them together, regurgitating them, sometimes in light-weight haphazard fashion, offering them back to a usually enthusiastic audience. Virgo is quite capable of doing this too, but with a far greater emphasis on accuracy and presentation - a more serious approach.

I do think Mercury's rulership of Virgo to be rather strange. To my mind strict, structure-loving Saturn would seem more compatible with perfection-seeking sign, Virgo. I'm probably missing something at a deeper level.

More on Virgo then...

I'm guided by 20th century British astrologer C.E.O. Carter and his piece
VIRGO ~ "A BEVY OF MAIDENS"

 By David Palladini (1970)

Mr Carter sometimes sounds as though he considers there's a person who, born between two specified dates, could properly and proudly carry the label "Virgo" on his or her tee-shirt. I'm pretty sure this well-respected astrologer thought nothing of the sort. Urged to write or speak on individual zodiac signs, as he often must have been, he decided to take the easiest way out.

As I've said, many times in these posts, "there's no such thing as "a Virgo", "a Leo", "a Scorpio" or any other such zodiac sign-labelled individual. Those are sign labels not people labels!

A person could have Sun in Sagittarius, or any other zodiac sign, and still exhibit many Virgo attributes due to a variety of combinations of planetary placements, points, and aspects in their chart. He or she could then be called a Virgo-type, if one insisted on attaching a label, as could a person with Sun in Virgo, if the traits fit - and they don't always.

So, passing reader, it's my opinion that we should look on whatever astrologers write or say, when using that sign-label type of shorthand ("a Leo" "a Virgo" etc.) as simply writing or speaking of a particular type who may or may not have Sun in the sign in question, but demonstrates a majority of character traits related to that sign.

And so...eventually...a few less commonly mentioned Virgo-type traits as listed by Mr Carter within his piece linked above, which is a good read in full by the way:

Whilst Leo and Virgo are as different as chalk from cheese,
with only a few exceptions, Virgo and Libra [the next adjoining sign]
have a good deal in common...both, for example, have taste in literature and art
and dislike rough and uncouth things.

... interested in dietetics and often have their private fads
and fancies in that respect.

... their alleged sensitiveness. Most Virginians
have a pose of being sensitive. It is, of
course, the sign of the inferiority complex, although this
is not to say that all natives of Virgo are afflicted in
this way or that all so afflicted are born under Virgo.
Still, in principle I think Virgo stands for this sense of
personal inadequacy, which in a world as complex and
difficult as ours has become, with ever higher standards of
efficiency set before it, is an easily understood
phenomenon.

Another point is that by their very nature the Mercurials
notice and think a lot about details and what seem to your
Jovian to be trivialities. This may appear to be
sensitiveness to some, and in other cases one must dub them
fussy and for ever making mountains out of mole-hills.
This tendency is best sublimated by their taking up some
occupation that entails much attention to small matters,
such as watch-mending or embroidery.
So much for the maiden-archetype in its everyday
presentation.


In a higher (presentation), it is the virgin mother of the new-born Sun,
since the constellation Virgo rises in the east at midnight
at the winter solstice when the sun is "in the tomb" for
three days before beginning afresh his climb into northern
declination.

The sheaf of corn would imply that Virgo is often and
agriculturalist. This is probably true. We do not come
across many nativities of farmers, since they are a race
that is as a rule too occupied with the soil to aspire to
understand the heavens, but I suspect we should find plenty
of Virgo in most of their maps. This would agree with the
liking that many, but not all,Virgos show for small animals,
traditionally up to and including the ass, but not the horse.

Still talking of animals, I am reminded of Benjamin, the
donkey in Orwell's Animal Farm. Being invited to admire the
goodness of the Creator who had thoughtfully provided him
with a tail wherewith to flick away flies, Benjamin remarked
sourly that he would have been more impressed if there had
been no flies and no need for tails. This is a very true
specimen of Virgo philosophy.


A virtue often ascribed to Virginians is a capacity for
hard work, especially routine drudgery such as Leo and Libra
would soon tire of. I regret to say that I have known
Virgos who were anything but industrious. The only sign
which really likes hard work is Scorpio.

