Weak Signs

D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
No one is au fait with all standard opinion - whatever "standard opinion" means :smile:

another bumper sticker
03-19-12%20Opinion.jpg
Click to expand...

So, what's the Standard Opinion regarding the term "Standard Opinion"?:biggrin:
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Different Signs have different qualities.
Different Signs have different Rulership relationships.

Therefore, a Sign can be considered strong or weak,
depending on whether a Chart situation would be well served or poorly served by having a specific Planet acting in that Sign regarding that situation.

When it comes to determining whether or not a Sign is "weak" or "strong",
both the Planet that is in that Sign,
and the matter that is being addressed, must be taken into account.

So, when it comes to strength and weakness,
Signs are VARIATIONAL. :happy:
Click to expand...
Signs are NEUTRAL :smile:
waybread said:
Ok, I get that this is a "chat" board, but honestly

-- is there a point to reverting to simplistic sun-sign astrology?


Whatever happened to reading the chart as a whole?


No sign is intrinsically strong or weak.

It is made so by the planets in it
(or the lack thereof,)
and by its position amidst the house cusps.

Just for example,
as the mutable water sign,
we might see Pisces as "weak"
but if someone has Pisces in the 10th house with the MC, sun and Jupiter (domiciled) there,
with Jupiter trining the (domiciled) moon in Cancer,
Mr. Pisces has a lot of strength in this situation.
Much more so than the sun intercepted in Scorpio (fixed water) in the 12th house.

You get the picture.
Click to expand...
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
One should not conflate "Man of Peace" with "Pacifist".

A Man (or Woman) of Peace will reluctantly go to war
when all peaceful means have been exhausted
in dealing with an intolerable situation.

A Pacifist, on the other hand,
will not go to war under any circumstances.
"Beware of those who define anyone who goes to war as 'a Pacifist'" is an accurate statement.
Click to expand...

10488369_1758978967670874_7065079236977838006_n.jpg


page_06.png
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Actually, I think waybread would be eminently qualified to answer the question,

"is it the 'standard opinion' of modern scientists that 'Reality is an Illusion'"?:joyful:
Click to expand...
WB said :smile:

waybread said:
Ok, I get that this is a "chat" board, but honestly

-- is there a point to reverting to simplistic sun-sign astrology?

Whatever happened to reading the chart as a whole?

No sign is intrinsically strong or weak.

It is made so by the planets in it (or the lack thereof,)
and by its position amidst the house cusps.

Just for example, as the mutable water sign,
we might see Pisces as "weak"
but if someone has Pisces in the 10th house with the MC, sun and Jupiter (domiciled) there,
with Jupiter trining the (domiciled) moon in Cancer,
Mr. Pisces has a lot of strength in this situation.
Much more so than the sun intercepted in Scorpio (fixed water) in the 12th house.

You get the picture.
Click to expand...
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Tional
JUPITERASC said:
Competent astrologers when reading a persons chart do so while taking into account that signs are NEUTRAL :smile:
Click to expand...

The dictionary definition of "neutral" is "lacking in strongly marked characteristics". The Signs do have strongly marked characteristics, so by this definition they're not "neutral". They are "constant", in the sense that these strongly marked characteristics remain the same. However, they are also "variational" when it comes how compatible the qualities of a Sign is with a Transiting or Natal Planet; they can also be transmitted strongly or weakly depending on Planetary and House positions. In addition, they are variational when it comes to how weakly or strongly their characteristics, when clearly expressed by a Planet, support particular types of behavior. Perhaps you could describe what you mean by "neutral" more explicitly?
Because even in regard to the matter of "neutrality", the Signs are not "neutral": A Sign will Exalt one Planet while causing the Detriment or Fall of another.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Good answer to a different question!:sideways:
Click to expand...
au contraire mon ami :smile:
It's an answer to the topic of this thread
and you yourself designate it "a good answer"
i.e.
waybread said:
Ok, I get that this is a "chat" board, but honestly
-- is there a point to reverting to simplistic sun-sign astrology?
Whatever happened to reading the chart as a whole?

No sign is intrinsically strong or weak.

It is made so by the planets in it (or the lack thereof,) and by its position amidst the house cusps.

Just for example, as the mutable water sign, we might see Pisces as "weak" but if someone has Pisces in the 10th house with the MC, sun and Jupiter (domiciled) there, with Jupiter trining the (domiciled) moon in Cancer, Mr. Pisces has a lot of strength in this situation. Much more so than the sun intercepted in Scorpio (fixed water) in the 12th house.

You get the picture.
Click to expand...

 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:

Tional
Click to expand...

QWERTYUIOP

david starling said:
The dictionary definition of "neutral" is "lacking in strongly marked characteristics".

The Signs do have strongly marked characteristics, so by this definition they're not "neutral".

They are "constant", in the sense that these strongly marked characteristics remain the same.


However, they are also "variational"
Click to expand...
So
by your definition Signs remain the same whilst being also "variational" :smile:

david starling said:
when it comes how compatible the qualities of a Sign is with a Transiting or Natal Planet;
they can also be transmitted strongly or weakly depending on Planetary and House positions.
Click to expand...
and so clearly
by your own admission Signs themselves ARE neutral
david starling said:
In addition,
they are variational
Click to expand...
your definition claims that Signs "remain the same" as well as being "in adddition variational"
do elucidate
david starling said:
when it comes to how weakly or strongly their characteristics,
when clearly expressed by a Planet, support particular types of behavior.

Perhaps you could describe what you mean by "neutral" more explicitly?
Because even in regard to the matter of "neutrality", the Signs are not "neutral": A
Sign will Exalt one Planet while causing the Detriment or Fall of another.
Click to expand...
To be explicit then, Signs are NEUTRAL
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
All Signs have both strengths and weaknesses. Some are weak in analytical ability--nothing to be ashamed of though.:whistling: Here, try this: Change is Constant; Change is also Variational. Opinions are Variational; Opinions also remain Constant. But...Change is Neutral, whereas Opinions are not.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
:virgo: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.
 
Last edited:
Top