Liking to learn new things

wan

Well-known member
Hello. I really enjoy learning new things, and when I am at home, I like to spend time reading and learning, even though there isn't any practical need for me to do so (already have a job that I am happy with).


I am just wondering whether there is anybody here who's like me. And also, what aspect/placement in your chart points to this. I have Moon in 9th house, the house of higher learning. I have read that having the Moon in this house means one likes to expand one's knowledge and broaden one's horizon and this really resonates with me. On the other hand, I also have 4th house in Gemini. I believe this means the way I draw emotional sustenance is from being mentally engaged, which could also explain my liking for learning (and doing so while in the comfort of the home, exactly what one would expect from a 4th house in Gemini).


Anyways, what are your thoughts? Do you see yourself in me?
 
Last edited:

Cary2

Banned
It is tempting when learning astrology to practice astrology as a simple matter of houses and signs. If you love to learn, it is because you have X planet in X house or X sign, or so it goes. It is no wonder why students practice astrology this way, but it encourages the bad habit of minimizing contacts -- like aspects, midpoint pictures, and configurations. But it is the contacts that will offer the lion's share of content. In practice, the information gathered from house and sign occupants is secondary to the information revealed in planetary contacts -- aspects, midpoint pictures, and configurations.

It is much harder to learn what Mercury/Jupiter aspects mean. It is much harder to understand a T-square of Mars/Uranus/Jupiter, but in fact, that is where the answers you seek are found. I have seen it over and over again that shortcut astrology that ignores the contacts in order to use the easy, easy, easy planet-in-house or planet-in-sign indicators is so crippled that it is misleading.

A good place to start might be to find The Astrologer's Handbook by Sakoain & Acker or Planets in Aspect by Robert Pellitier or The Astrological Aspects by Charles Carter. If you can't find those perhaps Parker's Astrology might be a second choice.

There is a website that offers many of these books on loan online. It is archive.org. Open an account, and you are ready to go. You can borrow books like the library. You can search on the titles or on the authors. The Principles of Astrology by Charles Carter is there.
 
Last edited:

wan

Well-known member
Thanks for your insight, Cary. It didn't occur to me that I should read my chart as a holistic whole. I guess you can saying that I took "short cuts", haha.


It would indeed be interesting to consider the aspects made to my Moon and Mars. And very interestingly, these two planets do aspect each other in my chart. In fact, they only make an aspect to one another, not to anything else in my chart. Although the aspect is inconjunct, which some astrologers do not acknowledge. The orb is very tight though, less than 1 degree.


Thanks for the input!
 

Lin

Well-known member
I have seen charts where I can ''see'' that that particular person is ''closed off'' to new ideas and new learning. And also charts which show the need to ''know more''. I've also seen charts which show that the native feels or believes he or she doesn't ''know enough'' and never feels as though they know enough!!


I think the moon would have to do with it ...so would the 9th house ....but I don't think you have to have the moon IN the 9th house....
I am exactly like this....and I have moon in Gemini...and moon ''ruling'' my 9th.
But I can think of other patterns which would encourage other people to want to learn - not necessarily the same things I want to learn...but still enthusiastic about learning new subjects etc.

LIN
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
Hello. I really enjoy learning new things, and when I am at home, I like to spend time reading and learning, even though there isn't any practical need for me to do so (already have a job that I am happy with).


I am just wondering whether there is anybody here who's like me. And also, what aspect/placement in your chart points to this. I have Moon in 9th house, the house of higher learning. I have read that having the Moon in this house means one likes to expand one's knowledge and broaden one's horizon and this really resonates with me. On the other hand, I also have 4th house in Gemini. I believe this means the way I draw emotional sustenance is from being mentally engaged, which could also explain my liking for learning (and doing so while in the comfort of the home, exactly what one would expect from a 4th house in Gemini).


Anyways, what are your thoughts? Do you see yourself in me?
You're a Libra Moon? That on its own represents a deep need to learn.
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
It is tempting when learning astrology to practice astrology as a simple matter of houses and signs.
I have seen it over and over again that shortcut astrology that ignores the contacts in order to use the easy, easy, easy planet-in-house or planet-in-sign indicators is so crippled that it is misleading.
You don't think perhaps you're taking it too far in the other direction?
 

