A Different Definition of Venus

Cactus

Well-known member
I have read the book, The Inner Planets, by Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas and I’d like to share what Liz Greene has to say about Venus.

Her interpretation really hit home with me.


On page 74, she says that she’s never been happy with the textbook definition of Venus as the urge for love and relationship. She goes on to say that relationships with others represent what we VALUE most, what we need and desire in our lives to make us feel complete. With that definition, I could say that I chose my husband because what he is about, his personality, gives me an experience that I desperately NEED in my life to feel good. She says, “…you will see that our ‘choices’ in love are really our unconscious statements about what we VALUE most [emphasis mine], which we first perceive outside us and desire accordingly.”

I just wanted to say that I really like her interpretation.
 
Last edited:

kimbermoon

Well-known member
I agree that traditional interpretations of Venus is somewhat lacking in inspiration.Indeed it shows what we value in life and the things we feel we need to make us happy. I say it also relates to our expectations and ideals about giving and receiving affection...I have found success in using a particular formula called the relationship chemistry, which involves the combination of Mars, Moon and Venus.

Moon shows what our inner needs are; Venus, the ideals and expectations we have of others; Mars, what we think we want in a relationship. Venus is also an index to our level of self-esteem.
 

miquar

Well-known member
Hi. Yes I'm a big Liz Greene fan myself, but keep in mind that there's more to Taurus than materialism - there's also an appreciation of natural beauty and the development of talents which enhance self worth, both of which are Venusian.

Mars energy tends to be materialistic in the sense that it seeks to make a tangible impact.

And the Moon as the primary yin symbol in the chart has a general kind of 'rulership' over all the water and earth signs. The Moon is very much about the experience of being in a body - both the physical and emotional life of that body.

So I don't think that Venus is the only planet concerned with the material realm.

There's Saturn too of course, which is very much about making peace with life's resistance to personal will, which comes into particular focus when we are dealing with the material plane.
 

wintersprite1

Premium Member
If Venus represented materialism, since we all have Venus in our charts, we would all be materialistic. Venus represents that which we give value. Money has been included as an item in a long list of representations. Money allows us to get that which we value. In my home, the kids and I create a nice trine with our Air Venuses. Anyone would be hard pressed to suggest any of us were materialistic. What is valued first is each other :), then there are shared values of the love of music, the same art appeals to us, the same shared taste of food, we all value the mind and creativity, if any of us was to hoard anything it would probably be books. The sign Venus resides in and the house and aspects will tell a bigger picture of how she works in your own chart.

TK
 

Cactus

Well-known member
I don't think my post was received in the way I intended. I wasn't saying Venus represented materialism. I was saying the opposite.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
fwiw 86 WORD QUOTE FROM Vettius Valens, Anthology, Book I


"Venus is desire/love. Venus indicates the mother/nurture and makes priesthoods, school superintendencies, high offices with the right to wear a gold ring or a crown, cheerfulness, friendship, companionship, the acquisition of property, the purchase of ornaments, agreements on favorable terms, marriages, pure trades, fine voices, a taste for music, sweet singing, beauty, painting, mixing of colors both in embroidery, dyeing, and unguent making. Venus makes the inventors and masters of these crafts, as well as craftsmanship or trade, and work in emeralds, precious stones, and ivory" :smile:
 

Judy_AzVirgo

Well-known member
Why shouldn't Venus have more than one attribute? After all, Mars is not just "energy"; the Moon is not just "emotions".

It's pretty hard to bundle all of our complex human inner workings into the energies of a handful of inner planets without allowing those planets some complexity. As long as Venus rules two signs, there will be more than one way of looking at it.

Also, please give poor Taurus a break. It isn't all about being a materialistic money freak. Any more than Libra is all about love.

I'm curious, tho.... what sign would you choose to represent Venus? And why?
 

Cactus

Well-known member
Yes, I am aware of all of the mainstream definitions of Venus. I was saying that I like Liz Greene's simpler interpretation better.

I am just stating my opinion and I should have known that others would just post differing opinions and challenging mine, when I clearly stated I got it from Liz Greene.
 

