thanks horatio - that is what i meant. cheers james

James wrote:

in that regard the moon is weak, regardless of the sign.

I fundamentally disagree. I dont know what approach to astrology you are following James that makes you say that but its not western traditional or Jyotish.

Yes the moon is very sensitive to surrounding influences whether sign placement, aspect etc. Sensitive or impressionable yes but not intrinsically 'weak'. The Moon reflects the light of the Sun and has none of its own. So its energy is inherently yin or feminine. However, that doesn't make it necessarily weak. That would imply being ineffective or ineffectual which the Moon isn't intrinsically. It all depends on context.

To use a term like that you need details on its sign, aspects, phase and receptions since it can be very powerful in a chart. In night charts for example the Moon is sect light. So if we had say a waxing Moon in Cancer in a night chart in the 10th house applying to Venus and/ or Jupiter it would be very strongly placed indeed.

Mark

Morning Sun wrote:

In dealing with Moon in Scorpio's, I agree with Mark, a Scorpio Moon in a diurnal chart, can come across as very "stinging", sharp, wounding with their intensity and passion behind their words, which they may or may not realize. Whereas, the Nocturnal Moon in Scorpio's have a bit more compassion for the other person, it comes across a little softer, and not quite as biting, stinging with the scorpions tail.

Just a few observations from real people.

I think we both know exactly who you have in mind.

There is no shortage of astrological ammunition to criticise the sign of Scorpio in traditional sources. It certainly has its flaws. Although, there is something of an over kill in traditional astrology when it comes to Scorpio. Scorpio is presented in such an evil manner in medieval sources its sometimes quite funny in terms of its theatrical extremism.

However, open confrontation is not usually the preferred style of Scorpio in any sense. Its usually accused of more subtle underhanded methods.

While we can make generalisations about sign or sect placements I do think we need to study each chart properly if we are discussing real people.

For example, look at Nobel Peace prize winner and former US President Jimmy Carter who is a diurnal Moon in Scorpio. He is known as a tireless worker for world peace and human rights and noted for his diplomatic skills. He hardly fits your description of this Moon placement as

"stinging", sharp, wounding with their intensity and passion behind their words'.

His astrodatabank profile:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Carter,_Jimmy

Yes he is a double Libra. So that needs factored in as the Sun is sect light and placed in the first house by WSH. The waxing Scorpio moon forms a dexter sextile to Mercury and a dexter square to Venus (ASC ruler).

I dont present this as necessarily a typical example but simply as a caution on making sweeping astrological judgements of people based on just one or two factors in a chart. Otherwise we are reducing ourselves to cook book style delineation.

Mark

hi mark,

thanks for your comments. maybe i am using the word 'weak' when it isn't the best word to use here.. i see the moon as more reflective, absorbing the surrounding energies.. i think of it as not so much acting as reacting based on what it absorbs and in this sense not having the ability to act without consideration of its surroundings. in that sense i think of it as 'weak'. this can be perceived as a 'strength' too from a different angle.

perhaps this takes me into the importance of 'phase' where i think the moon beginning at the full moon phase might be much more this way then in its first half of the moon cycle. i don't know that a lot of thought is given to the moon's phase in astrology, or if it is, it plays second fiddle to the moons sign position.. that is all as i see it, so for me the training to think of the phase as having great bearing is an ongoing work in progress.

how would a new moon, or early part of the phase moon respond differently then a later phased moon? we can use carter as a good example for the moment. i was reading greenbaums 'temperament' book last night while contemplating just how central all of this is to a better understanding of the moon. perhaps certain moon phases would make the moon in scorpio a more challenging moon then other ones.. i don't have a clear idea on this as yet.

i agree with your comments on the general history of the sign scorpio as used in astrology. it gets a bad rap and i don't know how much of it is really warranted. that might be a separate conversation, but i think it gets thrown in here with the attitude about moon in scorpio to an extent.

something else i was thinking about last night is the 'fixed' quality of the sign scorpio, which like taurus, leo and aquarius, all share in this 'fixed' energy that i do associate with a lack of flexibility, or spontaneity which is how i tend to view the mutable and cardinal signs respectively. however there are 'strengths' in this quality too, to come back to the flip side of these terms 'weak' and 'strong'. the duality contained with the use of these words is regularly on my mind and one of my first thoughts is how the tao teh ching expresses/resolves this ongoing duality.. i think the idea of 'letting go', an important and healthy activity in so many ways is not something that comes automatically to the fixed signs. perhaps of all the elements, water is least able to direct it's energy, especially when in this fixed sign of scorpio which makes it a more dangerous position on this level. some of the emotional challenges that i think this moon placement faces unique to this position are challenging emotions in the relationship sphere where feelings of hurt, jealousy, resentment and such are more common emotional experiences for a moon in scorpio type. 'letting go' becomes that much more crucial and until that happens the real strength of the position is held in check..

