"Too much" in the sun signs

Minderwiz

Astrology should be simple.

A lot of students of Astrology would say that 'Simple Astrology' is an oxymoron LOL. But you are right - we should strive to keep things as simple as possible, or at least not introduce unnecessary complications.

What exactly is an unnecessary complication will vary according to approach and method but the aim should be to deliver the essentials and exclude the inessential.

Dadsnook2000 said:
PS. Don't place an overreliance on Sun signs. In order of importance, on a scale of 1 to 10, planets rate a 10, aspects a 7 or 8, houses a 6 or 7, signs a 2 or 3, other stuff a 0 or 1.

I think that's an excellent statement for beginners (and I'm assuming beginners will almost exclusively start with a modern approach - as both you and I did). In my own approach I'd probably reverse the order of houses and aspects but that is more a function of fewer bodies and points and using only the major aspects, rather than major and minor ones. Aspect analysis is much more necessary in a modern approach because of the number of possible contacts and because aspects have become the main way of assessing planetary strength.

Marina said:
I like that! - seems very objective.
I wish this kind of information was more easily available. The only book I have found that has some objectivity about it is Sepharial's "Manual of Astrology". He does mention Lilly quite often, but I don't know if he is a Traditional Astrologer. One of the interesting things is that, although he talks about the outer planets, he does not give them any specific rulership!

I confess there's something objective about the Traditional Astrology that attracts me, although I think I'd miss the outer planets!

Sepaharial was Walter Gorn Old, born in 1864, so he's over 200 years after Lilly and was one of the founder members of the Theosophical Society, living with Madame Blavatsky till her death. He was also a collaborator with Alan Leo for a time, though the two eventually fell out. The 'rulerships' of the outer planets was someting that is far more recent than may realise. Although Uranus was discovered in 1781 it was not till the first decade of the twentieth century that it's 'rulership' of Aquarius began to become a common idea but even as late as 1951 Margaret Hone said, in regard to the rulerships of the outer planets

No definite decision has been made ....but...it may be that these new planets embody principles which are wide in their meaning and should not be confined to any one rulership as in the traditional manner'

So even by the mid twentieth century there were doubts amongst mainstream Astrologers.

Is the tradtional approach more objective - in many ways yes - but not quite in the sense you meant, it's more concerned with the objective world than the subjective native but when it comes to the psychology both the tradition and modern are necessarily subjective. I think it comes down to structured approach rather than unstructured ramblings. I've seen a lot of psychological analysis which is highly structured and I'd place a great deal of value on. It's the 'touchy/feely' 'all views are of equal merit' Sun sign indulgence that I don't like. You look at Dave's posts and you'll see what a psychological approach should and can produce.

Marina said:
I have a card reading teacher, called Ana Cortez, who says that you don't interpret everything in a spread. Not every card is relevant. The answer is in the whole, not in the detailed analysis of each piece. I have a feeling a natal (or any) astrological chart should be like that. Even if it has complexities and contradiction, it should still have a unity, a certain 'flow'. It should work like a a symphony, in which the harmonic and the dissonant notes still create a whole - be it beautiful or ugly.

That's definitely true for some charts - say a horary chart, where not every planet is significant. When it comes to a natal chart there's a qualitative difference. A natal chart is something that is revisited time and time again, especially as we live our lives and things happen and change When I do a temperament reading not every planet may be relevant (though it's sometimes the case). When I read for the mind and manner of behaviour, not every planet is involved. But as we live our lives the focus may well shift on particular areas of our lives and then certain planets, which might not have featured very strongly in the 'psychology' side come to the fore. Our focus may shift to our health or career or love life or to children so we read the chart from a different perspective and different planets come to the fore.

I think the belief that everything needs to be integrated to make the reading complete is the problem. Sometimes all that is being looked for is an overview, at other times a specific area of life becomes important - what matters is a reading that meets the 'client's' needs, especially if the 'client' is doing the reading!!

However, your essential point, that natal Astrology should be more than simply your Sun sign is totally correct. And indeed you should try and minimise your reliance on modern Sun sign descriptors - though from personal experience, I know just how hard that is.

Haizea said:
Most of us have a mix of all elements, but it is my view that where Saturn or Pluto is has not the same importance as where the Sun, Moon or Ascendant are. I am supposed to have a balance, and more Water, but Water is the element I identify the less with, because it is not my Sun, Moon or Asc.

