skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

If the signs did contain any psychological basis...
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jupiterhead



Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Posts: 536

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:24 pm    Post subject: If the signs did contain any psychological basis... Reply with quote

why would not any Aries also be…

-A determined Taurus
-A restless Gemini
-A defensive Cancer
-A self-important Leo
-A critical Virgo
-A persuasive Libra
-A passionate Scorpio
-A careless Sagittarius
-A persistent Capricorn
-A will-full Aquarius
-A commitment-shy Pisces

Should the signs not just determine planetary strength, and that be their sole function?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3842
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi neptunehead.

your question goes into how astrologers perceive signs.. is it based on a seasonal viewpoint? is it cyclical, as opposed to a 12 box type of viewpoint? or is it sidereal where the stars have some sort of influence that shape how the sign is perceived? and etc. etc.

i don't think there is an easy or simple answer to this other then individually for each astrologer..

personally i like the cycle analogy of the sun thru the seasons myself. i am conflicted about what this means for southern hemisphere charts or even perhaps for those who live on the equator. i like the idea that each sign brings forth what was missing in the previous sign.. aries is forceful and charges forward often oblivious to the dangers, taurus follows it in a more patient or slow and steady manner.. this is more evolving cycle type of thinking i think! i like the element connection to the signs as well, but that is more greek philosophy i think.. ultimately mine is a subjective viewpoint and like my involvement in music, i don't think about 'proving' anything.. i don't have to! i share what i think, and continue to contemplate others viewpoints on public forums to the best of my ability.. sometimes others ideas/questions are more engaging then others!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jupiterhead



Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Posts: 536

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, James.

I'm not convinced. Frawley says signs describe a planet in 3 ways:

1. tells us how much essential strength a planet has
2. tells us about the planets attitude to other planets
3. it has certain qualities of its own

signs describe:

-male & female
-elements
-modes
-if doubled-bodied
-fertile or barren
-voiced or mute
-humane or bestial
-maimed
-the body


How is any of this psychological?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3842
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a lot of 'science' seems to think psychology is a bunch of hooey.. whop-pie if Frawley thinks so and you aren't convinced either, lol..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben



Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 167
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Neptunehead,

I think a lot depends on where you are locating the psychology. Traditionally, one would start to look at the rising sign, and at its lord--this should give you a good clue. I would not look at the Sun sign for this.

So if the rising sign is Scorpio, that says one thing. It is ruled by Mars, which gives another indication. Mars might then be in some other sign, which modifies him. And then any planets in the rising sign, or aspecting it (particularly the very degree of the Ascendant) would also be relevant. The problem is that there is no single way to say: "You are X."

So Frawley is not wrong about how a sign conditions the indications of a planet in it, but the question is: what are the relevant planets? The lord of the Ascendant would be a key planet to examine.
_________________
www.bendykes.com
Traditional Astrology Texts and Teaching
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jupiterhead



Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Posts: 536

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben wrote:
Hi Neptunehead,

I think a lot depends on where you are locating the psychology. Traditionally, one would start to look at the rising sign, and at its lord--this should give you a good clue. I would not look at the Sun sign for this.

So if the rising sign is Scorpio, that says one thing. It is ruled by Mars, which gives another indication. Mars might then be in some other sign, which modifies him. And then any planets in the rising sign, or aspecting it (particularly the very degree of the Ascendant) would also be relevant. The problem is that there is no single way to say: "You are X."

So Frawley is not wrong about how a sign conditions the indications of a planet in it, but the question is: what are the relevant planets? The lord of the Ascendant would be a key planet to examine.



Hmmm, this is a good post. Thank you, Ben.

Going to ponder on it for a few days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AstroNovice



Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 153
Location: United States

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben wrote:
Hi Neptunehead,

I think a lot depends on where you are locating the psychology. Traditionally, one would start to look at the rising sign, and at its lord--this should give you a good clue. I would not look at the Sun sign for this.

So if the rising sign is Scorpio, that says one thing. It is ruled by Mars, which gives another indication. Mars might then be in some other sign, which modifies him. And then any planets in the rising sign, or aspecting it (particularly the very degree of the Ascendant) would also be relevant. The problem is that there is no single way to say: "You are X."