obviously i am considering the moon in scorpio from a few different angles that are common to astrology, but i am not sure how much they get thought about, in relation to just labeling the moon in scorpio by sign in a quick automatic way which is how i view astrology often operating. just how mature a person is on the emotional level remains to be seen, but i do think the moon in scorpio has a more challenging time reaching the strengths that i think are possible with this moon placement by sign.

2 other quick comments - we had the conversation on 'weak' verses 'strong' with retrograde planets recently as well. these terms are quite relative to the angle they're being described this way for.

i think the idea of 'attachment' is a good on for the fixed signs.. with scorpio the idea of emotional attachments comes to mind immediately. while the moon in cancer position always seems to have a deep attachment to family in general, i think moon in scorpio can have more difficultly with the attachments they form as the emotional quality wants make attachments that are abiding due this fixed quality, but they may not be in there own or the others best interests.. going back to the idea of 'letting go' i think there is something about a moon in scorpio that has to find a place of security in finding a balance in all of this which is not easily gotten. maybe it is less of an issue for other moon placements by element, and less of a challenge for moon in cancer or pisces which may be more fluid given the cardinal or mutable mode of expression. i don't know if the word ''attachment'' is one used for the sign scorpio, but it is one that i use for it.

James_M wrote:

...I thought you might not want to commit one way of the other to my question.. however, you give more weight to the aspects the moon makes that can sometimes be overlooked, especially in the essential and accidental dignity/debility scoring.. those systems don't seem to factor sect into their equations either as i know it..

Your right that sect doesn't usually really feature in a lot of dignity systems. I have made the same point here myself. That is a reflection of the minor significance it had assumed by the time of astrologers like Lilly. I dont tend to use such systems in a pedantic way myself although I know one professional who goes through Lilly's point scoring system religiously on each natal chart to calculate the Lord of the geniture.

I dont think things like retrograde motion, under beams or out of sect can simply be reduced to numerical formulas as these issues are often as much qualitative rather than purely quantitative issues in delineation. I think the mentality of reducing everything to 'strong' or 'weak' is a major difficulty with a lot of traditional description of astrological concepts.

By the way its not quite correct to suggest most dignity systems ignore aspects. For example, Lilly's scheme awards points for planets conjunct, sextile or trine the benefics Jupiter or Venus and deducts points for planets conjunct, square or in opposition to the malefics Mars and Saturn.
Take a look at this article by Deborah Houlding that sets out Lilly's scheme:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html

Mark

hi mark,

thanks for saying all that! maybe i am a one trick pony and always rant on about the same things, but folks have to think for themselves more and follow others ideas less, or only up to the point of where it makes a connection to their own reality on the ground instead of some book where someone said something.

i have seen lillys score card a number of times, and if i skipped over him acknowledging aspects on his score card, that was an oversight on my part. his score card reminds me of a 'don cherry -hockey night in canada' type mindset. maybe it is just my musings on the folks who use score cards and my guess is he was more independent minded then that. i am sure he got it from somewhere else anyway. the funny thing about lilly is he seems quite good at making all sorts of exceptions to his 'system'.. that impresses me as it implies he knew how to think out of the box which is what i would hope to find in someone who doesn't have a slavish approach to rules. i have yet to read the christian astrology books, but i did read the book on the history of his life put out by the dodo press.. i guess that mercury station wasn't all that bright, or there is something to stationary planets after all! that is yet another avenue that we have tried to explore here with the good folks at skyscript.

i don't discount the role a sign plays in the colouring of a planet in it.. the bugaboo over sidereal verses tropical does present a dilemma though for astrologers in that it goes right into this issue of what a moon in scorpio is supposed to be. i maintain aspect relationships to the moon and its house position count for more, so if someone is redesigning any score cards, that would be my feedback for them.

james_m wrote: as for the moon being 'weak' - that is something i picked up somewhere, but i think it is in keeping with many of the ideas i have on the moon.. it is reflecting light, as opposed to being the light.. it is 'dependent' on the sun for the light it throws..

Can you elaborate?

