posted February 13, 2015 03:49 AM            

... Okay, that last one's not exactly true. I've been pretty down with most soulmate synastries and composites. It's that the 'Twin Flame' ones which actually aren't, 99% of the time, which becomes frustrating. Of course, I had to start asking myself why. I figured, as this remains a hot topic, you'd be intrigued with my progress.

So here's some serious astrology, as it's time I post what I feel are some necessary crucial corrections.

Twin Flame astrology is a field in its infancy, and, like most fledgling branches of science, is rife with controversy; as methods are developed, tested, evaluated, and then accepted or ousted. This means that there's mostly flux and very little stability. But, of what I thought was rather solid, I have to report ...

... I was wrong. At least, I think I was. The time and effort that iQ's devoted to his investigation of the subject is both monumental and surprisingly nubile. He's given us a place to begin -- and ONLY that.

I'm glad to continue evaluating charts for Twin Flame signatures, but I have to say something essential, right here, upfront, at the get-go.

There's no one method, configuration, or a set of them; combination of aspects, particular degrees, house placements, or cross-system pattern that defines Twin Flames astrologically. PERIOD.

I've always been extremely hesitant to sign off on a set of potential Twins based in their astrology alone, but never quite knew why. To date, I think I can only count two -- maybe three -- I've encountered which I DO actually feel, accept, and consider to be Twin Flames.

Twin Flame astrology should be the equivalent of an astrological doctoral thesis. It's the sort of thing which could easily take years of study, evaluation, consideration and reconsideration -- to complete. Because, at the end of the day, you're creating a position, ('these charts are Twin Flames') and seeking to defend that position by exposing it to constant opposition. You want to do all that you can to DISPROVE the likelihood that they're Twins, so that you are left with the only remaining conclusion: you can't disprove it, so they must be.

I think, by instead seeking to prove that two charts are NOT Twins, it will create a higher incidence that those who withstand the abuse of such constant scrutiny truly are. We'll get much fewer false positives, and that's the ultimate goal of every scientist -- and research astrologer.

So, in this thread, I'll be running a stress test on those things now taken to be 'commonly' seen in Twin Flame charts. Hopefully, it can clarify some of what's become confusing, or been unintentionally led astray.

Some of these you'll notice I myself was mistakenly using, having reverse-engineered from my own synastry and composite. This was misguided, and I genuinely apologise. Were it so cut-and-dried, we'd all be using these techniques as strict rules. Alas, it isn't, and everything must be considered up-in-the-air and hardly any sort of guarantee.

It's all to be taken on a severe case-by-case basis. And, as stated before, treated like a doctoral thesis, in which there's invested a lot of time -- even years.

posted February 13, 2015 06:29 AM            

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I feel you misunderstood -- or I made myself unclear. My apologies.

Twin Flames CAN be identified and even validated by astrology. It ISN'T going to be a single aspect, set of them, configuration, or particular degrees. It WILL be ALL of these things, simultaneously, and with respect to the individual charts on a case-by-case basis.

posted February 13, 2015 07:03 PM            

In the beginning, we theorised that the soulmate pairings would ultimately light the way along the path to our Twin Flame. ISIS and OSIRIS quickly became the 'big kahuna' of the pairings, and we paid very close attention to their conjunctions, both natally and synastry. Granted, it wasn't without reason -- after all, they are the best representation we know of that were 'actual' Twin Flames.

But, in the wake of everybody rushing to evaluate their own to see whether or not they were dealing with a Twin Flame relationship, it soon became overblown.

The official position, which led to the research, comes from none other than iQ, with his reasoning being as such:

[i]'ISIS represents our divine feminine archetype energies of wisdom and OSIRIS the divine masculine wisdom. Their conjunction indicates a very evolved soul in the matters of masculinity-femininity balance.

A conjunction in the Natal Chart is like a 99% guarantee of at least one loving Soulmate Relationship in this incarnation, with a high chance of it being a Twin Flame relationship.'

Remember the old gags about taking things literally that can prove to be different from your assumption? Like the horror tales of the bereaved mother longing for her deceased son and 'wishing he'd return' -- but he does so as a zombie?

