Astrologers' Community

Astrologers' Community (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php)
-   Read My Chart (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=81)
-   -   Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113604)

aquarius7000 01-06-2018 07:43 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 853022)
The crooked claw of Scorpio, is were my sun and moon midpoint lies, because of repressed sun and moon is it possible to feel the energy of this point more than the sun and the moon alone.

I am sorry, I prefer Placidus and I also do not do midpoints or chart patterns.

Whoam1 01-06-2018 07:45 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
That's fine thanks anyway.

Starry595 01-07-2018 04:25 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Solar Flare (Post 852990)
I think there are two main reasons why people have issues with sidereal astrology and they are different from what you've described. 1. People have tried and tested both tropical and sidereal zodiacs and came to the conclusion that the tropical zodiac works a lot better. 2. The rationale behind tropical astrology makes to those people more sense than the one behind sidereal astrology. These are the reasons why I personally and many other astrologers I've engaged with continue to use tropical. As for your points, I think the 1st and 2nd points don't apply to the majority of astrologers in the West because most of them are introduced to the sidereal zodiac at early stages and always have a possibility to switch. There are a lot of sources in English available for the sidereal astrologers now so it's not a problem if someone wants to gather more information about sidereal astrology. From what I know, many astrologers in India are never properly exposed to tropical astrology though and I've observed that the cultural bias among Indian astrologers is usually much stronger than among Western astrologers. If those two things weren't the case, I'm sure that there would be a lot less sidereal astrologers today. As for your 3rd point, it's more interesting and perhaps true to an extent, but I don't think it could be the primary reason of sticking with tropical.

I doubt there would be less sidereal astrologers if there was more open dialogue. Vedic astrology is inferior to Western Sidereal Astrology, I do at least think that. I have heard sidereal astrologers claim that famous tropical astrologers like Robert Hand would never teach sidereal techniques because they are superior. Take from that what you will.

The only way to bridge the gap, as I see it, is if scientists tested both schools seriously, seeing how both stack up to objective reality. Only then could we get somewhere. Otherwise, the two schools will always distrust each other.

I do also think that tropical astrology is very well-established at this point while Western sidereal astrology has only been practiced again less than a hundred years ago. There are so many sidereal ayanamshas out there, and the various disciplines are scattered.

Tropical astrology also has a very developed "mythos" (lack of a better word) when describing people with zodiac signs etc. Fagan and Bradley had to rebuild zodiac signs from scratch, and what they say is pretty different from tropical descriptions.

Sidereal astrology is made of many scattered disciplines and is just now rebuilding in the West. Tropical astrology has existed for about 1000 years or so.

In my personal experience, I always found tropical descriptions to be somewhat lacking and even disingenuous at times. There was a lot of hit and miss. Some traits would hit but many people did not fit with the bowdlerized stereotype of their zodiac sign. At most you could say they fit within a very general "archetype", and that aspect made more sense with sidereal astrology.

Whoam1 01-07-2018 04:27 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
I like the discussion so Ig I'll keep this thread open. May I suggest midpoint for everyone before moving between a tropical and sidereal chart.

Starry595 01-07-2018 04:29 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
@Solarflare, I wrote a mini-blog about the whole traditional-vs-modern zodiac description. I paste it here in full:

------------------------------

The descriptions of zodiac signs we hear today were not always so. Astrologers of the past described zodiac signs differently, and while traditional zodiac signs are similar to modern ones there are significant differences too.

My reference to the modern zodiac signs is Linda Goodman's Sun Signs, which is one of the cornerstones of modern astrology. My reference to traditional zodiac signs is Constellation of Words, which includes writings from Roman astrologers and descriptions of the fixed stars, which have often been excluded in astrology.

Zodiac Elements
Zodiac signs in the past didn't have "elements" like they do today, but trigon diurnal and nocturnal rulers that supposedly impart a general character on the zodiac signs.

Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
Diurnal: Sun, Nocturnal: Jupiter
Modern descriptions often seem to give the "fire" signs a naive, happy-go-lucky idiot vibe, and generally describe them as being large-hearted and without guile. Traditional descriptions did not do this, but described the "fire" signs as martial and authoritarian, heavily valuing their pride, wealth, and social status. Thus adventure, conquest, and nobility are in the forefront. Fun and hedonism are not.

