"Too much" in the sun signs

Forgive the strange topic title, I'll explain myself.

So, I have been reading every decent book on astrology that I can get my hands on. I'm trying to filter a bit the overly mystical books, so I can have certain objectivity in my studies, and I am not reading book on topics that are too advanced as to not twist my brain into a knot right from the start.

As I said in another post, some of the most popular authors here during the 80s and 90s (and thus the ones that had more books available here) were Liz Greene, Linda Goodman, Dane Rudhyar and others who wrote from a very psychological point of view.

So... I am trying to balance this highly psychological view with the other parts of the chart, and finding it very hard to do. The reason is that... it seems there's just 'too much' about the sun signs. Too much information.

It's difficult to explain. Let me give an example, I was reading a book by Liz Greene in which she was describing the four elements and how they relate to the 12 signs. She began describing the fire signs, their usually fiery characteristics of being energetic, aggressive, lovers of fantasy, etc etc. At one point, she begins talking about the fact that fire signs tend to have sexual problems because they never adjust well to living within a 'physical body'. Well, that struck me as strange for two reasons: first, as far as I know all humans have no option but living into a physical body... you may dislike your appearance, but feeling maladjusted into your 'physical body' would mean that at some point you have lived out of it, which is an idea I don't think it very practical to work with.
Unless we are talking about a more objective sexual condition (like a person who feels he's a man living inside a woman's body). But that's not what Liz Greene was talking about in her book.

Second... can really the sign alone (or the sun sign element alone) determine so much about one's sexuality? And work? And relationships? And way of behaving? Thinking? Acting? Appearance? Etc.

It seems there's just so much about the sign that all planets and angles in a chart have no reason to be - all could be explained by your sun sign alone. Yet I know it's not true. But I'm reaching a point in which I don't know anymore what the 12 signs are about in the first place - I know they have an importance, but in the books they have so much importance they practically rule the chart.

And when I come across a chart in which a planetary configuration contradicts a sun sign characteristic, I do not know which one has more relevance. I am having a difficult time determining what the 12 signs are and what they are not. In most of books they seem to rule everything, while the planets/houses give 'extra details'.

I am sorry if the topic is confusing, please let me know if I have not made myself understood. I don't want to keep the signs out of my practice, but I want to find out what is their function in a chart aside from the usual all-embracing archetypes explained in the books I have.

Thank you very very much!

It's been a long time since I was really all that interested in astrology, so forgive me if I seem ignorant, but I think that most of these books are marketed towards the masses, and give them something they can understand without needing an ephemeris and charts and all the other tools astrologers use - which, let's face it, most people don't want to be bothered with. You can open the book, and see that if you were born between September 23rd and October 23rd, you are a Libra, and this is what that means blah blah blah. Nice and simple, lots of generalizations so that it is easy to see oneself as any sign. Very few look beyond that to all the planetary positions and trines and transits and declinations etc.

Bhavana said:

It's been a long time since I was really all that interested in astrology, so forgive me if I seem ignorant, but I think that most of these books are marketed towards the masses, and give them something they can understand without needing an ephemeris and charts and all the other tools astrologers use - which, let's face it, most people don't want to be bothered with.

Click to expand...

Hum... yes, but not quite. Many of these authors, like Liz Green, are known astrologers and have even writen works focusing on specific planets. And some of the works I am reading are 'cookbooks' of the basic astrology, that include a lot of information such planets positions, transits, aspects etc. Of course, there are in my list some 'general' astrology books that focus only on the sun sign, like most of Linda Goodman's work. Like I said, I'm trying to read everything I can find on astrology, specially well-known authors.

Unfortunately, even the 'complete cookbooks' seem to give a lot of relevance to the sun sign, which makes it hard to understand what the signs are about in the end. What is their real influence in the chart when you tone down the 'psychological archetypes' that have such a predominance in many books. I don't think these personality archetypes existed when the 12 signs were first imagined by the human mind...

I am trying to look beyond the psychology a bit, trying to understand how the signs work within the chart as another element of interpretation. I believe they must be a part of the 'astrological symphony', but most of the books give you the impression that they are the music itself.

