Extremely Disturbed

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
(Please forgive my sloppy typing)


Many of the astrological sign (and to a lesser degree planets and aspects) descriptions deeply disturb me. They give descriptions of conditions that should be treated clinically such as depression and personality disorders and try to re-label them, likely leading to them being ignored. If you think this is just me being crazy and the descriptions are all fine, then prove it, because I've already proven mine and I can show you more samples and quotes if you need them.


Aries: Sadistic, anti-social, narcissistic, compensatory narcissistic, and ADHD traits are mentioned often. Anger management issues are ubiquitous, but these can have many causes from neuroticism to depression to immaturity.

Taurus: Binge eating, hoarding, and some OCD tendencies come to mind from Taurus descriptions.

Gemini: Gemini have notoriously short attention spans and are said in Linda Goodman's Sun Signs to have never read a book start to cover. If you cannot read a book start to cover, go get tested for ADD or ADHD.

Cancer: Avoidant personality disorder seems to be the base of this sign, along with outdated femininity stereotypes which reek of low self-esteem. Dependency is also mentioned often, as is hoarding.

Leo: Leo is often described as narcissistic, but most of the descriptions point much more towards histrionic.

Virgo: OCD seems to be accepted as part of this sign.

Libra: They are usually portrayed as passive-aggressive as heck and sometimes masochistic. Their constant longing for relationships sounds a bit like borderline personality disorder.

Scorpio: Scorpios can be paranoid, depressive personality disorder (as opposed to major depression), and, when the mystical elements and idea of "superior human being" are brought up, schizotypal. The sex obsession and lack of remorse can be pretty anti-social, but not in descriptions where Scorpios need alone time or are quiet people.

Sagittarius: Gambling and excessive risk-taking are common. Excessive risk-taking often means mania. This is basically the sign of mania and grandiosity.

Capricorn: They are generally portrayed as achievement-oriented to the point of forsaking personal relationships. Like Virgo, they also seem to have OCD, but different varieties. The hoarding subcategory of OCD is associated with Capricorn more than any signs except possibly Cancer and Taurus. They can also be slightly paranoid.

Aquarius: Aquarians oddly seem to display either the traits of compensatory narcissistic personality disorder or schizoid traits, which of course are impossible in the same person. Schizotypal come to mind for Uranian nonconformity.

Pisces: Although alcoholism is often overtly mentioned with this sign, self-defeating personality disorder and schizotypal traits are more core to it, despite not actually being able to exist together in the same person. It also brings to mind derealization, which is a sign of prolonged or intense depression as well as drug abuse.
 

kimbermoon

Well-known member
hi there you rebel...back again? I think what you are getting at here is the traits you are showing are those as expressed when the sign is ill-aspected...right? Aspects make all the difference:cool:
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
No. Those are traits that are given to a sign regardless of how it's aspected, such as in Sun Sign books, Mindfire descriptions, etc. Imagine this sentence appearing in an aforementioned context: "Geminis have wonderfully lengthy attention spans and introverted natures, unless they are ill-aspected." It's pretty difficult to. The same goes for "Virgos can be total slobs if they're well-aspected." Excessive, non-medicated nitpickiness is mild OCD, a short attention span is mild ADHD, and spacy, eccentric isolation is mild schizotypy. If "ill" aspects are strong aspects or mass conjunctions, then what you said can be true.
 
Last edited:

kimbermoon

Well-known member
Gulp? so you are suggesting that a sign is a sign is a sign?...I always understood that Gemini's can often have short, and disrupted attention spans...known a few myself:cool:
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
2Miquar - Yes, a sign is a sign is a sign. The real problem comes up when there are many more archetypes than signs.

@JUPITERASC - That's an annoying and long video. Please give me an article or essay or at least a shorter video.

Edit: After the first couple of minutes, they said that chemical imbalances are all (emphasize all) fraud. That's been proven wrong scientifically, or the most paranoid skeptics have been tricked. Also, I really doubt anyone thinks that psychiatry (more accurately psychology, as most of the examples didn't mention drugs) isn't everywhere in their lives, like the beginning of the video seems to think. It's called science and it generally improves our lives over time, which is why we incorporate it. Personally I can't go a moment without my psyche, and if there's science for it, great.
 
