Strongly aspected? Afflicted?

[prudence]

LOL! I have Sun in the 12th House too, I suppose we should both be schizophrenics? (Dissolution of the Ego = psychotic, lol! )

Yikes, I guess we need to keep a sharp lookout for our failing mental statuses...


With your sun in the 12th house, do you find yourself having any typical piscean traits? My daughter's sun is in Taurus, but it's also in the 12th house, and I find that she seems to have a Piscean flavor to her personality, she's very artistic and creative, as well as very sensitive and giving.

Some of the most engaging, vibrant, outgoing and all-around great individuals I've know have had 12th house Suns. While most were in the helping professions, really, they had no obvious hang-ups, health problems or major difficulties in life.

Just think of what a 12th house Sun is! The Sun has just risen, light has come, the promise of a new day is starting to emerge, life is preparing to grab it's get-up-and-go and get going. Dave

Now that is refreshing to hear! (er...read) I do find that in my family, I am the one who is the friendliest and most outgoing...when I am in the mood, I can strike up a conversation with pretty much anyone.

Oh dear, I find myself agreeing with Dave again

The twelfth House may not be the best place in a chart (any chart) but then we've all got one in our chart and many of us have planets in our twelfth (in my case Mars, Saturn and even worse for Pluto addicts, I've got Pluto there too, which for some Astrologers is justification enough for me resorting to suicide at an early age, rather than facing the horror of life to come (as they see it).

In the real world, having a planet or planets in your twelfth is not the end of life and as Dave points out, people with the Sun (or any other planet) in the twelfth can lead perfectly rewarding and enjoyable lives, All houses cover a range of possible experiences. For example hospitals (and associated institutions such as care homes) are twelfth house places, and we could experience those either as a resident or work in them in one of the caring professions. Larger animals such as cattle and horses are twelfth House, we could lead lives which have a high involvement with those animals. The twelfth includes the secret or hidden, but that can simply mean working in the background or even being the main support to a relative who is in the public gaze. A bias to the twelfth (and I stress bias rather than simply having a planet or even two, there) does not have to mean that we have mental breakdowns, or become drug addicts (psychological approach) or end up in prison (traditionally a twelfth house place). Even if we do have a significant bias to the twelfth this might simply mean that we want to keep our lives very private, or devote our lives to caring for those in institutions or a similar twelfth house activity, Some members here might well actually be very pleased that witchcraft is a twelfth house practice, even though traditionally witches were seen as suspect.

I think in a way, my manner of manifesting some 12th house stuff is all about being secretive or hidden. I practice "magic" but to look at me, you'd think I was totally conservative, probably Christian, most likely Republican...and yet I am none of those things. I am one of the biggest freaks I know, in a town full of people who advertise their freakishness through the clothes that they wear. I am a freaky weirdo in Carol Brady clothing. I just cannot stand the thought of people looking at me and knowing that I am into A, B, or C....no thank you, my stuff is private.

Well in my case I got round it by totally ignoring Pluto, Dave would say of course that ignoring it doesn't make it go away I once read an Astrologer (I think it was Stephen Arroyo) saying that at a conference he'd been at he came across several colleagues worrying and fretting about their Pluto transits, and these were people who are supposedly counselling clients to be positive. Ignoring it might not make it go away but it does make life much more fun

I am glad to know I am not the only one who does this!

it's when you read a current Astrologer treating some configurations as generic signs of mental illness or extreme behaviour based on working with people who are mentally ill or highly disturbed or unbalanced and then projecting it on to the population as a whole. It's also worth bearing in mind that people who consult Astrologers do so because they usually want help with a problem - they are in an atypical situation for them. So we should be careful about widely attributing characteristics to people based on encountering those characteristics in people in atypical situations for them. y

IN an older thread here (Casey Anthony) someone made the statement (quite emphatically) that Casey "looks just like a Pisces" and acts "just like a Pisces" or something like that...and while I am still at the very basic, beginner level in my astro knowledge, I could not understand what was meant by those statements. Okay, looking like a Pisces, I guess that can be pretty subjective (though for the record, I look nothing like Casey Anthony...and have not just my sun, venus and north node in Pisces, but my ASC is Pisces as well, so I would think I must "look" like one?), but acting like one? To my knowledge Pisces are usually described as sensitive, caring, creative/artistic, self sacrificing etc...I kept wondering when did Pisces typical behavior change to selfish, self-centered, party-girl and possibly infanticidal? (is that a word?)

I know the whole "tendency towards substance abuse" angle, but that to me is more like the Kurt Cobain kind of slipping into self medicating style of drug abuse, which we can see was most likely due to enourmous amounts of personal pain he wanted to relieve himself from.... which is nothing like the "party girl" behavior we can see in Casey Anthony's photo albums....and I certainly never witnessed her doing anything creative, artistic or sensitive during the trial. I still scratch my head about those statements.

