How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

topic posted Fri, October 2, 2009 - 3:38 PM by  MantisReligiosa
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
I wanna start a debate on this, although there have been minor debates on this issue on a more or less obvious level, throughout the astrology tribe. I'm talking about the issue of "depth", "heaviness", "density", "substance" etc etc.
What aspects or elements in a chart can point out to a heavy feeling nature/attitude towards life? I know there are theories, but I'd like to hear from people's first-hand experiences. The truth is you can only really understand an energy when it takes over you.

I, for one, always had a heavy emotional side, though fluid, with my 3 natal planets in Pisces and an accentuated 4th house, but since Saturn's been transiting my 1st house, it's gotten way worse. At least, I think it's Saturn. It's in my 1st, conjunct my AC, and opposite my Sun right now.
Then, I also have T Uranus conjunct N Sun and N DC, but Uranus is just a very hectic, jolt-like type of energy, that can animate flesh, at most, but not give it life.

THEN, I also have T Neptune starting to make a wide, 6 degree orb square to my N Moon-Mars-Jupiter in 0 degree Gemini...and from my experience of almost 2 years ago, when T Saturn squared the same cluster of natal planets, I tend to feel transits to my "cluster" most powerfully.

So, if that's true, then Neptune must be, as I intuited, the no.1 influence in "heavy" energy.

I mean, most of the time I was able to joggle between my states of emotionalism and states of bubble-headed light-heartedness, coming from my Gemini cluster.
Looking back at my transits, the cluster was only under long-term "outside influence" one time before, and that was when Pluto was in late Scorp, early Sag, in the late 90s, early 00s.. and that was again another period in which my light-heartedness was out of reach. I remember it was impossible for me to control my emotions back then..of course, partly also because I was a child, basically. But still, I remember I was easily ruled by violent emotions and that I was generally very intense.

So now..I am basically a bog. I thought it would be easier for me to let shit slide for others once I stopped being depressed and could keep my head above my own emotions, but nooo, not even close. In fact, I'm getting even less tolerant and patient wen it comes to superficiality-which is about 80% of what constitutes most people's lives, according to Neptune. I can't even laugh at people's faults anymore. I am truly DEAD-serious.
And while my usual emotionalism just poured out of me, like spring water, this new, post-depression emotionalism is heavy and slow and filled with lots of debris of other demons, like anger, revenge, frustration, fear of deception, fear of disappointment etc. The best way to visualize it is to visualize hot lava coming down a mountain slope.
Could this be Saturn's work?

I must aadmit I've been prejudiced against Saturn for a long time..I always thought I didn't need that kind of energy, but now I've realized how much I do. And, frankly, if it weren't for the fact that it makes me annoyingly attentive to social pressures/responsibilities, and forced me back into accepting terms like "embarrassing", "undisciplined", "irrelevant", "useless" into my vocabulary, I'd like it in my 1st house forever! Oh, and I also find that I can't get into a good mood automatically since Saturn entered my 1st. Nor can I just visualize myself holding whatever it is I want, without constantly worrying about now knowing how to get it.Soo.. "The Secret" doesn't apply for people with heavy Saturn placements...lol

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

    Sat, October 3, 2009 - 9:02 AM
    I think that the outer planets can all be very heavy. As they deal with society at large, they can feel kind of like "carrying the weight of the world". Neptune as number 1? I don't know that I'd go that far, but I would say that the "escapism" associated with Neptune has alot to do with the fact that it can feel like a huge weight... a need to "serve" on a very global/universal level.

    "Then, I also have T Uranus conjunct N Sun and N DC, but Uranus is just a very hectic, jolt-like type of energy, that can animate flesh, at most, but not give it life."

    I suppose Neptune and Pluto can feel the heaviest, as they're water, and act through emotion. The "weight" of Saturn and Uranus is felt differently, and that depends on where they are in the chart, i.e. through a water, earth, air, or fire sign or house.

    Also, depends on the person, what type of "burden" feels heavier.
    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

      Sat, October 3, 2009 - 1:10 PM

      if the transneptunian,Pluto is a factor in heaviness, then so are the other transneptunians factors too......especially the big ones including especially Eris which is larger than Pluto.
      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

        Sat, October 3, 2009 - 2:17 PM
        I guess I have to wonder in what manner the heaviness of these other transneptunian bodies is perceived.

        The influence of transiting Pluto in Capricorn is rather palpable to me. In another tribe I was saying that I can see it affecting changes in business and reacting against such things as globalization, social homogenization, corporatization, etc. ~ in short, acting as a kind of splintering agent that, on the one hand, generates a lot of anxiety as a result of forcing independence where that has not been the comfortable custom, but, on the other hand, ultimately creates new models that surmount the inadequacies and injustices associated with the status quo. What about the other transneptunian bodies? How do they feel, and what are they doing?
      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

        Sat, October 3, 2009 - 4:39 PM
        "if the transneptunian,Pluto is a factor in heaviness, then so are the other transneptunians factors too......especially the big ones including especially Eris which is larger than Pluto."

        Although these things may be true, I wouldn't agree with the logic you've used for arriving at that statement. Just because Pluto is transneptunian and important, does not mean that all things that are transneptunian are important, nor does it mean that size is proportional to importance. I've not studied Eris much so my argument isn't against Eris being important, but against the logic used to suggest that it is.
        • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

          Mon, October 5, 2009 - 4:00 PM

          I don't know about that

          The mainstream astrological community been ignoring transneptunians for years until astronomers announced that a transneptunian larger than Pluto was discovered, and that object was named Eris.

          they had the same attitudes with asteroids including Ceres which is the largest asteroid and is the only asteroid classed as dwarf planet.

          Philip Sedgwick explains about this stuff.


          the way I see it, Pluto is not even a planet. We were just ignorant about Pluto as a kuiper belt object, one of thousands of kuiper belt objects. Pluto was even thought to be big as our Earth until the discovery of it's first discovered, Moon Charon. Then it was found out after the calculations, Pluto was smaller than our Moon. Then in 1992, astronomers found that Pluto was not alone in the outer regions of the solar system. then in 2000, astronomers started finding big transneptunian objects.

          That was the same ignorance that we had when Ceres,Pallas,Juno,and Vesta were classed as planets for 50 years. They were thought to be much larger than they actually are. Astraea, the 5th asteroid made astronomers question about the other 4 being planets.

          I liken Eris and Pluto as the Jupiter and Saturn of the transneptunian objects

          the gas planets, Jupiter,Saturn,Uranus,and Neptune are far larger than Earth,Venus,Mars,and Mercury
          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

            Mon, October 5, 2009 - 4:08 PM
            I use up to 3 degree orb for the big transneptunians including Pluto.
            The reason why I use the same orb for Pluto is because Pluto is part of the transneptunian region. Pluto has thousands of neighbors just like Ceres is part of the asteroid region and has thousands of neighbors. I believe in adjusting to astronomical discoveries. With other big kuiper belt objects out there, it's possible that these can be strong influences that could explain wide orbed Pluto aspect effects in people's charts. It's just that people didn't know about these objects before. Many objects orbit beyond Pluto, Pluto is no longer the most outer object in our solar system. Sedna has the greatest distance of all,and so that is the most outer object. It has slowest orbit of all. So yeah,Sedna is most metaphysically oriented object in our solar system.

            the big ones to check besides Pluto
            Eris,Makemake,Haumea - they are classed as dwarf planets along with Pluto

            Sedna,Orcus,Quaoar,Varuna,and Ixion - they are dwarf planet candidates

            I would give the big transneptunians 3 degree orb for all the major aspects except for sextile which I give 2 degree orb. I would give 1 degree for all the minor aspects.

            If I were to look at small transneptunian aspects. I'd stick to 1 degree orb for all the major aspects except for the sextile which I give about 45 minutes of arc. I give around 20 minutes of arc for the minor aspects.

            some notable smaller ones are Rhadamanthus,Ceto,Typhon,Altjira,Borasisi,Logos,Deucalion,

            Huya,Chaos are borderline. I give an orb of 2 degree orb for the major aspects. 1 degree for the sextile. 45 minutes of arc for the minor aspects.

            transits involving other transneptunians could easily account for wide orbed Pluto transits



            I just checked the transits of one person today.

            she thought she was feeling the effects of transiting Pluto 5 degrees conjunct her Ascendant in regards to.
            I showed her that transiting Sedna is 4 minutes squaring her Sun applying now.

            oh yeah, I went over transits in whole sign house system.
            for instance, Pluto is already in her 1st house in whole sign house system even though it's in 12th house in the other systems. So Pluto is already in the 1st house,and that could account for her feeling the effects of Pluto conjunct the Ascendant which is the beginning of the 1st house in the other house systems.
            • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

              Mon, October 5, 2009 - 4:20 PM

              furthermore,

              Eris,Makemake,and Haumea are Pluto's equals

              they are both classed as Plutoids.

              Plutoid is a classifcation for transneptunian objects that are also dwarf planets

              Ceres is not a Plutoid because it's an asteroid and not a transneptunian

              other transneptunians that are dwarf planet candidates

              are Sedna,Orcus,Quaoar,Varuna,and Ixion

              Sedna,Orcus,and Quoar are definitely larger than Ceres, and so they

              astronomically, size does matter in regards to hydrostatic equilibrium which results in being round.

              it also matters in regards to having enough mass in clearing the orbit of its neighbors.




              Jump to: navigation, search
              Objects in the Solar System

              → by orbit
              → by size
              → by discovery date

              By categories:

              → hydrostatic objects
              → moons
              → minor planets

              In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined a planet as a body in orbit around the Sun that was large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and to have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.[1] An object in hydrostatic equilibrium is one that is large enough for its gravity to have overcome its internal rigidity, and so relax into a rounded (ellipsoidal) shape. The practical meaning of "cleared the neighborhood" is that a planet is comparatively massive enough for its gravitation to control the orbits of all objects in its vicinity. By the IAU's definition, there are eight planets in the Solar System. Those objects in orbit around the Sun that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium but have not cleared their neighborhoods are classified as dwarf planets, and the remainder are termed small Solar System bodies. In addition, the Sun itself and 19 known natural satellites are also massive enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium.[2] All known objects in the Solar System with a hydrostatic shape are listed below, with a sample of the largest objects whose shape has yet to be accurately determined. The Sun's orbital characteristics are listed in relation to the Galactic Center. All other objects are listed in order of their distance from the Sun.

