david starling
Well-known member
No one is au fait with all standard opinion - whatever "standard opinion" means
another bumper sticker
So, what's the Standard Opinion regarding the term "Standard Opinion"?
No one is au fait with all standard opinion - whatever "standard opinion" means
another bumper sticker
Signs are NEUTRALDifferent 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.
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.
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.
ask the member who posted the following commentSo, what's the Standard Opinion
regarding the term "Standard Opinion"?
But it's not the standard opinion of Modern Science as far as I know.
ask the member who posted the following comment
WB saidActually, I think waybread would be eminently qualified to answer the question,
"is it the 'standard opinion' of modern scientists that 'Reality is an Illusion'"?
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.
WB said
Competent astrologers when reading a persons chart do so while taking into account that signs are NEUTRAL
au contraire mon amiGood answer to a different question!
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.
Tional
SoThe 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"
and so clearlywhen 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.
your definition claims that Signs "remain the same" as well as being "in adddition variational"In addition,
they are variational
To be explicit then, Signs are NEUTRALwhen 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.
It began that way, by being based on a false premiseThis thread needs to die. It is getting retarded.
This thread needs to die. It is getting retarded.
I note that Kitchy thanked that comment by duenderoja by the wayGot something against retards?
I note that Kitchy thanked that comment by duenderoja by the way
All Signs have both strengths and weaknesses.
Some are weak in analytical ability--nothing to be ashamed of though.
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.
and?Therefore?