Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Hi Juan, Thanks for the advice. I am aware that in reading a chart, signs are definitely not the most important, and it was not my intention to turn astrology into simple sign reading. When I look at people and wonder whether they " fit " their signs, I do always keep in mind that there are other things in the chart that may account for their personality. But my question is, what can I do if I want to know about the signs themselves? It seems that the only way to find out is to observe enough people, so that even if personality is affected mainly by the planets, observing many, many people would give me a sense of how the signs affect them in a subtle way. I might account for one Libra being intellectual because he has strong Mercury. For another Libra being a writer because he has the Moon in Gemini. And so on. But if it seems to me that a lot of Libras are intellectual, then I think it's possible that the sign Libra itself might have an intellectual " tone " . I know I talk about the signs a lot. But I don't ever want to give the impression that that's all there is to astrology. I confess that the reason I'm so interested in the signs is because I come to astrology from a very amateurish interest in personality, psychology and history. I notice that signs are essentially " personality types " and I'm interested in how they are connected to mythology and history and other things. It's interesting for me to see how the signs, planets and symbols that are used in astrology are connected to other, apparently non-astrological things. But first I would like to understand the signs. So maybe I'm not even a real astrologer/astrology student. But I'm here because this group gives me a lot that I find that is useful and a lot of food for thought. I should have mentioned that in my introduction. I guess this is my second introduction. Elisabeth , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > > Elizabeth... > > The trouble with focusing on a sign is it prevents one > from understanding " the chart " ... > > Zodiacal placements(of planets within a chart) usually > differ from " Mundo " placements... Understanding the > Prime Vertical and Mundoscope Charts are essential for > effective charting... > > Planets near angles usurp the " personality " of the > chart just as planets in the background houses > compared to foreground houses are diminished in their > ability to be recognized.... > > Since Mercury reflects much of an individuals thinking > and communication " signatures " its placement in > relationship to the Sun determines if one " sees " an > active Sun " sign " or Mercury " sign " . > > > So much contributes to whether you " see " a person's > Sun sign or not.... For that matter, one would see > another's moon sign before they ever picked up on > their Sun.... > > Is there a zodiac? Is there an ecliptic plane? > It's not about this or that... Sidereal or Tropical... > Both are working mathematical and physical formulas... > Developing an understanding of a cycle that begins and > ends with the Spring Equinox is not difficult to > grasp... Developing an understanding of a cycle that > begins and ends with Spica is also a mathematical > paradigm.... > > Sidereal and Tropical on their own though do not > explain the phenomena of " astrology " . The Sun with its > " energy " and subsequent dispersal of Solar Winds... > The Earths Magnetism as well as that of Jupiter, > Saturn and others contributes to our existence and > psychological profile. > > The signs as well as the times they are' a changing... > Descriptions of Signs are today a combination.... A > mixture of signage terminology. > We are a very complex evolution... because as we are > the " signs " at birth... We are also the signs of their > progression... We are the signs of our Noviens.. > > Fagan wrote " the words natal Sun are held to mean the > " Four Suns. " (a)The Natal Sun (b)the progressed Natal > Sun ©the Sidereal Solar Return Sun and (d) the > Progressed Sidereal Solar Return Sun. > > Combine all of the potential signage for all of these > " Suns " and you have a storyboard worth of our complex > selves... > > Juan > > PS: My Sun is in Taurus, Mercury in Gemini and Moon in > Aquarius.... I communicate as a Gemini(9th and > Background) My views are of an Aquarian(4th and > Foreground) and I am one with nature(Live on a > Farm)with a Taurean Sun(8th and Middleground). > PSS: The Farm is not mine.... > > Does it change? yes!!! besides the fact that my Moon > is Aquarian.... ____________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 --- elisabeth <zqh_elisabeth wrote: I am aware that in reading > a chart, signs are definitely not the most > important, and it was not my intention to turn > astrology into simple sign reading. I didn't think that was