??? compatiblity ???
Thomas Seers
Tissue wrote:
>
> here's my Q...
> wat the worst match??? if any... =)
Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
Thomas
--
**************************************************
Thomas Seers AMAFA-Member 27 Years
P.O. Box 2178 Antioch, TN 37011- 2178
Web Page-http://www.westworld.com/~belzar/
Standard Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own
**************************************************
paul fletcher
Thomas Seers wrote:
>
> Tissue wrote:
> >
> > here's my Q...
> > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
>
> Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> Thomas
Thomas Seers
Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but there is a relation
between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square to each other, like
Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
-- Paul Fletcher, astrologer
Tissue
Jules
Hi again. Everyone wrote:
<< here's my Q...
> > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
>
> Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> Thomas
Thomas Seers
Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but
there is a relation
between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square
to each other, like
Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
-- Paul Fletcher, astrologer>>
If I might add my humble 2 cents... I think the worst possible
match would be 2 people who didn't get along, regardless of their sun
signs, period. This would, IMO, have to do with the rest of their chart,
synastric and composite, and the countless other factors in them, not
to mention a hearty dash of free will. It doesn't seem right to
generalize by sun sign alone. Granted I've got limeted experience in
astrology, but for the short time I've been doing it this seems to be
the case, consistently. I get along just fine with people whose sun
signs are square to mine.
If you want to go by astrological archetypes, or when a sign takes
up an extraordinarily large part of the chart (like my friend who's got
nearly half of her planets in Aquarius) then that's a bit different. But
she's still got many other aspects in her chart. Everyone has every sign
somewhere.
Just my thoughts. :-)
Later,
jules
kim...@enterprise.net
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:50:14 -0500, paul fletcher
<vpf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Thomas Seers wrote:
>>
>> Tissue wrote:
>> >
>> > here's my Q...
>> > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
>>
>> Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
>> Thomas
>
> Thomas Seers
>
>Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but there is a relation
>between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square to each other, like
>Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
>-- Paul Fletcher, astrologer
Paul I thought this for a long time too...
then I noticed that the *only* couple I knew whose marriage had
survived were strongly linked by squares
Then I fell in love with someone with whom I connect with a lot of
strong squares....and hes hte sweetest kindest partner Ive known (past
ones had much trine ans sextile and/or conjunction emphasis)
Now I think: this aspect demands the kind of compromise which any
relationship will call for, plus it creates the kind of dynamic
tension which encourages growth...therefore such relationships have
the potential to stay fresh
I`m not saying squares always make good relationships...more often
they dont...but sometimes they can work!
In my case he has a very strong scorpio and I have a very strong
eighth house.
I see where you are coming from but as a strong uranian type I have to
question and break these old rules!!
All the best
Robbie
Edmond Wollmann
Jules wrote:
> Hi again. Everyone wrote:
<< here's my Q...
> > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> > Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> > Thomas
> Thomas Seers
> Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but
> there is a relation
> between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square
> to each other, like
> Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
> -- Paul Fletcher, astrologer>>
> If I might add my humble 2 cents... I think the worst possible
> match would be 2 people who didn't get along, regardless of their sun
> signs, period. This would, IMO, have to do with the rest of their chart,
> synastric and composite, and the countless other factors in them, not
> to mention a hearty dash of free will. It doesn't seem right to
> generalize by sun sign alone. Granted I've got limeted experience in
> astrology, but for the short time I've been doing it this seems to be
> the case, consistently. I get along just fine with people whose sun
> signs are square to mine.
> If you want to go by astrological archetypes, or when a sign takes
> up an extraordinarily large part of the chart (like my friend who's got
> nearly half of her planets in Aquarius) then that's a bit different. But
> she's still got many other aspects in her chart. Everyone has every sign
> somewhere.
> Just my thoughts. :-)
> Later,
> jules
To make sweeping generalizations with sun signs is simplistic and
irresponsible. The study of astrology is complex and must be learned
like any other discipline. It must be treated with the respect it
deserves as a powerful tool of understanding. Tools are always dependent
upon the astuteness of the craftsman and their application abilities.
53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
-5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
combinations. The sun sign is simply ONE of those factors. True
astrology defines the specificity of identity through delineation of a
myriad of factors, and ALL of these factors reflect the identity.
Psychodynamic functioning is reflected through astrological signature
and leads us to an understanding of the psyche and the beliefs of the
identity. These beliefs are what is responsible for the created
experiential reality and is reflected in the mirror of mind-matter.
Therefore there are as many different vibrations as people and
astrological possibilities as well. Even twins can express different
levels of the same chart, so there is no fixed pattern of anything that
makes anyone set as a such and such.
