Water signs

I have this idea (I might be wrong) about the water signs.

For me water contains memory. The only star or planet that the earth (us in a mundane way) affects is The Moon, but the relationship goes both ways. We affect The Moon with our gravity, and The Moon affect us back with tides etc.

It means that The Moon (the past) is the delieverer of our past karma, and also register new karma we create in this life and the future.

The reason for this is water. Water is the unconscious that you find in the three signs Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces, and it's this unconcious water that Aquarius pours over us to make us conscious - going into the air element as thoughts.

We say that the "water broke" before we give birth - just a sign that first came water.

I see the water signs having the following effect on us:

Cancer: Gives us nutrition. The emotions that comes from the moon.
Scorpio: Analyzes the emotions (psychology). Understands why things happens
Pisces: Adjust the emotions. Correct and develop them

If we go blind, these water signs can give us much trouble.

As a Leo I know personality, and Leo's find their liberation in Scorpio. It means that our personality/identity which is a Leo/Sun thing, can search in Scorpio to find out what's wrong after being nutrioned by Cancer (feeds the masses), and then later adjust to a better fit personality in Pisces.

This is a recycling circle, where the fish gives back nutrition to the water, that again brings the info back to The Moon (to store to a later life).

Does anyone understands what I mean?

Water

Your observations are typical of the vast amount of writings about the signs of the zodiac. The discussion, when applied to just general observations, is what those coming into astrological studies need to know. For me, as an astrologer with some degree of exposure to signs over the past decades, sign discussion is more helpful when linked to a specific chart of a person, mundane event, or nation. Leo may or may not find understanding through Scorpio depending upon the chart houses and planet distribution patterns.

In my case, Mars is in Leo in the 3rd house, Scorpio is in the 5th (but not on the cusp of the 5th) and holds no planets. Keeping to just Leo and Scorpio, and Mars, I experience Mars/Leo in several ways.
** I throw my self into learning with great energy, allowing me to establish/portray a level of authority and capability.
** Mars, among its many attributes, shows where we have a "presence" or cast a shadow. I use writing or speaking outlets in my career areas in creative ways.
** If Scorpio implies a detective-like seeking of understanding, then that would fit with the Mars/Leo curiosity/creativity attributes.

I recognize that there are many other chart factors that overlay these observations in my chart. So, my discussion of this narrow topic is limited in its usefulness to the whole subject of signs. Outside of this "narrowness of the issue", one needs to address the subject of just what a "sign influence" includes. Do signs apply just to the Sun, to the Moon, or all of the planets? Do outer planets which move slowly have any enduring influence on us as individuals or do they more strongly affect mundane areas such as nations, movements, mass events? How do we compare the strength of planet-aspect patterns that seem to override sign influences?

And, how do we deal with the Tropical zodiac versus the Sidereal zodiac. Does the Tropical zodiac and its cultural-based influences apply to a chart or question about a chart, or does the Sidereal zodiac and its personal/spiritual growth qualities apply? Or, would we characterize these two zodiacs differently?

Our problem with Astrology is that details involve the "whole" of the subject, much like a small piece of film from a holographic image still contains the "whole image" within its fragment. Have fun with this. Dave

Balance

Horoscopic Astrology originated with the Hellenistic Astrologers at the beginning of the first millennium CE (or a little before). They developed their ideas in a culture which was rich in philosophic ideas, possibly the richest time that there has ever been. In particular they were influenced by Plato and Aristotle, who both held (though in significantly different ways) to the view that the Cosmos was ordered and the best state of affairs was one of balance. Indeed Aristotle's doctrine of the Mean dominated philosophy and science for 1500 years or more and Plato, made use of the Delphic phrase 'Nothing in excess'.

This was an agrarian society and the agricultural cycle was their dominant frame of reference. Indeed the agricultural model is more dominant in Astrology than we recognise in our modern world but many of its ideas come from that cycle, rather than from psychology. .Fertilised seeds need Water to help them germinate, Earth to grow in, Heat to help them grow and cold to keep the moisture in place. An excess of heat destroys crops (as happened in the US this Summer) an excess of moisture also destroys crops (as happened in the UK this summer) too Dry and the drought kills the growth, too cold and the fruit does not grow. All four are needed and we should look for the balance that allows each one to contribute.

