Differences between needs of planets and constellations?

[Hannah]

I am wondering how to go about differentiating between planets and constellations in analysis. For instance, right now I am looking at my Sun-Jupiter aspect vs. my Sun in Sagittarius and am unsure how to discriminate between the two in my personality. The descriptions of Sun-Jupiter and Sun-Sagittarius are slightly different. What layers of meaning are added onto Sagittarius that makes it a more specific expression of Jupiter needs as compared to the other configurations of Jupiter, like Cancer, Jupiter angular, Sun-Jupiter, etc.? And is there a practice I can do to understand more fully the principles of the planets vs. the constellations?

[Jim Eshelman]

Constellatioms are more complicated - there is more to them than a single planet. For example, Sagittarius is also a Spoke, which is a big part of its symbolism. It's un-Mercurial in the ways that don't contradict Jupiter or Spoke. It has archetypal imagery of the arrow and the centaur. These make for a richer mix, like the difference between a piece of salmon vs a piece of salmon in a Béarnaise sauce paired with a Grenache rosé.

The simplest practice of distinction is to read the interpretations of both and look for those things in Sagittarius that are not purely Jupiter, that seem to have something more or other.

Also consider that the planets signify forces, such as primal needs. The signs are more contextual, showing styles more than impulses, and especially showing symbols to which the psyche is attuned. Often this seems much the same in its outcome (seen from the outside) but distinctive on close examination. Thus, more Librans become lawyers and more Taurians have become popes even though neither of these is really a Venus thing. (In Qabbalistic terms, planets are of Atzilooth, constellations of B'riyah, aspects of Y'tzirah. There is a different feel to these things.)

[Jim Eshelman]

Just using my short 'teaser' summaries of each of these provides a contrast. You can see similarities, for sure; you can also see differences. (I do think Jupiter is more generous, overall, than Sagittarius, probably tied to be less judgmental of self and others - less caught in the need to be perfect and acutely self-critical for falling short of that.)

Sun in Sagittarius
Social elitism, aristocracy. Excellence, quality. Higher & higher, ambition, travel. Judges self & others, may fail own standards. Right-wrong, reward-punishment, belief- & values-driven. Respects continuity of culture & social rituals. Preserves status quo, heritage, myth when possible. Loyal to tribe. Complacent affection.

Sun-Jupiter
Generous, kind, warm, amiable, upbeat, tolerant. Visible self-confidence. Strong need for acceptance and friendship. A general dislike of problems (seems to float through life with amazingly little care for circumstances). Lucky: confident the universe will bail them out, problems usually resolve remarkably easily, but has a hard time persevering against real adversity when it finally strikes. (Extravagant, prodigal, loves leisure, overly reliant on luck.) Mind is philosophical or religious.

[Soft Alpaca]

Ok as a person with both(!?) Let me simply. The planets represent a psychological effect (sun+Jupiter = ego+compliance) versus Sagittarius which is an aesthetic/picture that is jup=Gemini {mercury+Pluto}.


Now you see the subtraction of Gemini-(fforebrain) and Pluto (Polarity) in sag.

In my own chart I actually get both (lunar PL+Jup IC AND Apollo+Posiden=MC).

look at the colors If you can't get this. Gemini-nis crimson+mercury (quick silver or Amber). Sagittarius is blue (witch lacks any Amber, or Quicksilver)!

You can get to a+b=c (=a+b-c) in many ways, Including breaking down the spectrum of light.

The main difference as Jim said is the temperament (Gemini, Sagittarius, Virgo, and pieces all have duality) mutability (change)...

[Hannah]

Constellatioms are more complicated - there is more to them than a single planet. For example, Sagittarius is also a Spoke, which is a big part of its symbolism. It's un-Mercurial in the ways that don't contradict Jupiter or Spoke. It has archetypal imagery of the arrow and the centaur. These make for a richer mix, like the difference between a piece of salmon vs a piece of salmon in a Béarnaise sauce paired with a Grenache rosé.

Oh yes, I see! So Sagittarius is like a body of energies such as a Spoke, archetypal imagery of the arrow and the centaur, Jupiterian needs, and non-Mercury. What do you think about the "fire sign," association (I remember you saying something about the Jungian personality types as parallels to the elemental associations) and adding tarot symbolism to the archetypal imagery?

The simplest practice of distinction is to read the interpretations of both and look for those things in Sagittarius that are not purely Jupiter, that seem to have something more or other.

