Sun sign and Ascendant

For Ronia

I would say that your Scorpio description isn't very helpful for giving me any sense of what a Scorpio influenced person would look like. If signs have any relevance to typical physical appearance traits then I would suggest that something like the prior examples would need to be given.

If specifics are not "doable" then we have to conclude that very "broad, general" statements are the only applicable --- and unhelpful --- product of sign meanings. Can you be more descriptive of the Scorpios you know?

Dave

Average height to a little higher than the average
Dark hair
Eyes - hazel, hazel-green to brown
Slim to skinny
Delicate hands, many have long fingers
Not big feet, average to smaller than average
Not very long legs - average to a little longer
Straight nose, often thin and longer than average
Shrap face features - delicate but sharp

That's all I can think off now which is true for all of them.

Firstly, it's the Ascendant sign we're talking about, Sun signs are virtually irrelevant - using Lilly's list, the Sun would play a major role only if your Ascendant was Leo (Sun is Ascendant ruler) or your Sun is in the first house. Otherwise it only has input if it aspects the Ascendant ruler or a planet in the Ascendant, or through it's 20% contribution to temperament. So we wouldn't expect a Taurus Sun sign native to particularly express any physical characteristics of Taurus.

Secondly this is one of the areas that I agree with Dave. I don't find any particular correlation between Ascendant signs (however adjusted) and physical characteristics. The latter seem to be the product of genetics and diet. I even have strong reservations that it worked in Lilly's time, though that's impossible to prove.

It would be nice to test the hypothesis that certain signs run in families but we would need to have regular recurrence of a sign as the Ascendant. The alternative hypothesis might well be that people's dietary habits lead to them taking on certain characteristics of their Ascendant, but I know of no investigation of that one.

I am Scorpio, and the physical characteristics described almost describe me (wrong on the eyes) in entirety, down to the putting on a little chub from over-indulgence.. thinner frame and long fingers, down to smaller than average feet, pretty scary actually, worth looking deeper into,

Actually, from what I understand, the Zodiac has been used to predict ailments and each sign even has a different part of the body they rule over, who's trying to say it has little relevance? seems like its built in.. just nobody is noticing it.

Scorpio Ascendant

The supposed characteristics of a Scorpio Ascendant, as I remember them, are a taller than average frame, strong brow-bone structure and Greek-classical nose and well defined angular lips, strong chin (which doesn't mean "large"), tendency to have more-than-average body hair (especially on the arms). Is said to like dark colors, black and white, dark red, check prints on clothes (again like Virgo attributes). Some sign-attribute writers/practitioners say that Scorpio likes to probe into secrets, mysteries, the occult, afterlife, etc. but I say that those might be ascribed to the planet Pluto but certainly they are not sign attributes as I have studied them. Again, note that I know of this stuff but do not use it, so others may be more "expert" on this then I am.

This is quite distinct from those who often mistake the planet Pluto on the Ascendant where we often find a long head, tighter-spaced eyes, the effect of a piercing gaze, longer nose, thin lips (like many Virgos) and a sense of great intensity and focus. Long, thin body although they may not be tall. High forehead, thin (not overly abundant) hair.

Dave

Traditional description of Scorpio by Lilly:

A corpulent, strong, able body, somewhat a broad or square face, a dusky, muddy complexion and sad dark hair, much and crisping. A hairy body, somewhat bow legged, short necked, a squat well trussed fellow' which has a fair similarity to Dave's description.

Lilly also gives physical descriptors for the planets - note that planets in the Ascendant and the ruler of the Ascendant are included in the list of factors.

For Mars, as ruler of Scorpio he says:

They are but middle stature, their bodies strong and their bones big, rather lean than fat; their complexion of a brown ruddy colour or of a high colour their Visage round, their Hair red or sandy flaxen, and many times crisping and curling, sharp hazel eyes, and they piercing, a bold confident countenance and the man active and fearless

The modern description of Scorpio also seems to draw on some of that description as well. Presumably Lilly would deal with any clashes in these two descriptions by giving precedence to the sign rather than the ruler - though if Mars was also in the Ascendant, he would reverse this and weigh it more to the planet.

If the Moon was in the Scorpio Ascendant, for example, he would presumably start from the physical descriptors of the Moon and then modify it for both sign and ruler.

Bluefox

Yes, both signs and planet (and indeed houses) rule or symbolise body parts and functions and these can be used in the diagnosis and treatment of ailments. That's a different situation from the descriptions of outward physical characteristics. I'm not saying it doesn't work some of the time but that it doesn't work all the time and indeed it probably doesn't work the majority of the time - If I took a random sample of people from the phone book, got their charts and predicted their corporature I wouldn't find many red headed people of Indian or Pakistani descent, even if they had Mars in Aries on the Ascendant. It might work better for people of North European origin, or possibly European origin generally but we can't extend it to all, whereas we can with the parts of the body and ailments.

Other cultures use signs differently

If/when one studies Joytish or Vedic astrology, as practiced in India, they will find that all of the Tropical Zodiac associated sign characteristics just simply disappear from use. Signs are used relative to medical purposes, but their application in a natal chart pretty much sticks to words related to Cardinal- Fixed-Mutable meanings and Fire-Earth-Air-Water meanings as far as how the signs modify planetary expression.

For example Mars in Taurus would be seen as Mars behaving in a productive, consistent manner without being swayed by external distractions. In other words, the description is limited to the the 3-4 meanings in their basic form. No embellishment of cultural influences is considered. No attitudes, situations or feelings are directly alluded to. Just a bare bones application, if that.