              Dwarf planets

              Dwarf planets are large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, but have not cleared their neighbourhoods of similar objects. There are currently five objects in this category. Ceres lies in the main asteroid belt, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. The others lie beyond Neptune's orbit and are sub-classified as plutoids.

              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...quilibrium

              if it wasn't for astronomers, Uranus,Neptune,and Pluto wouldn't even used in charts. Chiron too. Chiron is one of over 60 centaurs. Over 10 of them have names already. One is even larger than Chiron. Chariklo

              so obviously astrologers adapted to the discoveries of astronomers.
              • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                Mon, October 5, 2009 - 7:25 PM
                I think that the problem I am having with a lot of the transneptunian bodies, with the exception of Pluto, is that I have no idea what they actually "feel" like, so they wind up seeming rather meaningless to me. If I am not mistaken, some of these are so slow that we cannot even begin to know in a single lifetime what they are doing. Being involved with "evolutionary" issues is fine, but, again, what are they doing and how do they feel? The astronomy of all this is well and good, but from the standpoint of astrology, they just leave me with a "?".
                • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                  Tue, October 6, 2009 - 10:09 AM

                  Pluto is part of that kuiper belt though

                  Pluto is no exception. Astronomers can tell you that.
                  It's one of the plutinos (meaning that it 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune...for every 3 times Neptune orbits the Sun, plutinos orbit twice)
                  Orcus,Ixion are plutinos,and those are 2 dwarf planet candidates.
                  Huya is a middle one. Rhadamanthus is a smaller plutino.

                  maybe we think Pluto works because of that whole kuiper belt region. It has thousands of object in that region.

                  Pluto is not alone like it was thought to be for 60 years.

                  the existence of these transneptunians lead to my logically questioning Pluto's influence

                  I knew that it was only a matter of time that Pluto would get its planetary status stripped. I have been paying attention to the discoveries of the big transneptunian objects since 2000.

                  I was a member of Zane Stein's Chiron and Friends group on yahoo since 2000, and that focuses mainly on the centaurs and transneptunians.

                  I already had doubts about Pluto being a planet and considering a kuiper belt object.


                  You can get clues about the object

                  by looking at the discovery chart

                  astronomically oriented astrologers like Philip Sedgwick take its astronomical,orbital,physical features into account
                  Philip Sedgwick takes the zodiac sign placement of its heliocentric north node and perihelion


                  if Pluto was discovered recently, it would never been classed as a planet.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                    Tue, October 6, 2009 - 10:29 AM

                    Here is stuff by Juan Revilla in regards to astrological clues from the astronomical,orbital features of an object


                    ORBITAL SYMBOLISM IN ASTROLOGY

                    I. INTRODUCTION

                    Trying to discover the astrological meaning of new planetary objects is not a simple question of playing with a name, beginning with the fact that many of them do not have a name yet Their orbital dynamics, the place they occupy in the structure of the solar system, their physical characteristics, they all establish a framework, a "niche" where they belong, a "gesture", a way of acting. Then the astrologer fills this form with his observations.

                    The most elemental principle of astrology is the foundation of this approach: "as above, so below", except that the "above" is the abstract, heliocentric perspective, not directly observable. The whole of modern Astrology is based on this abstract and non-observable world of "above", closer to mathematics than to what is physically experienced with the senses.

                    There is nothing "magical" in this. It is a reason that follows its own logic based on concordances and different from the logic of mechanics and of "cause and effect". This doesn't make it "irrational" in any way. It is just more analogical and metaphorical.

                    All observations must be interpreted and given a meaning. To do this, the scientist uses paradigms and builds explanations based on premises and certain cultural assumptions about the nature of the object under observation and about the nature of "reality". The astrologer doesn't make anything different. He also follows paradigms. Symbolical association and metaphorical thinking is one of these paradigms, one upon which rests the whole corpus of classical astrology.

                    When we apply orbital dynamics to the study of centaurs, one thing that becomes clear is that they tend to be very dramatic. They speak stronger and with more poignancy to the imagination than ordinary, almost circular orbits. It is just a question of getting used to their orbital language and gestures, a language that springs from the "orbital paradigm", which we can define as follows: the shape, place, and velocity of an orbit, the "orbital gesture", corresponds to similar gestures --psychologically or in external circumstances-- in the lives of people.

                    The distance ranges outlined here numerically, describing orbits that intercalate across the regions of the slow-moving planets of the solar system, establish the main framework on which their orbital symbolism is based, defining unambiguously some basic dynamic characteristics. They provide the information necessary to establish the foundation of this symbolism, to which is added information furnished by the orbital periods and mutual recurrences, the angle of crossing, and the orbital inclinations and latitudes.

                    For example, all centaurs share certain characteristics derived from the orbits that define them as a group. They all can be included in at least 3 basic categories:

                    1- Their sphere of action. They all work at the level of Saturn through Pluto; therefore their sphere of action is very different from the level at which the regular asteroids of the main belt between Mars and Jupiter work, much faster and closer to Earth. Their slow motion means that their transits can be used to map the great breakthroughs in the life of a person as we are used in the case of the planets from Saturn onwards. They are "visitors" from the trans-Neptunian, Plutonian world, which through them becomes more human, more compassionate, closer to us.

                    2- Their marginality. They are a clear minority among minor planets, less in number than all the other dynamical asteroid groups, and --because of their large orbital eccentricity-- they are "marginal", i.e., "do not belong" to a specific place but "wander" through the space dominated by the giant planets of the outer solar system, in many cases more or less aggressively crossing their orbits or "invading" their spheres. They are "renegades" that do not belong to an established, institutionalized world, which in turn they "intercept" or "break", carrying a symbolism very similar to that of Cain in the Genesis story.

                    3- Their instability. The orbits of centaurs, because of the way they intercept the distance range of the giant planets, are subject to very strong gravitational attractions or perturbations that make them unstable and "precarious", with a tendency to become chaotic or unpredictable in a few thousand years only. They are "crude" and "wild", with a tendency to be aggressive, but --unlike Pluto-- their orbits are "sick" and "tremble", destined to be transformed or die as a result of their crossing the paths of the giant planets. They are therefore related to pain and to death, but also to rapture, unconditioning, and freedom.

                    As a well-established orbit-crossing category, centaurs tend to be dynamically unique, strongly differentiated astronomically from the world of the main-belt asteroids. They separate from the others by breaking the image of "a ring" or "a belt" usually associated with asteroids, to follow their own excentric path. This singularity makes them "special", and experience shows that they are intense and powerful, in concordance with the large sweep of their slow motion and high eccentricity, in a way almost inversely proportional to their small size.
                    In practical terms, as part of the mathematical-astronomical model, we use celestial mechanics (orbital behavior), as a metaphor that models or "screens" the astrological characteristics of the centaurs, so we concentrate on the orbits, which are perceived as an interplay ("music") making the particular characteristics evident by differentiation or contrast in their movement, like a dance. I like to use the words "orbital gesture", and compare it with the movement of the hands and arms when someone is speaking. It is not conceptual, but similar to listening to music. From the effect the music produces on you, you "know" without knowing what it is. As I imagine this "orbital gesture", a moving, living image appears in my mind which "whispers" to me. Then, it becomes a matter of identifying in the specific event or experience or feeling being charted that same quality that the music or movement or gesture is producing in my imagination.

                    An example is the image of wings and of light that I often get from Pholus. It comes from its orbital behavior, the way I perceive it, and also from the sound qualities of its name, joined to my subjective perception of some of the people who have it focal. The centaur-myth is not in this picture. It is true that apparently, the "regular" orbits --rounder-- would appear as "mute", but this doesn't happen when seen in comparison, in the interplay. It is a question of images: you can imagine the massive giants being crossed and "ringed" by the smaller and unstable asteroids, and this puts in evidence the characteristics of both. In other words, it is an imaginative language, like that of mythology.

                    As an illustration, let's consider, imaginatively, the main-belt asteroid named "Nemesis" (#128):

                    "Nemesis": one utters the word and listens to it... a fast sound; a cycle of nearly 4 years and an orbit or way of moving , of acting, a physical gesture, that is wholly conventional, placid, circumscribed, with no highs or lows. Circumscribed to what? To one aspect of Nemesis, one "face" of the archetype which is necessarily limited by the particular nature of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

                    Which face of the archetype? What is the nature of the asteroid belt compared with Uranus and with Pluto? What aspect of the archetype cannot be expressed in the asteroid belt and needs other bodies to do that?

                    If we listen, for example, to the apocalyptic gesture of an object like TL66, with a period of 800 years (200 times slooooooowwwwwwer), going away from the solar system until it disappears in the remote darkness of the unknown, and coming again centuries later, travelling 7 or 8 times faster than when it is far away, breaking through the orbital realm of Pluto until it "kisses" that of Neptune, like the visitation of a dark giant comet, only to go away again and disappear soon after that, then we say:

                    www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/...adigm.html



                    some centaurs have names proposed by astronomically oriented astrologers and were accepted by astronomers. Nessus was the first of them. The astrologers considered the astronomical,orbital,physical features of Nessus,and so they named it accordingly. Nessus' orbit links the orbits of Saturn and Pluto. Saturn/Pluto midpoint is said to be Nessus-sensitive too. That means that aspects to Saturn/Pluto midpoint is said to be like aspects to Nessus.
                    Saturn/Uranus midpoint is said to be Chiron-sensitive and Saturn/Neptune midpoint is said to be Pholus-sensitive.


                    That's why it's a good idea for astrologers to know some astronomy. Then we can get clues to the object's meaning.

                    also

                    there is an astronomical naming rule:
                    all plutinos are named after underworld characters
                    all cubewanos are named after creation deities

                    therefore, the name of the object is determined by the orbital,physical features of the object


                    certain names were given by astronomers because of its orbital,astronomical,physical features

                    Sedna was named because it's the coldest and most distant object in our solar system. it was aptly named after the Inuit Sea Goddess who lived in the bottom of the frigid Arctic Ocean. She was also the ruler of the Underworld called Adlivun.
                    It's aphelion is 975 Astronomical units, and no object is no way near close to that distance. Of course, it's the most distant and coldest object out there.
                    so the name was given to fit the myth of the object.

