posted November 28, 2011 08:43 AM            

Many astrologers seem to make a distinction between planets in conjunction and planets being in the same sign.

Sometimes, one finds that planets are said to be in "conjunction" even when not in the same sign i.e "out of sign aspects".

But my question is:

1 .Since we are very clear about speaking of "conjunctions", "sextiles" and "close aspects" etc. in natal charts , why do we abandon these assumptions when we are speaking of sign-sign compatibility?

For instance , if someone is a Capricorn Sun sign and is matched up with a Virgo sun, we say that they are "compatible", and not look at the "degrees" of compatibility that they have.

But say we have an instance of a Libra sun-born on 21st October- with their sun in the 29th degree -and they are involved with a Cancerian-born on the 01st degree- their sun signs automaticaly become "square" (as per element) but "trine" as far as astro.com is concerned? huh?

I understand the advocacy for the whole-sign system i.e that a sign is "square" or "trine" another if (in the first instance) its Scorpio/Leo and (in the second instance) Leo/Aries just by being in that partcular element. But that would have certain ramifications.

We'd have to then consider that planets, no matter how far apart they are, are in "conjunction" simply by being in the same sign.And that nopalet, no matter how clsoe to another it is by degrees, has acts "with it" so long as it is of a differing sign.

My second question is then of those signs that are said to have " minor aspects" with each other i.e Cancer and Aquarius, Leo and Pisces, Virgo and Aries etc.

2. Can they really not be that constructive with each other? And why is the interaction between them "minor"?

posted November 28, 2011 09:43 AM            

I have a Cancer sun and a Capricorn Moon and they're not actually aspecting... but I have all the qualities of a sun-moon opposition.

I have always felt that internally I am two people with opposing views, warring it out.
I can't control it, one half gets upset with the other and I end up ping-ponging insults at the two halves.
I would even call them the housewife and the rebel! Totally Moon and Sun!

It's a very manic-depressive kind of energy and many of my friends have observed my behaviour and told me that they think I am bipolar... that hasn't been diagnosed though.

My Uranus and Neptune are in Cappy too but they don't conjunct my moon and they're not actually opposite my Cancer Sun (and also Mercury) either.
But when I look at my chart as if all these planets were in aspect... by god I can relate completely.
COMPLETELY. I really truly feel these aspects, and I haven't yet seen anything else in my chart that can fully explain these energies in my personality.

So I would say yes, I do believe the energies of planets in the same sign, or in trine, square or opposing signs do have influence!
I don't actually think degree matters that much - but I'm still open to debate on that one.

Oh and those "minor" aspects between signs?
They're not minor - that's a quincunx and they can be super tough!

posted November 28, 2011 10:48 AM            

for instance, every guy i've met with Mars in Scorpio has had some sort of weird attraction to me, or me to them, or mutually ..i have Venus in Scorpio, so we're always conjunct by sign but not necessarily by degree.

however, the ones who have their Mars in Scorpio CLOSER to my Venus' degree..the attraction is stronger. just something i've noticed.

posted November 28, 2011 11:20 AM            

Personally, I have 4 planets in Sagittarius. They all have the Sagittarius flavour of course, but I don't feel like a Mercury-Venus conjunct and I sure as hell don't act like one. On the other hand, my Pluto and Mars make an out-of-sign square, and square they do, despite the fact that Scorpio and Capricorn are supposed to be harmonious.

I think it's a two-level thing: it makes sense to think that opposing signs interact as oppositions, but I still think aspects are equally important

posted November 28, 2011 12:34 PM            

and i dont always go by what astro.com says about the aspects..i go by what i see myself...sometimes i dont even use the synastry part

------------------
I once saw a sign that said "sin is death" but if "all deaths are suicide (linda goodman)" and suicide is sin, then shouldnt "death is sin" be more appropriate?

posted November 29, 2011 05:32 AM            

But my arguement is also suspicious of the overly mathematical view that is clung unto.

If I have two planets in the same sign- having the same flavour and behaving similarly, it makes sense to say that they "work together" natally.

If Capricorn opposes Cancer and sqaures Aries traditionally, why then should it sextile/trine Aries natally(depending on the degree points)?

When using whole sign aspects , my Uranus conjuncts my Sun in Sag.

When I read the description of such an aspect,I've never fully identified with it . But when other people read it, they often say "wow, this is so accurate. This is so you".

I've noticed how Sun conjunct Venus(regardless of aspect) tend to be preoccupied with the status quo.

Sun conjuct Neptune tend to be idealistic and project, very much , a Piscean-life personality.

posted November 30, 2011 01:03 AM            

To the OP -

I think the problem is that you're confusing sun-sign astrology stuff with actual in-depth astrology. Yeah, in that they'll usually just compare signs in general and not pay attention to degrees or orbs, but in 'real' astrology, I pretty much NEVER hear anyone refer to planets as being conjunct one another just because they're in the same sign, even if the orb is too wide.

Again, it sounds too complicated, too layered. When are we dealing with "real" astrology and when are we not?

And if there is a difference between sun-sign astrology "stuff"(as you say) and "in depth astrology", which benchmark is used to discern the latter from the former?

My ideal would be that astrology(whether sun-sign or otherwise) be consistant.It may be an unrealistic goal that will NEVER be realized.But the dream still remains and that is why I always test this science in real life, to see if it is legitimate.

Ofcourse for many, astrology is very much a personal/subjective science.Hence there is a lot of disagreements between astrologers about orbs/whole signs/ houses etc. Everyone has their own opinion about it.

For a challenge, try using the whole sign aspect in the natal chart and see what results you get.

I used it for a month and thought, at first, it was like shooting darts at an invisible bulls eye. But sticking with it proved interesting: A very new experience of seeing my chart altogether....

posted March 28, 2018 11:22 AM            

I think in composite the ones with closer degree aspects would be more active?

Venus in Cancer shows its affection through babying the one they are involved with. Regardless of degree.