posted January 08, 2008 05:22 PM              

---

While it is clear to me that there is a self vs other dynamic in the progression of the signs starting with aries and libra - which divides the hemisphere - it is less clear that there is a second axis. The groupings make more intuitive sense in sections of 3 than 4. The signs aries, taurus, gemini, and cancer are called "personal" signs and relate to the self and immediate environment. The signs leo, virgo, libra and scorpio all relate to self and other, each in a different way. The signs sag, cap, aquarius and pisces are universal. Breaking up that fundamental triadic grouping with the IC/MC line does not make sense. I do think the MC is an important point - as a kind of more tangible north node. It seems to me to be the life goal of the chart in a manifest and more physical form than the north node. The IC is the least emphasized point by far in any analysis. Perhaps it is an axis and the IC is a point of balance.

I think something is fundamentally ignored by putting cancer in a quadrant with leo and gemini or sag with scorpio and libra. Sag belongs with capricorn and aquarius in every way.

IP: Logged

posted January 08, 2008 11:01 PM              

---

Wow! I actually understand what you're saying...go me! lol And I agree...putting the signs into three groups does seem to make more sense intuitively. I never gave it much thought, but think I always kind of did this anyways, because I tend to think of them as cycles of the elements. This seems to coincide with the idea of the "self" signs, etc...that you're talking about. I always think of it as Aries is the first fire sign, Taurus the first earth sign, etc...

As for the MC/IC thing...there really does seem to be a serious lack of real analysis of that angle. (I complain about it in another thread! lol) It's like everyone knows it's important, but it does seem to get brushed aside. Another member, Glaucus, just mentioned that in Uranian astrology, the MC is considered the most important angle, and the interpretations for aspects to the MC take into account the corresponding aspect to the IC. Sounds interesting and I'm gonna look into it.

IP: Logged

posted January 09, 2008 03:45 AM              

---

Count me in as another person irritated by the way the IC and its significance are so often ignored. Never occurred to me that the traditional interpretation of the angles could be an explanation for this.

------------------
"You stay young as long as you can learn, acquire new habits and suffer contradiction." (Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach)

IP: Logged

posted January 10, 2008 07:07 PM              

---

Purplechick - my point is that the IC point is questionable in its importance and thats why I think its the least interpreted of the four angles. I think it may not be an angle. There may only be 3 angles. As a user of the equal house system, which I think is by far the most simple, intuitive and accurate system, the MC is its own point and not part of an MC/IC axis. This makes sense for many reasons. The angle houses may be important as the strongest outward expressions of a planet's energy but they do not have to correspond to "angles."

I think one of the reasons the angles most interpreted are the ASC and MC are those are the most obviously telling about a given persons persona. The supposed IC and DSC are not. Maybe they dont really exist. Maybe they are just house cusps. Important, bec they are on cardinal houses but thats about it. They are nowhere near as defining as the ASC and MC. Which opens things up quite a bit and doesnt artificially divide the signs into quadrants which make little theoretical sense.

Why is the cardinal square more important than the fire trine of aries, leo and sag which reflect the most basic division of the signs after self vs other of aries/libra??

IP: Logged