                    Haumea was aptly named after the Hawaiian fertility/creation goddess whose children broke off from her body
                    well, the object,Haumea had chunks of its its body broken off due to a collision from another large transneptunian object. parts of that object became its moons as well as some independently orbiting objects.
                    So the name was given to fit the myth of the object

                    Eris' name was given because well.....its discovery to led to controversy and debate about

                    remember what Eris' discoverer,Michael Brown said.

                    “It is absolutely the perfect name,” Dr. Brown said, given the continuing discord among astronomers and the public over whether Pluto should have retained its planetary status.

                    In mythology, Eris ignited discord that led to the Trojan War.

                    “She causes strife by causing arguments among men, by making them think their opinions are right and everyone else’s is wrong,” Dr. Brown said. “It really is just perfect.”
                    www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14...enacnd.html


                    Astronomers have been given us clues to the astrological meanings of objects. Not just by its name but also the orbital,physical features of the object.
                    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                      Wed, October 7, 2009 - 1:17 AM
                      "Here is stuff by Juan Revilla in regards to astrological clues from the astronomical,orbital features of an object "

                      Raymond,

                      Although interesting from the point of view of pluto's importance (or lack thereof) its probably best to keep posts related more directly to the discussion of depth. I can see the importance of that post in relation to 'putting pluto in its place' kind of thing, but unless those other centaurs are indicative of depth, I'm not sure if its overly relevant, if it IS related to depth, that extract doesn't really deal with the depth of those centaurs. In fact a lot of that post was related to naming conventions rather than depth.
                      Not a rebuke, just don't want to go too far off topic!
                      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                        Wed, October 7, 2009 - 9:17 AM
                        okie dokie
                        • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                          Wed, October 7, 2009 - 10:13 AM

                          the point of the centaurs article post was about astronomical,orbital features of an object can give clues to its astrological meaning.

                          astronomically oriented astrologers like Philip Sedgwick,Juan Revilla do that with not just centaurs but also the transneptunian objects.

                          astronomers name objects according to their astronomical,orbital features too
                          I already gave examples about the plutinos,cubewanos as well as Sedna and Haumea.

                          Haumea is a very unique object,and so it has astrological significance
                          It's not only a dwarf planet,and so it's a large transneptunian object.

                          It spins far rapidly than any object ever known even though it's large.
                          It looks like a spinning football


                          From Michael Brown's site:
                          "2003 EL61 -- now known as Haumea -- is one of the strangest known objects in the solar system. It is a big across as Pluto, but shaped like a cigar. Or perhaps like a football [American-style]. Or, most accurately, a football that has too little air in it and has been stepped on. It spins end over end every 4 hours like a football that has been kicked. It appears to be made almost entirely of rock, but with a glaze of ice over the surface. It is surrounded by two tiny satellites (Hi'iaka and Namaka) and is followed in its orbit by a swarm of other small icy bodies. Everything that we know about this body appears to tell us that in its past another object slammed into it at high speed and cracked it into pieces which flew all around the outer solar system and left what we see today. "

                          "Why is Haumea spinning fast, shaped like a football, made out of ice-covered rock, and surrounded by tiny satellites?
                          Good question. We have constructed a hypothesis which attempts to explain everything going on on Haumea. The hypothesis goes like this: 4.5 billion years ago, when the solar system was in the process of forming, the object that is now Haumea was a ball made half of ice and half of rock and about the size of Pluto (much like what we think Pluto is today). Sometime early in its history, another large Kuiper belt object collided with Haumea obliquely. This collision knocked away most of the ice (which would have been on the outside) of Haumea, leaving just a rock covered in a thin film of ice. The oblique impact caused Haumea to spin rapidly. The rapid spin elongated Haumea into the football shape we see today. Some of the debris from the impact coalesced into the satellites, which would have been initially much closer but which have been evolving outward with time."

                          "This story contains some elements of how we think the Earth and Moon formed: a Mars-sized body hit the proto-earth and the moon coalesced from the debris following the impact. There is also an analogy to the formation of Charon around Pluto which was thought to have been from a Kuiper belt impact at a similar time. Finally there is an analogy to the planet Mercury, which was once thought to be much larger but was smashed by a huge object early in its history which removed much of the rocky outer layer and left mostly the iron core that we see today."

                          "One of the interesting predictions of this hypothesis is that the debris from the collision, from which the satellites formed, should have been composed predominantly of ice, rather than rock. The satellites themselves, then, should be almost purely ice. The best way to determine the composition of the satellites would be if we could determine their density. Unfortunately, the satellites are too small to measure the densities any time soon. We can, however, measure the composition of the surface of Hi'iaka. We find that it, like Haumea itself, is composed of water ice. On Hi'iaka the water ice appears perhaps 100% pure. While we don't know for certain that there is not rock under the surface, we think that such pure water ice is a likely indication that there is water ice all the way down, which is consistent with our hypothesis."

                          "The family of Haumea
                          While the odd characteristics of Haumea and its moons initially led us to the hypothesis of a giant impact, the smoking gun came when we found the other icy debris left over from the collision in orbits similar to Haumea itself. In a paper just published in Nature we show the existence of five small objects in the Kuiper belt which look just like the moons of Haumea and appear to be additional chunks of the icy outer layer of Haumea that got blasted off the surface. These chunks appear to be about 10% of the total amount of material blasted off the surface. Some of the rest probably evaporated into space, but some smaller ones are probably still in the vicinity waiting to be found. We recognized these chunks as debris from Haumea because we first noticed that a small number of Kuiper belt objects appeared to have unique surfaces composed of almost pure ice. Most of the other Kuiper belt objects have much more complex surfaces that are difficult to understand, but Haumea, its satellites, and these five new objects all appeared unique. While trying to understand why these we different it suddenly became glaringly obvious that all of these objects were on very similar orbits, and that if you traced those orbits back in time you would be able to connect them to a single location where they were once part of a larger body (this is an oversimplification, but gets the main point)."

                          "This is pretty exciting stuff! We had never before had evidence for such catastrophic disruptions in the outer solar system, though they appear moderately common within the asteroid belt in the inner solar system. What is even more interesting is that the collision occurred near a region of space where Kuiper belt objects don't live for long without having their orbits become unstable (for the curious: the orbits become unstable because they go around the sun precisely 7 times for every 12 times that Neptune goes around the sun, and, over time, the fact that this pattern repeats gives the Kuiper belt objects slight perturbations every orbit which eventually build up enough to cause the object to be unstable). When the orbits become unstable, the objects can eventually work their way in towards the inner solar system where we would call them comments. It is clear that the giant impact that made the Haumea family must have created many many tiny fragments that have lit up the earth's skies in the past. Even more interesting, Haumea is on an unstable orbit and will possibly become a comet itself. When it does it will probably be 10,000 times brighter than the spectacular comet Hale-Bopp, making it something like the brightness of the full moon and easily visible in the daytime sky. The only catch is that all of this will happen in perhaps 1 billion years, so you have a little bit of waiting to do to see it!"
                          www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/2003EL61/


                          Here are the keywords that Philip Sedgwick came up with.
                          He didn't take the mythology into account but also the astronomical,orbital features as well as the placement of its heliocentric north node in 2'02 Leo and perihelion in 1'04 Aries at the time of discovery.


                          From Philip Sedgwick's THE SOUL OF THE SKY

                          "The 3rd brightest KBO (Pluto #1) locked into an orbital period with its moon of 4 hours, this interesting KBO possesses a cigar shape because of fast rotational period. It is, in fact, the fastest spinning object known in the solar system. Like other centaurs and KBO’s, 136108 serves to cultivate a stronger sense of soulful self due to its Aries/Leo orbital elements. Likely this body encourages us all to shine brightly even though our body might not be perfectly shaped. The need to overcome perceived liabilities of personal appearance runs strong - a theme which supports the healing attributes of co-dwarf planet, Eris.
                          Mike Brown, tri-discoverer of this body (as well as Eris and 2005 FY9 and many others) declares this object a “smoking gun.” While EL61 consists of nearly solid rock, most of the surrounding bodies are purely ice in formation, except for a notable, unique EL61 family of rocky objects. EL61 and its two moons and five other nearby objects of similar composition (quite unlike most of the
                          bodies in the Kuiper belt) maintain an orbital ratio of 12:7 with Neptune; for every seven orbits of the EL61 clan, Neptune passes through a dozen solar revolutions. The conclusion derived from this observation suggests that at some point long ago a massive collision took place in what is now known as the Kuiper Belt. EL61 is hypothesized to have been a rocky body, likely larger than
                          Pluto, surrounded by ice. During the violent collision, the icy core fractured, becoming other Kuiper Objects and leaving the rocky center of EL61 crunched into a new shape and seen for what it is on the inside with no refracting icy veneer."

                          "Given the instability of the orbits, this group of objects, ultimately they probably shall evolve into comets. For EL61, the process should take about a billion years."

                          "Brown reported in an interview that he and his co-discoverers proposed a name for EL61 and the two accompanying moons according to Hawaiian lore to honor the geographic location of discovery of these bodies."

                          "The node and perihelion degree of EL61 both fall in self-referential signs. Given that the object’s aphelion aligns with a cluster of supermassive black holes near the core of the super-galaxy, honoring the process of retreat, reflection and repose stands out as the most important tool in the body’s transformation-rendering skill set. Simply, stealing away from the masses to a place of
                          extraordinary beauty and calm, inspires the ability to literally fall into oneself. There all is seen for what it is. The core is rock solid and without the need for any illusion producing cover or hype, such as how the appearance of objects distorts when seen through an icy exterior. Simply, a new spin comes about. This is the “it is what it is” object, but aligned more with the realization
                          reached by the animated character, Popeye,28 after his pilgrimages at sea: “I yam what I yam.”

                          "Self acceptance without embarrassment relieves the psyche of the need to protect, disguise or mask. In such a non-defended state, one can embrace the idyllic state of personal paradise,whether visiting the location of this body’s discovery or not."


