Sun in Pisces - sign project

[Jim Eshelman]

Welcome to the Sun in Pisces discussions project, which will run March 15 - April 13, 2017 (and then will remain around in case people want to revisit it in the future). Please gather your list of Sun in Pisces people (especially those you know personally) and join us.

Here are Sun in Pisces interpretive resources on the forum:
Primary section: http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7#p26
Garth Allen: http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34#p228
Cyril Fagan: http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4399#p22680
Rupert Gleadow: http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5111#p29975
Manilius: http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=56#p288

[Jim Eshelman]

The gates are open.

You mean the flood-gates! It is the Piscean month haha.

The only three Pisces-Suns I know are my father, a friend of mine and and an ex-teacher of mine. As for Aquarians, I know none that I know well of. That's why I didn't post much in the past Aquarian thread. Sorry. I know more Aquarian Moons though.
My father was born on the 5th of April 1967, at 06.35AM, in Kuala Lumpur. Now he lives in Klang, though his angles shouldn't change that much considering Klang is only a 45-minute drive from Kuala Lumpur.
My Piscean friend was born on the 29th of March 1999, 12.35PM, in Klang.
My Piscean ex-teacher was born the 28th of March, probably in Klang. I've forgotten his birth year, but I kinda recall him being a double-Pisces. 1960 is my best guess, but that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I do not know his birth time, but he seems strongly like a person with a Moon-Saturn aspect which he will have if he was born in 1960.

I shall go through the list of traits for the Pisces Sun interpretations kindly shared by Jim from his notes and elaborate where possible.

Unfamiliar and vague holds a special attraction for them. Many explorers (need to uncover the mystery!).

Yes for my teacher. He's a natural doubting Thomas but once he gets to know about something he's interested in, he immediately researches it thoroughly. He has known lots of info by this way. He's strongly science-minded but is also open to spirituality, religion and the occult when his research proves them to have some basis. ADD 23/03: He strongly believes in God though. The following quote by Albert Einstein (a famous Pisces scientist we all know) is a good way of showing how he views science and religion:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

He does indeed believe a combination of science and religion is necessary for "true" understanding.

Subjective approach to life.

This is true to both my father and my teacher, but my teacher is wiser (naturally, as he's older).

"Make a production out of everything." Flair for dramatization. Actors. Very musical.

My teacher acted in plays when he was a teenager and young adult.

Suave speech - pleasant social address - orators - good teachers (community leaders).

Yes he is a great teacher, he's able to explain and visualise concepts with much clarity.
Did I mention how deep and loud both my father's and teacher's voices are? As for my Pisces friend, I'm not that sure.
I was intimidated when I first heard my teacher's voice, but got used to it. He says his drama activities also made his voice clearer; which it is. He's a part-time newscaster who newscasts when he feels like it or when there's no other newscaster available. He's also a part-time master of ceremonies. (M.C.)

IDEALISTS - VISIONARIES - ROMANTICISTS - DREAMERS ("Everything will be fine.")

Yes my ex-teacher is a visionary but he does frequently mention how he's disappointed at (this country, it's people/politicians, etc.) on how Malaysia could've been way better. He realised that he's his own change-maker and has to fend for himself first, which he's finds unfortunate.

Hard to please by intimates; easy to please by non-intimate acquaintances.

Very, very true of my father—also, if my mother encourages him to do something, he may brush my mother's ideas off, but if someone else tells the same idea (or a different one, even if it sounds nonsensical), he gets very encouraged and motivated. He has a tendency to be deceived by this attitude of his, which my mother criticises. She's a Virgo. She frequently sets my father straight in most issues.

Striving for predictability. They cast themselves in a specific role then block out all signals or hints that there could possibly be another way, another pattern by which to BE.

My father, especially the first point. I can see this even literally—when driving to a place my father has gone before, my father usually follows the route he's most used, even though my mother and I suggest him a better, quicker route.

SLAVERY motif. At best, consciously "indentured" to something.

Yes, my father to his work. He always makes it clear how his job wouldn't allow him to take off-days by whim, even on important days for the family. He's a supervisor.

MISONEISTIC.

My father. Really not comfortable to changes he has no idea that they're coming. Refuses to acknowledge them at times.

Snobbish.

My teacher is somewhat so, but not overtly.

Low pain threshold (physical or emotional). Sensitive.

My father perhaps.

Lean toward high I.Q. - "absorbs knowledge without much difficulty" (Fagan) - good memories for facts.

My teacher and my Piscean friend.

Often too deadly serious for their own good.

My father, but also could be my teacher and Pisces friend too.

Do own jobs effectively and expect others to likewise do their share to "keep the wheels turning." (Slave motif again.)