That approach was used for the influences shown in a horoscope. The ideal situation was a balanced one and unbalanced horoscopes called for some form of remedial action.

The early Astrological model of personality (then known as temperament) looked not at signs but the balance of the four key properties, Hot and Cold, Wet (more properly Moist) and Dry. Natal charts were assessed on the balance of these properties and we still refer to people as 'hot tempered' or a 'cold fish' or having a 'dry sense of humour' or even being just plain 'wet'

These four properties were also combined into temperamental characteristics - Melancholic (Cold and Dry), Choleric (Hot and Dry), Sanguine (Hot and Moist) and Phlegmatic (Cold and Moist). Again terms which are still used in everyday speech. The ideal temperament balanced the four properties to give a well balanced temperament.

Modern popular Astrology doesn't allow us to talk about being more or less 'Leo' or 'slightly Taurus', though Astrologers of today do try to give some sense of intensity. But the traditional approach did just that, someone could be more or less melancholic, or a mixture of Choleric and Sanguine in various degrees (or indeed any other combination of properties) What their particular combination was, was revealed by their charts and in deducing that combination planets, signs, and Ascendant could all contribute. As Dave says the meaning only becomes clear when we examine a particular chart.

The emphasis on signs in the way in which you use them is a very modern one. It's not something that would have been recognised even 150 years ago and was only in it's very early stages 100 years ago. However in the last 70 years it has become the dominant way of expressing Astrology. One of the side effects of this is, as Dave implies, a lack of balance concentrating on the general rather than the particular.

Signs on their own are not enough. They may exhibit similar properties but even signs in the same triplicity are not identical. Cancer is less 'wet' than Pisces - Cancer is the sign of the sea shore, Pisces is the sign of the ocean depths.

The Moon may be a cold and moist planet but remember that the Moon is exalted in Taurus, an Earth sign and indeed rules the Earth Triplicity by Night, when the Earth is cold (consequently the Moon is in Fall in Pisces, a water sign). The Moon's influence extends not just to water creatures and the seas but also to the land, where many mammals have biorhythms that are lunar in nature. We can't just look at the Moon as being solely watery. Yes it symbolises our instinctual behaviour but that feral instinct is not just or even mainly a 'watery' one.

On your specific point about Leo and Scorpio, I agree with Dave. It depends on the person (and of course their chart). For some these two may be highly significant, on the cusps of the Ascendant and MC, for others they may be 'lost', either intercepted (as in Dave's case) or on the cusp of less important houses such as the eighth or twelfth.

Generally all that can be said is that Leo is a hot and dry sign, Scorpio a cold and moist one. Scorpio squares Leo and so there is some tension in the relationship as well as the incompatible natures. But that is a tension which may go totally unnoticed if there are no planets in those signs. However if there are planets in these signs and they are in prominent positions in the chart things can be totally different. Then they will modify the planets to an extent and their angularity (or lack of it) and any mutual aspects may well indicate highly significant traits, events or circumstances, depending on the nature of the chart.

I am a big supporter and believer in the importance of the Sun sign and have proven myself it matters. Hoever, it does get affected by (mostly) the hard aspects the other planets make to the Sun. As an example, I'm a Scorpio but my Asc ruler is Saturn and it's in Leo while my Moon is on a throne and Mars (the Sun's ruler) is waterish as well and in the sign of the Moon. So, all this taken together is who I am, to a big extend, adding a couple more planets to the mix. My sun sign still rules the parade and I feel it but it will also depend on the strength of your Sun and so on. I do see Sun sign characteristics in people quite easily. But from there on, it's not enough.

P.S. I don't think Scorpio is about understanding, in the sense of thinking and analyzing. We feel things and that's the way we explore the world. Life is too short for analyzing, things need to be lived and experienced. Respectively, we get deep and we get hurt. And then again, and again.

To your PS Ronia:

I love the fear in Scorpio. As I've passed fear of death, I know now I'm Godfearing when it happens. It's supposed to make me think about what I'm doing - through emotional experience and reason - makes me avoid certain things.

