The equality of signs

[Guest guest]

At 04:36 PM 11/9/03 -0500, Elizabeth wrote:

>...I think most people can agree that Aquarius is

>viewed as a " good " or " cool " sign. Maybe it's

>because it is suppose to represent creativity,

>originality, the breaking of boundaries, and

> " being unique " -- all of which are very

>fashionable in the present time we are living in.

>But I find at least the " being unique " part kind

>of wrong because Aquarius is opposite of Leo,

>which is supposed to be an individualistic " ego "

>related sign.

 

Tropical astrologers also call Aquarius the group sign, but which they mean

(as you said) is that Aquarius wants equality and accepts everyone as

valuable in some way. This is actually very Saturnian. (Tropical Aquarius

is sidereal Capricorn.) I have a friend who has Saturn on the ascendant and

she hates superiority of any kind and intensely dislikes the idea of class.

She wants to put everyone on the same level--everyone is of equal worth in

her eyes. On the other hand, she's sort of a loner and isn't comfortable in

groups. This would be Saturn too. So possibly Aquarius/Capricorn isn't

really into groups. It's simply a democrat, wanting everyone to be equal.

 

>It is Leo that wants to be unique

>(or special)

 

Actually, this probably isn't true, at least it's not true of Sidereal Leo.

What is probably true is that if the Sun is strong in the horoscope, the

person is recognized as a kind of center or authority in some way. OTHERS

recognize Leo--I think maybe the 'want' isn't really there. It's the Moon

that 'wants.'

 

>whereas Aquarius wants equality. Or

>at least that's the impression one gets from

>reading tropical text books. This is just one

>instance that tropical astrology seems to

>contradict itself.

 

Yes, if you analyze what the Tropical books say about the signs, there are

contradictions all over the place.

 

But it is also one more

>evidence that characteristics of opposite signs

>seem to cross over to each other at times, which

>makes me wonder whether that rumour about there

>originally being 6 signs (opposite signs

>originally being one and the same) isn't true

>after all.

 

Opposite signs complement each other, but I think they are distinct. The

sun is not like Saturn, for example, and Venus is not like Mars.

 

I'll have to reply to the rest of this post tomorrow, when I'm awake!

You're tracing some interesting concepts here, Elizabeth, looking at the

development of zodiac signs.

 

Blessings,

Therese