Strongly my father and my teacher. Though my father may still make others do their work even when he doesn't. My mother sometimes complains that "she always has to do everything" and that "my father can't do anything by himself."
My father is indeed strongly dependent on my mother, emotionally and intellectually. My mother sometimes feels like he's consuming most of my mother's time, life and even money.

They are strong (intense) - you never know strong what, but they are strong (especially women; men less so). Strength is directly proportionate to their emotional attunement.

All three are physically strong and are bulky. My father leans toward the fat side of bulk while my friend leans towards the muscular side. My teacher is somewhere in the middle. My father was thinner though when he was younger, I suppose that's his Capricorn Moon. All three are known to work out and exercise, though my father only did so during his younger years.

Strong sex drive (sensuousness). Indulgent. Enjoy good food.

I suppose the former is so for all three. All three love good food too, though my father is the most indulgent while my teacher and friend have more control on their food intake for health purposes.

From Rupert Gleadow's interpretations:

"...typically resembles 'the average sensual man'; always looking for enjoyment, a bit of a humbug and not entirely reliable, but essentially kind and good-natured; weak-willed and easy-going, but generous, and quickly taken up with the sensations of the moment. Not independent and often difficult to rouse, they are talkative, fond of eating and drinking, devoted to entertainments, parties, theatricals, and amusements. Many of them are always looking for the easy way out, so work does not appeal to them as such; yet many do work hard when they are intelligent enough to understand the need for it, for they are exceptionally adaptable and versatile, and once interested in a job will take great trouble to make it a success."

This is actually a good description of my father, and of my teacher when he was in his younger years.

Some other comments:
My teacher (and a Pisces-Gemini tattoo artist that I barely know) are very interested in fine art; my teacher draws for pleasure while the tattoo artist makes a living out of it.
All three are fair-skinned (Indians can both be fair- and dark-skinned) though my teacher has gotten darker in complexion by Sun exposure.
All three are considerably stubborn in their views until proven wrong by facts. My teacher believes that lesbiansim is genetically impossible and male homosexuality is a symptom of Kleinfelter's syndrome, I could've easily questioned and disproved that but he'll still be stubborn in his views and it'll ruin his respect on me.
My teacher has experienced many "mystical" and "senses-halting" experiences in his life, that could be explained by a possible Moon-Pluto sesquisquare (and he'd still have a close Moon-Saturn square).
My father has been betrayed/deceived a fair number of times, and apparently has been "jinxed" by a jealous co-worker some years ago. The "jinx" has been successfully "removed."
My father is very biased in sharing his love, he's more interested in his daughters than me (my mother agrees) and can be biased in other things too between me and my sisters. I'm not taking the bias as a serious matter as I have my mother by my side.
My father easily believes rumours and superstition, especially if it comes from the mouths of his relatives and friends, or from WhatsApp.

My father's Neptune from his Pisces Sun has been inherited by all of my siblings and me: I have a partile-angular Neptune, my 1st sister has a Pisces Moon and my 2nd sister has Neptune fairly angular (but it's the only angular planet in her chart.)

Hope this helps!

[SUBJECT TO EDITS]

[Jim Eshelman]

As someone with Moon conjunct Neptune I can be pretty gullible myself. I also like fantastic things to fantasize quite bit, something I liked to do since childhood.

[Jim Eshelman]

My father is also a Pisces.

He was an educator and school administrator for the majority of his career-life, where he was highly respected by his peers and subordinates. As long as I've known him, he has always been devoutly religious with a deep spiritual leaning and a gift for telling relevantly meaningful stories and speaking in analogies. He's also taught Sunday School and been a deacon in the church since I can remember. He once read a book on healing and began the relaxation and meditation exercises, but he rather quickly and easily had a frightening visionary experience that completely turned him against all that sort of thing. He can be judgmental, but I had to get older and change from his belief system before I really ever saw it. The main idea there is that he trusts his own faith tradition deeply and is just as deeply suspicious of everything that isn't in line with that.

[Jim Eshelman]

Facebook just notified me that my old boss's birthday is today, which means she is a Pisces as well.

She originally studied counseling but worked her way into education, becoming both a Psychology professor as well as doing work in college administration to help students gain the skills necessary to succeed through tutoring programs and advising programs for students on academic probation. She really bought in to her work helping students succeed in college. She wasn't just performing a function for a pay check. It was her work to help the world. She ran into trouble with administration, though, as she would defend her ideals for the program where the higher-ups were more concerned with the money and time being spent on hard-to-demonstrate outcomes. Eventually, her defense of her ideals for the program led to her being pushed out of leadership. Now she just sticks to being a professor.

She's a sincere Catholic, but she always expressed a lot of interest in astrology and tarot readings. She had the scientific education in Psychology, yet she was still very interested in the areas where it related to mystical experiences and the spiritual life.

