Weak Signs

katydid

Well-known member
THERE ARE NO WEAK SIGNS, but as some have noted, there are weak placements. For example, Cancer is a very powerful sign. Protective, emotional, caring. Yet, when MARS is placed in Cancer, things can get dicey. People born with Mars in Cancer tend to have aggressive emotions. They allow their emotions to control their actions. They are often very impulsive and extremely moody. They are often acting out and responding insensitively to whatever they are feeling. Hurting others in their wake. Hypersensitive, out of control and erratic. They may have anger management problems and can be highly emotionally manipulative. They may allow their emotions to drive them. They are very honest, they can never hold back what they feel. However just because they 'feel something' it is not necessarily true. I see Mars in Cancer as being a very weak placement in a natal chart. Miley Cyrus. Halle Barry, Michael Phelps are prime examples. Very talented people with difficult family relationships.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
THERE ARE NO WEAK SIGNS,
but as some have noted, there are weak placements.

For example, Cancer is a very powerful sign.
???????????:smile:
Having said THERE ARE NO WEAK SIGNS
you then stated that
"Cancer is a very powerful sign"

but
IF you think of Cancer as "a very powerful sign"
THEN
you are bringing in the idea of "weak" in relation to sign description
so would be useful if you would clarify



Protective, emotional, caring.
Yet, when MARS is placed in Cancer, things can get dicey.
People born with Mars in Cancer tend to have aggressive emotions.
They allow their emotions to control their actions.
They are often very impulsive and extremely moody.
They are often acting out and responding insensitively to whatever they are feeling.
Hurting others in their wake. Hypersensitive, out of control and erratic.
They may have anger management problems and can be highly emotionally manipulative.
They may allow their emotions to drive them.
They are very honest, they can never hold back what they feel.
However just because they 'feel something' it is not necessarily true.
I see Mars in Cancer as being a very weak placement in a natal chart.
Miley Cyrus. Halle Barry, Michael Phelps are prime examples.
Very talented people with difficult family relationships.
the flaw there is
those experiencing the problems you mention
are not necessarily natal Cancer Mars
 

david starling

Well-known member
I'm an Aquarian, and proud of it. There's no sun-sign I'd rather be.

This brings to mind the question of whether an attribute is a strength or a weakness. For example, Taurus is known for "stubbornness", which can be good in some situations and bad in others. Leo is big on "pride"; again, both good and bad connotations (after all, it is listed as one of the 7 Sins!). Given it's particular qualities, a Sign might be extremely functional and effective in one scenario (strong), and totally unsuitable for another (weak). This would also vary from one cultural setting to another.
[Waybread, with Moon in Leo, is it possible you'd be proud of your Sun-sign regardless of which it were?]
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
This brings to mind the question of whether an attribute is a strength or a weakness.
For example, Taurus is known for "stubbornness",
which can be good in some situations and bad in others.
Generalisation, although fun, is unreliable :smile:
for example
not all Taurus sun signs are necessarily stubborn

FURTHERMORE
there ARE tens of hundreds of millions of natives with sun signs other than Taurus
who ARE stubborn

Leo is big on "pride"; again, both good and bad connotations
(after all, it is listed as one of the 7 Sins!).
It would be ridiculous to assert that Leo is the sole sign "big on pride"

because
A Taurus sun sign native could be "big on pride" and changeable

while
A Leo sun sign may be stubborn and humble

That's why the chart as a whole is delineated
Given it's particular qualities,
a Sign might be extremely functional and effective in one scenario (strong),
and totally unsuitable for another (weak)
.

The PLANET is either "extremely funtional and effective" - or not

The sign itself is NEUTRAL
Waybread, with Moon in Leo,
is it possible you'd be proud of your Sun-sign regardless of which one it was?
:wink:
WB shares Leo Moon and Aquarius Sun
with more than three hundred and fifty thousand others born that same day


therefore
nonsensical to claim
that all three hundred and fifty thousand of those people
are all "proud of their sunsign"
many clearly may not be
 

katydid

Well-known member
???????????:smile:
Having said THERE ARE NO WEAK SIGNS
you then stated that
"Cancer is a very powerful sign"

but
IF you think of Cancer as "a very powerful sign"
THEN
you are bringing in the idea of "weak" in relation to sign description
so would be useful if you would clarify




the flaw there is
those experiencing the problems you mention
are not necessarily natal Cancer Mars

Yes, Cancer is a very powerful sign, emotionally. All of the water signs have emotional strength, but Cancer is the CARDINAL Water sign, so I say it is powerful.

Gemini would be a weak sign in terms of emotions, but not in terms of mental agility, for example. But the Moon would be weak in Gemini, in comparison to being in Cancer.

