Ascending sign?

[Calithie]

Hello everyone. As a Sag born in tropical astrology, I always knew I was not fitting in. Since I have discovered sidereal zodiac, everything makes sense now. Unfortunately I have many questions as a curious wanderer. According to my birth data I am an Ophiucus but there is not many info regarding it on the internet. So am I a Scorpio then? And my moon sign is between Aries and Taurus in degrees. When it comes to ascending sign, I haven't seen on the site or perhaps I was overlooked. I am confused right now since I am a new member, is ascending sign important or not? Lastly I really appreciate if you could help me out with my natal chart and end my confusions. )
Birthday: 10th of December 1989
Birth time: 23:15 pm
City: Diyarbakir, Turkey

Thank you!

[Jim Eshelman]

As long as I'm answering some of your posts this morning, Calithie, let me elaborate a bit on this.

Danica is exactly right that Sidereal astrology does not emphasize the Ascendant sign (rising sign). This doesn't mean we think it worthless, but rather that it doesn't deserve priority emphasis.

The contrast, of course, is to the emphasis that Tropical astrology usually places on the Ascendant, treating it as just as important as the Sun-sign. There is good reason to support that approach, both historic and convenience reasons. Historically, the approach is consistent with much in ancient astrology where the Ascendant sign was given great importance and even seen as the central factor governing a chart. (I value ancient root teachings a great deal, but I test each of them before accepting it, and this one has never held water for me.) The convenience reason is that, with no reference tables, one can know the Sun-sign from a simple list of sign dates that is stable from year to year, and one can estimate the Ascendant in one's head from the time of birth and usually be right within one sign either way, so it was easier to teach this as explaining why the birth time mattered. (Moon-sign, in contrast, requires separate calculations or tables.)

For example, your Sun is in late Scorpio and you were born less than an hour before midnight. That alone is enough to tell me that you have Leo rising. Quick, easy, no references. Useful.

In my earliest time in Sidereal astrology, I had a hard time getting a handle on the worth of the Ascendant sign because I have both Sun and Ascendant in Virgo. I initially carried over my earlier Tropical training that, of course, Ascendant was important; but when I got around to trying to clearly distinguish what made Sun-sign different from Ascendant-sign, I didn't have myself to use as a good example.

From observation, I eventually came to the conclusion that the Ascendant sign is usually an excellent reflection of people's outermost presentation - not their character, not even their behavior, but (figuratively) "the clothes they wear" over their actual character and behavior. Often it will be a first impression people have of you before they actually get to know you, or some aspect of your conscious self-presentation. It's the most superficial side of us. - That made soooo much sense to me (that I would find it hard to witness in people) because all my interest and training had been in seeing past exactly that kind of superficial presentation. Perhaps it could be argued that I undervalue a perfectly legitimate interpretation note; in any case, it's exactly the sort of information I don't value having about people, so my mind dismisses that from my perception of someone almost reflexively.

Consider the profile picture you've selected. With your Leo Ascendant, you are lovely solar-looking young woman with a mane of golden hair - such a Leo picture! If this is representative of how you actually look, then it's a look you have probably "groomed;" if not, then it's even more interesting that you picked it as your image. At core, your behavior is better shown by your Scorpio Sun and Aries Moon, I'm sure, but you "present well" as a Leo.

My personal observations found support when I had the chance to examine the Gauquelin character data collection against the sign placements of Sun, Moon, the other eight planets, Midheaven, and Ascendant. While there seem to be statistically significant results for character data and Ascendant signs, the effects are quite weak - much weaker than Sun, Moon, and Mars, even weaker than Venus and Mercury in the signs. Overall, they were about as strong as the weak results for Jupiter in the signs. This encourage me to keep on the track of essentially ignoring the Ascendant sign.

One's ascending sign has uses, of course. One can get interpretive information. For one thing, it does seem to correctly represent one's natural outermost style of presentation, which is useful to some people. Cyril Fagan opined that it often represents the sobriquet, nickname. or "label" of historic figures, which is a variation of the same thing I said. I've often wondered if having the same Sun and Ascendant sign made it easier for me to "see through the outer layers with x-ray vision," especially since several people I consider best at doing that also have the same Sun and Ascendant sign.

