maestrojay
I am someone born on the Virgo-Libra cusp (September 21).I know Virgos are generally compatibile with Taurus/Capricorns, but being on the Libra cusp as far as friendships go would I lean more towards the Gemini/Aquarius?
Cusp friendship compatibilities?
dadsnook2000
It is hard to say . . .
It is difficult to answer your question. The Sun, on the date of Sept. 21st, doesn't mean that it is on or very close to the cusp of Virgo-Libra. The Autumnal Equinox can come earlier or later in the calendar year on any particular year. Given that you could be born at the very start or very end of that date, and given that the Virgo-Libra crossing of the Sun could be a day or more later, you might be up to 3 degrees away from the cusp of those two signs.
Next, your chart as a whole may shift you more to being Mercury oriented or Venus oriented in some ways, giving you an affinity of some sort to one sign versus the other. Or, there may be other chart factors which diminish the relevance of either or both of these signs and rulers while shifting your chart focus to something quite different.
One would have to look at the chart as a whole to see if the Virgo-Libra cusp question was relevant. If you decide to pursue the question please don't post a listing of planet positions. Just post the chart data so those who are interested in helping to answer this question can do their own chart creation. Dave
It is difficult to answer your question. The Sun, on the date of Sept. 21st, doesn't mean that it is on or very close to the cusp of Virgo-Libra. The Autumnal Equinox can come earlier or later in the calendar year on any particular year. Given that you could be born at the very start or very end of that date, and given that the Virgo-Libra crossing of the Sun could be a day or more later, you might be up to 3 degrees away from the cusp of those two signs.
Next, your chart as a whole may shift you more to being Mercury oriented or Venus oriented in some ways, giving you an affinity of some sort to one sign versus the other. Or, there may be other chart factors which diminish the relevance of either or both of these signs and rulers while shifting your chart focus to something quite different.
One would have to look at the chart as a whole to see if the Virgo-Libra cusp question was relevant. If you decide to pursue the question please don't post a listing of planet positions. Just post the chart data so those who are interested in helping to answer this question can do their own chart creation. Dave
maestrojay
Is this enough data or would more be needed, haven't really delved into charts etc.
7:22 pm
September 21 1985
Rome GA, 30162
7:22 pm
September 21 1985
Rome GA, 30162
dadsnook2000
Not so close
Your Sun is at 28:59 Virgo, Mercury is at 28:20 Virgo. Both are square Neptune in the 8th and Pallas in the 2nd. Virgo is on the cusp of the 6th house (holding Sun, Mercury) using the Placidus House system, but Libra is fully contained within the 6th house as Scorpio is on the Descendant.
You might choose to look at this either way but Virgo is where the Sun is. Of course, I don't use signs (I'm in a minority) so I won't try to convince you one way or the other. Dave
Your Sun is at 28:59 Virgo, Mercury is at 28:20 Virgo. Both are square Neptune in the 8th and Pallas in the 2nd. Virgo is on the cusp of the 6th house (holding Sun, Mercury) using the Placidus House system, but Libra is fully contained within the 6th house as Scorpio is on the Descendant.
You might choose to look at this either way but Virgo is where the Sun is. Of course, I don't use signs (I'm in a minority) so I won't try to convince you one way or the other. Dave
maestrojay
I know less than most about astrology in general. I just know in most places my birthday would be considered on the virgo/libra cusp.Was just curious if this would have an impact one way or the other on social compatibilities.
Minderwiz
I realise that it appears that Dave had dodged your question, but he is right to draw attention to a variety of factors that need to be considered. Even the concept of 'on the cusp' is not universally recognised in Astrology. Many Astrologers would simply say you are a Sun sign Virgo, period. The term has now entered the realm of public acceptance, though - hence your statement that most places would consider you on the cusp.
