Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I'm curious about what everyone considers fundamentally creative configurations in a natal chart, configurations which produce great artists or even technical ability.

Which constellations can we consider as having a creative influence over an individual?

Which planets, when angular, can we identify as likely to manifest as "talent" of some sort in the native?

And what planets, when closely aspected, tend toward the same result?


To begin the discussion, I consider the constellations of Aquarius, Pisces, and Taurus as exceptionally weird and likely to instill at least some creative bent to their solar or lunar natives.

With respect to angularity, Mr. Eshelman has already given a good account of how an angular moon is common for writers in particular, and I believe Arena has stated somewhere that an angular Neptune is common for artists in general. I believe that an angular Venus, Mercury, and Uranus might have the same effect.

And with respect to aspects, I'm not really sure of the ones that might produce creative ability other than Mercury-Mars configurations as Mr. Eshelman laid out in his aspect summaries.

I think it much depends on how we define what is creative , and then in particular what is in this framework fundamental.

My immediate association - when i hear the words fundamentally creative, is - the Sun - Moon interchange/connection.

Etymology of to create suggests 'that [process/thing] which brings into being'; so from this perspective, Uranus and Saturn may be the most creative (!), and also Mars (immediacy of physical action - indisputably brings something into being).
- as a side note, this is a very interesting trio, considering how the opposite concept of Creativity is Destruction

The dictionaries have creativity tied to the general idea of productive use of imagination, and the term is almost synonymous for art, in its widest sense.

[... end of initial brainstorming. I will meditate more on this. Thank you for opening the topic! ]

Edit: as the conception, the most fundamentally creative is Pluto!

For artistic creativity overall, statistics center on Mercury-Mars combinations.

Check out this part of the forum and read about the artists:
https://solunars.com/viewforum.php?f=18

To me it is not so much about the constellations, it is about the angular planets and their aspects to other planets. (They are usually not just singular and should therefore not be interpreted as if they are). But yes, I've noticed we see Neptune or Venus aspects in artists, Neptune aspects to luminaries, Venus and Jupiter. Neptune, Venus and Jupiter also showed up on angles for artists in the Gauqelin data (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNkm2UNtH8).

Here is also a good example of someone who manifests her artistic talents and becomes known for it when relocating: https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1296

And then there is always a chance that people's birth times are not correctly recorded in online astro bank records. F.ex. in Madonna's case - she states that her ASC is Aquarius (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHSdnS8JDT4), which would mean her Sun or Uranus are actually angular and would fit very well with her persona as a star and as provocative. Madonna has a Venus-Neptune and Jupiter-Neptune aspect and it is also possible that those planets are angular with Tropical Aq ASC.

Arena wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:32 am And then there is always a chance that people's birth times are not correctly recorded in online astro bank records. F.ex. in Madonna's case - she states that her ASC is Aquarius (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHSdnS8JDT4), which would mean her Sun or Uranus are actually angular and would fit very well with her persona as a star and as provocative. Madonna has a Venus-Neptune and Jupiter-Neptune aspect and it is also possible that those planets are angular with Tropical Aq ASC.

Except that Madonna's birth time is well known from her birth certificate. She doesn't have an Aquarius Ascendant (Tropical or Sidereal) at all. She was born at 7:05 AM with Moon and Mercury rising in mid-Leo. (Tropically, her Ascendant is, like, a Virgin.)

I think it's irresponsible for Astro.com to list this as DD when hospital records give an exact time and the only other input is a New Age themed celebrity saying on one occassion that she has Aquarius rising and, on another occassion, that she doesn't know her Ascendant.

On another topic, I completely agree that signs are not, in general, what indicate creativity but, rather (as in most other expressions of life such as career, love, etc.) show our fundamental type within that. In other words, one's luminary signs might not show that one would be a chef (though a couple of them make it more likely than others) but, rather, show what style and variety of chef one would be.

Just a couple of days ago I posted an analysis an old music professor friend of mine did on great composers. Frequency of Sun-sign is of less importance in the analysis than his (still captivating to me after 57 years) breakdown of stylistic similarities. Here's the article: https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2442

I think it's relevant to note Madonna herself has given out different years when asked for her birth data.
Arena, when birthdata is in question, it's usually better not to use it at all, much less to buttress your position in a discussion.