So Frawley is not wrong about how a sign conditions the indications of a planet in it, but the question is: what are the relevant planets? The lord of the Ascendant would be a key planet to examine.


hey ben would you also consider aspects to the lord of the ascendant as well? I know that seems like a silly question, but I noticed that you omitted that, so I was wondering if it was accidental or on purpose. Also, which would you consider more influential, an aspect to the rising sign itself, or an aspect to the rising sign lord?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3842
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astronovice - ben did mention aspects to the ascendant as having bearing... read his post again..

this is an interesting conversation for me personally..

if you say the ascendant, or the lord of the ascendant, a planet in the ascendant or aspecting the ascendant has some bearing over the 'psychology' of the person ( without going into details of what has more bearing) it seems to me you may as well say the whole chart has bearing.. personally i think focusing on this 'ruler' of the ascendant is changing the topic from do signs have psychology to do planets have psychology.

although the cosmobiologists didn't do away with signs, there was much less emphasis on the signs and more on the planets. this quickly resolves the conflict we find with the 2 different systems of tropical verses sidereal.. still, the question remains - is there a psychology attached to a sign? or, is the sign fully dependent on the planet ruling it? how does this system get created and are we in some type of circular logic where we go round and round in circles with different ways of saying this, or this is what is the basis or cause of this?

i think once you focus on the sign of the ascendant, the ruler of the ascendant, any planet aspecting the ascendant and etc. etc. - you may as well just say the whole chart has some bearing on a persons psychology.. if you back up a bit you can do what the older astrologers did too - focus on the moon's position by sign as having greater bearing on the psychology of the person..

don't get me wrong. i love ''systems''... i just feel that none of them are fool proof.. if Frawley has one and he likes it - great.. maybe having a system is better then having no system.. for those constructive pragmatic types, i am sure that is the case..

open disclosure - james is scorpio rising - moon in scorpio, with mars in capricorn... is that enough to figure out my psychology? lol.. i don't think so.

ps - maybe someone can tell me the difference between the use of the word 'temperament' as used in the past and 'psychology' in the present? thanks..


Last edited by james_m on Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Becca



Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 57

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never thought of signs as anything but psychological until my introduction to Horary astrology.

I find it relateable that James says he forms his perceptions from the basis of music. The difference being that, I form my perception of life and of astrology, from the basis of fashion. Fashion has taught me that there is a deeper meaning and story beyond the surface of symbols, that when I struggle to communicate, my clothing 'communicates', by being a reflection of what I feel at a particular moment, time, day. This is what astrology, specifically Horary astrology, does. The symbols rooted in a chart for a given moment, time, all communicate a message from our psyche.

We might see that someone's significator, Saturn, in fall, and get the impression that they are not literally, but psychologically, 'falling apart', feeling stuck and unhappy in general. How we feel about ourselves on the inside is often how we present ourselves on the outside. Green isn't just green. Bearing the colour green becomes a beckon of someone to envy, a "Let's get up and go" aura about them. The idea that body language 'speaks' when our words are surpressed.

As per fashion, I would ask someone, "Why do you like the color purple? what does the color purple signify to you?"

I would ask the same question of someone who reads a chart, "Why are you zooming in on that particular placement? what does that particular placement mean to you?"

Esentially, "This is the way I see it. How do you see it?" because to be subjective about something is to make it meaningful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AstroNovice



Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 153
Location: United States

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
astronovice - ben did mention aspects to the ascendant as having bearing... read his post again..

this is an interesting conversation for me personally..

if you say the ascendant, or the lord of the ascendant, a planet in the ascendant or aspecting the ascendant has some bearing over the 'psychology' of the person ( without going into details of what has more bearing) it seems to me you may as well say the whole chart has bearing.. personally i think focusing on this 'ruler' of the ascendant is changing the topic from do signs have psychology to do planets have psychology.