In the same way that a doctor would not make such irresponsible
diagnoses based on a persons hair color-so in the same way astrology
demands full and cogent renderings based on complete information.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Thomas Seers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> =
> Jules wrote:
> =
> > Hi again. Everyone wrote:
> =
> << here's my Q...
> > > > wat the worst match??? if any... =3D)
> =
> > > Sun Signs=3D Aries/Scorpio
> > > Thomas
> =
> > Thomas Seers
> =
> > Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but=
> > there is a relation
> > between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in squar=
e
> > to each other, like
> > Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
> > -- Paul Fletcher, astrologer>>
> =
> > If I might add my humble 2 cents... I think the worst possible
> > match would be 2 people who didn't get along, regardless of their sun=
> > signs, period. This would, IMO, have to do with the rest of their cha=
rt,
> > synastric and composite, and the countless other factors in them, not=
> > to mention a hearty dash of free will. It doesn't seem right to
> > generalize by sun sign alone. Granted I've got limeted experience in
> > astrology, but for the short time I've been doing it this seems to be=
> > the case, consistently. I get along just fine with people whose sun
> > signs are square to mine.
> > If you want to go by astrological archetypes, or when a sign take=
s
> > up an extraordinarily large part of the chart (like my friend who's g=
ot
> > nearly half of her planets in Aquarius) then that's a bit different. =
But
> > she's still got many other aspects in her chart. Everyone has every s=
ign
> > somewhere.
> =
> > Just my thoughts. :-)
> =
> > Later,
> > jules
> =
> To make sweeping generalizations with sun signs is simplistic and
> irresponsible. The study of astrology is complex and must be learned
> like any other discipline. It must be treated with the respect it
> deserves as a powerful tool of understanding. Tools are always dependen=
t
> upon the astuteness of the craftsman and their application abilities.
> 53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,=
000,000.
> -5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
> earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
> combinations. The sun sign is simply ONE of those factors. True
> astrology defines the specificity of identity through delineation of a
> myriad of factors, and ALL of these factors reflect the identity.
> Psychodynamic functioning is reflected through astrological signature
> and leads us to an understanding of the psyche and the beliefs of the
> identity. These beliefs are what is responsible for the created
> experiential reality and is reflected in the mirror of mind-matter.
> Therefore there are as many different vibrations as people and
> astrological possibilities as well. Even twins can express different
> levels of the same chart, so there is no fixed pattern of anything that=
> makes anyone set as a such and such.
> In the same way that a doctor would not make such irresponsible
> diagnoses based on a persons hair color-so in the same way astrology
> demands full and cogent renderings based on complete information.
> =
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> =A9 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
> PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
> (619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
In so many words, I think you said I should't have said what I said.
Complexity does suite those without the ability to define things in a
simple manner.
Thomas
-- =
Edmond Wollmann
Thomas Seers wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > To make sweeping generalizations with sun signs is simplistic and
> > irresponsible. The study of astrology is complex and must be learned
> > like any other discipline. It must be treated with the respect it
> > deserves as a powerful tool of understanding. Tools are always dependent
> > upon the astuteness of the craftsman and their application abilities.
> > 53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> > -5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
> > earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
> > combinations. The sun sign is simply ONE of those factors. True
> > astrology defines the specificity of identity through delineation of a
> > myriad of factors, and ALL of these factors reflect the identity.
> > Psychodynamic functioning is reflected through astrological signature
> > and leads us to an understanding of the psyche and the beliefs of the
> > identity. These beliefs are what is responsible for the created
> > experiential reality and is reflected in the mirror of mind-matter.
> > Therefore there are as many different vibrations as people and
> > astrological possibilities as well. Even twins can express different
> > levels of the same chart, so there is no fixed pattern of anything that
> > makes anyone set as a such and such.
> > In the same way that a doctor would not make such irresponsible
> > diagnoses based on a persons hair color-so in the same way astrology
> > demands full and cogent renderings based on complete information.
> In so many words, I think you said I should't have said what I said.
Well there are no shoulds, but can't you agree that anyone can be paired
with ANYONE as far as sunsigns go? Even without sunsigns alone it still
depends on the awareness of the individuals as WELL as the factors
listed above. In so many words it just aint so.
> Complexity does suite those without the ability to define things in a
> simple manner.
In simple terms-this is why it is part of AFA's code of ethics. I am not
seeking to chastize anyone, but if you don't at least point this out
when you do comment isn't that irresponsible? Its not complex-it just
aint so-how's that? I just happen to believe its a good idea to explain
WHY it aint so.
