Interesting Stonewall; it seems overall that the signs don't relate as much to you as planets and houses. I'm not sure what that means. It's probably just the overriding significance of that T-square of outer planets on your angles. Any astrologer would notice that.

However, I never said (see above) that I think the system Eleanor used indicates the strength of planets and signs in the chart. Many astrologers use many different systems for different purposes. It's best to stick with planetary aspects, angles, and signs occupied by planets to determine which factors are most significant in indicating who you are.

According to that, Saturn/Capricorn and Neptune/Pisces came out higher than you expected when your sun and rising sign were added in to the system, and you don't think they fit you as well. But otherwise the planets you thought would be strong were strong, and weak ones were weak.

Another thing I noticed is that you picked out Uranus and Pluto as your strongest planets, and Venus and Moon as your weakest; which they were. Also, I picked out Uranus conjunct Pluto as your strongest aspect in your chart, which involved what you said were your two strongest planets (what an aspect to have as your strongest, dude!). Keep those facts in mind.

On 2002-03-26 00:24, Eric A Meece wrote:

I just cast madscientist Robert's chart; he too has two aspects that stand out from the rest. We'll see if he picks up on them, and how well his planetary lists matches the point system.

I'd be interested to see if these two aspects are consistent with the INTP temperament.

so far an interesting pattern has developed in which women underestimate their Mars strength and men (well just Stonewall so far) overestimate it. We'll see if that holds up, but it would be logical since, as everyone knows, men are from Mars, and women are not!

I am withholding judgment on this until I have fully analyzed your modified scoring, Eric. The fact is that I chose my initial order of planets very carefully and, after finishing, I noticed that the order was consistent with the rulers of signs which scored consistently high through various quizzes earlier. Recall, that I scored high on Aries on all of those tests and Aries is ruled by Mars. To add to the list, I also scored consistently high on Sagittarius and Scorpio, ruled by Jupiter and Pluto (and Mars), respectively. On the one test, Gemini was right up there as well (ruled by Jupiter). Those initial quizzes consistently suggested strength in:

Jupiter
Mars
Pluto

If there is anything to this, then Mars should rate highly and indeed I placed it in my upper tier after reading your descriptions without even thinking of the old quizzes. That upper tier was again:

Uranus
Pluto

??Mercury?? (high or low; very possibly low)

Jupiter
Mars

--------------

Note that your descriptions introduced Uranus where Aquarius had not scored as high as the consistently high signs in the earlier quizzes. But it definitely sounds like me. When I scored the chart on the planets alone, I got an almost perfect match with my initial planet ordering. The order was as follows:

Uranus
Pluto
Jupiter
Mars

Since that time, you have dealt with Susan and Sherry who did not have a similarly impressive correlation. You have modified scoring to eliminate the discrepancy and, in so doing, you have altered my chart order such that it no longer impressively reflects what I would have expected. Indeed it may be beyond the bounds of even remotely representing me, but I still have to analyze it more fully.

But my main point here is to say that three planets dominated with 100% consistency through all quizzes, descriptions, etc. and this fact cannot be overlooked. Those three planets are:

Jupiter
Mars
Pluto

Again your descriptions also added Uranus (as did my chart). But if you are going to end up lowering Mars into obscurity, then you are defying its consistently high rating by every measure seen thus far as well as my own personal knowledge of myself. Beyond a point, the ordering no longer represents me and I see no reason to believe that the chart says anything at all about me.

The other thing that I cannot emphasize enough is that the Saturn in Pisces descriptions sound like an entirely different person and the Saturn on Ascendant descriptions, while closer, do not fully represent me. I appreciate the fact that my personality should be defined by this Ascendant aspect, "by law," but I cannot emphasize enough that it does not define me to the extent that the "law" dictates. It just does not and it is that simple. If I am not mistaken, Saturn keeps crawling higher and higher in the rankings with each successive tweak, surpassing Mars and possibly even Jupiter. This is not who I am. There is no way that Saturn is more significant than Mars in my makeup so my ordering should be as follows:

Uranus
Pluto
Jupiter
Mars
Saturn

Saturn should be no higher.

