Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Hi everyone, Below is something I wrote to Therese about Tropical Taurus (translation: most of sidereal Aries), and we thought it would be interesting to post it to the group. elisabeth --- zqhelisabeth <zqh_elisabeth wrote: > Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:27:26 -0400 (EDT) > zqhelisabeth <zqh_elisabeth > Taurus, etc (snip) > > > Last time you asked me how I personally think > of > tropical Taurus. I can respond to that now, > without rambling and going off all in different > directions. I think of it as a rather detached > sort of sign. I agree with you that Taurus or > the tropical earth signs don’t really act from > emotions. I think it is not so much because > Taurus is unemotional or stable by nature as > most > believe, but because this is a sign that has a > strong desire to keep things under control, > including emotions. It would hold feelings in > rather than express them. It does not act from > impulse like the Fire signs. Nor does it have > the certain “flowing energy” that Water signs > seem to have (Water signs are well-known for > their empathy, and I think empathy is an energy > that “flows”). Taurus energy does not “flow” freely. > Nor do I believe that this is the placid, > good-natured Venusian from traditional > descriptions, which says that it loves beauty > and > enjoys the pleasures of the tangible world, or > sees only the surface of things as a result of > being overly governed by the five senses. In my > opinion, Taurus is too non-social and > individualistic to be generally “good-natured” > or > “pleasant”. Actually, Taurus can be very > " difficult " . There is nothing really Venusian > about Taurus, except maybe in the later degrees > (based on my observations of the Moon in > Taurus). > I also seem to observe that this is often a > contemplative sign and has intellectual > tendencies, so I don’t think Taurus necessarily > sees only through the 5 senses. Also, maybe it > is true that this sign can be materialistic, > but > not really because it wants to *enjoy* things > (that, from my observation, seems to be more > true > of certain others signs), but because it > desires > security. Actually, Taurus seems to have a low > capacity for enjoyment. > > Another thing that is often said of tropical > Taurus is that it is very fixed, dislikes > change > or wants to keep things always the same. I > think > this is completely untrue. Actually, people > with > a lot of planets in Taurus seem to be > constantly > dissatisfied with the way things are and want > to > change things. They can be very radical and > revolutionary. But it’s possible that all of > this is just a coincidence and there are other > things in these people’s charts that are making > them revolutionary. I confess I base my > conclusions almost completely on my > observations > of planets in signs, since I don’t really know > how to read the other details in the chart. > Still, to me it seems too much too be a > coincidence. > > It’s interesting that Siderealists think that > this sign (Sidereal Aries) is ruled by Pluto, > because I think a lot of traits that I > associate > with Tropical Taurus fit Pluto quite well. > Thinking of Taurus in terms of all that's > associated with Pluto/Hades does seem to make > things fall into place. For example, Taurus’s > association with money. It doesn’t make much > sense to me to connect money with a sign that > is > supposedly related to Venus and the Moon. On > the > other hand, it makes a lot of sense for a sign > that is ruled by Pluto. Wasn’t Pluto called > “the > rich one”, and isn’t his realm, the underworld, > full of resources? (snip) ____________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2003 Report Share Posted September 28, 2003 Elizabeth wrote: --- zqhelisabeth <zqh_elisabeth wrote: > Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:27:26 -0400 (EDT) > zqhelisabeth <zqh_elisabeth > Taurus, etc I think of [Tropical Taurus] as a rather detached > sort of sign. I agree with you that Taurus or > the tropical earth signs don’t really act from > emotions. Thanks for posting this, Elizabeth! For siderealists who are reading this post, I think coming from a person who is still pretty much thinking in the Tropical framework, these observations are very astute--partly because they support the nature and rulership of sidereal Aries. I'll comment on a few of Elizabeth's observations: I think it is not so much because > Taurus is unemotional or stable by nature as > most believe, but because this is a sign that has a > strong desire to keep things under control, > including emotions. It would hold feelings in > rather than express them. It does not act from > impulse like the Fire signs. I'd say this is true. This sign seems to be mental in nature--that is, it certainly doesn't act from spontaneous emotions. I put sidereal Aries, Leo, Sagittarius firmly in the 'mentally inclined' category--not so much communicative as using the mind to plan and act. > Nor do I believe that this is the placid, > good-natured Venusian from traditional > descriptions, which says that it loves beauty > and enjoys the pleasures of the tangible world, or > sees only the surface of things as a result of > being overly governed by the five senses. In my > opinion, Taurus is too non-social and > individualistic to be generally “good-natured” or " pleasant. " I'd say that this is Tropical Taurus/sidereal Aries to a 'T.' There's a definite anti-social side there, or a least a certain contentment with its own thoughts and actions. This sign 'consults within.' Actually, Taurus can be very > " difficult " . This must be the stubborn nature of the sign so often commented on in the Tropical textbooks. >There is nothing really Venusian > about Taurus, except maybe in the later degrees > (based on my observations of the Moon in > Taurus). ....and the Moon in the later degrees would then be edging into sidereal Taurus. > I also seem to observe that this is often a > contemplative sign and has intellectual > tendencies, so I don’t think Taurus necessarily > sees only through the 5 senses. Also, maybe it > is true that this sign can be materialistic, > but not really because it wants to *enjoy* things > (that, from my observation, seems to be more > true of certain others signs), but because it > desires security. Actually, Taurus seems to have a low > capacity for enjoyment. ....or at least in the sense of deep emotional 'joy.' The sign seems to be very matter-of-fact. I haven't observed a materealistic slant to this sign, except if there is a strong interest in life, the sidereal Arian will own items to support that interest, like racing champion Dale Earnhardt. Earnhardt probably spent most of his adult life thinking about racing and race cars and no doubt owned the finest. But it was the concept of 'fast car' that probably interested him more than " I want to be very rich and own it all. " Of course Earnhardt became very rich because of so many racing wins, but that may have interested his family more than himself. > Another thing that is often said of tropical > Taurus is that it is very fixed, dislikes > change or wants to keep things always the same. I > think this is completely untrue. Actually, people > with a lot of planets in Taurus seem to be > constantly dissatisfied with the way things are and want > to change things. If there's anything to a sign being 'cardinal,' then the idea of change and movement would suit cardinality. I know a triple Aries who travels constantly. They can be very radical and revolutionary. And here we have Adolf Hitler... > It’s interesting that Siderealists think that > this sign (Sidereal Aries) is ruled by Pluto, > because I think a lot of traits that I > associate with Tropical Taurus fit Pluto quite well. > Thinking of Taurus in terms of all that's > associated with Pluto/Hades does seem to make > things fall into place. For example, Taurus’s > association with money. It doesn’t make much > sense to me to connect money with a sign that > is supposedly related to Venus and the Moon. On > the other hand, it makes a lot of sense for a sign > that is ruled by Pluto. Wasn’t Pluto called > “the rich one”, and isn’t his realm, the underworld, > full of resources? The anthropologist who discovered 3.5 million year old 'Lucy' had Mars in Aries in the 10th. I think it's quite possible that Aries is the sign that should be associated with the riches of the earth, archeological discoveries, gemstones, minerals, maybe even oil from beneath the earth. Elizabeth, I hope you'll post some of your observations on other zodiac signs. So much information in the books is wrong. Personal observation gives us the most accurate information. Thanks! Therese 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.