I made a Venn diagram of both of your interpretations of Sun in Sagittarius & Sun/Jupiter and was surprised to see how many differences there are as compared to similarities! Even with the similarities, I speculate the intentions behind them come from slightly different angles? Like, both seem to require a need to be accepted by the social group.. but I get the feeling that Sagittarius tends to be motivated more by the "improvement-oriented" and "higher & higher motif" (at least in my case, my self-worth is largely determined by how much I am contributing to the improvement of the culture of my chosen family.. I need to feel like I am providing something of value to other people to feel worthwhile, and if I feel like I am not fulfilling this I am unreasonably self-deprecating.. there is a lot to unpack in this!). In Sun/Jupiter's case... I get the feeling that the motivation is more from the pleasure and good feelings of being accepted from the Sun's perspective within the social dynamic.

Also consider that the planets signify forces, such as primal needs. The signs are more contextual, showing styles more than impulses, and especially showing symbols to which the psyche is attuned. Often this seems much the same in its outcome (seen from the outside) but distinctive on close examination. Thus, more Librans become lawyers and more Taurians have become popes even though neither of these is really a Venus thing. (In Qabbalistic terms, planets are of Atzilooth, constellations of B'riyah, aspects of Y'tzirah. There is a different feel to these things.)

Looking at it in that way helps a lot, thank you. So taking my Sun as an example... Atzilooth: the principle being looked at is the solar force within my psyche, so.. identity, purpose, the center. B'riyah: this solar principle is conditioned by the creative form of Sagittarius, being the archer. Y'tzirah: The way in which the solar principle in the style of Sagittarius is being expressed within my consciousness is through the mental construct (?) of the Sun's dynamic relationship to Jupiter. (Also side note, that is really interesting that more Taurians have become popes!)

[Hannah]

Also, I guess I'll add on the extra level of my Sun being in the foreground while Jupiter, the planet, is less at the forefront of my consciousness (I'm not sure if it is middle-ground or back-ground). Layers, upon layers, upon layers!

Are the angles areas of more self-conscious awareness or areas for more of a capacity of physical expression? I guess one leads to the other, perhaps?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

The closer to an angle the easier it is for the planet to express itself. Some planets are more intellectual (Mercury) and some more physical (Mars) but being closer to an angle means, whatever the method of expression, it's easier for that planet's energy to find an outlet.

And vice versa. The further from the angle, the more blocked the energy.

[Jim Eshelman]

What do you think about the "fire sign," association (I remember you saying something about the Jungian personality types as parallels to the elemental associations) and adding tarot symbolism to the archetypal imagery?

That's another factor, yes. I didn't mention them all in the brief answer. Triplicity is a lesser factor but distinctive. (It does seem that conjunction, opposition, and square relationships between signs - the Quadruplicities - are more powerful and dynamic characteristics or relationships than the trine relationships (Triplicities) in about the same way that hard aspects are more powerful and dynamic than soft aspects.

Looking at it (Also side note, that is really interesting that more Taurians have become popes!)

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=2472

Of the 123 men who have been pope since 1000 AD, we have day, month, and year of birth for 62. Of these, 10 had Sun in Taurus, about double the number expected by pure chance.

[Jim Eshelman]

Are the angles areas of more self-conscious awareness or areas for more of a capacity of physical expression?

I'm not sure the words "conscious" and "physical" are warranted - though something close to "physical." The word "manifestation" is broader and still means that the expression is "at hand."

I've always felt it best to say that angularity increases the tendency to outward expression. Often that's physical, but not always. I'm pretty sure something doesn't have to be conscious to be expressed: We express all sorts of things from unconsciousness all the time.

You still have the handouts from class, yes? The PowerPoint on the constellations walks through the various sign-characteristic breakouts, I just reviewed how the one on angularity characterized the phenomena, and it used the words "stronger and more expressive."

[Hannah]

The closer to an angle the easier it is for the planet to express itself. Some planets are more intellectual (Mercury) and some more physical (Mars) but being closer to an angle means, whatever the method of expression, it's easier for that planet's energy to find an outlet.

And vice versa. The further from the angle, the more blocked the energy.

I see, yes that makes sense. So to recap, the need of the planet is given more capacity for expression the closer it is to the angle, and this expression takes on the form of the planet's nature. So, the information needs of Mercury have more of a capacity for being fulfilled when they are foreground? I am prone to thinking of the angles as the forefront of the person's consciousness, am I on the right track? I guess energy can be blocked and still be at the forefront of consciousness, maybe even more so.. perhaps I might be pinning myself in too small of a box looking at the angles as front of consciousness and background as needs given less emphasis by the psyche.

Talking about this stuff sometimes feels like I am trying to grasp water, my mind wants to break it down into convenient pieces but the relationship between these symbols are as hard to grasp as the complex workings of the nature it is presenting. And then one not well-thought out interpretation of one of the symbols, effects the whole system of astrological connections in my head.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Yeah, a lot of people overthink this stuff, trying to intellectually understand it. It's like yoga or drawing. You don't think about it. You just do it.