Last edited:

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Of course there are plenty of corrupt doctors out there. There are physicians who prescribe antibiotics for viruses and try to give surgery for minor ailments. However, that doesn't mean that we should stop allowing our doctors to give antibiotics or surgery. I'm a scientific person, and I'd like some more statistics than what you have. According to the video, 3000 people per month die from psychiatric medicine. That's about a whole 10 people per day. 300,000 people die per day total, with 150,000 of those from natural causes (whatever that consists of) and 57 per day from murder in the United States (couldn't get the world statistic) and 17 per day in the world from extreme sports. So even without knowing the number of people on psychiatric drugs who don't die from them, it's a comparatively tiny number, and definitely not an industry of death or whatever. In fact, it's 15,000x safer than nature. If you want to see a truly gory and maligned medical industry, look up beating heart cadavers. It doesn't kill a large amount of people either (there aren't a large number of brain-dead people to begin with), but it's unanimously unethical.

Edit: Never mind, I divided wrong. It's 100 people per day. That means psychiatric drugs are only 1,500x safer than nature. And it actually is more than extreme sports in the world and murder in the 24th ranking country. But you're still making a lot of assumptions :p far too many for science

Edit: And I'm just going to cut straight to the point in a rambling monologue rather than wait for a reply. You have no statistics except for the death one, which is not cited* so as far as I know the makers of the video got it straight from their donkey Benjamin's back who carried it all the way up the mountain for them. But guess what? There are 2,000 people who commit suicide per day, and they go on the medications so they'll stop wanting to commit suicide. So is the point of "exposing" psychiatry to save lives, with no evidence or suggestion that it kills more people than it saves? No. Is it to say that it decreases the quality of life for its patients? There are no reports in the video of physical illness a a result of the medication, only of death and mental illness, even at one point with highlights for labels for the mental illness such as "psychosis" and "hallucinations" (which are very much technical terms, the non-technical terms being along the lines of "acting as if possessed by a demon" and "seeing things that aren't there.") Hypocrisy does not invalidate logical arguments, but using labels for positive evidence for the fact that labels are not effective doesn't exactly work. So it's not saying that psychiatry decreases anyone's quality of life or health more than it helps either. What it seems to be saying is that they're afraid of psychiatry because they're afraid that psychiatric drugs are going to be able to control everyone in the future if they can't already, and psychiatrists and the associated industries are having a big conspiracy to do this. Actually, this is just not true. For people who already have psychosis and extreme mental conditions, their drugs could alter (but only damage, not precisely engineer) their brains pretty easily if they ***** up because they're pretty strong, but the average person on antidepressants, mood stabilizers, stimulants**, etc. would just have to break the laws of common sense to experience anything more than irritating symptoms. Oh, and you could end up having an addiction, but people get addicted to food***, computers, etc. and the psychiatrists generally try**** to get people un-addicted. Keep in mind that "once someone's addicted they'll overdose and kill themselves!" is the slippery slope fallacy unless you have evidence to show this. If you have anecdotal evidence, then it's no longer the slippery slope but rather arguing from ignorance.

*Yes, I will cite all my statistics for you or you can google them. When I googled their one statistic, I got nothing relevant.

**People who have ADHD receive soda from their doctors to help alleviate their symptoms. Does this conspiracy involve Coca-Cola too?

***This includes fresh broccoli. Maybe they're putting stuff intro fresh broccoli as well as M&Ms and McDonalds fries and just lying about it in some incomprehensible, Byzantine manner. And the addictive stuff doesn't come off when you wash it. Oooooooohhhh.

****Unless, of course, this is just a facade like everything else they do.
 
Last edited:

serafin5

Well-known member
(Please forgive my sloppy typing)


Many of the astrological sign (and to a lesser degree planets and aspects) descriptions deeply disturb me. They give descriptions of conditions that should be treated clinically such as depression and personality disorders and try to re-label them, likely leading to them being ignored. If you think this is just me being crazy and the descriptions are all fine, then prove it, because I've already proven mine and I can show you more samples and quotes if you need them.


Aries: Sadistic, anti-social, narcissistic, compensatory narcissistic, and ADHD traits are mentioned often. Anger management issues are ubiquitous, but these can have many causes from neuroticism to depression to immaturity.

Taurus: Binge eating, hoarding, and some OCD tendencies come to mind from Taurus descriptions.

Gemini: Gemini have notoriously short attention spans and are said in Linda Goodman's Sun Signs to have never read a book start to cover. If you cannot read a book start to cover, go get tested for ADD or ADHD.

Cancer: Avoidant personality disorder seems to be the base of this sign, along with outdated femininity stereotypes which reek of low self-esteem. Dependency is also mentioned often, as is hoarding.

Leo: Leo is often described as narcissistic, but most of the descriptions point much more towards histrionic.

Virgo: OCD seems to be accepted as part of this sign.

Libra: They are usually portrayed as passive-aggressive as heck and sometimes masochistic. Their constant longing for relationships sounds a bit like borderline personality disorder.