And I'll never forget my deep, thoughtful, penetrating Aquarius-Libra friend who had Gemini rising and always played superficial, playful, and distracted (he's the artist who created the early MTV "short attention span" style in editing and flashing quick-cuts in its earliest years). When he heard my interpretation of what the Ascendant sign means, and knew his was in Gemini, he said, "Oh, this is perfect! My most superficial side is superficiality itself! I love it!!"

There is also the complexity that, to the extent there is something of value here, it's necessarily linked to the Midheaven sign. There are mechanical, mathematical relations between Ascendant and Midheaven signs: For example, almost all cases of Leo rising have Taurus on Midheaven (though a few have Aries Midheaven), so, to the extent this is a useful interpretive factor, it needs to consider the pair (in your case, the Taurus-Leo pair). This is an under-developed area (probably because MC and Asc sign impact isn't THAT strong to begin with).

Hopefully, this gives a better understanding of the relatively low value we tend to place on the Ascendant sign.

[By Jove]

Remember Mn***, whose chart I put up a long time ago? She also has a Leo ascendent and Taurus midheaven. She has cultivated long hair over the years but her overall appearance looks rather dark - yet in spite of her dark clothes and features she seems to have a sunny warm glow about her, which seems to have been around long before her recent tanning.

https://www.instagram.com/littlekropotkin/

And you know my facebook. I wonder how my Taurus ascendent reveals itself to you in all my pictures.

[TheScales_BothWays]

Jim, your detailed post on the Ascendant sign has gotten me impressed and fascinated

Being a double rim, one's outermost presentation has a lot of usefulness to me, as it's something I often take note of at first. If one's Ascendant sign could be an easy and obvious guess, it would be a great help with figuring someone's birth time out.

It has also gotten me thinking on how superficial do I appear to people. I already have a Capricorn Moon, known to be judged as superficial. Now put my Cancer ascendant on top of that.

I know you probably would never want to write interpretations for the Ascendant sign, (LOL) but I'd really appreciate it if you could provide some additional insights on how each sign shows itself as an "outermost presentation". Would a good knowledge and awareness of sign symbolisms be more than enough? Any well-known examples?

[Jim Eshelman]

Being a double rim, one's outermost presentation has a lot of usefulness to me, as it's something I often take note of at first. If one's Ascendant sign could be an easy and obvious guess, it would be a great help with figuring someone's birth time out.

Dude, you make me groan in pain! This is perhaps the one single result I most hoped nobody would jump to. It's long been a Tropical fallback of speculative charts and I don't think the reason it makes them look so foolish is their choice of zodiac - I think it's because this is Russian roulette with only 1 random chance in 12 of guessing right.

Maybe (big maybe!) if you're down to a birthtime within 15-30 minutes and Ascendant or MC changes during that time you can make a constructive guess about this, but I'm even skeptical then - it's such a minor factor compared to other things that can shift in that time. And trying to use this where no birth time is known is... well, a roulette wheel with house odds stacked against you. (Most of my life, most astrologers would have guessed mine wrong. My actual Ascendant is 2° Virgo and I've spent much of my adulthood with a large mane of hair, especially in my 20s and 30s, and a somewhat flamboyant presentation that led more than a few to assume I had Leo rising. But I don't.)

I must admit to chuckling about an Ascendant sign over the weekend, though. We saw the new Jack Black and Cate Blanchett movie - his birth certificate information is available, there is no reliable time for her - and I occasionally look, for actors who thrive in distinctive, somewhat typecast roles to see what marks their distinctive style. Black, who has Leo-Aquarius luminaries (look at that Aquarius Moon for him!), has Gemini rising. Nothing could be better IMHO. His most memorable roles center on working with kids, being the biggest kid in the room, and being clever enough to be totally superficial.

[TheScales_BothWays]

Dude, you make me groan in pain! This is perhaps the one single result I most hoped nobody would jump to.

Oops

It's long been a Tropical fallback of speculative charts and I don't think the reason it makes them look so foolish is their choice of zodiac - I think it's because this is Russian roulette with only 1 random chance in 12 of guessing right.

Maybe (big maybe!) if you're down to a birthtime within 15-30 minutes and Ascendant or MC changes during that time you can make a constructive guess about this, but I'm even skeptical then - it's such a minor factor compared to other things that can shift in that time. And trying to use this where no birth time is known is... well, a roulette wheel with house odds stacked against you.