 

[Barleywine]

I come from a large family with several 12th House Sun people (some with a host of other planets there). The worst I can say about them (well, from an astrological perspective ) is that they don't really "see" themselves very clearly. It's like they function instinctively at the Ascendant level with the Sun "behind their back," looking over their shoulder, so to speak. The 12th House must get its bad rap mainly from being cadent. I agree that it doesn't square well with the idea that planets above the horizon are "out in the world" in a very public way. Conversely, we have a few family members with loaded 4th Houses, and they have deeper psychological undercurrents than any of the 12th House types. If I recall, Michel Gauquelin's work showed that the last 5 degrees of the 12th House were more "active" than the area immediately below the Ascendant in the charts of prominent people. I wonder what became of all his research in that area.

 

[MareSaturni]

With your sun in the 12th house, do you find yourself having any typical piscean traits? My daughter's sun is in Taurus, but it's also in the 12th house, and I find that she seems to have a Piscean flavor to her personality, she's very artistic and creative, as well as very sensitive and giving.

I am not very good at telling my own characteristics (perhaps a 12th House Sun trait? ), so I'd need someone who knows me and knows astrology to say if I have a Piscean trait. I do think that my Jupiter and Moon placement could make me a bit more aggressive and 'tone down' any Piscean traits I could have.

In any case, it's hard for me to define 'Piscean traits' - my mother is Pisces, Moon in Pisces, my sister is Taurus, Moon in Pisces and I still cannot pinpoint Pisces' influence, only I know it's there in some impalpable way. I can see some similarities between them, and the differences too and how they could relate to different manifestations in the natal chart, BUT I consider my knowledge of astrology to be enough to analyze it with some confidence...

I come from a large family with several 12th House Sun people (some with a host of other planets there). The worst I can say about them (well, from an astrological perspective ) is that they don't really "see" themselves very clearly. It's like they function instinctively at the Ascendant level with the Sun "behind their back," looking over their shoulder, so to speak.

That is interesting. I find it very hard to explain when people tell me to describe myself, lol! I believe the fact that I have 4 planets in the 1st House does not make it much easier (although two of these Planets - Uranus and Neptune - are planets with huge orbits so I'm not sure if they can be interpreted in an 'individual' level...).

If I recall, Michel Gauquelin's work showed that the last 5 degrees of the 12th House were more "active" than the area immediately below the Ascendant in the charts of prominent people. I wonder what became of all his research in that area.

I am not sure if it makes any sense, but once I asked here about the idea that a Planet in the last degree of certain House could be considered as if belonging already to the next House. So perhaps this idea come from the fact that a Planet within the 5 last degrees of the 12th House would actually be interpreted as if in the 1st House already.

Although it does not explain why the last degrees of the 12th House and the first degrees of the 1st House would have a different influence...

I am looking for some books by Michel Gauquelin here!

 

[dadsnook2000]

An interesting consideration

Within the Sidereal school of thought and research, those who have dug deeply into the history and usage of ancient and more modern Sidereal astrology apply sign meanings mainly to the Sun and Moon ---- and not so much, if at all, to the other planets.

To the extent that this interpretation of their views is generally true and valid, it would suggest that ancient astrology was either Solar, or Lunar, or both Solar and Lunar based depending upon the time period and the culture using some form of astrology.

From conventional astrological history, we all probably agree that the above statement is true. The Sun through the signs was both an agricultural-and-seasonal measuring tool as well as a civil calendar tool. The Moon's path or plane of movement interecpted the Sun's plane of movement as well as reflecting light from the Sun as it moved through its own orbital phases. These phases or sign associations or star-grouping associations probably were most applicable to agricultural and religous concerns.

Much has been made of planets traveling and contacting the stars in ancient astrologies, but so much as relating to the "signs."

LET AS ALL ASSUME FOR THE MOMENT THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE "TRUE."

We could interpret our charts in terms of 1) the Sun by house, angle, sign, aspect, 2) the Moon primarily by phase-angle or aspect to the Sun and 3) the Moon secondarily by sign and relationship to the planets, and 4) the planets by house, by aspect, by contact with the fixed stars.

Now, this --- for me --- would be one way to work in a classical astrological mode and would impact the way in which astrology is practiced. ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? Dave

 

[Barleywine]

We could interpret our charts in terms of 1) the Sun by house, angle, sign, aspect, 2) the Moon primarily by phase-angle or aspect to the Sun and 3) the Moon secondarily by sign and relationship to the planets, and 4) the planets by house, by aspect, by contact with the fixed stars.