That said, I think the signs can influence the area in which someone is creative, but I don't think any sign is fundamentally creative or more creative than any other.

I think there are different definitions of creativity. If you talk to people who knit or do embroidery, you'll find two different kinds. Whether it's a sweater or a crewel-work pillow, there are people who make their own patterns, and those that work from a pattern made by somebody else. People who work from other people's patterns often claim they love "being creative." Yes, working from a pattern to make a sweater is creating something. But I see people who make the patterns they work from as actually creative. Making something following a pattern is not the same as pulling an idea out of your head to create something never seen before. I think fundamental creativity is the latter. Following a pattern is following, and following is not creative.

I think Mercury-Mars aspects are not fundamentally creative, but are instead productive. Most great artists in any field are productive. More practice makes them more technically proficient, and more output means there's more chance a something truly new and compelling will be produced out of that technique.

I see Neptune as the source of fundamental creativity. Creative people get ideas, fantasies. Some of them make those ideas real. It's the ideas that come from creativity, not the finished objects.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:49 am I think Mercury-Mars aspects are not fundamentally creative, but are instead productive. Most great artists in any field are productive. More practice makes them more technically proficient, and more output means there's more chance a something truly new and compelling will be produced out of that technique.

I see why you say that (because they are, indeed, productive), but I disagree with the conclusion. I think it's the incessant firing off of synapses that produces non-stop idea-creation (which a given temperament may express through all sorts of media) - that it is quite specifically a source of "something truly new and compelling."

In music, close, hard Mercury-Mars aspects are found in the charts of Beethoven, Berlioz, Chuck Berry, Alice Cooper - each of them the essence of "something truly new and compelling." More than just "vocal power," the performances of Aretha Franklin, Billie Holiday, and Tina Turner introduced entirely new ways of expression. There's Baudelaire, and nuanced actors like Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman.

And that leaves out the more obvious Mercury-fired people like philosophers, business giants, and comedians. (But, with Strange Angel drawing so much contemporary press, I need to mention Jack Parsons who was far from a "production chemist" and primarily an overflowing font of creativity and conceiving entirely new things.)

And that's just close-hard. The close soft Mercury-Mars aspects are comparably creative (going from memory).

Oh, here is another data file I forgot to include in the search. Add Sylvia Plath, Toulouse-Lautrec, Dali, Daumier, and several more.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:15 am I see why you say that (because they are, indeed, productive), but I disagree with the conclusion. I think it's the incessant firing off of synapses that produces non-stop idea-creation (which a given temperament may express through all sorts of media) - that it is quite specifically a source of "something truly new and compelling."

We have different ideas of what's creative. Not about the people you cited. But about creativity itself. It's not just about having a steady fast running stream of ideas.

Let me try this another way. There are thousands of artists who literally create a painting a day. There are places all over the net you can buy these paintings for $50 or $75 up to $500 thru $1000. The price is usually about the size. Most of these paintings are not great art. They're not even new ideas for paintings. They are often new ideas to that particular artist.
This is a way for people to become more proficient at the technicalities of producing their art. It's a also a way for decorators to acquire original paintings to put up in their clients' homes. Nobody pretends this is great art, although some is pretty good. It's fast art and cheap art. But it's original art.

President Trump has thousands of new to him ideas every day. Is he a creative genuis? He might be. That idea of blaming the DC mayor because he can't have a big military parade is genius. The idea of stripping people of their security clearances to keep them from investigating him is genius, but it's not creative because it's been done before.

It might be semantics. But I wasn't talking only about the stream of ideas but about the powerful engagement of all the synapses.

What I most specifically am trying to do is to distinguish creativity from any esthetic elements in the charts. (Astrology books start to go to Venus, maybe Neptune, for "art" etc.). Esthetic elements are expressive of the form one person's creativity might take, but they aren't the artistry itself. (Old books tended to point to Mercury-Venus aspects, thinking execution + esthetics was the key; but it turns out that this is the single least common aspect in the charts of creative, and specifically arts, professional.)