Now I see grounds to believe that there might be something to this since the same three planets (Jupiter, Mars, and Pluto) have topped the list in every form of examination, independent of my chart. But I have seen no evidence that the full gamut of offered aspect meanings describe who I am. Someone has taken a foundation which might conceivably represent a true correlation and thrown a lot of arbitrary, uncorrelated stuff on top of it, thereby spoiling the stew. That is the only way I can see it if I remain objective.

So what I will try to do is parse out just what might correlate reliably in a chart. Whatever it is should produce an order like this:

Uranus
Pluto
Jupiter
Mars
Saturn

As soon as I get to something suggested which bumps Saturn higher, then I have gone beyond what reasonably correlates. I'll keep you posted.

On 2002-03-26 02:24, Eric A Meece wrote:

Interesting Stonewall; it seems overall that the signs don't relate as much to you as planets and houses. I'm not sure what that means. It's probably just the overriding significance of that T-square of outer planets on your angles. Any astrologer would notice that.

Let me know if you think of something because I was genuinely impressed by the house sign correlation.

Another thing I noticed is that you picked out Uranus and Pluto as your strongest planets, and Venus and Moon as your weakest; which they were. Also, I picked out Uranus conjunct Pluto as your strongest aspect in your chart, which involved what you said were your two strongest planets (what an aspect to have as your strongest, dude!). Keep those facts in mind.

I have not forgotten, Eric, and I am suitably impressed, I assure you! That is why I am still here trying to see if there is anything to this. But if by some chance there is a correlation between planets and personality, then I have to think that much of the additional "rules" and "interpretations" established by astrologers are sketchy. I am trying to weed out the sketchy stuff and retain that which might truly correlate.

That's a good idea Stonewall, and I think it's quite possible that some interpretations used by astrologers are not valid. Being looked down upon (or else believed in without thinking), there hasn't been much honest research into the topic.

There are also a lot of creative ideas today that astrologers come up with, that seem to work for them in special ways. YOu have to understand their proposals and their purpose before you can judge them.

I'm not sure how you arrived at your "house sign correlations" Email me and let me know and I'll try to make sense of it. I also don't think you calculated the "Universal, Social, Individual" scores correctly, and I'm not sure they really apply to you-- at least in the way you thought. I don't think there's definite answers as to how to apply these categories, and I doubt they apply to everyone. I'm pretty sure myself that they are not a dominant factor. Plus, having a handle planet (aka "singleton in a hemisphere") changes the focus to the opposite area from where most of the planets are located in the chart, according to many astrologers.

Someone has taken a foundation which might conceivably represent a true correlation and thrown a lot of arbitrary, uncorrelated stuff on top of it, thereby spoiling the stew.

That would be me, I take it :smile:

Mars is definitely strong in your chart. Saturn Ascendant is too important to overlook though (whatever the results for others might be on our planetary point system). As I said, most men probably identify with Mars anyway, and women don't. That difference is also recognized in MBTI in a sense (since men are automatically given 1 T point and women 1 F point). Even the symbol for Mars is the same as the symbol for the male sex. It is an undeniable factor. Your results on quizzes will somewhat reflect this, I think.

Saturn may outscore your Mars on a point system, but it won't be by much.

Younger people today with Saturn strong don't fit the Saturn stereotype as often. Saturn is after all a symbol of old age and its attitudes. But I can usually see the influence as I get to know the person. The Piscean aspect of yourself may be hidden from you; but it's certainly true that its ruling planets also direct it toward Scorpio and Gemini, and that other signs are more dominant.

Then again, maybe as a Nomad Gen Xer you'll be an old curmudgeon in time, and then Saturn will fit fine :smile:
You can't use astrology absent from other factors (age, sex, historical times, generations) and expect it to have total validity.