Now, this --- for me --- would be one way to work in a classical astrological mode and would impact the way in which astrology is practiced. ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? Dave

In an "extra-astrological" sense, there is a whole "upstart" (although Manly. P. Hall and others said it decades ago) school of thought on "astro-theology" that recognizes all patriarchal religions as Sun-worship. There are even some today who say that the Moon "gets in the way" of us seeing ourselves as Solar (or god-like) beings, a phantasmagorical distraction, always flitting about showing a different face. (My wife seems to find all of these guys in her on-line travels.) Even in this peculiar view there is the truth that the Sun-Moon relationship is the heart of the matter at its most personal. Everything else is elaboration or refinement. The above is pretty much how I've always worked, although I tended to jump over the Moon's phase-angle to the Sun unless it was conjunct or opposite at the New or Full Moons, or square at the quarters, and I never caught up to the fixed stars.

 

[Minderwiz]

I'm going to be nit-picky here!! Not because I disagree with everything you say but because I think there's a lot of things taken as certain (for brevity) which at least need to be drawn out before I commit myself to agreeing with some, or all of your points and conclusions.

Within the Sidereal school of thought and research, those who have dug deeply into the history and usage of ancient and more modern Sidereal astrology apply sign meanings mainly to the Sun and Moon ---- and not so much, if at all, to the other planets.

To the extent that this interpretation of their views is generally true and valid, it would suggest that ancient astrology was either Solar, or Lunar, or both Solar and Lunar based depending upon the time period and the culture using some form of astrology.

There's a whole lot of subtle assumptions in there that require some more substance before we fully accept them. The first subtle assumption is that sidereal Astrology predates Tropical Astrology. The answer to that would seem to be obviously 'Yes'. However the distinction between the two was not really made till fairly recently in Astrological history.

Whether or not the zodiac (itself something that only dates back around 3,000 years) is defined in terms of a start point in the constellation of Aries or by the Vernal equinox, it is at least a very reasonable conjecture that the prime purpose of Astrological forecasting is seasonal - to predict the changes of seasons and that comes down to a 'tropical' underlying reason, even if the zodiac is measured sidereally from Aries - In other words you are taking a modern definition of 'sidereal' astrology and projecting onto cultures that would not know what you are talking about. They might well point out that what matters in the purpose or use of the zodiac and that is the prediction of seasonal change. (a 'tropical' purpose, using modern terminology).

the distinction between the two zodiac concepts here can only be made if there is a concept of the zodiac and if Aries is NOT the beginning of both the 'sidereal' and the 'tropical' zodiac - something that was the case some 4,000 plus years ago and again in the last 2,000 years. As the zodiac only developed in the first millenium BCE, before 3,000 years ago there were no[i/] signs to relate planetary meanings to.

That being said, it seems (and we have no absolute proof) that the 12 month calendar year arose in the palaeolithic period and did focus on the cycles of Sun and Moon and that star constellations, whether in what we now call the zodiac or elsewhere acted as useful markers for predicting seasonal change.

Now how ancient to you want to be here - are we going back 100,000 years, 50,000 years, 5.000 years or 3,000 years. The trouble with the earlier periods is that we have no reliable records at all, so whether they paid any attention to planets other than the Sun and Moon is virtually impossible to know. By the time we do have reliable recording of Astrological/Astronomic change, with the peoples of Mesopotamia, especially the Babylonians i's clear that there are other planets which are considered important. Certainly Venus is seen as the third most important planet. So by the time a zodiac comes into being there are other planets that are related to it. That is not to say that Sun and Moon are not the key planets leading to the origin of a zodiac and its later refinement into signs.

From conventional astrological history, we all probably agree that the above statement is true. The Sun through the signs was both an agricultural-and-seasonal measuring tool as well as a civil calendar tool. The Moon's path or plane of movement interecpted the Sun's plane of movement as well as reflecting light from the Sun as it moved through its own orbital phases. These phases or sign associations or star-grouping associations probably were most applicable to agricultural and religous concerns.

Much has been made of planets traveling and contacting the stars in ancient astrologies, but so much as relating to the "signs."

LET AS ALL ASSUME FOR THE MOMENT THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE "TRUE."

Well what is conventional 'astrological history' when it's at home - if we don't know precisely what you mean by that then we are not likely to accept the statement as true. Our views of Astrological history are constantly subject to review and change, and there is of course a lot we don't know - In the last sentence here, did you mean (not) so much as relating to signs, if not I'm not sure what it is you want me to accept as 'true'

We could interpret our charts in terms of 1) the Sun by house, angle, sign, aspect, 2) the Moon primarily by phase-angle or aspect to the Sun and 3) the Moon secondarily by sign and relationship to the planets, and 4) the planets by house, by aspect, by contact with the fixed stars.

