Is the Sun in the Constellations useful in interpretation?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Discussion moved from "Sun in Cancer" thread.

Well, these are all speculations of course. For ex. this one about bodybuilding or good athletics sounds an awful lot like Sun in Leo who's big trait is vitality and energy. Leo Suns also like to "show off" and look good and hey they even love to be heroes of some kind ... so there is not much difference in describing a Leo Sun in this respect.

I for one have no interest at all in going to a gym or out running or bodybuilding. I did sports as a child, but have become extremely lazy as an adult, but still keep my weight so I am not getting fat at all, just keep my figure ok.

I would say that these sun sign threads have helped lead me to one conclusion and that is that Sun signs can not be relied upon for any similarities at all. Debating Sun signs is kind of pointless. All the people I know and have looked at in each and every sign are very different within same sign. I will, therefore, keep my view of angularity and tightest aspects as the most defining character and core traits as that view is just so much more reliable to me.

Well, these are all speculations of course. For ex. this one about bodybuilding or good athletics sounds an awful lot like Sun in Leo who's big trait is vitality and energy. Leo Suns also like to "show off" and look good and hey they even love to be heroes of some kind ... so there is not much difference in describing a Leo Sun in this respect.

Yes, it does sound a lot like Tropical Leo; that's always kind of been the point with Sidereal Cancer: Some of their traits (based on Moon and Jupiter) are exactly what we expect from Sun, and many others are because they are striving to live up a popular Leo ideal.

The difference is that Tropical Leo - and all Tropical sign - resoundingly, demonstrably doesn't exist. There are no effective 12-fold segments of the zodiac that begin at 30° multiples from the current position of the Vernal Equinox. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence that there are effective 12-fold segments of the zodiac that begin at 30° multiples of a place currently about 5-6° before the current position of the vernal equinox.

One must, however, not look at overt (surface, outwardly expressed) behaviors so much as the deep motivations beneath them.

Easier said than done. How do you recognize the deep motivations in people? I struggle to see the Sun signs even in people I've known for years (including myself). Moon sign, on the other hand, is easy to recognize.

I think Jim was suggesting a Cancer who doesn't see herself in her sun's position should take a look at her own deeper motivations. It was a little off-topic for this thread. If anyone wants to discuss this further, perhaps it would be a good idea to start new thread?

The purpose of this thread, and the other sun "sign" threads is to create a base of observed characteristics, which Jim will be synthesizing into new definitions. Once the basic definitions are based on observation, maybe we'll have an easier time guessing sun positions in other people. But we'll definitely have a better handle on what the Sun in X means.

But you know what JSAD, more than one people are actually saying that the Sun signs are not reliable, they are not good enough to use as any kind of base description, because people do not show those Sun sign traits as expected. BUT they might show moon sign traits. IF only about one in ten people show those expected Sun sign traits there are no basic definitions. And the sooner we admit that, the better.

But it isn't one in 10. Every single trait written down in the original 1970s study appeared at least 75% of the time in 3 separate observant astrologers' people lists. decent reputation szubin sounded on direct observation comma as well as statistical results available to us for 40 years. I just thought it was time we could do even better.

I actually find it funny that you think the moon size fit better because I was talking moon signs comma which were NOT Ever so closely vetted are far poorer. I'm saving those for next year. On a 12 month cycle after we get through the sun this year.

I am simply stating what all these Sun sign discussions have taught me, and I believe that is quite important a lesson. Jim, I did not say that I think the Moon signs will be of any more importance. I truly believe that angularity and tight aspects are the keys to astrology. Sun is Sun, wherever it is placed within the zodiac, same goes for Moon and all the planets. What "alters" their expression is whether they are angular and which planet/s they are connected to.

There are actually so few traits of Cancer that I can relate to myself that it is confirmative to this lesson I draw from this study. Using a 5° orb, my Sun is connected to Uranus at birth, my Moon is connected to Mercury, Mars and Uranus. In mundo, Sun and Moon form an opposition. That is how they express.

I thought that perhaps your number 1 example was yourself <g> - as it should be for all of us, of course!

And you make the point I have always made, that strong aspects will overwhelm and take the lead. This, however, does not mean that the sign traits are not there.

Also, as I have said and JSAD has been mentioning, the current generation of interpretations are not as good as they can be - and, of these, Cancer is the one I'm least satisfied with. (I spoke of this specific thing at the top of the thread.)

Fourth, very few Cancers want to be Cancers, given TLTS: Tropical Leo Toxicity Syndrome. All the more reason to get the current generation of interpretations (only mildly revised since the late '70s) into better shape.