To clarify things, here are your scores for just the planetary aspects (posted again because I did miss a few aspects last time)

Uranus 16
Pluto 15
Jupiter 12
Mars 11
Saturn 10
Neptune 9
Sun 8
Moon 7
Mercury 5
Venus 5

I am a Reagan Republican (and a military veteran for that matter)

Sounds like Saturn to me :smile:

In spades. You can't possibly undergo military service without a strong willingness to undergo discipline. And as for Reagan, whatever his slogans were, he was a big prop to the Establishment and that's all he ever was.

Perhaps we disagree about this :grin:

Maybe I'm out of line here, defining you as fitting Saturn because of what you said; but I just couldn't resist pointing it out.

To me, a conservative is a conservative, however dressed up in clothes and talk of "freedom". We Boomer liberals certainly had a different reaction to Reagan. He came into politics as a reactionary on all levels. As far as I'm concerned, he never changed.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-26 14:11 ]</font>

eric, i heard you can tell much about me due to the starts over my head at birth, even though it twas a foggy and dank 70s night.

On 2002-03-26 12:27, Eric A Meece wrote:

I also don't think you calculated the "Universal, Social, Individual" scores correctly, and I'm not sure they really apply to you-- at least in the way you thought. I don't think there's definite answers as to how to apply these categories, and I doubt they apply to everyone.

Actually that part was cut and dried and you can verify how its done with the scoresheet for Clinton they provided. The explanations are pretty clear too:

Personal =
Social = morality
Universal = universal truth

The signs advance through an expanding outlook. The four Social signs are more concerned with traditional morality. The Universal signs seek universal truth. I am far and away Universal consistent with the results by house (U=10, S=2, P=1). In fact I refused to even use the term "morality" until very recently for the simple reason that it was inseparable from arbitrary rules, in the past, but it now can be understood to represent truth so I use it in the context of universal truth.

Now, whether the signs actually progress through Personal, Social, and Universal as alleged is another matter. Heheheh.

On 2002-03-26 13:03, Eric A Meece wrote:

Someone has taken a foundation which might conceivably represent a true correlation and thrown a lot of arbitrary, uncorrelated stuff on top of it, thereby spoiling the stew.

That would be me, I take it :smile:

No, I meant astrologists in general. As I said, I see too much variation in aspect interpretations for many of them to be of any use. But do see an indication that the planets might fit a consistent patter. I am just trying to pare away the business which is not in fact consistent.

On 2002-03-26 13:45, Eric A Meece wrote:

I am a Reagan Republican (and a military veteran for that matter)

Sounds like Saturn to me :smile:

Sounds like Jupiter to me. I'll explain after the next blurb.

In spades. You can't possibly undergo military service without a strong willingness to undergo discipline.

Well, I am a libertarian (a conservative libertarian if you like, but still a libertarian, i.e. I question authority and submit rules/laws to a rational test) and I do not and never have had a strong willingness to undergo discpline. I simply wish to be left alone -- always have, always will. As a Jeffersonian, I question all authority and only respect that which is founded upon consent. In that I voluntarily consented to serve in the military, the military discipline which I encountered was legitimate. But I only subjected myself to this discipline in exchange for another benefit.

I don't know if it is true, but I once was told that the most successful marketing device ever employed by the military was the poster which read: "Join the Navy, See the World." I don't doubt it because this is the reason I served. I agreed to "undergo discipline" in exchange for a free ticket around the world. True, I loved my country and loved the changes which I believed were taking place under Ronald Reagan to return us to the founders' vision of freedom. But I did not serve out of any sense of duty, primarily. I served to satisfy my insatiable desire to travel and explore. And that, my friend, is Jupiter, not Saturn (if I have gained any knowledge of this astrology business under your stewardship).

And as for Reagan, whatever his slogans were, he was a big prop to the Establishment and that's all he ever was.

