Is Taurus a well-balanced sign who analyses all perspective and angles?

We all know how the Libra archetype is well balanced personality who analyses the situations from different perspectives, different povs, and different angles, and ultimately comes up with a solution from this analyzing (especially in regards to making a compromise in relationship and negotiation issues where they try to make everyone happy by giving a 3rd option where everyone wins). This is especially true in competitive things where they for example choose a strategy in tennis that will easily cover weak points while giving a guaranteed victory after analyzing all what-ifs in the sports' complexity or making a war strategy based on analyzing a map for hours and from multiple experts' perspective instead of one's conceit that will create a balanced momentum that will cover up weaknesses and turn puny strength into devastating KO power.

However I notice recently many Taurus people act the same way despite how Taurus is infamous for being the most stubborn sign and the most fixed of personality. They too analyze things from outside of their personal perspective with a cool emotionally distant logic and try to often come up with a situation to accompany all those different points. Indeed as seen in businesses they analyze the multiple what-ifs and create security for weaknesses such as signing up for excellent insurance policies.

In addition they often try to compromise with people esp in negotiations to find a solution that will leave everyone walking from the meeting with a smile on their face.

However despite that Taurus gets the hack for lacking the balanced mindset of Libra. Why is this? I asked because not only does Taurus share the same ruling planet as Libra but they also are described as with similar traits to Libra such as easygoing.

Is Taurus more balanced than what pop astrology would lead us to believe (at least for a fixed sign and an earth sign)?

Based on the Taurus suns I know very well, I would partly agree. I agree that Taurus likes to be fair and impartial. That said, if a Taurus has made up their mind about something, it is nearly impossible to change their conclusion. I think they are less likely to argue than a Libra, and I think that's because they value peace even more than Libras, but they value consensus less. They'll listen, but they'll go on believing what they believe. I think this is different than a Libra, who can change their mind fairly easily if given a good argument for why they should.

A couple of snippets that might aid you along your observations. Traditionally speaking, Taurus is a cold and dry sign which means that it is melancholic. The melancholic temperament is the one that is what one would see as the most stereotypically intellectual - strong memory, cool logicality and a penchant for long and sustained cogitation on problems that they deem worth focusing on.

Your findings on the Taurian influenced in your life would be well met with the western siderealists. See here: http://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=101#p616

But then, none of this is pop astrology, is it?

I would seem that how a Taurus Sun analyzes would be greatly dependent upon the condition and placement of Mercury. For example, a Taurus Sun with Merc in Taurus would view things rather differently than one with Merc in Gem or Merc in Aries.

And quite honestly, I would also include the condition and placement Moon, to fill out the picture.

the characteristics of a Taurus individual will all depend on the aspects it receives...depends on whether the sign is afflicted or supported.

Witchyone said:

Based on the Taurus suns I know very well, I would partly agree. I agree that Taurus likes to be fair and impartial. That said, if a Taurus has made up their mind about something, it is nearly impossible to change their conclusion. I think they are less likely to argue than a Libra, and I think that's because they value peace even more than Libras, but they value consensus less. They'll listen, but they'll go on believing what they believe. I think this is different than a Libra, who can change their mind fairly easily if given a good argument for why they should.

Click to expand...

I agree. Just remember, Taurus is Fixed-Earth, very inclined to the material world, and values possessions.
In my own system, is its Regulator, and Jupiter its Motivator. It's also in-Service to Venus.

I wouldn't call Taurus well balanced, the word choice implies giving equal time and weight to various angles, on a consistent basis.

What Taurus possess is patient, slow and complete thoroughness, which can be mistaken for being "well balanced" if analyzing surface behavior over a short time period, but the internal mechanisms driving it underneath is different than a Libra's. Taurus energy is slow moving, but a solid rock once formed. When the end decision is finally reached, Taurus energy is anything but balanced. Its obstinate stubbornness rivals a Scorpio's dedication to a goal, albeit in a much quieter, practical, undramatic, and far less emotionally intense manner. But observe over a long enough time period, and again the key is over a long period of time, not being fooled by the surface peacefulness, you'll see the bull is really something else, never truly living up to that word.

For example, Mars in Taurus will be slow in taking action and making decisions, but extremely thorough in all steps and preparation, and will never budge once a direction and decision is finally chosen. Mercury in Taurus will take a long time hearing all the tangible facts, and sides, but once its mind is made up, it's set in stone for years. Venus in Taurus will be slow in loving, but stubborn and fixed once decided on a love interest. And so on...