your intention at all... > But my question is, what can I do if I want to > know about the signs themselves? My suggestion is similar to your understanding of first observing many, many people... I would suggest reading Gleadow's " Origin of the Zodiac " . I would do additional research on the " old " and " new' meanings of the signs... With that information.. I suggest re-construction of the signs.. Tropical Aires is today roughly 25 degrees of Sidereal Pisces and 5 degrees of Sidereal Aires. After that mold has been developed I suggest that you view the Moon with more significance than the Sun. Having said that... It goes back to the signage on the angles and how apparent are those traits within the spector of observing individuals. I hesitate to define signage in black and white terminology. A taurean influence is different from an airean one but determining where one ends and the other begins is similar to the time(days) following a full moon.... There is an adjustment which occurs which is tempered by the time of day and the influence of additional factors. My Suggestion is to erect a Novienic Chart for yourself to better understand your " self " and your " sign " ... If you don't know how to do that, send me the degree and minute of your Moon's position and I will inform you what your Moon's Novenic position is. In a novienic chart the Moon is placed at the ascendant and an equal house system is then constructed. It seems that > the only way to find out is to observe enough > people, so that even if personality is affected > mainly by the planets, observing many, many > people would give me a sense of how the signs > affect them in a subtle way. I might account for > one Libra being intellectual because he has > strong Mercury. For another Libra being a writer > because he has the Moon in Gemini. And so on. But > if it seems to me that a lot of Libras are > intellectual, then I think it's possible that the > sign Libra itself might have an intellectual > " tone " . > Libra is an " air " sign and as such demonstrates a " mental persona " . Whereas a water sign would emphasize emotion etc.... the elements contribute to understanding signs... Symbolism is the common language throughout history. > I know I talk about the signs a lot. But I don't > ever want to give the impression that that's all > there is to astrology. I confess that the reason > I'm so interested in the signs is because I come > to astrology from a very amateurish interest in > personality, psychology and history. I notice > that signs are essentially " personality types " > and I'm interested in how they are connected to > mythology and history and other things. It's > interesting for me to see how the signs, planets > and symbols that are used in astrology are > connected to other, apparently non-astrological > things. But first I would like to understand the > signs. So maybe I'm not even a real > astrologer/astrology student. But I'm here > because this group gives me a lot that I find > that is useful and a lot of food for thought. I > should have mentioned that in my introduction. I > guess this is my second introduction. > > Elisabeth > We are all students and we are all teachers, whether we are conscious or not in our actions... again... if signs got your curiosity then read Gleadow's Origin of the Zodiac... There is also a two book set written by Thomas Burgoyne called " The Light of Egypt " . The signs throughout history have been explained through symbolism... When one attempts to decipher symbolism into the mundane it gets real sticky... Which confronts the reader or student with the question " why am I interested in this stuff? " Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Elisabeth: > > But my question is, what can I do if I want to > > know about the signs themselves? Juan: > My suggestion is similar to your understanding of > first observing many, many people... > I would suggest reading Gleadow's " Origin of the > Zodiac " . Elisabeth: If it's a book then it would not be easy for me to find since I rely on what I kind find online, and on what's available at libraries. I'm intensely interested in astrology, but at this point in my life it is still just a hobby and I have not started collecting books on this subject yet. Juan: > I would do additional research on the " old " > and " new' meanings of the signs... Elisabeth: Yes, this is something that I would absolutely enjoy doing one day, when I have the time to devote myself to it. It would be wonderful if anyone on this list who knows anything concerning this would discuss it on the list. It's fascinating. I have read only a few articles here and there that gives me some idea of how the sign meanings might have changed. I can come up with so many possibilities based on what I read. For example, during the time when the signs were