although the cosmobiologists didn't do away with signs, there was much less emphasis on the signs and more on the planets. this quickly resolves the conflict we find with the 2 different systems of tropical verses sidereal.. still, the question remains - is there a psychology attached to a sign? or, is the sign fully dependent on the planet ruling it? how does this system get created and are we in some type of circular logic where we go round and round in circles with different ways of saying this, or this is what is the basis or cause of this?

i think once you focus on the sign of the ascendant, the ruler of the ascendant, any planet aspecting the ascendant and etc. etc. - you may as well just say the whole chart has some bearing on a persons psychology.. if you back up a bit you can do what the older astrologers did too - focus on the moon's position by sign as having greater bearing on the psychology of the person..

don't get me wrong. i love ''systems''... i just feel that none of them are fool proof.. if Frawley has one and he likes it - great.. maybe having a system is better then having no system.. for those constructive pragmatic types, i am sure that is the case..

open disclosure - james is scorpio rising - moon in scorpio, with mars in capricorn... is that enough to figure out my psychology? lol.. i don't think so.

ps - maybe someone can tell me the difference between the use of the word 'temperament' as used in the past and 'psychology' in the present? thanks..


james, I was asking if aspects to the ascendant lord has any effect, not just planets directly aspecting the ascendant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3842
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sorry astronovice. now i see! well, since your question is directed to ben, i will be curious to know what he says.. for me - it is like how much of the chart do you want to consider, or is some of it relevant and a bunch more of it a dumb note? where does a person draw the line on helping to define psychology or temperament via 'a part' or 'all of the chart'?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AstroNovice



Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 153
Location: United States

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
sorry astronovice. now i see! well, since your question is directed to ben, i will be curious to know what he says.. for me - it is like how much of the chart do you want to consider, or is some of it relevant and a bunch more of it a dumb note? where does a person draw the line on helping to define psychology or temperament via 'a part' or 'all of the chart'?


np james
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben



Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 167
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

As for whether signs themselves have psychological attributes, I would say yes--Ptolemy, for instance, wanted us to look at the quadruplicities in particular for examine this. So if the angles and other important places (like the sect light, etc) were in fixed signs, this should say something different than if they were in movable ones. So if Scorpio is rising, then yes: what Scorpio means by triplicity and quadruplicity, but also through its rulership by Mars, can all be taken in a psychological way. (But other things affecting Scorpio and Mars will also matter, too.) I think the first part of Bil Tierney's book All Around the Zodiac is excellent in how it tries to reconstruct the signs using triplicities and quadruplicities (though I think he goes a little astray in treating Libra and Capricorn as though they were like the 7th and 10th houses).

I sense in some of James's comments some questions/issues that go a bit deeper, namely: How much of the chart can reasonably be said to encompass psychology? And can any short list of items to look at really explain who we are? I may be misunderstanding James's meaning but since they are interesting questions anyway, let me address them briefly just in case.

I guess my view is based roughly on the following three ideas:

The chart is a picture of everything, not just the mind.
Not everything in the chart is equally relevant.
Skepticism about what is even meant by "psychology."

So what we have to do is figure out (1) what things could reasonably indicate something like character, and (2) which among those are the most important. So, anything related to the Ascendant and its lord would certainly count. But we have to start somewhere, and be able to stop somewhere before we drive ourselves crazy or lose track of what we are looking for. If we only stuck with the rising sign (or, like many people, obsessed over the Sun sign), that would be too little. Looking at James's Scorpio, with the Moon in it, and Mars in the 3rd in Capricorn, would be even better. Valens describes several Lots which are clearly about the mind and character, and I could understand looking at those if one really wanted to be thorough. But if I was taking a class on looking at character in the chart, and the teacher said, "But be sure to look at the sesquiquadrate of Uranus, and see if it falls on the contra-antiscion of the midpoint of any two asteroids," I would feel like something had gone really wrong.

My skepticism about psychology isn't really about being partisan in favor of traditional, because there was plenty of stuff we would call psychological in traditional astrology. A lot of it has to do with what "psychology" even means. My view--which I think a lot of people can intuitively agree with--is that "who we are" is a combination of internal factors that are also in constant negotiation and response to, things that happen in life. Now, if the chart were simply or primarily a picture of the soul or mind, then because the nativity is with us all our lives, we should expect that all of those psychological traits are with us all the time. But they are not. The more reliable and lasting ones should be those connected with the Ascendant and its lord. But other features only appear because the chart shows some objective things which we react to, absorb the lessons of, and so on, which need to be handled in a different way by the astrologer. They are often predictable events that only happen at certain times.