Taurus also has much patience in business. What you are experiencing in negotiations may be the very patient, thorough and firm side of a Taurus. A Taurean will take time understanding and exploring every issue and everyone's agenda, getting the gist of the matter, and make sure the end conclusion is ironed out as thorough, practical, simple and constructive as can be. Taurus is ruled by Venus, hence preferring peace, not war. The business will be dealt with in a practical but Venusian way. Hence everyone walking out with a smile.

On a side note, a Taurean with Libra influence are assets in the negotiation table. Charm and strategy interplays with patience and stone-hard firmness. That's a covert force to be reckoned with.

The ability to be analytical doesn't come from the sun sign so much as the placement of Mercury.

Because Mercury never moves more than 28 degrees from the sun, it is often in the same sign as the sun. Otherwise it will be in one of the adjacent signs.

A Taurus with a Gemini Mercury, or a Libra with a Virgo Mercury might be highly analytical, because Mercury is extra-strong in the signs it rules. Scorpio Mercuries are very interested in stripping away anything false, and getting at the truth.

Then you really have to look at how Mercury is aspected. A Mercury conjunct Uranus will take on a lot of Uranian qualities, for example.

A Mercury in Taurus might be slow, but it would tend to be methodical and practical.

Would also add potential Saturn influence as an addendum to Mercury. Possibly the Taureans we are dealing with here were born during a Saturn in Libra generation. Depending on how Saturn is placed, granting the natives proclivity to business matters and solid ability to structure, taking intangible ideas to concrete forms, while operating in a naturally balanced and fair manner.

Saturn in Libra: Between November 21, 1950 and March 7, 1951; August 14, 1951 and October 22, 1953; September 22, 1980 and November 29, 1982; and May 7, 1983 and August 24, 1983.

Any objections to the Old-Modern designation of Taurus as the "I Have" sign?

There does appear to be an "Old-Modern" and a more recent Modern. It was taken for granted that the Signs are numbered starting from Aries, for example. I remember that much was made about the sidereal Age of Aries being when monotheism first arose in Egypt, under Akhnaton, and in the Hebrew culture following the Exodus, because Aries is Sign #1. And, the 12 Apostles being about Pisces as Sign #12. Now, however, Sign-numbering appears to have fallen out of favor, and is almost totally eclipsed by House numbering. So Taurus can still be characterized as the 2nd Sign, using Old-Modern precepts.

David, I think the problem comes with a certain faction of modern astrology assuming that a house is "just like" the sign of the same number. This idea is very popular, but I am not the only one who thinks it's a really bad idea.

Signs show how or in what manner a planet operates. A house shows where or in what domain of life a planet operates. These are not the same thing.

Further, suppose someone believes that Mercury "in Taurus or the second house" means the same thing; but actually s/he has Virgo on the cusp of (and occupying) the second house. So we then look up Virgo, and see an entry on "Virgo and the 6th house." Such a person might well have Capricorn on the cusp of (and occupying) the 6th house. So we then look up "Capricorn and the 10th house," and so on. The whole scheme gets truly crazy-making.

waybread said:

David, I think the problem comes with a certain faction of modern astrology assuming that a house is "just like" the sign of the same number. This idea is very popular, but I am not the only one who thinks it's a really bad idea.

Signs show how or in what manner a planet operates. A house shows where or in what domain of life a planet operates. These are not the same thing.

Further, suppose someone believes that Mercury "in Taurus or the second house" means the same thing; but actually s/he has Virgo on the cusp of (and occupying) the second house. So we then look up Virgo, and see an entry on "Virgo and the 6th house." Such a person might well have Capricorn on the cusp of (and occupying) the 6th house. So we then look up "Capricorn and the 10th house," and so on. The whole scheme gets truly crazy-making.

Click to expand...

I remember something involving the alphabet system in Hellenistic astrology, recalling that you defended the [erroneous] assumption that the VIII signifies death because of Scorpio. Have you changed your mind?

Oh, gosh, Pet-- what are you doing, stalking me? This type of thread isn't your usual bailiwick.

At the risk of getting into a big digression and hijacking this thread: No. I believe the discussion to which you refer was on ancient astrology, with my posts on what I believe were the ancient Egyptian origins of our thematic houses. There is some evidence that the earliest house meanings correlated in some particulars to their astrological signs by-the-numbers (like the third house and Gemini signifying brothers.)

Since the ancient origins of the astrological houses first emerged, probably in Hellenized Egypt, horoscopic astrology has had about 2000 years of subsequent development. See Deborah Houlding's, Houses: Temples of the Sky for some of this history concerning house meanings through the ages. I believe (though I'd happily stand corrected) that one of the earlier 20th century astrologers like C. E. O. Carter or Mark Edmund Jones developed the idea of really conflating houses and signs by-the-numbers. http://theastrologyplacemembership.com/2010/01/the-astrological-alphabet/ For the reasons outlined in my previous post, I think this is a really bad idea.