associated with patron gods and goddesses, Libra comes under Hephaestus/Vulcan. Now this sign shares Venus with Taurus, but many astrologers believe that when the planet Vulcan shows up, it should be the new ruler of Taurus rather than Libra, so Libra would then get Venus to itself. Obviously our perception of Libra and Taurus has changed. But why? Also, since Edgar Cayce seems to have said that Vulcan was the same as Pluto (please, anyone correct if I'm wrong), maybe the true ruler of Libra is Pluto? Pluto/Hades was not among the gods who were given the honour of ruling the signs because he was not a well favoured god. Maybe Vulcan took his place? If Pluto rules Libra, then it's interesting that sidereal astrologers now believe Libra's opposite, Aries, belongs with Pluto. (Actually, even some tropical astrologers put Aries with Pluto, but they are a minority.) Again that pattern that I have observed, in which certain symbols and characteristics that seemingly belong to one sign crosses over to its polar opposite. What is happening? I seem to come up with a lot of questions but never really come to real conclusions. Juan: > With that information.. I suggest re-construction of > the signs.. Tropical Aires is today roughly 25 degrees > of Sidereal Pisces and 5 degrees of Sidereal Aires. > After that mold has been developed I suggest that you > view the Moon with more significance than the Sun. Elisabeth: Ah, the Moon! Actually, I do place much more importance on the Moon than the sun. If I ever think of people in terms of their 'sign', then it is in terms of their Moon sign rather than their Sun sign. The characteristics of the Sun sign is too general or 'diffused'. The patterns are less consistent. However, it does seem that when I attempt to transfer the tropical interpretations of a sign to the sidereal sign of the same name, it works better for the sun sign than the moon sign. For example, the description for tropical Aries does seem to transfer quite well to sidereal *sun* in Aries, but not so well to sidereal *moon* in Aries. I'm not sure why. It seems that the sun in a sign is very different from a moon in a sign. The Sun in sidereal Aries may, for example, be driven and focused on action (on 'doing' things), but the Moon in sidereal Aries tends to be detached and rather cerebral. It was someone with the Moon in sidereal Aries who said " I think, therefore I am " , after all! Btw, I'd be interested if anyone ever wants to discuss the horoscope of this person since I've read a lot of biographical notes on him. [birth data: 31 March, 1596, La Haye, Touraine, France, 2:00am - 2:15am. (Though I'm not sure how reliable the noted birthtime is.) His name is Descartes.] Juan: > My Suggestion is to erect a Novienic Chart for > yourself to better understand your " self " and your > " sign " ... If you don't know how to do that, send me > the degree and minute of your Moon's position and I > will inform you what your Moon's Novenic position is. Elisabeth: My moon is in 13 Aries 31'35 " according the Fagan-Bradley sidereal chart I have with me. Juan: > again... if signs got your curiosity then read > Gleadow's Origin of the Zodiac... There is also a two > book set written by Thomas Burgoyne called " The Light > of Egypt " . Elisabeth: I will keep these titles in mind. >The signs throughout history have been > explained through symbolism... When one attempts to > decipher symbolism into the mundane it gets real > sticky... Which confronts the reader or student with > the question " why am I interested in this stuff? " > > Juan Yes, the symbolism part is difficult, but I think it is what makes astrology so worthwhile. regards, Elisabeth ____________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 --- elisabeth <zqh_elisabeth wrote: > Elisabeth: > If it's a book then it would not be easy for me > to find since I rely on what I kind find online, > and on what's available at libraries. I'm > intensely interested in astrology, but at this > point in my life it is still just a hobby and I > have not started collecting books on this subject > yet. > > Have you reviewed and read Sidereal.zip? I can't remember if its available here or not. It is available on Jack's web site... As for the " classics " .... books written by Fagan, Allen, Stahl and Gleadow... There is no substitute. > I have read only a few articles here and there > that gives me some idea of how the sign meanings > might have changed. I can come up with so many > possibilities based on what I read. For example, > during the time when the signs were associated > with patron gods and goddesses, Libra comes under > Hephaestus/Vulcan. Now this sign shares Venus > with Taurus, but many astrologers believe that > when the planet Vulcan shows up, it should be the > new ruler of Taurus rather than Libra, so Libra > would then get Venus