posted October 09, 2012 06:43 AM            

Like, how about planets in another solar system, planets completely different to our own, are they ruled by certain signs too? And astroids, they all have different energies to them, but there is more astroids than there are signs. Are they all ruled by signs? And isn't an astroid just like a smaller planet?

And more so, they called Saturn the ruling planet of both Capricorn and Aquarius, but when they found more planets they decided that Aquarius was now ruled by Uranus. What if we had 20 planets in our solar system?

I just think that they are trying to categorize everything. This is linked to that. But I don't think that the planets even have any relation with the 12 signs. I think they are 2 completely different things. I think the signs are their own energy, and the planets are their own energy, but they both have astrological effects on us.

posted October 09, 2012 07:05 AM            

But there are so many astrologers who say that a planet is ruled by a certain sign. And like if your 3rd house is scorpio than that house's ruler is Pluto or something. Or to calculate your chart ruler you must find where the final depositor/chart ruler is. Like if you have mercury in Leo then the ruler of Leo is the sun so you look where the sun is, if it's in cancer then the ruler of cancer is the moon, and I cant remember how it ends but it has something to do with a planet being ruled by its ruling sign or something.

How can we decide what planets energies are harmonious with a signs energy? Because I think they are completely different. What the sign Aquarius really boils down to is its Air, its Positive, and it's fixed. And the characteristics of those 3 qualities come out in people and we label the characteristics of the people and say they are Aquarians.

But there are many Aquarians who are nice, warm, emotional, can be conforming to a degree, and so on. The aquarian is definitely an individual who sees the world plainly for what it is (from being fixed), and so they can try to control their actions to be different than the world they see.

posted October 09, 2012 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

How can we decide what planets energies are harmonious with a signs energy?

---

Similarities and how close the the two line up. Mars lives fast, dies young, but Mars in Taurus isn't going much beyond 5 mph, you see? Whereas Mars in Aries will quickly burn to a cinder before moving on to something else. So, Aries expresses Mars energy better than Taurus does.

posted October 09, 2012 07:27 AM            

They say Aquarius falls in the sun. And what they do is they give the sun's energy motives, that it is about dominating and being on top, agressive and getting good opportunities in life. Those are definitely characteristics of the sun. But does an aquarius not have the traits to express those energies well? They say the aquarius does poorly with these energies because the aqarian cares too much about helping others that he doesn't focus on getting things for himself enough. They express it like it's a bad thing. But I'm an aquarian and I love helping people. I love keeping the flow of communication going. It's what we enjoy doing. It doesn't mean we can't express our solar energy good, we can express the energy great and we love it. So I don't think the solar aquarian is any more in its fall than a solar leo is.

posted October 09, 2012 07:52 AM            

The ancient rulers of the signs Scorpio, Aquarius, and Pisces seem to have a sub-rulership of these signs, while the modern ruler dominates in it's influence over that sign.

In this solar system, at least, what Mars is doing in the sky has an influence on Aries (planets and house cusps). Sign rulerships are a deeply engrained part of astrology and I doubt that's going to change anytime soon. No matter what is discussed on this forum I think this is just the reality of the situation. Many very talented and good practicing astrologers have used this technique and find it to be valid and useful. While I’m not a professional astrologer myself, I’ve been studying astrology since age 13 (I’m now in my 30’s) and have found house rulerships to be invaluable when trying to interpret the natal chart.

You mentioned other solar systems. That's an interesting question. I'm just taking an educated guess here, so who knows what the real truth is, but perhaps in each solar system each sign has a different ruler? Aries, for instance, might still be a cardinal fire sign but perhaps it would be ruled by a different planet. So then Aries might have a slightly different character in that solar system. Of course this is just speculation.

posted October 09, 2012 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by C1ND3R:
Soren, do you know the story about the girl who tried too much, too fast?

---

posted October 09, 2012 06:07 PM            

Anyway I was just explaining what I thought.

My Venus is in Pisces so that's probably why I'm somewhat soft. And my Merc is in Aquarius. So Idk how that makes my communication to other people.

I still hold to my opinion that I don't see the validity of a planet being ruled by a sign. Especially the sun cause it's not even a planet. Its a ball of energy. So are we trying to say all Solar Aquarians in the universe are in their fall? Poor fixed air sign.

