Are cardinal signs the strongest?

Julian

Banned
Cardinal Signs are the strongest?

I was just wondering. They seem to me as the most representative of their element. Aries is the most aggressive of the fire signs. Capricorn is the most practical; Cancer the most sensitive and nurturing; Libra the most social. Also they rule the cardinal houses which are the most important in the chart, especially Aries and Capricorn's.
 

Julian

Banned
I'm wondering if the cardinal signs are the strongest. They seem to me as the most representative of their element.


The fire signs are about you, about how you present yourself, your ego, your personal perception of yourself. Sagittarius could have been the most representative, but it has a water and air touch to it, being conscious of other's feelings (looking at the big picture of the world) and being social. Leo definitely doesn't representate as much as the other two do. Sure, it's ruled by the Sun itself, but the fire signs aren't so much about creativity, being fixed, etc.

:aries:, on the other hand and the most aggressive, the leader of the three fire signs and the one with the most energy... etc.

:aries: rules the Ascendant, being the most powerful house of them all. It's about you and your personality. It couldn't be defined in a better way.

:libra: is the most aloof of the bunch, the most sociable. I mean the air signs were pretty much meant to be the communicators; the bridges between people. Libra's house, the descendant, pretty much signifies communication with others.


The water signs are all about how we show our feelings to others, and :cancer: is all about this. I'd say :scorpio: takes it too far and has too egoistical purposes, and :pisces: is pretty much the opposite, just focusing on others. Scorpio has this fire sign side to it (ruled by Mars) so that's why it's selfish. Pisces has this air sign thing to it, related to Jupiter's ease of socializing. Cancer rules the fourth house, related to family, to bonds between people (emotional bonds)...

The earth signs are all about taking your fire signs (ego) and putting it into motion. To realize your goals and meet your limits. This is best represented by Saturn, but since Saturn has no fire in it, then you can guess this goes too far. And Saturn rules :capricorn:, which rules the 10th house which rules profession and stuff.



 

Abby83

Well-known member
Re: Cardinal Signs are the strongest?

It depends what you mean by strong.

I mean I think Libra is the strongest cardinal sign because they have to put up with the **** of capricorns and aries lol :).

Seriously it's hard to say.

Out of the mutable signs, I find their changeable ways puts them in lucky situations, escaping certain situations that get too heavy.

The fixed signs, well leo and scorpio stand out here. Both of these are stand outs for me. But leo is not that strong as their jealousies get in the way many times and scorpios have a sensitive tone to them.

The cardinal signs - Capricorn endures many challenges in life, aries embraces challenges, and libra has to put up with them. Cancer, I don't know enough about.

So based on that, I definitely think cardinals are strong.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
I think you're conflating things that shouldn't be conflated. E.g., Pisces is a water sign, not air. Jupiter isn't airy - it's Jupiter. A planet does something different to a sign or a house.

Aries doesn't rule the first house unless Aries is rising in your chart. though saying a sign 'rules' a house isn't quite accurate, either, since planets rule, and signs modulate quality of expression. Mars doesn't rule the first unless Aries or Scorpio is rising, and Scorpio is a water sign, not a fiery one. Signs don't do the same thing that houses or planets do. It looks like you're thinking the three can be interchanged, but they really can't.

Signs aren't inherently stronger or weaker than each other, though some may be more prominent in indivdual charts. E.g., Capricorn isn't inherently better than Taurus, but you want the moon in Taurus because it will behave better (exaltation) than it does in Cap (fall). If we were talking about Mars, you'd much prefer it in Capricorn because that's where it is exalted, and not in Taurus, where it falls.

As far as I'm aware, the 'astrological alphabet' (Mars = Aries = first house, etc.) was invented by an astrologer called Zip Dobyns in the mid-twentieth century. Some say it's useful as a learning device for people just starting astrology, but I've only seen it cause confusion, because it doesn't describe how things actually work!