I largely agree with you in hindsight though I do not think that Reagan perceived of himself as a prop. But had I believed this at the time, my attitude would have been decidedly different. We had an Establishment candidate at the time and his name was George Bush. True to Establishment form, He ran on absolutely nothing in an effort to dupe, hoodwink and defraud by alienating as few voters as possible while committing to nothing. Had he been the Republican candidate in Reagan's place, I do not know who I would have supported because I have always had less respect for the Republican establishment types than for the Democrats even...and that is saying a lot. I believe that Saturn is drawn to Establishment types like the Bushes. But my Jeffersonianism would seem to be a function of Jupiter or of Uranus and Pluto or of all three.

Perhaps we disagree about this :grin:

Obviously we do, Eric. But please note that I am still open to this and listening to you. :smile: However I am old enough to know who I am and I amount to a square peg every time you try to fit me into Saturn's round hole. It would be more productive to simply drop the Saturn discussion and begin to focus upon Jupiter and/or the Uranus/Pluto conjunction which actually do apply to who I am.

If the Uranus/Pluto conjunction opposes Saturn, then there is your answer right there. The revolutionary and rational nature of that conjunction in opposition to the conservative and establishmentarian nature of Saturn illustrates my contempt for top-down, command-and-control, hierarchical, establishmentarian governance. It dictates that I question all authority and submit all rules, laws, and traditions to a rational test. The point is that I oppose all that Saturn stands for, I am not the guy in the Saturn descriptions, and I will not be any more "Saturnine" after 50 years of your pushing Saturn on me. So let's move on.

Now consider the Uranus/Pluto conjunction opposing Saturn in a vector diagram. I submit that the Uranus/Pluto conjunction overpowers Saturn and therefore Uranus and Pluto better define me. But at a bare minimum, this conjunction neutralizes the effects of Saturn. Hypothetically, if Uranus/Pluto and Saturn zero each other out, then what planet immediately fills the void to define who I am? The obvious answer is Jupiter.

Now consider those quizzes I took originally. They consistently showed my leading signs as Sagittarius, Scorpio and Aries. These signs translate to Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars, respectively. Note that I placed Uranus first after reading planetary descriptions but it never placed in those earlier sign quizzes. What this suggests to me is that Uranus specifically opposes Saturn and they cancel each other out (although I still relate to Uranus' descriptions whereas I do not relate to Saturn's). Pluto (Scorpio) is left standing but I suspect that Jupiter (Sagittarius) is left to rule me by default. In any case, if we assume that Uranus specifically neutralizes Saturn, then we are left with Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars as my most influential planets. And this is 100% consistent with the results of all those earlier quizzes. And that is noteworthy!

Maybe I'm out of line here, defining you as fitting Saturn because of what you said; but I just couldn't resist pointing it out.

Don't worry about it. Just consider Saturn to be neutralized by that conjunction and tell me what I should be like given the planets left standing. If the picture painted with a neutralized Saturn fits me, then there may well be validity to this.

To me, a conservative is a conservative, however dressed up in clothes and talk of "freedom".

And again, I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian or classical liberal. We both oppose true conservatism, Eric, and we both are liberals. The difference is that I am a classical liberal and you are a modern liberal. No, we still do not have much in common but the point is that we oppose the same thing: traditional, hierarchical, establishmentarian conservatism.

We Boomer liberals certainly had a different reaction to Reagan. He came into politics as a reactionary on all levels. As far as I'm concerned, he never changed.

Yes, but he was as much or more opposed to traditional, hierarchical, establishmentarian conservatives as he was to you Boomer liberals, and you guys still refuse to see that. Had your side not gone soft on Commies, he never would have left it. Remember, Reagan did not leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left him. If you have no qualms about holding a gun to somebody's head in order to separate them from their money, then you lose Reagan's support as well as mine. It is that simple and perfectly understandable. It does not follow that Reagan or I are magically transformed into traditional, hierarchical, establishmentarian conservatives. It merely means that we are neither conservative nor modern liberal. We are classical liberal.

