A century ago the popular and present day formula for astrological deliniation came into being and consisted of 1) planets in signs, 2) planets in house, 3) planets dignified, ruling or in some form of exhaltation or detriment, and 4) planets in aspect. All of these could be intermixed and sprinkled with symbolic degrees, arabian parts, fixed stars, derivitive houses, etc. to make up a series of complex statements.
The goal of all of this was for capable astrologers and writers of astrological columns in newspapers and magazines to be able to put together complex and impressive statements about celebrities and forecasts that less capable followers of astrology would not be able to do. Such statements could sound impressive while also including ambiguity and conflicting ideas. Add in amplifing progressions and directions about growth, development, possibilities ---- and then add transits to the mix and you could come up with anything except "reliabiltiy and simplicity."
In this modern age, instead of having sorted out the wheat from the chaff, we have instead come up with midpoints, harmonics, uranian and hypothetical, asteroids, new planets and deep space objects to add into the mix.
Dave, thank yo very much. This explain a lot... I feel like I'll be able to sleep tonight after this!
I know the world is not simply, so many forces interacting and influencing each other. But I tend to weary of anything that is intrinsically over-complex, to the point or not making sense when being analyzed with more care. And that's what I am seeing my charts - an excess of everything, and no idea on how to - as you put - separate the wheat from the chaff.
Then it culminated when I was reading Liz Greene book - if I am able to know someone possible sexual 'difficulties' just analyzing the element of their Sun Sign, then why do I need the chart? If I am able to know how someone's thought process work just by knowing their Sun Sign, again, why do I need the chart?
Something must be off.
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.
MY SUGGESTION is to do the following:
1) From one's books, take 3 or 4 keywords from "signs" and write them down. Throw away all of the rest of the verbiage about signs.
2) Do the same for "houses."
3) For planets, perhaps you might want to note 2 keywords for how the planet is supposed to outwardly express itself, 2 keywords for how the planet might inwardly be experienced, 2 keywords that represent the circumstances that might be associated with that planet, and 2 keywords about which bodily and health factors might be related to the planet.
4) Using only this small group of keywords examine and write down your thoughts about any chart that you study --- use yourself, family, friends or public figures whom you know something about. Over time, refine and add a small number of keywords to your first set of keywords. After 20 or more charts and 2 or 3 months you should have a good feel for basic natal chart astrology. Then, you may get more useful information out of the cook books. You will certainly be better able to judge their applicability. Dave
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.
Dave, I'll follow your advice.
Seems like a great
modus operandi for the current stage of my study. I'll try to keep it simple (even though the books don't help much with their verbose descriptions, lol!).
TSome examples about Sex and Body for Earth and Fire, which seems to be what made you wonder. All types of women get pregnant, but it has been the Earth women I know who were great at "programming" when they wanted to be pregnant. They knew when they had their period, their fertile time, etc.
Everybody has sex, but Earth does not need Imagination to have satisfactory sex. Fire does.
I understand that - Liz Greene gives this same explanation, and as I stated before, I do not consider it wrong. Heck, I work with elements A LOT because of cartomancy, they are bit like a second-nature to me, lol!
My whole problem is that she derived this information (and many others), from one single thing. And I am here, straining my poor short-sighted eyes trying to make sense of charts and understand their many elements, when all I needed was the Sun Sign to figure it all out!
I know that Fire people need to work with more fantasy, and that Earth people are more pragmatic and, well, 'earthly'. But now, to say that "fire people don't feel well in their bodies and thus have sexual problems because their sex is too much fantasy" - that it's a huge conclusion. In my studies, it seems that the Sun does not rules sexuality, not as strongly as some other planets (although it may have some influence, no planet is an 'island', lol!).
But when I read that conclusion, it made me think that the Sun rules pretty much everything. So, why am I analyzing charts?
And again, if you can draw this conclusion from element analysis, why use a chart? We should just tell put people inside one of the 4 elements and that's it.
I am not saying that you are wrong - your analysis makes sense, just like Liz Greene's - but I think that there are too many 'conclusions' ( and not just about the sexuality thing, that was an example) being drawn from ONE single element of a chart. If that really works, then you wouldn't need the chart. And if you need the chart, then it's because the Sun Sign can't reveal it all.