[Jim Eshelman]

Okay, so Pisces is Neptune and Venus.

In what ways would you say that it's not Mercurial?

[Jim Eshelman]

Okay, so Pisces is Neptune and Venus.

In what ways would you say that it's not Mercurial?

I wrote about that a while back. I'll see if I can find it (or maybe someone else knows where it is).

Ah, here it is. It's buried down in the middle of this thread:
http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5106

On the way home, I was thinking about another Pisces detail I hadn't ever thought through. I've been on an informal "project" of rethinking-through how each sign is substantially defined by its ruling and exalted planets and those that are home or exalted in the opposite sign...

I realized I'd never thought through the ways that Pisces is defined by Mercury being double-debilitated there. Pisces should be the least mercurial zodiacal constellation of all. "Exactly how is this so?", I thought? Aha! There goes my Virgo. It's in that word exactly or, rather, inexactly. We're used to recognizing that Piscians are malleable, able (at their best) to be anything. Part of what makes that possible, though, is that they are nothing specific. They are the antithesis of the Virgo-Mercury idea of "pin it down, label, identify exactly what it is." They are freed to be anything by being nothing in particular.

I think that is their distinctly mercurial element.

Now, there are several things about Pisces that seem mercurial. (Polarities are interesting that way. They pretty routinely have their opposites inherent in them, but after another fashion.) For example, Pisces can seem to have abundant curiosity, but the motive is starkly different than for Virgo. Pisces isn't really interested in learning a fact or pinning down what's so. Rather, they thrive on solving a mystery! And I'm not entirely sure that solving it is their thing, so much as living in the presence of mystery and navigating (unintentional but appropriate mariner term) its byways.

So, Virgo wants to know what's so; Pisces is especially attracted by the unknown and vague. Outwardly, these may look similar. Fundamentally, they are antithetical.

Also, one might think that conning is a mercurial trait, arising from the God of Liars and Thieves. I've often wondered why Gemini is known for being a cheat, and Virgo for not being a cheat. I tend to think Gemini has more of that because they are un-Jupiter, disinterested in "being good," a trait Virgo doesn't have. Now I'm thinking there is another side, too, which is that Virgo is un-Neptune and, therefore, polarizes itself against the planet of deception.

But the main point of this post is that Piscians are variable specifically because of avoiding specificity.

[Jim Eshelman]

Ok JimE, "individualistic front"- its the way its worded, as if derogatory and degrading. complete b.s.
By saying Pisces puts up an "individualistic front" implies that Pisces-is not capable of being an individual -and 2 -assumes the are fraudulent and intent on counterfeiting. This is not true. But because Jim will just deny anyone else can be right about anything I will just now prepare a defense in giving the benefit of the doubt. Explain it to me?

[Jim Eshelman]

Ok JimE, "individualistic front"- its the way its worded, as if derogatory and degrading. complete b.s.

Not meant to be derogatory. That is, I don't see anything different about a facade or front. I mean to say that the Pisces plays at being an individualist, even though they natively aren't. It's a role they are playing, and it's the most common one for must of them.

Would you consider "façade" less offensive? (To my sensibility, it has the chance of seeming more offensive to some people.)

By saying Pisces puts up an "individualistic front" implies that Pisces-is not capable of being an individual

Not individual - individualist. Someone who demonstrates great independence or individuality in their actions. It's a different word.

Of course Pisces is only an individual in the sense that every human adult is; but, within that, remember that "Pisces is never more themselves than when being somebody else." That's more or less the key to Pisces IMO.

and 2 -assumes the are fraudulent and intent on counterfeiting.

If you mean "making up who to be," they are. It's a moral judgement whether there is anything wrong with this. Pisces is about the role, the façade, the persona of the occasion.

Explain it to me?

Done.

[Jim Eshelman]

I can't say someone's interpretation is wrong per se, because we all each have our own eyes, own interpretation. But I do think when people Agree on fundamental 'truths', it is because we do see the reality and this is objective. Even still, we can only be as objective as we can be and the Agreement is very key.
So Jim, in no way can your interpretations be wrong. I think you know exactly what you see as real and others will agree with you. But at this time, I do not see Pisces as pretending, or as putting up a front. The 'front' is not innate, but a consequence of Pisces not having a clear, steady, consistent identity or by having such a mysterious, unreal grasp of identity. Intent is the key.

[Jim Eshelman]

On a positive note, I must give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge Jim's latest Pisces insight listed above as purely incredible in founded in reality. The moment I read it, I knew it was true. Insights like his above are the reason we all connect.

[Jim Eshelman]

I have only 7 solar Pisces on the personally-known list (enough! )
Two of them I know quite well (intimately well), and others on the acquaintance level but mostly for long enough so I've had the opportunity to observe them.