I don't think angles have anything to do with consciousness, other than because it's easier for the planet to express, it's easier to notice that happening.

[Hannah]

That's another factor, yes. I didn't mention them all in the brief answer. Triplicity is a lesser factor but distinctive. (It does seem that conjunction, opposition, and square relationships between signs - the Quadruplicities - are more powerful and dynamic characteristics or relationships than the trine relationships (Triplicities) in about the same way that hard aspects are more powerful and dynamic than soft aspects.

I understand. Just probing on what additional symbolism you think is worthwhile to layer on. I see! I didn't even realize that the triplicities form trine aspects.. I must have spaced out when you mentioned it in class (I am not quick with numbers and geometry most of the time.. perhaps a Sag opposite Gemini trait? My mind wants to grok the whole picture and gets overwhelmed occasionally by the details, something I am needing to work on). I'll have to spend some time with this, triplicities and quadruplicities. I remember someone describing to me that the angles formed from the quadruplicities are more unstable and therefore contain more potential for dynamic action... certainly, your description of hubs, spokes, and rims are very convincing... the tropical fire, water, air, earth stuff tends toward idealism rather than practical observation? I want the symbolism to fit because I am so used to it ceremonially, but I notice an impulse for convenience in this that seems to further the emphasis on my own subjectivity, if that makes sense.

[Hannah]

I've always felt it best to say that angularity increases the tendency to outward expression. Often that's physical, but not always. I'm pretty sure something doesn't have to be conscious to be expressed: We express all sorts of things from unconsciousness all the time.

You still have the handouts from class, yes? The PowerPoint on the constellations walks through the various sign-characteristic breakouts, I just reviewed how the one on angularity characterized the phenomena, and it used the words "stronger and more expressive."

Yes, just took a look at it, I see you described the angles like the dimensions in a picture with foreground, middleground, and background with their respective meanings looking into a picture or play. It makes sense to me looking at the natal chart as a play, with the foreground planets as the prominent characters, and background as players less at the forefront but still important to the moving along of the plot.

"We express all sorts of things from unconsciousness all the time."
I see now! What we are conscious of and what we are expressing are two different things. And consciousness can look to expression to learn more about those things that are unconscious to shed light on them. In some sense, it feels like the unconscious may have a much stronger effect on expression than conscious knowledge has, unless the two are aligned in some way. So the wheel is a wheel, a wholeness of psyche in which any number of elements may be conscious or unconscious.

[Jim Eshelman]

I see, yes that makes sense. So to recap, the need of the planet is given more capacity for expression the closer it is to the angle, and this expression takes on the form of the planet's nature. So, the information needs of Mercury have more of a capacity for being fulfilled when they are foreground?

Sorta kinda... almost.

I think you're being too event-oriented with this, more worried about what will happen. I'd put it simpler: With a foreground Mercury, the person's communication / mental / curiosity NEEDS are stronger. A consequence of this is going to be, in most cases, that those needs are actually expressed, but that's probably a secondary effect of the fact that the needs are much stronger, even more demanding.

Also, being away from the background, there is less chance that the individual will repress / block them, feel resistance etc..

I am prone to thinking of the angles as the forefront of the person's consciousness, am I on the right track?

I think consciousness is off-target. These needs can express fully, even enthusiastically, without ever passing through waking consciousness. Do you think Trump, for example, calculates his Mars expressions? Maybe some of them; but, in general, he's just naturally, unthinkingly, and by now habitually martial in all of his behaviors.

"Consciousness" is a tricky word when communicating with other astrologers, too, since background planets that tend not to be outwardly expressive may be expressing themselves entirely in inner, psychological, non-actualized ways. (But, then, often not even that since the needs represented by the planets is lower.)

Interpreting a natal chart is largely (not entirely, but largely) a matter of identifying the particular "mix" of 10 categories of needs - how strong each is for this particular individual compared to the baseline of humanity - and seeing what comes out of that mix.

Talking about this stuff sometimes feels like I am trying to grasp water, my mind wants to break it down into convenient pieces but the relationship between these symbols are as hard to grasp as the complex workings of the nature it is presenting. And then one not well-thought out interpretation of one of the symbols, effects the whole system of astrological connections in my head.

Yes, the nature of the psyche is s much hydro-like as hydra-like. Press one place, it squirts up somewhere else. You have to live inside its fluidity. Once it gets named, it then becomes elusive. That's just how the psyche works. You have to live in the fluidity of it.