Before I took up traditional Astrology, I used to take the elements into account on the basis of a method described by Tracy Marks. That basically meant counting Ascendant Sun and Moon as double weighted. I soon found I got better results by ignoring the outers completely. However I've now moved to a view that unless there's a direct connection to Ascendant, Sun and Moon the other planets should not really be counted when it comes to a person's temperament. Now by direct connection I mean their rulers or by close aspect or planets in the first House.
 

MareSaturni

What exactly is an unnecessary complication will vary according to approach and method but the aim should be to deliver the essentials and exclude the inessential.

Well... different information will be needed for different analysis and approaches. As Dave said, I suppose that whether you are doing natal or horary chart matters a lot when deciding which kind of information will apply, and which you will not. In fact, I believe that knowing when to use something and when to leave it is a sign of advanced knowledge!

I think that 'unnecessary complication' would be any information that you have to cram into your analysis without being sure of what it's doing there in the first place. A bit like a white elephant. Of course, what is a complication in one case may be very relevant in another - and that's where wisdom and experience come into play, methinks.


Sepaharial was Walter Gorn Old, born in 1864, so he's over 200 years after Lilly and was one of the founder members of the Theosophical Society, living with Madame Blavatsky till her death. He was also a collaborator with Alan Leo for a time, though the two eventually fell out. The 'rulerships' of the outer planets was someting that is far more recent than may realise. Although Uranus was discovered in 1781 it was not till the first decade of the twentieth century that it's 'rulership' of Aquarius began to become a common idea but even as late as 1951 Margaret Hone said, in regard to the rulerships of the outer planets

Thank you for this information! :thumbsup:


Is the tradtional approach more objective - in many ways yes - but not quite in the sense you meant, it's more concerned with the objective world than the subjective native but when it comes to the psychology both the tradition and modern are necessarily subjective. I think it comes down to structured approach rather than unstructured ramblings. I've seen a lot of psychological analysis which is highly structured and I'd place a great deal of value on. It's the 'touchy/feely' 'all views are of equal merit' Sun sign indulgence that I don't like. You look at Dave's posts and you'll see what a psychological approach should and can produce.

Yes, I completely agree with what you say! As I said, I never meant that psychological astrology is bad - it's what got me hooked in the first place - but I believe that many of the source books... do not present it in the best way they could.

It's the 'touchy/feely' 'all views are of equal merit' Sun sign indulgence that I don't like. -- That is exactly what annoys me in some of the books I am reading.

I have read many of Dave's post and I admire his way of working with psychological astrology. For me this is how the books should present the information (specially because most of them were written for beginners) -- with some clarity. With some structure telling you what is relevant in a natal chart and what always isn't. Personally I think that a book that tells you what goes behind the ready-made definitions (the whys & hows) would be much more helpful. It'd would make you less dependent on the book itself, and more able to understand what you are doing and why.


That's definitely true for some charts - say a horary chart, where not every planet is significant. When it comes to a natal chart there's a qualitative difference. A natal chart is something that is revisited time and time again, especially as we live our lives and things happen and change When I do a temperament reading not every planet may be relevant (though it's sometimes the case). When I read for the mind and manner of behaviour, not every planet is involved. But as we live our lives the focus may well shift on particular areas of our lives and then certain planets, which might not have featured very strongly in the 'psychology' side come to the fore. Our focus may shift to our health or career or love life or to children so we read the chart from a different perspective and different planets come to the fore.

I understand this. :)
As I said, it was never my intention to imply that astrology should be piece-of-cake... trust me, I am not keen on fast-food astrology. And it makes perfect sense that a natal chart should include more details, and some contradictory ones (as we are not robots), than other kinds of charts, and that our very views on this chart would change as our life evolves. I was just saying I had the impression that the elements in the chart should work better together... with a bit more of coherence... than they appear to in many books. That some planets/signs/houses should, for specific reasons, have more importance in the interpretation than the others... either intrinsically or because the rest of the chart indicates that. Or because the client is asking about it. If everything is important then nothing is important, and it's hard to even begin interpreting.

And when you look for the first place to start, you are back to the Sun Sign dictatorship. LOL! :laugh:


I think the belief that everything needs to be integrated to make the reading complete is the problem. Sometimes all that is being looked for is an overview, at other times a specific area of life becomes important - what matters is a reading that meets the 'client's' needs, especially if the 'client' is doing the reading!!

