MareSaturni
Forgive the strange topic title, I'll explain myself.
So, I have been reading every decent book on astrology that I can get my hands on. I'm trying to filter a bit the overly mystical books, so I can have certain objectivity in my studies, and I am not reading book on topics that are too advanced as to not twist my brain into a knot right from the start.
As I said in another post, some of the most popular authors here during the 80s and 90s (and thus the ones that had more books available here) were Liz Greene, Linda Goodman, Dane Rudhyar and others who wrote from a very psychological point of view.
So... I am trying to balance this highly psychological view with the other parts of the chart, and finding it very hard to do. The reason is that... it seems there's just 'too much' about the sun signs. Too much information.
It's difficult to explain. Let me give an example, I was reading a book by Liz Greene in which she was describing the four elements and how they relate to the 12 signs. She began describing the fire signs, their usually fiery characteristics of being energetic, aggressive, lovers of fantasy, etc etc. At one point, she begins talking about the fact that fire signs tend to have sexual problems because they never adjust well to living within a 'physical body'. Well, that struck me as strange for two reasons: first, as far as I know all humans have no option but living into a physical body... you may dislike your appearance, but feeling maladjusted into your 'physical body' would mean that at some point you have lived out of it, which is an idea I don't think it very practical to work with.
Unless we are talking about a more objective sexual condition (like a person who feels he's a man living inside a woman's body). But that's not what Liz Greene was talking about in her book.
Second... can really the sign alone (or the sun sign element alone) determine so much about one's sexuality? And work? And relationships? And way of behaving? Thinking? Acting? Appearance? Etc.
It seems there's just so much about the sign that all planets and angles in a chart have no reason to be - all could be explained by your sun sign alone. Yet I know it's not true. But I'm reaching a point in which I don't know anymore what the 12 signs are about in the first place - I know they have an importance, but in the books they have so much importance they practically rule the chart.
And when I come across a chart in which a planetary configuration contradicts a sun sign characteristic, I do not know which one has more relevance. I am having a difficult time determining what the 12 signs are and what they are not. In most of books they seem to rule everything, while the planets/houses give 'extra details'.
I am sorry if the topic is confusing, please let me know if I have not made myself understood. I don't want to keep the signs out of my practice, but I want to find out what is their function in a chart aside from the usual all-embracing archetypes explained in the books I have.
Thank you very very much!
So, I have been reading every decent book on astrology that I can get my hands on. I'm trying to filter a bit the overly mystical books, so I can have certain objectivity in my studies, and I am not reading book on topics that are too advanced as to not twist my brain into a knot right from the start.
As I said in another post, some of the most popular authors here during the 80s and 90s (and thus the ones that had more books available here) were Liz Greene, Linda Goodman, Dane Rudhyar and others who wrote from a very psychological point of view.
So... I am trying to balance this highly psychological view with the other parts of the chart, and finding it very hard to do. The reason is that... it seems there's just 'too much' about the sun signs. Too much information.
It's difficult to explain. Let me give an example, I was reading a book by Liz Greene in which she was describing the four elements and how they relate to the 12 signs. She began describing the fire signs, their usually fiery characteristics of being energetic, aggressive, lovers of fantasy, etc etc. At one point, she begins talking about the fact that fire signs tend to have sexual problems because they never adjust well to living within a 'physical body'. Well, that struck me as strange for two reasons: first, as far as I know all humans have no option but living into a physical body... you may dislike your appearance, but feeling maladjusted into your 'physical body' would mean that at some point you have lived out of it, which is an idea I don't think it very practical to work with.
Unless we are talking about a more objective sexual condition (like a person who feels he's a man living inside a woman's body). But that's not what Liz Greene was talking about in her book.
Second... can really the sign alone (or the sun sign element alone) determine so much about one's sexuality? And work? And relationships? And way of behaving? Thinking? Acting? Appearance? Etc.
It seems there's just so much about the sign that all planets and angles in a chart have no reason to be - all could be explained by your sun sign alone. Yet I know it's not true. But I'm reaching a point in which I don't know anymore what the 12 signs are about in the first place - I know they have an importance, but in the books they have so much importance they practically rule the chart.
And when I come across a chart in which a planetary configuration contradicts a sun sign characteristic, I do not know which one has more relevance. I am having a difficult time determining what the 12 signs are and what they are not. In most of books they seem to rule everything, while the planets/houses give 'extra details'.
I am sorry if the topic is confusing, please let me know if I have not made myself understood. I don't want to keep the signs out of my practice, but I want to find out what is their function in a chart aside from the usual all-embracing archetypes explained in the books I have.
Thank you very very much!