"Long Lion Days"

By Ronald Searle, from Searle's Zodiac.

"It would probably be difficult indeed to find anyone strongly under the fifth sign who did not express himself in some way; for the Sun must shine." So wrote English astrologer C.E.O. Carter in his piece A Pride of Lions on zodiac sign Leo.

Dante Alighieri, centuries earlier, wrote
"All your renown is like the summer flower that blooms and dies; because the sunny glow which brings it forth, soon slays with parching power."





Alighierei's quote reminded me of the popular (in his day) author Guy de Maupssant (1850-1893), cut down in his early 40s by syphilis. He had Sun in Leo. He'd obviously expressed himself too much, early on, and in all the wrong places!

Another writer with Sun in Leo, and featured in the past on this blog, is
English poet Philip Larkin. One of his last poems, found written on the back of an illustrated postcard depicting illuminations from the Book of Hours, in this case Leo for July/August:

LONG LION DAYS

Whatever conceived
Now fully leaved,
Abounding, ablaze –
O long lion days.
(P.A.L 1982)

On the distaff side, J.K. Rowling has shone very brightly, as befits Leo Sun, via her Harry Potter novels.

Writing hasn't been the favourite mode of expression for Leo-types though, neighbouring sign Virgo, ruled by Mercury, takes up the slack on that front.

A few less commonly mentioned points about zodiac sign Leo, as made by C.E.O. Carter in his Pride of Lions piece, linked above:

But we must always remember that Leo is a sign of very varied expression. There are four main points in a nativity: Sun, Moon, ruler and ascendant; and with Leos two are the same. Therefore much depends on the sign emplacement and aspects of the ruler which is also the Sun. Another point to consider is the sign on the midheaven, which in these latitudes may be Aries or Taurus; the former are commonly more mobile, physically and mentally. Thirdly, if we agree that the constellations have some value and accept Cyril Fagan's calculations, the first 23 degrees or so of Leo are in the constellation Cancer which would make the natives of that area quieter and more sensitive and more of "family men" or women. Fourthly, we must bear the decanates in mind. Leo-Sagittarius-Aries by the Hindu method; Saturn-Jupiter-Mars by the Chaldean.

From an archived post of mine on Leo:

I've met few Leo Suns in my time - a couple of guy friends I recall, back in the 1960s, in Devonshire, the English south-western riviera. One had clear Leo tendencies - he wasn't wealthy - far from it, but he made it his business to have a flashy Jaguar car to make a good impression. Onlookers probably never guessed that the back seats were supported by a couple of old soda crates, and various other bits and pieces of the interior had seen much better days. He started his own business, a one-man affair which hadn't truly taken off at the time I knew him. He had dreams of building a lovely house on a Devon cliff-top, took me to see the site he wanted to buy. He was a sweet dreamer. I often wonder how things turned out for him.

The other Sun in Leo guy friend I met, around a year later, was a very different character. He was the foster son of a couple of elderly spinsters who ran a small boarding house where I stayed when attending an interview in the same town. I got the job, and later the son befriended me. He was neither outgoing, nor particularly warm. No aim to be successful. He had, I think, been worn down by life with the two ladies. I tried hard to like him, but didn't succeed. Several years later after I'd been away from the area and returned for some reason, I happened upon one of the ladies from that boarding house. She told me that her foster son had committed suicide some months earlier. That was a shock - and so very un-Leo-like! I don't know his chart other than his birthday - 27 July - so can't say what other unfortunate placements might have added to his obviously distressing situation. I suspect he might have had only Sun in Leo with, perhaps, small groups of personal planets in both Cancer and Virgo - but that's a wild guess.

I mustn't forget Himself - my husband - who has Leo rising and Moon in Leo (+ Aries Sun). I really do struggle to identify any strong typically Leo traits in him.

Husband does express himself via painting, so Leo peeps through. Maybe his Moon and ascendant degrees are within sidereal Cancer....they are! His midheaven is less than half a degree from Taurus (in Aries), a slight tweak in birth time could bring it into Taurus.