Relationships depend on far more than Sun sign (even if you accept the modern sign meanings). 'You' are not just your Sun sign - your Ascendant (Pisces) and your Moon sign (Capricorn) are at least, if not more, as important - together with their rulers, Jupiter and Saturn - in your character and temperament.
Within your chart, Mercury as the ruler of your seventh house, has a major role to play in relationships, as do planets in your seventh house. Now in your case both Mercury and the Sun are there, so your Sun does have a role to play in relationships, but not because of it's intrinsic nature but because it is placed in your house of relationships.
At it's simplest - you will get on with Mercury/Sun dominated people, or at least these are the people that you will be attracted to. At a more complex level, it would depend on your temperament and theirs. Now your temperament is well balanced, so really you can get on with most people quite well, it they are well balanced too, then you will share a diversity of interests.
If you're looking for romance rather than simple 'friendship' then It's likely that someone who is 'Earthy' (Moon in Capricorn) or 'Fiery' (Venus in Leo) will appeal, especially as those are the larger two components of your temperament (Melancholic and Choleric, respectively). But again that's a simplistic generalisation - more analysis would normally be required.
I also share Dave's unwillingness to use modern sign meanings - they're an invention of the recent past (turn of the twentieth century) and the focus on the Sun is largely misleading. The Sun does not represent 'you' (except by accident) - your Ascendant is the most important component of 'you'.
dadsnook2000
Signs
I should, perhaps, offer a more substantive comment on my view of signs.
Signs can be said to be associated with the Sun's declination cycle. Declination relates to the Sun's elevation at local noon each day. The height of the noon Sun is determined by the tilt of the Earth's poles as the Earth moves about the Sun in its annual orbit. We see this declination factor as the Earth's seasons.
We choose to view this cycle through 12 segments which we call "signs." We can point to past definitions of star patterns or constellations, or to long-ago practices of determining "sign" boundaries mathematically, or the variety of zodiac starting points, etc. I'm not so much interested in which of those views is "best." I am interested in considering the view of the declination cycle or "signs" being ONLY APPLICABLE to the Sun.
Signs are a Earth-Sun thing. The fact that the planets generally follow (more or less) paths lying in the Earth-Sun orbital plane is some what beside the point as that seems to be a factor of local space gravitational factors and cyclic interactions between the various moving bodies of the solar system.
The signs, as I see them, may be associated strongly with the Sun and the astrological chart angles --- those angles representing time and location on Earth relative to where the Sun is placed due to daily rotational factors which we call "houses."
So, my thoughts are that the Sun, MC and Ascendant can be "sign sensitive." This leads us to the next question, "What is a sign?" Minderwiz uses a system and terms common to the traditional astrology school of practice. I like the Vedic or Joytish approach of seeing and limiting sign descriptions and influences to the C-F-M and F-E-A-W designations, also known as "twelveness." As an example, Venus in Leo would merely be seen as ones actions and attitudes as being sensual, acquisitive and softly inclusive and smoothing (planet meanings) in a environment of forewardness and presence (fire), persistence and assuredness (fixed). Thats it. No pages and pages of commentary trying to define in detail how these traits might be extended and incorporated in a typical chart. There is no "typical" chart. Every chart is unique. The detail that is sought by some to be defined within planetary sign meanings can be found in an integrated understanding of planetary interactions within the angualr and house framework.
Most of the above is common to both myself and Minderwiz even though we each take very different approaches to astrology. What is very different is that I don't use rulerships and other related associations. How could I if I don't see the planets as participating in the factors which define the Earth-Sun relationship through declination. As I see it, Signs are for the Sun. I choose to not view the planets through the sign-lens of the Sun, but only positionally relative to the Sun and positionally relative to the Earth's rotational (house) definitions.
The Moon is another thing. It is our Moon and is not part of the other solar system bodies in certain ways. Yet, the Moon interferes with the Earth-Sun relationship due to its orbit about us and nodal-eclipse factors. Do we take this highly influential body (the Moon) and place it within the "sign" environment? Or, do we use its own orbital characteristics which defines its own zodiac, the Draconic zodiac. Do the Draconic signs have the same, similar or different meanings relative to the Sun's signs? I have no position, at this time, on these questions.