By the same logic do you see all of the planets as being weak as well? They are all dependent upon the sun in the exact same way? In what sense do you mean 'weak' - weak how, in what sense is it weak? Can you give an example of something, other than the sun, that is strong to provide a contrast?

hi paul,
i mentioned the sun as a symbol for strength too. perhaps that little bit of info that you overlooked helps answer your question?

james_m wrote:hi paul,
i mentioned the sun as a symbol for strength too. perhaps that little bit of info that you overlooked helps answer your question?

Hi James

I don't think there's any need to be sarcastic. The questions I am asking have not been answered by you. I have not simply overlooked them.

I understand you see the sun as a symbol of strength, hence to reiterate my question, emphasis added this time: "Can you give an example of something, other than the sun, that is strong to provide a contrast?"

Also, noting that you mentioned that the sun was strong does not answer my other question regarding in what sense you see this as a weakness, particularly if for example you apply this same logic to the planets as well. What I mean by this is that one of the main reasons you have suggested why the moon is weak is that it does not produce its own light, but surely then this makes all the other planets weak? Hence why I need a planet other than the sun for a contrast.

I'm trying to follow if this is your own theory, in which case how, or whether, you resolve the logic for other bodies not producing their own light, and if not what the origin behind this idea is.

I have not overlooked your answers and to be honest I'm puzzled at why you reacted as you have. I think it's a fair question to ask, particularly because I wondered the same thing myself once upon a time and I'm unsure if this is because, like you, you read it somewhere. I cannot find where I might have read it or if I came to that conclusion myself. I no longer think this way, but I'm curious about the issue all the same. If you do not to answer that is fine.

hi paul,

my quick response to you did have a element of sarcasm accumulated from a previous exchange on another thread i initiated where you responded a particular way.. i recall being polite and asking if you'd 'read the book' but never heard back.

given more thought i think your question is a good one that deserves a better answer and i will do my best to elaborate. it is true one could lump all planets in with the moon as being dependent on the sun for there light and not generating any of their own. however the moon looms larger then all the others for us here on earth. the sun and moon are often thought to have greater significance in a chart then all the other planets which also puts the moon in a special category apart from the other planets. perhaps the previous sentence partly explains why. i don't immediately think of all the other planets as 'weak' in the same way, but then i don't immediately think of them as having the same degree of significance as the moon either.

another aspect to the moon which is unique and different from the other planets (moon is not a planet) is the moon is a satellite to earth..it does not have a 'life' of its own, but is dependent on the earth for it's continuity in some special way that i don't claim to really understand astronomically.

the idea of the moon being a point of 'vulnerability' in the chart might have a small bit to do with my idea on it's apparent weakness. however there is great strength in acknowledging our vulnerability, most folks don't access this strength and tend to cover up and hide this aspect of human nature that i think is represented by the moon. the idea of our 'insecurities' being represented by the moon is another word association i make with the moon. i think there is a clear connection again with this word and the idea of weakness. people resort to the comfort of there home- habitat (habits?) when they feel the need to nourish themselves emotionally. how we do this is described by the moon position, by house, sign and aspect to the rest of the chart. i believe this is another part to my thinking that the moon is this sensitive spot in the chart that represents a composite picture of the special sensitivities and vulnerabilities that i typically associate with weakness from a particular vantage point.

some moon positions are clearly more challenging then others astrologically. i continue to question the negative bias given to the sign scorpio as it relates to the moon, while i am sure examples can be piled up on either side of the aisle to push a particular view on this.

i do believe the moon in scorpio on its own without consideration for house or aspect relationships is a tougher spot in a women's chart then in a man's chart, but i have no magic way of convincing anyone of why i feel this is an accurate perception on my part other then to say i 'believe' i have witnessed it in my own circle of acquaintances and without necessarily knowing the finer details to these peoples lives.

those are some of my thoughts paul. what do you think? it is always enjoyable to read others thoughts on this topic too.
james

Paul wrote:
By the same logic do you see all of the planets as being weak as well? They are all dependent upon the sun in the exact same way? In what sense do you mean 'weak' - weak how, in what sense is it weak? Can you give an example of something, other than the sun, that is strong to provide a contrast?

Traditionally

Sun and Moon are known as Nayyer-rain (Luminaries or Light Bodies) while other visible planets are termed as "Khumsa (five) Muttaheyera (wanderers)".

IMO, Moon was considered related to emotions because it has phases which were thought akin to changing moods/monthly cycles. It does not make her (moon) weak but different, however, if there is a technological/cultural shift which considers all emotions a weakness then of course moon would be weak too.