It's kind of like this: A planet acts. A house shows the area of life in which the planet acts, and how strongly it can act. A sign shows the quality of the planet's expression. It can get a little more complicated than that (what would you do with a Mars/Moon conjunction in Cancer in 10 square Sun in Aries in 7, for example?), but that's how you'd start breaking it down. So if you start working from that idea, you can keep spinning it out in your interpretation - which planet, where is it, how comfortable is it in that sign, what does it rule in the chart?
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
Re: Cardinal Signs are the strongest?

It doesn't work that way, Julian. Signs aren't angular, and houses aren't cardinal.

The big danger of conflating planets, signs, and houses is that your interpretations will suffer greatly, because anything can be read as anything (Mars = Aries = 1st house, for example), and it all gets interchanged - but it doesn't work that way in reality.

It's far more intricate than that. And since you're just starting out - don't get into the habit of mixing up planets, signs, and houses. It may seem like it's easier to remember at first, but they don't do the same things.

Planets act. Signs show the quality of the planet's action. Houses show how strongly the planet can act, and in which areas of life you'll see its effects.
 

Bunraku

Well-known member
Exactly. No signs are inherently stronger or weaker than any other sign in the chart. It depends on the chart.
After you determined the strength of the planets and houses, you can determine The strength of the signs in the persons natal chart.

Saying Saggitarius is water and air element and Pisces is air element is one of the more ridiculous things I heard on here...
 

Bunraku

Well-known member
Also if you talk about in terms of symbolism, the seasons are cyclical and doesn't have to start anywhere. How can a circle have a beginning and an end?

The first house is based by the motion of the sky, the portion of the sky that is rising at the time of birth.

Saying Aries rules the first house because of spring time is not a sound theory because Aries starts the fall season in the southern hemisphere. How do you explain tropical countries, where its seasons are only wet/dry? The seasonal thing doesn't work there. And definitely doesn't work everywhere !
 

ukdesifem

Well-known member
there is no better or worse here.

Anybody who tells you imho is only voicing subjective biases. Like how some "hate" Cancers or Leo, like "love" Geminis or Aquarians.

To generalise further, I can say Leos are the "better" Fire sign because we are noble, can ponder our actions better, and Aries tend to be like literal rams, they butt into everything and act and don't think...:happy: ;) ;) I don't really think that, but then it reinforces my point.
 

StillOne

Well-known member
You could consider looking into Astrodynes in order to evaluate the strength (harmony/disharmony etc) of positions if you're interested in seeing a numerical rating.
 

Julian

Banned
I NEVER said Sagittarius or Pisces (whatever) is water and air. You guys just didn't get it. I said Sagittarius had an AIR INFLUENCE, but IT IS NOT AN AIR SIGN (if you relate the concepts of "socializing" and "air") NOR A WATER SIGN (It shares something in common with Pisces (sextile)) That's why I said it had that influence. I don't think pity for others is a characteristic of fire (Sagittarius). Also if I recall correctly JUPITERASC thinks that Jupiter is an air planet, because she likes tarot astrology, and tarot astrology says it's an air sign. Satisfied? Maybe I DO have Mercury retrograde because, geez, this is very very tiring.

So please, shut up. I'm just sick of explaining myself. I won't post here again, it's just so tiring.
 
Last edited:

Julian

Banned
there is no better or worse here.

Anybody who tells you imho is only voicing subjective biases. Like how some "hate" Cancers or Leo, like "love" Geminis or Aquarians.

To generalise further, I can say Leos are the "better" Fire sign because we are noble, can ponder our actions better, and Aries tend to be like literal rams, they butt into everything and act and don't think...:happy: ;) ;) I don't really think that, but then it reinforces my point.


I never intended to say in my post Aries was better, but saying your Sun sign is the best one definitely makes you lose all credibility. I said Aries was the most representative.

So, yeah, I never said Aries was the best overall. In fact, I consider Sagittarius to be the best fire sign, but that's just personal bias. (I'm not even a Sagittarius Sun, Moon or Ascendant.)
 
Last edited:

Bradders

Well-known member
You're subjecting the symbology of the signs to their characteristic elements in terms of comparison of the elements and how signs based on how the element expresses itself in that sign can show characteristics of sub elements?

Aka: Pisces has a airy quality to it because of it's ease of socializing.

