Sun sign vs Ascending sign

PeonyInLove

I've always been under the assumption that your sun sign represents your core personality, your rising sign represents how others see you and how you present yourself to the world and your moon sign represents your emotions ??? When I read astrology forecasts I always read my sun and rising but I never read my moon as it never really resonates with me.

Minderwiz

PeonyInLove said:
I've always been under the assumption that your sun sign represents your core personality, your rising sign represents how others see you and how you present yourself to the world and your moon sign represents your emotions ??? When I read astrology forecasts I always read my sun and rising but I never read my moon as it never really resonates with me.

I can well understand why

Contemporary Astrology has some issues in defining the Moon. I had a look for a reasonably contemporary Astrologer that included emotions in her/his definition.

Alan Oken defines the Moon as:

....embematic of all that is receptive in human nature, the subconscious, the emotions, and the behavioural instincts, In short the Moon is the Soul while the Sun js the Spirit

He then goes on to refer to the Moon ;as the indicator of one's Personality' and contrasts this against the Sun showing 'Individuality'[ This raises a number of questions but I won't go into them here, we'd have a whole new thread.

Stephen Arroyo provides a brief description of the Moon as 'Reaction, sub-conscious, predisposition, feeling about self (self image) conditioned responses.

Rob Hand (in the days when he practiced Psychological Astrology) admits that its core meaning is hard to grasp (in his classic Horoscopic Symbols) and goes on to consider the Moon as the container of life, connects it with family, homeland, childhood, heredity and something approaching the unconscious mind. He goes on to say 'In most Astrological literature the Moon is considered the primary indicator of emotions' which he defends by saying that 'emotions are one of the principal manifestations of that part of the self that is either hereditary or structured at an early age'
and that emotions are one of the strongest signs that something deep within the self, the part that is most likely to be dominated by lunar energies has been disturbed.. I find it difficult to accept that anger, hatred, explosive acts of reactive violence are primarily connected to the Moon. even if one accepts the definitions above. It's possible that there's a 'lunar component' (on their definitions) but the 'self' is a more complex 'organism' that that.

In short, your lunar self is something that you don't think about, you simply 'do' and therefore you would not recognise it easily.

Just for contrast, here's an extract from Vettius Valens, writing nearly 2000 years ago. The Moon's placement at birth

signifies our internal property of 'being'. This life substance is the quality that could be called 'existence' The Moon is connected with the physical body, the mother, and the coming together of two entities such as occurs at conception or in pregnancy. The Moon influences our physical appearance and the facade or mask we wear in public...She also is attributed to the Goddess energy within us. The Moon is the ruler of that part within us that seeks to share a life with someone. She rules the piece that seeks out companionship, the structural institution that we call marriage. She is connected to the nurturing of tiny things and creatures that can emerge with the form of being a caretaker, wetnurse or even a foster parent.

She rules the older brother, the part within us that seeks to keep house, the queen, our "internal princess", property and assets, luck and the city itself

You can see that there is in Valens, some significant agreement with the moderns, though the 'mask we wear in public' is an interesting difference, given some of the previous discussion. Valen's definition includes external things such as the older brother, property and assets, intangibles such as luck (fortune) and does not mention emotions at all. He also does not mention the instincts or 'reactive' side. Indeed Valens, while he clearly (from other statements) sees the Moon as feminine, this is a more 'active' definition than modern ones.

It may be that at the level of modern psychology, Valens is over-simplifying but he does mix internal concepts with his external ones'. There are parts of the Valens definition that cannot fit into modern definition but there are parts that clearly do.

Michael Sternbach

The Sun is indeed your core. He stands for your conscious personality which, however, resonates with your innermost self, the source of your personality (and can be illuminated by the latter).

The Moon is your general psychological background which is basically subconscious (whereas the conscious self is a spotlight lightening up what it is aiming at). Thus she has a lot to do with your instinctual reactions and habitual behaviour.

The trans-Saturnian planets, by the way, communicate through that personal subconscious although by themselves they are the forces of the transpersonal or collective unconscious.

The Ascendant is how you relate to the outer world but it is often more than a mask; it can tie in well with your overall personality, especially if it forms strong aspects with your personal planets.