Yes, that is true for many arts. Ultimately, you need to find what the native/querent wants to know, so you can give them the direct information.


However, your essential point, that natal Astrology should be more than simply your Sun sign is totally correct. And indeed you should try and minimise your reliance on modern Sun sign descriptors - though from personal experience, I know just how hard that is.

Yes it IS. I'll do as Dave suggested, get back to the notebook and write down very to-the-point 'definitions' of the 12 signs. And then see what the Sun does and then see what the Sun-in-Sign does. For now it may not give me all possible nuances of the Sun and the Signs themselves, but if it allows me to feel less stuck I'll be happy. Once I master this, I will move on and incorporate more complex ideas. You can't eat a family size cake in one bite.

And I'll be very happy if I don't have to read anymore about the Sagittarius' legendary lack of organization and household hygiene, which I find personally offensive, lol! :laugh:
 

dadsnook2000

Interesting

I find it interesting that others on the list see me as a psychological-oriented astrologer. That may be due to Rudhyar and Tyl and Mayo. However, my focus for the past couple of decades and especially the past several years has been EVENT PREDICTION. This is very object oriented. Ebertin's midpoint approach to astrology has been a very major factor in my views on astrology as has Cyril Fagan's methods. These are very much event, action, situation oriented. So, I have an outer image and an inner image. Dave
 

Minderwiz

I find it interesting that others on the list see me as a psychological-oriented astrologer. That may be due to Rudhyar and Tyl and Mayo. However, my focus for the past couple of decades and especially the past several years has been EVENT PREDICTION. This is very object oriented. Ebertin's midpoint approach to astrology has been a very major factor in my views on astrology as has Cyril Fagan's methods. These are very much event, action, situation oriented. So, I have an outer image and an inner image. Dave

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So now I know why your posts always make sense to me and I find it so hard to disagree with you even when I try - you've moved away from the psychological approach entirely (well almost, you still use the outers :) )

No I had realised that your 'psychological content was quite low and that you're objectivity was quite high but as you never labelled yourself (and why should you) I must admit I tended to use 'modern' or even 'psychological' because of your background - as you stated above. From now on I'll refer to you as 'Sensible Astrologer' LOL
 

MareSaturni

I just wanted to share a little discovery I made in a second hand bookstore... the one I used to work at two years ago. It may help people who are finding it hard to disentangle their studies from the all-prevailing influence of the sun signs.

I was visiting them yesterday looking for books on Vajrayana Buddhism (nothing to do with astrology) and, while I found no book on the subject, I can across a very nice book on astrology: Graphic Astrology by Ellen McCaffery.

It's an old-looking hardcover book... apparently it was written in the 30s (because of the copyright note), but this edition was published in 1952. She is not a traditional astrologer, she uses the outer planets and all, BUT she has a very objective view on things that reminds me a bit of Minderwiz, lol!

She gives a good background on astrology, its history and most important influences in history. She also gives the rulerships before the discovering of the 3 outer planets and after that... while she chooses to use them, at least you get to know how it was before they were discovered. And she answer basic question os practical nature that many books forget.

But the best part is when she talks about the Sun Signs, because she gives almost no personality descriptions for each sign. She gives their "mood", how they "act" (if they rush forward or if the hold back, things like that). She says:

It is important to note that we cannot judge character completely from the Sun sign alone. Character implies a depth of experience which has been formed through modification of inner experiences encountered in the conflict of life, hence character is the result of the total horoscope. The Sun merely reveals the general type of life expression."

Another interesting thing she says is:

Remember that all twelve signs of the zodiac will be in your own horoscope, so start from the beginning to see the good in each sign, and despise none. Each one of you has a head, even if your Sun does not happen to be in Aries.

And there's much more. All with nice, small illustrations, and solid explanations. Even when explaining what a planets does in a certain house or sign, she does not use more than 3 lines, which keeps it to the point.

I'd like to recommend this book to any fellow students who feel overwhelmed by the amount of 'personality descriptions' in the more modern books. I am really enjoying this book and I have decided to continue my study using it as my main source, in order to get a more solid notion of what every part of the natal chart represents. Then I can move on to more complex explanations.

My edition is an older one, but Amazon seems to have a newer one for sale here. I am not 100% sure, but I expect the content to be the same...
 

dadsnook2000

Interesting find

That is a very interesting book to find. Sounds like it is just what most early-studies students should have and read. Astrology is really simple if you insist on keeping it that way. Dave