Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

The descriptions of zodiac signs we hear today were not always so. Astrologers of the past described zodiac signs differently, and while traditional zodiac signs are similar to modern ones there are significant differences too. Why, you may ask? It partly has to do with New Age values, the precession of the equinoxes, and a long game of telephone where hack astrologers bowdlerized the zodiac signs into inaccurate caricatures without bothering to study the source materials.

My reference to the modern zodiac signs is Linda Goodman's Sun Signs, which is one of the cornerstones of modern astrology. My reference to traditional zodiac signs is Constellation of Words, which includes writings from Roman astrologers and descriptions of the fixed stars, which have often been excluded in astrology. I have a feeling @Prince_Noir will love this post.

Zodiac Elements
Zodiac signs in the past didn't have "elements" like they do today, but trigon diurnal and nocturnal rulers that supposedly impart a general character on the zodiac signs.

Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
Diurnal: Sun, Nocturnal: Jupiter
Modern descriptions often seem to give the "fire" signs a naive, happy-go-lucky idiot vibe, and generally describe them as being large-hearted and without guile. Traditional descriptions did not do this, but described the "fire" signs as martial and authoritarian, heavily valuing their pride, wealth, and social status.

Aries (Mars ruler, Sun exalted): Much mention is made of dictatorship and violence; a bilious character overall, as well as the collecting of money and gaining of wealth. Manilius gives the sign a riches to rags story, rising to become a prince only to befall a calamity reducing him to a pauper.

Leo (Sun ruler): Obviously associated with the Sun, therefore given a very kingly description. Leo is described as loving to be in the spotlight and putting on a show of wealth, much like in modern descriptions. But no mention is made of a generous, humanitarian spirit; but of a character who will rapaciously conquer his rivals and add to his own power.

Sagittarius (Jupiter ruler): Described as dreadful warrior who will go to great lengths to claim supremacy, to be the very best, and suffer greatly to realize his ambitions. Sagittarius is associated with the mastery and taming of wild beasts, and also of civilizing and cultural institutions, which modern astrologers do acknowledge. Of the "fire" signs, Sagittarius gets the worst "silly clown" treatment by modern astrologers, while ironically ancient astrologers described the sign with deathly seriousness; "dreadful Sagittary" as Shakespeare put it, or untamed destructive wildness, was a common trope associated with the sign.

Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn
Diurnal: Venus, Nocturnal: Moon
Modern descriptions give the signs a very practical bent of being cautious, conservative, wanting money and status, and wanting safety. This kind of fits the ancient description, but kind of doesn't. The ancients do describe Taurus and Capricorn as doing thankless hard work, but wealth gain is not mentioned, just the suffering inherent in life. Emphasis is also placed on civic service and the joys inherent with giving to and exchanging with people, especially on Virgo.

Taurus (Venus ruler, Moon exalted): Again, Taurus is solid, steady, and hard-working, but no mention is made of wealth gain, or Taurus being interesting in gaining wealth and status. Ancients associate the sign with Venus, and thus with love, sex, and fertility, but the free love of Venus here is described as Dionysian and subversive of marriage and familial ties. Not exactly docile and conservative.

Virgo (Mercury ruler): Ancients describe the usual attention to detail, the hard work, the perfectionist nature, and so forth. But the ancient description places a large emphasis on Virgo serving others and occupying a civic role, bascically being a gopher, but one with courage and tactical brilliance. Modern astrology, however, makes Virgo to be very stuck-up and anal. Ancient Virgo was not a shrewish old maid, but a lively girl.

Capricorn (Saturn ruler, Mars exalted): The traditional description by Manilius is restless and hard-working, but also of a cheerful demeanor, made "a slave to Venus" in youth. This personality description is partly based on nature, since (at least in the years of Rome) the Sun enters Capricorn and begins its resurrection, in contrast to the falling darkness and death cycle that happens when the Sun is in Sagittarius.

Gemini, Libra, Aquarius
Diurnal: Saturn, Nocturnal: Mercury
Modern descriptions put traits such as "communication and mobility" in the forefront when describing the "air" signs, and a modern astrologer is quick to join the heavy intellectual nature of the "air" signs with superficiality. But traditional descriptions give the "air" signs a far more serious character, since Saturn is the diurnal ruler. The functions of the mind, such as intellect, are also prominent in traditional descriptions, as Mercury is the nocturnal ruler.