Cary2

Banned
You don't think perhaps you're taking it too far in the other direction?

Sun Sign astrology is third rate astrology that fosters awful astrological habits. The most obvious habit is the disregard for contacts and configurations between the various chart factors that are not signs. It is the pursuit of simple, little answers that do not hold up to scrutiny. Simplifying astrology usually leads to tragic conclusions. Focusing on signs is amateur astrology that has only one value: it is easy.

One often finds declarations like Moon-in-Sagittarius are liars, or Moon-in-Capricorn are wicked and cruel. It is painfully obvious to a seasoned astrologer when Sun Sign astrology has been promoted foolishly. It is easy to demonstrate the real difference between the two approaches with real charts. The results of Sun Sign astrology plays into the hands of the millions of astrological skeptics who would love to discredit real astrology, and they do so when they check up on Sun Sign astrologers.

Libra Moon does not represent a "deep need to learn".
 
Last edited:

brainpuddle

Well-known member
Sun Sign astrology is third rate astrology that fosters awful astrological habits. The most obvious habit is the disregard for contacts and configurations between the various chart factors that are not signs. It is the pursuit of simple, little answers that do not hold up to scrutiny. Simplifying astrology usually leads to tragic conclusions. Focusing on signs is amateur astrology that has only one value: it is easy.

One often finds declarations like Moon-in-Sagittarius are liars, or Moon-in-Capricorn are wicked and cruel. It is painfully obvious to a seasoned astrologer when Sun Sign astrology has been promoted foolishly. It is easy to demonstrate the real difference between the two approaches with real charts. The results of Sun Sign astrology play into the hands of the millions of astrological skeptics who would love to discredit real astrology, and they do so when they check up on Sun Sign astrologers.
Is someone else overemphasizing something a reason to dislike the thing itself? You seem averse to even talking about the nature of the signs in their own right. It's like you're saying that because calculus is better, we shouldn't do basic arithmetic.
 

Cary2

Banned
Is someone else overemphasizing something a reason to dislike the thing itself? You seem averse to even talking about the nature of the signs in their own right. It's like you're saying that because calculus is better, we shouldn't do basic arithmetic.

No it is not like that. I don't think Sun in a sign tells much about an individual. I can demonstrate that very easily. I talk about signs all the time, but I am not talking about the false narrative that there are 12 types of people in the world. When I talk about signs, I'm talking about an astrological field of influence not ill-conceived characters. The contacts between astrological factors is much more powerful than the sign influence upon Sun are any other factor. The very concept of "Scorpios are this way" and "Virgos are that way" is pseudo-astrology because it is not true that there are 12 types of people in the world. It is not true that astrological principles can be ignored and substituted with pop astrology. I've seen years of such folly and the nonsense that it brings. There is a large industry based on pop astrology, but it is a vastly inferior form of astrology.
 
Last edited:

brainpuddle

Well-known member
No it is not like that. I don't think Sun in a sign tells much about an individual. I can demonstrate that very easily. I talk about signs all the time, but I am not talking about the false narrative that there are 12 types of people in the world. When I talk about signs, I'm talking about an astrological field of influence not ill-conceived characters. The contacts between astrological factors is much more powerful than the sign influence upon Sun are any other factor. The very concept of "Scorpios are this way" and "Virgos are that way" is pseudo-astrology because it is not true that there are 12 types of people in the world. It is not true that astrological principles can be ignored and substituted with pop astrology. I've seen years of such folly and the nonsense that it brings. There is a large industry based on pop astrology, but it is a vastly inferior form of astrology.
I think you're seeing a strawman in other people's comments, based on being fed up with tabloid astrology. And I get the frustration, it gives astrology a bad name. But someone commenting on the nature of a Sun sign does not mean that's all they think there is to astrology. With myself for instance, I practice a less complex variant than you, I really only look at Sun/Moon/Ascendant. But even within those variables, there are thousands of possible combinations when you get into the details of it, not just twelve.
I'm also not sure how you focus on these connections between them, when you don't even seem to believe in a base nature of the things you're connecting. What does the connection then mean?
 

