Astrology Shows People are Individuals Not Groups

wilsontc

Well-known member
All,

As astrologers, you know that people are individuals, each chart an individual mapping of the attitudes and behaviors of that individual. This individual mapping exists for the person's entire life, underlying everything they do in their life.

This is why looking at people as groups makes no astrological sense: external indicators have nothing to do with the individual mapping of the attitudes and behaviors of that individual. White people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, gay people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, rich people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, and so on. Saying "That person is a white/gay/rich person so I therefore know their attitudes and behaviors" makes NO astrological sense.

Of all the people in the world, astrologers should know that people are individuals and, if they are allowed their individual rights, can achieve the full potential of their chart. That's why, for example, people who are rich or athletic are not one color, sexual orientation, or gender. The more we can see people as individuals the more we can get rid of seeing them as belonging to one group or another. And the less we think of people as groups, the clearer we can see them for who they really are.

About the Truth of the Individual,

Tim
 

Opal

Premium Member
Umm.. I think you're missing the point due to your superficial understanding of what he said.

You are right. I was flippant. My apologies.

While there are known markers for different groups of people as TC has stated they should not be meant to limit possibilities. By saying you will be “of” a certain sector of society it could influence a persons life. But, a chart doesn’t show race, it does have markers for being rich, famous, troubled, or any sector that could be considered a “group”. It does show likely times that a person could join an association or other “group” things.

The study of groups of people that die in an accident.

People want to know, why and what the markers are for groups of people. It is common to be asked the markers, for being wealthy, famous, handicapped, and for complexion.

Is that not what we look for?
 

Opal

Premium Member
All,

As astrologers, you know that people are individuals, each chart an individual mapping of the attitudes and behaviors of that individual. This individual mapping exists for the person's entire life, underlying everything they do in their life.

This is why looking at people as groups makes no astrological sense: external indicators have nothing to do with the individual mapping of the attitudes and behaviors of that individual. White people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, gay people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, rich people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, and so on. Saying "That person is a white/gay/rich person so I therefore know their attitudes and behaviors" makes NO astrological sense.

Of all the people in the world, astrologers should know that people are individuals and, if they are allowed their individual rights, can achieve the full potential of their chart. That's why, for example, people who are rich or athletic are not one color, sexual orientation, or gender. The more we can see people as individuals the more we can get rid of seeing them as belonging to one group or another. And the less we think of people as groups, the clearer we can see them for who they really are.

About the Truth of the Individual,

Tim

Your post, sounds very Aquarian.

How to decipher a chart with accuracy without limiting personal prospects.

Here, I don’t ask if a person is a certain race when looking at their chart. Nor do I ask their sexuality. But some of the questions asked are of the nature of those groups.
 

Frisiangal

Well-known member
Hi Tim,
As much as I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, I have a different perspective as to what individualism .... or becoming an individual and expressing one's individuality in one's own right ... means.

I'm probably influenced by J. W. Green's astro. concepts when reading 'Pluto' many years ago. There was a section in which he compared the general world population to Earth's geographical emphasis; i.e. 70% water and 30% Earth.
Applying that to astro. symbilsm, 70% referred to the Moon and 30% to the individuated state of the Sun.

I have found this comparison to be very true. Most people, of any race, colour, or creed 'follow the leader': i.e. The Sun spirit of one who does follow and act upon his/her personal convictions, irrespective of how others 'feel'. Others (Moon influence) join to form 'the group association'. The 'group' may see itself as separate from mainstream (Saturn) ideas, but those within that group cannot be seen as 'individualists' themselves. Take the leader away and the group (tribe) can fall apart.

It's a personal 'thought' that, from the astrological perspective, not everyone individualises . Many remain 'Moon bound' controlled all their lives. The internal Moon need to belong to/for/with another in any setting can be much stronger than the individuality represented within a Sun spirit.
That will be shown in each personal chart.

The obvious answer is when Moon feeling and Sun individuality can work side by side.
I can't recall what Green said about that. :wink::biggrin:


Opal wrote : Your post, sounds very Aquarian

I learn so much from my triple Mercury, Ascendant and Sun in Aquarius son.
He's been seeing a 'paranormal' adviser' at his Sun in Pisces partner's instigation over the last year or so. I have difficulty with the approach taken, which seems to put ideas in his head rather than release those there he needs to become aware of.
After his traumatic divorce, he spent 10 years alone. Everyone considered that he had overcome the natal issues that had played themselves out in his marriage and he had finally 'found himself'. S.p. Sun in Pisces opp.natal Moon in 7th did seem to have worked.
S.p Sun then opposed natal Pluto begin Libra. He met his current partner. In the 3 years they have been and set up a home together, it's my view that he has 'lost himself' again. He adores her, complies to her every wish, they are very happy. Yet over the weekend he confided that there is a gnawing inside him (Moon?) that he can no longer do all that he dreamt of doing (Neptune-MC ....the helping profession), even though he has achieved success in his career.

