Constellations vs. planets

[Parto]

I had a showerthought: people are, in a way, distinguished more by the constellations than by the planets. Everyone has all the planets in their natal chart, but any given person only has 1, 2 or 3 relevant constellations (up to 4 or 5 if you really push it).

Even if one has, say, Pluto in the background (and for sake of argument, not connected to luminaries or non-background planets), they'll still experience Pluto throughout their lives by having it pop up in return charts, or by relocation. And also just because it's part of the human constitution. No matter how bad the state of a planet is in a natal chart, it's there.

But if one doesn't have, say, an Aries presence in their chart, that's it, no Aries for them. That is, unless we discover something like Moon-sign being relevant in a SSR.

[Jim Eshelman]

Not Moon-sign in SSRs, I think, but certainly secondary progressed Moon to some extent.

That aside, you make an interesting point: It's easy to see all the planet types alive in each person (merely in different ratios) but the same isn't true of the signs. (Tropicalists would differ, saying every sign works out through some house. I disagree.)

This perspective changes a bit if you regard the signs as primarily amalgamation of planetary expression (more than things unto themselves).

[Parto]

Not Moon-sign in SSRs, I think, but certainly secondary progressed Moon to some extent.

Sigh. There's just so much that goes, or can go, into personal predictive work. I thought at least I could get away with ignoring progressions.

This perspective changes a bit if you regard the signs as primarily amalgamation of planetary expression (more than things unto themselves.

I used to, but as time goes on they seem more fundamentally distinct to me. Their archetypal images shine a lot. Sometimes the dignified planets of the luminary signs don't seem all that present if the rest of the chart doesn't lean the same way. Add that some rulerships may be wrong (as there's precedent).

[Jim Eshelman]

As I think of this more on the way home, there seems to be a certain balance of things.

On the one hand, aspects (read: modifying planets) are more powerful than sign placements. If a luminary makes a strong, close, dynamic aspect, this usually will overwhelm. The sign placement. (They might blend and, in fact, usually will to some extent, but the aspect will tend to be dominant.)

OTOH luminary sign placements are more fundamental to who a person is, the broad type of person. I suppose I would say that luminary sugb is genus while luminary aspect is species.

One consequence of this balance is that when a luminary closely aspects a planet it doesn't so much show the "slice" of humanity of the person, but rather the "slice" of the sign-type. Jupiter strongly aspecting a Taurus Sun, for example, doesn't show something so basic as "a Jupiter variety of person" so much as "a Jupiter type of Taurus."

I should probably write a thread cataloging 10 planetary subtypes of each Sun-sign (and repeat for Moon).

[Parto]

That's very interesting. I had been meaning to ask if all luminary aspects, no matter how strong, are best read as shades of the luminary sign, or if it's very strong it has voice equal to or greater than the sign.

Even if aspects can overwhelm signs, the latter are of more general importance since not every Sun or Moon is gonna have a significant aspect, let alone a close, dynamic one. But every luminary gets at least a sign. "Everybody gets one."

[Dimitrios]

Recently i examined a archive of 400 famous greek people focusing my attention on their Sun/Moon signs, having initially the intent to compare sidereal with tropical positions (strictly their Sun/Moon signs). I came to the conclusion that aspects between Sun/Moon and the planets are more important, essential and valid to describe these persons with accuracy, than single Sun/Moon positions in signs.