I still disagree with your interpretation of Reagan, but this is not the thread to discuss it; maybe elsewhere. Safe to say from my point of view though, that Republican anti-taxation policies I define as conservative, and Saturn is conservative. Reagan represented the interests of the rich class, and opposed efforts to change society through the government. The only freedom it brought was the freedom of the rich not to pay taxes, ship jobs overseas and exploit workers and the environment. This to me is Saturn in its worst form and is not Uranus or Pluto at all. I conceed though that it is also Jupiter in its worst form too; especially in his grossly wasteful fiscal policies.

Obviously you get no positive opinions of Reagan from me! :smile: Contrary to many, I rate him as one of the worst presidents we ever had.

Reagan himself, though a Sun Aquarius, had no other planets there; but three including Mars and Mercury in Capricorn; plus Moon in Taurus conjunct Saturn. He also has Sun and Moon in a T-square with Jupiter. Thus his "optimism" and his ability to make America feel good; while bankrupting the treasury.

I only subjected myself to this discipline in exchange for another benefit.

That is quite consistent with pragmatic Saturn. You needed the Saturn kind of energy to be willing to serve.

A further note about Saturn and this applies to all the planets. They all have a "positive" and "negative" side, and in Saturn's case it is authoritarianism, strictness, rigidity, etc. But in its positive side it is not. You can't entirely tell from a chart which side of any planet a person will act out, although you can get clues. In your case, with strong Uranus-Pluto-Jupiter directly counteracting it, and Saturn in malleable Pisces to boot, it's safe to say that the more rigid side of Saturn doesn't apply to you. But its pragmatic side does, and sometimes its hardness of attitude or lack of sympathy as you have yourself admitted. Saturn's qualities are from a positive point of view among the most valuable that any person can have. Without them nothing can be accomplished in this world. So be thankful you have a strong Saturn; I wish mine were stronger.

It is true that the other parts of your chart counteract much of what Saturn traditionally represents. Unlike MBTI or the Enneagram, which are based around a few factors, and which you decide for yourself which type you are, astrology has in theory an infinite number of factors. Any one of them in isolation will seem inaccurate; a correct reading depends on the ability to synthesize and balance out the factors and determine which are most significant.

If true, astrology is an objective mirror to yourself and your life, and to human society, held up to you by the cosmos itself. It works because you are not just an isolated separate individual, but are the cosmos itself in microcosm; a hologram of the universe and God.

I wouldn't say that Uranus and Saturn completely neutralize each other (still less that therefore they don't apply); that would not be valid. But you certainly have to balance out their contradictory meanings. It is certainly very true that those with Saturn opposite Uranus tend to rebel against authority (including conservative rebels e.g. Rush Limbaugh who has Saturn square Uranus), and tend to be aware of both qualities (and thus the rebel can in turn become the new boss). Also however, the outer planet tends to predominate over the inner planet in any aspect. So Uranus is the primary planet in its aspect to Saturn; the outer planet rules. That is a rule of thumb though; all astrological rules are rules of thumb; depending on all the factors. That fact about it makes astrology hard to test; but it can be done within certain parameters.

I still don't understand how you arrived at your "house" scores of 10-2-1. As far as I can tell, you have 4 planets in universal houses, 4 in social and 2 in personal. I don't know about the meanings you mentioned either; it's the first I've heard of them.
Can you tell me how you arrived at these? (email me if you prefer).

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-27 00:34 ]</font>

On 2002-03-27 00:24, Eric A Meece wrote:

I still disagree with your interpretation of Reagan, but this is not the thread to discuss it; maybe elsewhere. Safe to say from my point of view though, that Republican anti-taxation policies I define as conservative, and Saturn is conservative.

By your definition, there was no such thing as a liberal until after Marx, and all the founding fathers, for example, were conservative, Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian disagreements notwithstanding. I think the fundamental difference between a true conservative and a true liberal is that a conservative adheres to tradition without ever questioning whether the tradition is right while a liberal submits everything to test. The Hamiltonians were conservative and the Jeffersonians were liberal. Libertarians are today's Jeffersonians and classical liberals and they only look conservative on the outside. They subject everything traditional to a rational test and reject that which does not pass. In that way, they are still liberal by their process. They just reach different conclusions than modern liberals.