This is the common trait I've noticed with 3 of them, and is a very prominent thing for each (though not something that can be noticed at first glance; you have to spend time with them to see it):
They have a strong tendency to hold for long period of time to reactive emotions (such as anger, resentment, wishing revenge, etc.); they keep the intensity of the emotion, and can do so for years, even decades, after the event that triggered it.
My personal theory is: they unconsciously identify themselves (attach psychologically to it, experiencing it as something that defines their identity) with these reactive emotions, "enchanted" by the intensity of it when the emotion initially arose; they re-live it again and again in their mind, and then, over time, it goes into the "default" mode and becomes second nature, so to let go of it feels like loosing oneself, and so they stay locked into this circle. Masochism and sadism are part (type of expression) of this same pattern.

I would like to hear feedback from you on this - did you notice the described pattern with your personally known Solar Pisces?

[Jim Eshelman]

Danica, I think you are onto something and I initially understand your description here and need more time to know for sure if it is indeed a sole Pisces trait. Also, your description might, idk, fit previous interpretations but the language maybe different. I know they tend to regress emotionally and behaviorally, but we all do to an extent. Maybe they do so relatively more often in a self inflicting way that they actually enjoy. Bear with me.
Pisces does avoid the straight forward reality of what is directly in front and by doing so leads to a sort of procrastination or missing of the right now, right here moment. I think they reflect on the past, but misinterpret the past reflection by assuming it to be true for everyone, and then they bring the misinterpreted past into the present and communication becomes foggy. There is something off about it. I really don't think Pisces is too concerned except for when others become intolerant and/or critical of the behavior. So yes, they do identify with a sort of mystery or mystical realm.
The main problems/signs are clear, from outside perspective, when communication suffers. Even small details. Calling a coffee stir stick, a popsicle stick or mis quoting song lyrics is Pisces (I think, could be Capricorn too?) And Pisces will argue they are right even when obviously wrong. Think about Pisces being opposite a double Mercury in Virgo. Mercury is about 'pinning it down', like Jim said. Mercury is about clear communication. Pisces ego can hinder clear, accurate, concise communication more than any sign I've experienced by making communication distorted, unclear.
My sister in law has Moon in Pisces and she likes to say 'I' this and 'I' that often and for no apparent reason. Pisces is often defensive before any defense is needed. She makes self-fulfilling profacys all the time and to me she comes off as just being naive and/unaware because nobody else sees her how she describes herself.
So Pisces identity might be as simple as 'distorted' perception. If all they see is periphery, and images and beliefs in idealism, then this is what they identify with and communicate to others. A Pisces will argue what they see is real and true, and to them, it is (and this is also true, relative to all sign identities). The difference is Pisces rules the mystery zone.

[Jim Eshelman]

I've known for decades (thanks to Fagan's published examples over the years) that one significant subset of Piscians are marked generally by extreme sensual indulgence, but also by sexual indulgences that has horrified history. (I'm not personally horrified - as long as nobody gets hurt, I say go for it among the consenting! - but history has been more severely judgmental.) This is especially so among those who have massive numbers of planets in Pisces. (I've often wondered whether there are more large Pisces stellia through history, or we simply learn about the people.)

There is a powerful eros theme running through Pisces every bit as much as Taurus - sexual, but also the wider understanding of eros, and marked usually by extreme sensual indulgence. When this subset of Pisces is not known for their sensuous activities, they often are writers and inquiring explorers of it in other ways.

On this site, we've previously looked at the chart of Sir Richard Burton, with Sun and four more planets in Pisces. Algernon Swinburne had Sun-Moon-Pluto tightly conjoined in Pisces, along with two other planets (five in all). Charles Baudelaire had Sun with six other planets (seven in all!) in Pisces. Emile Zola had Sun, Moon, and three other planets in Pisces. Erica Jong is not a stellium example, but embodies the same spirit as they, a she discloses in her mostly autobiographical writings that set an era on its heels. Hugh Hefner (Sun and only two other planets) helped rewrite the Western world's relationship to eros and life's pleasures. I know little about Camille Paglia's personal life, but her writings pushed our understanding of the history and emergence of sexuality into whole new directions in a way to rewrite social frameworks. Lady Gaga has been a significant force in the acceleration of our present dismantling of traditional sexual definitions. Paul Verlaine had Sun and three planets in Pisces. Tennessee Williams is a further example. Charles Fourier (founder of the Utopian Socialist movement, that not only promoted sexual liberality in large communities, but felt that worker productivity and the economic survival of the world would arise only from the continual libidinous satisfaction of all workers) was a Pisces.