Gemini (Mercury ruler): The traditional description is close to the modern description when it comes down to basic character traits such as quick-wittedness, many talents, and versatility. But Gemini is closely associated with mortality (due to the myth of Castor and Pullox, one immortal twin and one mortal twin) as well as Gemini's reaction against that. Gemini is a gay sign that dispels the heavier aspects of life, has great talent with music and astronomy, and is great with kids.

Libra (Venus ruler, Saturn exalted): Ancient descriptions emphasize Libra's role as a clear-headed and stern judge, and role in civic life, little description of indecisiveness. But Libra would far rather settle disputes in a dignified and bloodless way than use the sword. Libra is associated with Venus as Taurus is, but Libra Venus is about romantic love, marital ties, and the responsibilities that come with such relationships. Taurus is all about the wild kinky sex.

Aquarius (Saturn ruler): Modern descriptions tend to idealize Aquarius as being very humanitarian and forward-thinking. But traditional astrology allots Aquarius with hard work and the suffering in life as Aquarius is ruled by Saturn, like Capricorn. Manilius mentions "thousand crafts regulated by water", alluding to the inventive nature of the sign. Aquarius is kindly in character, though other ancient astrologers like Valens ascribe misanthropy to the sign.

Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces
Diurnal & Nocturnal: Mars
Modern astrologers go out of their way to imbue the "water" signs with idealized New Age traits such as being "sensitive", "psychic", and "profound". But no traditional descriptions allude to such traits. Since the "water" signs are ruled by Mars, they are thought to be dramatic and passionate but volatile and rash. Even astrologers as late as Alan Leo described them as being turbulent and restless, like water, and ancient astrologers made similar allusions. This clearly differs from the hypersensitive and introverted nature given in modern descriptions.

Cancer (Moon ruler, Jupiter exaltation): Modern descriptions emphasize Cancer with domestic life, child-rearing, and sensitivity, but will sometimes flip the coin to describe Cancer as being a strong public figure. Traditional descriptions of Cancer are firmly in the latter, especially since Jupiter is exalted in Cancer; thus the extroverted life in politics and putting on a show with many different masks. Cancer is associated with the vast ocean and overseas trade. Ancient peoples saw the ocean, the Great Mother, as a boundless and terrible titan, not as a meek and nurturing creature.

Scorpio (Mars ruler): Modern descriptions will almost always describe Scorpio as secretive, very profound, and transforming through three stages; with martial qualities such as being a tenacious, powerful, and vengeful fighter. Traditional descriptions are about the latter, the former mostly being New Age psychobabble. As such, Scorpio is driven and outgoing, fearlessly rocking the boat, tackling difficult challenges, and rising as the victor. Yet ancients regarded Scorpio as an "accursed sign" and "baleful source of war". He is impulsive and self-destructive; strikes first, asks questions later, causing crime and bloodshed throughout his rampage. There is little profundity in this fiery sign.

Pisces (Jupiter ruler, Venus exalted): Your typical modern astrologer will describe Pisces as a sensitive doormat, feeling psychic vibrations, and being very caring to all people and animals. The traditional description is very different; Pisces, like Cancer, is associated with the vast ocean, in this case with naval warfare. Manilius goes out of his way to describe the sea as foaming with blood. The constellation of Pisces itself is made of two fishes violently tugging away at each other. Pisces is very friendly, but also a restless wanderer, always sailing the seven seas looking for new places, ready to change course at the drop of a hat.

Am I correct that by "modern astrologers" you mean Tropicalists? I think you're just saying that Tropicalists portray the signs differently than ancient and modern Siderealists, yes?

If that's your observation.. then I think that's quite a good trying, since it suggests (sometimes surprising to see!) that they are actually observing people.

Traditional astrologers can be either tropical or sidereal, though most are and have historically been sidereal. Western astrology was still sidereal for hundreds of years after Ptolemy, so even Medieval and Renaissance tropical astrologers described their zodiac signs in the traditional way. Even when tropical astrology was in full swing, it took a long, gradual process for the zodiac sign definitions to change to the modern interpretations we have now. But you are right in saying that traditional and sidereal astrologers actually observe people.

Reading those I can say at least both discrptions of Scorpio are correct.

