A Different Definition of Venus

[Judy_AzVirgo]

FullMoonLibra, neither Venus or Taurus is unemotional. I think the idea of the initial post to this thread is that one's personal values underlie who and what we love. She quoted Liz Greene: "our ‘choices’ in love are really our unconscious statements about what we VALUE most".

But how do YOU feel Venus manifests in your life?

[Caro]

would be interested in seeing Liz Greene's chart.

Im not a fan of hers(she has a devoted following) but she has brought in some interesting discussions.

[Moog]

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Greene,_Liz

[miquar]

Originally Posted by fullmoonlibra

Ok, I'm a Venus in Taurus (10th), does this mean that I can't feel love like it should be feeled and that I'll be more material, so would rather give importance to values than to love? With the house position in tenth, I think in my case it's more about values if it's true what you all say.
But I have my Moon trine Venus, so that could give me some emotions though?

I would say that what we value is what we love, whether that takes the form of a partner or an object or whatever, and that Venus in earth finds beauty through the senses rather than through ideas, feelings or the imagination. I see Venus in Taurus as reflecting a need to find 'that which is beautiful and worthwhile' (as Greene often says when talking about Venus) by cultivating a patient attunement to the material/sensual world, and an appreciation of it’s stability and fruitfulness. You are perhaps more likely to give and receive affection through touch and practical support. If I could choose a sign for my natal Venus it would be Taurus. I think materialism to a destructive extent is more likely with a wounded Venus in Taurus than a wounded Venus in other signs, however.

Venus in Taurus in the 10th could be a farmer or a masseur, or perhaps an artist, or someone whose calling involves protecting areas of natural beauty. It doesn't have to be a banker or something like that.

[Caro]

Thanks Moog.

Should have know she was a scorpio rising - all that dark and deep stuff!

[Judy_AzVirgo]

Nice thumbnail sketch of Venus in Taurus, Miquar.

[miquar]

Thanks Judy

[fullmoonlibra]

Originally Posted by miquar

I would say that what we value is what we love, whether that takes the form of a partner or an object or whatever, and that Venus in earth finds beauty through the senses rather than through ideas, feelings or the imagination. I see Venus in Taurus as reflecting a need to find 'that which is beautiful and worthwhile' (as Greene often says when talking about Venus) by cultivating a patient attunement to the material/sensual world, and an appreciation of it’s stability and fruitfulness. You are perhaps more likely to give and receive affection through touch and practical support. If I could choose a sign for my natal Venus it would be Taurus. I think materialism to a destructive extent is more likely with a wounded Venus in Taurus than a wounded Venus in other signs, however.

Venus in Taurus in the 10th could be a farmer or a masseur, or perhaps an artist, or someone whose calling involves protecting areas of natural beauty. It doesn't have to be a banker or something like that.

Thank you for your nice analysis
In the tenth house, I prefer being the artist (creative writer f.e! But just this moment I have the hardest time to choose a career), but I always say, that if I wasn't well educated that I definitely would work in a florist or a chocolate shop

[Munch]

While I'm wary of making sign/house correlations in general, I'd say that this short coming in the definition of Venus is often found in the explanation of the Venusian 2nd house.

The 2nd house surely governs money and the material, but once again it governs our VALUES. This gets missed all of the time and I think it is the fundamental root of this house. The material nature of the house (for me) is superseded by values shown here.

If you want to find a mate that shares your values, look for them to highlight your 2nd house, especially with Venus.

Sorry about my digression here from the main topic.

[miquar]

You're welcome fullmoonlibra, and thanks. When transiting Saturn opposes your Venus and/or transiting Pluto trines it, perhaps you'll get clues to which calling(s) that Venus in Taurus needs to fulfil in the world. Hope you enjoyed transiting Jupiter, too!

[Inconjunct]

Traditional astrology grants rulership of the second house to Jupiter, not Venus. According to Frawley, the association of signs with houses and thus with sign rulers is a modern invention.

[Judy_AzVirgo]

Originally Posted by Inconjunct

Traditional astrology grants rulership of the second house to Jupiter, not Venus. According to Frawley, the association of signs with houses and thus with sign rulers is a modern invention.

Huh? If association of signs with houses and rulers is modern, then how can rulership of the second belong to any planet?

My understanding is that traditionally the Second is associated both with Jupiter and with Taurus.... an uncomfortable pairing. But definitely a rulership.

Personally, being a modern astrologer myself, I think Venus/Taurus fits very well with the Second.

