Davi_Alan
Well-known member
Hi Everyone,
Last night a member here directed me to a website called Archaic Astrology, where I read this very interesting article entitled "The Truth About Your Sun Sign":
http://www.archaicastrology.org/blog/2011/6/25/the-truth-about-your-star-sign.html
I was so happy to have come across this article because for the past few weeks I had been reading the "Anthologies" and taking a look also at "Tetrabiblos" and "Christian Astrology" and while there were personality description for the planets, I did not find much of the "traditional" traits we see associated with the Sun Signs in these works. So I wondered, "Hm, when did these traits which we've gotten so used to came to be?" And I was seeing that something just didn't fit in the overall picture. This article cleared that up perfectly for me.
But here's the thing - Would this mean that I'm not a Piscean, based on the traditional system, just because I was born on March? Some things would make sense, because I identify a lot with my Gemini Ascendant, and it seems at times that I do posses a lot more of this trait, which according to this article, the main criteria for determining the personality would be the Lord of the Ascendant and the Lord of the Geniture, so it would fit. But then again - the main reason why I came to astrology in the first place was because I saw a lot of similar characteristics between people who shared the same sun sign. Of course, there'd be times where I'd someone who simply did not show any of the typical traits of the Sun Sign, but most of the times yes, they would show. And I know I wasn't hallucinating or seeing things where there aren't any when I noticed a kind of pattern forming between people with the same sun sign. This would mean that I'd have to erase years of observation, which I don't think it's justified. So, how to reconcile that?
Last night a member here directed me to a website called Archaic Astrology, where I read this very interesting article entitled "The Truth About Your Sun Sign":
http://www.archaicastrology.org/blog/2011/6/25/the-truth-about-your-star-sign.html
I was so happy to have come across this article because for the past few weeks I had been reading the "Anthologies" and taking a look also at "Tetrabiblos" and "Christian Astrology" and while there were personality description for the planets, I did not find much of the "traditional" traits we see associated with the Sun Signs in these works. So I wondered, "Hm, when did these traits which we've gotten so used to came to be?" And I was seeing that something just didn't fit in the overall picture. This article cleared that up perfectly for me.
But here's the thing - Would this mean that I'm not a Piscean, based on the traditional system, just because I was born on March? Some things would make sense, because I identify a lot with my Gemini Ascendant, and it seems at times that I do posses a lot more of this trait, which according to this article, the main criteria for determining the personality would be the Lord of the Ascendant and the Lord of the Geniture, so it would fit. But then again - the main reason why I came to astrology in the first place was because I saw a lot of similar characteristics between people who shared the same sun sign. Of course, there'd be times where I'd someone who simply did not show any of the typical traits of the Sun Sign, but most of the times yes, they would show. And I know I wasn't hallucinating or seeing things where there aren't any when I noticed a kind of pattern forming between people with the same sun sign. This would mean that I'd have to erase years of observation, which I don't think it's justified. So, how to reconcile that?