But I know you say it's not being ruled, it just epresses the energy well, and to be honest, i can't tell if the planets express it well or not. So i will just leave it at that..

But I really just don't care for house rulings and such. Like for example... The first house is represented by Aries. So Mars rules Aries and thus rules the first house. My first house is in Aquarius. My Mars is in my 4th house. So my first house is ruler is in the 4th house.

Why can't they just say Mars falls into the 4th house? Why do they have to call it the 1st house ruler? I don't believe the planets ruling signs has such a big effect that we have to look what planet rules which house or whatever.

posted October 09, 2012 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:

But I really just don't care for house rulings and such. Like for example... The first house is represented by Aries. So Mars rules Aries and thus rules the first house. My first house is in Aquarius. My Mars is in my 4th house. So my first house is ruler is in the 4th house.

Why can't they just say Mars falls into the 4th house? Why do they have to call it the 1st house ruler? I don't believe the planets ruling signs has such a big effect that we have to look what planet rules which house or whatever.

Plus my merc is in Aquarius and I feel like it works just as well in Aquarius as it would in Gemini, just because its not mutable doesn't mean it's not working fast and still promoting new thoughts all the time. It's fixed but it still works great. anyway sorry for typing all that i really have no way to know if planets are ruled by signs or not but to me they are all just different energies that probably aren't related to the energy of the signs, but maybe they are related or more harmonious, i can't really tell

---

first of all the rulers of houses are not fixed

if you 1st house is in aquarius then your 1st house ruler is uranus...try to read some interpretations to that or i could make you a reading on brown owl if you wish

also if mars falls in you 4th it has MUCH different meaning than having ruler of the 1st in 4th

and nobody said that if a planet is not in its exaltation or domicile it doesent work right....its just fits the "theme" of the planet

posted October 09, 2012 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

I don't see the validity of a planet being ruled by a sign.

---

posted October 09, 2012 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedScorp:
It's the other way around! A planet "rules" a sign because the energy of the planet goes well with the sign's expression!

---

Same feeling here when i read one of soren's posts.... In her defense her mercury is in a fixed sign; also exalted though it conjuncts s-turn.

Soren, where did you start learning astrology? I think that maybe you would benefit if you found a good teacher. Again, i said this to u in another thread, none of what you read in astrology is being invented by us based on a "hunch".

Maybe if you understood that this has been studied for THOUSANDS of years (vedic can only be traced so far); this isn't something we all woke up and decided was going to be right because we "believed" it was.

Your points of view would maybe be understood more if people saw your chart. Because when it comes to a logical discussion such as the one you're trying to have right now, "belief" really doesn't cut it. Unless you can back it up in a logical way (which it seems like you're trying to do) belief has very little do what you're bringing up.

No matter what u believe when it comes to something that has a method to it, a spade will never be a diamond.

posted October 09, 2012 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Same feeling here when i read one of soren's posts.... In her defense

---

It didn't come off as trying to attack her, did it? I'm trying to get the point across that there is no validity in signs ruling planets because it's the planets that rule signs.

quote:

---

Your points of view would maybe be understood more if people saw your chart.

---

posted October 09, 2012 08:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedScorp:

---

No, it didn't but i get it because the first time around, it felt like a wasted effort and as if one were talking to a wall because there was no confirmation on her end that any of it was sinking through.

posted October 09, 2012 08:10 PM            

quote:

---

because there was no confirmation on her end that any of it was sinking through.

---

posted October 09, 2012 08:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedScorp:
Bless your Libra Mercury...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedScorp:
..., and S-turn, .

---

posted October 09, 2012 08:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedScorp:
It's the other way around! A planet "rules" a sign because the energy of the planet goes well with the sign's expression!

---

posted October 09, 2012 10:17 PM            

A few people have pointed this out already.

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:

I still hold to my opinion that I don't see the validity of a planet being ruled by a sign. Especially the sun cause it's not even a planet. Its a ball of energy. So are we trying to say all Solar Aquarians in the universe are in their fall? Poor fixed air sign.

---

Planets are said to rule signs, not the other way around.

The Sun is a big ball of energy, yes. But earth is a big ball of rock and dirt, and Neptune is a big ball of gas. They all still have mass though, and they all still work well in the rulership system.

