Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser

Whoam1

Well-known member
I'm a bit late to the party, but I have my 2 cents.



That makes no sense. If the stars are irrelevant, why even call it astrology? Saying, "it's all about the seasons" seems like a cop out. You hear astrologers refer to your "star sign" and tell "what the stars hold for you", but if you bring up procession they retreat to all this talk about seasons.

Originally, astrology took large account of the fixed stars (even a "tropical" astrologer such as Ptolemy did), but for some reason they ignore the stars these days. Astrology was sidereal from Egypt to at least 300 AD. The oldest surviving horoscope is dated July 16, 2767 BC, where the Sun is cast in Leo.

Heliacal Phenomina

Page 10-11 of Primer

Chaldean Forum



All maths and sciences are, more or less, based on symbolism and symmetry (trying to communicate abstract concepts and finding patters in the universe by creating natural laws). Yet scientists, such as astronomers, still take empirical reality for what it is. Astrologers should return to doing the same.

I personally am fine with a pure 12 constellation zodiac (with Ophiuchus/Scorpio simply treated as Scorpio). Either way, uneven constellations do not negate attempts to pin down a sidereal ayanamsha. Sidereal astrologers are not united in where to being the sidereal zodiac, but that doesn't make their ideas invalid.

Personally, I find the 12 uneven constellations the most valid form of astrology. You can bleat how the Moon is in Virgo right now all you want, but once night falls and you look up at the sky you will see the Moon in Leo, and nothing can change that reality.



Plenty of research was done in sidereal astrology, primarily by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley in the past and Jim Eshelman today. I don't know how much is "a lot" regarding scientists researching tropical astrology (source plz?). If they focus only on tropical zodiac, it's probably because they don't even know sidereal astrology exists.

As for your testimonies, yours is as good as mine. The tropical zodiac never made much sense to me as I observed people around me; and I always found it severely lacking in any true understanding of human nature. Western sidereal astrology makes way more sense.

I think people have issues with sidereal astrology for three main reasons. 1. Tropical astrology is all they have ever known, and they want to be comfortable. 2. Some base their entire sense of self on their supposed zodiac sign, so they have an existential crises when exposed to new information. 3. The ancients described the characters of the zodiac signs somewhat differently than we moderns do. Hack astrologers also do a fair amount of gross stereotyping, but this issue is a whole different kettle of fish.



Do you have any idea how many people justify any form of astrology with the exact same argument? There is a form of astrology where the tropical zodiac and the fixed stars are both taken into account. The website is called Dark Side Astrology. Take it for what it's worth.



Your typical scientist will say you're doing exactly the same thing.

Thank you for the support and my tropical sign does make sense but i to find my spiritual birth time. At this time Pluto is conjunct asc. In sag, on the first house. This puts my sun and moon in the 12th and 8th houses, and the sun/moon midpoint at 7 degrees Scorpio. This mid point acts as my sun and moon as they can express themselves a lone in there signs. However some people only like me using physical birth time, in which case i say to go pound sand.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Hi,

A couple of things are many a contradiction in terms here:
You post on the 'Modern Astrology' section of this site,
but talk about your sidereal chart (traditional)?:w00t:
I did my sidereal chart that Is the sag sun and asc. Birthday 12/27/1999.
Then you become very modern using Pluto and negating the Sun and the Asc. completely?
And sorry to do this. I don't frimly believe in sun sign or ascendent signs. I think these are rather shallow celestial bodies. The sun covers the ego, the rising covers the apperance. The moon is what these to hide and protect. Also I believe more firmly in a dominant sign, this is the sign that has the highest percentage in your chart. It covers you in general not just your ego. And the connections at the end that I have listed Pluto square moon and moon in the eight house, will give me emotional traits similar and often more intense that a Scorpio moon. By these standards in the chart I choose to use, I am a Scorpio dominant with a (double) hades moon.
But with the birth date you gave, you are, per Western tropical standards, a Capricorn Sun. And, if you want to consider the tradtional sidereal Vedic system, your Sun will be in Sag. and you need to consider the Moon, not Pluto connections. And, if you want to study your sidereal chart, you would do better on the Vedic section of this site.

It is interesting to be adventurous and experimental, but with some system and solid reasoning, please. That will be helpful.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I'm a bit late to the party, but I have my 2 cents.



That makes no sense. If the stars are irrelevant, why even call it astrology? Saying, "it's all about the seasons" seems like a cop out. You hear astrologers refer to your "star sign" and tell "what the stars hold for you", but if you bring up procession they retreat to all this talk about seasons.

Originally, astrology took large account of the fixed stars (even a "tropical" astrologer such as Ptolemy did), but for some reason they ignore the stars these days. Astrology was sidereal from Egypt to at least 300 AD. The oldest surviving horoscope is dated July 16, 2767 BC, where the Sun is cast in Leo.

Heliacal Phenomina

Page 10-11 of Primer

Chaldean Forum



All maths and sciences are, more or less, based on symbolism and symmetry (trying to communicate abstract concepts and finding patters in the universe by creating natural laws). Yet scientists, such as astronomers, still take empirical reality for what it is. Astrologers should return to doing the same.

I personally am fine with a pure 12 constellation zodiac (with Ophiuchus/Scorpio simply treated as Scorpio). Either way, uneven constellations do not negate attempts to pin down a sidereal ayanamsha. Sidereal astrologers are not united in where to being the sidereal zodiac, but that doesn't make their ideas invalid.

