I agree with everything that's been said! Minderwiz's paragraph is very interesting.
I used to be into astrology very much, now a little less, but I have some leftover knowledge...
I've always viewed ascendant as you 'true you', the side you show only to yourself and close ones, and the sun sign as the side you show to the world and how you are perceived, kind of like a persona.
The 'quote' I gave about the Ascendant being our outward expression is one that I picked up from a psychological Astrologer, I think it was Tracy Marks,and was quite common a few years ago. Howard Sasportas took a view more akin to yours, in that he sees the Ascendant as colouring the way we view the outside world. In my view both of them are wrong. They are hamstrung by the need to make the chart as a whole reflect the mind, whereas the chart reflects the native, her or himself and the real world which they inhabit, including their parents, siblings, friends, partner, employer, etc. I don't see the chart as reflecting our inner view of the outside world. The tenth house reflects our mother, a real standalone person, not our perception of what she was like.
Both approaches can distinguish between the real and inner world. In the case of the psychological approach the chart is thought to tell us about our perceptions and prejudices of others, but nothing about what they are really like. The traditional approach tells us about what they are really like, but not much about our perception of them.
From my own personal perspective, I'd rather know about what they are really like and try and adjust my prejudices to cater for reality, but then that's just me. I prefer my Astrology to be concerned with the real world not my inner psyche but I readily recognise that there are those who are strongly attracted to the idea of Astrology as a tool of psychological counselling.
wolfheart said:
Nice mix I think Scorpios are awesome. My fourth house is actually in Scorpio.
So is mine, so nice to meet you!!!
My Sun missed out by 15 minutes of arc
wolfheart said:
...... My sun is in an earth sign and my asc is in Leo. I'm a pretty loud person in the sense that I'm kind of out there. I have a big personality and am not shy at all, but I do have my moments where I tune everyone out and focus on my work and studies... which is much like my sun. I don't think I possess any negative aspects of my ascendant though
I also have a Leo Ascendant, as you might have guessed from the fourth house Scorpio but my Sun is in Libra. I don't thing Leo has any negative features, but then I'm prejudiced
Actually, we both make the point here that the Modern approach sees the signs/houses reflecting different aspects of our personality, a view which was alien to the tradition, which sees the Ascendant as us. Yes it's still possible to look at some facets, such as our logical/rational mind (Mercury) and our instinctive reactions (Moon) or our general fortune and behaviour (manners) they can be gleaned from the balance of planets and especially the Sun and Moon.
My point again, is that we are comparing chalk and cheese with the tradition and the modern approach. It's not a question of one being right and the other being wrong because they both see Astrology in radically different ways. The tradition is essentially event driven, whereas, because of the circumstances surrounding Alan Leo's revival of Astrology, the modern practice is essentially character analysis driven. although Dave (Dadsnook2000) can give chapter and verse on modern variations of event driven Astrology.
One interesting point to end with is how well do we really know ourselves. I've heard professional Astrologers complain that clients don't really give accurate answers to questions, because at some later stage they will contradict answers they gave earlier in a consultation. This is not delberate attempts to be misleading but because we often don't 'join up the dots' about ourselves and interaction with others. That's actually a defence of the psychological approach as it suggests there's parts of us we are unaware of.