Oh, I see what you are saying. Well, could it be that the reason is that sun signs really ARE important? I know a lot of people who fit their sun signs very well - and I used to be quite good at guessing not so much the sign, but the element - such as who is an earth sign, who is a water sign etc.

Of course there are a lot of other aspects that contribute, and it gets pretty complicated, but where the sun was when you drew your first breath - that is significant, no?

I am afraid i lack the knowledge to really discuss something like this in depth. Hopefully someone else will chime in eventually.

Marina,

Perhaps this will help... there's also more basic info on this site about elements, signs, houses, aspects etc.

http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_planets1_e.htm

Bhavana said:

Oh, I see what you are saying. Well, could it be that the reason is that sun signs really ARE important? I know a lot of people who fit their sun signs very well - and I used to be quite good at guessing not so much the sign, but the element - such as who is an earth sign, who is a water sign etc.

Click to expand...

I think the Sun Sign are important, and I identify with many of the characteristics of Sagittarius (and I have both Sagittarius Sun and Rising!). My doubt is really if the Sun Sign alone can determine so many things like sexuality, job, talents, skills, ways of thinking and behaving etc. Because that's what many of these books I am reading imply.

If all that can be determined by the Sun Sign alone, what would be the use of the rest of the chart? That's my question - perhaps we give the Sun Signs more meanings than they actually have, and thus it gets harder to balance the characteristics of the Sun Sign with the rest of the chart. I want to understand what is the purpose of the 12 signs in the whole natal chart, in order to put the whole 'sun sign' thing into context.

Bhavana said:

I am afraid i lack the knowledge to really discuss something like this in depth. Hopefully someone else will chime in eventually.

Click to expand...

I lack knowledge too, I am hoping a more experiences and enlightened astrologer will help me here too. But thank you very much for the food for thought, Bhavana!

Rhinemaiden said:

Marina,

Perhaps this will help... there's also more basic info on this site about elements, signs, houses, aspects etc.

http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_planets1_e.htm

Click to expand...

Thanks very much Rhinemaiden! I like the short objective descriptions of the website.

Sun
The Sun tells us of the actual core of a person, the inner self, of that which is of central concern. It also shows us the general vitality and the ability to assert oneself, it describes a general tone of being which colors everything else.

I never know if the Sun is the 'inner self' - what you are inside - or if it's your 'outer self' - the persona you project onto the world. The first impression you cause. The psychological approach to the Sun Signs seems to see the Sun as both things...

Modern sign interpretations are both confusing and I don't find that they really work at all. You need to remember that these sign meanings are just over 100 years old and stem from one Author - Alan Leo, whose 'Astrology for All' gives a his account of the personal and individual characteristics of the signs'. Leo set out to simplify and codify Astrology according to his Theosophist beliefs, and ready for the 'New Age. He also changed the main focus of Astrology to character analysis, which appealed to the subsequent pyschological school, of which Liz Greene and Dane Rudhyar were two of the main lights.

Leo basically transferred many of the meanings of the planets to the signs they ruled, which amongst other things meant that, for example, Gemini became much more 'Mercurial' than it had been. This also makes it difficult to seperate out Mercury from Gemini (without a lot of practice) and difficult to see why Mercury rules both Gemini and Virgo, signs which have very different iersonal and individual characteristics. Add to that the misconception that the third house = Gemini = Mercury view and you can see why new students have such a hard time of it.

Now before Leo Signs and Planets were very clearly separate - signs didn't have personal and individual characteristics. Their meanings also varied according to which branch of Astrology you were practicing.

Read Lilly and you will find that Gemini's properties are:

...an aeriel, hot, moist, sanguine, diurnal, common or double bodied human Sign, the diuranl house of Mercury of the airy triplicity, western, masculine,

Now there's nothing there about character. In short, Mercury is the Common (Mutable) Air Sign. It's other characteristics are that it is diurnal (a Day sign), like the other Fire and Air signs, it is Masculine, like the other Fire and Air signs and it is western - like all Air Signs. Direction would only really be used in horary, where the reader is seeking to know in what direction a lost person or object lies.