Redacted, off topic.

But since you are not actually a Scorpio, is it fair to use yourself as an example to validate what Scorpios are like? The fact that both Scorpios and Librans both think you are "one of them" doesn't mean you are - popular opinion doesn't determine what's so.

Redacted off topic.

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:48 pm Mr. E lastly to say life isn't fair. I'm not here to cast anything aside but this thing we call "our sign" is not the same method for every chart.

On this we completely disagree. (Clarification: I wouldn't phrase it to imply one sign. At least a pair: Sun and Moon. If there is a stellium - our or more planets in a sign - it has a voice. After Sun and Moon, the Mars-sign is the next most significant voice. But, primarily, the essence of our path through life is Sun-sign and Moon-sign.)

If I am born under let's say the planet of Mercury or Jupiter or the Sun than I will be born under the sign that the planet is in. I.e. Mercury dominants should go by Mercury sign, sun dominant by sun sign, moon by moon, etc.

On this we disagree.

Scarlet Depths, welcome to the forum.

Scarlet Depths wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:48 pm [...] this thing we call "our sign" is not the same method for every chart.

If I am born under let's say the planet of Mercury or Jupiter or the Sun than I will be born under the sign that the planet is in. I.e. Mercury dominants should go by Mercury sign, sun dominant by sun sign, moon by moon, etc.

It's up to each individual with the help of others to figure out what planet they are born under and how to embrace the sign of that planet.

Kind of like clue not everyone the broad can be Mrs. White at the same time (not everyone is born under the same planet).

I'd argue mine is Mercury btw it's angular and it rose as the first planet after the AC aka the horizon. There are other arguements and they may change over time.

So, let's say that by your method my chart was found to have Venus as the ruling planet. What is then the sign, i.e. how do you choose between Taurus and Libra in this example? Or Gemini & Virgo, in a case where Mercury was found to be "ruler of chart'?

I think, but I could be wrong, she's claiming Scorpio as her "sign" because her Mercury is in Scorpio. 29°28'. I don't know why she's chosen Mercury, which foreground, but not angular. Maybe it's that soul sign thing.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:37 pm I think, but I could be wrong, she's claiming Scorpio as her "sign" because her Mercury is in Scorpio. 29°28'. I don't know why she's chosen Mercury, which foreground, but not angular.

Scarlet explained it thus:

I'd argue mine is Mercury btw it's angular and it rose as the first planet after the AC aka the horizon. There are other arguements and they may change over time.

She also said it was the Atmakaraka which is the sun usually, but can also be a personal planet. The personal is the highest degree, meaning the one closest to 29°59' 59'' of whatever sign it's in. I have no idea how anyone could get to that being significant. It's some kind of Vedic thing.

She's got Solar Moon conjunct Natal Moon sitting right on her current Solar MC, with Neptune opposing, all square Jupiter. Venus square Pluto. Sun 5°off conjunct Saturn and background, but Jupiter 4° off conj Venus. Background Mars. Interesting.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:53 pm She's got Solar Moon conjunct Natal Moon sitting right on her current Solar MC, with Neptune opposing, all square Jupiter. Venus square Pluto. Sun 5°off conjunct Saturn and background, but Jupiter 4° off conj Venus. Background Mars. Interesting.

Oops That's Scarlet's next Solar Return, for December 2019. The current one *about 2 months old) has Neptune opposite her Moon Descendant to Ascendant, square natal Pluto on IC. We can also count a foreground Mercury-Neptune square. SSR Moon is not really doing much, but four months after her birthday will square SSR Pluto. All presuming, of course, that she is still living at or near her birthplace (I don't think I got an answer on that).

Opps. Yup. One big drawback of free sites.
Doesn't look like nearly as much fun.

Nope, I don't think she ever said if she was still living at birthplace.

Redacted off topic.

@ScarletDepths and others:
I will give a tl;dr version of my post to take away any potential confusion.

"Fire" signs, ruled by Sun and Jupiter:
They are imperial and aristocratic; they greatly value social status, wealth, heritage etc. They want to conquer their rivals to rise up the food chain. They are NOT naive, open-hearted, or playful. Modern astrologers confuse these traits with "earth signs wanting security".

