Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I thought it would be interesting to see if someone could be ruled by the first visible planet closest to the horizon when they were born.

Mine would be Mercury. Logical and mind power, associated with magic and trickery. In Scorpio would be blunt and forward thinking eager to communicate ideas sometimes overly harsh with words.

Adolf hitler would be the sun. Egocentric and full of pride high self worth and charismatic. In Aries forceful and violent firey and energetic/passionate (driven).

My mom would be Neptune. Dealing with dreams and escaping reality, very spritual and introspective. In Scorpio deals with the compassionate and suspicious traits, very dark and sexually active (very rebellious?).

Ironically my mom and I have our above horizon planet on the same degree in the same sign. My mom had me when she was 17 she was an escapist and did a lot of substance abuse amongst other wild and rebellious things. My Mercury likes to play tricks (I like to spook people) and I like to learn about very dark and occult things. This spooked me.

Adolf Hitler's was very accurate.

What do you think?

It would be a better test of the rule you are suggesting if you only take cases where the planet is no longer foreground. Any planet that is angular will show as vividly as your examples regardless of the condition you are testing.

I suggest you repeat with examples where the planet is more than 10° along the prime vertical (one-third of a Campanus house, roughly) from Ascendant, is not square Midheaven within 2°, and is not on Eastpoint within 3° of right Ascension.

I'm also unclear what you mean by "the first visible planet closest to the horizon when they were born." Hitler's Sun is closest to the horizon, but is not the "first visible" - he was born at sunset. (I read your description to mean the planet that had most recently risen which, for Hitler, is Saturn.)

I see. Well I don't mean rising planet but rather horizon planet (either rising OR falling) the planet that is there first still seen above the horizon. Hitlers first experienced energy is by that a setting planet, maybe we can find more parallels with in people that have a setting horizon planet. It think the fact that it's angular is part of where I'm going. It's the first thing that hits you and it stays within you for life, it needs that angularity almost to say it is your ruleing planet.

However an example by your accord is the Joan Jett Neptune in Cancer.

Or you Pluto in Leo.

ScarletDepths wrote: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:29 pm However an example by your accord is the Joan Jett Neptune in Cancer.

Joan Jett (born 9/22/1958, 4:00 PM EDT, Wynnewood, PA) has, as her most recently risen planet. There's no particular distinction for Neptune. (And it's in Libra, not Cancer.)

Or... actually.... if we measure this mundanely and if her birth time was exactly 4:00 PM (or after)... her most recently risen planet is the Moon which, at 4:00 PM was 0°03' above Ascendant. (Ecliptically, it looks like it's 7° below.) She also has Uranus 1°33' from Westpoint. Neptune's only stand-out is that it (with Jupiter) squares her Moon.

A sight gave me a wrong birth place I apologize. Do you want to throw her natal chart up here? I can better grasp it visually.

Looking into it further it seems more likely to be the the horzion than the Ep or Vx lines. The horizon is hyper specific. Where as the others seemed more centralized. Especially with the horizon being where you are at birth it makes more sense to do it in that same plane.

Here's Joan Jett's horoscope: Sep 22, 1958, 4:00 PM EDT, Wynnewood, PA (A Data). Despite zodiacal appearances, Moon is 0°03' above Ascendant.

Joan Jett first experienced a Capricorn moon. She didn't give a damn about her reputation much like Capricorn going against social norms....

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:39 am Joan Jett first experienced a Capricorn moon. She didn't give a damn about her reputation much like Capricorn going against social norms....

I agree with your assessment of her character. However... she'd have expressed her Capricorn Moon anyway. (She's a great example of it.)

But that's just because it's her Moon-sign.

Moon in Capicorn wrote:Restless, confrontational. Resists persuasion, authority, & conformity. Sharp, unconventional mind. Socially charming; not self-disclosing. Humor, prankish, outlandish. Sexually attractive; wild libido. Identifies with the fringe, “bad boy/girl” (but essentially wholesome). Dark, grotesque, shocking, disturbing style (loves dark occult images). Vulnerable to dark moods. Often severe childhoods or early loss.

Freud is also a setting Aries sun like Hitler... yes it's still the first energy she experienced.