Aries (Mars ruler, Sun exalted): Much mention is made of dictatorship and violence; a bilious character overall, as well as the collecting of money and gaining of wealth. Manilius gives the sign a riches to rags story, rising to become a prince only to befall a calamity reducing him to a pauper. Valens specifically paints Aries as a kind of Machiavellian prince, holding the power of life and death over subjects and enemies alike, but tempers this character with astute judgment.

Leo (Sun ruler): Obviously associated with the Sun, therefore given a very kingly description. Leo is described as loving to be in the spotlight and putting on a show of wealth, much like in modern descriptions. But no mention is made of a generous, humanitarian spirit; but of a character who will rapaciously conquer his rivals and add to his own power. Leo gains the spotlight, as it were, by conquering his rivals and seizing the lionís share.

Sagittarius (Jupiter ruler): Described as a dreadful warrior who will go to great lengths to claim supremacy, to be the very best, and suffer greatly to realize his ambitions. Sagittarius is associated with the mastery and taming of wild beasts, and also of civilizing and cultural institutions, which modern astrologers do acknowledge. Of the "fire" signs, Sagittarius gets the worst "silly clown" treatment by modern astrologers, while ironically ancient astrologers described the sign with deathly seriousness; "dreadful Sagittary" as Shakespeare put it, or untamed destructive wildness, was a common trope associated with the sign.

Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn
Diurnal: Venus, Nocturnal: Moon
Modern descriptions give the signs a very practical bent of being cautious, conservative, wanting money and status, and wanting safety. This kind of fits the ancient description, but kind of doesn't. The ancients do describe Taurus and Capricorn as doing thankless hard work, but wealth gain is not mentioned, just the suffering inherent in life. Valens frequently alludes to farming, a saturnine job associated with peasantry and the masses. Emphasis is also placed on civic service and the joys inherent with giving to and exchanging with people, especially on Virgo.

Taurus (Venus ruler, Moon exalted): Again, Taurus is solid, steady, and hard-working, but no mention is made of wealth gain, or Taurus being interesting in gaining wealth and status. Ancients associate the sign with Venus, and thus with love, sex, and fertility, but the free love of Venus here is described as Dionysian and subversive of marriage and familial ties. Not exactly the docile and conservative character we read about today.

Virgo (Mercury ruler): Ancients describe the usual attention to detail, the hard work, the perfectionist nature, and so forth. But the ancient description gives Virgo an active, lively, youthful, energetic character. Virgo occupies a civic role, bascically being a gopher, but one with courage and tactical brilliance. Modern astrology, however, makes Virgo to be very stuck-up and anal. Ancient Virgo was not a shrewish old maid, but a lively girl.

Capricorn (Saturn ruler, Mars exalted): The traditional description by Manilius is restless and hard-working, but also of a cheerful demeanor, made "a slave to Venus" in youth. This personality description is partly based on nature, since (at least in the years of Rome) the Sun enters Capricorn and begins its resurrection, in contrast to the falling darkness and death cycle that happens when the Sun is in Sagittarius.

Gemini, Libra, Aquarius
Diurnal: Saturn, Nocturnal: Mercury
Modern descriptions put traits such as "communication and mobility" in the forefront when describing the "air" signs, and a modern astrologer is quick to join the heavy intellectual nature of the "air" signs with superficiality. But traditional descriptions give the "air" signs a far more serious character, since Saturn is the diurnal ruler. The functions of the mind, such as intellect, are also prominent in traditional descriptions, as Mercury is the nocturnal ruler.

Gemini (Mercury ruler): The traditional description is close to the modern description when it comes down to basic character traits such as quick-wittedness, many talents, and versatility. But Gemini is closely associated with mortality (due to the myth of Castor and Pullox, one immortal twin and one mortal twin), and as such Geminiís anxieties about death heavily inform his ďbe merry while you canĒ motif. Gemini is a gay sign that dispels the heavier aspects of life, has great talent with music and astronomy, and holds an easy fondness for children.

