Why signs with conflicting traits don't aspect each other hard IG Cap and Aquarius?

I already know signs that square or oppose each other often have a lot of contradictory personality traits. For example Aquarius is friendly and openly social while Scorpio is secretive and a lone wolf, Cancer is homely and emotional while Aries is brash and aggressive, and so forth.

But I do wonder why some signs that actually have strong contradictions in personality traits and life philosophies aren't traditionally aspected hard towards each other.

For example Capricorn and Aquarius are OPPOSITE each others so many ways. Capricorn reveres traditions and worship those they see as authority figures. While Aquarius is a nonconformist individualist who frequently rebels against those in charge,often just for the hell of it. Capricorn is concerned about financial security while Aquarius revolves around intellectual superiority and often is ideological to the point of sheer stupidity and nonsense. Capricorn is patriotic while Aquarius is anti-country and anti-state (unless they embed into specific ideologies).

Another example is Aries and Pisces. Pisces is mellow and introverted while Aries is a brash braggart attention seeker. Pisces is so incredibly weak physically and sports are the last of their activities. In fact Pisces share sooooo much in common with Libra such as love for art and many of Pisces hobbies go into conflict with Aries's interests. Yet they don't traditionally square, oppose, or inconjunct.

Gemini is sneaky and two faced while Cancer is often sweet and loyal, respectful of authority figures. And so on.

So I cannot understand why there isn't an hard aspects for signs that actually contradict each other from a personality perspective. I mean I honestly think Aquarius would have a much harder time getting along with Capricorn than Taurus (a sign that it squares). Same thing with Aries and Pisces-in fact Pisces is inconjunct to Libra (an aspect some astrologers believe is actually harder than opposition)-but Libra shares so much in common with Pisces especially their hobbies I cannot understand why they traditionally aspect each other hard (inconjunction) while Pisces doesn't have any aspect with Aries.

Can any astrologer explain the logic behind this theory??

One explanation is that you are heavily relying on the modern rulers and quoting here some astrological cookbooks descriptions of the signs. Traditionally both Capricorn and Aquarius were ruled by Saturn. Mind you, I do use the modern rulers but I haven't found even one worthy description of the signs in modern astrology. I do develop my own system of keywords based on charts of people I do know personally so I can get my own impression of the outers at work in real life. For example, who says Uranus should signify rebellion and breaking the rules? Are we going with mythology? Then how about the three brothers: Zeus (Jupiter), Neptune (Poseidon) and Pluto (Hades)?

P.S. Can't you organize your questions in fewer threads? It's a bit hard to follow now.

Opposite signs don't necessarily conflict: remember the saying "opposites attract". For example, my father had a Taurus ascendant and my mother a Scorpio one. Both signs are fixed.

Adjacent signs have nothing in common: they belong to different triplicities and quadruplicities. In traditional astrology signs with no aspect between them are called inconjunct.

Barkey Foreman said:

I already know signs that square or oppose each other often have a lot of contradictory personality traits. For example Aquarius is friendly and openly social while Scorpio is secretive and a lone wolf, Cancer is homely and emotional while Aries is brash and aggressive, and so forth.

Click to expand...

Well up till Alan Leo the signs didn't have personality traits. The modern view is a conflation of sign, planet, and simplistic psychology. Signs that are square to one another share the same Mode but different gender and element. So Aries is a Cardinal Masculine Fire sign whereas Cancer is a Cardinal, Feminine Water sigh and Capricorn is a Cardinal Feminine Earth Sign. There is one point of contact, so they 'see' each other but there's more differences than similarities.

Barkey Foreman said:

But I do wonder why some signs that actually have strong contradictions in personality traits and life philosophies aren't traditionally aspected hard towards each other.

For example Capricorn and Aquarius are OPPOSITE each others so many ways. Capricorn reveres traditions and worship those they see as authority figures. While Aquarius is a nonconformist individualist who frequently rebels against those in charge,often just for the hell of it. Capricorn is concerned about financial security while Aquarius revolves around intellectual superiority and often is ideological to the point of sheer stupidity and nonsense. Capricorn is patriotic while Aquarius is anti-country and anti-state (unless they embed into specific ideologies).

Click to expand...

I've never met a sign with a life philosophy, they're inanimate concepts. The most they do is describe influences. As

Another example is Aries and Pisces. Pisces is mellow and introverted while Aries is a brash braggart attention seeker. Pisces is so incredibly weak physically and sports are the last of their activities. In fact Pisces share sooooo much in common with Libra such as love for art and many of Pisces hobbies go into conflict with Aries's interests. Yet they don't traditionally square, oppose, or inconjunct.

Gemini is sneaky and two faced while Cancer is often sweet and loyal, respectful of authority figures. And so on.