I only subjected myself to this discipline in exchange for another benefit.

That is quite consistent with pragmatic Saturn. You needed the Saturn kind of energy to be willing to serve.

Eric, I simply wanted to see the world. It was an opportunity to see the world and get paid for doing it. I did not have the money to do it privately so it was the only option for fulfilling this desire. That sounds like Jupiter kind of energy to me.

A further note about Saturn and this applies to all the planets. They all have a "positive" and "negative" side, and in Saturn's case it is authoritarianism, strictness, rigidity, etc. But in its positive side it is not. You can't entirely tell from a chart which side of any planet a person will act out, although you can get clues. In your case, with strong Uranus-Pluto-Jupiter directly counteracting it, and Saturn in malleable Pisces to boot, it's safe to say that the more rigid side of Saturn doesn't apply to you. But its pragmatic side does, and sometimes its hardness of attitude or lack of sympathy as you have yourself admitted. Saturn's qualities are from a positive point of view among the most valuable that any person can have. Without them nothing can be accomplished in this world. So be thankful you have a strong Saturn; I wish mine were stronger.

Very interesting. I guess I should look up these two sides for every planet and see what fits.

Also however, the outer planet tends to predominate over the inner planet in any aspect. So Uranus is the primary planet in its aspect to Saturn; the outer planet rules.

Very interesting. And Pluto would rule my Uranus-Pluto conjunction. Also Mars would rule my Venus-Mars conjunction.

I still don't understand how you arrived at your "house" scores of 10-2-1.

2S-2P-9U. I sent a private explanation.

As far as I can tell, you have 4 planets in universal houses, 4 in social and 2 in personal. I don't know about the meanings you mentioned either; it's the first I've heard of them.
Can you tell me how you arrived at these? (email me if you prefer).

It's in the mail. But perhaps I misunderstood how to apply the houses to the chart?
_

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-03-27 03:38 ]</font>

Libertarians are today's Jeffersonians and classical liberals and they only look conservative on the outside. They subject everything traditional to a rational test and reject that which does not pass. In that way, they are still liberal by their process. They just reach different conclusions than modern liberals.

By my lights, the libertarians have not submitted traditional Jeffersonian liberalism to a rational test, or they would see that it does not apply in today's world. Without taxes and government regulation, power and authority rests unchallenged among the rich and greedy. I realise you personally don't buy all the Libertarian Party's stances. Still, to accept an ideology that is 200 years old is probably a conservative position; whether it be right or wrong is another thing!

I simply wanted to see the world. It was an opportunity to see the world and get paid for doing it. I did not have the money to do it privately so it was the only option for fulfilling this desire. That sounds like Jupiter kind of energy to me.

It was. But to make that kind of trade off and subject yourself to military life was also Saturnian.

The main point here is, yes Uranus-Pluto-Jupiter are your dominant planets/sign archetypes. But if this fits for you, and the non-dominant types also fit as non-dominant, then if Saturn is also given a major role in your chart, this needs attention too! The interpretations for that one position, Saturn in Pisces on the Ascendant, may not all fit. Everything is modified by the more dominant influences. But it must be there to some extent if astrology works.

You might consider it mostly as indicating the "desire to dissolve (Pisces) government structures (Saturn)" and "abstract thought (Pisces) applied to political and other structures (Saturn)," etc., and keep the other meanings in the back of your mind in case they might be useful sometime.

I guess I should look up these two sides for every planet and see what fits

Most descriptions do this already. But basically, yes.

And Pluto would rule my Uranus-Pluto conjunction. Also Mars would rule my Venus-Mars conjunction.

Yes, and so on with all aspects. But remember, "rule of thumb!"