Libra (Venus ruler, Saturn exalted): Ancient descriptions emphasize Libra's role as a clear-headed and stern judge, and role in civic life, little description of indecisiveness. But Libra would far rather settle disputes in a dignified and bloodless way than use the sword. Since Saturn is exalted in Libra, this sign is somewhat secretive and melancholy. Libra is associated with Venus as Taurus is, but Libra Venus is about romantic love, marital ties, and the responsibilities that come with such relationships. Taurus is all about the wild kinky sex.

Aquarius (Saturn ruler): Modern descriptions tend to idealize Aquarius as being very humanitarian and forward-thinking. But traditional astrology allots Aquarius with hard work and the suffering in life as Aquarius is ruled by Saturn. Like Capricorn, Aquarius is associated with the masses; with humanity as it were, but this does not necessarily mean a humane character. Manilius mentions "thousand crafts regulated by water", alluding to the inventive nature of the sign. Aquarius is kindly and easily takes pity on others, though other ancient astrologers like Valens ascribe misanthropy to the sign.

Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces
Diurnal & Nocturnal: Mars
Modern astrologers go out of their way to imbue the "water" signs with idealized New Age traits such as being "sensitive", "psychic", and "profound". But no traditional descriptions allude to such traits. Since the "water" signs are ruled by Mars, they are thought to be dramatic and passionate but volatile and rash. Even astrologers as late as Alan Leo described them as being turbulent and restless, like water, and ancient astrologers made similar allusions. This clearly differs from the hypersensitive and introverted nature given in modern descriptions.

Cancer (Moon ruler, Jupiter exaltation): Modern descriptions emphasize Cancer with domestic life, child-rearing, and sensitivity, but will sometimes flip the coin to describe Cancer as being a strong public figure. Traditional descriptions of Cancer are firmly in the latter, especially since Jupiter is exalted in Cancer; thus the extroverted life in politics and putting on a show with many different masks. Cancer is associated with the vast ocean and overseas trade. Ancient peoples saw the ocean, the Great Mother, as a boundless and terrible titan, not as a meek and nurturing creature.

Scorpio (Mars ruler): Modern astrologers often describe Scorpio as secretive, very profound, and transforming through three stages; while throwing in martial qualities such as being a tenacious, powerful, and vengeful fighter. Traditional descriptions clearly allot Scorpio with the latter set of traits, the former mostly being New Age psychobabble. As such, Scorpio is driven and outgoing, fearlessly rocking the boat, tackling difficult challenges, and rising as the victor. Yet ancients regarded Scorpio as an "accursed sign" and "baleful source of war"; impulsive, violent, and self-destructive, causing crime and bloodshed throughout his rampage. There is little profundity in this fiery sign.

Pisces (Jupiter ruler, Venus exalted): Your typical modern astrologer will describe Pisces as a sensitive doormat, feeling psychic vibrations, and being very caring to all people and animals. The traditional description is very different; Pisces, like Cancer, is associated with the vast ocean, in this case with naval warfare. Manilius goes out of his way to describe the sea as foaming with blood. The constellation of Pisces itself is made of two fishes violently tugging away at each other. Pisces is very friendly, but also a restless wanderer, always sailing the seven seas looking for new places, ready to change course at the drop of a hat.

Starry595 01-07-2018 04:36 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
@WhoAmI, I suggest you stop worrying about "Scorpionic" you are. Scorpio is pretty overrated, and astrologers have been wanking off to it for way too long now. Pisces also tends to suffer from a "special snowflake" description from astrologers these days.

Whoam1 01-07-2018 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 853232)
@WhoAmI, I suggest you stop worrying about "Scorpionic" you are. Scorpio is pretty overrated, and astrologers have been wanking off to it for way too long now. Pisces also tends to suffer from a "special snowflake" description from astrologers these days.

I suggest u get the di** out of your ear. I've know pain and suffering, and I've been the bloody cursed monster in the streets. I hide it and try to put some positivity in this world and learn from the messed up **** that happened to me and the awful mistakes I have made.Scorpio is like sex overrated but under appreciated. People need to stop seeing Scorpio as a hook up, but as an intimate relationship. I'm not a part of this herpes, I know who I am and am figuring out where I stand. Thanks for the advice, however I disagree with it.

magnolia8 01-07-2018 05:50 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Not much to add here. This is a great post, though.
One of my biggest gripes with astrology is the description of Leo. Your description matches my ex almost to a T: he is very "kingly" as far as having a very powerful will, ego, and confidence; and has moved into high positions in jobs by being ruthless. He's also fiercely independent and somewhat generous toward children (these are modern descriptions, granted). He's not the life of the party; he's not hedonistic; he's not naÔve or happy-go-lucky AT ALL. He speaks of building an empire constantly and has controlling tendencies.