Hmm I see.
Aw man, I really hoped that the Ascendant sign would turn out to be helpful, haha. There's this schoolmate, a Capricorn-Taurus, who looks so much like a Virgo. (Thin, bony, wears glasses. Also has lots of body hair, which I find as a Cap Sun trait among those of Indian descent.) While I was disappointed that he's not actually a Virgo Moon, I found it fascinating that he has a Virgo ascendant instead haha.

I must admit to chuckling about an Ascendant sign over the weekend, though. We saw the new Jack Black and Cate Blanchett movie - his birth certificate information is available, there is no reliable time for her - and I occasionally look, for actors who thrive in distinctive, somewhat typecast roles to see what marks their distinctive style. Black, who has Leo-Aquarius luminaries (look at that Aquarius Moon for him!), has Gemini rising. Nothing could be better IMHO. His most memorable roles center on working with kids, being the biggest kid in the room, and being clever enough to be totally superficial.

That's a pretty neat example!

[Jim Eshelman]

Aw man, I really hoped that the Ascendant sign would turn out to be helpful, haha. There's this schoolmate, a Capricorn-Taurus, who looks so much like a Virgo. (Thin, bony, wears glasses. Also has lots of body hair, which I find as a Cap Sun trait among those of Indian descent.) While I was disappointed that he's not actually a Virgo Moon, I found it fascinating that he has a Virgo ascendant instead haha.

You'd be on sounder ground guessing that he has an angular Mercury. No guarantees there, but a much better shot.

Read this weekend's thread on Sheldon's constitutional psychology, not so much for answers as for questions: How much do the astrological elements that show character traits also show physiology? How much of physiology is genetic in a way that doesn't show in the horoscope, and then the horoscope "sits on top of that" with character traits and perhaps some modification of physiology? Understanding Sheldon' work gives a basis for starting to observe the relative contribution of such factors.

I should have mentioned above, regarding the request for sample interpretations, that you can't do this independent from Midheaven sign. This would lead to perhaps 20 or more separate interpretations of the different possibilities of blends of these. Your Cancer Ascendant has no more importance than your Aries MC (probably a little less, based on what small evidence I have) and any interpretation would be in the Aries-Cancer combination.

[TheScales_BothWays]

You'd be on sounder ground guessing that he has an angular Mercury. No guarantees there, but a much better shot.

True, I agree (but in his case he doesn't have any planet angular, besides a widely setting Jupiter). Oh wait, he has Moon partile trine Mercury!

Read this weekend's thread on Sheldon's constitutional psychology, not so much for answers as for questions: How much do the astrological elements that show character traits also show physiology? How much of physiology is genetic in a way that doesn't show in the horoscope, and then the horoscope "sits on top of that" with character traits and perhaps some modification of physiology? Understanding Sheldon' work gives a basis for starting to observe the relative contribution of such factors.

Will do! Just haven't had the time yet.

I should have mentioned above, regarding the request for sample interpretations, that you can't do this independent from Midheaven sign. This would lead to perhaps 20 or more separate interpretations of the different possibilities of blends of these. Your Cancer Ascendant has no more importance than your Aries MC (probably a little less, based on what small evidence I have) and any interpretation would be in the Aries-Cancer combination.

Yes, I see. I know that the Ascendant sign is linked to the MC sign, but I didn't know that they aren't independent influences, that you can't do interpretations without including the MC sign too.

[Jim Eshelman]

If they are necessarily linked, then they aren't independent of each other. One affects the other.

Let's take your Cancer Ascendant and Aries MC. First, I've known several Cancer rising types that have a first-impression reputation of being mothering (especially women but some men). Probably this is just one variation, but it's one that I've seen up close a few times.

Now let's go to statistics (these are from analysis of the Gauquelin data base). Cancer Ascendants were described by others at a statistically significant frequency as travelers and romantic, and as not being hardworking, devoted, profound, ambitious, or pessimistic. Notice that even though both Cancer Sun and Moon are strong for the trait "devoted," Cancer Ascendant isn't. The picture is of someone who appears romantic, optimistic, easy-going (i.e. not hardworking), shallow (i.e. not profound), etc. - Remember, just an impression, right?