That's a bit how these things work -- or certainly can. In my experience, a conjunction of ISIS and OSIRIS very well might indicate that you're to have a 'Twin Flame relationship' in your lifetime. It very likely WILL be with a Twin Flame.

So, what's the issue?

posted February 13, 2015 08:42 PM            

With my twin we don't have any synastry aspects between them.

posted February 13, 2015 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:

And, lives are long, generally speaking, @Lavender. I wouldn't write the boy off yet. Not by a long shot.

---

posted February 13, 2015 09:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:
arcturiann,

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I feel you misunderstood -- or I made myself unclear. My apologies.

Twin Flames CAN be identified and even validated by astrology. It ISN'T going to be a single aspect, set of them, configuration, or particular degrees. It WILL be ALL of these things, simultaneously, and with respect to the individual charts on a case-by-case basis.

While it CAN be done, it's very, very, very involved, and no one methodology determines it. As in the instance of a dissertation or doctoral thesis, it needs to be presented and defended with equal fervour.

---

posted February 13, 2015 10:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by arcturiann:
Man, it would surely be an arduous task. I think it would definitely be easier with good software that will also allow you to look at a large amount of asteroids and just print off certain markers and configurations that are relevant. I'm willing to bet there is software like that out there.

---

posted February 13, 2015 10:02 PM            

Exhibit A:

And, for those wanting to get right down to it, let's get a closeup of some of that hot ISIS on OSIRIS action.

So, what's going on here? Well, degrees DO count.

In the case of the above, natally, both Red and Blue's ISIS and OSIRIS are technically out of orb of conjunction (9° and 7° respectively), but are parallel.

'Oh!' I hear you saying. 'Well, OF COURSE that doesn't count!' Just what craziness am I trying to pull over here? (As to the synastric connexions, I'll address that in a moment.)

For now, let's bring in ...

Exhibit B:

-

Both seem pretty twinnish, no? In fact, doesn't A look even more so, given the synastry involved?

Okay. Now let's look at degrees.

Red:

18° LEO 40 | OSIRIS
27° LEO 20 | ISIS

(Exhibit A) Blue:

07° LEO 20 | OSIRIS
14° LEO 30 | ISIS

(Exhibit B) Blue:

24° VIR 50 | ISIS
02° LIB 03 | OSIRIS

-

And, because I'm into that:

Blue-A's natal ISIS and OSIRIS are parallel.

Blue-B's are not.

Red's are.

Synastrically, however, neither Blue-A's nor Blue-B's nISIS or nOSIRIS are parallel either Red's nISIS nor nOSIRIS.

And you can already see how the degrees are matching up ...

Red's OSIRIS is 4° from Blue-A's ISIS.

Red's ISIS nor OSIRIS make any aspect with Blue-B's, or vice versa.

The following then, is a synopsis of the facts, gleaned from conventional wisdom and analysis:

1) There are no natal conjunctions of ISIS and OSIRIS. Ergo, none of the above are Twin Flames (or have a high likelihood of a significant soulmate relationship).

2) Despite there being no conjunction, ISIS and OSIRIS are still of the same sign natally, as well as parallel, which must create some kind of relationship.

3) In synastry, Blue-A's ISIS is 4° from Red's OSIRIS; OSIRIS is also loosely parallel OSIRIS, but too out of orb of ISIS in either.

4) Blue-B's ISIS nor OSIRIS make any aspect with Red's ISIS or OSIRIS, and vice versa.

5) Red and Blue-B are Twin Flames.

And for those arriving late to this crazy shindig, to reiterate -- yes --

-- are the Twin Flames.

So, you MUST be wondering, much as I have -- HOW? How is that POSSIBLE?

THAT, my fellow stargazers, is where it gets complicated.

posted February 14, 2015 12:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ueharaa:
This is just my humble opinion here but I think that one should clarify what a twinflame is and how it is different from a soulmate relationship.
Most of the time I feel like because the idea that we have many soulmate came up, we found another word to express that "one person" that could complete us..