I'm assuming now that you are taking signs as being a fundamental of Astrology and certainly I'd go along with that as a reasonable representation of Western and Vedic Astrology over the last 2,500 years. Oddly you miss out one of the main ways in which the Sun has been interpreted in charts over that period - that is by season. The purpose of those observations from stone age times appears to be designed to identify seasonal change and the seasonal nature of the Sun has been reflected in charts both before and after the formalised separation of sidereal and tropical zodiacs. In other words the phase relationship of Sun and Earth is a fundamental of horoscopic Astrology.

One other thing that I'd bring out a little more - you mention Sun by angle, and I'd certainly accept that but the Ascendant is pre-eminent here - indeed without an Ascendant there is no chart because it's the origin of our chart (in the measurement sense of origin

Aspects of planets to fixed stars is certainly another feature of chart analysis that has been present for well over 2,000 years, or at least was present up till the eighteenth century - it seems to have been effectively rejected over the last 100 years, with only Robson's and Brady's work of note.

With those two amendments I'd agree with you

Now, this --- for me --- would be one way to work in a classical astrological mode and would impact the way in which astrology is practiced. ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? Dave

Well with the amendments of allowing for the Sun's seasonal nature and a strong emphasis on the Ascendant, what you have is the classical way of identifying temperament from a natal chart. The process of making that identification can of course vary and would be an interesting thread in itself.

Welcome to the world of Traditional Astrology!

 

[MareSaturni]

This discussion is completely above and beyond my current astrological expertise so I'll just enjoy reading the discussion. Always a pleasure to see intelligent people discussing a fascinating topic.

However, I am curious about this:

Well with the amendments of allowing for the Sun's seasonal nature and a strong emphasis on the Ascendant, what you have is the classical way of identifying temperament from a natal chart. The process of making that identification can of course vary and would be an interesting thread in itself.

Welcome to the world of Traditional Astrology!

Minderwiz, you often mention the temperament thing and its importance in a chart, and you even pointed it as an way to understand which could the be the strongest factors in a natal chart. Does it have anything to do with the 4 temperaments/humors as known by the ancient medical tradition? Or is it something exclusive of Traditional Astrology? How do you determine temperament in chart?

Perhaps I should open a new thread to ask these question? We have gone a bit out-of-topic here, I wouldn't like to keep deviating if this may bring any problems to the forum...

Thank you!

 

[Minderwiz]

However, I am curious about this:

Minderwiz, you often mention the temperament thing and its importance in a chart, and you even pointed it as an way to understand which could the be the strongest factors in a natal chart. Does it have anything to do with the 4 temperaments/humors as known by the ancient medical tradition? Or is it something exclusive of Traditional Astrology? How do you determine temperament in chart?

Perhaps I should open a new thread to ask these question? We have gone a bit out-of-topic here, I wouldn't like to keep deviating if this may bring any problems to the forum...

Thank you!

Yes you're spot on there, they are the 4 humours of ancient tradition. They are both physical (or were thought of as such) but also the humours determine the core 'personality' or temperament. So we have Choleric, Sanguine, Melancholic and Plegmatic personalities - and those are so ingrained in our history and culture - we still describe people's behaviour and personality using those terms and you will find modern psychological classifications that are in effect, the same thing.

I won't go into the detail of how it's determined from a chart but I will give the main considerations, and there are three key factors -

The Ascendant (which usually includes sign, and sign rulers, and may include planets in the Ascendant and planets aspecting the Ascendant.

The Sun - taken by season, and also it's ruler

The Moon - taken by it's phase relationship to the Sun. and again also including ruler and sign.

Those three key areas are at the core, you may well find some additional factors included such as the Lord of the Geniture (the strongest planet in the chart)

Signs are themselves based on the humours (or the constituents of the humours, hot/cold; moist/dry)

So Fire signs are choleric. Air signs are sanguine, Earth signs are Melacholic and Water signs are phlegmatic.

The Sun is Spring signs is Sanguine, in Summer signs is Choleric, in Autumn Signs is Melancholic and in Winter signs is Phlegmatic. So notice Sun in Aries is Sanguine, not Choleric by it's contribution to temperament. Sun in Aquarius is Phlegmatic by it's contribution to temperament.

The Moon is Sanguine from New Moon to First Quarter, then Choleric to the Full Moon, Melancholic to the Third Quarter and finally Phlegmatic up to the next New Moon.

For a more detailed treatment see the thread

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=135390

Post #16 top of page 4

There's more in that thread that you might find interesting but that section gives you a specific example and some more consideration of issues.

Yes we are wandering a little off topic but the discussion seems to be well supported and as long as you find it interesting and others do, I'm willing to let it run. However if you want to concentrate on specific new questions please do post a new thread and I hope you've got lots of those questions to ask