I've mentioned before that I have almost no Leo traits, according to pop modern astrology. It's actually ridiculous.

As far as Scorpio, I've said this in reference to Pluto, but I've only seen Plutonians as self-destructive and insecure. I've not seen any Plutonian wield the alleged transformative power of this planet. Intensity, undeniable magnetism....not really (there can be some sex appeal). I have some deep Pluto influences and I'm learning that it's mostly a very unfortunate planet. ETA: I realize planets and signs aren't the same, but the only Scorpio I knew, a former coworker, was an insecure coward; spineless and weak. No details.

Virgo is interesting...I have a Virgo ascendant, but in thinking of Virgo suns, I actually find them hard to peg. They can be an interesting bunch, but I can't find any patterns or commonalities in the Virgo Suns I've known (and I've known many, I attract them) besides practicality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 853230)
@Solarflare, I wrote a mini-blog about the whole traditional-vs-modern zodiac description. I paste it here in full:

------------------------------


Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
Diurnal: Sun, Nocturnal: Jupiter
Modern descriptions often seem to give the "fire" signs a naive, happy-go-lucky idiot vibe, and generally describe them as being large-hearted and without guile. Traditional descriptions did not do this, but described the "fire" signs as martial and authoritarian, heavily valuing their pride, wealth, and social status. Thus adventure, conquest, and nobility are in the forefront. Fun and hedonism are not.

Leo (Sun ruler): Obviously associated with the Sun, therefore given a very kingly description. Leo is described as loving to be in the spotlight and putting on a show of wealth, much like in modern descriptions. But no mention is made of a generous, humanitarian spirit; but of a character who will rapaciously conquer his rivals and add to his own power. Leo gains the spotlight, as it were, by conquering his rivals and seizing the lion’s share.


Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn
Diurnal: Venus, Nocturnal: Moon
Modern descriptions give the signs a very practical bent of being cautious, conservative, wanting money and status, and wanting safety. This kind of fits the ancient description, but kind of doesn't. The ancients do describe Taurus and Capricorn as doing thankless hard work, but wealth gain is not mentioned, just the suffering inherent in life. Valens frequently alludes to farming, a saturnine job associated with peasantry and the masses. Emphasis is also placed on civic service and the joys inherent with giving to and exchanging with people, especially on Virgo.

Virgo (Mercury ruler): Ancients describe the usual attention to detail, the hard work, the perfectionist nature, and so forth. But the ancient description gives Virgo an active, lively, youthful, energetic character. Virgo occupies a civic role, bascically being a gopher, but one with courage and tactical brilliance. Modern astrology, however, makes Virgo to be very stuck-up and anal. Ancient Virgo was not a shrewish old maid, but a lively girl.

Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces
Diurnal & Nocturnal: Mars
Modern astrologers go out of their way to imbue the "water" signs with idealized New Age traits such as being "sensitive", "psychic", and "profound". But no traditional descriptions allude to such traits. Since the "water" signs are ruled by Mars, they are thought to be dramatic and passionate but volatile and rash. Even astrologers as late as Alan Leo described them as being turbulent and restless, like water, and ancient astrologers made similar allusions. This clearly differs from the hypersensitive and introverted nature given in modern descriptions.

Scorpio (Mars ruler): Modern astrologers often describe Scorpio as secretive, very profound, and transforming through three stages; while throwing in martial qualities such as being a tenacious, powerful, and vengeful fighter. Traditional descriptions clearly allot Scorpio with the latter set of traits, the former mostly being New Age psychobabble. As such, Scorpio is driven and outgoing, fearlessly rocking the boat, tackling difficult challenges, and rising as the victor. Yet ancients regarded Scorpio as an "accursed sign" and "baleful source of war"; impulsive, violent, and self-destructive, causing crime and bloodshed throughout his rampage. There is little profundity in this fiery sign.