[Danica]

I find the phenomenon of the angularity-expressibility very interesting from the perspective of what's usually not considered: it presents us with the fact that we are born with tendency to have some of the functions non-expressible, in the sense in which Angularity portrays the expressibility!

But this makes sense, actually, when you look at it from a functional perspective of the whole: there are certain "tools in the toolkit" so to say, that we primarily need in this specific incarnation, or usually a certain specific combination of them, and everything else from the 'toolkit' is also there but the 'priority-of-use' is different.

And, at different places on Earth, we have different subtle, unique inter-relationships with the local environment, so that this 'priority-of-use' - from the functional perspective of the whole - shifts, focusing on different aspects (of the same one natal chart)!

[Hannah]

I think you're being too event-oriented with this, more worried about what will happen. I'd put it simpler: With a foreground Mercury, the person's communication / mental / curiosity NEEDS are stronger. A consequence of this is going to be, in most cases, that those needs are actually expressed, but that's probably a secondary effect of the fact that the needs are much stronger, even more demanding.

I think I am seeing what you mean more... I am worried about what will happen because I have the preconceived notion that the background planets have a harder time fulfilling their needs. I am confusing the various potential results with the nature of angularity, which based off of what you are saying, is that the needs of the planets on angle are stronger in the psyche of the person. I notice that the pathway to thinking of it in terms of consciousness in my mind starts off with wondering why the needs might be stronger. But the why creates a bit of an unknown vacuum that I fill with my own imaginings. I imagine I would benefit in astrology by changing the "why?" to a "what am I observing and how am I observing it?"

Also, being away from the background, there is less chance that the individual will repress / block them, feel resistance etc..

So, there is a chance that the individual will block this need, but that is not the nature of background, it is only a potential expression of its inherent gradient of strength of need?

I think consciousness is off-target. These needs can express fully, even enthusiastically, without ever passing through waking consciousness. Do you think Trump, for example, calculates his Mars expressions? Maybe some of them; but, in general, he's just naturally, unthinkingly, and by now habitually martial in all of his behaviors.

Okay, yes.. I am beginning to see it now. That the wheel represents an outer-whirling of planetary needs and constellation expressions in which any number of elements may be conscious or unconscious... it is like the center of the wheel is self-consciousness and the outer wheel tells of the component parts of the body of psyche.

[Hannah]

I find the phenomenon of the angularity-expressibility very interesting from the perspective of what's usually not considered: it presents us with the fact that we are born with tendency to have some of the functions non-expressible, in the sense in which Angularity portrays the expressibility!

But this makes sense, actually, when you look at it from a functional perspective of the whole: there are certain "tools in the toolkit" so to say, that we primarily need in this specific incarnation, or usually a certain specific combination of them, and everything else from the 'toolkit' is also there but the 'priority-of-use' is different.

And, at different places on Earth, we have different subtle, unique inter-relationships with the local environment, so that this 'priority-of-use' - from the functional perspective of the whole - shifts, focusing on different aspects (of the same one natal chart)!

Oh yes! That is very fascinating.. That each person has a very unique set of coordinates in time and space with different "tools in the toolkit" to effect change and be changed by the movement of other living embodiments of different intersections of time and space! What keeps coming up in all this is the emphasis on the wheel and the different ways the movement of turning wheels interact.

[Soft Alpaca]

Planets are like actors and the signs are their sets on the stage (which is the whole zodiac disc). The angles are then basically where center stage (and other important positions) are within the sets (signs).

Mars for example is action he does better in sets like Capricorn (wildness, horniness, disconnent, and independence/autonomy). Kind of like letting the warlord have his own forest, a place where he can conquer, a place of pure primalness.

A real life example is Mars in Capricorn produces a higher than statistical number of successful boxers. The ring being the set for the place where physicality and independence merge perfectly.

The signs don't really have needs (having any empty ones doesn't really matter) the planets are instead forces (they are there own needs). To fullfil a planets wants however this can happen (via being in an expressive place at an angle or in any if the signs they give flavor to (ie Jupiter to Sagittarius) or take comfort in (Jupiter in Cancer)).

[Jim Eshelman]

I notice that the pathway to thinking of it in terms of consciousness in my mind starts off with wondering why the needs might be stronger.

It is (or is very close to being) biological. All needs are pre-rational (e.g., they have no intrinsic connection to choices).

Also, being away from the background, there is less chance that the individual will repress / block them, feel resistance etc..

So, there is a chance that the individual will block this need, but that is not the nature of background, it is only a potential expression of its inherent gradient of strength of need?

