|
Subject: Question/
Hi, When I saw your site for the first time I was really surprised how
interesting it was.I think it's really a good idea trying to give
each sign a certain and single planet. I discussed it in a forum that I
think like you presented it on your site that Earth belongs to Libra
because in my opinion Venus is too physical, sensual, epicurean and
matrealistic. They all don't believe it and said that I'm too blind to see
the connection between Libra and Venus. I see this connection but I think
that it fits better to Libra and I think that although we live on this
planet it embodies a certain principle. The principle is
harmony, willingness to compromise, love and justice etc.I told them that
e.g. the birth time and location is important for the ASC but I couldn't
convince them because they are perhaps too conservative. They said that
Taurus fits better to Earth because fertility, nature and so on. But I
think although we got fire it's not ruled by Mars or we got Water and
it's not Neptune: We got all elements but the principle is important. I
would be glad if you could help me and perhaps give me some more proofs
or some advice. Thanks. Bye, KC PS.:I use Chiron as ruler of
Virgo. In my opinion it fits very well to Virgo.
Response:
Dear KC,
Most people are creatures of habit who will parrot whatever
they see hear or read without actually doing the investigation
on a matter. When it comes to astrology, hard observation always
triumphs over theory or speculation, and this is how the planets
were assigned their rulerships. Every planet has a definite effect
on the physical appearance as well as the personal characteristics,
and for those with the required perception, astrology becomes an
intriguing challenge and an undeniable reality.
I have struggled with the Mercury and Venus rulerships for
many years now, and the following are my conclusions based not
just on theory or speculation but upon hard observaton as well:
Venus; the majority of current opinion links Venus to Libra and
Earth to Taurus and I can understand the reasoning -Earth, Terra,
or Gaia is seen as "earthy" or "fertile" or "nature-oriented". This,
however, is faulty reasoning. One could say the same about Venus or
any other planet if we actually lived on those planets. There is
no actual evidence to suggest that Venus itself is unearthy or
infertile. These are purely physical criteria common to all the
planets. If we want to do some real astrology, we must examine
the spiritual component as well.
In all of the charts I have studied and observed Venus does
indeed have some relation to Libra as I have observed its importance
in interpersonal relationships, but I have also observed it to be
quite gross or basic or materialistic(Taurean side). So Venus does
indeed have two sides to it -just as the traditional astrologers
have expressed. The question now becomes -which side is more dominant?
I have observed this same duality with Mercury and the Ascendant
or Rising sign -which is of course Earth's influence(not many have
made this connection). With the Earth/Ascendant, for example it is
very true that it has the most to do with your physical or sensual
nature(Taurean side), but it also has as much to do with your level
of physical(and mental) beauty, and your sociablity and relationships
in general(Libran side). The big question is which dominates or has
the edge?
The only way I was able to ascertain the true ruler of either
Venus or the Earth/Ascendant was through VISUAL observation of these
placements in the charts of others. I happen to have an acute visual
sense which lets me actually observe or recognize certain planetary
placements in individuals simply by observing their movements, gestures,
appearance, etc. I haven't been able to do this with ALL of the planets
yet(it takes continued practice), but Venus and the Ascendant are fairly
easy for me. What I have noticed is that Venus is best placed, in terms of
looks or personal traits, in the earth or water elements(feminine signs),
rather than in the fire or air elements(masculine signs). Likewise the Ascendant
is more favourable or desirable in air or fire(masculine) than it is in
earth or water(feminine). I have proved this to myself beyond any doubt,
and it has helped me determine the true or dominant rulerships of both
Venus and the Earth/Ascendant. Whether the old rulership links will ever
go away, I cannot answer for certain. This requires more intensive study.
It is brave of you to present the view you share with me that
Earth/Libra represents the priciple of harmony, justice, beauty, etc.,
which it does, unfortunately we are now mostly expressing Libra's
negative or nightside(Taurus) -which is money and materialism, and
which is why most will not believe you. Earth will, however, one day
rise or awaken to it's true identity or destiny as the love and
peace planet of the solar system.
As far as Mercury is concerned, I have not had as much success as
the Venus/Earth puzzle. My own personal observations show me that Mercury
is still EQUALLY divided between Gemini and Virgo. There are days when I
feel it belongs more to Gemini and other days when I feel it has more to
do with Virgo. Even when it comes to its effect on the personal appearance
I am stumped. Perhaps I am not destined to solve that puzzle and someone
else is. All I know is that there is at least one more planet/body that
will help to solve this riddle. Whether it is Chiron, Ceres, Eris, the
Midheaven, or some other body I cannot say with certainty at this time.
Astrology is still incomplete, and this is what makes it so interesting
and challenging!
That is my view on the matter. I hope I have helped.
Librarising
Part II:
Dear Librarising,
Thank you very much.It's really nice to call me brave. You helped me
very much and you made me very happy with your view on the
matter. Because my way of thinking is similar to yours.
I also think that the people have to involve the spiritual sense of
the planet Earth and not just judge it by it's vertility and as you
said the Venus could be also fertile in a way.