With only Pluto in Leo myself - just into that sign by the skin of its planetary baby teeth - I'm one of the first of the Pluto in Leo set.

Cancer the sign, the ascendant; Moons - but no Junes...or Ferris Wheels.....

A person could fill several pages, a couple of books even, with thoughts, quotes, pictures featuring the Moon, "ruler" of zodiac sign Cancer. I shall severely limit myself to one or two less-used bits and pieces.

“It was lunar symbolism that enabled man to relate and connect such heterogeneous things as: birth, becoming, death, and ressurection; the waters, plants, woman, fecundity, and immortality; the cosmic darkness, prenatal existence, and life after death, followed by the rebirth of the lunar type ("light coming out of darkness"); weaving, the symbol of the "thread of life," fate, temporality, and death; and yet others. In general most of the ideas of cycle, dualism, polarity, opposition, conflict, but also of reconciliation of contraries, of coincidentia oppositorum, were either discovered or clarified by virtue of lunar symbolism. We may even speak of a metaphysics of the moon, in the sense of a consistent system of "truths" relating to the mode of being peculiar to living creatures, to everything in the cosmos that shares in life, that is, in becoming, growth and waning, death and ressurrection.”
― Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion

The Cruel Moon
by Robert Graves

The cruel Moon hangs out of reach
Up above the shadowy beech.
Her face is stupid, but her eye
Is small and sharp and very sly.
Nurse says the Moon can drive you mad?
No, that’s a silly story, lad!
Though she be angry, though she would
Destroy all England if she could,
Yet think, what damage can she do
Hanging there so far from you?
Don’t heed what frightened nurses say:
Moons hang much too far away.

“Maybe there's a whole other universe where a square moon rises in the sky, and the stars laugh in cold voices, and some of the triangles have four sides, and some have five, and some have five raised to the fifth power of sides. In this universe there might grow roses which sing. Everything leads to everything.”
― Stephen King

Here's an alternative take on Moon's gender by Michael Cheval: Sunset Tango with a male Moon and female Sun. (More on this artist and his gorgeous work in an archived post HERE).

The Moon is a Painter
by Vachel Lindsay

He coveted her portrait.
He toiled as she grew gay.
She loved to see him labor
In that devoted way.

And in the end it pleased her,
But bowed him more with care.
Her rose-smile showed so plainly,
Her soul-smile was not there.

That night he groped without a lamp
To find a cloak, a book,
And on the vexing portrait
By moonrise chanced to look.

The color-scheme was out of key,
The maiden rose-smile faint,
But through the blessed darkness
She gleamed, his friendly saint.

The comrade, white, immortal,
His bride, and more than bride—
The citizen, the sage of mind,
For whom he lived and died.

Speaking of painters...an archived post featuring a Cancer-ish painter Paul Delvaux, his nudes and moons can be accessed HERE.

20th century British Astrologer C.E.O. Carter's piece on Cancer, the zodiac sign, is a good read. He isn't much impressed with Cancer rising though (my own natal rising sign). A few snips on that strange tid-bit, and a couple of others I'd not been aware of before:

I should say that Sun in Cancer is better than Cancer rising, and of course the Moon in Cancer is good. Not only kindly, but shrewd. It is not difficult to understand why it is not a very good ascending sign. Of course, as I am never tired of pointing out, it all depends on what means by "good." But the ascendant and midheaven are the most exposed parts of the figure, and it seems on the whole desirable to have strong signs in these latitudes Cancer rising usually brings Pisces on to the meridian and so one gets an unusually sensitive personality.

TRUE ENOUGH .

..........................Cancer is the quincunx to Sagittarius, and so one would expect them to be unlike, but they are both travellers. At least, tradition call the 9th sign the sign of travel abroad. Actually I should say it is more explorative than Cancer; it has an urge to find what lies beyond the ranges but Cancer is perhaps rather the tourist, or commercial traveller.................

NOT EXACTLY - I can be both explorer and tourist...but never commercial traveller!