Tim wrote:Of all the people in the world, astrologers should know that people are individuals and, if they are allowed their individual rights, can achieve the full potential of their chart.

Has my Son's 1st house natal Sun become an individual in its own right, Tim, or is he STILL under the influence of a 7th house Moon??:pinched:
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
You are right. I was flippant. My apologies.

While there are known markers for different groups of people as TC has stated they should not be meant to limit possibilities. By saying you will be “of” a certain sector of society it could influence a persons life. But, a chart doesn’t show race, it does have markers for being rich, famous, troubled, or any sector that could be considered a “group”. It does show likely times that a person could join an association or other “group” things.

The study of groups of people that die in an accident.

People want to know, why and what the markers are for groups of people. It is common to be asked the markers, for being wealthy, famous, handicapped, and for complexion.

Is that not what we look for?

Yeah, but everyone's chart is unique which changes the mixtures and types of markers.
 

wilsontc

Well-known member
It's a personal 'thought' that, from the astrological perspective, not everyone individualises . Many remain 'Moon bound' controlled all their lives. The internal Moon need to belong to/for/with another in any setting can be much stronger than the individuality represented within a Sun spirit.
That will be shown in each personal chart.

Frisiangal,

I agree that not everyone individualizes, but SOME individualize, even when they're part of the SAME group. Rich people do and do not individualize, white people do and do not individualize, gay people do and do not individualize. You can't tell whether or not people will individualize based on what group they belong to: you can ONLY tell that by looking at and analyzing their individual charts.

This is why collectivist "solutions" NEVER work: because they assume people are a "tabla rasa" a "blank slate" that the master collectivists can write on and form into their utopia. However, people are ALREADY "written on" from BIRTH, so trying to get everyone to follow ONE person's idea of THEIR Utopia will ALWAYS lead to pain and struggle for the MANY who do NOT want to do what those people are forcing them to do.

About the will of individuals,

Tim
 
Last edited:

Opal

Premium Member
Yeah, but everyone's chart is unique which changes the mixtures and types of markers.

Yes, every chart is different. Yet there has to be markers of something, or we couldn’t draw from the similarities between them. We would have no descriptions of sun in Libra or Chiron in the sixth.
 

Opal

Premium Member
Hi Fris,

I hope for you both, that your son finds “peace of mind”.

I do not know H S Green. I am always interested in Pluto. Thanks!
 

Frisiangal

Well-known member
The word 'individual' is used easily to represent that which is separate from something else.

I guess it depends upon what in this astrological sense a person perceives 'individual' to mean. As a person separate from another 'Self', or/and as an individual 'within' a group of any nature (11th house?) able to express its 'identity of spirit' = its individuality ?



Hi Fris,

I do not know H S Green. I am always interested in Pluto. Thanks!

I assume your fingers typed the wrong letters. :smile:

Jeffrey Wolf Green (Vietnam veteran) had a large following late last century. His book 'Pluto' offered me many insights into learning and working with its meaning. The power of will and reaching that 'individualised' state. '
There's also a 'Pluto in relationships' which, as Mercury-Venus square Pluto I should have read but never have. Too close for comfort? :wink:
 

Opal

Premium Member
The word 'individual' is used easily to represent that which is separate from something else.

I guess it depends upon what in this astrological sense a person perceives 'individual' to mean. As a person separate from another 'Self', or/and as an individual 'within' a group of any nature (11th house?) able to express its 'identity of spirit' = its individuality ?





I assume your fingers typed the wrong letters. :smile:

Jeffrey Wolf Green (Vietnam veteran) had a large following late last century. His book 'Pluto' offered me many insights into learning and working with its meaning. The power of will and reaching that 'individualised' state. '
There's also a 'Pluto in relationships' which, as Mercury-Venus square Pluto I should have read but never have. Too close for comfort? :wink:

I have both of his books on Pluto. I thought there was a another Green. I have H S Green too, but his is mundane. I should have known.
 

wilsontc

Well-known member
The word 'individual' is used easily to represent that which is separate from something else.

I guess it depends upon what in this astrological sense a person perceives 'individual' to mean. As a person separate from another 'Self', or/and as an individual 'within' a group of any nature (11th house?) able to express its 'identity of spirit' = its individuality ?

Frisiangal,

I mean "individual" in the sense of a person with their own way of seeing the world. Naturally for people with more planets on the "Others" side of their chart they focus on the others around them and what they can do for them, while people with more planets on the "Self" side of the chart focus on themselves and their own interests. But ALL people have their own individual way of seeing the world, even though some try to work to connect with others and ignore their individuality while others focus on their individuality and work to separate themselves from others.