I write such a long paragraph to show that I'm not talking about an example or two, but a large segment, and the examples often are quite extreme - of historic scope. If you go into the individual lives of these examples, you will find many common threads, as well, including often extreme eroticism but, also, the dissolving of usual boundaries and definitions, overrunning commonly discussed categories of sexual behavior, a great deal of bondage (the Andromeda saga is deeply embedded in Pisces' psyche) and no small amount of S&M. (I now think the very high rates of Pisces showing in the "people known to be homosexual" collections of the '60s and '70s was more in the spirit of overrunning categorical definitions than anything else.)

On the other hand, the same theme often shows in some variant of the opposite extreme. Where eros is an obvious theme throughout Pisces, so (in another group) is repressive morality a major theme. These rarely stand out so vividly in history because repressive morality has been closer to the main expression of Western civilization on the matter (especially, I am sad to say, in my own Puritan-founded country). But there are a few examples that leap out of the list, such as Anita Bryant. In most others it is more subtle.

Though I haven't sorted out how it all fits together, it seems certain to me that these issues of eros and morality are interlocked in Pisces - parts of a single idea. They are so closely related that I cannot tell whether (1) the erotic extremists are embracing eros or fighting against the seductive temptations of morality, or (2) the moral extremes are embracing morality or fighting against the seductive temptations of eros. They are a continuum (but I think I haven't articulated it exactly right yet). - I'm intrigued that I found myself using "seductive temptation" (sweet Pisces words) for both sides, though.

Perhaps of interest to the reader is that I started thinking along these lines this morning when looking at the chart of a much milder example, Hans Christian Anderson. If course we can understand his Piscian side first in terms of the fantasy aspects of his fairy tales (which is only part of what he wrote - he was also the 19th Century version of a travel blogger). But Anderson seems, more so than most other things, to be a morality philosopher. His fairy tales are hardly suppressive or erotically suppressive, but they are all morality tales no matter what, and have served for nearly two centuries as a way to politely train children in moral balance, intelligent resourcefulness, and other socially desirable traits. (He was also a sexual extremist, being committed to having no sexual interaction; which was at least useful, since he was often passionately taken with quite unattainable women; but even he was not constrained to loving one sex or the other.)

At least among famous Piscians, there seems - whatever other people think of their choices or their outcomes - that they are striving throughout their lives to do something fundamentally good. This, of course, expresses the moral element. That they do this in their own reality, not at all limited to the boundaries of how other people think the world works, might be their most charming, entertaining trait.

Pisces seems unconcerned that their reality does not match consensual reality; and it's not that their view of the world is necessarily flexible. It's that they have their reality and, like a favorite pair of jeans, they're going to wear and not bother to think what anyone else is wearing. Within their own reality, they seem to make the smartest, most reasonable choices they can. Ultimately, this is true of every sign-type but, with Pisces, we have little sense that they are concerned with their alignment with anybody else's reality. Perhaps this "well-seated in their own universe" trait is why many of them can lead strong waves of inspiration.

[Jim Eshelman]

I've just significantly updated the Sun in Pisces interpretation for the site, including writing my concise summary for the top. Here it is:

SUMMARY: Drawn to the foreign, exotic, wondrous, theatrical, mysterious, glamorous. Wanderlust. Eros vs. moralism. Socially charming. Seeks idealistic relationships. Idealist, visionary, romantic. Hardened personal reality, stuck patterns. Slavery-bondage. Fickle allegiance, betrayal. Drama, acting, music.

[James Condor]

I was thinking of a trait I have with Moon in Pisces. And then I remembered what Jim had written on this forum, about Pisces having conflicting sides of Eros and morality.
And my thought today was what I am experiencing and have while in a serious relationship.
I tend to have this lustful, playful, fun, and serious side. My commit issues aside, this is the “disloyalty” part of my Neptune moon too, I assume. (But, I also chart natal Mars partile natal Neptune).
In my experience, when interacting (or seeing) a woman for the first time, I instantly gage , or know, my level of attractiveness. I know instantly if I would sleep with her. I then I take in all sorts of things, her face, body, voice,some personality traits. But it seems I have mostly just talked myself out of asking her out because I make up stories about what if this and that?
I tell myself, if I see her again, then I will. And if I see her again. I again talk myself out of it. Like, well, what if there are things I don’t about her? Well, duh, of course there are. And she won’t like things about you. Then it’s like, well, what do I say, what do I do? Do I want to work at communicating and trying to see if we have a connection? I just really don’t do and see.
Neptune is in and out and all around. Come on strong, then fade away. Big ideas and plans one moment and soon realizing the hard reality of it.
I have this scattered love, unfocused, sometimes exciting and stimulating, love( n Venus partile n Uranus also a factor)

[Soft Alpaca]

I only know one Pieces, their reality is built around education and logic (Mercury heavy chart). The wonderlust is this Jupiter thing I can sort of connect to. The love most be elite, it has to be Romeo and Juliet/ peanut butter and jelly.