[JUPITERASC]

the following 35 word quote is sourced from article entitled “The Second House” by Dana Gerhardt http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_dgsecdhouse_e.htm

“Modern astrology grants Venus rulership of the 2nd house. Traditional astrology makes Jupiter and Taurus its co-significators........Jupiter is the planet of wealth. You can't accurately assess someone's wealth potential without determining this planet's strength”

fwiw traditionally, house rulerships are not the same as significations of a house

Traditionally Jupiter has sign rulership of Sagittarius and Pisces and is associated with the idea of wealth and prosperity.

Jupiter in Vedic Astrology is associated not only with knowledge as well as wealth, prosperity/finance but also with children and relationships.

[miquar]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

You can't accurately assess someone's wealth potential without determining this planet's strength”[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][COLOR=Navy][B]

So there aren't any billionaires with a weak or afflicted natal Jupiter?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by miquar

Quote:
Originally Posted by JUPITERASC
You can't accurately assess someone's wealth potential without determining this planet's strength”[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][COLOR=Navy][B]

Originally Posted by miquar

So there aren't any billionaires with a weak or afflicted natal Jupiter?

miquar, you quoted the portion of my comment which is in fact a quote from Dana Gerhardt!

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

the following 35 word quote is sourced from article entitled “The Second House” by Dana Gerhardt http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_dgsecdhouse_e.htm

“Modern astrology grants Venus rulership of the 2nd house. Traditional astrology makes Jupiter and Taurus its co-significators........Jupiter is the planet of wealth. You can't accurately assess someone's wealth potential without determining this planet's strength”

To clarify then miquar, that's a quote from Dana Gerhardt and not my personal point of view! I quoted Dana Gerhardt in response to the following two comments

Originally Posted by Inconjunct

Traditional astrology grants rulership of the second house to Jupiter, not Venus. According to Frawley, the association of signs with houses and thus with sign rulers is a modern invention.

Originally Posted by Judy_AzVirgo

Huh? If association of signs with houses and rulers is modern, then how can rulership of the second belong to any planet?

My understanding is that traditionally the Second is associated both with Jupiter and with Taurus.... an uncomfortable pairing. But definitely a rulership.

Personally, being a modern astrologer myself, I think Venus/Taurus fits very well with the Second.

Because I thought that to clarify the difference between sign rulership and signification is important

[miquar]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

miquar, you quoted the portion of my comment which is in fact a quote from Dana Gerhardt!

I know - was just a comment.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by miquar

So there aren't any billionaires with a weak or afflicted natal Jupiter?

fwiw list of billionaires up to date as at 2012 http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

[Munch]

Originally Posted by Caro

would be interested in seeing Liz Greene's chart.

Im not a fan of hers(she has a devoted following) but she has brought in some interesting discussions.

Not a fan either. I always come away feeling like I should go flog myself for having personal desires. Of course, I could be confusing her with Isabel Hickey though.....

[Judy_AzVirgo]

Originally Posted by Munch

Not a fan either. I always come away feeling like I should go flog myself for having personal desires. Of course, I could be confusing her with Isabel Hickey though.....

I never felt that way about Greene's books, but sure did reading Hickey's. Too many "bad" things -- but if it's "good", then it must be spiritual. Oy.

[Inconjunct]

@Judy - Frawley attacks the idea of what he calls the Alphabetical Zodiac, where house 1 is associated with sign 1 and the ruler of sign 1, house 2 is associated with sign 2 etc. He points out that, for the classical astrologer, this wasn't so. Houses and signs were seen separately. So house 1 was ruled by Saturn, not Mars because Saturn was the outermost and therefore "first" planet in the traditional envisioning of the cosmos. He indicates that Saturn represents incarnation, and therefore is more appropriately associated with the first house than Mars. However, sign1 remained Aries, ruled by Mars.

[miquar]

Greene is big on honouring one's individual values and needs, saying we need to do this for ourselves and in order to be creative mouthpieces for collective energies. Haven't read any Hickey, though.
.
Hi Inconjunct. That's interesting stuff. I like the modern astrological alphabet as far as it goes Partly this is because of the way I see Mars and the first house, and so on, and partly because of the way that the Ascendant and the first point of Aries are generated in the same way - i.e. by finding the intersection of two planes and seeing where the resulting line crosses the ecliptic.

[Judy_AzVirgo]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

miquar, you quoted the portion of my comment which is in fact a quote from Dana Gerhardt!
... To clarify then miquar, that's a quote from Dana Gerhardt and not my personal point of view! ...