With two exceptions. The traditional Man of the Anatomical Signs maps out which signs rule which parts of the human body. In medical astrology these also correlate to houses of the same number order.

Then once in a while you will see someone manifesting what modern astrologers call a particular "chord" or "key," with a heavy emphasis on a given planetary ruler, signs and house by-the-numbers. For example, this might be someone with a strongly placed sun, planets in Leo, as well as a 5th house emphasis. Such a chart modernly would be showing a 5th chord or key.

I think some mods call this the "alphabet system." I just found this article on it by traditional author Joseph Crane: https://www.astro.com/info/in_twelveletter_e.htm

waybread said:

Oh, gosh, Pet-- what are you doing, stalking me? This type of thread isn't your usual bailiwick.

At the risk of getting into a big digression and hijacking this thread: No. I believe the discussion to which you refer was on ancient astrology, with my posts on what I believe were the ancient Egyptian origins of our thematic houses. There is some evidence that the earliest house meanings correlated in some particulars to their astrological signs by-the-numbers (like the third house and Gemini signifying brothers.)

I have no idea what you mean by the "alphabet system."

Since the ancient origins of the astrological houses first emerged, probably in Hellenized Egypt, horoscopic astrology has had about 2000 years of subsequent development. See Deborah Houlding's, Houses: Temples of the Sky for some of this history concerning house meanings through the ages. I believe (though I'd happily stand corrected) that one of the earlier 20th century astrologers like C. E. O. Carter or Mark Edmund Jones developed the idea of really conflating houses and signs by-the-numbers. For the reasons outlined in my previous post, I think this is a really bad idea.

With two exceptions. The traditional Man of the Anatomical Signs maps out which signs rule which parts of the human body. In medical astrology these also correlate to houses of the same number order.

Then once in a while you will see someone manifesting what modern astrologers call a particular "chord" or "key," with a heavy emphasis on planetary rulers, signs, and houses by-the-numbers.

Click to expand...

It is a medieval concept, but it is more popular in mod astrology - ABC/alphabet system - First House = Aries = Mars. The third and the Moon were associated with siblings, but a hypothetical source of that arrangement (Hermes) also associated life and livelihood with the VIII. It has absolutely nothing to do with Gemini unless you think Capricorn signifies children (because the X signifies children more often than the V or XI). The medical technique you refer to that associated the zodiac melothesia to the places is also medieval and post-conflation concept.

If you are willing to argue that, I would appreciate references.

I think some mods call this the "alphabet system." I just found this article on it by traditional author Joseph Crane: https://www.astro.com/info/in_twelveletter_e.htm

Click to expand...

That is what I referred to.

Petosiris, this is a thread on the Taurus sun-sign. I'll be happy to discuss other matters with you on a thread that doesn't hijack this one.

waybread said:

Petosiris, this is a thread on the Taurus sun-sign. I'll be happy to discuss other matters with you on a thread that doesn't hijack this one.

Click to expand...

Well, on the topic, the cardinal/changeable signs (like Aries) are fitting for dealing with people, trade, politics and conjecture, while the fixed/solid (like Taurus) are associated stern, contentious, firm, inflexible individuals and the like matters, so by that logic, there is something overlooked in the chart, or an incorrect presumption.

waybread said:

David, I think the problem comes with a certain faction of modern astrology assuming that a house is "just like" the sign of the same number. This idea is very popular, but I am not the only one who thinks it's a really bad idea.

Signs show how or in what manner a planet operates. A house shows where or in what domain of life a planet operates. These are not the same thing.

Further, suppose someone believes that Mercury "in Taurus or the second house" means the same thing; but actually s/he has Virgo on the cusp of (and occupying) the second house. So we then look up Virgo, and see an entry on "Virgo and the 6th house." Such a person might well have Capricorn on the cusp of (and occupying) the 6th house. So we then look up "Capricorn and the 10th house," and so on. The whole scheme gets truly crazy-making.

Click to expand...

I'm in a strange situation, because in some ways I'm Old-Mod, and don't conflate Signs with Houses, or use out-of-Mode aspects, for example, but I'm also....hmm....for now, I'll call it a Reformed Mod, because I've made some radical changes to Sign-rulership. As far as Taurus itself goes, I see it most definitely as: Fixed; Earth; 2nd-sign (where its number, "2", can be used for numerological purposes); and involving the image of the solid, land-dwelling animal of the bovine species, male or female, originally the Ox, as I understand it. Yours and Gemw's descriptions were quite good [IMO].