Sun/Saturn/Aquarius

[Guest guest]

At 11:11 AM 9/3/06 +0300, Sari wrote:

>

>That's probably true. Maybe the signs are not so much about

[psychological] traits, but about environments the planets are in. I see a

valid point in studying the strength of planets instead of signs, when

definging characteristical features.

 

Sari, since astrological research has never found psychological traits for

the signs, but traits have been found by the Gauquelins for the planets, it

seems that the planets represent universal traits that can go across

cultures and historical periods. But from my studies, it seems that the

signs reflect various aspects of the Greek mythologies of the gods--as you

pointed out for Pices and Sagittarius, Zeus and Jupiter. I also mentioned

the Saturnian myths in relation to Capricorn.

 

Sari: The ascending sign may be an exception, it really seems to tell about

the basic nature of a person. It laids the basis for the chart.

 

Therese: Perhaps only if a planet is in the ascendant sign, the sign itself

would be important. But the ascendant lord is always important. (I have to

study this issue more.)

 

But...in Hellenistic times astrologers gave specific meanings to the decans

and terms of the rising sign, so we may be talking about multiple meanings

for each segment of the ascendant.

 

>Sari: But then the Sun for example - it's true that people with their Sun

in less than about 22 degrees tropical Pisces really often are a bit

dreamy, poetic, unfoused, different, artistic, " looking behind the curtain "

etc. Those people have their Suns sidereally in Aquarius ruled by Saturn,

which by nature is not dreamy or unfocused at all!

 

Therese: According to Edgar Cayce, Saturn isn't so much about focus as

about change and being 'double minded in a non-constructive way.' But the

signs are not the planets. I believe the symbolic search for sign traits

will go back to the mythology of Greece where our current zodiac was

born--adapted from Mesopotamia. But Mesopotamia never gave the signs

definitions or meanings. These only came about later in Hellenistic times.

 

I just ordered an interesting book which I believe states that the Greek

gods and goddesses were actual beings and had much to do with the zodiac

and the sudden birth of astrology as we know it today. Well...we'll see. I

investigate all options.

 

>Could it be that because the Sun is in an enemy sign, it withdraws? So it

doesn't become " Aquarian-like " or " Saturn-like " , but it feels like being in

an extremely hostile environment, contrary to it's basic nature, and so it

withdraws and becomes less capable to function? Maybe we should interpret

planets in signs in this way instead of coloring them with different traits

according to signs they occupy?

 

Certainly your suggestion is valid, but the sign mythology may also apply.

For example the new co-ruler of Aquarius is Uranus, and Uranus was a

victim, being castrated and removed from power. Tropical astrologers always

say that Pisces is the victim.

 

>Sari: I studied once chart in ADB with the Moon less than 5 degrees from

the ascendant without other planets in the same sign. The list was quite

surprising. There were quite lot of " tough guys and girls " .

>

>Manly, more or less ultra-cool types: Garth Allen aka. Donald Bradley

(actually I don't know how " manly " he was, but loudmouthed, yes), Chet

Baker ( " James Dean of jazz " , " behind his ultra-cool handsome facade lay

something ominous, uspoken " from a net site), Jack Kerouac, Sergio Leone,

Robert E. Zoller

>

>Some women with tough roles or imagos: Susan Sarandon, Sigorney Weaver,

Martina Navratilova

>

>Showy blondes: Farrah Fawcett, Dolly Parton

>

>Creative fantasy makers: Lewis Carroll, Charles Chaplin

>

>I don't think that " emotion " is the main keyword that comes to mind. There

is something else...

 

Therese: Certainly then, the Moon is not shy, and doesn't mind attention

from the world. This contradicts an earlier post about the Moon on the

ascendant being inner. (Are you going to take a guess at Gerald's occupation?)

 

>Sari: At present I understand [airy] as quite Saturnine, five in enneagram

type element. Theoretical, aloof, intellectual, dry, a bit cynical,

critical, analytical, distant. Not youthful, superficial or trendy like

tropical air.

 

This isn't Gerald at all. He's not the least bit theoretical or

intellectual, not a thinker. Not analytical or distant or superficial. He's

just a good solid, kind-hearted and very responsible person. Not in the

least verbal--a doer. I think maybe traditional 'airy' signs and Saturn are

different. But then I don't believe that the elements belong to the signs,

as Rob Hand and Robert Schmidt have discovered.

 

I think we'd best toss out the tropically based elements in relation to

sidereal signs.

 

>Sari:. There's often indeed much action for better world and democracy in

sidereal Capricorn. This always reminds me of Germaine Greer and her famous

Green on revolution, Germaine on Love interview from the early 70's

http://www.takver.com/history/sydney/greer1972.htm . Greer has her

ascendant, Sun and Mercury in sidereal Capricorn.

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll add her to my Capricorn file.

 

Therese