Aries is a prince of power who wants wealth, NOT a scattered ram. Leo is a king of conquest who craves recognition and legacy, NOT a humanitarian showman. Sagittarius is an elitist warrior who will do anything to reach his goal, NOT a harmless innocent clown.

"Earth" signs, ruled by Venus and Moon:
They are tireless workers but care little for status; rather, they value civic duty, social exchange, and helping other people. Contrast the aloof aristocrat with the simple but resilient peasant. They are NOT rigid or materialistic. Modern astrologers confuse these traits with "air sign mobility".

Taurus is a lustful disciple of Dionysus, NOT a materialistic traditionalist. Virgo is a joyful young girl, NOT a shrewish old maid. Capricorn is a puckish satyr "slave to Venus in youth", NOT a cold rigid businessman.

"Air" signs, ruled by Saturn and Mercury
They are highly intellectual and tend to be reserved, with a frequent theme of social alienation. They crave, and often rely on, intimate relationships with other people to establish a proper sense of self. They are NOT shallow socialites. Modern astrologers confuse these traits with "water signs being too profound for this cruel vulgar world".

Gemini is a playful youth but riddled with anxieties of mortality and loneliness, NOT a social butterfly. Libra is a stern clear-eyed pitiless judge, NOT an indecisive flirt. Aquarius is a futuristic scientist, but NOT a sociable humanitarian.

"Water" signs, ruled by Mars:
They are dynamic and forceful, but volatile and rash. Ancient astrologers often compared Cancer and Pisces to the turbulent ocean, and Scorpio to the swift venomous serpent. They are NOT sensitive profound psychics. Modern astrologers confuse these traits with "fire signs being lighthearted hedonists".

Cancer is a grasping politician, NOT a nurturing housewife. Scorpio is a driven resilient fighter, NOT a secretive profound mystic. Pisces is a restless wanderer of the seven seas, NOT a dreamy pacifist.

On Saggitarius. I think it's important to state the goal of each sag are different.

For me I don't care about wealthy, social status and etc. I do care about my lived ones and will protect them at all costs. I can be a clown and a killer [I also have a strong inclination to mysticism and high intuition through Plutos openness seemigly, this means om outside the sag norm(it's hard to explain this in my chart)].

Also Capricorn and Aquarius are notable water signs, in addition to their other elements.

This goes back to one of the earliest things I told you: The same principle e.g. higher and higher, exists for all Sagittarians, but it's interpreted in terms of your personal values. Your personal values have little to do with your horoscope.

You just paraphrased that.

I can say the feral animal is traditional of sag. Chiron is the one centuar not horny, not wild, violent, drunken etc. Jims sag seems to be biased off of the Chiron idealized centar when in fact I've met plenty of the other kind. I think the true sag lies in between feral and human.

ScarletDepths wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:29 pm I think the true sag lies in between feral and human.

I agree with that. I agree most of the descriptions are a little too kind and don't cover enough of the less desirable side.

It just makes us sag look like out bad side is how stuck up we are, however i don't think that a lot of them are stuck uo, they just sound like it at times.

I was a wild kid, I've mellowed on the surface and it could be Capricorn Mars that is wild, but I think sag could be as wild as cap.

Some neg sag traits, I've noted between me and other sag:

Cocky [Jupiter knows it all]

Wild [party animal, fight club style stuff, may drink too much when they do drink]

Ruthless [in a sense a means to an ends for them is that, Machiavellian. Also they may do this when they are after another person either for sex or relationship]

Belief abrasive [can religiously enforce views]

Manners can be two ways, they know how to be polite but sometimes don't make an effort or choose to be rude.

I think that many strive to be better, but going as far to say they are part of king authors court, that they aren't as sexually driven, or they cant be down right forceful or manipulative to make there means is a silpery slope. It's almost like Jim has had met only improving/older sagittarians [or they tricked him but my bets on the first one].

"The reality is that the centaur race is marked in myth as particularly war like and fierce. The Mesopotamians, who introduced the constellation Sagittarius and defined it as a centaur,[1] represented it as twin headed with a human head facing forward and an animal head facing back, imagery which later adapted into the presence of a cloak flying behind the head of the constellation figure.