The chart overall represents first of all your personality in toto, in my view, but it also says much about your environment, for "as within so without."

Minderwiz

Michael Sternbach said:
The Sun is indeed your core. He stands for your conscious personality which, however, resonates with your innermost self, the source of your personality (and can be illuminated by the latter).

The Moon is your general psychological background which is basically subconscious (whereas the conscious self is a spotlight lightening up what it is aiming at). Thus she has a lot to do with your instinctual reactions and habitual behaviour.

The trans-Saturnian planets, by the way, communicate through that personal subconscious although by themselves they are the forces of the transpersonal or collective unconscious.

The Ascendant is how you relate to the outer world but it is often more than a mask; it can tie in well with your overall personality, especially if it forms strong aspects with your personal planets.

An excellent summary of the Psychological approach.

Michael Sternbach said:
The chart overall represents first of all your personality in toto, in my view, but it also says much about your environment, for "as within so without."

I'm not sure I follow the last bit. I can see that the chart might well be regarded in this way from the psychological perspective and that it can be a helpful tool in a consultation or therapy session. But I don't quite follow how it says much about your environment.

I can see that there are possible arguments that could be advanced. Firstly we could take the chart as face value and say, for example, that this person has real issues with his mother, because of this or that indicator - Pluto in the tenth opposing the Moon in the fourth, square Mars in the eighth. might fit.

We could then infer that his mother isn't a nice person, or has failed to nurture him properly. That would be a conclusion about his external reality. We might hold to this view, until we meet evidence to the contrary. We meet his mother and she's charming, there's hard evidence from social workers, health care professionals, the police, all of which points to him being 'disturbed' (I don't like that term, but I still see it used). Now we carry out extensive therapy sessions to find out what incident in his childhood created his misperception of reality and work towards getting him to realise he has a 'false' memory. Alternatively we might find suppressed memories that show it' the professionals who are wrong.

Is this the sort of thing you mean or do you see another mechanism whereby the external world is revealed?

Michael Sternbach

Well, ask two different people about their view of a certain person, and you might hear two quite different versions. The man with the Moon opposite Pluto etc. would likely experience his mother as dominant and suppressive. Likely, he could tell you about particular events in line with this.

Whereas a sibling with (to stay with your example) the Moon trine Pluto might describe their mother in a positive light as protective and giving her children clear guidelines.

Always, the features of the natal chart can be seen expressed both inwardly and outwardly, to be sure. However, in my outlook, the chart highlights the perception of those circumstances.

The way I see it, Astrology is not in contradiction to the belief that we can be in charge of our life. Rather, it confirms that the world around as is a reflection of what we carry within us. The chart shows the energies that are active in an individual. If the individual changes the way they deal with those energies, they alter their expression in their experience as well.

Minderwiz

Michael Sternbach said:
Well, ask two different people about their view of a certain person, and you might hear two quite different versions. The man with the Moon opposite Pluto etc. would likely experience his mother as dominant and suppressive. Likely, he could tell you about particular events in line with this.

But his accounts would be his own subjective perceptions. They would tell us nothing about his mother, in any objective sense. I agree that his actions might well be influenced by his perceptions and if those actions appear to us as being in tune with our own perceptions, we might conclude that his behaviour accords with 'reality'.

If his behaviour does not accord with the perceptions of others, then we might conclude that either he has a personality disorder or that he is privy to information that we are not. If he recognises there is a problem with his behaviour, we might refer him to professional counselling or in the extreme, he might be taken into an institution - for example if his perceptions of his mother lead him to make an attempt on her life or health.

Such actions might well be socially desirable and lead to his recovery, in the sense that his perceptions now accord with those of 'society' or at least his health care professionals.

The model may be extremely useful in such circumstances, but it still doesn't tell us anything about his mother, other than he has 'issues' with her. Could we justify counselling and therapy for her, solely on the basis of his chart?

I know this is an extreme example, but there is a literature out there looking at just such issues and necessary counselling.

Michael Sternbach said:
Always, the features of the natal chart can be seen expressed both inwardly and outwardly, to be sure. However, in my outlook, the chart highlights the perception of those circumstances.