Whoam1 01-07-2018 06:04 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Pluto is transformative it's on my ascendant, you need to learn to be humble from Pluto and it teaches growth through mistakes, its far less magical. There attractive only they learn they're faults and ppl see them cutting through bs. Intense is a over used word, they are a lot because they're so used to chaos, that they seek it because they aren't reconditioned to function in the light. Pluto is insecure when it sees itself as more powerful than others, it needs to learn it is equal.

david starling 01-07-2018 07:21 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Capricorn is an extremely complicated Sign. It's similar to Pisces, in that it's the Seagoat, more materialistic than Pisces, but still a type of Water-sign. Pisces, as the twelfth Sign, contains the other 11 within it, and can relate to all of them. As the tenth Sign, Capricorn contains the preceding 9, and can relate to all of those. It's also VERY sensitive to Venus, which has a version of rulership ability regarding Capricorn.
In the symbol for Pisces, the two Tropics of Solstice are represented, with Cancer as the upper fish, and Capricorn as the lower, which is why they're linked together and face in opposite directions. In the Constellation, the horizontal fish is Capricornian, and the upward-swimming fish is Cancerian.

david starling 01-07-2018 07:34 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Sun in Capricorn leads straight to Saturn. Saturn in Taurus links to Venus in Scorpio.

david starling 01-07-2018 07:58 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
There's another reason you would key in to Venus, which is about Aquarius. Venus encourages the transition from Capricorn to Aquarius (since it rules Libra, which connects them, having the Modality of Capricorn and the Element of Aquarius), and your Chart is heavily invested in Aquarius--not only is is its ruler domiciled there, which gives a much needed sense of confidence and security, but it also contains Mars (in H2), the South Node, and Neptune.

david starling 01-07-2018 08:53 AM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
You're basically describing how others see you, how you present yourself to others. That's a function of the M.C., which is in Libra, ruled by Venus. And, with your Venus in Scorpio, that would explain that "Scorpio vibe" you've been perceived as having by others.

aquarius7000 01-07-2018 01:16 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
WhoamI,

What is your reason for starting half a dozen threads on yourself on a public Astrology forum? To get the views of others, isn't it? Then try not to get so flustered when others do that. Personally, I think it is not right to repeatedly impose your own romantic views about Pluto and the 8th house and keep asserting how you are both of those factors. When the viewpoints of others deviate from it, then ask them "to get the dirt out their ear". It doesn't work that way. Either do not post on a public forum, or be open to what others have to say instead of pouncing back please. This is not meant as an offence, but if this thread gets heated up, it will get locked and nobody will be able to post.

david starling 01-07-2018 01:25 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Sun Aquarian and Sun Piscean women make the best scolders! :joyful:

Starry595 01-07-2018 01:29 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 853233)
I suggest u get the di** out of your ear. I've know pain and suffering, and I've been the bloody cursed monster in the streets. I hide it and try to put some positivity in this world and learn from the messed up **** that happened to me and the awful mistakes I have made.Scorpio is like sex overrated but under appreciated. People need to stop seeing Scorpio as a hook up, but as an intimate relationship. I'm not a part of this herpes, I know who I am and am figuring out where I stand. Thanks for the advice, however I disagree with it.

My friend, this is for you.

aquarius7000 01-07-2018 01:45 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 853296)
Sun Aquarian and Sun Piscean women make the best scolders! :joyful:

And your kind of Sun seem to make the best conflict causers.

Starry595 01-07-2018 02:02 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

One of my biggest gripes with astrology is the description of Leo. Your description matches my ex almost to a T: he is very "kingly" as far as having a very powerful will, ego, and confidence; and has moved into high positions in jobs by being ruthless. He's also fiercely independent and somewhat generous toward children (these are modern descriptions, granted). He's not the life of the party; he's not hedonistic; he's not naÔve or happy-go-lucky AT ALL. He speaks of building an empire constantly and has controlling tendencies.

I've mentioned before that I have almost no Leo traits, according to pop modern astrology. It's actually ridiculous.
I totally agree with you here. People with "fire" Sun and Moon signs are positive and ambitious, but at bottom they are very serious about what they do.