The shadowing animal face reminds us that whilst the Sagittarian might strive towards humane development, an underlying bestial energy exists, capable of spontaneous brutality when the bounds of reason are not consciously applied. Cuneiform inscriptions refer to Sagittarius as 'The Strong One', the 'Giant King of War' and mention it as under the guardianship of Nergal, whom the Mesopotamians identified with Mars. [2] Although later astrologers sanitised the more aggressive and blatantly phallic symbolism evident in ancient sources, we still encounter classical astrologers referring to the sign's "threatening aspect" [3] and medieval references to the "Dreadful Sagittary", such as that found in Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida [4] Historically, the sign stands as an emblem for the invincible courage and fervent valour of Mars, tempered only by the benevolence and wisdom of Jupiter. King Steven who usurped the English throne in 1135 carried the centaur as his heraldic symbol for that reason. "

Thus above except is from sky script a traditional [tropical] site. Many of the things they have to say I find true to the sidereal signs. This above is not inclined to tropical or sidereal astrology because it speaks of the ancient ways and how Sagittarius and the centar was known thorough out time.

There you go with mixing myth with astrology again.

Were you to do so, you should note that Sagittarius is explicitly Chiron, not centaurs in general. It was Chiron that Zeus set in the sky.

Sagittarians fall from their best potential in many ways. The question is whether we remember people by the best in their lives or the worst; and, more so, what the root thrust is of the spiritual force moving through and defining them.

Sagittarius specifically is the essence of the civilizing nature. What an individual Sag does with that is up to them.

It was Chiron shot by an arrow. It is debated as sag is Chiron or if centars is Chiron because Chiron was king of the Centars, also Chiron had no bow when he died.

Ancient Summarian astrology, is still astrology, and I do agree with you that myth is myth, but the derivative of sag is dual natured, two headed, man and animal. I can say that adding the animal side into the description of sag makes a more whole picture for me. I feel content in the sign knowing this duality.

I understand that in perfect sign form sag is idealisticly almost perfect, but like a sag I feel like the description of goal oriented and elite can fall short.

I agreed with you up till you started quoting off Skyscript, which we do not do here, so thanks for not doing that again.
I disagree with their conclusions, but you knew that. They're tropicalists. Let them talk to each other. We don't need it brought here.

But up to that point, I agree. Sagittarians have feet (hooves?) of clay. So do all the other signs. We're talking about humans, after all. That's a pretty good catalog of Sagittarian traits.

I understand that J Sad, I'm not say their word is law. I am saying that there are Parralels between Jims descriptions of the signs and those given on skyscript. The Mesopotamian culture and Summarian would have been closer to sidereal astrology anyway [as they actualy viewed the sky].

You fail to note, though, that the "two-faced" version has the human face looking forward, the bestial face looking back. It's the same symbolism as the human torso arising out of the animal behind, the path of struggle and movement of arising species and cultural evolution from its bestial roots.

Every constellation has its underdeveloped or degraded forms. This, though, doesn't alter the root essence of what is flowing through and endeavoring to manifest in a person. That Libra is constellation of peace and fundamentally connected to relationship does not change the fact that most Libras, especially when young, have really messed up relationships - the issue is important to them, and is important to their individuation struggle. Virgos get caught in absurd logic until they actually learn how to think; Leos easily fall short of being the most pristine and gleaming examples of humanity; Cancer has a horrible time learning to be open and receiving of all things; and so forth.

And yet, this is what each is incarnate to embody in the first place. It's not their behavior, especially in the beginning, but it certainly is who they are.

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:01 am I understand that J Sad, I'm not say their word is law. I am saying that there are Parralels between Jims descriptions of the signs and those given on skyscript.

You don't understand. You missed the point. Please don't drag stuff from other sites here.

(Especially don't drag stuff here from sites that support people who have come here in the past to attack us out of some misplaced idea that our very existence is an affront to them and either want somebody to argue with or to use us as a mechanical turk to do statistical studies for them.)

BTW, we've had to tell other Sagittarians the same thing. You all seem to want to "make up your own mind" or "eliminate the contamination in astrology" or some such. You want to take (or teach!) a course in comparative astrology please go do it on any of the dozens of sites that think there's something worth comparing and discussing. This is not one of those sites.

The Mesopotamian culture and Summarian would have been closer to sidereal astrology anyway [as they actualy viewed the sky].

The Mesopotamian and Summarian cultures only used observational astrology, which, by definition, is sidereal astrology.

