2
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!

3
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?

5
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

6
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.

7
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?

8
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.

9
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.

10
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.

11
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'?

12
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