Don’t worry so much about the traditional detriments and falls. It seems to me you have read or learned something about your Sun in Aquarius being in it’s ‘detriment’ and have taken it personally, like that means you are ‘less’ or something. Trust me, this is NOT what it means. It just means that the Sun is operating in a way that is different from it’s typical expected mode of activity. The Sun is connected with self-expression and our ego. The Sun really suits signs like Aries and Leo because they are confident, direct and dramatic. These are things we typically associate with EGO. It is not very typical to associate detachment and social awareness with ego, but when the Sun is in Aquarius this is what happens. Aquarius Suns will identify and take pride in their ability to be cool and detached rather then fiery and dramatic (which is what is typical of the Sun), and will invest their identity in their social observation skills, social awareness, and the things that make them unusual. This doesn’t mean that Sun in Aquarius is ‘bad’… It just means that it functions in a way that is atypical for the Sun. The blessing that comes with Sun in Aquarius is that it diminishes egoistic self involvement, increases awareness of others and makes it easier to take others into consideration, and promotes objectivity. Ain’t nothing wrong with that. Aqua Suns are awesome people to be around because the are usually so chill and open and friendly.

I have Mercury in Sagittarius which is considered it’s detriment and I don’t let this bother me at all. I actually enjoy the far-reaching, searching energy of Mercury in Sag. I can usually see the ‘big picture’ of a situation almost instantly, and know how to separate details from the essence of what something means. I’m got Mercury in it’s detriment and I’m still sharp as a tack, if I do say so myself. Ha ha.

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:

But I really just don't care for house rulings and such. Like for example... The first house is represented by Aries. So Mars rules Aries and thus rules the first house. My first house is in Aquarius. My Mars is in my 4th house. So my first house is ruler is in the 4th house.

---

This is not how house cusp rulership works.

If you have Aquarius rising then Uranus is your 1st house ruler not matter where Aries is in your chart. So, to understand how your 1st house ruler effects your personal outlook, check what sign Uranus is in, and what house Uranus is in. You might also take a peak at Saturn, as this planet has sub-rulership over Aquarius.

Each Asc sign has different signs on each of the house cusps, determining how that area of life runs. Aries does not always ‘rule’ the 1st house.

If you wanted to look at a different area of life, say partnership, then you’d take note of the sign on the 7th house, and it’s ruler by house, sign, and aspects. For Aquarius rising Leo is on the 7th house cusp. So then you take note of what the Sun is doing by house, sign, and aspect, to get a clearer idea of the type of energy you attract in partnerships.

posted October 09, 2012 10:30 PM            

First of all, I'm a guy. Soren is a guys name!! haha

Secondly I am upon the belief that we have been entering the age of enlightenment in the past few years and that many new discoveries will be made. So I think it's not surprising to find new ways of looking at things. But many don't think we are in any special age, but i do.

Here is my chart if you are interested.
http://astro.cafeastrology.com/ cgi-bin/graphic/daisy24?dformat=2&date=1991/2/6&time=5.40&lat=19.43&long=155.05&adjust=10.00&lang=en&x=480&y=640

Although I personally believe that my whole chart should be shifted 21 degrees over, because I believe that's the pace that your chart moves. Other people believe this too. But I don't know if Cinder does.

"if you 1st house is in aquarius then your 1st house ruler is uranus...try to read some interpretations to that or i could make you a reading on brown owl if you wish"

Ok that clears a lot up. That's alright I don't need a reading but thanks.

"and nobody said that if a planet is not in its exaltation or domicile it doesent work right....its just fits the "theme" of the planet"

Understood. That makes more sense I suppose... But I also want to keep a mind that not all Pisces folk are pleasent like Venus, like on another post I saw describing a Pisces man, they can be very manipulative and decieving and other bad things. Maybe a lot of Pisces are dreamy and want to be harmonious with people. Idk. So maybe Pisces is exalted in Pisces, OR MAYBE ITS NOT.

I was just under the impression that astrologers somehow thought the planets were actually related to the signs.
Like that uranus was magically bonded to the Aquarius sign. Or mars had some kind of aries energy to it. But i see that the energies just match eachother's themes and whatnot.

So this updates my understanding a lot. We are just correlating which planets generally match characterstics of certain signs. And whether the energy is expressed better in any sign, well I'll never know. I'm not god