I'm looking at the emergence of something original, either in itself or in the way element are combined - something bold and striking outside of conventional execution. One might think this would involve the biological planets, because I think the same energy that executes this is the one that physically procreates; but angular Moon or strong Venus-Mars aspects (for example) don't stand out in collections of artistic professionals.

You gave me the idea to actually check a dictionary - dictionary.com was convenient - and the main definition of creativity there is "the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination." This requires a little more than Mercury-Mars (some Uranus, maybe a touch of Neptune) but is primarily a string of Mercury-Mars keywords, yes?

Jim Eshelman wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:34 pm You gave me the idea to actually check a dictionary - dictionary.com was convenient - and the main definition of creativity there is "the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination." This requires a little more than Mercury-Mars (some Uranus, maybe a touch of Neptune) but is primarily a string of Mercury-Mars keywords, yes?

Is it? Mars is generative, but not creative. Mercury-Mars generates ideas, but those ideas are not necessarily original, progressive nor imaginative.

If I were to generate a painting of a bird on a flowering branch, that might be artistic, but it's certainly not creative!

I think that I am a creative person in all things that I do, wether its cooking dinner, writing a poem. Drawing a picture or driving my car.

I think what Danica said about the etymology of the word create and its Plutonian nature is the source and the other planets fill in the details of how that person expresses thier own creative flair.
Everyones mother hangs up thier childs handiwork on the fridge and wether that creation is a string of elbow macaroni or the Mona Lisa she knows the person is latently creative in thier own way because it came from creation itself.

Some people I think though have venus closer to the sun to boost self confidence or venus dymanicly aspecting some other aspect/planet for initiating the desire to bring something into manifestation.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:11 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:34 pm You gave me the idea to actually check a dictionary - dictionary.com was convenient - and the main definition of creativity there is "the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination." This requires a little more than Mercury-Mars (some Uranus, maybe a touch of Neptune) but is primarily a string of Mercury-Mars keywords, yes?

Is it? Mars is generative, but not creative. Mercury-Mars generates ideas, but those ideas are not necessarily original, progressive nor imaginative.

It's not just the Mars - it's the fired up Mercury.

And yes, Mercury-Mars tends to be quite original, progressive, and imaginative. The words used to express these are more often high-powered mind, independent thought, quick wit, edgy humor. But it's a mind that bangs out of the box, perhaps best seen in its incisive, expectation-upsetting humor.

In terms of the words above, Mercury-Mars is not constrained by traditional ideas, rules, patterns, or relationships - it is more likely to defy them. It's basic nature is to "create meaningful new ideas." Etc.

I forgot to mention Barbara Walters, who came on the scene making waves for her dramatically different approach to interviewing (partile Mercury-Mars conjunction in Virgo). The ever-creative, ever-ingenious Meryl Streep (who is not known for "phoning it in") has the two conjunct in Taurus. Warren Buffet, also known for "success by breaking the old rules," has Mars setting in Gemini, closely square Mercury. John Belushi had them conjunct in Capricorn (I just noticed how much the sign of the Mercury-Mars defines the field of creativity). Alice Cooper has Mercury in Aquarius partile opposite Mars in Leo. Chuck Berry had the opposition Libra-Aries. The insanely transcender of traditional, Salvador Dali, had them conjunct in early Taurus (hmm, on Algol). -- My point is that it's easy to find Mercury-Mars people whose pictures could be in the dictionary next to "original, progressive, imaginative."

If I were to generate a painting of a bird on a flowering branch, that might be artistic, but it's certainly not creative!

I agree with you on that. We only disagree in that I see Mercury-Mars as intrinsically creative, in the same way that young adult genitals are intrinsically creative.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:42 pm I agree with you on that. We only disagree in that I see Mercury-Mars as intrinsically creative, in the same way that young adult genitals are intrinsically creative.

And I see them as intrinsically generative, in the same way that young adult genitals are intrinsically generative, and generative is not creative.
We don't agree on this, and I don't think I can convince you, and I'm pretty sure you can't convince me.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:04 pm And I see them as intrinsically generative, in the same way that young adult genitals are intrinsically generative, and generative is not creative.

Ah. That's exactly the difference in what we're talking about. I consider generative as a precise, all-situation synonym of creative. Creativity in the artistic sense is exactly the same psychic and physical energy as the sexual compulsion to make babies.