                          Positive: Soulful confidence, an unshakeable personal inner knowing, creative, regenerative. Able to reconstruct, redefine, transform, especially regarding consciousness, willfulness and restoring rock solid integrity. Supportive. Fostering. Fertile. Creative.

                          Negative : Insecure and attention demanding. Dramatic. Egocentric. A bully disposition. Forces head-on collisions. Claims martyrdom and sacrifice to secure attention. Willing to attach to someone else’s momentum or allowing dependent sorts to attach to one’s efforts for self benefit (using non-paid volunteers, fans, devotees).

                          Mundane: Self awareness programs. Portraits and or caricatures. “Spin” as in political or media framing of events. Affinity or family bonds with those similar in nature. The Hula. The big island of Hawaii. Storm warnings to sailors in form or rainbow. Lava cooling in the sea to make land. Creation, fertility, childbirth and sisterhood. Verbal affirmations. Body sacrifice. Entourages. Groupies.

                          Ceremonial: Hulas, regeneration ceremonies, affirmations. Soul-based capitulation ceremonies (surrendering ego to spirit). Ceremonies in which a mask is removed (unmasking of the great Hopi kachina Saquasohuh).

                          Lunar bodies contributing to keywords: Hi’iaka, Namaka.

                          That's an example of how Philip Sedgwick gets his astrological insights into an object from its astronomical,orbital features that include its heliocentric north node and perihelion at the time of discovery. Philip Sedgwick is an astrologer that does Heliocentric Astrology as well as Deep Space Astrology.
                          He has written SUN AT THE EARTH CENTER (Heliocentric Astrology) and THE SOUL OF SKY (Deep Space Objects,Centaurs,and Transneptunians). He has written ASTRONOMY FOR ASTROLOGERS. It's all on his Galactic Trilogy CD which I have. I love his stuff. He's my favorite astrologer because of his astronomically orientation and his work on transneptunians and centaurs.


                          I find it interesting that Michael Brown discovered an object in Hawaii, and that the object happened to fit the mythological Haumea in regards to fragments of it were broken off to become other orbiting bodies.


                          in my natal:
                          using whole sign house system:

                          Haumea in 11'16 Virgo in 1st
                          conjunct Ascendant in 13'26 Virgo in 1st
                          square Midheaven in 11'14 Gemini in 10th

                          also oppose Eris/Node midpoint in 11'22 Pisces
                          so I have Haumea = Eris/Node = Midheaven


                          In my next Solar Return on October 28th

                          using whole sign house system:
                          Haumea in 16'27 Libra in 12th
                          conjunct Venus in 17'01 Libra in 12th
                          trine Jupiter in 17'33 Aquarius in 4th

                          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                            Wed, October 7, 2009 - 2:04 PM
                            Thanks for adding the more interpretive information on these bodies, Raymond. That is very helpful. I find it much easier to see their significance with the addition of this type of information. The astronomy facts just don't communicate in what way we are to use these objects to understand them astrologically, so this information is necessary ~ at least to me.
  • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

    Sat, October 3, 2009 - 4:36 PM
    Mantis

    I know it doesn't really offer you the easy answer that you'd probably like, but I genuinely believe every sign has 'heaviness' and depth to it.
    I guess for simplicity's sake I would suggest that prominent water houses would add more emotional reflection, and emotional reflection is often confused for depth, though I'm not so sure that we can use self-reflection as a synonym for depth. Will staring at my navel make me deeper?
    At the same time, some of the so-called 'light' signs can be very deep, though they may not demonstrate it in the ways that society tells us is deep. I said this in the scorpio-vs-gemini thread ages ago, there is a difference between depth and pain. Being full of anguish does make you deep. Sitting thinking about past lovers and brooding does not make you deep. There is a difference.
    Leo can be very deep. Leo is not all about show-biz, bright frocks, pearly white teeth and a spotlight. It can be exceptionally deep. Leo is the urge to create. The creative process is one of the hallmarks of humanity, indeed it is a hallmark of godliness too.
    Every sign/house has its own version of depth. I guess we'd have to define what we mean be 'heaviness' or 'depth' to really understand this more.
    Its also worth pointing out that there is a difference too between 'seriousness' and depth. Saturn/Capricorn makes one quite serious perhaps, but does that make you deep.
    It always strikes me as unusual that the signs that are more easily associated with laughter and mirth are considered shallow or not deep. What does this tell us about our values? Perhaps it takes a great deal of depth and understanding to not take life or ourselves so seriously?
    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

      Sat, October 3, 2009 - 5:34 PM
      well, I don't know about "suffering", but for me Pisces is definitely pure depth in that is heightens perception to the max, not on the "physical" sense of the word-like Virgo or Capricorn would, but in the energy of the sixth sense-intuition and all that. It may not be obvious to someone with no planets in Pisces, but if you ask any Pisces Sun, they'll tell you there's no greater truth than feeling.

      And, above all, Pisces brings us face-to-face with the one unquestionable truth-that we all die, and know nothing about it.

      So, overall, I guess what best marks "depth" to me is heightened perception, and acceptance of the inevitable truths in life.

      And, I agree that Saturn shows bare realities-but PHYSICAL realities..Neptune still holds the trident, in my notebook. lol. I know they say it's the planet of illusions, but that was probably first introduced by someone who had no personal planets in Pisces, because otherwise they would know that it's just a mere side-effect of Neptunian perception.
      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

        Sat, October 3, 2009 - 5:45 PM
        Mantis

        "but if you ask any Pisces Sun, they'll tell you there's no greater truth than feeling. "

        The problem is that if you ask an Aries they'll say something different and so would Aquarius. YOUR truth is bot necessarily THE truth.

        "that we all die, and know nothing about it"

        Sounds more like an 8 house or scorpio thing to me.

        "And, I agree that Saturn shows bare realities-but PHYSICAL realities..Neptune still holds the trident, in my notebook. lol. I know they say it's the planet of illusions, but that was probably first introduced by someone who had no personal planets in Pisces, because otherwise they would know that it's just a mere side-effect of Neptunian perception."

        If you say so. We'll have to agree to disagree!
        Also Pisces is not the same as neptune. They are different. Ihave a tight trine between my Venus and Neptune and Neptune is a singleton in my chart. Neptune is not alien to me. It does show one truth but it is not the only one, and I don't think it's anything to do with heightened perception or even anything metaphysical or anything even remotely complex. Compassion is a truth that Neptune shows if used right, and EVERYONE has Neptine somewhere even those with dull perceptions.
        • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

          Sat, October 3, 2009 - 5:53 PM
          "It does show one truth but it is not the only one, and I don't think it's anything to do with heightened perception or even anything metaphysical or anything even remotely complex."

          well, sounds like you don't know the Neptune energy, then. Maybe you're right about Pisces and Neptune not being the same. There's a difference between Sun in Pisces and Sun conjunct Neptune, for instance.

          But..seriously,how can you say it's not complex? It's even in the theoretical part of astrology..Pisces and Virgo-the collective subconscious, and the individual consciousness. These are as complex as it gets in the Zodiac...and while Virgo consciousness, although extremely vast and intricately built, can still be followed, for the most part, due to its visible structure, Pisces' subconscious energy cannot. It's infinite in its complexity. In terms of complexity, I'd say the difference between Virgo and Pisces is like the difference between a circle and a sphere.
          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

            Sat, October 3, 2009 - 6:00 PM
            Mantis

            "well, sounds like you don't know the Neptune energy, then"

            lol perhaps I just know an aspect of it better even than you do, or perhaps I'm attributing to Neptune something that should be attributed to Pluto, or perhaps a combination of the two.

            "how can you say it's not complex?"

            I meant in relation to compassion and empathy. That's not complex. It doesn't take a clever person to be compassionate.
        • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

          Sat, October 3, 2009 - 5:54 PM
          and PS...

          "The problem is that if you ask an Aries they'll say something different and so would Aquarius. YOUR truth is bot necessarily THE truth. "

          true, but, then, Aries is the "baby" of the Zodiac, not the old and wise soul..
          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

            Sat, October 3, 2009 - 6:05 PM
            "true, but, then, Aries is the "baby" of the Zodiac, not the old and wise soul.."

            It could prove foolish to go too far down that route. Perhaps Aries is a sign older than Pisces on another arc. It's unfortunate that wisdom does not follow sun sign astrology. Were it to there'd be no wise Aries, leos, geminis or Taurus, and life has proven otherwise. It would mean there are no foolish Pisces, and again life proves otherwise.
          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

            Sun, October 4, 2009 - 5:49 AM
            "true, but, then, Aries is the "baby" of the Zodiac, not the old and wise soul.."

            Baby, only from the viewpoint of psychological development. In Tarot, the equivalent of the Magician is Aries. Thus, Aries is in all things - The Initiator.

            It starts off... invigorates, inspires and destroys all that stands in the way of the Pure manifestation of the Divine Idea. A power that is best wielded by those who been around the block a view times, which most Aries people have, I can assure you.
            • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

              Wed, October 7, 2009 - 8:11 AM
              Traditionally The Magician was "Mercury" which would be Gemini.

              Not thought as Aries til well into the 20th century. Maybe the 20s or 30s, because Thieren.
              Rider Waite considers it Mercurial as does Thoth.
              Mercurial knowledge, communication and magic . "Will" And there is difference between The Will and self will. "Will" is not he first chosen meaning.

              Rider interpretation from 1909 uses older symbolism.
              • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                Thu, October 8, 2009 - 6:08 AM
                <<Traditionally The Magician was "Mercury" which would be Gemini.>>

                You're right. Marrying Tarot meaning to astrological signs is quite arbitrary. Still; meaning changes not exclusively through time, but also through the shifting of perspective. The system of Tarot is an ancient and multilayered one and highly sensitive to energy projected on it.

                In the days of Thoth, the transsaturnals were hidden to the 'public' eye and thus the exclusive province of the Seers. Mercury was - for all practical purposes - the direct 'intermediary' of higher frequencies (as opposed to the moon) such as Uranus, which is known as the Initiator into the Mysteries.

