Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I was looking on some sites, I'm interested in finding more out about Pluto conjunct Antares. Most of the fixed stars seem political and war oriented, especially in an organized structure. Curious to see any other interpretations of Antares in general. Im a fairly violent person only though when protecting the ones I love. I've spent some time in military organizations and I hate the amount of structure and the chain of command. Curious as to why Scorpio the sign seeking freedom and space to breath would be associated with this kind of organization. From my Scorpio energy I find it sophocating and restricting.

There's no reason to expect any personal effect from a planet as slow as Pluto conjunct a particular star. This applies to too many millions of people born about the same time.

Should Antares have the effect astrologers expect of it, anticipate it being like a very weak Mars. However, expecting this for a Pluto contact is stretching things.

Ok and what about on the Moon? As Antares Chiron and Pluto are all conjunct and square the Moon. Another random question is does lilith mean anything? I have 3 out of the 4 different liliths in Scorpio so I was just curious.

ScarletDepths wrote: Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:36 pm Ok and what about on the Moon? As Antares Chiron and Pluto are all conjunct and square the Moon. Another random question is does lilith mean anything? I have 3 out of the 4 different liliths in Scorpio so I was just curious.

Jim went over asteroids in your chart in your stormy personality thread. He knows what he's talking about. Unlike other stuff you might find on the net, what Jim says is evidence based. He didn't just come up with it by meditating on it or extrapolating from one example and a maybe.

Lilith and all the little Liliths are too weird for me. I don't use things like asteroids generally. I prefer to stick to basics, and generally, that's all that's needed. Invisible "black" moons and stuff just go too far into somebody else's fantasies. If you find actual objective proof though, come get me.

I was talking about Antares (a fixed star) and it's connection with the moon in tandem with an asteroid and Pluto. As the moon is personal I was wondering if this connections personalized these bodies or if they destabilized the moon. I don't relate to my moon sign much at all but I do relate to the house and aspects of the moon espicaly to Pluto and Saturn.

ScarletDepths wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:32 pm I was talking about Antares (a fixed star) and it's connection with the moon in tandem with an asteroid and Pluto.

Yes, She was answering your remark on "Liliths," the only one of which has any real substance being the asteroid by that name.

As for Moon square Antares... research on fixed stars has produced shockingly sparse results. In a few cases, we think we know what's going on, but in most cases there just isn't anything reliable that has been actually shown by evidence known to me.

One place where we think we know what's going on is Antares. It appears to be, more or less, a thoroughly Mars-like star. For fixed stars in general, we tend to only pay attention to the conjunction and opposition - perhaps because that's all that would be operative, or at least because (while still trying to get even a basic leg-up on whether these stars have individual effects) it's better to be cautious. There are so many stars and extra-galactic phenomena out there that allowing a wider range of aspects is ... reckless at least.

In Antares' case, its worse - we really should only allow the conjunction, because Antares itself is exactly opposite (within 0°03' IIRC) Aldebaran. Unless we ascribe identical meanings to both Antares and Aldebaran, we have to count only the conjunction to each. As mentioned, this is partly prudence in a situation whereby any reports of actual astrological meaning or value have been sparse and not wholly persuasive. (It's not that there are proofs that there is nothing to the fixed stars; rather, it's that there is insufficient evidence as yet to say that there is something to them. I'd like to think there is.)

I don't relate to my moon sign...

Setting aside what you choose to identify with (i.e., your way of labelling yourself and the image you want to hold of yourself), after reading your self-descriptions it rather startles me that you don't think most of the following is quite descriptive of you:

Emotions intertwined with pride. Strong, noble, proud, natural leader, courageous, confident, practical, effective, indomitable. Dramatic; seldom pretentious. Gregarious (court of friends & admirers). Entertainer. Discriminating in romance. Needs warm, affectionate interaction; may retain an aloof mask. Business over sentiment.

Those traits are a part of the mask I wear yes. Most people do see those in me, but I'm not a book, I cant just be looked st and read. I also need to be heard touched smelled and tasted to get the full experience, but I wouldn't share that with some of my own family, let alone people I've never met... My pride and confidence comes easy because I only have one other alternative...

Exactly! That's what our Moon is: Our adaptive mask. How we adapt to life experiences to both protect and further our deeper solar self.

As another thread summarizes the nature of Moon:

MOON portrays our adaptation and response (instincts, plasticity; adaptation to physical, social, & psychological habitats)... Psychologically it is receptivity, adaptability, sensitivity, appetite, imagination, the immediacy of feelings, personality (mannerisms, idiosyncrasies, tastes), and that which we reveal most easily, which adapts us to our environment and absorbs conditions around it.

Then what cuts deeper than my moon? Because that isn't who I am deep down. It's how I censor who I am deep down.

ScarletDepths wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:04 pm Then what cuts deeper than my moon? Because that isn't who I am deep down. It's how I censor who I am deep down.

Deeper than Moon is Sun. Sun is the very centermost of your nature, the one seed-idea that everything else builds around and variously supports.

My Sun is inherently shallow... and not the core of who I am, which the tools change in life but that seldomly doesn't... I've seen a few things in these few years I've been here, enough to know this. As for now I'll take note in what you say, but I don't agree with it. Or I don't agree with your description behind Saggitarius. If I look at my core and ideal traits aside from astrology there are many missing from Saggitarius.

This is actually the same problem that I had with my tropical chart. Im leaning towards a triplicty (like the Sun moon and rising) but on an individualistic baises, for example id consider Mars as one in My chart for sure as it's exalted , I don't know if I'd consider the Sun before I'd consider Jupiter (it rules the Sun the Sun is exalted in Aries, Jupiter's sign, and it's the most angular of the planets) for the third planet id have to look at both luminaries and Mercury for sure, leaning toward mercury with it's singularity, it's relationship with Mars, and it was the first planet I experienced.

I do see your point about the Sun but I think your too close to the edge of Sun sign astrology Jim.