Scorpio: Scorpios can be paranoid, depressive personality disorder (as opposed to major depression), and, when the mystical elements and idea of "superior human being" are brought up, schizotypal. The sex obsession and lack of remorse can be pretty anti-social, but not in descriptions where Scorpios need alone time or are quiet people.

Sagittarius: Gambling and excessive risk-taking are common. Excessive risk-taking often means mania. This is basically the sign of mania and grandiosity.

Capricorn: They are generally portrayed as achievement-oriented to the point of forsaking personal relationships. Like Virgo, they also seem to have OCD, but different varieties. The hoarding subcategory of OCD is associated with Capricorn more than any signs except possibly Cancer and Taurus. They can also be slightly paranoid.

Aquarius: Aquarians oddly seem to display either the traits of compensatory narcissistic personality disorder or schizoid traits, which of course are impossible in the same person. Schizotypal come to mind for Uranian nonconformity.

Pisces: Although alcoholism is often overtly mentioned with this sign, self-defeating personality disorder and schizotypal traits are more core to it, despite not actually being able to exist together in the same person. It also brings to mind derealization, which is a sign of prolonged or intense depression as well as drug abuse.


Hey Rebel; really nice to see a post from you here!!! For the most part I think that you are right in your 'descriptions' of the signs/aspects, especially when they are expressed negatively. However, I'm not sure what the issue is here: Is it that these descriptions label people with potentially serious 'ailments' thus not really helping these people who read them not seek the help they need? Or is it because astrology labels people in general and you're not into labels? Please know that I am not trying to be sarcastic here I just wanted to express to you that astrology for me basically covers the human condition. And while I have always hated generalities and blanket statements that are condeming, I've noticed as I get older people often do fall into certain categories/sterotypes. Unless one has a really great family/support system out there, life can get pretty lonely and people fall into certain patterns; myself included.

I used to have one of the DSM books that professionals use to diagnose (sp?) people and really these so-called professionals are just people at the end of the day and with our health system the way it is I dont put much weight in their psychiatric labels and/or their medications either. (To be sure I have had my problems and I know for me there hasnt been no abra cadabra titi thing out there (well, maybe if I win the lotto!).

Im sorry that astrology hasnt been satisfying to you and causing you so much anger since youre such a good astrolger it would be sad to lose you! Good luck in all of your endeavors.

Serafin5
 
Last edited:

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Is it that these descriptions label people with potentially serious 'ailments' thus not really helping these people who read them not seek the help they need?

That was my motivation posting this. To me the idea of labeling people with something serious as not having any serious problems (or the wrong serious problems) is akin to that one lady who fed a diabetic many cartons of orange juice in order to try to cure her of the "influences of the negative energy of the people around her." She cured her, if you consider death a cure. Death does end the disease.


Im sorry that astrology hasnt been satisfying to you and causing you so much anger since youre such a good astrolger it would be sad to lose you!

I'm not angry at astrology. I'm mostly angry at this wonderful Kafkaesque reality. Obviously I'm displacing it to this thread. Mostly I've just lost interest in astrology. I've seen members here who are like "it's just for entertainment and I don't believe it" along with the hardcore Vedic people, so no value has to be given to astrology other than "it's interesting" to study it.

I'm not a good astrologer. At the end of the day I can't predict anything with enough accuracy to satisfy myself, and I can do much better (even almost satisfying myself sometimes) without astrology than blindly reading the chart. I haven't seen any astrologers that have predicted anything with enough accuracy for me either or I'd be consulting them all the time and trying to learn from them. There might be one out there, and if they are, they should show themself to the world. There's at least $1mil for demonstrating good astrology skills in a scientific context (I think).
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Those who use alternative medicine (like me) are always accused of not being scientific-same goes for fields like astrology. Yet those of us in alternative medicine obtain significant levels of cure, and without using often dangerous drugs, in accomplishing our therpeutic goals. In astrology, we have simple delineative natal astrology: the delineative descriptions might be seen as "labelling", but then the practitioner of simple delineative natal astrology is merely providing as description, they are not establishing a pretended medical (conventional medical) diagnosis, nor in their labelling delineative descriptions are they attempting to treat any such medical conditions: in astro-therapeutics (such as I use), we also do not claim to determine conventional medical pathology states, but rather to determine the underlying dynamic energetic qualities leading to possible trends and susceptibilities of health, mental and physical, and to help in choosing non-drug (alternative) remedies for that dynamic energetic picture.

Superficial labelling taken randomly from various astrology texts, does a disservice to sincere astrological practice: read about the signs and their qualities in Carter's "Zodiac and the Soul", or in his "Essays on the Foundations of Astrology", and see what I mean...
 