Cancer is not easily thwarted and put down. Unlike the quincunx sign Sagittarius with its sudden enthusiasms and changes of interest, Cancer holds on. Even if its claw is torn off, it grows another. When it succeeds it is usually due to this doggedness, a word not inappropriate actually, since both Sirius and Procyon fall in the longitude of the 4th sign!

RIGHT AGAIN...I've always put this down to Aquarius Sun being a Fixed sign, this "dogged" factor could further underline that, I guess.

......Socially Cancer has a valuable card in its powers of mimicry....... For example, they can render dialects excellently .........

NO, I'M NO MIMIC, but I usually am quick to recognise and identify accents/dialects, but perhaps those who can mimic with accuracy have Gemini, the adjacent sign to Cancer, emphasised in some way (I don't have any planet or point in Gemini).

......I do not think Cancer is a happy ascendant, but it is plain from what has been said that it can be a gifted one (a list of well-known and well-gifted people with Cancer rising preceded this remark of C.E.O. Carter.)

I'm not sure that astrologers ought to be declaring ascendant signs (or any signs) good, bad or indifferent - the rising sign is but a single strand in a multi-layered personality pattern. I'm wary of going along with the standard astrological lore that the ascendant is "how we are seen by the world and how we see the world"...or words to that effect. I know that's what astrologers tell us to think, but...I prefer to look on the rising sign as simply part of a whole; it can be, and is, modified or emphasised by other strands forming the pattern.

 Moonshine by Paul Klee

Moons and Junes and ferris wheels,
The dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairy tale comes real;
I've looked at love that way.
(From "Both Sides Now" - Joni Mitchell)

Aquarius, Astrologers, Uranus, Urania.

Sun's in Aquarius again, I'll soon need to add another year to my age! I've written more than enough posts about zodiac sign Aquarius over the years - they are easily available via the Label Cloud in the sidebar - click on "Aquarius". I have a special interest in the sign, and its modern ruler Uranus, being a Sun Aquarian-type myself.

Occasionally I ask myself what's the source of my longtime interest in astrology. My parents had no knowledge of the subject, nor did any close relative that I know of. Is Aquarius the source? None of my contemporaries, even among those born within a few days of me, and in the same town as myself, has ever shown the slightest interest in the planets.

There's a list of astrologers at Wikipedia, with handy click-through links to further detail. Many of the names come from eras long gone, many are foreign to me. I found only three astrologers whose names are familiar, with natal Sun in Aquarius. I'll concentrate on two of them initially because of interesting similarities. ~~

The pair: Evangeline Adams (8 February 1868) and Russell Grant (5 February 1951), one from each side of the pond, as it happens. Their natal charts are available at Astrodatabank, and linked to their names above. It was fascinating to compare them. Look at the similarities!

Evangeline Adams had Sun at 19 Aquarius, Mars at 10 Aquarius; Mercury Venus and Jupiter in Pisces; and Uranus (ruler of Aquarius) at 9 Cancer.

Russell Grant has Sun at 16 Aquarius, Moon at 10 Aquarius; Venus, Mars and Jupiter in Pisces; Uranus (ruler of Aquarius) at 5.58 Cancer.

That's pretty amazing! Because they were born 83 years apart, Uranus ruler of their Aquarius Sun had almost completed its 84-year cycle, and was back in the same sign, sensitive, intuitive Cancer - and within a few degrees for Russell Grant as it had been for Evangeline Adams. Both astrologers have two planets in Aquarius (both have one on the 10 degree spot); both have three personal planets in instinctual, ephemeral Pisces, with Venus and Jupiter common to both.

Airy, mentally-oriented Aquarius may not be particularly astrology-oriented without support from Watery signs (Pisces, Cancer, Scorpio).

The third Aquarius-type astrologer I found in Wiki's list: Charles Carter - often referred to as C.E.O. Carter - one of my favourites. Chart available at Astrodatabank. He had three personal planets in Aquarius (Sun, Mercury, Venus) and three in Water signs (Mars, Saturn and Jupiter).