For example, I have had several clients with very difficult Lots of Fortune in the angles, in bad aspects to malefics in poor condition. What this means is that fundamental areas of their lives (the angles) are unstable and undergo a lot of change due to things they cannot foresee--they come out of the blue. For the clients, this often leads to a fundamental sense of insecurity and uncertainty because of the instability of life. This is not something that would normally appear in a list of "The 5 psychological indicators in the chart," because we are talking about real events that people are trying to cope with, not a natural indicator of emotions (like the Moon) or character (like the Ascendant and its lord). But it is a very notable thing with predictable consequences for the average person.

Well, I sort of feel like I'm rambling now, so I'm going to quit while I'm ahead. I hope these comments at least clarify where I'm coming from, if they don't exactly answer the original question.

Best,
Ben
_________________
www.bendykes.com
Traditional Astrology Texts and Teaching
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3842
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ben,

thanks so much for offering your perspective here. much of it resonates with me. an astrologer has to start somewhere in understanding the chart. the sign on the ascendant and it's ruler is a good place. for a different example, but also relevant i think - donna cunningham focuses on the ascendant, sun and moon.. maybe it was tracy marks - one of these two astrologers as memory serves. it is also a good point of departure but different and more modern. the issue of planets aspecting the ascendant, moon or sun are important too, but i suppose it could be argued that not everything can be important at the same time. prioritizing becomes an issue that is a way resolving this.

it is interesting what you say about the part of fortune and it's possible role in all of this. i've repeatedly said on the forum how arabic parts remind me a lot of midpoints.. they're different, but i continue to see parallels. while the arabic parts, specifically the part of fortune take the distance differential between the sun and moon and apply it to the ascendant creating a point the same distance from the ascendant ( and reverses the process depending on whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal ), in the case of the pof in the ascendant angle - a person is born at a new or full moon approx.. if a planet is aspecting the pof in these examples, they will also be directly aspecting the sun/moon. this brings me to a view i hold that planets aspecting the sun and moon are also quite relevant, but it would be much more immediately visible for a person working with the pof when the pof lands on the ascendant axis for this reason...

i would argue that a planet hitting the sun/moon midpoint has a big influence on the psychology of the person too..

we are still left with the issue of how one prioritizes the chart to gain a better understanding of what it implies. we see astrologers doing this all the time actually.. a few obvious examples include the use of planets beyond saturn or not, asteriods or not, new planets or not, non ptolemiac aspects or not, different house systems/zodiac systems or not, arabic points or not, midpoints or not and etc. etc.. astrology remains an individualistic art as i see it, although teachers working at standardizing some of it have to communicate to students what they feel best prioritizes there own values on these topics, including the topic of reading psychology into a chart. i agree with much of your post and appreciate you stating it openly here, including what i've shared again below.. thanks - james

Ben wrote:

I guess my view is based roughly on the following three ideas:

The chart is a picture of everything, not just the mind.
Not everything in the chart is equally relevant.
Skepticism about what is even meant by "psychology."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larxene



Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 312

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think one crucial point to take away from Ben's post is that, there comes a point when there is too much information to consider, many of which are less relevant to the person's life, and therefore not as helpful to analyse.

Personally, I also look at the Ascendant and its Lord for determining character. It seems that in Hellenistic texts the Moon (and its Lord) is also rather important for personality analysis, but I haven't been able to incorporate that so far. I've not found the Sun to be helpful for personality, aside from being part of a technique for determining the masculinity/femininity of a person.

One other challenge has to do with the fact that some parts of our character/personality changes as we go through life. How do we determine what changes and what doesn't? I have no answers, only suggestions. Perhaps the Ascendant signifies how we are like early in life, while its Lord shows how our character changes over time. This is still too simplistic though...like, when does the change occur? Smile
_________________
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated