Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

So far I know that, for instance, there is no such thing as a "masculine" sign versus a "feminine" sign. It seems like Fagen and other founders of western sidereal astrology did not take stock in sign "triplicities" or "elements" either, neither do the modern sidereal teachers.

But is there such a thing as sign compatibility, I mean the notion that a zodiac sign is more compatible with one sign than another.

For example, Gemini is said to be compatible with Libra and Aquarius, as well as Aries and Leo, while the relationship with Sagittarius is mixed because the two signs are "opposites". Meanwhile, Gemini is not compatible with Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn, Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces.

Does the idea of sign compatibility have any basis in fact, or is it garbage like the things relationship gurus peddle for easy money?

It's not garbage so much as a serious over-simplification. Each sign is going to have a broad tendency to relate to each other in a distinctive way.

However, other things in the chart are going to be much stronger - primarily aspects between each other's planets - that it would overwhelm.

It's easier to see incompatible sign generalizations than the opposite. As a generalization, adjacent signs have the hardest time matching up - they have difficulty meshing their gears correctly, things keep missing. Opposite have a unique blend of near-identification with each other and a near-alienating polarization. But, again, these are just generalizations.

I don't know if anyone would consider me a teacher, but I do put some stock in the elements. There non as important as Hub-Spoke-Rim but IMHO they say something real though minor about the signs. For example, look at Gemini-Virgo. Both Spokes, both ruled by Mercury. Yet they aren't all that hard to tell apart. Could Air vs. Earth have just a little to do with it?

If your sun is in (for instance) Pisces, you have a 25 - 30% chance it's trine the sun of someone with sun in Cancer or Scorpio, and the same it's opposing or square the sun of someone with the sun in Gemini, Virgo or Sagittarius. There's your "elements" and "triplicities" and also why the effect is so weak. The sun moves about a degree a day, so most of the 30% chance something's in orb, it's not exactly partile.

If you are writing sun sign predictions, breaking the signs down into decanates will give you more hits using transits, and you can still let people pick out "their" prediction using the month and day they were born.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:56 pm It's not garbage so much as a serious over-simplification. Each sign is going to have a broad tendency to relate to each other in a distinctive way.

However, other things in the chart are going to be much stronger - primarily aspects between each other's planets - that it would overwhelm.

It's easier to see incompatible sign generalizations than the opposite. As a generalization, adjacent signs have the hardest time matching up - they have difficulty meshing their gears correctly, things keep missing. Opposite have a unique blend of near-identification with each other and a near-alienating polarization. But, again, these are just generalizations.

What about signs that have the same "element", "Hub,Rim,Spoke nature", or same ruling planet?

And I'm well aware that planet synastry comes first by a wide margin.

By Jove wrote: Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:42 am What about signs that have the same "element", "Hub,Rim,Spoke nature", or same ruling planet?

Not really no.

One should be careful of the idea (popular in Tropical circles) that signs of the same triplicity are the most compatible. I think one might (as a very generalized idea) say they are less ego-threatening to each other. I suppose that's useful information, though it would arise out of the weakness of connection, not out of sympatico. It does seem a little more positive absent anything else
- but, isn't there always something else? My thumbnail for signs trine or sextile each other is "mutual respect and acknowledgement of each other’s identity, cooperation, encourage each other’s life-purposes," but you really can't take that by itself.

Same quadruplicity... it could go either way. Will a Leo and a Scorpio so get where the other is coming from that they have more respect than antipathy? Well, it could go either way. As a Virgo, I can tell you that Geminis seem like some of the strangest people on earth despite the fact that neither of has a dignified planet in our Sun-sign besides Mercury. (It's the other side: Gemini's are in-Jupiterian and perfectly willing to be Neptunian. Virgo's are in-Neptunian but perfectly willing to be Jupiterian.)

Same ruler... I just gave Virgo & Gemini. I don't know that I'd like to be in the middle when an Aries and a Scorpio clash. A Taurus and a Libra might be fine, since they both have a strong desire to get along with people in general, but one will always wonder why the other wears so much makeup, and the other will always wonder why the former wears so little.

I don't know if you remember, I have a very basic "synastry starter" approach based on signs of five planets only. It incorporates some of this. I'm uncomfortable how accurate it seems sometimes, and pleased that it isn't all that good compared to real synastry. But I think these assessments are good as far as they go,
http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=443