The way I see it, Astrology is not in contradiction to the belief that we can be in charge of our life. Rather, it confirms that the world around as is a reflection of what we carry within us. The chart shows the energies that are active in an individual. If the individual changes the way they deal with those energies, they alter their expression in their experience as well.

I don't want to end up in a long discussion over this, because I don't think either of us will change our minds. I don't deny that the psychological approach has validity within the weltanschauung of psychology, espeically but not exclusively Jungian psychology.

I am more concerned to get across the view that this is not the only valid way of looking at a chart, and may not even be the most useful in many or most circumstances. I think it is a solipsist way of viewing the chart, the real world being a reflection of our perceptions of it.

In a therapeutic situation it might be really useful but for most of us, we want to know something about not only ourselves but also the events that take place external to ourselves but affecting ourselves (or at least of interest to ourselves). I stress 'external' events, meaning that 'event' is not some readjustment, either fleeting, temporary or permanent in our perceptions.

For me, the traditional approach of taking the chart to signify not only myself but the concrete world around me is more useful in such circumstances. It also shifts focus, from analysing my psyche to predicting changes in the external world - those external events, which affect or interest me. It also has the benefit of facilitating the analysis of events that don't directly or immediately involve deliberate human action, such as the sinking of the Titanic.

I want to end by emphasising that I'm not denying the psychological approach can be useful but simply that it might not always be the best approach in every circumstance, even for natal Astrology

If you're interested, there's a slim volume by Ben Dykes called 'Traditional Astrology for Today: An Introduction' which compares the different approaches to the chart and its components. I'm sure it won't convert you

but it might change your perceptions of Astrology as a whole.

Michael Sternbach

Minderwiz said:
The model may be extremely useful in such circumstances, but it still doesn't tell us anything about his mother, other than he has 'issues' with her. Could we justify counselling and therapy for her, solely on the basis of his chart?

I am not sure if I fully understand your position. Isn't traditional Astrology saying that we can deduce exact external experiences from the chart?

I don't want to end up in a long discussion over this, because I don't think either of us will change our minds. I don't deny that the psychological approach has validity within the weltanschauung of psychology, espeically but not exclusively Jungian psychology.

I am more concerned to get across the view that this is not the only valid way of looking at a chart, and may not even be the most useful in many or most circumstances. I think it is a solipsist way of viewing the chart, the real world being a reflection of our perceptions of it.

It's not limited to that. Rather, in essence, we create (or contribute to) the objective events that we experience based on what we carry in our psyche.

In a therapeutic situation it might be really useful but for most of us, we want to know something about not only ourselves but also the events that take place external to ourselves but affecting ourselves (or at least of interest to ourselves). I stress 'external' events, meaning that 'event' is not some readjustment, either fleeting, temporary or permanent in our perceptions.

For me, the traditional approach of taking the chart to signify not only myself but the concrete world around me is more useful in such circumstances. It also shifts focus, from analysing my psyche to predicting changes in the external world - those external events, which affect or interest me.

Hmm... If the same astrological factors that allow you to predict external events are also conclusive regarding one's psychology, doesn't this suggest a connection between the two?

Also, I would like to emphasize that psychologically oriented astrologers are not considering the native as an entity dislodged from the outer world, but study how they relate to the latter. Many turn to Astrology in search of advice how to best deal with the latter.

I want to end by emphasising that I'm not denying the psychological approach can be useful but simply that it might not always be the best approach in every circumstance, even for natal Astrology.

Indeed, there are also plenty of people who are interested in a kind of Astrology that more or less limits itself to predicting external events. I suppose that many of them have most of their personal planets in the "objective hemisphere" above the horizon. LOL

If you're interested, there's a slim volume by Ben Dykes called 'Traditional Astrology for Today: An Introduction' which compares the different approaches to the chart and its components. I'm sure it won't convert you but it might change your perceptions of Astrology as a whole.