I think people often loose track in the fact that Lucifer was at the end of the day still ambitious (even the devil is productive). When the devil is in a place of wonderlust and romance it's like ecstacy or coke (many Neptune/Jupiter people I know have tried and may be really into coke btw and not a lot of other people I meet do..).

"Its like a rush, it is up and down. It can ride you through just about any situation or other drug. It's sometimes cut with shit and it gets patchy. But most importantly it's like diesel it smells great but it's just {bonking} cancer in the end."
How I see Neptune people who are in love and how I would describe the use of coke..

[Lance]

I am working with another Sun in Pisces that hates the “stuck” and “betrayal” themes, and I started feeling like I was beginning to grasp the root of it.

I think it has to do with the energy they put into their sort of Piscean private reality. They (or we - my Moon included) create a storybook reality - storybook loves, storybook religious devotion, storybook ambitions…

And we get stuck in that story-version of reality - stuck in less-than-storybook love, religious devotion, or path of ambition. It’s hard to let go of the hopeful fantasy.

And when we do, then it registers at the level of betrayal precisely because we were formerly so incredibly, ostensibly devoted.

I mean, other people cheat. Other people change religions. Why rag on the Pisces for things everyone else does to? My guess is that it’s because compared to the previous extreme of devotion, it seems like an extraordinary departure.

Thoughts?

[Jim Eshelman]

I think it has to do with the energy they put into their sort of Piscean private reality. They (or we - my Moon included) create a storybook reality - storybook loves, storybook religious devotion, storybook ambitions…

And we get stuck in that story-version of reality - stuck in less-than-storybook love, religious devotion, or path of ambition. It’s hard to let go of the hopeful fantasy.

And when we do, then it registers at the level of betrayal precisely because we were formerly so incredibly, ostensibly devoted.

Thanks, Lance. - Playing in this with different language to see if it gels: For Neptune, playing off Bradley's interuterine explanation for the root of Neptune's themes, on my last rewrite of Neptune foreground I started saying, "Lives in own reality, tenacious with their viewpoint... passionate about what uniquely frames their view," with the specific sense that their "own reality" is a reality bubble, by which I really meant a reality womb - with all the emotional-security things that implies. Does that part ring true for your observations of Pisces?

I mean, other people cheat. Other people change religions. Why rag on the Pisces for things everyone else does to? My guess is that it’s because compared to the previous extreme of devotion, it seems like an extraordinary departure.

I'll have to sit with this... you think it's the contrast... I really don't have anything on which to base an opinion at the moment.

It IS true, of course, that the less people expect someone to change teams (or whatever), the more it stings when they do. OTOH, Pisces really does make these changes more often than other types. (Sure, other people [other signs] do this, too, just not in the number Pisces does.) Since this IS a Spoke constellation, one could expect wanting to try this thing then that thing then the other thing... and they seem very fluid... so I think you're on to something that something else about Pisces just makes it feel different, e.g., maybe most other people have more open ambivalence sooner (or some such thing?). Pisces is also an Enigma (Water) constellation, so while their interests are diverse and varying (fluid), I think Pisces is just more secretive about it.

Some of Bradley's early statistics on Pisces' (let's call it) mobility of commitment are in the following link, though I think I have a much better summary somewhere: https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=14 ... =14&t=1972

[Lance]

Hm. Yes. Makes sense.

As you can tell, I’m trying to figure out the contradictory-seeming descriptions of being stuck in some circumstances and changing loyalties easily in others.

Partly, it’s a search for self-understanding, and partly it’s wondering why Pisces get singled out for it.

As I look to my own journey, the difference seems to be the ferocity of “emotional attachment to a current projection” versus the giving up on it when it doesn’t live up to the expectation. For instance, when other people from my past change their relationship with their religion, it’s not really a big deal. But when I did, it was a really big deal to them precisely because of how strongly I embraced and promoted it.

So, I’m theorizing it’s about Piscean intensity. But Jim is saying statistically Pisces actually do change loyalties more.

So…. Maybe the frequency of change has to do with the relatively flawed process of having such a strong emotional attachment to a current projection. In other words, do that, and you’re eventually bound to be disappointed with the reality.

But what about the stuckness then?

Maybe they are just the two outcomes of forming such strong attachments to projections: Either you get disillusioned and change (betrayal), or you push further into the illusion (stuck)?

[Jim Eshelman]

So, I’m theorizing it’s about Piscean intensity. But Jim is saying statistically Pisces actually do change loyalties more.

The word I used above (and then edited into my Sun in Pisces description) is "fluid." That might be the form that Pisces' mutability takes.