Also if twinflame can be seen using astrology then I highly doubt that asteroids will be the focus point. Asteroids aren't "our main core", if two people are twinflame and synastry can show it I would expect to find mind blowing double whammies, exact aspects and symmetry between the core elements of their charts ie their angles, personal planets and outer planets.
But overall I doubt astrology can show it as I belive it only shows karma, it only points to potent ties. then free will comes into play.
But that is just my opinion.

---

Some of this I agree with wholeheartedly, whereas a bit of it I used to, but my opinion changed with research.

YES, it absolutely WILL be seen in the basic synastry. Yet, not as you'd necessarily expect. It's more akin to a resonance. There's a genuine mirroring, and a sense of completion. It's a bit crazy when you behold it.

But I felt it crucial, starting out, to explain why we SHOULDN'T be immediately diving to ISIS and OSIRIS links, whether they're natal or synastric. It should ONLY be used as further confirmation of a preexisting configuration in the basic astrology.

posted February 14, 2015 02:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:

But I felt it crucial, starting out, to explain why we SHOULDN'T be immediately diving to ISIS and OSIRIS links, whether they're natal or synastric. It should ONLY be used as further confirmation of a preexisting configuration in the basic astrology.

---

posted February 14, 2015 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:
Greetings! It is I ... The Delineations Debbie Downer. Rainer upon thy parades, and Grand Naysayer of Soulmate Synastries.

... Okay, that last one's not exactly true. I've been pretty down with most soulmate synastries and composites. It's that the 'Twin Flame' ones which actually aren't, 99% of the time, which becomes frustrating. Of course, I had to start asking myself why. I figured, as this remains a hot topic, you'd be intrigued with my progress.

So here's some serious astrology, as it's time I post what I feel are some necessary crucial corrections.

Twin Flame astrology is a field in its infancy, and, like most fledgling branches of science, is rife with controversy; as methods are developed, tested, evaluated, and then accepted or ousted. This means that there's mostly flux and very little stability. But, of what I thought was rather solid, I have to report ...

... I was wrong. At least, I think I was. The time and effort that iQ's devoted to his investigation of the subject is both monumental and surprisingly nubile. He's given us a place to begin -- and ONLY that.

I'm glad to continue evaluating charts for Twin Flame signatures, but I have to say something essential, right here, upfront, at the get-go.

[b]There's no one method, configuration, or a set of them; combination of aspects, particular degrees, house placements, or cross-system pattern that defines Twin Flames astrologically. PERIOD.

I've always been extremely hesitant to sign off on a set of potential Twins based in their astrology alone, but never quite knew why. To date, I think I can only count two -- maybe three -- I've encountered which I DO actually feel, accept, and consider to be Twin Flames.

Twin Flame astrology should be the equivalent of an astrological doctoral thesis. It's the sort of thing which could easily take years of study, evaluation, consideration and reconsideration -- to complete. Because, at the end of the day, you're creating a position, ('these charts are Twin Flames') and seeking to defend that position by exposing it to constant opposition. You want to do all that you can to DISPROVE the likelihood that they're Twins, so that you are left with the only remaining conclusion: you can't disprove it, so they must be.

I think, by instead seeking to prove that two charts are NOT Twins, it will create a higher incidence that those who withstand the abuse of such constant scrutiny truly are. We'll get much fewer false positives, and that's the ultimate goal of every scientist -- and research astrologer.

So, in this thread, I'll be running a stress test on those things now taken to be 'commonly' seen in Twin Flame charts. Hopefully, it can clarify some of what's become confusing, or been unintentionally led astray.

Some of these you'll notice I myself was mistakenly using, having reverse-engineered from my own synastry and composite. This was misguided, and I genuinely apologise. Were it so cut-and-dried, we'd all be using these techniques as strict rules. Alas, it isn't, and everything must be considered up-in-the-air and hardly any sort of guarantee.

It's all to be taken on a severe case-by-case basis. And, as stated before, treated like a doctoral thesis, in which there's invested a lot of time -- even years.

More to follow. [/B]

---

THANK YOU AUBYANNE YOUR AMAZING !!!! THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS !! as I'm so sick of wasting my time looking for a "formula" but there is no formula.