Now, some will say that is because they use the Sidereal Zodiac. Not so. The Siderealist's claim that the commonly used Tropical Sign meanings apply to their Sidereal sectors of space and that the Tropical community is "off" in their sign meanings. They even give very convincing arguments for this view even though Tropical astrologers don't want to hear it or believe it. Having to work on both sides of the fence, I just don't use signs. Its easier.

If anyone wants to complete the water signs, we can consider Pisces attributes. I should point out, that this is one sign that seems to apply to the physical-ascendant sign attributes. Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

The supposed characteristics of a Scorpio Ascendant, as I remember them, are a taller than average frame, strong brow-bone structure and Greek-classical nose and well defined angular lips, strong chin (which doesn't mean "large"), tendency to have more-than-average body hair (especially on the arms). Is said to like dark colors, black and white, dark red, check prints on clothes (again like Virgo attributes). Some sign-attribute writers/practitioners say that Scorpio likes to probe into secrets, mysteries, the occult, afterlife, etc. but I say that those might be ascribed to the planet Pluto but certainly they are not sign attributes as I have studied them. Again, note that I know of this stuff but do not use it, so others may be more "expert" on this then I am.

This is quite distinct from those who often mistake the planet Pluto on the Ascendant where we often find a long head, tighter-spaced eyes, the effect of a piercing gaze, longer nose, thin lips (like many Virgos) and a sense of great intensity and focus. Long, thin body although they may not be tall. High forehead, thin (not overly abundant) hair.

Dave

Click to expand...

hmm ... The symbols for Scorpio and Virgo are alike, differing in that Virgo's tail curves in on itself and Scorpio's is decidedly phallic and turns outward. If I find Virgo's eyes staring/scanning, it is in concentration over a problem (they analyze), and Scorpio has a fixed gaze as someone said (they penetrate, supposedly). You might already know all this of course, Dave.

I'm a girl so ...

Virgo sun = exaggerated face make-up, impeccably done thick hair

Gemini sun = doesn't care for make-up, looks old, dark circles under eyes, straight hair

Pisces w Gemini asc = protruding eyes, youthful look, natural looking make-up, wavy hair, very long fingers

Scorpio sun =
men: average height, muscular body, healthy black hair
women: light make-up, diamond-shaped face (small forehead, wide chicks, narrow chin) slow roving eyes, slightly wavy hair

Cancer w Virgo asc = see Gemini sun

Pisces w Virgo asc = twinkling eyes, scanty messy hair

Taurus sun w Pisces asc = pleasant looking w/o make-up, will stubbornly wear a dress despite job descriptions, protruding eyes also

Pisces w Sagittarius asc = short, very wavy hair, small eyes, wide plowshare hands


.. my observations in a nutshell, pardon the girl-lens

Descriptions . . .

These descriptions are a bit scanty in physical detail, with too much cultural stuff. Make up and dress preferences, other than possibly color preferences, don't tell us much about what to actually look for.

I'm not being critical, but I do want to encourage a more disciplined approach to describing physical characteristics of the face, head, body and the overall appearance or sense of appearance.

For example, to complete the water-sign groups, we might say of PISCES that they tend to have large moist eyes, a very wide and expressive mouth with full lips, typically a fragile-looking build. But, their hair is perhaps the giveaway for Pisces people. The hair is often cut closer to the head. If short, it is feather cut and gives a misty appearance. If long, the hair shimmers.

The skin tends to be pale, the choice of colors is more dramatic.

Now, all of this is not the same as Neptune conjunct the Ascendant. That pattern gives the eyes a half-open heavy-lidded or sleepy look. Neptune-on-the-Ascendant seems to be associated with taller-leaner frames or very short frames (similar to Mercury on the Ascendant in some ways). Narcolepsy is sometimes found in these cases. I've seen this several times.

My "knowledge" of these areas is limited. Others may know or be able to describe more tendencies of appearance for Pisces. But this type of detailed description is what we should strive for minimally if we are to effectively share and learn. Either that, or we just describe the example people we know. Dave

Could we, even in 'theory' arrive at a detailed physical description solely from a knowledge of the Ascendant sign? The number of combinations of identifiable physical characteristics such as height, build, bone structure, face shape, eye shape and colour, mouth shape, lips, hands, legs, nose, hair, body hair, colouration, is such that twelve signs can't accommodate it in a system of single sign descriptors.

If Astrology is to work here, we need to consider more factors than simply Ascending sign. Lilly's approach seems to try and do that - though the extent of its success is not easy to assess, 363 years in hindsight. It does offer a starting basis though. Thus we could use twelve 'standard body characteristics' for each sign and modify these in some way for each individual, using other information from the natal chart - planets in the Ascendant would be an obvious step.

The problem there would be how to evaluate the situation if there are more than one planet in the Ascendant. If I were to use whole sign Houses, I'd have three planets in the Ascendant (Leo) - Mars, Saturn and Pluto (included just for Dave LOL). If we choose to say that it doesn't work with the Whole Sign approach then if I'd been born 64 minutes earlier the same would have applied (all three lie within a range of 8.5 degrees). I'm not sure how Lilly would handle that as he doesn't give an example of such a case. I'm not sure how Dave would handle it either, using his Jeff Mayo material (I recognise he doesn't use it any more but he clearly has practiced it at some point).

It may be of interest if I do post Lilly's assessment from the chart he does analyse in detail, to see how detailed (or not) his description is and how he modifies the Ascendant sign description in an actual case.