Ah. Well, that explains it.
But no. They are not at all the same thing.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:32 pm Ah. Well, that explains it.
But no. They are not at all the same thing.

Well, as we've been documenting (and the reason I've continued it) is how much this depends on the definition. The answer to the OP's original questions depends on exactly what the question means.

What I'm not sure about is exactly what your definition of "creative" is. I assert the need to create and the psychological (mental-emotional) force and capacity to do so is inherently compulsive, driven, instinctual - an exact parallel to the sexual reproductive biological compulsion of sexually ripe youth. (It's probably exactly the same energy, probably exactly the same biological process.)

But... how are you defining "creative"?

Babies are not new, except in the most basic way. There's nothing creative about having a baby.
Sex is not new, even in the most basic way. It's part of the male instinct that every woman is different, but women don't have the same instinct, although they are just as creative.

Creativity comes out of your mind. Psychologists are fond of saying sex happens in your head, but that's only if you have trouble with it. It's a physiological reaction from your body. Creativity isn't.

ETA: Neither sex nor creativity are religious experiences either.

And "creative" is what exactly?

"the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination."

Again, I can generate a painting suitable to hang on the wall in a decorated room, but birds plus flowers, no matter how technically well done, can never be creative. Except maybe in the hands of a Leonardo.

"the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination."

This sounds very Plutonian to me and Im reminded of Mr. Eshelman's interpretation of Mercury/Pluto, that it's common for composers and might show as an element of genius in the chart. I think something similar was also said about Sun/Pluto configurations as well. Does the influence of Pluto fit well with this definition of creativity? Is it the artist's planet?

It sounds more Uranian than Plutonian to me (though I admit it is sometimes hard to know where to draw that line).

The stepping outside "traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships" may create a context for creativity, but the creative act itself is the bringing into being "meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations... originality, progressiveness, or imagination." These very much fit Mercury-Mars and are much akin to Uranus (which, come to think of it, is more akin to Mercury-Mars blends than schematic astrology generally acknowledges).

Pluto arguably conceives; but, once that conception is there, creativity is the bringing it from that seed state into emergent birth. The conception itself isn't creation.

The stepping outside "traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships" may create a context for creativity, but the creative act itself is the bringing into being "meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations... originality, progressiveness, or imagination." These very much fit Mercury-Mars and are much akin to Uranus (which, come to think of it, is more akin to Mercury-Mars blends than schematic astrology generally acknowledges).

Pluto arguably conceives; but, once that conception is there, creativity is the bringing it from that seed state into emergent birth. The conception itself isn't creation.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Mars seems like the most likely candidate when we speculate about a creative impetus. Now that I think about it, a lot of the Mars aspect interpretations have at least something to do with novel activity, self assertion, and high intelligence in the case of Mars/Neptune.

I have a lot of what one might think to be creative configurations in my natal, like a partile trine between foreground Mercury and Uranus, partile opposition between Mercury and Pluto, and a Moon in Taurus making a patile sextile to Venus in Pisces, but without an impetus like mars I think it's all useless

Fortunately, you have plenty of Mars. Besides an Aries Sun, you have Mars on IC. This could give an outlet to the fertility and ingenuity of the other things you mention.

In what area do you express your creativity?

Fortunately, you have plenty of Mars. Besides an Aries Sun, you have Mars on IC. This could give an outlet to the fertility and ingenuity of the other things you mention.

Would this be made difficult without close aspects to Mars? One thing that stood out to me in your unaspected planet resource was that planets in such a condition seemed to lack integration with the rest of the chart.

In what area do you express your creativity?

