Signs Again

[Guest guest]

At 05:58 PM 3/6/05 -0800, Chris wrote:

>

>Sandy, Therese and DS,

>...Signs are well down the list of astrological influences, it becomes

possible to see

>anything one wants with them.

 

Chris,

 

I'm not sure if that is true, but I'll agree that signs as such are well

down the list of astrological influences. That's why I posted the short

piece on my site about two people who have a Scorpio stellium: Gestapo

founder Diels and the son of a man on the Youngastro site who's into music

and the theatre and is apparently the opposite of everthing Diels was.

http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

A sign really can't tell us much, but one way signs seem to work is that

when a transiting planet goes over a planet in a sign, the results will

often manifest as something a sign rules (Libra = relationships for

example) or the nakshatra. (Rahu = weird stuff or criminal activities or

the occult or astrology) That sort of thing.

 

>In the end, our biases are formed from early experiences with the zodiacs,

>possibly with our own charts.

 

I don't know if this is necessarily true because I, like most western

sidereal astrologers, began by using the Tropical zodiac. One thing I

believe happens is that a geneational aspect (such as Pluto square the Sun

for anyone with the Sun in Tropical Scorpio) gets stuck on a sign when it's

a planetary aspect that would manifest about the same in any sign.

 

>In my search for the best zodiac for me, I found that rulerships were the

>most persuasive in pushing me to the sidereal side of things.

 

This is probably true for many of us.

 

Therese