My own natal chart isn't closely comparable with those of Adams, Grant or Carter. I have only Sun in Aquarius, with Watery input from Jupiter in Pisces, Mars in Scorpio and Cancer rising - so I guess it could be said that I have a less intense amount of the same "flavours" they did/do. My natal Uranus is in Earthy Taurus though, and conjoins south node of Moon.

My natal Moon in Aries seems unhelpful in this regard, but Asteroid Urania lies very close to it. This celestial body was named for the Muse of Astronomy, and by association astrology. Astrologically, this may mean nothing at all - but it pleases me!


"In Greek mythology, Urania (Ουρανία), which means "heavenly", was the muse of astronomy and astrology. She is usually depicted as having a globe in her left hand and a peg in the right, and her foot on a turtle, symbol of silence. She is able to foretell the future by the position of the stars. She is often associated with Universal Love and the Holy Spirit. She is dressed in a cloak embroidered with stars and keeps her eyes and attention focused on the Heavens. Those who are most concerned with philosophy and the heavens are dearest to her." (See here)
Illustration from HERE

Last year we found a wee town named after her on our travels in Louisiana:

Seeing Ourselves As Others See Us

C.E.O. Carter, well-respected 20th century British astrologer, writing about the ascendant or rising sign ~~

On the Ascendant as a Mask:
Recently we have heard a good deal to the effect that the rising sign, and in particular the ascending degree, is a mask which the native wears before the world but which conceals his true self.
As I have stated in the Lodge, this proposition does not seem self-evidently true. It seems to derive from the practice, in Alan Leo times, of correlating the Sun with the 'individuality' and the Moon with the 'personality', using these words in their well-known theosophical senses. 'Personality' is further derived from the Latin persona = something one makes a noise through, hence a mask such as actors were wont to wear, with a wide-open mouth. Then, apparently, this idea of a mask was transferred to the ascending sign...

I suggest that it is not the rising, but the setting degree, that is more truly a mask, for it is through this that we contact other people, and unless we have very strong personalities (in the usual, not the theosophical, sense) we do modify our demeanour according to the man or woman who confronts us..." [From an Editorial in The Astrologer's Quarterly, September 1951]

Mr.Carter's theory makes a lot of sense to me. Some other astrologers have said that the descendant indicates "what we need", in a partner, or in life. I like Carter's idea much better, and it seems to work in all the charts I've been able to check so far. Admitedly this is not a large number, because times of birth have been elusive in many of my close connections throughout life.

My own descendant is in Capricorn. I've been told more than once that I come over as too serious, solid, reliable = Capricorn. This makes my revolutionary Aquarian Sun bristle! As Mercury lies in Capricorn in my chart I've usually blamed the impression I seem to give on that placement. Capricorn is not the real me, but it could easily be what others see first, when they don't know me. I seriously doubt that anyone sees my rising sign (Cancer). I'm anything but motherly. I've never been a mother, not domesticated (I am house-trained, but barely!) I am ultra sensitive and sentimental/emotional but few would perceive that - unless they knew me very well.

I tried Mr Carter's theory on the husband's chart. He has Leo ascending, Aquarius on the descendant. He has told me, many times, that when he was young he always tried to be original and different, not to conform with the fads of his contemporaries - in the way he dressed, his hair, his taste in music, the way he spoke. That says Aquarius to me, not Leo. Matured now, less avant garde in most things, but still his Leo remains well hidden, just a part of the mix of his real self, his Moon is there too. When I first stumbled across him on the internet, the impression I had was of a school teacher or some such academically inclined mortal. It turned out that he wasn't, but his demeanor was definitely more Aquarius than Leo. His eldest daughter has a similar ascendant, these remarks could apply equally to her.

I believe that Charles Carter nailed this. His theory is something worth keeping in mind.

To calculate an accurate rising sign it's necessary to know the time of birth - as nearly exact as possible. It's a stumbling block for people in Britain where times of birth have not always been routinely recorded. Parents and grandparents can often help with, at least, information on an approximate time of birth - knowing whether born during day or night for example, then narrowing it down. Astrologers find any such rough guide helpful, when they use a calculation process known as "rectification" for a client. They need dates of important events in the life of the person in question, these help establish a rising sign and likely degree.