Sorry I didn't know of the past on this site and that such occurrences have happened. There are differences between strict constellation astrology and sidereal that's why I had said closer but not the same.

Btw my mind is not made up and nothing is clear on my end. I still have a lot of questions unanswered by both sides and they hopefully will come with time. I think it is Jupiter's place to be orthodox and Pluto's place to be unorthodox and that is part of my confusion, that is wanting to be unorthodox but having a polarity to that within me. Now I'm off topic, I apologize.

We should look into the sign traditionally seen as unorthodox and see if Pluto has an underlying connection to it...

Jim Eshelman wrote: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:10 am And yet, this is what each is incarnate to embody in the first place. It's not their behavior, especially in the beginning, but it certainly is who they are.

Being is becoming, I think it's Pluto that is our disconnect Jim, I see that "who you are" is fundemetly changing from your birth till your death, and just because you reach a point, that doesn't guarantee you stop there or that you can't back peddle. Your saying the descriptions of the signs are the final destination of traits, the idealistic end? However I think the journey is far more important, the traits and actions that lead up to the end.

I will probably redact this post for being of topic after it is seen.

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:53 am I see that "who you are" is fundemetly changing from your birth till your death, and just because you reach a point, that doesn't guarantee you stop there or that you can't back peddle.

I would call that "who you act." Who you are is an immortal, invariable spiritual seed-essence intersecting with incarnation at a specific point in space-time called "birth" to express a specific destiny or purpose, to actualize a force of nature or cosmic principle. Yes, along the way the body and psyche arising from that seed necessarily undergoes changes as it matures and interacts with circumstances, but it's seed-nature persists through all of it.

Your saying the descriptions of the signs are the final destination of traits, the idealistic end?

I see why you would want it that; but it's also where it starts, the primal impulse that spends the incarnation actualizing itself. I place no particular value (except as resources or tools) on the convoluted mixture of phenomena that most people usually think of as themselves, but, rather, on the essential self that is using them for self-expression.

See Jim I don't care if some person is gona be a nice person in the end, if who he acts hurts someone I love let's say, I'm going to hurt what he loves, maybe that's just me.

So you say we are born in this essence and when we are how old? That "who we act" takes over. When I was little, like very young [birth-3yrs] I was wild, I wasn't loud or whiny or evil, but I was crazy, a fire ball. Many people ask what happened, "who I act took" over I'm assuming? I'm still the same wild crazy kid underneath, but that doesn't fit in my chart, so can 2-3 year old me have a diffrent "who I act"?

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:07 pm There you go with mixing myth with astrology again.

Were you to do so, you should note that Sagittarius is explicitly Chiron, not centaurs in general. It was Chiron that Zeus set in the sky.

Sagittarians fall from their best potential in many ways. The question is whether we remember people by the best in their lives or the worst; and, more so, what the root thrust is of the spiritual force moving through and defining them.

Sagittarius specifically is the essence of the civilizing nature. What an individual Sag does with that is up to them.

I relate to this very well. I need to learn to be more optimistic, like a "natural" Jupiter disposition would be.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:10 am You fail to note, though, that the "two-faced" version has the human face looking forward, the bestial face looking back. It's the same symbolism as the human torso arising out of the animal behind, the path of struggle and movement of arising species and cultural evolution from its bestial roots.

Every constellation has its underdeveloped or degraded forms. This, though, doesn't alter the root essence of what is flowing through and endeavoring to manifest in a person. That Libra is constellation of peace and fundamentally connected to relationship does not change the fact that most Libras, especially when young, have really messed up relationships - the issue is important to them, and is important to their individuation struggle. Virgos get caught in absurd logic until they actually learn how to think; Leos easily fall short of being the most pristine and gleaming examples of humanity; Cancer has a horrible time learning to be open and receiving of all things; and so forth.

And yet, this is what each is incarnate to embody in the first place. It's not their behavior, especially in the beginning, but it certainly is who they are.

Fascinating. Could you do a small list for all the signs?

I'm on the road today, so mostly will only have whatever I can do from my phone. I think I did a quick summary of this somewhere on this side in the last few months. It was probably stuck in the middle of another thread, though.

I've been trying over the last couple of years to avoid doing this, because I have comprehensive notes in storage somewhere. I'd like not to get too deeply into it until I can do a large article or post covering it comprehensively.