So, please, lets get back to the work of examining, by direct observation, the commonalities of Sidereal Cancer Suns. In particular, I'm curious whether you find that some of the traits, as listed in the links, are "close but not quite," or are in the right direction or theme but stated poorly or missing the point. You have a unique insider's view.

And you make the point I have always made, that strong aspects will overwhelm and take the lead.

Yes, we do agree on that one.

very few Cancers want to be Cancers, given TLTS: Tropical Leo Toxicity Syndrome.

IMO, this does reflect on most people. This is not confined to Cancers. When people start looking into sidereal signs and find out they are a different sign than what they are used to, most of them don't really like it and reject it right away instead of looking into it.

But there may also be another explanation for the luminary signs (and people with luminaries angular) and it may, in fact, be that they are quite similar as in both wanting to "shine". In the cases where they are not particularly looking to be in the spotlight, but end up there anyway - they don't mind it because luminaries' natural way of being is to "shine". Going back to primary school class, I can see that most of the "leaders" or those most prominent/noticeable kids who got a lot of attention are sidereal Cancers (tropical Leos) and all those were good athletes as kids. I remember two sidereal Tauruses (both tropical Geminis) as well who got a lot of attention, both quite funny/witty people who liked to tease with their wits.

In particular, I'm curious whether you find that some of the traits, as listed in the links, are "close but not quite," or are in the right direction or theme but stated poorly or missing the point. You have a unique insider's view.

I can certainly go through all those texts again and pick and choose what I think is fitting and what not, but my disclaimer will always be that it will be very different for other Cancer Suns who have their luminaries aspected by other planets than I do and they have different planets angular at birth.

Keeping in mind the case of my Sun-Cancer friend "Ajax" mentioned in another thread:

He seems to crave attention and thrives on positive reinforcement, and withers under negative. Here is what I think is a solid example of how Tropicalists would bend their interpretations to rationalize what they're seeing in the Sidereal Zodiac. As Siderealist David Henry once wrote in a letter in American Astrology, (paraphrasing) the blending of the two zodiacs takes place in the mind of the astrologer, not in actual fact.

Sidereal Cancer Suns get their sense of importance from the attention they get, excessively so. A Tropicalist would liken this to the Sun "needing" to be accompanied by a retinue of planets. But the Sun (and SZ Leo) don't need validation, they simply act and give and don't care all that much about who plays the roles of receiving their gifts or following their orders. Read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and Zarathustra's soliloquy to the Sun to get a better idea of this.

[mikestar13]

The constellations are useful in interpretation, in my experience, and in Fagan's, Bradley's, Gleadow's, Eshelmen's ... experience. If that isn't enough, consider this:

If the constellations are not significant, why are we not practicing a version of Tropical Astrology which corrects transits, solunars, etc. for accrued precession (as advocated in Hand's Planets in Transit among others, and shown, though in no way advocated in ISR) and denies the signs have interpretive value. This would be the exact mathematical equivalent, while it would be more acceptable to the tropicalist "mainstream" than Sidereal Astrology. Our techniques might even be more widely spread.

Surely, if the constellations are not significant, Fagan ... would have discovered this and acted as in the above paragraph. I tried this myself in that time when I was still an unrecovered Tropical Aries. And I can attest the Precession Corrected Tropical Astrology works--just not as well as the real thing.

[Arena]

The constellations may well be significant in another way than what we assign them to today. I believe they can be useful to us in finding out whether planets are dignified/excelled or debilitated.

I say this because the planets all have their own expressions and meaning, no matter what sign they are in. And then it comes down to angularity and tightest aspects what is the strongest expression in a native.

Fagan and those others were not holy beings or someone "all-knowing". They had to live with the beliefs of those times and then adjust them to their sidereal view.

It is not only my own chart I see this being the case, it is also all my children and hubby as well as friends and people around me.

[mikestar13]

The constellations may well be significant in another way.... .

I can agree with this. The essence of astrology is the planets themselves. Everything: angularity,aspects, constellations/signs, houses, midpoints,etc. are techniques for interpreting the planets in a particular horoscope. An analogy would be God Himself vs. Torah/Bible/Quran etc. interpreting God in a particular faith.

We can do astrology without constellations, and do it reasonably well, but we will miss some nuances. We could do astrology with planets in constellations alone with no other methods, badly to be sure because we will miss so much more, but we will get some useful information. But without planets, we have nothing at all, not even newspaper sun sign "astrology".

Fagan and those others were not holy beings or someone "all-knowing"....

Of course. As I have written elsewhere, Fagan was not God nor did he play Him on TV. Neither is the justly esteemed Mr. E at the end of my list God (and I myself at the start of my list sure as hell am not God). But I am willing to believe that Jim E. has more to teach me than I have to teach him. So him saying "constellations matter" matters to me.