I think you must be exactly right that there is a paradox here - and it probably arises from a common cause. It's probably supported by secondary traits, e.g., Pisces severing connections is usually a theatrical event, a "big splash": They don't just change their minds about a thing, they issue a press release (figurative: but sometimes literally). It's usually theatrical. That might be part of explaining why others pay more attention to it. But I don't think that's the root cause of the main thing you're digging into.

BTW, we might want to get Mikestar13's input on this as our chief resident Pisces Sun. With my Sun in Virgo, one would expect I have somewhere between a unique advantage and a big blind spot about what's going on with Pisces (or at least what I choose to focus on).

As an example, I don't usually see the extreme emotional intensity you and Danica have mentioned. In fact, the Piscians I can bring to mind and know best seem to blastedly controlled much of the time (some of them all the time) that I have to keep reminding myself they aren't primarily Saturnian. (One of the Piscians I've known best was indeed a Sun-Moon-Saturn conjunction. Several of them, including my brother, have Aries Moons.) The one exception on this - a clear example of almost ongoing histrionics and surging hightides - is a niece who has a Taurus Moon (to which I primarily attribute her predominantly emotional nature). - I'm not going to get overly sidetracked into the Saturn impression, but it's often hard for me to shake: Most of them are so damned serious.

However, while "emotional intensity" doesn't seem, to me, to fit, one thing that describes them all is theatrical. Most (not being actors) don't present themselves as actors, but in a sense they always are. They play everything for maximum effect. A lot of them are playing "big fish." They're all distinctive characters, almost in a studied way.

Ah... y'know... maybe that's it. This whole question may really come down to one detail I don't usually mention first about Pisces but, perhaps I should:

As you can tell, I’m trying to figure out the contradictory-seeming descriptions of being stuck in some circumstances and changing loyalties easily in others.

Try this on for size: The main thing about Pisces is that they are actors. What you have been digging into reminds me of nothing else I've ever experienced so much as a professional actor (especially a Pisces sort of method actor) moving from role to role, as if they were uninterruptedly employed in some play or movie or whatever, and then regularly moved on to another.

At any given moment they're in a role. While acting that one role, they want you to take it completely seriously. They need your buy-in, your suspension of disbelief, your totally losing any sense of who they really are because of your absorption in their character. But, then, when that gig is over, they leave the role behind and start a new one. - That's Pisces' fluidity in a nutshell.

Early Siderealists seem to have considered Pisces an actor first. Gleadow, in talking about people who can't shake their Tropical Sun-sign identities, famously said that Aries is usually the best roll a Piscian could find to play. Fagan (who, being Fagan, usually emphasized the kinky sex first) said they are lovable humbugs and one may not mind being "taken in" or fleeced by them, remarking that no other sign-type is more expert at make-believe. Bradley wrote in the late '50s that "the outstanding earmarks of the Piscian complex are masquerade, distant travel and plasticity of affiliation" - masquerade leading, though (as he wrote in his end-of-life sign notes), "unlike Cancer [they are not] essentially deceptive." Oh, I just noticed (reviewing his notes) the point I made above, that they "love to make a 'production' out of everything." They are fundamentally theatrical.

Pisces is always acting. This doesn't mean they're an actor by profession or that they're deceiving anyone. It's not called "deceiving" when an actor entertains an audience. But I think, as much as Virgo is committed to the actual facts of a matter mattering, Pisces finds them irrelevant or, perhaps, as props in the current play.

Gregory Peck didn't want you thinking about Moby Dick while watching To Kill a Mockingbird. Alec Guiness, while playing Obi Wan Kenobi, didn't want you remembering The Bridge on the River Kwai and, in Kind Hearts & Coronets, probably hoped you'd lose track of who he was every few minutes. Lon Chaney wanted your complete investment in his Hunchback of Notre Dame, but certainly wanted you to forget it completely while watching The Phantom of the Opera. And Brando could never have succeeded as Don Corleone if you kept thinking of him as Stanley Kowalski.

Each role is a reality bubble, a reality womb, a total emersion in "this is how the universe is set up and who I am" - the construct of an actor immersed in (locked into) a specific role. Until it's over. Then the switch is theatrical (new advertising announcing the next movie or play). Then it's the same thing all over again with the new role.

As I look to my own journey, the difference seems to be the ferocity of “emotional attachment to a current projection” versus the giving up on it when it doesn’t live up to the expectation.

This phrase is a great description of what, in a positive light, is exactly what's expected from an actor. The difference is that it's not an actor's contract that has the role (or reality bubble) locked in but your own buy-in to the role and unwillingness to move on. Neptune clings. (Bradley once warned me, of angular Neptunes we knew in common, that you had to be very careful that they didn't get their harpoon into you - it isn't a fork, it's a harpoon with prongs so it won't pull out. He could have said "fishhook" as easily.)