Cary2

Banned
I think you're seeing a strawman in other people's comments, based on being fed up with tabloid astrology. And I get the frustration, it gives astrology a bad name. But someone commenting on the nature of a Sun sign does not mean that's all they think there is to astrology. With myself for instance, I practice a less complex variant than you, I really only look at Sun/Moon/Ascendant. But even within those variables, there are thousands of possible combinations when you get into the details of it, not just twelve.
I'm also not sure how you focus on these connections between them, when you don't even seem to believe in a base nature of the things you're connecting. What does the connection then mean?

Not understanding contacts between planets or points shows that you have succumbed to the pitfall of pop astrology. Over and over again I see chart readers skim over the contacts as if they were trivial non-essentials. That is the direct result of practicing third rate astrology.
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
Not understanding contacts between planets or points shows that you have succumbed to the pitfall of pop astrology. Over and over again I see chart readers skim over the contacts as if they were trivial non-essentials.
You're not actually addressing any of my points. You're just stating over and over that you don't like it.
 

Cary2

Banned
I think you're seeing a strawman in other people's comments, based on being fed up with tabloid astrology. And I get the frustration, it gives astrology a bad name. But someone commenting on the nature of a Sun sign does not mean that's all they think there is to astrology. With myself for instance, I practice a less complex variant than you, I really only look at Sun/Moon/Ascendant. But even within those variables, there are thousands of possible combinations when you get into the details of it, not just twelve.
I'm also not sure how you focus on these connections between them, when you don't even seem to believe in a base nature of the things you're connecting. What does the connection then mean?

I can see that you are not sure, but that is not my problem.

Do the research.

"The New Astrologer", by Martin Seymour-Smith
"The Astrologer's Handbook", by Sakoin & Acker
"The Combination of Stellar Influences", Rheinhold Ebertin
"Planets in Aspect", by Robert Pellitier
"The Principles of Astrology", by C. E. O. Carter
"Horoscope Symbols", by Robert Hand
"The Astrological Aspects", by C. E. O. Carter
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
I can see that you are not sure, but that is not my problem.

Do the research.

"The New Astrologer", by Martin Seymour-Smith
"The Astrologer's Handbook", by Sakoin & Acker
"The Combination of Stellar Influences", Rheinhold Ebertin
"Planets in Aspect", by Robert Pellitier
"The Principles of Astrology", by C. E. O. Carter
"Horoscope Symbols", by Robert Hand
"The Astrological Aspects", by C. E. O. Carter
You should try to be more open to other people's perspectives. How can you test the validity of your own views, if you dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with you?
 

Cary2

Banned
Even if I toy with pop astrological practices and ignore aspects to the Moon, still the Moon-in-Libra does not mean "deep need to learn". In such a simplified construct, Moon in Libra means a need to relate, a need to appeal, a need to be diplomatic, a need to bring balance. "A deep need to learn" is simply wrong based on principles.
 

brainpuddle

Well-known member
Even if I toy with pop astrological practices and ignore aspects to the Moon, still the Moon-in-Libra does not mean "deep need to learn". In such a simplified construct, Moon in Libra means a need to relate, a need to appeal, a need to be diplomatic, a need to bring balance. "A deep need to learn" is simply wrong based on principles.
You don't see Libra as an intellectually curious sign?
 

wan

Well-known member
Ah, okay. What's your Sun and Ascendant, if you don't mind me asking? (Don't want to assume the latter based on your Gemini 4th comment, that already threw me off on the moon. >_< )

Not at all, puddle.

My Sun is in Leo at 9, ascendant is Pisces at 12. Moon is at Scorpio 25.

What's your configuration, if I may ask?
 

Cary2

Banned
You should try to be more open to other people's perspectives. How can you test the validity of your own views, if you dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with you?

I don't "dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with [me]". I have presented my principles. The idea of "whatever" is a hippy-dippy concept that appeals to many, but it is not a legitimate astrological principle. I speak up when I see a mistake, and I can specify my objection. Everything here is recorded. Show me that I "dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with [me]". Pop astrologers lean on the homily : "its all good". But it is not all good. Third rate astrology is trouble.

Dismissing "out of hand" means you accuse me of not having a cogent argument to make which is not true on the surface of the complaint. It is a false narrative promoted as a punishment for disagreeing, and it is a false accusation. Good astrology is worth promoting.

Pop astrologers defend their third rate efforts even to the point of condemning professional astrologers who have an actual astrological education.
 
Top