This will probably be a cause for list discussion. I will attempt to answer any questions that arise. Dave
I should, perhaps, offer a more substantive comment on my view of signs.
Signs can be said to be associated with the Sun's declination cycle. Declination relates to the Sun's elevation at local noon each day. The height of the noon Sun is determined by the tilt of the Earth's poles as the Earth moves about the Sun in its annual orbit. We see this declination factor as the Earth's seasons.
We choose to view this cycle through 12 segments which we call "signs." We can point to past definitions of star patterns or constellations, or to long-ago practices of determining "sign" boundaries mathematically, or the variety of zodiac starting points, etc. I'm not so much interested in which of those views is "best." I am interested in considering the view of the declination cycle or "signs" being ONLY APPLICABLE to the Sun.
Signs are a Earth-Sun thing. The fact that the planets generally follow (more or less) paths lying in the Earth-Sun orbital plane is some what beside the point as that seems to be a factor of local space gravitational factors and cyclic interactions between the various moving bodies of the solar system.
The signs, as I see them, may be associated strongly with the Sun and the astrological chart angles --- those angles representing time and location on Earth relative to where the Sun is placed due to daily rotational factors which we call "houses."
So, my thoughts are that the Sun, MC and Ascendant can be "sign sensitive." This leads us to the next question, "What is a sign?" Minderwiz uses a system and terms common to the traditional astrology school of practice. I like the Vedic or Joytish approach of seeing and limiting sign descriptions and influences to the C-F-M and F-E-A-W designations, also known as "twelveness." As an example, Venus in Leo would merely be seen as ones actions and attitudes as being sensual, acquisitive and softly inclusive and smoothing (planet meanings) in a environment of forewardness and presence (fire), persistence and assuredness (fixed). Thats it. No pages and pages of commentary trying to define in detail how these traits might be extended and incorporated in a typical chart. There is no "typical" chart. Every chart is unique. The detail that is sought by some to be defined within planetary sign meanings can be found in an integrated understanding of planetary interactions within the angualr and house framework.
Most of the above is common to both myself and Minderwiz even though we each take very different approaches to astrology. What is very different is that I don't use rulerships and other related associations. How could I if I don't see the planets as participating in the factors which define the Earth-Sun relationship through declination. As I see it, Signs are for the Sun. I choose to not view the planets through the sign-lens of the Sun, but only positionally relative to the Sun and positionally relative to the Earth's rotational (house) definitions.
The Moon is another thing. It is our Moon and is not part of the other solar system bodies in certain ways. Yet, the Moon interferes with the Earth-Sun relationship due to its orbit about us and nodal-eclipse factors. Do we take this highly influential body (the Moon) and place it within the "sign" environment? Or, do we use its own orbital characteristics which defines its own zodiac, the Draconic zodiac. Do the Draconic signs have the same, similar or different meanings relative to the Sun's signs? I have no position, at this time, on these questions.
This will probably be a cause for list discussion. I will attempt to answer any questions that arise. Dave
maestrojay
I wasn't saying or acquising any aspect of the question being dodged.I was saying that I am new to Astrology in general, and I didn't take into account those factors that he mentioned when I initially asked the question.
Most horoscopes in papers, and things along the line take purely the signs into account "if you are sign a you will be compatibile with sign b".Which is what led my question to be like that as I know nothing about astrology.As most of those same places would say my birthday while being a Virgo is on the cusp.