Moog

Well-known member
Those sign associations are just wrong. Pisces has no inherent association with alcoholism, nor does Aries with sadism.
 

Judy_AzVirgo

Well-known member
Gemini: Gemini have notoriously short attention spans and are said in Linda Goodman's Sun Signs to have never read a book start to cover. If you cannot read a book start to cover, go get tested for ADD or ADHD.

Linda Goodman. Really? If this is the kind of source you're looking at, maybe you need to look elsewhere for better descriptions of signs and traits. In this specific case, IMO, you're simply adding your own exaggeration to Goodman's exaggeration. So you have 'proved' nothing about labeling.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Rebel Uranian, your point is well-taken! But I wouldn't take a sample of The Very Worst of Astrology and then assume it applies to the entire field.

The vast field of astrology contains the good, the bad, and the ugly. So we have to become connoisseurs of the good astrology. If need be, we should criticize the bad astrology.

Some astrologers seem to be wise and supportive students of human nature; whereas others seem to be highly self-righteous and negative about people in general. Some are highly fatalistic/deterministic, whereas others take a more choice-centered approach.

Of course, discriminating between good and bad astrology would be subjective; which is what we would expect if astrology has any validity. Earth signs see the world through practical lenses; whereas water signs understand the world primarily through emotional eye-glasses, for example.

Horoscopic astrology has about a 2600-year history; with other types of omen-literature greatly pre-dating that. People in ancient through Renaissance times saw the world through judgemental, moral lenses, and much of their viewpoints coloured the astrology in place today.

We could point to modern psychological astrology as a potential step forward, but I seriously question the psychology credentials of some of its leading practitioners; as well as the old Freudian "blame Mom" mentality. We could point to medical astrologers today who do have some medical expertise; and we have to recall that until the 18th century, a major reason to study astrology was the belief that it informed medical practice.

Each sign, planet, and house has positive and detrimental associations. My experience is that when planets are involved in squares and oppositions; you are most likely to see the negatives. If they are involved in sextiles or trines, you will probably see the positives. But their are important exceptions. Notably if you suggest to an older person with a chart indicating an explosive temper, they will sometimes say; "Yes, I used to be like that when I was younger, but I soon learned that I had to control my temper." Or trines generally are positive, but a grand trine can incline a person towards low achievement, because life goes pretty well even if they never get off the couch and finish that degree or apply for that good job.

So what astrology books or websites do you find more helpful?

If you haven't read the early books of Steven Forrest (The Inner Sky) or Robert Hand (Planets in Youth), btw, I highly recommend them. For traditional astrology try Avelar and Rebeiro, On the Heavenly Spheres. I think they are all available through major on-line Internet book sellers, or perhaps at your nearest metaphysical bookstore.

So please keep your healthy sense of scepticism! And consider my quotations, below, as applying to astrology.
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
@Moog - Yes, but this isn't about the actual properties of the signs, this is about what people think about the signs.

[deleted comment to attacking post - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

may28gemini

OMG that made me laugh so hard. I actually read something about the different "illnesses" related to each sign. Although, for exalted Aries to have so much icky mental stuff is scary.

It's true for me about Gemini- the only time I ever read a book from start to finish was when my Leo Mom read me stories as a baby LOL

For Leo, I would say they are borderline. Narcissism is more of a Virgo thing with all that OCDness. I would say Scorpio tend to be paranoid schizos and purveyors of conspiracy theories. Capricorns have control issues like Aries and Scorpio but in a different way. I think Capricorn actually have a messianic type of disorder... like they're delivering others from evil. I've lived with a few Capricorn people and they have that GROSS mentality in common.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Cold Fusion

Well-known member
OMG that made me laugh so hard. I actually read something about the different "illnesses" related to each sign. Although, for exalted Aries to have so much icky mental stuff is scary.

It's true for me about Gemini- the only time I ever read a book from start to finish was when my Leo Mom read me stories as a baby LOL

For Leo, I would say they are borderline. Narcissism is more of a Virgo thing with all that OCDness. I would say Scorpio tend to be paranoid schizos and purveyors of conspiracy theories. Capricorns have control issues like Aries and Scorpio but in a different way. I think Capricorn actually have a messianic type of disorder... like they're delivering others from evil. I've lived with a few Capricorn people and they have that GROSS mentality in common.

I think Sag and Cap are the most narcissistic. After all, the constellation Pavo lies within Cap.

The astrological influences of the constellation Pavo

Legend: It is said to represent Argos, the builder of the ship Argo, who was changed into a peacock by Juno when Argo Navis was placed in the heavens. [Robson*, p.55.] See Star Tales for the story.
Influences:

Pavo is said to give vanity and love of display, together with a long life and sometimes fame.
 
Top