Moog

Well-known member
What makes someone a materialist or not is more a factor of Venus' configuration in any particular chart, in sign/house, houses ruled and in aspects made/recieved.

The functional/temporal effects rather than the inherent quality of the planet. As we all have Venus somewhere in the chart, and she is interested in the material, but not all of us are so interested in the trappings of materiality.
 
Last edited:

miquar

Well-known member
Hi Cactus. I just tried to re-read your post but most it has been removed. I might have mis-understood it, but my sense was that you were saying that Venus isn't about materialism, and that for this reason her rulership over Taurus is dubious. I was saying that I see Taurus as overlapping with the interpretation of Venus which you offered because I see Taurus as essentially being about something that merely manifests as materialism in some people.

Whether the opinions you posted are your own or someone else's, there will always be people who have a differing take on it, and a forum like this is all about everyone throwing in their ideas. Its a shame that you took this personally. At the risk of being condescending, there may be something in your chart that reflects a tendency to do this, which might spoil your enjoyment of sharing ideas if not looked at.

But thanks for starting the thread. Venus is indeed a fascinating archetype, and along with Mercury there are unanswered questions for many astrologers about whether these two planets will at some point follow in the footsteps of Saturn, Jupiter and then Mars by losing modern rulership of one of their signs. If so, Venus would seem to be next in line. I think Liz Greene herself might have said that she is not entirely sure about Venus' rulership of Taurus.
 

Inconjunct

Well-known member
I see Taurus as materialistic only in the sense that Taurus likes tangible things. To expand a bit, Taurus is a pragmatist. He needs to see how things work in the real world, not in theory, and will reject things that don't lead to tangible, measurable results. Money is only part of it, and a small part at that.

This I extrapolate from my own experience of being a Sun-Taurus. I'm uninterested in long discussions about this, that and the other that might be very interesting on some plane, but which have little or no practical application. When reading a chart for someone, I always try to make it understandable to their actual lives, rather than offering a load of psychoastrobabble that means nothing (some astro books are superb at this kind of non-language, Liz Greene sometimes descends into it). I also think that money and possessions are necessary and important (unless you're going to live life as a Hindu holyman and how many of us are called to that way of life?) - they speak about you as a person, what you do, what you like, what you think.

Does Venus rule Taurus? I think Liz Greene has some major hubris questioning the wisdom of the centuries about this. Taurus likes things that are real, that you can hold in your hand, and in human culture, that generally means objects of value, whether they be money or jewels or perfumes or beautiful objets d'art, all of which can be comfortably attributed to Venus.
 

Cactus

Well-known member
Miquar, thank you. Yes, surely there are chart indications for taking things personally..:wink:

Does Venus rule Taurus? I think Liz Greene has some major hubris questioning the wisdom of the centuries about this. Taurus likes things that are real, that you can hold in your hand, and in human culture, that generally means objects of value, whether they be money or jewels or perfumes or beautiful objets d'art, all of which can be comfortably attributed to Venus.

Perhaps modern astrologers have some major hubris questioning the wisdom of the traditional astrologers with their differences...if no one questioned anything, nothing would change. I'm not against modern astrology, I'm just using this as an example of how things change over time, which is inevitable.

This thread about Taurus being ruled by Earth and not Venus, started by fullmoonlibra is also where I'm coming from, as I was planning to mention the rulership of Earth over Taurus instead of Venus. I say give Venus to Libra fully.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49143&highlight=Earth

Liz Greene is not the only astrologer who questions Venus's rulership of Taurus and while I cannot remember names this exact minute, I (and anybody) can easily find out. I think it's healthy to question things and I'm sure you all have questions about some parts of astrology and some of you perhaps have developed your own "belief systems" about how you understand the planets, signs and houses.
 

miquar

Well-known member
I can't remember exactly what Liz Greene said about Venus and Taurus either. I don't think she was questioning Venus' traditional rulership of Taurus, but rather saying that if Venus were to ever lose modern rulership of one of its signs, then she thought it should be Taurus.