                It is not by accident that (according to esoteric astrology) Uranus is the hierarchical ruler of Aries and Mercury it's esoteric ruler. Aries is the foremost revealer of the mysteries, either through direct intuitive perception and transformation (Uranus) or the ability to unveil and communicate the inner side of reality.

                Many err, projecting the (subjective) experience of a few undisciplined Aries people onto the Sign itself. This sign of Initiation is in many ways most intimately involved with the hidden side of All, as it is THE FIRST. The sign of magic and pure intuition, due to it's power to perceive and embody transcendent reality pure and undiluted.

                Only the purified will, gone through the burning grounds of mars, is able to create and transform. (regardless your sun sign)

                souledout.org/cosmology/z...riesnew.html
        • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

          Tue, October 6, 2009 - 3:44 PM
          I am being reminded of the song God by John Lennon...
          God is a concept,
          By which we can measure,
          Our pain,
          I'll say it again,
          God is a concept,
          By which we can measure,
          Our pain,

          I agree with you mantis but then again I have a pisces moon in the 8th house, neptune effects me daily and I always have to ask myself is the heaviness I am feeling my own feelings or someone who is standing next to me? I am always giving myself a reality check...Then again I am also influenced by uranus a lot and leo so I am sure that all leads right back to my moon ;)
  • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

    Sat, October 3, 2009 - 5:04 PM
    "Could this be Saturn's work? "

    Saturn makes things real. There's no pretence with Saturn, like there is with Neptune for example.
    Saturn is aspecting your sense of self, the sun, and with it will come the 'opportunity' to make your sense of self real, to wipe away the preconceptions of who you are or the illusion of it and reveal the real you. In fact it reveals real life. If you are someone who welcome the real world and who embraces truth then this will be a smooth transition, if you are someone who seeks escape from the real world or who hides behind illusion (Neptune) then this is going to be a rough fall back to earth.

    ".I always thought I didn't need that kind of energy, but now I've realized how much I do."

    I think Saturn is one of the most important planets. Its best to make friends now. If nothing else Saturn is not a planet of pretence, it speaks the truth, even if you don't want to hear it, in fact, particularly if you dont' want to hear it. But then, perhaps I'm biased also. You're having Saturn transit your first, I was born with it IN my first, and squaring my moon to add to that. There is no planet that deals with the real world more than Saturn does. Saturn's brilliant when it transits if you're not afraid of it or of reality. It will offer you a chance to be more productive and to recognise some more simple truths about yourself and about life. It adds substance.

    "I'm getting even less tolerant and patient wen it comes to superficiality-which is about 80% of what constitutes most people's lives, according to Neptune. I can't even laugh at people's faults anymore. I am truly DEAD-serious."

    All this opposition to superficiality is almost certainly the addition of Saturn in your life. But do not let Saturn make you a cynic, as it can often do, or make you despairing of people. Everyone's trying their best. They'll have a Saturn transit too at some point. Try to culture empathy and compassion for people. Perhaps people need their superficiality, and perhaps they're not as superficial as they're pretending to be, but maybe they're using it to help make things manageable. Don't be too quick to judge. Perhaps a more Saturnian person would have looked at you last year and felt the same thing you feel now. It would have been unfair for that person to judge you so rapidly, so too is it unfair for you to judge others. Try to cultivate patience for other people's faults. For the most part everyone is trying their best to be a good person as they see it and to deal with life's problems. Just as you are.
  • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

    Sun, October 4, 2009 - 6:07 AM
    From a personal level, most people exuding the kind of heaviness you are talking about are either strongly influenced by Saturn or Pluto. (Capricorn and Scorpio, 8 & 10th House)

    They exert a certain authority that sometimes can be experienced as particularly 'oppressive' and 'looming' and will go to any length demonstrating and imposing their 'world view' by the very pressure they radiate on people and situations - creating a vortex of meaning and psychological weight that seems inevitable and final.

    Saturn and Pluto are both energies that rule limitations and impose trials that either bend or break us. They represent the time-space and gravity and the power to escape and transform them, not just on the level of physical reality, but all reality. So in a way, you could say, that ability to put 'pressure' on situations and thus to infuse them with energy is to make them more real.
    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

      Sun, October 4, 2009 - 6:17 AM
      As for Uranus and Neptune, there function is more centrifugal than centripetal in the sense that they tend to seek to unravel and unfetter those layers of the time-space continuum that solidify and concentrate experience on one plane: e.g. involution. For me, they have always been agents of evaporation and the dispersion of energy towards more subtle expressions.

      In essence, Pluto contains both functions, but remains for all practical purposes highly paradoxical in operation.
      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

        Sun, October 4, 2009 - 11:08 AM
        All of these are aspecting my sun:

        uranus trine sun
        neptune square sun
        pluto quincunx sun
        saturn opposite sun

        I feel that the various words or effects you are mentioning, Mantis, are not neccessarily the same thing. It makes it hard for me to totally respond to your question ...

        >>>
        I wanna start a debate on this, although there have been minor debates on this issue on a more or less obvious level, throughout the astrology tribe. I'm talking about the issue of "depth", "heaviness", "density", "substance" etc etc.
        >>>

        depth can exist independent of substance. It can be achieved through lots of layering of substance but also through far-reaching insight, quick-moving motion, ability to move through barriers just to name a few.

        heaviness does not require volume or quantity in substance but it can help. Density can help. Sometimes a certain type of attachment or entrenchment to fixed and structured situations can give the appearance of heaviness.

        Substance is another tricky thing to talk about because in my experience different people might mean very different things when they are talking about what counts as "substantial" or "substace".

        It does seem like there is a lot to debate here!
        • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

          Sun, October 4, 2009 - 11:20 AM
          "depth can exist independent of substance. It can be achieved through lots of layering of substance but also through far-reaching insight, quick-moving motion, ability to move through barriers just to name a few."

          I totally agree with you riptide. Far reaching insight is probably much more relevant in terms of what I perceive depth to be.

          "It does seem like there is a lot to debate here! "

          There really does, but its not going to happen unless Mantis is willing to consider other planets or signs than Pisces and Neptune. From my point of view it seems that Mantis is putting too much importance on Neptune and Pisces. I am not suggesting these signs do not offer depth, but unless you're willing to look elsewhere, then there's no debate.

          I think its somewhat unfair to suggest that because you don't have a planet in Pisces that you're not going to understand Neptune enough and so wont' know what you're talking about. I could of course say the same for Pluto. Having Pluto and Mercury prominent in my chart should I say that Pluto and Mercury offer great depth but you won't know anything about it unless you have them in the same places as me? I think Aries people can be quite deep. Their depth may be less involved and elaborate, but it is depth all the same. Aries is Cardinal fire after all. The spirit is not neptune, it is fire. I think Aries is capable of grasping great truths that other signs may overlook and in this way it understands its truths. It is the initiator, it is the impulse to begin and to create in a purified and rare manner. Whilst it is true that Pisces has been called an old soul, it has also been called the rubbish tip of the zodiac. We can all pick and choose which titles to attribute to each sign, but when its OUR OWN sign, we should be wary of too much ego-trips. A little humility goes a long way.

          Virgo is a sign associated strongly with humility. Perhaps virgo is the sign of greatest depth.
          No other sign in the zodiac describes itself as being willfully able to move between heaven, earth and hell than Mercury, and the Twins were the natural guides for this journey, perhaps Gemini is the deepest sign. Cancer is the primoridal womb, nothing comes to be without passing through the womb, perhaps then, it is Cancer that is the deepest sign..... do you see what I'm getting at. Each sign is deep. Its depth is unique to itself. Pisces is one kind of deep, but there are many.
          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

            Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:09 PM
            Paul, you trying to charge at my walls, again? lol


            well, like I said, don't care about depth..must be Saturn on my SC right now, that just cares about money, comfort, control, belgian truffles, quality bath oils, pedigree house cats, silk gowns and cashmere sweaters.

            My ego is actually more Gemini-powered, I think. And yes, Pisces and Virgo are both known for their "humility", but most people overlook the fact that humility comes in the face of the unknown-God's work and all that, not in front of other people.
            I have the Virgo AC, and I have that humility but don't think that makes me deep. My far-reaching insights do, though, and those come from either Neptune or Pluto..or both.
            • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

              Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:36 PM
              <And yes, Pisces and Virgo are both known for their "humility", but most people overlook the fact that humility comes in the face of the unknown-God's work and all that, not in front of other people.
              I have the Virgo AC, and I have that humility but don't think that makes me deep. My far-reaching insights do, though, and those come from either Neptune or Pluto..or both.>

              Horse shit! I have Virgo rising, too, and I am certainly not the humble type, and I've sure known some rather puffer fish type Pisces in my time. That's ridiculous. No Sun sign nor ascendent has a corner on the humility market, nor on the arrogance one, for that matter. And then to say in one breath that you are humble and in the next to boast about "far-reaching insights." LOL! No, no. Back to the drawing board.
              • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:43 PM
                amiable,

                I was talking about THE SIGNS, in general. You have a Leo Sun..of course you're not humble! LOL

                Ps..I wasn't "bragging". It was just an observation. I have been told time and again that I am insightful..it's not just my "ego" acting out. Besides, I don't see how that comes against "humility". You can be proud of yourself as a human being but still be humble in the face of Nature.
                • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                  Wed, October 7, 2009 - 1:08 AM
                  Mantis

                  "You can be proud of yourself as a human being but still be humble in the face of Nature. "

                  lol. You can be humbled by nature, but that does not make you a humble person.

                  "I have been told time and again that I am insightful..it's not just my "ego" acting out"

                  And what does that mean to you? You may well be insightful, and lets assume that by insight you associate it with depth. Does it make you in any way more superior, more worthy of listening to, or more likely to be correct than any other person?

                  If you are insightful, so be it, perhaps your particular insight is Neptunian in nature, I don't know. My argument is against the notion that Neptune (or even pluto either) is THE planet of depths, just because you gain your insight by that planet (or think you do).
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                    Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:05 AM
                    "lol. You can be humbled by nature, but that does not make you a humble person. "

                    well, I think it does. I mean, you can't be humble all the time, unless you live in a convent. You can be humble in accepting the fact that you have an animal side and working along with it-for e.g., though please don't start with the clear water and the black dog on the hill...
                    Overall,that's humble, if you ask me. Just try not to think within the social "box". Energies and feelings exist beyond our little world, even if they are to no immediate relevance.