As David says adjacent signs are 'averse' or 'inconjunct'. Capricorn is a Feminine Cardinal Earth sign, Aquarius is a Masculine Fixed Air sign - there is no contact at all. They don't see each other. That's one of the fundamentals of the traditional theory of aspects. On the other hand signs which are in Opposition, such as Scorpio and Taurus share both gender and mode. The do see each other. Why two feminine or two masculine signs are in opposition is not fully understood but the explanation probably lies in different Greek theories of the elements being forced into one. As I understand it (and that is limited) Stoic philosophy opposed Fire with Earth. Aristotelean philosophy opposed Fire to Air. The Fire/Air opposition is what we have in the zodiac but the philosophy of the Astrology that lies at the heart of Hellenistic Astrology (and hence was largely passed on to the present version) is a Stoic one.

Barkey Foreman said:

So I cannot understand why there isn't an hard aspects for signs that actually contradict each other from a personality perspective. I mean I honestly think Aquarius would have a much harder time getting along with Capricorn than Taurus (a sign that it squares). Same thing with Aries and Pisces-in fact Pisces is inconjunct to Libra (an aspect some astrologers believe is actually harder than opposition)-but Libra shares so much in common with Pisces especially their hobbies I cannot understand why they traditionally aspect each other hard (inconjunction) while Pisces doesn't have any aspect with Aries.

Can any astrologer explain the logic behind this theory??

Click to expand...

Well does being Masculine contradict being Feminine? It's not the right word. Even saying that Masculine is the Opposite of feminine is rather dubious, because quite often Masculine and Feminine versions of the same species have far more in common with each other than they have with the same sex of other species. What we have iwith aversion is not opposites but something worse - completely different things that have nothing in common. The same holds for 'sixth house' relationships. the so called quincunx. It's not an aspect at all it's evidence of no contact or relationship. Planets that form a major aspect to each other share at least some characteristics in their context (the sign). Planets not in aspect have no such contact and so have no significant impact on each other.

Signs are very much secondary or qualifying factors, it's the planets that count - would you interpret Moon in Cancer square to Venus in Libra in exactly the same way as you would interpret Mars in Cancer square to Sun in Libra - I hope not.

Minderwiz said:

Well up till Alan Leo the signs didn't have personality traits. The modern view is a conflation of sign, planet, and simplistic psychology. Signs that are square to one another share the same Mode but different gender and element. So Aries is a Cardinal Masculine Fire sign whereas Cancer is a Cardinal, Feminine Water sigh and Capricorn is a Cardinal Feminine Earth Sign. There is one point of contact, so they 'see' each other but there's more differences than similarities.



I've never met a sign with a life philosophy, they're inanimate concepts. The most they do is describe influences. As

Another example is Aries and Pisces. Pisces is mellow and introverted while Aries is a brash braggart attention seeker. Pisces is so incredibly weak physically and sports are the last of their activities. In fact Pisces share sooooo much in common with Libra such as love for art and many of Pisces hobbies go into conflict with Aries's interests. Yet they don't traditionally square, oppose, or inconjunct.

Gemini is sneaky and two faced while Cancer is often sweet and loyal, respectful of authority figures. And so on.

As David says adjacent signs are 'averse' or 'inconjunct'. Capricorn is a Feminine Cardinal Earth sign, Aquarius is a Masculine Fixed Air sign - there is no contact at all. They don't see each other. That's one of the fundamentals of the traditional theory of aspects. On the other hand signs which are in Opposition, such as Scorpio and Taurus share both gender and mode. The do see each other. Why two feminine or two masculine signs are in opposition is not fully understood but the explanation probably lies in different Greek theories of the elements being forced into one. As I understand it (and that is limited) Stoic philosophy opposed Fire with Earth. Aristotelean philosophy opposed Fire to Air. The Fire/Air opposition is what we have in the zodiac but the philosophy of the Astrology that lies at the heart of Hellenistic Astrology (and hence was largely passed on to the present version) is a Stoic one.



Well does being Masculine contradict being Feminine? It's not the right word. Even saying that Masculine is the Opposite of feminine is rather dubious, because quite often Masculine and Feminine versions of the same species have far more in common with each other than they have with the same sex of other species. What we have iwith aversion is not opposites but something worse - completely different things that have nothing in common. The same holds for 'sixth house' relationships. the so called quincunx. It's not an aspect at all it's evidence of no contact or relationship. Planets that form a major aspect to each other share at least some characteristics in their context (the sign). Planets not in aspect have no such contact and so have no significant impact on each other.

Signs are very much secondary or qualifying factors, it's the planets that count - would you interpret Moon in Cancer square to Venus in Libra in exactly the same way as you would interpret Mars in Cancer square to Sun in Libra - I hope not.

Click to expand...

1) WOW-modern astrology states the reason for their struggle is that they are TOOOOO SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER-which when combined with elements, bring conflict. So traditional astrology believes the inverse is what causes conflicts?

2)So the signs before or after quincunx each other? In modern astrology, signs are inconjuct if they are nearby opposites. For example, Pisces is opposite of Virgo and thus is inconjunct to Libra and Leo. Since Sagittarius opposes Gemini, it quincunxes Taurus and Cancer. Unless the term "quincunx" is being misused in astrology as a synonym for inconjunction, so a sign quincunxes the previous and next one?