Of these traits, Aries Midheaven also is significantly high for the traits traveler, not ambitious, and not pessimistic. (Notice that these aren't really Aries traits, so they're likely related more to the Cancer Asc.) In contrast, Pisces MC overlaps the traits not devoted and not pessimistic. "Romantic" isn't significantly high for either MC by itself, so probably is more of a pure Cancer rising trait.

So, we could potentially build an interpretation for Cancer Asc, Aries MC around the traits traveler, romantic, not ambitious (unambitious? lazy? relaxed?), not pessimistic (optimistic).

Or something like that.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

(Most of my life, most astrologers would have guessed mine wrong. My actual Ascendant is 2° Virgo and I've spent much of my adulthood with a large mane of hair, especially in my 20s and 30s, and a somewhat flamboyant presentation that led more than a few to assume I had Leo rising. But I don't.)

Judging from the photos you post, you still have a somewhat flamboyant presentation.

[Jim Eshelman]

Calithie, if you are still watching this thread ... happy 31sdt birthday!

[Soft Alpaca]

I think that many people are born in the am, close to sunrise. Close enough to perhaps cause confusion about where that energy is coming from. They (mostly tropical astrologers I hope) get a rising sun (angular) confused or another angular planet interacting with the angle, and they are in some parts right about the signs slight relevance; when angular areas involving bodies are in signs I find that they do take a lense from the sign (I think an angular planet in the galatic center for example would take flavor from a hub mind sagittarius). However they stretch things too loosely, looking here they give the angle more attention because what it can do, not always what it is doing (it also helps diversify things).

I think a much better idea would be to look at angular aspects with the Mundo-scope and if I had to bug Jim for another sign experiment to look into I'd much rather poke about Midheaven sign (some would even for as far to call it the me angle) interpretations. I think a sagittarius asc person like me is better explained by my libra MC- I believe it's far more variable than the ASC as well. Although as they stand now I don't think the foot work for interpreting this has been done yet (thought I'd imagine a better or more positive outlook for a Libra MC is someone is is at their center rigged for survival, rather than just pessimistic).

However then again it would have to be treaded carefully. My angular Uranus could denote an attraction to magick (that some might find common in a Libra). My slightly angular (and Mars activated) mercury could explain my love for poetry (again another commonly guessed libra word).

Also happy birthday.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

The majority of babies in the US are born between 8 and 9 AM, which is only close to sunrise in January, or in Alaska. The second most common time is between Noon and 1PM. The least common time is 3:09AM.
Babies born outside the hospital are usually born between 1 a.m. and 4:59 a.m. Again, not generally near sunrise. Women are more likely to go into labor after sunset, but when moved to brightly lit hospital settings. labor stalls till there's induction. That's at the start of rounds in the morning, and again in the afternoon.

Here's a popular science article from Scientific American discussing birth time. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa ... d-8-00-a-m

[Soft Alpaca]

That's super intriguing. However I still stand to the second part of my statement which talks about angular bodies, and I think more importantly are partial angular bodies- I tend to pick up on more sign energy coming from this type of interaction, also angles crowded with bodies (3/4+).

Theroically if an angle can pronounce a planet and a planet is what founds a sign (building block) and planets can also take flavor from other signs, then why couldn't angles in a round about way reflect or express a sign as well.

I think incorrect birth time/ lack of common knowledge of astronomical events to the average person are some of the reasons why we can't yet study this (and just think about all the angles that Jim has found who is to say which one of any are important without testing them all first?).

Like I said in the first paragraph, I think that if the angle is found it's going to be specific (like we look specifically first at Sun/Moon/Mars signs) and I think it's going to have a body connected with it (how about instead of Jack Black being just an angular/Asc Gemini, he has an angle set on pollux- for example: this physically attaches this angle to the sign). [Don't forget about pollux - its just a distant sun].

[Jim Eshelman]

Theroically if an angle can pronounce a planet and a planet is what founds a sign (building block) and planets can also take flavor from other signs, then why couldn't angles in a round about way reflect or express a sign as well.

I'm not sure of which of two things you are saying.