Lilly goes on to look at some specialised uses. for horary, he lists the type of place it can refer to, again useful in some questions. He lists the Kingdoms and Cities - useful in Mundane Astrology, he lists diseases, useful in Medical Astrology and he lists some physical characteristics, which he made use of in horary Astrology - good for describing the thief or the intended husband and also which could be used in natal Astrology. However in the latter, he would not use one sign only.

Now I think Dave would probably go along with the first paragraph on general qualities and properties - though he would concentrate on the element and mode. Some of the other stuff he might not use.

Where Lilly and Dave really would differ is that Lilly like all traditional Astrologers believed that signs influenced the strength or weakness with which planets could express their meaning (and meaning would depend on the context of the chart being considered). The traditional view is that Signs confer dignity (or debility) to a planet placed in the sign. However that is as far as the traditional Astrologer would go - a planet is the key significator of something being considered (whether in natal, horary, event, mundane, medical, etc) the thing being signified has a nature very similar to that of the planet and it's strength or weakness is taken from it's dignity by sign (essential dignity) AND it's dignity by placement in the chart (such as being angular, its house placement,fast, retrograde, etc) Assessment of the planet is thus projected on to the thing it signifies.

In natal Astrology, we have a complex of things that make up a person - so in a detailed examination of the person (native) we look not at one planet but several - indeed allowing for aspects and rulerships we will end up looking at all of the planets and judging the person according to the overall strengths and weaknesses we have identified.

There's actually no reason whatsoever why this assessment could not be psychological and indeed much of it is. There's also no reason why it could not be used in a specifically Jungian approach though Jungian Astrologists have become so entwined with the outer planets that they might have some difficulties using a modified traditional approach.

The benefits of this approach is that there is no difficulty separating sign meaning from planet meaning and both of these from house meaning.

Now I've done a general response on Signs, without picking out some of the specific issues raised by Marina, so if you want me to be a bit more specific on any of those issues, I'll put in a further post(s).

I'm definitely no expert at this but the way I see it is that the sun sign and house position have more to do with your purpose in this life /focus of the soul. For personality, I would mainly look at the sign of the ascendant and for emotional makup to the house position and sign of the moon.

Sun
The Sun tells us of the actual core of a person, the inner self, of that which is of central concern. It also shows us the general vitality and the ability to assert oneself, it describes a general tone of being which colors everything else.

I never know if the Sun is the 'inner self' - what you are inside - or if it's your 'outer self' - the persona you project onto the world. The first impression you cause. The psychological approach to the Sun Signs seems to see the Sun as both things...

Click to expand...

Marina,

This is what I was taught... the ASCENDANT is what you show the world, the SUN is your inner core, the MOON is how you react emotionally... Mercury is how you THINK, Venus is how you LOVE, Jupiter is GOOD THINGS, Saturn is your BETE NOIR, etc does that help??

Rhinemaiden said:

Marina,

This is what I was taught... the ASCENDANT is what you show the world, the SUN is your inner core, the MOON is how you react emotionally... Mercury is how you THINK, Venus is how you LOVE, Jupiter is GOOD THINGS, Saturn is your BETE NOIR, etc does that help??

Click to expand...

That's what I was taught too - though I no longer think it's an accurate description of reality. In another post Dave said:

Dadsnook2000 said:

The SUN is well described in many astrological cook books --- and its all wrong in my opinion, or much of it is wrong. Jeff Mayo (Faculty of Astrological Studies in London, and my former teacher) said it best when he noted that the Sun is the point of "Integration." It took awhile for that to make sense for me. Many of the Sun's keywords more properly belong to Jupiter (which may be the most complex of all the planets to understand). The Sun vitalizes and powers the planets it touches. It equally shine light on the chart angles. By itself, it has less direct "keyword" meanings but rather adds and powers whatever planet or angle it affects. SUN does have meaning the work for medical, health and mundane events, but as a personal planet-like expression it is not so big on specifics.

Click to expand...

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=166809

I think Dave is essentially right - the Sun provides the energy - it shows where you shine but it's not specifically 'this' or 'that' - it's a more general influence. The only exception is where the Sun rules your Rising Sign

A strong Sun and a strong Moon and you are going to make the most of what you are given. Weaken the lights and it becomes more difficult to achieve (though by no means impossible).