Minderwiz
Yes-ish
The signs originated out of the process of tracking the Sun - and I'm interested to note that Dave sees them as seasonal in nature. However, whether the planets association with them is pure accident, is the contentious issue. I would argue that the Sun's very nature associates the planets with the signs, as it's the Sun's gravitational pull that puts the planets where they are. Clearly the planets also have a relationship to the Sun, through their phases, as seen from Earth - and Astrology is fundamentally geocentric. It's reasonably clear historically that the zodiac was used to track the planets as well as the Sun. Now there is no dispute between Dave and I over whether the Sun (and Moon) are the pre-eminent bodies, they are. However the way that the Sun and Moon mediate their power/inflluence through the planets is open to discussion. Indeed how directly the Sun influences humanity and how far it mediates indirectly through the planets (or they influence the Sun) is perhaps something that cannot be disentangled - though we can take different views on that.
Dadsnook2000 said:
Well, associated with in a loose sense, not a causal one. The signs are human constructs. As indeed are the houses, even the angles depend on human constructs - they are mathematical concepts, or at least depend on mathematics for their definition.
I don't think that we really disagree on that, though you would insist that there's more objectivity in relation to the angles. That Astrology is a human construct in terms of it's procedures, does not detract from it's use as a divinatory tool - it is after all a construct that is used to describe and delineate 'reality'.
Dadsnook2000 said:
Well the tradition sees signs in terms: Element and Mode as well, though in terms of human psychology and physiology, these tend to be best described as Choleric, Sanguine , Melanchoic and Phlegmatic. However the signs have various purposes:
Quality and Nature: For example Capricorn is the house of Saturn and is nocturnal, cold and dry, melancholy, earthly, feminine, solstical, cardinal, moveable domestical, four footed, southern, the exaltation of Mars
Diseases: Capricorn rules the knees, and all related diseases
Places: Capricorn rules cow sheds, places where tools for husbandry are kept, sheep pens, fallow grounds, barren fields, low dark places. Most of these are used in Horary, or in election charts
Corporature: Dry bodies not high of stature, long lean and slender faces thin beard black hair, .... Again these are used where the object is to describe a person - either in a horary chart or from their Ascendant or other placement.
Kingdoms and Cities - including Oxford and Cleves (famous for Anne) - sorry no direct locations given for The Americas, except for the West Indies, or for Australia. Again these would be used only in Mundane Astrology.
Most of the above usages are specialised, that is we would use them in treating illness, in locating lost items or lost people or straying animals through horary, or looking at the fate of cities or countries in Mundane Astrology. The first section is what Dave is most concerned with and the section on Corporature would also be relevant to natal Astrology. It is the first section though which is the most important and describes the sign's intrinsic nature (for Astrological purposes). I expect that you might well find similar location and medical linkages within Jyotish.
Dadsnook2000 said:
Well, as I pointed out earlier, the planets link to signs has been there ever since the invention of signs - that association may well derive from their relationships to the Sun but it is there - Saturn rules Aquarius, not for some arbitrary New Age reason but because it was perceived as the furthest planet from the Sun (literally it's the furthest that can be seen or perceived) and it rules the sign which is furthest from the Sun's natural rulership of high Summer (in the Northern Hemisphere). To set that aside is to throw out one of the central planks of Astrology forwell over two thousand years (and is still central today, even if in a somewhat distorted form).
Dadsnook2000 said:
The Moon and the Sun have been the bodies most closely associated with Natural Astrology (the prediction of natural events such as seasonal changes or the tides, or the annual flooding of rivers) and later with Natal and other branches of Astrology. Because of it's proximity the Moon is seen as the most immediate planet in mediating the 'will of the gods' to humans - the Moon goes a long way to determining whether Horary questions will produce positive answers, or provide a major secondary contribution to natal temperament.
Should we use a separate zodiac for the Moon? - I have enough problems dealing with the Tropical Zodiac - please don't ask me to start combining it or replacing it with another one
ihcoyc
To most of the foregoing, I'd add that if the question is "am I more Virgo than Libra", the fact that your Mercury is strong in Virgo would appear to be another factor that would tip the scales towards Virgo.
