The equality of signs

[Guest guest]

Although part of this post was originally a

correspondence between me and Therese, I've

decided to send this to the group. Below I have

referred to the zodiac signs by their tropical

names. The reason is because my observations

were gathered mainly when I was learning about

tropical astrology. But in the end I don't think

this really matters. And since what I write below

is all a part of my exploration of new ways of

looking at the signs (which I believe, along with

the planets, are " archetypes " and significant not

only within astrology) and attempt to " unearth "

their true meanings, I thought it could be useful

for western siderealists, who seem to me to be

more open to exploring new possibilities and

meanings in astrology.

 

 

> At 04:23 PM 11/1/03 -0500, Elisabeth wrote:

 

> > I think it

> >is important to see equal value in all the

> signs,

> >not only because we need to be fair to

> everyone

> >who might be interested in astrology, but

> because

> >the " signs " are something real in all of us

 

[snip]

 

> >But despite many tropical

> >astrologers saying that there are no " good " or

> > " bad " signs, it seems quite obvious to me that

> >the signs are treated very unequally.

 

Therese wrote:

> That is certainly true. By the time an

> astrologer learns the basics, sign

> prejudices are already in place. Aquarius is

> great. Scorpio is a bad sign,

> etc.

 

Elisabeth replies:

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. It is Leo that wants to be unique

(or special) 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. 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.

 

In my opinion, the reputation of Scorpio seems to

be more complicated. When I read older text

books, it is quite obvious that this is a " bad "

sign. But it seems that in recent years (maybe

due to Liz Greene) this sign has gotten back its

due :-), and the pendulumn seems to have swung to

the opposite end. It is still a " bad " sign, but

a very " good " kind of bad sign. It is still

suppose to be vengeful and dark and " mysterious " ,

but it is also suppose to have more depth and

complexity than all the other signs, and no less

than 5 symbols are said to represent the many

different stages of " evolution " that this sign is

suppose to be capable of going through. By

comparison, most other signs seem less rich in

meaning (and therefore seemingly less important

or interesting) compared to Scorpio, and I often

find when reading tropical astrologers that they

put a lot more time and space into their analysis

of Scorpio than to most other signs. The simple

fact (at least in my view) is that in recent

years this sign fascinates tropical astrologers,

and in general, Scorpios nowadays seem to be

quite proud of their sign. I can't say the same

for Virgos, for example. Maybe part of the

popularity is due to the desire of many people in

our time to search for deeper meaning in life and

this sign (along with Pisces) is suppose to be

associated with all the " deep " and intangible

things that we want to explore. I suspect that

another reason is because nowadays we also have a

fascination with the dark and mysterious. I don't

know if you remember that post about Saturn at

the Political astrology group several months ago.

I found that there is a parallel to people's

attitude to Saturn in the past to people's

attitude to Scorpio/Pluto in the present time.

People seem to like being a Scorpio or being

ruled by Pluto just as Michelangelo, back in the

Renaissance, was proud of having Saturn rising.

 

Not that I think this is a bad thing. It's just

that we can be too caught up with a few signs and

neglect the others, and therefore miss a lot of

important meanings that other signs might hold.

We start to devalue certain signs, some of which

have " degenerated " . Virgo immediately comes to

mind as one of them. (Nothing but " nit-picking "

and " anal " ). Perhaps more surprisingly is Aries

(surprising probably because it use to be one of

the " cool " signs, at least several hundred years

ago). It is now often dismissed as nothing more

than " the baby of the zodiac " (due to it being

the " first " sign). Just as Pisces is seen as the

last and most spiritually " evolved " sign, Aries

is the least evolved. It is childish, simple and

gullible, and is notorious for being the most

selfish of the 12 signs, and is often described

as " shouting and stamping his feet to get his own

way " . Along with Aries, the Mars archetype seems

to lose a lot of its meaning, some of which seems

to be transferred to Pluto, the new ruler of

Scorpio (according to tropical astrologers) or

with Scorpio itself.

 

 

____________________

Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca