david starling
Well-known member
how neutral i also wonder.
By any recognized definition of the word "neutral", the Signs are not neutral.
how neutral i also wonder.
Good point, well madeHi
There are No weak sun signs.
To say there is, it is belittling astrology.
There are natal charts that indicate a weak personality.
???????????THERE ARE NO WEAK SIGNS,
but as some have noted, there are weak placements.
For example, Cancer is a very powerful sign.
the flaw there isProtective, 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.
I'm an Aquarian, and proud of it. There's no sun-sign I'd rather be.
Generalisation, although fun, is unreliableThis 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.
It would be ridiculous to assert that Leo is the sole sign "big on pride"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).
WB shares Leo Moon and Aquarius SunWaybread, with Moon in Leo,
is it possible you'd be proud of your Sun-sign regardless of which one it was?
???????????
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
I commented on the above post prior to its being edited regarding cultural settingThis 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?]
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.
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.
Um, maybe I missed the gist of the Thread, but why is there an apparent assumption that it's mostly about the Sun-sign?
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? 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?
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? 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?
The Houses are the Environment.
The Signs are the Qualities.
That which is "neutral" lacks any distinguishing qualities.
I'm getting the impression there's some sort of obsession with applying the, in this case, inaccurate adjective.
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".
I commented on the above post prior to its being edited regarding cultural setting
and also the phrase "given its particular qualities" being added
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.
See, "neutral" means "lacking distinguishing characteristics",