Quote:

As far as Scorpio, I've said this in reference to Pluto, but I've only seen Plutonians as self-destructive and insecure. I've not seen any Plutonian wield the alleged transformative power of this planet. Intensity, undeniable magnetism....not really (there can be some sex appeal). I have some deep Pluto influences and I'm learning that it's mostly a very unfortunate planet. ETA: I realize planets and signs aren't the same, but the only Scorpio I knew, a former coworker, was an insecure coward; spineless and weak. No details.
I would hardly call Scorpio spineless and weak, but they don't have much self-control and tend to lash out for petty reasons. A Scorpio positive is that they tend to have a strong moral code and will sincerely fight for what they think is right. Scorpios are pretty honest and straightforward people, and will not shrink from telling you the brutal truth if they need to. But yeah, I never saw a "Plutonian" Scorpio ever.

As for Pluto, the outer planet scheme is messed up. It's far more accurate like this.

Ouranos - rules Aquarius, exults Scorpio
Neptune - rules Pisces, exults Gemini
Pluto - rules Aries, exults Sagittarius

And the typical interpretation of Pluto is interpreted somewhat wrongly. If you look at mythological sources, there is no mention of Pluto being violent or transformative. Pluto was a pretty chill guy who spent most of his time isolated from the Olympian gods. If anything, the zodiac planets dealing with violent social transformations are Mars and Ouranos. Pluto is bascically a benefic dwarf planet.

Your typical "Plutonian" is, if anything, gentle and introverted. They tend to live in a world of their own, and their tastes are singular. They are very stubborn and go their own route, but they don't make a big deal about smashing institutions and "transforming" society. They don't break the rules. They just ignore them. A person with extreme Pluto influences will utterly isolate themselves from the world.

Pluto's realm is strongly about the psychology of the individual, not so much the wide world, social trends, and the masses. As Sagittarius Sun Heinrich Heine put it, "An individual is an entire universe." That is a pretty "Plutonian" statement.

Quote:

Virgo is interesting...I have a Virgo ascendant, but in thinking of Virgo suns, I actually find them hard to peg. They can be an interesting bunch, but I can't find any patterns or commonalities in the Virgo Suns I've known (and I've known many, I attract them) besides practicality.
A lot of Virgo Suns I know love being fun and random. They seem to prefer enjoying life with all its little oddities and nuanced details rather than being wretched chasing some ambition or caring what other people think of them.

david starling 01-07-2018 02:03 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by aquarius7000 (Post 853303)
And your kind of Sun seem to make the best conflict causers.

I do question authority. Thought it was my NN in early Gemini, though. :biggrin:

Starry595 01-07-2018 02:07 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
I challenge you guys. A renowned biographer describes a famous writer. Guess the writer's zodiac sign:

"He was well known for his intensity, with a magnetic personality and a compelling gaze that people responded to instinctively. He had powerful, even volatile emotions. He had intense likes and dislikes. He flirted with attractive women all his life... And the two women he deeply loved... loved him in return and remained permanently bonded with him."

david starling 01-07-2018 02:22 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 853314)
I challenge you guys. A renowned biographer describes a famous writer. Guess the writer's zodiac sign:

"He was well known for his intensity, with a magnetic personality and a compelling gaze that people responded to instinctively. He had powerful, even volatile emotions. He had intense likes and dislikes. He flirted with attractive women all his life... And the two women he deeply loved... loved him in return and remained permanently bonded with him."

Ophiuchus? :smile:

Solar Flare 01-07-2018 03:11 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 853228)
I doubt there would be less sidereal astrologers if there was more open dialogue. Vedic astrology is inferior to Western Sidereal Astrology, I do at least think that. I have heard sidereal astrologers claim that famous tropical astrologers like Robert Hand would never teach sidereal techniques because they are superior. Take from that what you will.

The only way to bridge the gap, as I see it, is if scientists tested both schools seriously, seeing how both stack up to objective reality. Only then could we get somewhere. Otherwise, the two schools will always distrust each other.

