posted July 29, 2012 07:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by awakemer:
he does.. i wouldnt' be suprised if he had a lot of scoprio planets?

---

posted July 29, 2012 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Libreo:
Is there one that I'm missing for Pisces rising yet?

---

posted July 30, 2012 01:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VenusDiSirius:
Well,you said inside and out..

Yeah,he does have heavier looks,Taurus often gives that,his eyes are particularly Taurus.
I don't see how something can affect spirit/personality etc and pass the physical aspect of our existence. While many measure contents of the soul and motivations,wires in our head,and still argue on its laws and manifestations,they don't deny our bodies. And you want astrology to skip over material parts and to investigate soul,only? Even so,wouldn't the physical be a good premise to start your study on? It is a good ground,being tangible and all.
Asc is the most important part in a natal,but I am surprised that you would discard one aspect of it and thrive on the other. Unless you are one of those people who call rising sign a "mask".
In short,if you have an oval shape of head,Leo Asc won't make it square - there is no competition with genes. But,they do collaborate.

---

Again, the question was whether planets and placements (=Astrology) impact looks. I said they don’t, you replied they do. Hitler was quite ordinary in face despite having so-called indicators of physical beauty (Libra AC, Venus in Taurus). I said he was a rotten person overall, i.e., ‘inside and out’, completely devoid of any beauty, as a matter of fact. With his example squashing placements correlating to outward appearance you moved them to behavior and persona indicators, which, of course, they are. It’s the whole basis of Astrology. That was never the debate.

‘I don't see how something can affect spirit/personality etc and pass the physical aspect of our existence’ (?). The world is filled with such individuals. You can be ugly personality wise and physically beautiful or vice versa. No, I don’t find a connect between the two. Astrology can gauge behavior, good or bad, but it can't tell if looks will mirror. In that matter, yes, genes do rule.

posted July 30, 2012 01:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cat Face:
Again, the question was whether planets and placements (=Astrology) impact looks. I said they don’t, you replied they do. Hitler was quite ordinary in face despite having so-called indicators of physical beauty (Libra AC, Venus in Taurus). I said he was a rotten person overall, i.e., ‘inside and out’, completely devoid of any beauty, as a matter of fact. With his example squashing placements correlating to outward appearance you moved them to behavior and persona indicators, which, of course, they are. It’s the whole basis of Astrology. That was never the debate.

‘I don't see how something can affect spirit/personality etc and pass the physical aspect of our existence’ (?). The world is filled with such individuals. You can be ugly personality wise and physically beautiful or vice versa No, I don’t find a connect between the two. Astrology can gauge behavior, good or bad, but it can't tell if looks will mirror. In that matter, yes, genes do rule.

---

Hitler had venus and mars squaring saturn, so you haven't really squashed anything.

posted July 30, 2012 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cat Face:
Capricorn/Saturn is associated with the bones, which in turn could equal excellent bone structure in the face. One might expect some sort of dynamic beauty with Mars and Uranus thrown in the mix.

---

posted July 30, 2012 07:14 PM            

Love the list, with a few surprises. I had no idea Colin Farrell was a Rising Capricorn.

posted July 30, 2012 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cat Face:
Once more, the discussion is about Astrology and looks, not behavior. Sticking to topic, plenty of beautiful people have challenging aspects in their chart.

---

The discussion was about rising signs and whether or not they reflect both behavior and looks. Mars didn't rule his ascendant, venus did, so aspects to the ascendant and venus would be the ones to consider.

posted July 31, 2012 08:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cat Face:
The title of the thread is simply "Capricorn Ascendant". Go back and read 'page one': someone asking if ruler Saturn affects looks made it specifically a discussion (or debate between you and I?) on that. My stance is clear I believe Astrology reveals behavior rather than a face. There's no discussion/conversation/debate about that with me. Just above you brought up Venus-Mars-Saturn modifying his attractiveness, but after squashing that too, you now say disregard and it's only the Ascendant aspects/ruling planet to look at.

---