posted November 03, 2020 11:40 AM
It's been my continued observation that a lot of folks would practically be served better by mastering the basics of a chart--especially main Planets, Signs, Houses, major aspects, etc, before focusing on such subtle and niche areas. One of the things you learn after delving more deeply into astrology for a longer time, is that Signs are over emphasized and hyped in mainstream, pop astrology circles, and that relative Planetary strengths are often dominant over the wavering Sign indications.
For example, it is often easier to spot predominant Solarians, Mercurians, Lunarians (?), Venusians, Martians, Jupitarians, Saturnians, Uranians, Neptunians, or Plutonians, than it is Sun, Rising, or Moon in any of the 12 Signs.
The only studies that have ever shown above chance statistical correlations with astrological principles have done so with Planetary strengths. All Sign ones have failed miserably in a predictive way. This doesn't mean there aren't other patterns observed, but they were not traditional astrological principles nor were they predicted ahead of time.
So with Duads and Decanates, you're taking something that is already wavering, and more in the background or somewhat subtle to a fair amount of the population, and further making that more subtle and nuanced.
It's like adding, or rather trying to detect a tiny, tiny amount of paprika in a dish that is loaded with basil, rosemary, thyme, and oregano--practically speaking, there isn't much of a point unless you are a Mozart or Michelangelo of Chart interpretation and can already read everything else super well and crystal clear and can gain something from that bit of extra information. Most people can't even do the former, so why bother with the latter?
And I've seen some major, major subjectivity with this. For example, IQ has an article on their site about the asteroids of Edgar Cayce and how these asteroids are the ONLY thing that can explain his unusual psychic abilities. Say what!?
The dude had Uranus closely conjunct his Asc. Cayce's guidance literally called Uranus that of the psychic smh. Ain't no more amplified condition for a Planet than to be closely conjunct the ASC degree. Then, his chart ruler the SUN, was in Pisces in the 8th House. The ruler of his Taurus Moon and MC, Venus, is in Pisces and Angular. The Moon is almost exactly sandwiched between Pluto and Neptune, with Pluto and Moon conjunct the MC. His Mercury is in Pisces. His North Node is in Pisces.
Capricorn is a moderately intuitive Sign. He has a (rather wide) Mars Jupiter conjunction in Capricorn. Jupiter is the faster moving ruler of his Sun, Mercury, Venus, and North Node--hence it's a sensitive, indicative symbol for him, and Mars is the faster moving ruler of his IC and is a personal planet, and thus Capricorn gets boosted beyond just Mars and Jupiter being in same.
More importantly than the strong Pisces and moderate Capricorn, but not more than Uranus conjunct the ASC is that he had strong Neptune and Jupiter according to his chart and more so according to his own Life readings on himself.
In other words, his basic chart fairly loudly yells in capital letters--UNUSUALLY PSYCHIC/INTUITIVE CHART!!! (In in a repeating sense with an echo echo o..o...o...o), and I didn't even do a full delineation. I can't even believe that someone would say something like that. Truly incredulous and baffled over here.
But this is what happens when people muddy the waters with extra information/data that is not all that pertinent to begin with. In science, usually you try to filter out the statistical noise and par it down to the essentials and main variables before you start looking at possible contributing factors. We should be doing similar in astrology.
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted November 03, 2020 02:29 AM