to itself. Obviously our > perception of Libra and Taurus has changed. But > why? Also, since Edgar Cayce seems to have said > that Vulcan was the same as Pluto (please, anyone > correct if I'm wrong), maybe the true ruler of > Libra is Pluto? Pluto/Hades was not among the > gods who were given the honour of ruling the > signs because he was not a well favoured god. > Maybe Vulcan took his place? If Pluto rules > Libra, then it's interesting that sidereal > astrologers now believe Libra's opposite, Aries, > belongs with Pluto. I've not heard that before but nothing would surprise me when it comes to siderealists... Personally, I see the Pluto/Scorpio connection to be pretty strong... The signs are a study in evolution. If Libra is the balance between physical and spiritual then the soul transfers this duality in Scorpio to become male and female. Sex and Pluto(Control & Transformation)I think fit better than Pluto and Aires... (Actually, even some tropical > astrologers put Aries with Pluto, but they are a > minority.) Again that pattern that I have > observed, in which certain symbols and > characteristics that seemingly belong to one sign > crosses over to its polar opposite. What is > happening? I seem to come up with a lot of > questions but never really come to real > conclusions. > > Once you're satisfied with the answers you'll appreciate your conclusions... > > Elisabeth: > Ah, the Moon! Actually, I do place much more > importance on the Moon than the sun. If I ever > think of people in terms of their 'sign', then it > is in terms of their Moon sign rather than their > Sun sign. As a rule of thumb... I couldn't't agree with you more... The characteristics of the Sun sign is > too general or 'diffused'. The patterns are less > consistent. However, it does seem that when I > attempt to transfer the tropical interpretations > of a sign to the sidereal sign of the same name, > it works better for the sun sign than the moon > sign. For example, the description for tropical > Aries does seem to transfer quite well to > sidereal *sun* in Aries, but not so well to > sidereal *moon* in Aries. I'm not sure why. It > seems that the sun in a sign is very different > from a moon in a sign. The Sun in sidereal Aries > may, for example, be driven and focused on action > (on 'doing' things), but the Moon in sidereal > Aries tends to be detached and rather cerebral. I understand what you are implying though I strongly sense that if the Airean moon is in a foreground house or near an angle that it will demonstrate itself more passionately and impulsively. The Moon is a mirror of the entire chart with an Airean " personality " . > It was someone with the Moon in sidereal Aries > who said " I think, therefore I am " , after all! > Btw, I'd be interested if anyone ever wants to > discuss the horoscope of this person since I've > read a lot of biographical notes on him. [birth > data: 31 March, 1596, La Haye, Touraine, France, > 2:00am - 2:15am. (Though I'm not sure how > reliable the noted birthtime is.) His name is > Descartes.] > > > > Juan: > > My Suggestion is to erect a Novienic Chart for > > yourself to better understand your " self " and > your > > " sign " ... If you don't know how to do that, > send me > > the degree and minute of your Moon's position > and I > > will inform you what your Moon's Novenic > position is. > > Elisabeth: > My moon is in 13 Aries 31'35 " according the > Fagan-Bradley sidereal chart I have with me. > > In a Novienic Chart the Novienic Moon is positioned at the Ascendant. From this information a 12 equal house chart is formed. Your Novienic Moon & Ascendant is 1 degree 44 minutes of Sagittarius. Novienic MC is 1d 44'Virgo and IC 1d 44' Pisces... How does that feel? Are you sensing your Airean moon and/or your Sagittarian Moon? > >The signs throughout history have been > > explained through symbolism... When one > attempts to > > decipher symbolism into the mundane it gets > real > > sticky... Which confronts the reader or student > with > > the question " why am I interested in this > stuff? " > > > > Juan > > > Yes, the symbolism part is difficult, but I think > it is what makes astrology so worthwhile. > > regards, > > Elisabeth > > I agree... Burgoyne writes: The evolution of sex(Scorpio)has produced the necessary avenues for the entrance of countless forces, and the soul is now rapidly losing the last vestiges of its spiritual conscience. In other words, Sagittarius symbolizes that state of the soul wherein it is descending to its polarizing point, and is, therefore, the vortex of innumerable opposing forces, seeking expression in different forms. Juan PS: I 'll attempt to make up a file with information on Novienic Charts. I'll let you know of its progress and availability. ____________________ > > Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.