                    "And what does that mean to you? You may well be insightful, and lets assume that by insight you associate it with depth. Does it make you in any way more superior, more worthy of listening to, or more likely to be correct than any other person?"

                    No. That's exactly what I was trying to tell Amiable. She said I contradicted myself by saying I was humble and then "bragging", as she put it, about my insightful-ness. My point was you can have a healthy level of self-esteem, and know your virtues and still be a humble person. I firmly believe that nobody is above anyone in the world. Not on a complete level, at least.
                    Though my insightful nature could make me a better astrologer than most, for instance.

                    "If you are insightful, so be it, perhaps your particular insight is Neptunian in nature, I don't know. My argument is against the notion that Neptune (or even pluto either) is THE planet of depths, just because you gain your insight by that planet (or think you do). "

                    Well, this isn't mathematics. I doubt that anybody can come up with a clear demonstration for anything they say in astrology, but we can rely on past experiences-in reading others' charts, as well as day-to-day situations, and based on that I am about 90% certain that Pisces and Neptune, in the right combinations are the greatest depth-creators.

                    I say the right combinations-and that's very important. It depends heavily on Neptune/Pisces configurations present in each individual chart.
                    For example, when I say Pisces gives me depth, I take tons of information into account:my Mercury in Pisces, conjunct North Node, first of all. Maybe even the fact that it's conjunct to Fomalhaut. But don't know much about fixed stars..
                    This heightens my perception. I am a typical Mercury in Pisces individual-often described as "osmotic". Meaning dissolving and becoming one with what it dissolves. That's how I get most of information from my environment. I don't just "register"-I live the information I receive.

                    Same goes for my Venus in Pisces, trine Pluto and sextile Neptune and Saturn. I find it ridiculously easy to put myself into another's shoes.

                    Then, there's the huge midpoint cluster on my Pisces Sun in the Scorpio Decanate: Moon/Saturn=Moon/Neptune=Mars/Saturn=Mars/Neptune=Jupiter/Saturn=Jupiter/Neptune
                    Plus, Sun/Uranus=Pluto, for an extra insight boost-I think this works in terms of psychology insight, especially.

                    Anyway, point being Neptune is not afflicted in my chart. That's how I know I am not crazy..lol. All those Midpoints involving Neptune have a stabilizing effect on the Neptunian energy, keeping it within "human", "real" range-though, just barely. The strongest "grounding" effect on Neptune is Saturn, of course. And not just the fact that it is almost conjunct Neptune, but the fact that it conjuncts Neptune in Capricorn, the sign of "no bullshit"-all of that suggests Neptune's "field of activity" is restrained to the collectively-relevant definition of "reality".

                    Of course, you would still be deep with an afflicted natal Neptune, but you might risk being completely misunderstood and unappreciated-in other words, too deep for this world to care about your shit. lol

                    And, well, Paul, I would say you're not debating which planet or whether one particular planet "monopolizes" depth, but whether depth is worth having, or relevant, or admirable for a member of the human race.

                    Because, in terms of depth, it's just blatantly obvious to me that the water planets rule the show. And that's because they rule the subconscious-I'm not the one that just said that. It's been said before time and again, by all serious students of astrology. And since Neptune rules the last and more.."complex" of water signs, it seems only natural to me that it should also bring the deepest, darkest energies. You'll find this in general descriptions of Pisces" up and down the net..that tit epitomizes the saying "still water runs deep", that Pisces is the most "negative"-aka yin/feminine energy in the zodiac etc..

                    Of course, that doesn't mean people with heavy Pisces energy in their chart are "superior" to others, in other areas than the depth of feeling and breadth of perception, of course..hehe. LOL
                    It's just a matter of density, Paul, right? Depth is a heavy thing-heavy, thick, suffocating matter and energy-and amongst the 4 elements of the Zodiac, that's clearly best represented by Water, is it not? It's all there, in the basic theories.

                    And Leos are not deep, ok?I mean Leo, as an energy..

                    Fire is expansive, which means it spreads upwards, not downwards, like Water... Fire-inflates, infatuates, explodes, expands, etc. Water-grows deep, gets cold, gets heavy and creates greater pressure as you get deeper...ok maybe I added the last one out of my Gemini-under-water personal sufferings, but that's my image of water energy-pressurizing, and heavy.






















                    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                      Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:52 AM
                      Mantis

                      "well, I think it does. I mean, you can't be humble all the time, unless you live in a convent. You can be humble in accepting the fact that you have an animal side and working along with it"

                      Its fully possible that we understand humility differently.

                      "-for e.g., though please don't start with the clear water and the black dog on the hill... "

                      :p lol

                      "I firmly believe that nobody is above anyone in the world. Not on a complete level, at least."

                      Ok, just checking. We're at least in agreement on that one. It's worth double-checking these things. But I would argue against suggesting that being insightful may make you a better astrologer. Being a better astrologer would make you a better astrologer. You may be insightful in many things, but then not be insightful astrologically.

                      "Well, this isn't mathematics. I doubt that anybody can come up with a clear demonstration for anything they say in astrology, but we can rely on past experiences-in reading others' charts, as well as day-to-day situations, and based on that I am about 90% certain that Pisces and Neptune, in the right combinations are the greatest depth-creators. "

                      That's where we disagree. I think any planet can offer insight to the same level that Neptune can but perhaps in different fields than Neptune and in a different 'way' to Neptune. Insights into the future may well come from Uranus for example (I'm not going through every planet, I'm hoping you get the picture).

                      "This heightens my perception"

                      Yeah that's the other part I disagree with. Firstly I disagree that Mercury in Pisces has a 'heightened perception'. It is a different perception, true, but why heightened. But most importantly, what has heightened perception got to do with insight or depth?

                      "I say the right combinations-and that's very important. It depends heavily on Neptune/Pisces configurations present in each individual chart. "

                      Could you mock up an example imaginary chart that would have all these 'right' combinations? Its difficult to understand or argue for or against it if you don't know exactly what you mean. What kind of planets would be involved? What would be the aspects you would expect? What houses would be ideal?

                      "That's how I get most of information from my environment. I don't just "register"-I live the information I receive. "

                      The problem of course, from my point of view at least (perhaps the air sign view point?) is that one cannot be objective about anything if you ARE the thing you're trying to be objective about. There is something to be said for understanding a thing by being part of that thing, but there's also something to be said for understanding something objectively by being outside of it. Subjectivity versus objectivity. I agree that what you're describing is very much a mercury in Pisces thing. Perhaps its better for you to go with that, after all, its written in your chart. However there's also a great deal to be said for objectivity (mercury in air/earth signs?). Is either one better? Or does each one just bring its own unique understanding into the mix?

                      "Same goes for my Venus in Pisces, trine Pluto and sextile Neptune and Saturn. I find it ridiculously easy to put myself into another's shoes. "

                      Its probably more the Pisces descendant and the major planets aspecting that Pisces descendant. After all, if the descendant is the 'other' and you have it in Pisces, the seperation between 'you' and 'other' is more fluid, less clearly defined boundaries. Put the sun in conjunction there (and therefore opposition your asc) it probably accounts for what you're describing. I'm not sure Venus in Pisces would suggest this, trine Pluto or sextile either of those planets. It's probably a mixture of that and the fact that you have your sense of boundaries (Saturn) conjunct the boundless Neptune, backed up by neptune being the ruler of your descendant. If you think about it in that sense instead I think it'll make more sense, in fact, from this alone you'd expect it! As a potential negative, whilst you may be very much able to stand in someone elses shoes, are you able to stand in your own? Who are YOU? Where does the line that divides you from 'other' begin and end? Sometimes it can be too amorphous especially if your Saturn is conjuct Neptune. Just something to consider.

                      "All those Midpoints involving Neptune have a stabilizing effect on the Neptunian energy, keeping it within "human", "real" range-though, just barely"

                      I have to disagree. Midpoints involving neptune don't have a stabilising effect on neptune energy. A strong saturn has a stabilising effect. Though perhaps an earthy neptune will do as well (yours being in capricorn). Certainly I dont' see how midpoints to neptune would result in stabilisation of Neptune energy. I think you can look at the fact that your Neptune is conjunct Saturn as either being that your neptune is more 'grounded' or that your sense of boundaries are more eroded. Its such a tight conjunction, its probably a bit of both. I'd be grateful that its in an earth sign, were it in Cancer or Pisces it would probably be too much to expect any sense of grounding (with everything else going on in your chart). This kind of dynamic of earthy vs watery probably has a psychic dimension to it. I think with a strong ego it would be very beneficial, particularly musically or even scientifically. But certainly its this more than anything else that offer stability.

                      "And, well, Paul, I would say you're not debating which planet or whether one particular planet "monopolizes" depth, but whether depth is worth having, or relevant, or admirable for a member of the human race. "

                      Well that's my 'side' point. My main point is that I don't think ANY one planet/sign etc will demonstrate depth, my overall point being that it of course depends on what YOU mean by depth. What I mean by it would be different to what you mean. What Pisces means by it would be different to what Leo means by it etc etc. My point wasn't that it is worth having or relevant, my question was does it make you any better if you're deep or if you are shallow? Should we belittle shallow people or look down on them? SHould we look up to 'deep' people? Do these terms matter in terms of 'worth'? Just a sideline philosophical question worth contemplating whilst raising these other issues.

                      "Because, in terms of depth, it's just blatantly obvious to me that the water planets rule the show."

                      ha ha quelle surprise! Still depends on what you mean by deep!

                      "And that's because they rule the subconscious-I'm not the one that just said that"

                      So subconsciousness is depth? Air signs rule the mental faculties, is that not a depth? Earth signs rule the rationale of the real word, where all else can be illusion earth is not. Is this not a depth? Fire rules the spirit and the divine spark. Surely this shows depth?

                      "Of course, that doesn't mean people with heavy Pisces energy in their chart are "superior" to others, in other areas than the depth of feeling and breadth of perception, of course..hehe"

                      I don't think it makes them superior IN those areas either!

                      "Depth is a heavy thing-heavy, thick, suffocating matter and energy-and amongst the 4 elements of the Zodiac, that's clearly best represented by Water, is it not?"