An interesting puzzle is why studies of human charts - nativities and return charts - show the "weakest" part of the quadrant at the cadent cusps while studies of mundane charts (ingresses) show the "weakest" points mid-quadrant. My (admittedly theoretical) resolution of that is: There is a natural expressiveness curve in nature that peaks at the angles and reaches its low halfway between them, and a repressiveness curve unique to the human psyche (possibly other animals, but no way to tell) that is strongest at the cadent cusps. When you overlap these two theoretical curves, they are a very close fit to the statistically-observed curve.

Taking this into effects on people that can be observed or that they report, the effect in the background - roughly overlapping the cadent two-thirds of the succedent cusp and a third of the cadent houses - superficially seems "weak." On talking to people, more often than not they report the experience that the world blocks them in that area (Mercury background "not heard," Venus background "not loved or chance to express love," etc.). On digging further, most of the time one can uncover that the person has an innate preference (or made a choice at some point) not to express those things. All of this swirls together and seems to me that there is something (close to biological) in the person that is proactively suppressing expression in those areas.

Okay, yes.. I am beginning to see it now. That the wheel represents an outer-whirling of planetary needs and constellation expressions in which any number of elements may be conscious or unconscious... it is like the center of the wheel is self-consciousness and the outer wheel tells of the component parts of the body of psyche.

If you are using :"self-conscious" in the technical sense (which I know you know) of meaning ego-consciousness, Ruach, etc., then no... not at the center. There is nothing at the center; or, one could say there is an undifferentiated sense of being to which the planets etc. add individual distinctions.

Or maybe that's what you were saying. (But that sort of ego-consciousness at least requires Sun and, often Mercury, Mars, and other factors.)

[Hannah]

I am still pondering what you said in the previous reply, Jim. So, I do not have response yet related at this moment, but I have been thinking about the angles in terms of intensity of need with the closest planetary needs closest to the angles being more pronounced while the planets furthest from the angles being still there but less important and muted.

This got me thinking about my own chart and the role of Pluto (which appears to be the planet furthest from the angle, other than Jupiter.. I think). I am not really a "Plutonian person." I can be malleable to the thoughts and feelings of others around me, and depend a lot on my role within the working of the family group or society I am a part of. I definitely aim to be my most authentic self, but I tend to adapt what I know of myself to fit the social graces and rules of the environment I am in (unless my Neptune is in over-drive and I become overwhelmed.. then I go into seclusion).

But, although Pluto is not on angle, it is in a very close static aspect with the most dynamic and closest aspects seen in my chart, Mar-Ur-Ve conjunction. So this got me thinking about how Plutonian needs are given the most importance in relationship to my Martial, Uranian, and Venusian needs.. using the planetary crib sheet, the dynamic relationship between: My "aggression, need for physical expression, personal feeling of strength... competitiveness," connected to my "need for freedom, individuality, independence; openness to naked reality; desire for variation, freedom from format," soothed by my "need to give love, need for harmony & pleasure; 'naturalness.'" In these aspects of myself, Pluto has its role.. and the more I am thinking of it, the more I see evidence of this in my own life.

The most obvious thing is that regarding my interpersonal relationships. I definitely have a "devil-may-care" attitude in this area. I do not care whether or not someone has a problem with who I choose to love or how I choose to be loved. I think it is entirely irrelevant to any person other than myself. And in my closest relationships (both in romance and friendship) I need it to be mind-blowing in its authenticity and naked honesty, otherwise I think it rarely worth my time, which I devote a very great deal of my time and energy to the people closest to me. The Uranus impulse makes it difficult to distinguish Pluto from this.. but I think I see its influence in the balancing of the Uranus urge to actively assert my individuality in this matter with Pluto's desire to just be left alone to enjoy the natural drive of authentic expression. As a younger child, Uranus and Capricorn were at greater work in my personality, a layering on of the need to assert my individuality as a teenager... this can be seen in my taking on of a rebellious form by wearing religiously provocative clothing (naked nuns, inverted crosses, images of death, etc.) in addition to this I proclaimed my freedom in sexuality and wore it as an emblem of my refusal to conform to the social conventions of affection and attraction shared by others around me. Now in class, I was definitely a well-behaved, respectful and Jupiterian child that took pleasure in confusing others who took me at face value, thinking me to be someone I am actually not behind the form. But when it came to my Mars/Uranus/Venus needs, I had and have no problem being different, and would rather be different than sacrifice my authenticity for these incredibly important elements of who I am.

This chain of thought helped me solidify the angles as intensity of needs. I think I am beginning to see how planets are atziluthic in the sense that they are the principles... while constellations are briatic, being that they are the images and symbols that form archetypes from these principles, while aspects are yetziratic because they form the constructs and life-story from the language of the planets.