I get your point of view. I actually sympathize because Astrology has many different ways of being broken down as a theoretical metaphysical science.

Now what I personally believe is that if the aspects of the sign can be either initiated or overcome, depending on wether you have many trines or squares or oppositions, the full expression of the sign's highest potential can and will show itself. The same would go for someone with many trines as if they used their ability, whatever it is, they could be great.

For example, I could say imo that Keanu Reeves in Hollywood is the most highest expression of a Virgo I've ever seen, he is full in line with his natural inclination to service and his modesty and lack of vanity; loving charity really cooardinate to that sign.

I could say Darrel Dimebag is a real subjective expression of a actual Leo and radiated with it's highest expression: 'Showmanship, attention, drama, artistic expression'

Do not feel so misjudged by the people here Julian it is indicative as a Aries who I've had much a experience with you simply have a more personal, mechanical way of breaking things down; seem as if you're trying to break things down from how you find them. Others here are showing what they believe they know and believe in, even if it maybe less inclined to a more 'Personal, this is how I find it, I'm not so concerned how others find it' approach. Some people like to try to be traditional.

I understand you otherwise. You're independently breaking it down for yourself and learning through self experience. That's how I learn.

Otherwise, I believe that the mc points to the energy of the chosen occupation in life, but it can also hint at underlying job details. my midheaven is in Aries so there is a pattern of being alone, going it alone; with a fervent passion in a hobby.

The rising sign I believe denotes to how we will get there, so naturally I am hardworking and want to reach the pinnacle with my sun in Capricorn, my rising Leo says 'We will get there naturally, have boldness and confidence, I am passionate about this, I love life lets do what is only fun' and many a time I'd like sharing or showing my expression with others based on the achievements I do.

Basically I think it all comes down to those 3 contingents imo. But in order to express the highest form of those 3 aspects of a chart we need to uncover and face or utilize the aspects in a chart's aspects, however I don't believe just because everyone achieves success, they will indolently lay back, think of money and riches I think this only goes for a negative connotation of a sign's element.

For example I think of a Leo was to rise to success, he would be grand, sharing, flattering with his public, but a Capricorn or a gemini would be very different: Take Jim Carrey or Johnny Depp, Johnny Depp loves immersing himself in other characters no matter how silly and even has gone to schools to see little children in his Captain Jack Sparrow costume, which shows he's more interested in the people side. A taurus maybe infatuated with the money however, be very opinionated and most of the time calm and mingling with the ladies. Keanu Reeves shows that Virgo expression imo.

I think the more negative aspects would only show themselves in a chart that hasn't fully undergone the trials of it's aspects and gained confidence or has basically mistreated it's Saturn, the true source of real confidence based on hard work.

That's all my formulated view on this.
 

Bradders

Well-known member
Re: Cardinal Signs are the strongest?

Oddity? As much as I'd hate to seem I'm miscontruing myself? Is it better in your opinion to go with the flow of the topic as much as his way of interpreting the science is only different?

Atleast I'd have you know he only could have a different way of looking at it because his learning style is different I've been reading his posts and it's evident he is trying to study it: I think also it would be alot less of a fight and a flame war if we took that into consideration? Some people don't learn traditionally and like to formulate opinions on their own based on how they find it out. Take his statements as a belief chosen by him not actual fact?

Atleast I think he is a member of this website and shouldn't be constituted as a babbling idiot who doesn't know what he's on about. We've got to remember Astrology is a theoretical science, people are all different and their individual learning style is what makes them unique.

Atleast if I were to stand by you on this, if he had came on this forum babbling on how much he hates astrology without even studying it properly? The connotation of a airhead? Atleast he is trying to interpret it despite it maybe not word to word with your core beliefs and we shouldn't discourage him or others because he's here he does display a interest and wants to learn?

Atleast I was like him in the beginning; I can sympathize some people are better learning in different ways, some even are audial learners and better listening than they are reading.

Please let's atleast go with the topic and just give our opinions? He's a aries of course he is going to be a little pushy but he doesn't intend it.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Re: Cardinal Signs are the strongest?