                      No i would ascribe earth to the heavy thick thing that suffocates matter and energy. Earth, in many philosophies, is the container of the three primal elements of air, fire and water. Saturn particularly can be said to harness raw energy and trap it in manifest material form.

                      "And Leos are not deep, ok?I mean Leo, as an energy.. "

                      I know what you meant, but I woudl disagree. If you take Leo, as an energy, to ONLY equate to show business and spotlight, l'oreal adverts and a killer tan, then of course, yes, you're right. However, there's a great deal more to Leo than the effects of when the Sun is in Leo. In fact, even with it there, there is often much more than meets the eye. Leo may well be, as an archetype, the expression of the physical/material potentials for the activity of creation and love, and to me these are things worth not sweeping away as being 'not deep'. I think you overlook the greatest potentials of the fire signs. I honestly don't think you realise how potent and 'good' the fire sign energy can be. Fire is the divine spark. Water is not. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but certainly I think you undervalue fire. Fire, made fixed, suggests the potentials toward the application of manifested creation or creativity. it is considered a ruler for a reason. You make good use in your posts of what the sun sign columns say of Pisces, the old soul, still waters run deep etc, you must surely apply the same logic then to Leo, the sign of leadership, or creativity, of inspiration. The fire signs are the archetypes of creativity and creation itself. Don't downplay fire, nor leo. A good case may be made that fire exists outside of the manifest world. Water might be deep by the terms of the material world, but what about the spiritual or non-physical world. Fire (and air of course) are to be found there. Each element has its purpose. One isn't any deeper than the other. Thats if we're talking about the archetypal energy (rather than by sun-sign) of course, which you say you are.
            • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

              Wed, October 7, 2009 - 1:03 AM
              mantis

              "Paul, you trying to charge at my walls, again? lol "

              I don't charge at your walls, I just don't always agree with your ideas/opinions. It's nothing against YOU, just against YOUR IDEAS. I don't know whether or not you see it as the same thing! ;p

              "well, like I said, don't care about depth"

              Would you be upset/annoyed/insulted if I said that I don't think your deep at all, and if others agreed? I'm not saying that this is how I feel, just putting the question there for you to consider how you would feel about that.

              "must be Saturn on my SC right now, that just cares about money, comfort, control, belgian truffles, quality bath oils, pedigree house cats, silk gowns and cashmere sweaters"

              Well that doesn't sound like Saturn to me, but maybe. My Saturn is natally in the first house and is not how I experience it, but it IS square my moon. To be honest, it sounds more like a venus/second house thing.
              I've specifically just checked for you. Transitting venus is in your first house just now so perhaps its THAT that you're experiencing rather than Saturn. Tr Venus is opposition your sun in Pisces too, as well as your natal Venus. The Sun has also just entered your second house of course whcih is ruled by libra.
              Anyway, whatever it might be, it doesn't quite sound like Saturn to me. Its almost certainly the transitting venus you're experiencing. Saturn isn't quite within orb enough to be considered conjunct your ascendant 7 degrees is a just a bit wide for me. But Venus is less than a minute away.

              "And yes, Pisces and Virgo are both known for their "humility""

              Well, Virgo specifically is what I said. That's not to suggest that only sun in virgos are humble, just that humility as a trait is often associated with virgo.

              "I have the Virgo AC, and I have that humility but don't think that makes me deep. My far-reaching insights do, though, and those come from either Neptune or Pluto..or both."

              Do you see the paradox. True humility would not consider their insights particularly 'far-reaching'.

              "and those come from either Neptune or Pluto..or both"

              Why?

              Ultimately, for me, I don't think you can put 'depth' at the door step of any one particular sign/planet/house. I do think that certain planets/signs etc are more likely to make you introspective, and others more likely to make you philosophical etc etc. but none of those things are depth and none of those things 'guarantee' it. All we're offered is potentials and its up to us to use our free will etc to make the most of it what we can. At soem point during that journey some of us will undoubtedly experience moments of profundity and depth etc. But to me, that's more indicative of the person and not one particular PART of the person. The person is greater than the sum of his/her parts.
              • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:41 AM
                "Would you be upset/annoyed/insulted if I said that I don't think your deep at all, and if others agreed? I'm not saying that this is how I feel, just putting the question there for you to consider how you would feel about that."

                No, I wouldn't be "insulted". This is the online world, which is a shallow way to know somebody in the first place. So, using a mirror image technique, I could say shallow in a shallow world means deep in a deep world...LOL

                But, seriously, no, I wouldn't be annoyed, or upset, or insulted. What is the point you're making with this question, though?


                "Well that doesn't sound like Saturn to me, but maybe. My Saturn is natally in the first house and is not how I experience it, but it IS square my moon. To be honest, it sounds more like a venus/second house thing.
                I've specifically just checked for you. Transitting venus is in your first house just now so perhaps its THAT that you're experiencing rather than Saturn. Tr Venus is opposition your sun in Pisces too, as well as your natal Venus. The Sun has also just entered your second house of course whcih is ruled by libra.
                Anyway, whatever it might be, it doesn't quite sound like Saturn to me. Its almost certainly the transitting venus you're experiencing. Saturn isn't quite within orb enough to be considered conjunct your ascendant 7 degrees is a just a bit wide for me. But Venus is less than a minute away. "

                Well, my point was I'm very materialistic, not necessarily hedonistic..just yet.


                "Well, Virgo specifically is what I said. That's not to suggest that only sun in virgos are humble, just that humility as a trait is often associated with virgo."

                no offense, but that's crap. two pieces of crap.

                no.1.I know they usually "associate" Virgo energy with humility, but I hate it when people take it out of context. This is how you perpetuate the myth of astrology as a fatalistic view on life and the world in general.

                Don't mean to sound all pissy right now, but the Virgo-Pisces axis, especially, is one that touches me personally, and, if God forbid, we'll see the "astrological Gattaca" come to life withing the next few decades, "associations" like these will give me and countless others a bad name and an extra cross to bear.

                People often lose sight of the fact that Virgo is the height of individual consciousness, and Pisces the sign of the merging with the collective subconscious, which means they are both signs of introspection, reflexivity, analysis/synthesis-all in all signs that "question" what has been and what will be, so, naturally, they both look for answers to impossible questions compulsively, and throughout their lives.

                THAT is what often- not always! -leads to the "proverbial" humility, but saying that Virgo, or Pisces, for that matter, is humble is like purposefully putting people with Virgo Sun signs or whatever down, putting them on a lower step than the rest of signs and making novice astrologers turn away from this craft, because the general reading of their Sun sign/Moon sign or whatever makes no sense, or simply because they don't want to hear stuff that they don't like.

                Anyway, my point is, you have to go to the source. That way people can see all possible paths of evolution, not going crazy because they feel the sword hanging over their heads, and wasting time wondering when it's gonna fall.

                and no.2. The same drive towards getting explanations that can potentially lead Virgo to humility can also lead Pisces to humility. It is in no way different. Same goals, different means.


                ""I have the Virgo AC, and I have that humility but don't think that makes me deep. My far-reaching insights do, though, and those come from either Neptune or Pluto..or both."

                Do you see the paradox. True humility would not consider their insights particularly 'far-reaching'."

                what exactly do you think this "true humility" is? Not arguing my point of view? Not expressing myself freely?


                "Ultimately, for me, I don't think you can put 'depth' at the door step of any one particular sign/planet/house. I do think that certain planets/signs etc are more likely to make you introspective, and others more likely to make you philosophical etc etc. but none of those things are depth and none of those things 'guarantee' it. All we're offered is potentials and its up to us to use our free will etc to make the most of it what we can. At some point during that journey some of us will undoubtedly experience moments of profundity and depth etc. But to me, that's more indicative of the person and not one particular PART of the person. The person is greater than the sum of his/her parts. "

                I can't agree with this. I say we mature as we grow old, yes, and we all have the potential to become the best versions of ourselves, but depth is depth. you either have it, or you don't.
                If you are a shallow, narrow-minded workaholic, for instance, the death of your child could make you even more bitter and resentful towards the world, and even more of a workaholic, whereas it could make others more religious, find faith, feel closer to god, or others revolted and give them an incentive to start some research etc.

                I think the whole point in interpreting a natal chart is to find out the sum of energies that, well, rule our basic selves, and ee how those would influence our actions in different situations.
                And yes, you can, and you should change throughout your life, but that doesn't mean you'll go through the entire range of energies represented by the zodiac signs/planets and all their infinite possible combinations. otherwise, there would be no point in the reincarnation theory.



                • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

                  Wed, October 7, 2009 - 4:07 AM
                  "But, seriously, no, I wouldn't be annoyed, or upset, or insulted. What is the point you're making with this question, though? "

                  To find out what being 'deep' means to you.

                  "Well, my point was I'm very materialistic, not necessarily hedonistic..just yet. "

                  Yeah but there's more to venus than hedonism! Venus represents our values too! There's more to Saturn to materialism. Venus happens to be a very sensual and phsyical planet. What you described seems more venusian than saturnian.

                  "no offense, but that's crap. two pieces of crap. "

                  How so? Humility has been attributed to Virgo. I specifically said that it does not have not the SOLE monopoly on that. The links to humility and virgo are well-documented.

                  "no.1.I know they usually "associate" Virgo energy with humility, but I hate it when people take it out of context. This is how you perpetuate the myth of astrology as a fatalistic view on life and the world in general. "

                  I struggle to imagine how you read that from what I actually wrote. Perhaps this is a sensitive issue for you, perhaps you're reading more into what was there than what I had said, or for that matter meant.

                  " but saying that Virgo, or Pisces, for that matter, is humble"

                  Which I haven't. I can only ask you to ACTUALLY read what I wrote. That the trait is associated with Virgo. I stand by this, because it is true. I never said Virgos were humble. Alcohol is associated with Pisces, not all Pisces are alcoholics of course.

                  "what exactly do you think this "true humility" is? Not arguing my point of view? Not expressing myself freely? "

                  I woudl argue that arguing your point of view and expressing yourself freely (or otherwise) is not in any way related to humility.