Mostly in landscape photography and short story writing. I threw together a link of some of my photos here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

most of my life I have worked with little children, in many different avenues...ie daycare, schools, babysitting, scouts ect. lots and lots of children. One of the things that I have seen in these fields are how the ittle ones all are very creative, especially when it come to free time, which was always a childs favorite time. that was when the children (in the school setting or playground) got a chance to explore and play and ad lib and create and model and express their inner desires and impulses, wether it be in the mock kitchen/doll room, or with the blocks, or painting, or reading or what ever the choices may be.
everyone of those children had a gift in some way, or bringing out from with inthemselves an inner desire and drive. now some where much better artists by my subjective standard, and some had a better knack of dressing a doll, or building a tower, based upon what society called acceptable range of modeling behavior.
there was nothing new to create, their is nothing new to create, all sticks have been turned into guns by little boys (broad example) and all dolls have eaten mud (which really was just chocolate pudding), and all physic equations are already there for the discovery. they were modeling and adding their own story to all already created base line of human experiences.

some children were blessed by rich parents who nurtured their knack for music, and some were challenged by poor parents who couldn't even pay for lunch and the childs expression was set aside/suppressed/unexplored, but in all most all cases each and every child in grade school has the potential to be an extremely creative soul, because each child is initself the manifestation of the creative force in the universe.

sotonye wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:11 am

In what area do you express your creativity?

Mostly in landscape photography and short story writing.

And, indeed, your angular Mars is in Gemini and your angular Mercury (along with Moon) is in Taurus. Not bad!

I like he photos a lot. Partly that's because they're good, and partly because you and I like some of the same kinds of places to visit. (You must have excellent equipment. The sharpness is remarkable.) I wish they were all captioned with location. (By chance is the last one from the top of Bryce Canyon? It looks very much like a formation that would have required a great distance lens, something I've seen several times but never "up close" like this. Or is it another Grand Canyon shot?) And where is 8613-3?

And, indeed, your angular Mars is in Gemini and your angular Mercury (along with Moon) is in Taurus. Not bad!

Oh wait I thought my mars was in Cancer!

I like he photos a lot. Partly that's because they're good, and partly because you and I like some of the same kinds of places to visit.

Thank you Mr. Eshelman I'm very glad that you liked them.

(By chance is the last one from the top of Bryce Canyon? It looks very much like a formation that would have required a great distance lens, something I've seen several times but never "up close" like this. Or is it another Grand Canyon shot?)

The last one was at Wotan's Throne in the northern rim of the Grand Canyon, a really fantastic place! It really is grand alright!

And where is 8613-3?

Yosemite National Park, my favorite place

sotonye wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:06 am

And, indeed, your angular Mars is in Gemini and your angular Mercury (along with Moon) is in Taurus. Not bad!

Oh wait I thought my mars was in Cancer!

LOL, it is. My bad. I was looking at the mundoscope where the position abut 5° east of MC is shown (for convenience) as 24°27' Gemini. OK, the writing doesn't leap off the chart the way I thought it did, but the photography is even strong. (Cancer may have been more powerfully photography in the day of silver emulsion film - it was all about image capture on silver - but the image capture and shadow-light contrasts are still fundamental, and there is a lot of active Cancer in gifted photographers I've known.)

Taurus Moon adds the nature themes of your work.

(By chance is the last one from the top of Bryce Canyon? It looks very much like a formation that would have required a great distance lens, something I've seen several times but never "up close" like this. Or is it another Grand Canyon shot?)

The last one was at Wotan's Throne in the northern rim of the Grand Canyon, a really fantastic place! It really is grand alright!

Thanks. (BTW, you really should get to Bryce. One of the most spectacular, stunning places on earth.)

And where is 8613-3?

Yosemite National Park, my favorite place[/quote]
Oh, yes, that fall in Yosemite. Should have recognized that at once. Again, thanks, these are excellent.

LOL, it is. My bad. I was looking at the mundoscope where the position abut 5° east of MC is shown (for convenience) as 24°27' Gemini.

lolol that's okay! You know, I was wondering, if Mars is a malefic, would its tendency to cause harm be suppressed by its debilitation by sign? Could that be part of the reason why we see much success from natives with this placement? Following the converse line of thinking, I think we would say for instance that, were Venus conditioned by Aries, the expression of the benefic might be stifled a bit and that this might cause discontentment in matters of love and pleasure unless other chart factors say otherwise.

OK, the writing doesn't leap off the chart the way I thought it did, but the photography is even strong.

Do I have chart factors for writing? All I can think of is the angular moon, but I don't think it suggests I'm any good. Hopefully there is something there, I've been entering writing competitions recently and I'm hoping to have some kind of future in this respect

Thanks. (BTW, you really should get to Bryce. One of the most spectacular, stunning places on earth.)