And, in my experience, the problems I mentioned were problems I have seen in charts of those with Mars in Cancer. I know three examples, personally, that fit that description quite well.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
This brings to mind the question of whether an attribute is a strength or a weakness. For example, Taurus is known for "stubbornness", which can be good in some situations and bad in others. Leo is big on "pride"; again, both good and bad connotations (after all, it is listed as one of the 7 Sins!). Given it's particular qualities,
a Sign might be extremely functional and effective in one scenario (strong),
and totally unsuitable for another (weak).

This would also vary from one cultural setting to another.


[Waybread, with Moon in Leo, is it possible you'd be proud of your Sun-sign regardless of which it were?]
I commented on the above post prior to its being edited regarding cultural setting
and also the phrase "given its particular qualities" being added :smile:

The cultural setting is the variable
not the sign
the sign remains NEUTRAL

regarding "particular qualities"
would be useful if you would enumerate these sign "qualities" you refer to


 

tsmall

Premium Member
So once again we come down to semantics??? For realz, you guys have nothing else to think about?

Signs, quite simply, have strengths and weaknesses, known as "qualities", which are expressed strongly or weakly by the Planets' location in the Signs. The attempt by some Astrologers to neutralize the Signs is futile.

The signs are neutral. Sure, they have qualities, but those qualities require planetary involvement in order to actually do something. Semantics. Cancer is AMAZING for Moon and Jupiter, not so much for Mars and Saturn, who can both totally rock the **** out of Capricorn.

It's like the expression, "it's an ill wind that blows nobody good," meaning that not all situations or circumstances are bad for everyone. Which brings me back around to my "semantics" argument. There are no such thing as weak signs, just weak placements. :sleeping:

The planets bring the action, and every newbie astrologer quickly learns this...
 

katydid

Well-known member
This brings to mind the question of whether an attribute is a strength or a weakness. For example, Taurus is known for "stubbornness", which can be good in some situations and bad in others. Leo is big on "pride"; again, both good and bad connotations (after all, it is listed as one of the 7 Sins!). Given it's particular qualities, a Sign might be extremely functional and effective in one scenario (strong), and totally unsuitable for another (weak). This would also vary from one cultural setting to another.
[Waybread, with Moon in Leo, is it possible you'd be proud of your Sun-sign regardless of which it were?]

I totally agree with the above. When looking at someone's chart, it is hard to know whether they found their 'niche' in the world or not.

My husband has Mercury, retrograde in Aries in the 12th, conjunct the Sun in Aries, also in his 12th. His Mercury opposes Saturn and Neptune in Libra. And he has Taurus rising, with Mars in Scorpio opposed his Asc. With those debilitated 12th house placements, how would he make his way in the world?

He was lucky enough to find a great career for himself,beginning 28 years ago, using the Sun/Mercury in his 12th, as a screenwriter. And he takes a background role behind the scenes, creating storylines, characters, and dialogue for tv shows. He has been pretty resourceful and successful and branched out to writing music and books. Making a living as a writer is hard to do and he has done so, in spite of his retro mercury in the 12th. Or MAYBE because of that placement?

I have seen how it has limited him somewhat too. He has had opportunities to be the Show Runner and chances to be the lead producer. He hated those jobs and was admittedly not very good at them. He prefers writing and creating and so he has focussed on that primarily. Taking the 'lead' role and making all of the decisions and bossing everyone else around did not feel comfortable of him whenever he has tried it. So he is very satisfied being a writer.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
I totally agree with the above. When looking at someone's chart, it is hard to know whether they found their 'niche' in the world or not.

While still reserving that the signs are neutral and it is the placements that are important, lol, I found this interesting enough to go off topic (sue me,lol.)

There is a traditional technique that uses the triplicity and bound ruler of the ASC, along with the trip and term ruler of the MC, to help figure out what the best Universal expression of what that native is to become. I'd be interested if you started a different thread, with chart, on this topic...
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Signs are the environment, and the enviornment is neutral. It may seem hostile for some forms of life, really great for others. It does not choose, it does not judge. It does not "act." It just is. Neither good nor bad. Some things can thrive there, others cannot. That is why we say the signs are neutral. The perform no overt action, rather they just influence the planets that are either posited there, or say a little about the sign rulers. And seriously? Are we really having a planet=sign=house conversation right now?
 

david starling

Well-known member
So once again we come down to semantics??? For realz, you guys have nothing else to think about?