Yes,that's it.The reason why many people don't believe me because the
Earth is living the nightside with the materialism (Taurus).
I realized some months ago that you have a good sense to find out
rising signs. Mostly I have the same opinion about them. There are some
differences but of course in some cases the rising sign is clearer
and in some cases not so clear. Sometimes I'm lucky as well to guess
the rising signs of celebrities or friends, for example and I have a
sense if someone is born later or earlier.
In my opinion Mercury is the real ruler of Gemini. Virgo is a side of
Mercury but I think it's not big. Virgo
works, helps, analyzes, serves, criticizes etc. I think it really belongs
to Mercury but it's not dominating. Mercury communicates,is
airy, brilliant, interferes etc. He is concerned with the intellect like
the Gemini. And Virgo is an Earth sign so the mind isn't the most
important thing. The sign Virgo is reasonable and concerned with
health and work: more earthly things. Besides I noticed that Mercury
feels better in an air or fire sign
I came to my mind that it's odd but the early signs always keep their
planets:
Mars: Aries/Scoprio Aries got Mars
Jupiter:Sagittarius/Pisces Sagittarius got Jupiter
Saturn:Capricorn/Aquarius Capricorn got Saturn
I believe that Mercury should got Gemini and Taurus should got
Taurus. But that's my opinion.
Libra and Virgo are also the youngest signs because long time ago
they belonged to the great autumn constelltion with Scorpio. So it's
normal that there are some problems with the rulerships because these
signs arose out of a new way of thinking so their rulers will also
require a new way of thinking in astrology. So it's possible that the
Earth rules Libra, for example.
I noticed that people who act like a Virgo or have Virgo traits very
often have a strong Chiron aspect in their charts.
So I use Chiron as ruler of Virgo at the moment.
That is really too bad but I really believe that Vulcan was the true
ruler of Virgo. However the asteroids don't show this strong Virgo
energy for me.
But I can say that they don't have a strong or important placed Ceres
so I would expel her as true ruler.
I wonder why in my eyes Ceres' energy is a little like the Venus
energy?
I would be glad if you could answer my mail.
Bye,
KC
PS.:Sorry that I'm so curious but what's your sun sign? Have you
really got a Librarising and therefore you named your website like
this?
This is perhaps another reason why I'd think Mercury belongs to
Gemini because I got Mercury in Gemini and really feel like the airy
god of the mythology.
Response:
Dear KC,
My Sun sign is in - and I do not have Libra rising.
I named my site Libra Rising in honor of planet Earth which
I feel is linked to this sign. I do however have the MC
in Libra. I failed to mention in my last email that Eris is
also being considered as Libra's ruler. I feel that this is
a real possibility. What then to do about Earth? Could they
BOTH rule Libra? With so many new bodies being discovered,
astrology is really becoming more puzzling or complex.
I too feel a Mercury will in all likelihood prove to be the
true ruler of Gemini, and I too have noticed that it is the
early signs which keep their planets, but untill I've proved
it to myself satisfactorily, or it's officially decided upon,
I will always have some doubt.
You have an interesting view of the history of Virgo, Libra
(and Scorpio). Yes, according to esoteric astrology they were
all once one sign, and they therefore must be the newest after
splitting up. They must also represent the newest parts of human
nature which we are currently developing or unfolding.
You seem to have a good grasp of rising signs too. You should
continue to develop your perceptive abilities. Maybe you can help
me decide on some puzzling celebrity ascendants. Like you said,
the rising sign is not always so clear in some charts. I have so
many charts on hold because I feel the Ascendant is incorrect,
even if it comes from a "respectable" source. It is then that I
have to rely on my istinct or intuition. I do not claim to be always
correct but feel, or have noticed, that the so-called "authorities"
aren't always right either. In fact, I feel that more than half the
charts on the internet have wrong ascendants, and they are often
off by only one sign.
I don't know too much about Chiron's effect so I can't really
comment there. It is classified as a centaur which is a cross
between a comet and a minor planet. I bought and read Barbara
Hand Clow's book on it long ago but am still not convinced that
it rules Virgo or any other sign. Zane Stein uses it a lot and
says it may be linked to as many as four signs(Virgo to Sagittarius),
but he personally prefers Libra as it serves as a "bridge" between
the old and new planets.
I'm not sure about Ceres either. It is a tiny planet, king of
the inner asteroids, like Pluto is king of the Kuiper Belt, but
whether it rules any sign I cannot say. Most people link it to
either Virgo or Cancer or a combination of both.
That' all I have to say for now. Thank you for your response,
and yes, I do also feel that we think a lot alike.