Mmm... What's the Scorpio thing here? Avoiding is not for sure. Fear... we all fear something or someone but the difference is what we do with this fear - do we avoid it or do we take a leap in it even if it freezes our heart? The latter is Scorpio (all must be ecxperienced, all must be touched), the former is not, IMHO. On top of that, Scoprio rules death. It doesn't mean we are immunized against the fear of it but it does give us a bit of a different perspective and I've noticed that to be true as most of us meat death very early in our lives and, most often, not once but quite a few times. Pisces are not easy to scare either. They are so deep and so beyond... At least those I've known and know and it happens some of the most important people in my life have been and are Pisces. The deep waters are foreign to everyday emotions, fear among them, while Cancerians do fear, a lot. All water sign but different. Of course, I'm generalizing here based on Sun signs but still, these are things I've found pretty common.

Ronia said:

I am a big supporter and believer in the importance of the Sun sign

Click to expand...

It depends what we mean by 'Sun sign' here. If we mean simply the sign that the Sun is in, then, yes it is important. The Sun, along with the Moon, is the most important planet in our chart. What it does, where it is and it's condition affect us greatly. Dave I think, sees the Sun as a general indicator of 'wellbeing' our 'heart' in the figurative sense of what makes us tick and gives us the will to do things.

Taking my previous theme of balance, you will find two excellent considerations from a modern perspective. The first by Tracey Marks (The Art of Chart Interpretation), the second by Stephen Arroyo (Astrology, Psychology and the Four Elements). Both seek to look at the balance of elements in the chart and indeed talk about imbalances and how they manifest. Even though I no longer practice their style of Astrology, I would recommend these as essential reading to anyone practicing modern psychological Astrology and indeed to anyone interested in knowing more about Astrology. Marks scores the Sun and Moon as twice as important as the other planets, Ascendant and MC. Nevertheless the Sun's overall position is a score of 2 out of 14 (1 for each planet plus the Ascendant and MC, except the Sun and Moon which score two each).

Now she does consider angularity and aspects on top of that, so she's not implying that the Sun is only 1/7 of the personality but the point is that it is not all that matters.

On the other hand, if what we mean by 'Sun sign' is actually one of 12 personality types and those personality types depend solely on which sign the Sun was in when we were born, then I would argue strongly that that is simply nonsense. The trouble is that that view has been popularised by the Newspaper 'Your Stars' column and so has become the one thing about Astrology that everybody 'knows'. This type of Sun sign has become popular because the dates for the Sun's ingresses into each sign are known (often incorrectly) by the Newspaper's running these columns and the date guidelines are never changed from one year to another, even though the Sun's ingresses actually vary by a small(ish) amount from year to year (not to mention Dave's favourite topic of Precession, which shifts the dates by about one day over 70 year).

For the newspaper/periodical this form of Astrology is the only one possible, as it's impossible to maintain a database of reader's natal details and update it each time some one buys the Newspaper. The only other bit of information required by the newspaper/periodical is the current positions of transiting planets so that their 'house' position can be given (again almost totally wrongly for the various individuals reading the column)



Now you clearly show that this is not what you mean by 'Sun sign' as you go on to talk about aspects to the Sun from other planets, which modify its expression. But that is rarely known outside of the group of people who have picked up and read an introductory text, and most of those tend to perpetuate the 'myth' of the twelve personality types, by seeing the Ascendant, Moon and other planets as being some sort of variant of the 'Sun sign personality'


I agree it's difficult to move away from the language of 'Sun signs', but it's well worth the effort of exploring not just one, but all twelve signs, as we have all 12 in our chart and each of them is a background to an aspect of our life. It's that complexity which brings Astrology, both ancient and modern to a level which can model the variety of the world in which we exist.

Thank you all for your input. I really appreaciated it

Minderwiz said:

It depends what we mean by 'Sun sign' here. If we mean simply the sign that the Sun is in, then, yes it is important. The Sun, along with the Moon, is the most important planet in our chart. What it does, where it is and it's condition affect us greatly. Dave I think, sees the Sun as a general indicator of 'wellbeing' our 'heart' in the figurative sense of what makes us tick and gives us the will to do things.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant. I often think of a natal chart as a car and if it's a car, then the Sun is the engine and its condition and how it's connected and working with the other parts of the car affects our car greatly.