So... you quoted Dana Gerhardt just because? Not that you agree with her? You're being disingenuous. If Gerhardt is not stating your personal POV, then just what IS your opinion, JA?

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Because I thought that to clarify the difference between sign rulership and signification is important

OK. I understand that you're trying to shed light on my confusion over Inconjunct's post that mentioned only rulerships, but frankly I think the concept of signification is irrelevant to most people who practice modern astrology methods and use all of the planets in their work.

Here's a quote from Glenn Perry that may shed some light .... It is not my own opinion, of course!

"If ancient astrology was originally whole and perfect, then it follows that there is no need to question it. Modern astrology is rendered superfluous. We have only to rediscover the techniques of our divinely inspired forbearers and apply them to our modern clients. Personally, I find this kind of thinking the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Like other forms of fundamentalism, it is rigid, opposed to progress, and threatened by the concept of evolution."

[Judy_AzVirgo]

Originally Posted by Inconjunct

@Judy - Frawley attacks the idea of what he calls the Alphabetical Zodiac, where house 1 is associated with sign 1 and the ruler of sign 1, house 2 is associated with sign 2 etc. He points out that, for the classical astrologer, this wasn't so. Houses and signs were seen separately. So house 1 was ruled by Saturn, not Mars because Saturn was the outermost and therefore "first" planet in the traditional envisioning of the cosmos. He indicates that Saturn represents incarnation, and therefore is more appropriately associated with the first house than Mars. However, sign1 remained Aries, ruled by Mars.

Frawley attacks the idea... You don't?

See comments above from Glenn Perry. I can provide more!

[Inconjunct]

Originally Posted by Judy_AzVirgo

Frawley attacks the idea... You don't?

See comments above from Glenn Perry. I can provide more!

Why so combative? I think what Frawley has to say is very interesting. Astrology as currently practiced is but a handful of years old compared to the tradition which Frawley discusses. He makes a very persuasive case for the uselessness of much modern astrological technique. Am I persuaded? Well, I don't use modern ruler ships any more, that's for certain.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Judy_AzVirgo

So... you quoted Dana Gerhardt just because? Not that you agree with her? You're being disingenuous. If Gerhardt is not stating your personal POV, then just what IS your opinion, JA?

So are you then saying that anyone whose motive is to clarify what has been written by another poster is 'disingenuous' - if they quote an opinion that differs (but only in part) from their own personal opinion?

Judy_AzVirgo, IMO it is clear from my post that I agree with ONE of the sentences that Dana Gebhardt wrote and therefore your comment “so exactly what is your opinion JA?” seems superfluous!

i.e. when you said

Originally Posted by Judy_AzVirgo

Huh? If association of signs with houses and rulers is modern, then how can rulership of the second belong to any planet? My understanding is that traditionally the Second is associated both with Jupiter and with Taurus.... an uncomfortable pairing. But definitely a rulership. Personally, being a modern astrologer myself, I think Venus/Taurus fits very well with the Second.

I responded

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

the following 35 word quote is sourced from article entitled “The Second House” by Dana Gerhardt http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_dgsecdhouse_e.htm

“Modern astrology grants Venus rulership of the 2nd house.

Traditional astrology makes Jupiter and Taurus its co-significators........

Jupiter is the planet of wealth. You can't accurately assess someone's wealth potential without determining this planet's strength”

fwiw traditionally, house rulerships are not the same as significations of a house

Traditionally Jupiter has sign rulership of Sagittarius and Pisces and is associated with the idea of wealth and prosperity.

Jupiter in Vedic Astrology is associated not only with knowledge as well as wealth, prosperity/finance but also with children and relationships.

I posted that comment as an illustration that although as Dana Gerhardt says "modern astrology grants Venus rulership of the second house", in contrast traditionally:

(1) Jupiter is not associated with rulership of the second house

(2) Jupiter is associated with the significations of the second house


IMO it is important to note that billions of people who have Sagittarius or Pisces on the cusp of their second house do have Jupiter associated with the significations of their PERSONAL natal second house.


So Judy_AzVirgo, when I agreed with part of a comment made by Dana Gebhardt and said that IMO it is important to clarify the differences between sign rulership and signification... how did you interpret that as somehow "disingenuous"?


THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION SOURCED FROM ONLINE DICTIONARY
“disingenuous” Adjective: “Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does”

Synonyms: “insincere - false - devious – hollow-hearted”