There are certain things so basic to a chart that nothing is going to overwhelm it. Any planet closely angular will have the dominance in the chart you are seeking (but it will work with Midheaven every bit as much as Ascendant).

Freud is a fantastic example of Aries Sun, Taurus Moon. For angular planets, he has:

Mercury on WP 0°48'
Sun on Dsc 5°26'
Uranus on Dsc 8°08'

Mercury is actually the strongest force of these, though he undoubtedly expressed the somewhat paternalistic, overbearing exalted angular Sun. (Though wider, his Mars-Jupiter opposition is as descriptive of the man and his discoveries as anything!)

All of this is acutely important in his character.

Yes. Most of frueds work is sexual in nature and he has an angular Pluto in Aries. I'm currently under the belief that this acts as an exaltation in strength not a domicile. However that's off topic, Pluto and Mars are both strong in Aries and Scorpio. Another off topic question. What in sidereal zodiac hints at the way someone dresses and their general look.

Fred's Pluto is too far from the angle to count. It's not foreground.

The equation of Pluto and sex is an example of a planet's meaning being distorted by a nolo goes. The theory only arose after Tropical astrologers equated into to Scorpio. Pluto isn't inherently sexual.

On appearance: I've always ignored that. No particular interest in it, and it never seemed to have any practical use. If I want to know how someone dresses, I'll look at them But there are some obvious things: Venus likes attractive and comfortable things, Jupiter trendy or distinguished, Pluto doesn't care what anybody things, Moon tends to pop trends unless, say I nAquarius, when it doesn't go for any style u think it's passe.Etc.

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:57 am Yes. Most of frueds work is sexual in nature

Actually, that's just not true. He didn't shy away from including the drive for sex, including in women and children in his theories at a time sex simply Was Not Mentioned and therefore was wildly tilliating and got a lot of attention but that was not the whole nor even the main of his work.

Interesting theory Jim. The way someone dresses is highly personal especially the reason why they dress a certain way. Pluto and Venus are of the same energy in my chart and I say I dress for comfort of my pysche, against what others might think is right. My Jupiter adds an aggressive edge too being in Aries. My moon sign doesn't really scream anything about me from what I've read so far. My sun sign doesn't cover the core of who I am from what I've read so far either, but again that's off topic.

Jupiter is not aggressive. (Not even in Aries.) - Though, I suppose your close Mars-Jupiter aspect could shove it a little that way.

However, eminent professionals in the Gauquelin collection do tend to have a statistically significant excess in being characterized (by people who wrote about them) as powerful, among other traits; and we've had six U.S. Jupiter in Aries presidents (almost double the number expected by chance), so the political power quality may definitely be there. It included such lions as FDR, JFK, Madison, and Grant (and a couple of softies, like Taft and B Harrison); plus hawkish figures like Vladimir Putin and Dick Cheney.

So, while I think "powerful" and even "imperial" is a better descriptor than "aggressive" - you may be onto something.

I thinking politics are just, no. I'd rather be a free bird honestly. I rule the knigdom of my mind and that's good enough. I think Jupiter is cool because of thunder and lightining but past that not really. I like learning about cultures and traveling but wouldn't call it one of my major defining things in my ego. I do things just to spite and mess with people and I hate being told no is more important to me for example. I'm only aggressive when someone harms the things and people I love and that are mine.

Jim I just found something else out! Technically i was born at night I would use the moon and (in my opinion) the D.C. Ruler if I was using tropical astrology and my D.C. Ruler is Mercury. My moon is in strongest aspect to a domicile Pluto (pluto rules Scorpio at night theroy). This would further back my Mercury, and explain why I feel Moon-Pluto so greatly. I don't place much validity in the AC ruler however.

I see you struggling to make something up that would justify this theory. To repeat myself a little, there really isn't anything in astrology to distinguish these planets from any other comparably angular planet, or to distinguish Horizon from Meridian, etc. You're just taking examples that are already quite conventionally known to work - some of astrology's best-proven details (that planets close to angles are the most expressive in one's character and life), and picking a subset that, of course, will work just fine.

I see your point Jim. I'd have to do extensive reasearch into this. My last thing was just a idea that nocturnal chart natives should pay attention to there setting sign over there rising. Thanks however for entertaining my idea.