About the individual,

Tim
 

Frisiangal

Well-known member
Frisiangal,

I mean "individual" in the sense of a person with their own way of seeing the world. Naturally for people with more planets on the "Others" side of their chart they focus on the others around them and what they can do for them, while people with more planets on the "Self" side of the chart focus on themselves and their own interests. But ALL people have their own individual way of seeing the world, even though some try to work to connect with others and ignore their individuality while others focus on their individuality and work to separate themselves from others.

About the individual,

Tim

I've been thinking about that word 'individual'. Could your explanation mean
'authentic' - true to one's self?

Just wondering. :smile:
 

david starling

Well-known member
I've been thinking about that word 'individual'. Could your explanation mean
'authentic' - true to one's self?

Just wondering. :smile:


"Autonomous"--Having the freedom to act independently.

In Kant's philosophy of morality, it includes a sense of moral responsibility.

In the book "The Lonely Crowd", the authors coined the term "Self-Directed" (as opposed to self-centered or self-absorbed).
 
Last edited:

wilsontc

Well-known member
I've been thinking about that word 'individual'. Could your explanation mean 'authentic' - true to one's self?

Frisiangal,

While there are greater philosophical implications (as David points) out, I meant "individual" in the sense of belonging to that person. Some people are true to themselves and their purpose in life and "go with the flow". Others are untrue to who they are and resist their purpose in life. But ALL people have an individual chart with individual energies directing them in a definite direction, whether or not they use those energies or go in that direction.

About the individual,

Tim
 

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
You're right, WilsonTC, an individual may have similarities with others based on astrological data, but the person is their own person with their own natal chart. To be able to make lots of friends with Saturn in Capricorn and/or Aquarius of the years 1961 or 62-63 or 64 (Leo in Uranus in 1957-62 then transits to Virgo opposite Saturn's ruler signs) and 1990-92 (or Aquarius in Uranus 1995-99 in its ruler sign). But to look deeper in their charts, there's more than the farthest visible and closest non-visible, but both outer planets, in play on why I get along with them...I'm born in 1980 under an Aquarius sun/moon opposite Leo True node. An Uranus opposite from its ruler sign can be a challenge, but the adage goes "opposites attract".
 
Last edited:

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
All,

As astrologers, you know that people are individuals, each chart an individual mapping of the attitudes and behaviors of that individual. This individual mapping exists for the person's entire life, underlying everything they do in their life.

This is why looking at people as groups makes no astrological sense: external indicators have nothing to do with the individual mapping of the attitudes and behaviors of that individual. White people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, gay people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, rich people have vastly different individual mappings of their attitudes and behaviors between each other, and so on. Saying "That person is a white/gay/rich person so I therefore know their attitudes and behaviors" makes NO astrological sense.

Of all the people in the world, astrologers should know that people are individuals and, if they are allowed their individual rights, can achieve the full potential of their chart. That's why, for example, people who are rich or athletic are not one color, sexual orientation, or gender. The more we can see people as individuals the more we can get rid of seeing them as belonging to one group or another. And the less we think of people as groups, the clearer we can see them for who they really are.

About the Truth of the Individual,

Tim

Or if there's an indication of autism in my natal chart like it has been discussed many times in the forum, the 9 and a half years I been a member on the AW. But autism isn't a limitation of what I can do, our astrological data showed all of us individual persons of what we can accomplish with our hobbies or interests.
 

waybread

Staff member
Tim, Astrology shows each of us to be unique individuals.

But human beings are social animals. Our nearest wild primate relatives live in extended family groups. So far as we know, the earliest humanoids and humans lived at least in family groups.

I mean Paleolithic Man couldn't hunt a mastodon on his own. That required a team effort.

In a modern society a baby is born into a given culture, socio-economic class, religion (or lack thereof,) nationality, and locale. Societies have beliefs about ethnicity, proper conduct, and physical ability.

Imagine being a Black girl born 100 years ago to a sharecropper family in the Deep South, where Jim Crow laws-- as well as unwritten but socially compelling "laws" limited that child's opportunities to express her horoscope. Compare that likely outcome with a scion of a white, wealthy New England family, where his admission into an Ivy League university was virtually assured; as was a ready-made position in the family firm upon graduation.

Further, does the horoscope native's country have a compulsory military draft? Is it at war? Are girls discouraged from getting higher education? If religious, does the native belong to the religious or political majority or a persecuted minority? Is her birth language mainstream or suppressed at school?

The horoscope isn't particularly good at showing ethnicity, sex, a society's social norms, or religious denomination. Yet these are powerful influences on human development.

So no-- nobody is born into a cultural vacuum. And nobody lives in one.

My concern with your OP, Tim, knowing your rightwing political views, is that you may be hoping to whitewash the realities faced by many minorities worldwide with the trope that everyone can reach their potential if they merely work at it; deliberately ignoring how the deck is stacked for or against certain people due to non-horoscopic factors.
 
Last edited:
Top