                  "I can't agree with this. I say we mature as we grow old, yes, and we all have the potential to become the best versions of ourselves, but depth is depth. you either have it, or you don't."

                  Well we have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't believe that you are born with the potential to be deep and other people aren't. I can't believe you say that and then have the hypocricy to then say that my views on astrology are fatalistic.

                  "I think the whole point in interpreting a natal chart is to find out the sum of energies that, well, rule our basic selves, and ee how those would influence our actions in different situations. "

                  Another place we disagree. Astrology shouldn't be used to 'diagnose' what 'rules' you. YOU rule you.
                  It can often demonstrate our personalities and the kinds of things we're drawn to, but we still have free will. How we make the most of our chart is up to us. We can react whatever way we like to life's circumstances, we cannot blame our actions on our charts. Even the most afflited Mars can be a world class athlete. One cannot say my mars is in Pisces so I'll never beat all those Mars in Aries people, as an example. We make the most of what we have and we always have free will. Some things may mean we struggle a bit more and in other arenas things seem easier, but that is all.

                  "And yes, you can, and you should change throughout your life, but that doesn't mean you'll go through the entire range of energies represented by the zodiac signs/planets and all their infinite possible combinations. otherwise, there would be no point in the reincarnation theory. "

                  Oh I'm not saying for a moment that you WILL go through all the energies. What I'm saying is that DEPTH is not to be found in only 'some' charts, no more than the ability to be a world class athelete is. Some things may help you along and some things may hinder, but your chart wont' stop you doing it. I firmly believe that. nobody is born as being inherently 'poor' or inherently 'shallow' or anything else.
  • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

    Mon, October 5, 2009 - 2:36 PM
    mental note; are our charts not indicators of our prgress through the human psyche so far in our journey through the cosmos? Given we are given to ourselves our self of choice, surely can we not choose our self? I mean, even if your chart indicates a lack of depth, we can still venture into those unknown depths? And who knows, create depth for and within ourselves
    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

      Mon, October 5, 2009 - 2:38 PM
      basically im saying, we have choice and your chart doesn't in my opinion, frame you for life, hanging you on the wall of fate...Don't we create our own fate? Maybe that is what true depth is, taking action to create your own pathway, and going through the motions and struggles to attain some kin dof self mastery
  • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

    Mon, October 5, 2009 - 3:36 PM
    Associating depth with only one particular planet or sign seems ironically shallow.
    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

      Mon, October 5, 2009 - 4:12 PM
      I might just cancel this whole thread, since I don't care about the depth issue anymore. Plus, I'm really confused about the house systems. I think I'm switching to whole sign charts, which changes my initial input a lot.

      Though, I find that no matter the house system, all my major issues are explained through the planets' signs and aspects..like I always attributed my depression to Saturn in the 4th house, but I already overlooked something I've even read about on some astrology sites, and that is that an almost exact Saturn-Neptune conjunction, like mine, particularly in Capricorn gives a heavy subconscious and strong tendency towards depressive states.

      Add my Black Moon Lilith's trine to my Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Pluto's tight trine to Venus to that, in addition to some very revealing planetary pictures, like Moon/Saturn=Sun, Moon/Neptune=Sun, Venus/Saturn=Pluto, Venus/Neptune=Pluto, and you have more than enough to explain the most complex psychological issues, ranging from good old fashioned anxiety to clinical depression. (I'm guessing Moon/Uranus=Venus would explain the manic phases, as well).




      I mean, we have tons of information to go to, without a house system: planets in signs, planetary aspects, transits, progressions, declinations, asteroids, and something I believe is crudely overlooked among the astronuts here:planetary pictures. I've tried to raise debates on midpoints several times before, but people hardly responded. Is it because it was THAT difficult to have their planetary pictures calculated?
      I find them amazingly revealing, not just in natal astrology, but especially in transits.


      Oh, another thing I always took for granted was my Moon-Mars-Jupiter stellium in the 9th house. I always assumed it made perfect sense, because of my strong need to see the "big picture", and my interest in the abstract, philosophical issues.
      I totally overlooked the fact that a tight conjunction from Jupiter to both Moon and Mars is more than enough to give an interest in philosophy and abstract sciences. Not to mention also the square to Mercury and North Node..

      Also Sun in the 7th..isn't Sun conjunct Venus enough already to show a tendency towards hyper-emotionalism and idealism connected to the relationship field?

      So, I think you could give a good reading without using any house system at all..BUT, now I'm over-excited about the whole sign house system. There's definitely something there..

      In the whole sign house system, my Saturn-Neptune-Uranus in Cap cluster falls in the 5th, which makes a lot more sense than these being in the 4th, especially from the house ruler's perspective.
      Both in Placidus and whole signs, these 3 rule the same houses:the 5th, the 6th and the 7th, but in Placidus they were in the 4th meaning-relationships through family environment-made absolutely no sense, since my family is a sack of damaged goods;I don't remember them ever having acquaintances over for dinner-they're totally friendless; it would also mean work or health issues related to family environment-again, non-sense, and having fun indoors and wanting kids-not really.

      Saturn in the 5th definitely describes me the best: a "party pooper"-that's something I've been called since early infancy. I'm definitely the type that feels guilty by having fun, and really don't tend to ever loosen up completely..except when I'm asleep. Plus, there's no such thing as "light-hearted" when it comes to romance in my case. Neptune in the 5th tooootaally makes lots of sense. I'm a major lover of drama, and ever since I was 5 years old, I'd be writing and re-writing love stories in my head. Uranus in the 5th..astrology IS fun, mmkay? LOL


      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

        Wed, October 7, 2009 - 1:37 AM

        I like your threads on midpoints. I have responded to them.
        Planetary Pictures are very insightful. I like some Hamburg School techniques. Cosmobiology is an offshoot of that system.

        I really like the Geometry in Astrology, and so I like midpoints and planetary pictures.

        maybe my Sun/Mercury mp conjunct Jupiter/Uranus mp of 3 minutes of arc and my Mercury/Uranus mp conj Neptune/Pluto mp with 30 minutes of arc are good for Astrology.


        yeah, I have permanently switched to the whole sign house system.
      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

        Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:48 PM
        I would stick with a house system for a mimimum of 10 more years or at least until your Saturn return. Without a house system you will certainly be afoat without a sail. I had a astrologer read my chart once who didn't use houses. They were decent with some predictive work but their ability to see anything personal was totally useless. Without houses creates exteme boredom. Your chart is a 4th house chart and so is your life and family past. Your family and past is extemely relavent and to dismiss a house system is lunacy. Houseless astrologers are not good with personal readings nor are they good with people in general. They are scientific. Not person centred. End of story.
    • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

      Tue, October 6, 2009 - 12:41 PM
      "Associating depth with only one particular planet or sign seems ironically shallow."

      Not really. It's a little simplistic, sure, but not shallow.

      Honestly, I think people who go around proclaiming that this or that thing or question or person is shallow as though they are the master and judge of depth themselves is a bit....you guessed it!...shallow. lmao
      • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

        Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:25 PM
        Simplistic..shallow...you can pick at word terminology if mine seems unsuitable to you. Stating that something seems shallow is different from stating that I have depth. But we can go in circles about shallow...going off your opinion of it..you would be as well.
        • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

          Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:38 PM
          I have to agree, Rexie. Looks like semantics and hair-splitting to me. Simplistic and shallow are not that different since they both lack what one would characterize as "depth."
          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

            Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:51 PM
            pfff, amiable!


            "Simplistic and shallow are not that different since they both lack what one would characterize as "depth." " Spoken like a true Virgo Rising.

            Simplistic in structure doesn't necessarily mean "shallow". A peasant could be more philosophical and contemplating, while tending to the sheep, than some scholars out there that read thousands of books on countless subjects and only did so to achieve social status, with no real appreciation towards that which he studied.

            Just because a peasant doesn't have the vocabulary to express all thaat he feels, doesn't mean he is any less complex than someone who can.etc etc
            • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

              Tue, October 6, 2009 - 8:48 PM
              Life itself has its depth, heaviness, simplicities, shallowness, etc. I seem to remember a thread about "The Depth of Gemini" where everyone started saying similar stuff as here. I wonder how long we're all going to chase our tails this time around, lol.

              I suppose I'm just being shallow and simplistic about it, but dualities like shallow/deep exist for every sign and every planet and every house and every indivudal IMO.
            • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

              Tue, October 6, 2009 - 9:04 PM
              Somehow, I don't think that Book was referring to the pondering shepherd of deep thoughts.

              And you know, I never said that scholars have much depth. Basically they are scholastic, which means they know stuff, but they don't necessarily make much of what they know.
          • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

            Tue, October 6, 2009 - 7:53 PM
            Thanks for understanding amiablehermit. I guess in a forum setting where all we have to exchange are written words, ideas can get lost, misconstrued, or dissected at times. Damn language and its limitations! lol
  • Re: How's "heavy" mapped out in astrology?

    Wed, October 7, 2009 - 8:38 AM
    I also think of Saturn as a planet that has strong effect on my chart. Therefor "heavy" or throwing its "weight around"

    And I think these posts got so busy in the debate.. it lost track of the question...
    - too busy defending every other thing from being "shallow" as the assumed opposite of the "heaviest or deepest"

    Mantis;
    I would think if you are talking about your "feelings" being heavy. So feeling oppressed/blocked or thwarted as well as depressed listless and anxious? It would be assumed a negative connotation therefore-
    a poorly placed neptune?
    Aspected/squared Neptune?
    A fallen neptune?

    I am not good at chart reading or translating aspects as yet.


    Despite having little earth influence, I am a rather broody and grounded Libra on most days. Atypical of many commonly ascribed attributes except being Cardinal and indecisive.
    So it must be something with the outer ring and my water trine that stars Neptune and Jupiter

    I had a heck of a time reading through with all the quotes of a quoted quote. Yikes. I am Libra sun with Gem ASC.. I can't concentrate that hard!!!! (jkg)

Recent topics in "Astrology"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Santa's lap... Oneinmotion 44 Today, 8:20 AM
JUNO: what are you married to ? where are your betrayal issu... sherpa 250 Today, 3:34 AM
Confidence Remi Love 3 Today, 1:20 AM
Merry Christmas everyone Peter 22 Yesterday, 11:29 PM