Below is a list of the zodiac signs with their opposites, as rising and setting signs:

When Aries is rising, Libra is setting
Taurus rising - Scorpio setting
Gemini rising - Sagittarius setting
Cancer rising - Capricorn setting
Leo rising - Aquarius setting
Virgo rising - Pisces setting
Libra rising - Aries setting
Scorpio rising - Taurus setting
Sagittarius rising - Gemini setting
Capricorn rising - Cancer setting
Aquarius rising - Leo setting
Pisces rising - Virgo setting.

PATRIOTISM (again)

Patriotism, British astrologer C.E.O. Carter told us, in his Enclyclopedia of Psychological Astrology, is "a Cancerian trait and most patriots have this sign prominent". I'm not sure that works for me - I have natal Cancer rising, but don't consider myself patriotic, except with regard to the Earth as my home.

Mr. Carter went on to say

"But many who are so called, and who perhaps have even performed deeds of great value to their country, have been actuated by such motives as duty (Saturn), resistance to aggression (Mars) or love of freedom (Jupiter or Uranus). Astrology enables true patriotism to be detected, and at the same time, although few national horoscopes are obtainable, it may usually be judged that a person who has many planets strong in a certain sign will do well for himself when in a country ruled by that sign, and, in turn, may benefit the country."

A variety of astrological charts are used by astrologers to represent the birth of the USA, rising signs differ, but Sun in the sign of Cancer is a common factor. I'm not a fan of astrological charts for countries. I feel that a chart set up for an inanimate entity describes a moment in time - nothing more, a moment whose "imprint" has no flesh and blood upon which to imprint itself (except of course upon babies born at that precise moment). I'm not a professional astrologer though, and could be wrong. Assuming that I am wrong, if the USA's Sun sign is Cancer, and C.E.O Carter was right about the sign of Cancer being related to patriotism, then it's hardly surprising that the USA has always inspired its citizens with great patriotism.

What worries me, as a comparative newcomer, though now a naturalized US citizen, is that a good proportion of people in the USA can see no wrong in their country, or its political system, its militarism, the decisions of its Supreme Court, and interpretation of the Constitution. They see their own attitudes as patriotism, and anyone disagreeing or questioning these things as "unpatriotic".

C.E.O. Carter's assessment of patriotism may have been correct for his own time, and for his own country (Britain). We now live in different times, are considering a different country, with different needs. I'd say the astrological signature for patriotism nowadays would have to include some good Mercury and/or Virgo aspects to enable clear, critical thinking, and a little bit of forward-looking Uranus/Aquarius to enable us as citizens of the world, rather than of any particular country. Oh - and what about compassion? Now that's an element of which this country, and its administration, and the opposition, are in serious need right now. Compassion has been thrown out in exchange for wealth, greed and "I'm not prepared to pay for "their" health care, "their kids" education, or to put out a fire when "their home is burning down, because they didn't PAY!"

I wish America could see itself as part of the wider world instead of a large self-contained world of its own - best of all worlds, which can do no wrong. The plea "God Bless America", to my ears is all wrong! "God Bless the World" is the way forward now, the only way, in fact. If the sensation or emotion we call patriotism were to be be re-jigged, re-aligned to encompass the planet and all its peoples, we might see a flicker of hope for the future of this sad and sick old world.

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world." (Eugene V. Debs)

(Above is a lightly edited and updated version of a post first published in 2007. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose")

COMMENTS FROM OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2007 by two natural born Americans:

anyjazz said...
Whether it is called "Patriotism" or something else, it seems there must be some common thread that holds a nation or macro community together. Whether it is a common goal, a common pride or a common defense, there is a place for some element to create a bond.

In a country the size of America, "patriotism" seems the simplest way to give people a common thread. There are simply too many religions, cults, languages, customs, races, climates and cultures in America to find much of a common thread in any of these. There must be some bonding thread. In times of national crisis, there must be something that sets a people together as an entity. Humans as a whole seem to function best when there is a strength and unity of numbers.