Bye for now, librarising
Subject: suggestion/perhaps advice
Hello, Last time we talked about the connection between the Earth and the
sign Libra and about guessing the rising signs. You believe that most of
the birth times are incorrect. I also noticed that you often base your
decision of the celebrity's rising sign on your intuition. In my opinion
it's a useful way and I do it mostly alike: But I think that the
physiognomy of someone is not just based on the Ascendant. I recognized
that planets in conjunction to the rising are very important or planets
in the first house. Even the Midheaven and planets in conjunction or in
the tenth house modify the appearance because it's our public "face".It
shows how we behave in the society and in what are we interested in. Other
aspects like Trine etc. can influence,too. So someone who has Scorpio
rising and Venus in Libra in conjunction to the rising looks perhaps like
a Libra rising. Even the other planets can modify the appearance. When you
have Scorpio rising and Venus, Sun, Moon in Libra- you will have Libra
traits in your look. Probably you know it. So it's just an advice because
I saw that you often try to find the perfect Virgo rising or the perfect
Libra rising but maybe someone who is Leo Sun can't be so intellectual
and quiet. I would say that not so many birth charts in the internet are
wrong. But I know that there are some controversies between some
celebrities. I think that's it's perhaps to general to say that fire and
air rising signs are the most attractive. Taurus rising can be very
beautiful and Cancer rising women are often pretty. Another theory is that
there should be more celebrities with Virgo rising and Scorpio rising
because they are widespread rising signs on the Northern hemisphere.
That's it. It's just a suggestion. Not more.It shall not be
criticism. Perhaps you can think a little bit about it.
Bye for now,
KC
Response to suggestion:
Hello Kimberly,
It is true that a planet in the first house, especially if it
is very close to the Ascendant degree, will dominate the appearance,
according to the nature of that planet, and I try to look out for this.
Trines, as you said, are powerful too, because they involve the same
element. The Midheaven may have a similar effect, but I am less
acquainted with this. Two or more planets in a sign or "stelliums"
will of course make themselves evident in the appearance. I still hold
that, in general, air and fire ascendants have a monopoly on physical
attractiveness. I've noticed that water sign risings can have pretty
faces, but that the bodies are often out of proportion. It is true that
Virgo and Scorpio rising are widespread in the northern horizon, and
therefore there are more people born under them, but not many of
them like to go public, so it kind of balances out. Yes I try to pick
the best examples for a rising sign, and yes I do use my intuition a lot
to decide or suggest a rising sign, but it is a visual and not psychic
intuition. It may not always right, but it helps a great deal.
I would like to hear more about your thoughts on the Midheaven.
Like you, I have a suspicion it can greatly affect the appearance.
Do you think it is as important as the Sun or Ascendant? What sign,
if any, do you think it is linked to?
librarising
Part III
Hello Librarising,
I would not say by all means that a Virgo rising or a Scorpio rising
don't like to go public. A fire sun sign can modify it, for example.
I think that the rising sign don't say what you want. It's the sun.The
centre of the universe. Your priority. You are willed to do it.
The Ascendant or rising sign is a kind of task. It's the body, the
I. Your soul was born in this shell. Many people don't like to hear
about their rising sign. I know many Libra risings. They say that they
don't like to balance or judge everytime. They are often torn between
their possibilities. The Ascendant is a great process in your life. So
many astrologers say that when you are older your rising sign is more
important because then you are strong enough to fulfil it.
The Ascendant is our starting point and the Midheaven our
destination.
Besides the Midheaven is our reputation, our public face and for what
we are famous. Its energy represents our fate and our work. It also
modifies our appearance because it's the way we behave in society.
For an actor the Midheaven represents the roles that he plays.
Example: Marilyn Monroe played naive, feminine and sensual roles. She
has a Taurus MC with Venus conjunction. Although she was a phenomenal
actress she never earned the tribute she deserved. Because it was her
fate to be "just" beautiful in this life. I think this is also a proof
that Venus belongs to Taurus.
Her sun sign was in Gemini. So she wanted to be more intellectual and
not to act naively. She liked comedies but her moon sign was in
Aquarius. Therefore she dreamed of being "more" than beautiful and
sensual. But the moon signs often shows your dreams and it's hard to
assert them. Her rising sign was Leo. Her task was to go
public, be witty, loving, creative and noticeable. But the rising sign
often reminds me of a contract. You can't get out of it.
Angelina Jolie has Aries rising. She is famous for action movies and
physical, strong roles.
Charlie Chaplin has Leo Midheaven. He is famous for humorous roles.
Planets at the MC can concretize the roles.
Yes,I would say that the Midheaven is as important as the Sun, the
Ascendant and the Moon.
Because these ones show our basic personality.
We actually could say that the Sun is Leo, the Moon is Cancer and
traditionally the Ascendant is Aries and the Midheaven Capricorn.
It's really difficult but in my opinion it's like that:
Moon-Water-Cancer: I need/long for (secretive)
Sun-Fire-Leo: I want (with my free will)
Midheaven axis-Earth-Virgo:I will (consequence of our actions,work)
Ascendant axis-Air-Libra: I must (contract between body and
earth)
That's it. Yes ,these are some of my thoughts.
Bye,
KC
Response:
Dear KC,
Thank you for your thoughts, which reflect
many of my own, and which I feel you express
sincerely and honestly. I appreciate your
responsiveness and feel you have much potential
to be an astrologer yourself. Perhaps you will
make a significant discovery in this field, via
your apparently strong intuition. If you do,
you are always welcome to share it with me.
Wishing you well, librarising
|