If you are saying that the sign of an angular planet is more pronounced than if it were not angular, I mostly (but not entirely) disagree. - The disagreement would be with the idea that the sign itself becomes a significant part of a person's character. For example, nearly all of the behavior we see from Donald Trump is from his Mars rising, and the fact that the Mars is in Leo is quite evident in him. Mars in Leo tends to make his Leo Ascendant much more obvious, in the sense that "we see his Mars most of all, and the flavor of that Mars is Leo." (In terms of what I said above about the expression of Ascendant sign, he's a good example of someone whose outward physical presentation in coloration and personality style reflects his Ascendant sign quite well.) However, your Jupiter closely angular in Aries wouldn't give you an Aries temperament (and would be so slight an effect that one might not see any of it), since Jupiter signs have a very weak effect of their own.

However, I think you might be saying something else with which I agree strongly. I think you might be saying that if someone has, say, Mars on an angle you might mistake them for a Scorpio (if your brain is wired to think in terms of signs). I'm sure that sort of thing happens often.

Like I said in the first paragraph, I think that if the angle is found it's going to be specific (like we look specifically first at Sun/Moon/Mars signs) and I think it's going to have a body connected with it (how about instead of Jack Black being just an angular/Asc Gemini, he has an angle set on pollux- for example: this physically attaches this angle to the sign). [Don't forget about pollux - its just a distant sun].

Ecliptically, he has Pollux a few minutes from Ascendant, true. OTOH Pollux is almost 7°off the ecliptic, which means that it doesn't rise and set with its 28°29' Gemini longitude. It was several degrees above Ascendant when he was born. If you want to look for a fixed star on his angles, Schedir (the brightest star in Cassiopeia) is 0°23' from his MC. (I don't know whether that fits or not. The fixed stars on angles have disappointed me most of the time. I don't know that this star, primarily Saturn by tradition but softened by Venus, is descriptive. I'd have been more impressed if his last name had been only a stage name, but he was born with it.)

[Soft Alpaca]

I was saying that he would be more likely to display gemini traits having an angular star in gemini would be more convincing to me than just by an angle on its own.

"If you are saying that the sign of an angular planet is more pronounced than if it were not angular, I mostly (but not entirely) disagree. - "
I entirely agree with this statement (I put about as much faith in it as you do).

The second statement you thought I was trying to say I also see far too often, I think this happens with Uranus in myself (people ask often I'm scorpio or aquarius). If anything in my own chart I'd even ponder it would be the placement of Uranus (aspecting the sun and on the vertex axis) but, even then Mars is already exalted in the same sign (why look any further)? As for the statement about Jupiter - yes I don't associate with Aries (though pluto and angular sun are present in my already firey chart).

[By Jove]

Jim, do you feel so confident in ascending signs and angular planets that you could guess it just my looking at people? Some astrologers claim they are able to do this. Some are more successful than others.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, do you feel so confident in ascending signs and angular planets that you could guess it just my looking at people? Some astrologers claim they are able to do this. Some are more successful than others.

Sometimes on angular planets... not always. So many factors.

So the answer to your question is no, I'd rather have a time.

And I firmly reject that Ascendant sign is so descriptive. Admittedly, rectifying a chart by someone's "look" to guessing an Ascendant sign "works" one time in twelve, but that's not only a little more comfortable for me than Russian roulette.

[Soft Alpaca]

I don't understand quite how like I said it (any angular sign) would work (the sign be noticable) without some body on an angle (be it a star, planet, or otherwise), an angle is probably nothing but a section of the sky that carries a frequency that elevates the effect of the area- specifically it must have something to latch on to, something must be there to elevate(and a random starless section of the sky- in constellation- or not, wouldn't make any sense because there is nothing for the angle to effect). I notice my cousins girl friend for example, (36) Moon/Mars scorpio, Aries sun. Then in libra she has saturn almost exactly conjunct her rising (.87°). Reading the general themes of libra- and saturn, they both definitely appear in her personality (I'd rather put my money and say that the ascendent is like a sense of vibrato, a sign we use to deflect strangers/unwanted attention. However even that is pushing it). That being said she doesn't look like a Libra she looks like she can fight, play sports, and has her CDL license fully equipped with a lead foot (the witchy/pagan vibes from libra are there however).

I think it would be better if we taught people that the angles function before/ and without direct correlation to the signs (angles are not nearly as stagnant as signs). Kind of like how Mars is the first planet to function on its own separate from the sun (this is the best practical comparison I could think of).

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

You're right. Angles aren't affected by signs. Signs and angles, by themselves or together, have no influence. They only condition planets.

[Jim Eshelman]

Calithie, if you're still getting responses from this account - happy birthday!