For instance, when other people from my past change their relationship with their religion, it’s not really a big deal. But when I did, it was a really big deal to them precisely because of how strongly I embraced and promoted it.

"Promoted it." Like an actor completely immersed in a role saying, "Come see my play," right?

So…. Maybe the frequency of change has to do with the relatively flawed process of having such a strong emotional attachment to a current projection. In other words, do that, and you’re eventually bound to be disappointed with the reality.

I'm sure there is vulnerability to disillusionment here. And BTW the feel may be different to you because you have Moon in Pisces and (because of the thread and your opening line) I've primarily been talking about Sun in Pisces, so there may be more inherent emotion in the Moon (separate question in my mind). For the Pisces Suns, if there is "strong emotional attachment," I think it's a secondary effect, a consequence of their immersion in the selected reality.

But what about the stuckness then?

This has gotten clearer to me: I'd say it's simply the investment in the reality, the buy-in to the character and story being played.

Thoughts?

[Jim Eshelman]

BTW, I just mentioned the above to Marion who remarked that yes, her Piscian friends are all "totally committed until they aren't."

[Lance]

Yes, it’s making a lot more sense this time through.

Regarding Marion’s comment: Ouch, yeah. Concisely stated. Feels true.

You can see how the invested “character” would hate to hear that about themself, identifying the self with each role and seeing each as forever after.

I’m going to have to work on my presentation.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes: reality bubble, or "reality womb."

And yes, sign polarities (and psychological character polarities) tend to flip to the opposite, not incrementally edge toward something else. In Jung's model, for example, Thinking and Feeling as dominant functions flip to the other in times of psychological crisis, i.e., when default faculties fail to solve the problem at hand.

[Lance]

This insight makes me feel ridiculous and self-deluded.

[Jim Eshelman]

Surely no more than anyone else, right? (Which insight?)

[Lance]

Surely no more than anyone else, right? (Which insight?)

Well, disclaimer: I’m a Moon in Pisces, not Sun, but the changing characters, etc., fits me.

And it’s the idea that my passionately-held values and commitments are actually more fleeting and insubstantial than they feel. It makes me second-guess myself right now. What reality bubble am I stuck in? Who am I stringing along with me? What do I need to walk away from? (It’s a very 8 of Cups feeling - the Rider-Waite version, where the person is walking away.)

And even that fits the Piscean pattern.

[Jim Eshelman]

Oh, I see. You want a concrete, persisting reality

I got a new contact lens last week. Same prescription as my old one, but these things wear out every year or two. I'd had this one two years and it was just ever so slightly warped. When I put on the new lens, my first impression was, hey, this is good, and then I started to see small discrepancies, things at many usual reading distance that were pixilated or a little blurry. I mentioned it.

My optometrist then reminded me of something taught people for decades: I don't see what my eyes see. I see what my brain does with what my eyes see. The brain sorts it all out. The "evidence of your senses" isn't from your senses. The world would make no sense at all out of what the senses directly tell us (at the very least, everything would be upside-down), or, rather, we make sense out of what our senses tell us. But - depending on who we fundamentally are, we compose the world out of our character and inner reality using the raw material of sense-impressions.

Within two days of wearing the new lens, I could no longer see the blurring. My brain took care of it.

Given the rest of your chart, I suggest you focus on beauty and let the rest sort itself out. (Pisces can be so judgmental of themselves <g>.)

[mikestar13]

Didn't realize I get to be resident Pisces Sun as well as resident programmer. The general theme of Pisces as an actor playing a role is quite appropriate. One the one hand, it can be deceptive: Pisces are the best liars in the zodiac. A Virgo, say, who needs to tell a lie does it in cold-blooded awareness that he's lying--a Pisces can deceive himself first. I know, been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Yet this can also manifest as a stark truthfulness--at times fiction conveys wider and deeper truth than mere recitation of fact. I guess above all we are storytellers--for good or ill as the case may be. Changeable indeed, and on some values others might hold fundamental. But very rarely changing core identity--it's just that core identity is a lesser fraction of all that we are than the human average.

[Jim Eshelman]

Ah, the Medieval tradition of the wandering taleteller (Pisces seeming to be so much about the ongoing pilgrimage).

[Lance]

Yeah, that hits.

[mikestar13]

Changeable indeed, and on some values others might hold fundamental.

And persistent in fully ignoring what doesn't fit their personal feeling of comfort, ease & convenience, thus making all such things - poof! - erased from the realm of existence

Speaking for myself, yes I can do that with regard to things that don't fit my evolving conception of peace, joy, and love. Comfort, ease, and convenience are not sufficient motivation, save in matters truly trivial (for my own definition of trivial, not yours or anyone else's).