Personally, I find the 12 uneven constellations the most valid form of astrology. You can bleat how the Moon is in Virgo right now all you want, but once night falls and you look up at the sky you will see the Moon in Leo, and nothing can change that reality.



Plenty of research was done in sidereal astrology, primarily by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley in the past and Jim Eshelman today. I don't know how much is "a lot" regarding scientists researching tropical astrology (source plz?). If they focus only on tropical zodiac, it's probably because they don't even know sidereal astrology exists.

As for your testimonies, yours is as good as mine. The tropical zodiac never made much sense to me as I observed people around me; and I always found it severely lacking in any true understanding of human nature. Western sidereal astrology makes way more sense.





Your typical scientist will say you're doing exactly the same thing.

Why do the Constellations cause effects on human thought, actions, emotion, and fate, according to your scientific point of view?
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
Hi,

A couple of things are many a contradiction in terms here:
You post on the 'Modern Astrology' section of this site,
but talk about your sidereal chart (traditional)?:w00t:
Then you become very modern using Pluto and negating the Sun and the Asc. completely?

But with the birth date you gave, you are, per Western tropical standards, a Capricorn Sun. And, if you want to consider the tradtional sidereal Vedic system, your Sun will be in Sag. and you need to consider the Moon, not Pluto connections. And, if you want to study your sidereal chart, you would do better on the Vedic section of this site.

It is interesting to be adventurous and experimental, but with some system and solid reasoning, please. That will be helpful.

Ok so I figured out my tropical chart, it just took a birth time and house system correction, like I said in a previous post my sun and moon are in repressed houses, there mid point however isn't, and is the strongest point in my chart, that mid point is in Scorpio. That's y I act like a Scorpio, my ascendent is set on Pluto in Sagittarius in this redrawn tropical chart. This gives me a Scorpio rising feel with the Sagittarius traits I display. Saggitarus would follow scorpio in chart dominance as it contains a minor stellium and the asc. Keep in mind that in the chart i sent the mid point does not show up, but is on 7 degrees in scorpio.
 
Last edited:
I think people have issues with sidereal astrology for three main reasons. 1. Tropical astrology is all they have ever known, and they want to be comfortable. 2. Some base their entire sense of self on their supposed zodiac sign, so they have an existential crises when exposed to new information. 3. The ancients described the characters of the zodiac signs somewhat differently than we moderns do. Hack astrologers also do a fair amount of gross stereotyping, but this issue is a whole different kettle of fish.

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.
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
With all due respect, all these arguments are horrible. You can't simply deduce the validity of a pseudo-science based on analogies. How does evolution and religion have anything to do with how astrology works? With all due respect once again, all religions describe a single god but in different manners and that is correct, but religions are not based on empirical and logical convictions. I do believe in God myself, however I know that it is irrational and I don't care if it is. I just feel that he is there. However, when astrology is supposed to be provable and based on observation and statistics, you can't just throw out there that it works just because it does.

Astrology is meant to work because it follows a lot of guidelines and rules that it diligently follows. It's a pseudoscience because it starts off premises that are irrational (balance and symmetry of the planets, aesthetics in their placements, the fact that they affect human life from a distance, etc.) hence its irrationality and designation as a pseudoscience. It is up entirely to us to decide to believe in it or not....
Obsidianmineral, I request to please read the text in quotes. Perhaps you might be able to see how contradictory your thoughts are. Perhaps it is just some confusion and I am not trying to offend you here. However, to say that Astrology is not related to religion is literally like saying Maths is not related to numbers. And then you go on to say that Astrology is a pseudoscience, but that it is provable and based on statistics? "It is up entirely to us to decide to believe" in anything or not, not just Astrology. You might want to pick up a good book on how the Greek and/or the Indians started out with Astrology, which should clarify Astrology's very deep connection to religion.

Statistics today can be collected on anything, but that does not necessarily make anything a science.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Ok so I figured out my tropical chart, it just took a birth time and house system correction, like I said in a previous post my sun and moon are in repressed houses, there mid point however isn't, and is the strongest point in my chart, that mid point is in Scorpio. That's y I act like a Scorpio, my ascendent is set on Pluto in Sagittarius in this redrawn tropical chart. This gives me a Scorpio rising feel with the Sagittarius traits I display. Saggitarus would follow scorpio in chart dominance as it contains a minor stellium and the asc. Keep in mind that in the chart i sent the mid point does not show up, but is on 7 degrees in scorpio.
Try to pull a Western Placidus chart and have a specific question ready, and I can look at it.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Obsidianmineral, I request to please read the text in quotes. Perhaps you might be able to see how contradictory your thoughts are. Perhaps it is just some confusion and I am not trying to offend you here. However, to say that Astrology is not related to religion is literally like saying Maths is not related to numbers. And then you go on to say that Astrology is a pseudoscience, but that it is provable and based on statistics? "It is up entirely to us to decide to believe" in anything or not, not just Astrology. You might want to pick up a good book on how the Greek and/or the Indians started out with Astrology, which should clarify Astrology's very deep connection to religion.

Statistics today can be collected on anything, but that does not necessarily make anything a science.

The connection of Western Astrology to religion is obvious: Those gods and goddesses were real beings to most of the Ancient Greeks. Vedic is still strongly connected to religion.
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
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.
 

Starry595

Member
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

Well-known member
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

Member
@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 lion’s 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 Gemini’s anxieties about death heavily inform his “be merry while you can” 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

Member
@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

Well-known member
@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

Well-known member
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 naïve 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.

@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.
 
Last edited:

Whoam1

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Top