My last post had a too promising title but in the end it actually was a tale of me trying to understand astrology, not a tutorial. One way or the other, just to avoid complaints, i’ll try to put forth whatever i have learned about astrology in my quest. So here are my hands-on tips.
First of all, forget the sun sign. Sun sign is not all it is given credit for. Sun sign is cool and stuff, but it is not a party trick: if you ask someone what is their sign and then start speaking about said sign, it will not be too revealing. What is really cool is the ascendant, which by the way is much harder to find out.
The ascendant is how people behave. And in the end you are what you do. (Count that as one of the important lessons from astrology).
In my opinion, then, the ☉ Sun is the individual consciousness. In esoteric terms, Asc = Personality and Sun = Individuality.
The ☽ Moon then is the dark side. I am still mumbling over that one, where to put the Moon, as it traditionally has been regarded as “emotion” and i do think “emotion” is an idea without proper definition. So, for now, i regard the ☽ Moon as the metabolism, the part of the person that just churns on, autonomously.
There’s this triumvirate, then, which has always been considered the most important of the Horoscope Symbols. What to do with all the other things? More to the point, how to gather together all the “indications” in the horoscope and make them into a coherent picture? For example, Mars is “impulsive” and Cancer is “reactive” — what do you do when the guy has Mars in Cancer? Which of the two adjectives applies to him? I have come to a conclusion that pretty much follows Robert Hand.
I think the points (Sun, Moon and Planets) are parts of the person and the signs are qualities those parts will assume. In Hand’s words: planets are verbs, signs are adverbs.
In my model, it is like every person has somehow a bit of multiple-personality disorder, and every point in the chart represents one of those personalities. We could actually enhance that to all the possible celestial bodies, but the one chosen by classical astrology are make a coherent (but not true, not true) model of the human condition — but about this model i want not to speak, absorb it’s balance by yourself.
There is a tendency in modern astrology to treat every possible symbol as neutral, which in practice turns out to be more of taking traditionally bad symbols and saying “But hey! it’s really not so bad, you know?” I personally think we should do exactly the opposite: take all the symbols and reinforce it’s nastiness — this way we are ready for the bad and when the good comes we just glide.
- ☿ Mercury = curiosity
- ♀ Venus = lust
- ♂ Mars = aggressivety
- ♃ Jupiter = impatience
- ♄ Saturn = fear
- ♅ Uranus = hubris
- ♆ Neptune = naivete
- ♇ Pluto = power-hunger
I am still churning out what Ceres and Eris should be on that system of mine. I am pretty sure we had to have “laziness” or “sloth” there somewhere, Ceres seems to do the trick, but i really really wish there were some more studies on that one.
About aspects. They would be in my model the inter-relations between the “personalities” involved. They would also show how the person structures his energies and general being.
I am using strictly 12th Harmonic aspects, which in other words means that yes, i do record semisextiles and quincunxes, but no, no semiquadrates to me, thanks. But i do wish that some day i’ll have enough time free (that is, disposition) to make different Harmonics calculations for each chart i analyse, who knows some day… As for orbs:
|conjunction and opposition||6°|
|sextile, semisextile, quincunx||1°|
About the houses, i pretty much think they are aspects to the ascendant and no much more. Yes, i think the ascendant is that important — so much as to be the only body to deserve differentiating between 30° and 330°, that is a clockwise or anti-clockwise aspect. On the other hand, i subscribe to Campanus House System, which i am aware does contradict that “ascendant aspect” fling of mine. And i am also very much curious about one thing called Krusinski House system, which is implemented in the Swiss Ephemeris but not on any program i could put my paws on… (Come on, it is just too good to be true that a house system is also a mention to Eternal Sunshine, if this keeps i’ll have to find a way to calculate Ossidius the Emphatic).
That said, i am really really intrigued by Hand’s idea of clockwise houses. So much so that instead of numbering them i am using now a code with a letter for the quadrant and a number for whether it is the first, second or third. Like A1=3rd, A2=2nd, B1=12th, C2=8th…
And the final thing i learned about astrology is: astrology is not about the planets or constellations. The planets do not control your life, or maybe they do but WHO CARES?? It does not make any difference at all. Astrology is, more than anything else, a typology. It is a system that classifies things in 12ths. It is also a long tradition of timing cycles, so that those 12ths can be correlated to specific time rhythms. In fact, maybe the idea of rhythms and typologies are closely correlated. I don’t know. What i know is, astrology does not mean the starts command our lives. So much so that, well, the signs are not defined by the constellations that gave them their names. The signs are a 12-fold subdivision of the path the Sun makes in the sky, beginning with the equinox. So for example if you have ☽ in Aquarius most likely the constellation of Aquarius was not behind the moon when you were born. The constellations used to be somewhat aligned to the signs, but they are not any more, and now we call the zodiac that is aligned a special case, the “Sidereal Zodiac” which only some people still study…