And no problem Mr. Eshelman. I was actually going to go to Bryce Canyon during the trip to the Grand Canyon, unfortunately things didn't work out as planned. Though I will go sometime soon hopefully, it's a place I absolutely must visit.

Again, thanks, these are excellent.

No problem, and thank you again.

sotonye wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:57 am

LOL, it is. My bad. I was looking at the mundoscope where the position abut 5° east of MC is shown (for convenience) as 24°27' Gemini.

lolol that's okay! You know, I was wondering, if Mars is a malefic, would its tendency to cause harm be suppressed by its debilitation by sign? Could that be part of the reason why we see much success from natives with this placement? Following the converse line of thinking, I think we would say for instance that, were Venus conditioned by Aries, the expression of the benefic might be stifled a bit and that this might cause discontentment in matters of love and pleasure unless other chart factors say otherwise.

No, debilitation doesn't work that way. It means that Mars is in a constellation with a nature mostly opposite Mars' own nature. It stirs polarity and internal conflict - not always bad things. Sometimes debilitations are quite positive in the sense that they drive people more powerfully - for example, Mars in Cancer, the most common sign-placement for U.S. presidents, is unusually good at managing conditions and making things happen - being movers. Polarities are some of the most interesting parts of a chart because they force an internal tension that a person has to find a way to resolve and this creates some of the most fascinating elements of character.

My standard interpretation for Mars in Cancer is: Inner strength (prodigious imagination & fantasy) usually holds private demons at bay; but clings to old wounds (angry, acting out, selfish, retaliatory from old mistreatment). Breeds confidence, makes things happen; loyal, speaks truth to power; but wants a chance to lead. Magnetic (passionate following?). Wants adoration sexually (otherwise business-like).

Do I have chart factors for writing?

That depends on the kind, of course; but in the Gauquelin studies, eminent writers typically have Moon on angles, and, as you mention, your chart fits that bill.

Sometimes debilitations are quite positive in the sense that they drive people more powerfully - for example, Mars in Cancer, the most common sign-placement for U.S. presidents, is unusually good at managing conditions and making things happen - being movers. Polarities are some of the most interesting parts of a chart because they force an internal tension that a person has to find a way to resolve and this creates some of the most fascinating elements of character.

This is fascinating, reminds me a lot of how squares and oppositions can work positively for people. This really revolutionized the way I interpret a chart (i used to think having an opposition to moon was horrible) and now I have something additionally useful to add. What's funny is that this is all exactly opposite to what is generally considered true by the tropical school, but of course all exactly coherent with basic principles of psychology.

in the Gauquelin studies, eminent writers typically have Moon on angles, and, as you mention, your chart fits that bill.

This is really cool. I'm guessing you would say the reason for this that, since the moon tends toward impressionability at the angles, in order to prevent what might be a kind of sensory overload, the native takes to some form of self expression. I'm applying here what you've said about understanding the nature of chart configurations as expressing (when a planet is angular) or blending (in the case of aspects) some fundamental need, correct me if I missed the mark!

I saw your pictures and read your story. Thank you very much for sharing them. They were both extremely impressive. It made me very happy to see that such a young man was producing work of such great caliber. Work that, esp in the literary field is lacking from your generation. I would think that if you are allready capable of stringing words together like your story did that you are not going to have any issue finding success.

Most 22 year old men are worried about thier gamer points, partying and sex and it is tefreshing to know that quality is not out of style.

Veronica wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:03 am I saw your pictures and read your story. Thank you very much for sharing them. They were both extremely impressive. It made me very happy to see that such a young man was producing work of such great caliber. Work that, esp in the literary field is lacking from your generation. I would think that if you are allready capable of stringing words together like your story did that you are not going to have any issue finding success.

Most 22 year old men are worried about thier gamer points, partying and sex and it is tefreshing to know that quality is not out of style.

Veronica thank you so much, it warms my heart that you liked my work. Thank you for believing in me as well, I'm not so certain about whether I'll have any success a lot of the time so it's very inspiring to hear that you think I will.

And yes most young men around my age are very different, I can't really correspond with them unfortunately, though I wish that was not the case. And yes I can assure you that, at least with me, quality and refinement will never go out of style.