So say Aquarius would have a much more difficult time coping with Pisces and Capricorn than Leo since they are inconjunct according to traditional astrology? Would Aquarius have a harder time coping with Cancer and Virgo (which it quincunxes in modern astrology) than Pisces and Capricorn? I ask because in another forum one response I got for this thread is that because the previous and next signs represents a cycle and so say Aquarius woldn't struggle with Pisces and Capricorn despite differences due to just having exit Capricorn and now growing into the Pisces stage.

You also stated the term "aversion". Is this the same definition as the context inconjunct/quincunx is being used by you? Or is it a different term, one not used by modern astrology? Yous tated its harder than an opposition. Would its effect be the same as quincunx (since you stated averse signs have nothing in common) as this article states?


http://skywriter.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/heinous-hybrids—why-the-quincunx-is-no-minor-aspect/

Also quincunx/inconjunction is not an aspect? Most moderna strologers such as the one in the link consider them so.


3)I'm a bit confused by philosophy. So how exactly would Earth and Fire interact event though air and fire are opposites?

EDIT

Is the term semisextile synonymous for adjacent in astrology? Is this even an aspect in traditional astrology?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ep...ge&q=adjacent sign quincunx astrology&f=false

Link should help explain partially what I meant when I state a sign doesn't struggle with the ones that precede or descent it because both signs represents a stage the sign is going through. Previous sign represents previous life of the sign, following sign represents what sign it will grow into in this life time.

Q

Barkey Foreman said:

1) WOW-modern astrology states the reason for their struggle is that they are TOOOOO SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER-which when combined with elements, bring conflict. So traditional astrology believes the inverse is what causes conflicts?

Click to expand...

Traditional Astrology doesn't see a struggle at all. They just have nothing to do with each other. You have to see someone or something to struggle with it.

Barkey Foreman 2)So the signs before or after quincunx each other? In modern astrology said:

Qunincunx is a moder abberation. It is not an aspect. A Hellenisitic Astrologer would describe these signs (which you accurately identify) as being in 'aversion'. By medieval times the preferred term was 'inconjunct' but both terms signify the absences of an aspect.

Barkey Foreman said:

So say Aquarius would have a much more difficult time coping with Pisces and Capricorn than Leo since they are inconjunct according to traditional astrology? Would Aquarius have a harder time coping with Cancer and Virgo (which it quincunxes in modern astrology) than Pisces and Capricorn? I ask because in another forum one response I got for this thread is that because the previous and next signs represents a cycle and so say Aquarius woldn't struggle with Pisces and Capricorn despite differences due to just having exit Capricorn and now growing into the Pisces stage.

Click to expand...

You miss out the important thing here - the planet(s). Aquarius and Capricorn untenanted are of little relevance in them selves (though their rulers are relevant). An 'empty' Aquarius doesn't have any difficulty coping with an 'empty' Capricorn, in the same way that two empty houses next door to each other in a street don't have coping issues - indeed from the context you realise that coping is totally irrelevant to the situation. Stick a planet in each of those signs and they are averse to each other. They don't recognise each other or co-operate in any way. They lead separate lives (assuming no other contacts).

Barkey Foreman said:

You also stated the term "aversion". Is this the same definition as the context inconjunct/quincunx is being used by you? Or is it a different term, one not used by modern astrology? Yous tated its harder than an opposition. Would its effect be the same as quincunx (since you stated averse signs have nothing in common) as this article states?


http://skywriter.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/heinous-hybrids—why-the-quincunx-is-no-minor-aspect/

Also quincunx/inconjunction is not an aspect? Most moderna strologers such as the one in the link consider them so.

Click to expand...

Aversion=Inconjunct.

Most modern astrologers are plain wrong. The don't understand aspect theory. They believe it's an aspect because the lack of intereaction betwen the two planets may have significant consequences for the native. Yes the absence of contact may indeed have significant consequences. It's an absence of contact not an absence of effect. Aspects require contact.

Barkey Foreman said:

3)I'm a bit confused by philosophy. So how exactly would Earth and Fire interact event though air and fire are opposites?

Click to expand...

My point was that two different philosophies were in existance when Horoscopic Astrology was invented. This leads to occasional confusion in element relationships. Air and Fire are generally seen as being more akin than opposed. Yet the sign arrangements puts them in opposition, as well as in sextile.

Click to expand...

Minderwiz said:

Qunincunx is a modern aberration.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The "minor aspects" were introduced by Kepler on purely theoretical grounds and he doesn't seem to have done any real testing; when a correspondent asked him for evidence, he couldn't provide any. In the 1970's Dean and Moore worked quite independently on unaspected planets and got the same results. One of these was that minor aspects do not prevent a planet being unaspected. Personally, I have occasionally used harmonic charts in which minor aspects may be transformed into majors, but I gave up using minors on their own years ago.