Cactus - I admire your openness. It's none of my business really. In any case we all get touchy on here from time to time.
 

poyi

Premium Member
I can't remember exactly what Liz Greene said about Venus and Taurus either. I don't think she was questioning Venus' traditional rulership of Taurus, but rather saying that if Venus were to ever lose modern rulership of one of its signs, then she thought it should be Taurus.

Cactus - I admire your openness. It's none of my business really. In any case we all get touchy on here from time to time.

Hahaha lol, We can blame all these touchy moments to the Moon's phase. It was all because of the aspects. :p
 

Inconjunct

Well-known member
Miquar, thank you. Yes, surely there are chart indications for taking things personally..:wink:



Perhaps modern astrologers have some major hubris questioning the wisdom of the traditional astrologers with their differences...if no one questioned anything, nothing would change. I'm not against modern astrology, I'm just using this as an example of how things change over time, which is inevitable.

This thread about Taurus being ruled by Earth and not Venus, started by fullmoonlibra is also where I'm coming from, as I was planning to mention the rulership of Earth over Taurus instead of Venus. I say give Venus to Libra fully.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49143&highlight=Earth

Liz Greene is not the only astrologer who questions Venus's rulership of Taurus and while I cannot remember names this exact minute, I (and anybody) can easily find out. I think it's healthy to question things and I'm sure you all have questions about some parts of astrology and some of you perhaps have developed your own "belief systems" about how you understand the planets, signs and houses.

How can the Earth rule anything, when it isn't considered in the chart? That would mean anyone with a Taurus ascendant would have no chart ruler and any house with Taurus on the cusp would have no ruler present in the chart either. Yes, the Earth appears in heliocentric charts, but seeing as nobody is born on the Sun, they would appear to have no value.

All this looks much more snippy than I intended it to - imagine me with a smile and a nice, even tone of voice while I'm saying it :D
 
Last edited:

Judy_AzVirgo

Well-known member
I have read the book, The Inner Planets, by Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas and I’d like to share what Liz Greene has to say about Venus.

Her interpretation really hit home with me.


On page 74, she says that she’s never been happy with the textbook definition of Venus as the urge for love and relationship. She goes on to say that relationships with others represent what we VALUE most, what we need and desire in our lives to make us feel complete. With that definition, I could say that I chose my husband because what he is about, his personality, gives me an experience that I desperately NEED in my life to feel good. She says, “…you will see that our ‘choices’ in love are really our unconscious statements about what we VALUE most [emphasis mine], which we first perceive outside us and desire accordingly.”

I just wanted to say that I really like her interpretation.

If you/she equate Venus with values rather than love and relationship, then it's necessary to keep Taurus and the Second House as part of the equation. Libra as sole ruler of Venus makes no sense at all, if you want to emphasize Venus as arbiter of what we value most.

In fact, the two traits (values and love/relationship) go well together --- as your comments (and Liz Greene's) show.

Interesting that the two ruling signs of Venus are quincunx one another. The quincunx probably plays out for many people in terms of who we choose to partner with, and why.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Interesting that the two ruling signs of Venus are quincunx one another.
fwiw Ancient traditional astrology is of the view that although Taurus and Libra are separated by 150º and therefore Disjunct - that factor is mitigated by their having the same ruler – i.e. Venus :smile:
 

Judy_AzVirgo

Well-known member
fwiw Ancient traditional astrology is of the view that although Taurus and Libra are separated by 150º and therefore Disjunct - that factor is mitigated by their having the same ruler – i.e. Venus :smile:

Yes, Jupe, you're right and I understand that. Nevertheless, I think the quincunx is of interest given this thread and also the complexity of the subject of love/relationship/values.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yes, Jupe, you're right and I understand that. Nevertheless, I think the quincunx is of interest given this thread and also the complexity of the subject of love/relationship/values.
I agree Judy_AzVirgo, that's why I find it particularly interesting that even though Taurus and Libra are 150[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Disjunct[/FONT] from each other - nevertheless, because Taurus and Libra are both homes of Venus whose nature is to reconcile and to unify, then IMO Venus ability to both reconcile and unify is a major factor in relationship/values, especially given their complexity... IMO relationship factors are much the same today as in ancient times :smile:
 
Top