It may surprise you but I have a keen interest in traditional Astrology. I was one of the early subscribers of Project Hindsight and I also have some of Dyke's books. I believe that much can be learned both from modern and traditional Astrology and, in fact, that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Minderwiz

Michael Sternbach said:
I am not sure if I fully understand your position. Isn't traditional Astrology saying that we can deduce exact external experiences from the chart?

Traditional Astrology does indeed say that we can deduce external events from the chart, though 'exact' is not a word I'd use here. Planets don't have single unique meanings, even as natural significators, they are multifaceted. They also have accidental meanings, from the houses they rule in a chart. For example I've just been examining a situation where someone had a car accident. At the time of the accident his sixth house, ruled by the Moon was active and in the sixth was Mars in partile opposition to Saturn. Now the obvious conclusion would be that Mars would signify the car accident in terms of time. But actually the accident occurred with the Moon (Lord 6) approaching an exact opposiiton to Mercury (Lord 8 ) an opposition that became exact some minutes after the crash. Luckily the person survived though the car did not and serious and long lasting injuries resulted. One might say that the situation was an accident waiting to happen but the planets that gave the timing were not ones we would normally think about as being related to accidents. If I remember correctly the Titanic struck the iceberg with the Moon in perfect square to the Ascendant, The Moon was again Lord 8.

However my main point here was that taking the psychological approach we might know a lot about the natives perceptions and attitudes to his mother but we could not deduce objectively her nature from his natal chart.

Michael Sternbach said:
It's not limited to that. Rather, in essence, we create (or contribute to) the objective events that we experience based on what we carry in our psyche.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if you mean that our behavioural traits/personality/temperament affect the way we interact with the external world, I would certainly agree with you.

Michael Sternbach said:
Hmm... If the same astrological factors that allow you to predict external events are also conclusive regarding one's psychology, doesn't this suggest a connection between the two?

In my experience psychologists are never conclusive (as a group) about anything, rather like economists (of which I used to be one for my sins). I'm not sure that I made my point as clear as I should have. I don't think a chart which is viewed solely or even predominantly as being concerned with describing the mind of a person is capable of yielding very useful information about external events.

I do see a chart which is viewed as including both the individual and the external world as being capable of linking the two. It's not a matter of using the same factors or techniques, it's a question of the fundamental nature of a chart. Clearly we differ on this point, so I accept that you see things a little differently.

Michael Sternbach said:
Also, I would like to emphasize that psychologically oriented astrologers are not considering the native as an entity dislodged from the outer world, but study how they relate to the latter. Many turn to Astrology in search of advice how to best deal with the latter.

Yes, I entirely accept that comment. But the psychologically oriented astrologer relies on the consultation in order to relate the individual to the outside world. Now I'm not saying that is a bad thing, or that Traditional Astrologers, never bother with consultations. For all Astrologers they are a useful mechanism. They are an extremely useful mechanism in horary, for example. However I think there's a subtle difference. For the psychological Astrologer, the chart is a diagnostic tool (and not necessarily the only one) in the practice of psychological counselling. As I said before, such counselling may be of great value to many individuals who seek help. But my point is that the Astrology often takes second place to the psychology and ends up being moulded to fit the psychological perspective - the view of the nature of a chart being one obvious example.

Michael Sternbach said:
Indeed, there are also plenty of people who are interested in a kind of Astrology that more or less limits itself to predicting external events. I suppose that many of them have most of their personal planets in the "objective hemisphere" above the horizon. LOL

Actually I have Sun, Moon, Venus, and Mercury below the horizon.

Michael Sternbach said:
It may surprise you but I have a keen interest in traditional Astrology. I was one of the early subscribers of Project Hindsight and I also have some of Dyke's books. I believe that much can be learned both from modern and traditional Astrology and, in fact, that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

That's good to know and I agree with your conclusion. I think it's a matter of getting Modern Astrology to stop contemplating its nodal axis and begin to look outwards more. If I felt the need for counselling, then I might well seek out a psychologically oriented Astrologer, and I would see that as a useful way to proceed. But the trouble is getting Modern Astrology to realise that there's much more to Astrology than the natal branch and that even within the natal branch it is worth also looking at the chart as showing both individual and the external surroundings. A combination of the two, might prove very effective.