An interesting idea to consider also is the fact that you are interested and open to the idea of forming new kinds of political alliances against the Establishment. That seems indicated by Uranus-Pluto in your 7th house of relationships, diplomacy, partners, etc.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-27 15:29 ]</font>

On 2002-03-27 15:20, Eric A Meece wrote:

I realise you personally don't buy all the Libertarian Party's stances. Still, to accept an ideology that is 200 years old is probably a conservative position; whether it be right or wrong is another thing!

That ideology has been around far longer than 200 years. It has been around as long as man has walked the earth since man yearns to be free. It is nothing more than the ideology of freedom and does not mesh with the other ideologies because it opposes concentrations of power and rejects all (hypocritical) control over others. Classical liberalism is nothing more than the Golden Rule in practice.

It was [Jupiter]. But to make that kind of trade off and subject yourself to military life was also Saturnian.

OK, Eric, maybe so. But I still think there is more of a generational difference at work between us than anything else.

Thanks for your other points about Saturn and Houses and I will take a look at them.

Sorry for the delay - lots of reading and not much time to think lately, but such is life. Anyway, here is the order of planets based on the description Eric sent me and how I feel they apply to me:

Tier I
Mercury
Venus
Jupiter

Tier II
Sun
Moon
Saturn
Mars

Tier III
Pluto
Neptune
Uranus

Does that match up with anything you have for me? :smile:

Thanks!

Send me your birth date, time and place by email Allybear and I'll see if it matches up. Thanks!


Stonewall: I disagree that the ideology of fredom enunciated by Jefferson is more than 200-300 years old. It only dates from the 18th century. Before that noone believed that human beings were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to liberty. That is a modern notion. Nowhere did it exist before then in society, or even among philosophers.

Socialism came later and modified 18th century liberalism, because it was found to be wanting except for those who profited from it.

Now socialism has been found wanting too. Collectivism too often turned people into anonymous cogs in an impersonal machine. The way forward is toward Green ideology in my opinion. It synthesizes the best of the two and moves on to embrace the rights of the earth itself. Meanwhile Libertarianism is simply a return to Jefferson, but even more extreme.

The conjunction you were born under represents the beginning of this third modern ideology. That doesn't mean you are a Green; it is the historical cycles at work. The Third Way ideology is a dumming down or mainstreaming of the Green ideology, taking its radical elements away.

I don't know what you mean by a generational difference here. Military life is Saturnian no matter what generation you are in. It's also Martian of course.

I sent it to you...look forward to hearing the results! :smile:

On 2002-03-28 11:31, Eric A Meece wrote:

Stonewall: I disagree that the ideology of fredom enunciated by Jefferson is more than 200-300 years old. It only dates from the 18th century. Before that noone believed that human beings were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to liberty.

Try Jesus.

Nice try Stonewall :lol:

((Jesus said be a pillar for the empire))

Allybear, these are the results I get:

1. Jupiter/Sagittarius 14 points
Uranus/Aquarius 14
3. Moon/Cancer 13
4. Sun/Leo 12
5. Mercury/Virgo/Gemini 10
Venus/Libra/Taurus 10
7. Saturn/Capricorn 8
Neptune/Pisces 8
9. Mars/Aries/Scorpio 7 1/2
10. Pluto/Scorpio 6 1/2

You were right about Pluto and Neptune being low, but not Uranus! I suspect most people who post here have a fairly strong Uranus. Remember, it is the planet of the saeculum; it is attracted to stuff like this too. Jupiter goes with this stuff too.

On 2002-03-29 09:51, Eric A Meece wrote:

Allybear, these are the results I get:

1. Jupiter/Sagittarius 14 points
Uranus/Aquarius 14
3. Moon/Cancer 13
4. Sun/Leo 12
5. Mercury/Virgo/Gemini 10
Venus/Libra/Taurus 10
7. Saturn/Capricorn 8
Neptune/Pisces 8
9. Mars/Aries/Scorpio 7 1/2
10. Pluto/Scorpio 6 1/2

You were right about Pluto and Neptune being low, but not Uranus! I suspect most people who post here have a fairly strong Uranus. Remember, it is the planet of the saeculum; it is attracted to stuff like this too. Jupiter goes with this stuff too.