It's not trivial semantics, it's about a gross misdefinition. What I believe you're trying to impart is that it takes the Planetary vibrations to activate the Signs and express their qualities. The Signs are in no way "neutral"; but, they could be said, applying an automobile analogy, to be "in Neutral" until the Planets put them into Drive (or Overdrive if the Planet rules the Sign it's in). If semantics are so unimportant, WHY the stubborn insistence on sticking with a patently incorrect discriptive word? :annoyed:How about "INACTIVE"--that's accurately descriptive. What's the allure of the word "neutral" in this case? Is it like a sort of Mantra? :biggrin:
 
simply planets move, not signs.
planets that project everyting, without planets, signs wouldnt touch us.
when you mean "neutrality" you mean like "neutrality because of indirection"
as far as i understand, or may i miss something.. its 03:44 am i cant think enough im very tired

but when david starling say you are wrong he means
there is a differency only among sign natures. this is true.
otherwise how can you say cancer is about water or moon
or ari is about fire and mars. or how can you say elements exist.

come on guys, those are different things.
which are not arguable

also you know every differency has to bring good or bad, weak or powerful etc
its normal thing.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
So once again we come down to semantics??? For realz, you guys have nothing else to think about?


It's not trivial semantics, it's about a gross misdefinition. What I believe you're trying to impart is that it takes the Planetary vibrations to activate the Signs and express their qualities. The Signs are in no way "neutral"; but, they could be said, applying an automobile analogy, to be "in Neutral" until the Planets put them into Drive (or Overdrive if the Planet rules the Sign it's in). If semantics are so unimportant, WHY the stubborn insistence on sticking with a patently incorrect discriptive word? :annoyed:How about "INACTIVE"--that's accurately descriptive. What's the allure of the word "neutral" in this case? Is it like a sort of Mantra? :biggrin:

No, actually inactive is a great word. :biggrin: This is my biggest beef with reading the old source texts. Who meant what when they said what they said, and how are we supposed to interpret and convey that meaning today? You say inactive, I say neutral, and yet here we are, both (I think) saying the same damned thing. :whistling:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
The Houses are the Environment.

Weeeelll, there we may differ in opinion. The houses grant accidental strength, so in that respect I personally veiw them less as environmental and more as tactical or pivotal, and yes, I use pivotal for a reason.

The Signs are the Qualities.

I think I need you to define what you mean by "Qualities." Because I am a traditional astrologer who views qualities in relation to natural characteristics, temperament for those familiar with Aristotelian qualities...

That which is "neutral" lacks any distinguishing qualities.

Again, we differ. To me, that which is "neutral" does not impart judgement. And astrology, at its heart, is judicial. Much like Switzerland, signs refuse to judge, or become engaged. It is what it is, inherently, but applies no active participation in what goes on within it.

I'm getting the impression there's some sort of obsession with applying the, in this case, inaccurate adjective.

Inaccurate adjective is your opinon only. Which is fine, and semantics. :w00t:

As you say, the Signs "perform no overt action", so why INSIST on the word Neutral, when "Inactive" is what you mean? Now that I know what you mean, I'm just curious about the aforementioned insistence on "neutral". :unsure:

Why worry so much about what you perceive as an "inssistance" on a particular word? Language, like astrology, is meant to convey meaning. Once you perceive the meaning, arguing over the delivery is pretty much moot, don't you think? I meant neutral, I still mean neutral. If it took your version of inactive to understand my meaning of neutral, what's the problem?
 

david starling

Well-known member
I commented on the above post prior to its being edited regarding cultural setting
and also the phrase "given its particular qualities" being added :smile:

The cultural setting is the variable
not the sign
the sign remains NEUTRAL

I think you mean CONSTANT, as the opposite to "variable"? See, "neutral" means "lacking distinguishing characteristics", which isn't the case regarding the Signs. But, the Signs remain INACTIVE until expressed by a Planet. Then, depending on which Planet is expressing it, and in what culture, a Sign's qualities may be judged "weak" or "strong" based on the values of that culture.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
See, "neutral" means "lacking distinguishing characteristics",

I think you are purposely chosing to overlook the first and formost definition of the word "neutral," as being used here on this thread, to perputate an argument for reasons of your own.

Neutral:

adjective
1.
not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
"during the Second World War, Portugal was neutral"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, objective, equitable, open-minded, nonpartisan, disinterested, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, indifferent, uncommitted More

2.
having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features.
"the tone was neutral, devoid of sentiment"
synonyms: inoffensive, bland, unobjectionable, unexceptionable, anodyne, unremarkable, ordinary, commonplace; More
noun
1.
an impartial or unbiased country or person.
"he acted as a neutral between the parties"
2.
a neutral color or shade, especially light gray or beige.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE
 
Top