Atleast I'd have you know he only could have a different way of looking at it because his learning style is different I've been reading his posts and it's evident he is trying to study it: I think also it would be alot less of a fight and a flame war if we took that into consideration? Some people don't learn traditionally and like to formulate opinions on their own based on how they find it out. Take his statements as a belief chosen by him not actual fact?

Atleast I think he is a member of this website and shouldn't be constituted as a babbling idiot who doesn't know what he's on about. We've got to remember Astrology is a theoretical science, people are all different and their individual learning style is what makes them unique.

Atleast if I were to stand by you on this, if he had came on this forum babbling on how much he hates astrology without even studying it properly? The connotation of a airhead? Atleast he is trying to interpret it despite it maybe not word to word with your core beliefs and we shouldn't discourage him or others because he's here he does display a interest and wants to learn?

To be fair, Julian does create a lot (and I mean a lot) of topics about similar subjects, and double posting them in different sections of the forums, and when someone attempts to "teach" or "explain" the very thing he is asking about, he usually replies in an unresponsive way, and keeps spamming the forum with the same question, rather than letting the topic develop into a conversation about technique.

Obviously every starter is welcome to make questions, which more experienced users love to answer...but not every starter is actually willing to learn. I suppose Oddity's response to him, while harsh, is just trying to make him "realise" he needs to change his attitude if he wants to truly learn...and if he is unwilling to listen to those he is asking, then he shouldn't ask in the first place.

For example, not so long ago he made a post about mutual reception, and another about essential dignity quoting authors of traditional astrology. When properly corrected about it by more experienced users, he began to mock astrology teachings (he focuses particularly on William Lilly). Not sure why he did that, if he was the one asking for the explanation.

He also once spammed JUPITERASC's comment wall with over 40 posts...to no point.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Cardinal Signs are the strongest?

To be fair, Julian does create a lot (and I mean a lot) of topics about similar subjects,
and double posting them in different sections of the forums,

and when someone attempts to "teach" or "explain" the very thing he is asking about,
he usually replies in an unresponsive way, and keeps spamming the forum with the same question, rather than letting the topic develop into a conversation about technique.
Exactly. Julian's most recent identical thread is titled "Are Cardingal Signs The Strongest?" http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83390
No different from this thread which is titled "Cardinal Signs are the strongest?"

Julian claims comments have been made but does not quote those comments
which would be helpful since "tarot astrology" is not one of my interests!
:smile:

Also if I recall correctly JUPITERASC thinks that Jupiter is an air planet, because she likes tarot astrology,
and tarot astrology says it's an air sign
.
Satisfied?

Maybe I DO have Mercury retrograde because, geez, this is very very tiring.

So please, shut up. I'm just sick of explaining myself. I won't post here again, it's just so tiring.
Julian however, has only just turned sixteen
and so I sometimes wonder just how interested he is in astrology
or whether he is simply bored and enjoys creating a storm

 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Cardinal Signs are the strongest?


It depends what you mean by strong.
Oddity's helpful response on Julian's other identical thread: "Are Cardinal Signs The Strongest?"

Signs aren't inherently stronger or weaker than each other
,


though some may be more prominent in indivdual charts.
E.g., Capricorn isn't inherently better than Taurus,
but you want the moon in Taurus because it will behave better (exaltation) than it does in Cap (fall).
If we were talking about Mars, you'd much prefer it in Capricorn because that's where it is exalted,
and not in Taurus, where it falls......

.....It's kind of like this:

A planet acts.

A house shows the area of life in which the planet acts, and how strongly it can act.

A sign shows the quality of the planet's expression.


It can get a little more complicated than that

(what would you do with a Mars/Moon conjunction in Cancer in 10 square Sun in Aries in 7, for example?),

but that's how you'd start breaking it down.

So if you start working from that idea,
you can keep spinning it out in your interpretation
- which planet, where is it, how comfortable is it in that sign, what does it rule in the chart?
Excellent advice on an interesting topic :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Cardinal Signs are the strongest?

Oddity, your comment is not harsh! On the contrary, you post succinct helpful remarks :smile:
 
Top