Abraham Lincoln who was most fearful of some states separating from the Union said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." But Mr. Lincoln makes no allusion to blindly following the current leadership. He speaks of cultivating and maintaining a common bond that will sustain a nation. Current leadership appears to say the opposite with phrasing like "if you are not with me you are against me."

Today, easily accessible transportation and communication have drawn close the people of once distant countries. Nations must become neighbors with a common thread of world patriotism.

Twilight said...
Yes, Anyjazz, I appreciate your point about a vast country like the USA needing some sense of community. What I find worrying is the inability by some elments of society to see any wrong in what goes on in their country or in their name. The "my country right or wrong" attitude. What they see as loyalty is just lack of critical thinking in my book.I agree 100% with your last paragraph.

The Next President of The United States said...
As with so many statements people quote as support for the argument, "my country right or wrong" is only part of the content from the original quote by Carl Schurz, who was a German revolutionary, a Union Army general in the Civil War, a Sec. of the Interior after the war and a 19th century reformer.

The full quote: "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." Kinda puts a different slant on image the super-patriots like to conjure up, doesn't it? Schurz is actually an interesting fellow, whose thoughts on Americanism aren't anything like those of some who constantly misuse his quote.

Twilight said...
I didn't know that - thanks TNPOTUS. The sad thing is though, even if 'they' managed to quote the whole quotation accurately, 'they' still wouldn't recognise if and when their country was "in the wrong". Blind, blinkered and brainwashed - I doubt there's any cure for it. :-(

Post a Comment

Being Rational

To paraphrase an old Buck Owens song "All we have to do is act rationally". I try to - most of the time, but when reading other blogs, particularly on new age subjects, and even sometimes on astrology, I feel that what I call my rationality somehow gets in the way. Even so, I can't change my mental wiring - nor can any of us.

One of my favourite astrologers of the past, C.E.O. Carter, has this to say about rationalism in his Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology

"Rationalism is usually the result of a prominent and strong Saturnian influence and of the earthy element, which both tend of make the native fully alive to the logic of facts and the actualities of existence. From a more mental standpoint the same is true of Mercury and his signs. In the horoscopes of rationalists it is probable that the watery signs will rarely be to the fore, although Scorpio sometimes inclines to materialism.If the influences are for the most part good, we may look for open-mindedness; if they are adverse, and especially if the fixed signs are involved, we may look for bigotry."

In my own chart Mercury in Capricorn, with Saturn in Aries semi-sextile Uranus in Taurus probably describes my awkward rationality. My mind wishes to be logical, especially with Sun in Aquarius. Aquarius's modern ruler, Uranus is in earthy Taurus semi-sextile Aquarius's traditional ruler Saturn, in Aries. In addition My Aquarian Sun is semi-sextile Jupiter in imaginative Pisces, not known for its logic.

The semi-sextile is a peculiar aspect to get to grips with. It occurs when planets lie at the same (or closely similar) degrees of signs nextdoor to each other. Two quite dissimilar signs and elements with a close chart connection, producing something in one's life which is always a kind of anomaly. That's how I see it anyway.

In my own case the anomaly is my unshaken belief that there's "something going on" in astrology, yet some scepticism remains, driven by rationality. I find it difficult, nay impossible, to accept certain parts of astrological doctrine. Watery elements in my chart - Jupiter in Pisces (at midheaven natally), Mars in Scorpio, and Cancer ascendant probably serve to widen and aggravate the split in my approach to these matters.

Acceptance is the answer. What we can't change, we live with and hopefully enjoy, whilst trying to accept gracefully that others are doing the same.

This definition of the word "rational" from The Ludwig von Mises Institute is interesting

"Rational. Arrived at by the use of the peculiarly human mental processes by which man strives to connect his ideas as consciously, coherently and purposively as possible in order to plan the attainment of ends sought. In view of the human fallibility in selecting the best possible reasoning for attaining the ends sought, there is no implication as to the correctness or incorrectness of the reasoning. Consequently, all conscious human actions whether or not appropriate for the ends sought, are rational."

So, there we are. We are all rational, but in different ways.