New names for Triplicities

[Jim Eshelman]

Just curious, so does an Aries share more in common with signs that share the same triplicity (Leo, Sagittarius), or signs that share the same quadruplicity (Cancer, Libra, Capricorn)?

All signs share far more with signs of the same quadruplicity.

It does seem to me that the geometrical relationships between the signs follow a similar scaling as aspects. Conjunctions, oppositions, and squares (as aspects) are the most powerful aspects and inherently dynamic, while trines and sextiles of soft, non-demanding, and milder (seeming weaker). Similarly, the similarity of a sign to those opposite and square it is powerful and inherently dynamic, while its relationship with signs trine it is milder, non-demanding, and softer (seeming weaker).

Estimating: About 80% of the meaning of a sign matches the symbolism of planets ruling or exalted in that sign plus the antithesis of planets ruling or exalted in the opposite sign. Probably 15% or more comes from the quadruplicity. Some portion of it comes from a basic archetypal nature of the sign (which, however, often duplicates the planetary symbolism, but not always: consider the duality themes of Gemini, justice themes of Libra, "higher and higher" and weaponry themes of Sagittarius, for example). Whatever few percent are left seem attributable to the triplicity.

It's not hard to see why Siderealists have underplayed this consideration from the beginning without ever outright denying it. There does seem to be a commonality of these sign groups which I've attempted to clarify, though it's small enough that one might not notice if one ignored it.

[Henrik Jansen]

Wow. That's really interesting. So, basically as a Leo, I would share a lot more in common with an Aquarius than an Aries inspite of how we stand for opposite themes. Really interesting.

[Jim Eshelman]

Wow. That's really interesting. So, basically as a Leo, I would share a lot more in common with an Aquarius than an Aries inspite of how we stand for opposite themes. Really interesting.

A lot more - yes.

In fact, I could have gotten more granular in the aspect analogy. A sign obviously has the strongest similarity "by conjunction," i.e., with itself. (Is that overstating, or what?)

The second strongest similarity, ironically, is with the opposite sign, just as an opposition is barely distinguishable from a conjunction in terms of strength. How can this be, aren't they opposite? Well, not so much opposite as polarized. They share a lot of traits, including of course those of their quadruplicity. But also they tend to be two opposing sides of a single thing. They're natures are defined by the same planets - just the reverse expression. In simple examples, there is no missing the commonality of Eros in Taurus and Scorpio or security and parental themes in Cancer and Capricorn, the juggling of the relationship of reason and unreason in both Virgo and Pisces, etc. Leo and Aquarius both have strong themes of individuality within the greater whole - and they both have individuality themes but in starkly different ways. Aquarius is entirely for and supportive of people as a whole but doesn't always do great with individual persons; while Leo is awesome with persons but not always best with people as a whole.

Also regarding oppositions, there seems to be a basic trait in human psychology (something Jung occasionally observed especially in his four types, and seemed to allude to in other contexts), that when our normal resources fail us (in a crisis or whatever), we slingshot not into an adjacent or similar set of resources or traits but into the opposite set of traits. (Probably the most writing on this has been about anima and animus.) The polarized resources, being comparatively less developed, often will be far less mature, i.e., having an infantile quality. But, among the many ways that this flip can manifest, one of the most obvious is that people pretty often "flip" into their opposing Sun-sign: Virgo is far more like Pisces (sometimes) than Virgo is usually willing to admit! (Same with the other 11.)

Of course, the next "stepping down" of commonality would be by square. Other than itself and its opposing sign, a given sign is most like the signs square it.

[Jim Eshelman]

I wrote a section for CSA summarizing the model of triplicities vs. Jung types that I've used for decades. I've decided I'm not going to use this in the book (it would give two competing points of view to no net gain), but I thought it was written well enough that I'd post it here to preserve it.

If the triplicities’ traits do not align with the four elements, what are they? We have been slow to articulate this because the triplicity characteristics are subtle. One can easily find commonalities between two of the three trine signs, and then find that the third one is a complete mismatch. Many astrologers have attempted to match them to Jung’s four personality dynamics either in their original form or as evolved and reshaped in the Myers-Briggs personality inventory. In fact, trying to match the triplicities and these four dynamics increased as Myers-Briggs type indicators became increasingly popular on their own.

My own ideas about the triplicities overlap with many of the Jung and Myers-Briggs ideas without any of the three models being an exact match. Because of this imprecise match and the confusion that could result from it, I have moved away from labelling the triplicities with the names of Jung’s four types. Nonetheless, it seems worthwhile to give a few notes on these sign groups’ connection to the four functions, especially through their distinctive styles of relating to time.

Leo, Sagittarius, and Sagittarius relate to the world more through sensation – information received through the physical senses – than other astrological types. This also anchors them most in the present. This connection to immediacy (what most people call “reality”) is also the seat of their stronger relationship to power and command. When their normal faculties fail in times of great pressure or stress, they slingshot into using intuition (unanchored from sensory immediacy) as their emergency response.

Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces relate to the world more through feeling than other astrological types. This does not mean emotion (all of the four groups are emotional) but to value judgement: “feeling” in the sense of how you feel about a thing. This function anchors them most in the past: While they seem adventurous and inventive in youth (while sorting out how they uniquely feel about things), they become staid with age. That is, they usually learn easily and quickly, but relearn slowly, with greater resistance to being dissuaded from how they already value, judge, and generally feel about things. When their normal faculties fail them, they slingshot into (often rigid) logic as their emergency response.

Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius relate to the world more through intuition (information received through neither sensation, logic, or feeling) more than other types. Intuition relates most naturally to the future, and this group is the most naturally linked to the future. This also leaves them with unique psychological vulnerabilities because the future is the only place in time that has not yet been experienced. This inclines this type more toward abstraction, often including a since of isolation (feeling others do not understand the world they live in). This greater vulnerability to psychological stress probably is why they seem to spring toward their emergency mode more often than other types: For them, it is sensation. Many of them snap into here-and-now sensory response so much of the time that they can be mistaken for sensation types. (For example, all three signs frequently show often ingenious practical “fix it” instincts.)

Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn relate to the world most through thinking. Thinking types relate to time as a continuum, with past leading to the present and arcing toward the future. Surely for this reason, these types are deeply interested in origins (often especially interested in antiquity) and need to understand an idea in terms of where it originated and where it is going. When their thinking faculties fail in times of great psychological pressure, they slingshot into using the feeling function as their emergency response, judgement and greater history being reflexive defense modes.

These summaries are brief but have the roots of more elaborate ideas. I want to again emphasize, though, that these are minor characteristics in the overall sign profiles, though often they can be observed.

[Jim Eshelman]

Sorry, gang. I feel I must change one of these. "Fertile" just keeps sounding too much like "fruitful."

I'm changing the "Earth" sign label to Prolific. It fits the points I wanted to make better and avoids the confusion. I will edit at least part of the above to show this change.