Triple Virgo

Sun signs do create the most lively discussions. You see, not everyone believes in astrology and many of the populace think it superstitious, and competent astrologers are the biggest disclaimers of Sun signs out there. What you must get, however, is that "Sun signs" is simply a lubricant for conversation. You could start a Sun sign chit-chat anywhere, on the metro, a taxi stand, a cafe, and with anyone who knows "mainstream" astrology (basically 99% of the population), start a joke about that uptight Virgo employee at level 25.

Of course the intelligent ones here already know more makes a person than simply his or her Sun sign and that the human personality is a complex thing requiring a natal chart to dissect. But, as I've said, Sun signs is a lubricant for conversation. We do (or rather I do) revere astrological knowledge, honest!

Not so Private reply to Dadsnook2000 and others

I think the point we are trying to make is that if you are going to get anywhere with Astrology you need to lay aside the Sun sign approach and indeed the view that a stelium of planets in a particular sign emphasises the characteristics of that sign. It does not - what it does do is modify in various, and probably quite different ways the way in which the planets manifest their essential natures. Indeed Signs have no characteristics in this sense!!! If you are ice skating across a frozen lake and the ice begins to melt you will find it difficult to make progress but the character of the ice is only important for its affect on the skates. In relation to a boat trying to cross the same lake the melting ice has quite a different effect on progress. Same ice but different modes of transport. Saturn does well in Libra but the Sun does not - same sign but different planets.

Dave mentions the various techniques which actually make Astrology worthwhile - if all we did was study natal charts then it would not have the wonder and brilliance that it actually does have. One thing that I find quite amazing is the obscession with the secondary motion of the planets (their progress through the signs) which is coupled with a major ignorance of their primary motion - their dirunal cycle of rising, culminating, setting and anticulminating. It was this primary motion that gave rise to Astrology in the first place, and it is still the most important motion. Now that is not to say that secondary motion is irrelevant - it is and it is important but it is not the be all and end all.

le.jour.obscucit said:

I agree with Bernice's, Minderwiz's, and your post. And when reading Professor X's post, I indeed felt like saying "why are you only judging me by my Sun sign?" but felt it futile, as this character knows what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

Your comments were good and appropriate, any error in your judgement lies in the last phrase. There is nothing wrong with challenging anyone to explain or justify their views providing you do it courteously (which you did) - it's one of the main ways we learn by reacting to others views. I think Bee, Dave and myself simply felt that the focus on 'triple virgo' or 'triple anything' represents only an early step in the development of Astrological understanding and we were trying to push the discussion in a more productive direction for those wishing to go beyond a bare knowledge of Sun signs. We all have to start from somewhere, and usually the Sun sign column is that starting point.

As Kibeth points out the Sun sign approach has become the most popularly known approach and can start many interesting discussions. Most people know the eight notes of the musical scale but if we simply discussed Beethoven's Ninth in terms of those eight notes we would be unable to discuss our emotional reactions to the music (either favourable or unfavourable), The analogy is not perfect, analogies rarely are but I hope it helps make the point that the beauty of Astrology requires some more steps.

I think one of the main functions of this part of the forum is to make people aware of what Astrology has to offer. Most of the people who come here are aware of their Sun signs and little more BUT they DO want to know more and develop their understanding - if not to the level of practicing Astrologers, at least to have a good knowledge of what Astrology is about and can do. I think all the regular contributors show that wish to learn more.

It is difficult to put aside the Sun Sign vocabulary, especially when it is the only one that you have. I'm often reminded of the statement used by Stephen Arroyo -

planets are the actors....the signs are the roles ...and the houses are the places where the actors perform

I think he perhaps overemphasises the signs here but the meaning is clear - it's the planets that are the most important.

Minderwiz said:

Professor X, it might help the discussion if you posted your natal details, then we can make an assessment of just how Mercurial you are (or are not). As several posters have pointed out there's more to a chart than the Ascendant, Sun and Moon (though these are obviously important. The process might also enable you to get a better insight into the workings of Astrology.

Click to expand...

Will do. I will post some aspects of my chart when I get a chance.
I dont happen to have it with me now.

Why not give us your data, as Minderwiz suggested?

ncefafn said:

Why not give us your data, as Minderwiz suggested?

Click to expand...

You mean my actual birth time and birthplace info?

Professor X said:

You mean my actual birth time and birthplace info?

Click to expand...

Why not?

*info removed*

Thanks, I'll get back to you shortly

Minderwiz said:

Thanks, I'll get back to you shortly

Click to expand...

Okay. I guess I can take the info down now.

Description of the chart.

As I follow a traditional approach, I won't be referring to the two outer planets, Uranus and Neptune, nor to the dwarf planet, Pluto. Of course others may wish to comment on those placements and I'll give the positions of them if anyone is interested.

A brief description of the chart, first, so that readers can get a 'picture'. As we know the Ascendant is in Virgo at just over 21 degrees. The Sun is at 12 degrees and The Moon at nearly 8 degrees. So neither luminary is conjunct the Ascendant and both lie in the twelfth House. The Moon is in the very last stage of its fourth quarter and approaching the New Moon. Neither luminary has much essential dignity, the Moon is peregrine (no dignity) and the Sun only has a mutual reception by triplicity with Venus (also in the twelfth but in Leo). I'm never sure about the practice of some classical Astrologers of using mutual reception to boost 'weak' planets. Both the Sun and Venus (28 degrees Leo) would be peregrine if it were not for the Sun ruling the Fire triplicity by day and Venus ruling the Earth triplicity by Day (this is a Day birth with the Sun above the horizon). I think it's best to conclude that neither Sun, Moon or Venus have any real essential dignity.

Mercury is at nearer to 8 degrees Libra than 7 degrees. Mercury too is peregrine but it is placed in the first House (though not of the same sign as the Ascendant).

Mars is at 12 degrees Gemini (and hence square to the Sun and Moon). Again it's essential dignity is not great, it has dignity being in its own 'Face' (decan) and has mutual reception by Terms with Jupiter. Mars is in the ninth House, just under 8 degrees from the MC.

Jupiter is at 24 degrees Aries, in the eighth House. Jupiter's only essential dignity comes from its mutual reception with Mars, otherwise it would be peregrine. Saturn is at just under 29 degrees of Cancer in the eleventh. Saturn is in detriment in Cancer. The North Node is at 25 degrees Scorpio.

In terms of accidental dignity Sun, Moon and Venus are not well placed in the twelfth, nor is Venus in the eighth. Mercury gains dignity in the first. Venus and Jupiter are retrograde, all the others are direct. The Sun and Moon are aflicted by the malific, Mars but of these only the square to the Sun is partile. The Moon is combust.

Looking at Mercury in particular, it is swift in motion and is in the vespertine stage (occidental or setting after the Sun). It is nearing it's greatest elongation from the Sun when it will begin to slow down and move towards its Station Retrograde.There's some debate as to how if at all Mercury's phase relationship exhibits strength or weakness. Lilly would treat this position as adding some strength, whereas others treat it as a debility. Either way it's unlikely to affect the chart much but interestingly Rudhyar sees this Mercury as a factor tending to conservative and deliberate thought processes (what a traditional Astrologer would characterise as Melancholic). Mercury is by nature changeable but there are traditional Astrologers who would also see occidental Mercury as adding an element of melancholy, whereas oriental Mercury is Sanguine (more Airey).

Clearly other factors need to be taken into account before a final judgement can be made.

OK, that's the description of the Chart, the next step is to assess temperament.