Eric, out of curiosity, are her elements remotely consistent with her ESFJ temperament?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-03-29 09:58 ]</font>

Depends how you calculate the scores. Let's see, by sign air has 4 points. Fire has 3 points including 1 point for the Ascendant, but her sun is right on the cusp of earth, so maybe 2 1/2 for fire. Earth has 3 1/2 then. Water has 5, if ruler of Asc. is given 2 points. So maybe fire is her weakest element, water strongest. So Water/Air is 5/4. If water is F then that's 5F/4T. Fire/Earth is 2 1/2 / 3 1/2. If earth is S that's S 3 1/2 and N 2 1/2. But the elements look pretty balanced.

If houses are used for elements, there are 4 earth houses, 4 fire, 1 air and 4 water. I included Chiron in Pisces in the 2nd in these totals. Moon and Sun are given 2 points.

Perhaps her strong Mars in Cancer on the Descendant goes with being a "provider".

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-29 10:46 ]</font>

I just finished reading over Eric's detailed planet descriptions & re-ranked my planets. Here's how I saw it:

Moon (Cancer)
Neptune (Pisces)
Venus (Taurus, Libra)
Jupiter (Sagittarius)
Sun (Leo)
Mercury (Gemini, Virgo)
Pluto (Scorpio)
Uranus (Aquarius)
Saturn (Capricorn)
Mars (Aries, Scorpio)

And here is how Eric ranked them for me (these are his final calculations, adjusted for various aspects, mid-heavens, etc.):

Moon 21 (Cancer)
Neptune 10 (Pisces)
Venus 10 (Taurus, Libra)
Sun 9 (Leo)
Jupiter 8 (Sagittarius)
Uranus 7 (Aquarius)
Mercury 7 (Gemini, Virgo)
Pluto 6 (Scorpio)
Mars 5 (Aries, Scorpio)
Saturn 3 (Capricorn)

Although the matchup is not exact, my top tier of three & Eric's top tier are exactly the same. And both Mars & Saturn appear as the bottom two planets in both lists (albeit reversed; I must not be acknowledging my power! :lol.

Comments/opinions?

Sherry,

That is pretty wild. I cannot remember what scoring system is "in force" right now but, assuming that the same scoring system preserves my order, then we are seeing consistent reinforcement of top tier and bottom tier and possibly middle tier as well. Or was Susan's off? I cannot remember if she went by the detailed descriptions or not.

I did find a formula for weighting the various types of aspect. I will score mine according to that and see what comes out.

OK, I waaaay underestimated my Uranus, but otherwise I can definitely see it. Here's my only question about Uranus being so high...I'm a very unchanging person. OK, little things change (such as musical tastes, if you looked at my CD's, you'd think they belong to about five different people), but I am probably the only person my age who has only worked in three places (and no, I didn't spend five years not working or something). OK, I spent 16 years with one company and worked for about 20 people in those 16 years, but still...16 years, one company, you don't hear stories like that anymore. Not to mention the fact that I spent 13 years with the ex - OK, I wasn't exactly a good wife for most of those years, but I wasn't leaving my house and my dog!

Is there anything in my chart that would explain that? You would think with Jupiter/Uranus so prominent, I'd be much more adventurous. Or am I wrong?

On 2002-04-02 00:17, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Sherry,

That is pretty wild. I cannot remember what scoring system is "in force" right now but, assuming that the same scoring system preserves my order, then we are seeing consistent reinforcement of top tier and bottom tier and possibly middle tier as well. Or was Susan's off? I cannot remember if she went by the detailed descriptions or not.

I did find a formula for weighting the various types of aspect. I will score mine according to that and see what comes out.

Stone, I didn't try to give my planets an actual numerical score, because I wasn't sure at all how to do so. Eric's scores are his adjusted ones, found in the same post where he adjusted your scores as well. But I don't remember if that re-ranked your planets or not. I'm curious to see what you come up w/this time...