PDA

View Full Version : February 18 - Aquarius or Pisces?


GoddessArtemis
19-02-2010, 04:45
I'm seeing posts all over the internet wishing a welcome to Pisces. On Feb. 18.

Far as I know, we're in the last day of Aquarius (2/18). A really good friend of mine is born today and he's definitely an Aquarius. I thought Pisces began on Feb. 19...some even say Feb. 20, but what it with the Feb. 18th=Pisces thing?

GA

Minderwiz
19-02-2010, 06:35
The Sun entered Pisces at 18:35:46 GMT today.

Don't take quoted dates too seriously, there is a variation from year to year and it's quite possible for this variation to be up to about a day between the earliest and latest ingresses. Next year (2011) it will be 19th Feb at 03:10 GMT, in 2012 19th at 09:02 GMT and in 2013 it will be18th Feb at 14:46. Even on those three years there's a range of just over 18 hours.

I also made the mistake of taking quoted dates in my youth, when I believed I was a Sun Scorpio because all the papers quoted 23rd October as the start date. I was born on the 24th but 6 hours before the Sun actually entered Scorpio.

I'm sure there are people out there who were born at the same time on the 24th October but in different years who are definitely Sun Scorpios. Similarly your friend can quite easily be a Sun Aquarius even though if he had been born today after 18:36 GMT he would have been Sun Pisces. Also there are, of course, many people born today who will be Sun Aquarius.

GoddessArtemis
19-02-2010, 07:00
The Sun entered Pisces at 18:35:46 GMT today.

Don't take quoted dates too seriously, there is a variation from year to year and it's quite possible for this variation to be up to about a day between the earliest and latest ingresses. Next year (2011) it will be 19th Feb at 03:10 GMT, in 2012 19th at 09:02 GMT and in 2013 it will be18th Feb at 14:46. Even on those three years there's a range of just over 18 hours.

I also made the mistake of taking quoted dates in my youth, when I believed I was a Sun Scorpio because all the papers quoted 23rd October as the start date. I was born on the 24th but 6 hours before the Sun actually entered Scorpio.

I'm sure there are people out there who were born at the same time on the 24th October but in different years who are definitely Sun Scorpios. Similarly your friend can quite easily be a Sun Aquarius even though if he had been born today after 18:36 GMT he would have been Sun Pisces. Also there are, of course, many people born today who will be Sun Aquarius.One of my really good friends is born on Oct. 24th and she's a Scorpio through and through. Believe me. :D

So what happens to people born on Feb. 18...are they Aquarius one year, Pisces next? Honestly, this friend of mine born on Feb. 18th is very Aquarian in his trait(s), not very much a Pisces at all. He was born in the a.m. EST, so maybe that's why he's still retaining the water-bearer's qualities. Still, it gets confusing.

GA

t.town.troy
19-02-2010, 07:23
Would the answer to the question be on a "cusp"?
I think that is a week before and after the "line" between signs.
On a cusp, people tend to have traits from both?

oh, and then there is the ascendant...

Minderwiz
19-02-2010, 08:39
So what happens to people born on Feb. 18...are they Aquarius one year, Pisces next? Honestly, this friend of mine born on Feb. 18th is very Aquarian in his trait(s), not very much a Pisces at all. He was born in the a.m. EST, so maybe that's why he's still retaining the water-bearer's qualities. Still, it gets confusing.

GA

Well to start with the easy bits;

If the Sun is in Aquarius when he was born he's a Sun Aquarius birth full stop. The time of the Pisces ingress for future years has no effect on that, though it clearly will have an effect on the timing of his solar return (which will always be aat the same degree of Aries that it was when he was born)

The less easy bits:

You assume that his character is entirely deternined by his Sun sign. It is not. That's one of the things Dave and I are trying to get across - other planetary placements and the Ascendant and MC can more than outweigh the Sun in any particular chart. So he could have been born Sun Pisces, but the rest make him a Sanguine/melancholic type

Also as we grow old our Sun moves by secondary progression through the zodiac, arguably adding layers onto it's natal characteristics. At age 30 your Sun will have moved by progression 30 degrees on (approx) so if you were born at, say 15 degrees Cancer, your progressed Sun will be around 15 degrees Leo. Now that's an arguable stance and it's not one that I heavily subscribe to at all but you will find a lot lf Astrologers who will look at the progressed planets for a character reading for an adult. It appeals to modern approaches because it embodies the modern ideas of progress and change - personal development is the buzz phrase.

t.town.troy,

Quite a few astrologers would nod in agreement with that (though where the line is placed is arguable). There are others who would say that even at 29 degres 59.9 minutes of Aquarius it is still Aquarius and not in any way Pisces, till it reaches 0 degrees exactly of Pisces.

Personally I don't think there's much point in that argument because in the last three or four degrees of a sign Mercury is either in the same sign or the next one. It's likely that this also applies to Venus (though it could be two signs behind (less likeky or two signs in front (more likely). So a person with Sun at 29 degrees Aquarius could have Mercury and Venus in Pisces, or could have them in Aquarius. This could produce two different character traits The other placements are of course important but I'm trying to show that the Sun is not the be all and end all fo Astrology.

When Dave has finished wth Miss Piggy (or vice versa) perhaps we could try some Astrology WITHOUT the Sun, just to make us think about those other pesky planets.

GoddessArtemis
19-02-2010, 08:47
Well to start with the easy bits;

If the Sun is in Aquarius when he was born he's a Sun Aquarius birth full stop. The time of the Pisces ingress for future years has no effect on that, though it clearly will have an effect on the timing of his solar return (which will always be aat the same degree of Aries that it was when he was born)

The less easy bits:

You assume that his character is entirely deternined by his Sun sign. It is not. That's one of the things Dave and I are trying to get across - other planetary placements and the Ascendant and MC can more than outweigh the Sun in any particular chart. So he could have been born Sun Pisces, but the rest make him a Sanguine/melancholic type

Also as we grow old our Sun moves by secondary progression through the zodiac, arguably adding layers onto it's natal characteristics. At age 30 your Sun will have moved by progression 30 degrees on (approx) so if you were born at, say 15 degrees Cancer, your progressed Sun will be around 15 degrees Leo. Now that's an arguable stance and it's not one that I heavily subscribe to at all but you will find a lot lf Astrologers who will look at the progressed planets for a character reading for an adult. It appeals to modern approaches because it embodies the modern ideas of progress and change - personal development is the buzz phrase.No, I don't base his entire character on his Sun sign. He has Gemini rising and Libra moon (or vice versa, I forget which). But if one were to look at his personality, I'd say he's quintessentially Aquarian, which is helped along by his moon/ascendant (air elements all over the place). Of course, if one subscribes to chart progressions for adults (I go back/forth on this), one could say he's more of a Pisces...but honestly, he's not. It's almost like he's stuck in his Sun sign (Aquarius) since day 1 and still remains the same. For someone with so much air sign in his chart, he's quite UN-changeable. lol.

But I see your point. I'm guessing the year he was born on Feb. 18 was indeed in Aquarius, so it helps to know that it shouldn't affect where the Sun enters Pisces today (with regards to my friend, anyway). It did take me off guard though to see two people referencing today as "Welcome Pisces". I'm like, wait a minute, we're not there yet!

But even personally speaking, I've always considered anyone born on the 18th of Feb. an Aquarius (I believe Vanna White and John Travolta being two I can think of). After that, yea...we move into my sign. :)

GA

t.town.troy
19-02-2010, 08:50
Oh, and don't forget sidereal astrology... just to put another monkey-wrench in the way we "see" the stars. ;)