A good test would definitely not harm astrology. But then again, how would this test look like? Scientists have tried to test astrology many times but have never received compelling evidence that it works. And each time, once the test has been done and the final results are found to be unconvincing, astrologers say that the problem was that the test wasn't organized properly, that the researcher was biased etc. Even if this is true, it seems that testing astrology at any level is an extremely complicated task and it may not be achievable at all. Moreover, for example, if a completely objective and properly performed test indicated that tropical astrology is more reliable than sidereal, would all sidereal astrologers switch to tropical? That's highly unlikely, in my opinion. The same would be true for tropical astrologers if sidereal astrology was found to be more reliable, I believe. Any kind of such test, if it doesn't suit the agenda of astrologers that hold on to a certain branch, will be considered biased, and their followers will continue thinking the same way.

Also, thanks for your post on the differences between modern and traditional perceptions of astrological signs! It was informative, even though I'm familiar with most of it. I agree with the majority of your post, except mainly with your delineations of Taurus ("Taurus is all about the wild kinky sex", really, all about it??? I disagree) and Cancer (mainly with your conclusions based on the fact that Jupiter is thought to be exalted in Cancer; I disagree that Jupiter has any particular dignity in Cancer because originally exaltations weren't meant to be used for the whole signs, just for specific degrees, and the opinion that Jupiter is exalted in Cancer is simply a misconception based on the misunderstanding of the original idea of Babylonians). Other descriptions are on point though. However, I see some value in the modern understanding of signs. Traditional astrology described signs from an overly grim perspective, while modern astrology has an overly positive outlook. I think you should take both approaches into consideration.

Whoam1 01-07-2018 03:17 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Thanks for your advice. Yes I get frustrated, no btw if anyone was wondering,I'm not a woman. Yes btw aquarius is a part to my chart, no I don't often relate to it. I'm good at telling it like it is, I'm blunt *** hell. I'm not here to seek attention, but rather spark something else to listen too. Btw that ghost writer sounds like Ophiuchus (I agree). Sorry for being rude @starry.

Solar Flare 01-07-2018 03:20 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starry595 (Post 853314)
I challenge you guys. A renowned biographer describes a famous writer. Guess the writer's zodiac sign:

"He was well known for his intensity, with a magnetic personality and a compelling gaze that people responded to instinctively. He had powerful, even volatile emotions. He had intense likes and dislikes. He flirted with attractive women all his life... And the two women he deeply loved... loved him in return and remained permanently bonded with him."

Come on, it's not fair to try to guess someone's SUN sign using ONE quote out of context... That's not how I personally do astrology. But I'm gonna take the bait and say Sagittarius. :sideways:

AppLeo 01-07-2018 06:33 PM

Re: Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoam1 (Post 851013)
Iíve always felt unrelated to my sun moon and rising. Iíve found I have a hades moon and a moon in the eight house. I also have a Scorpio stellium. Scorpio is my dom sign at 21% and Pluto is my dom planet at 10.5%. My dom modality is fixed, and my dom element is water. However would saying I am a Scorpio make me a fraud?
Chart:
Sag sun 10
Sag rising 7
Sag Juno 11
Cap Neptune 8
Cap south node 9
Cap Uranus 19
Cap mars 29
Aries Jupiter 0
Aries PoF 2
Aries sat 15
Cancer N node 9
Cancer vertex 17
Cancer Pallas 20
Leo moon 16
Virgo ceres 8
Libra MC 0
Scorp Venus 0
Scorp vesta 6
Scorp Chiron 16
Scorp Pluto 16
Scorp Black moon 19
Scorp Lilith ast. 28
Scorp Mercury 29
Moon Square Pluto
Moon in 8th house
This is my sidereal chart. I use placidus house system. Looking for any feed back postive or negitive.

If you have to ask this question, then maybe you know deep down that you are a ď poserĒand now youíre looking to justify yourself and rationalize that you are a Scorpio with this thread as proof.

I think you want to be a Scorpio even though you arenít. You just arenít. Your Sun isnít even in Scorpio, sidereal or tropical astrology.

Just because someone ďfeelsĒ they are a certain way doesnít mean they actually are.

I think the Capricorn part of you may be what makes you feel Scorpio. Capricorn and Scorpio are quite similar if you ask me.

Scorpio is overrated as a sign anyway.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.