Ed
> Thomas
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
paul fletcher
>
>
>
kim...@enterprise.net wrote:
paul fletcher <vpf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Thomas Seers wrote:
> >> Tissue wrote:
> >> > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> >> Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> >Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but there is arelation between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square to each other, like
> >Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini. Paul Fletcher, astrologer
>
> Paul I thought this for a long time too...
> then I noticed that the *only* couple I knew whose marriage had
> survived were strongly linked by squares
> Then I fell in love with someone with whom I connect with a lot of
> strong squares....and hes hte sweetest kindest partner Ive known (past
> ones had much trine ans sextile and/or conjunction emphasis)
> Now I think: this aspect demands the kind of compromise which any
> relationship will call for, plus it creates the kind of dynamic
> tension which encourages growth...therefore such relationships have
> the potential to stay fresh
> I`m not saying squares always make good relationships...more often
> they dont...but sometimes they can work!
> In my case he has a very strong scorpio and I have a very strong
> eighth house.
> Robbie
Dear Robbie:
I'm not saying that rising signs don't change all this stuff. I'd like you to tell me what they
are. Yes, eighth house stuff as a connection to Scorpio is fine, I was just going by straight up
sun sign astrology. Yes, I know it's a lot more complicated than that. I was just answering the
question as posed.
Best wishes, Paul Fletcher, astrologer
Thomas Seers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> =
> Thomas Seers wrote:
> =
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> =
> > > To make sweeping generalizations with sun signs is simplistic and
> > > irresponsible. The study of astrology is complex and must be learne=
d
> > > like any other discipline. It must be treated with the respect it
> > > deserves as a powerful tool of understanding. Tools are always depe=
ndent
> > > upon the astuteness of the craftsman and their application abilitie=
s.
> > > 53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,=
000,000,000.
> > > -5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million=
> > > earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
> > > combinations. The sun sign is simply ONE of those factors. True
> > > astrology defines the specificity of identity through delineation o=
f a
> > > myriad of factors, and ALL of these factors reflect the identity.
> > > Psychodynamic functioning is reflected through astrological signatu=
re
> > > and leads us to an understanding of the psyche and the beliefs of t=
he
> > > identity. These beliefs are what is responsible for the created
> > > experiential reality and is reflected in the mirror of mind-matter.=
> > > Therefore there are as many different vibrations as people and
> > > astrological possibilities as well. Even twins can express differen=
t
> > > levels of the same chart, so there is no fixed pattern of anything =
that
> > > makes anyone set as a such and such.
> > > In the same way that a doctor would not make such irresponsible
> > > diagnoses based on a persons hair color-so in the same way astrolog=
y
> > > demands full and cogent renderings based on complete information.
> =
> > In so many words, I think you said I should't have said what I said.
> =
> Well there are no shoulds, but can't you agree that anyone can be paire=
d
> with ANYONE as far as sunsigns go? Even without sunsigns alone it still=
> depends on the awareness of the individuals as WELL as the factors
> listed above. In so many words it just aint so.
Thomas Wrote:
> First the 7th house is open enemies and marriage, a contradiction. Now
> what does it take to resolve a contradiction? That's the point that mus=
t
> be resolved before a relationship can survive and can be done with any
> and all sign combinations. =
Now this is a statement I made under Jules. Up till now I have avoided
your long winded responses and didn't care to cross swords with a fellow
member of the AFA. You started something, now chart to chart I'll give
you lessons SON, I don't need a father. Intellectualism is not my game,
I do astrology for a living as a professional not as a hobby.
Astrology has earned it's own respect, as you see in everyday life.
People like yourself need to learn how to be more respectful, I've
watched you seek to intimidate others on board, you will strike out with
me. If you have something on board to say, say it, should you infer or
outwardly condemn me, you leave much on board that can easily be
shredded. I suggest at this point we go our separate ways. I don't like
your mannerism at all. Good luck on your path.
Thomas =
=
> > Complexity does suite those without the ability to define things in a=
> > simple manner.
> =
> In simple terms-this is why it is part of AFA's code of ethics. I am no=
t
> seeking to chastize anyone, but if you don't at least point this out
> when you do comment isn't that irresponsible? Its not complex-it just
> aint so-how's that? I just happen to believe its a good idea to explain=
> WHY it aint so.
> Ed
> =
> > Thomas
> =
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> =A9 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
> PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
> (619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
-- =
Thomas Seers
Jules wrote:
>
> Hi again. Everyone wrote:
>
> << here's my Q...
> > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> >
> > Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> > Thomas
>
My, My,
From a simple question came a simple answer. Now things are getting
testy, hmmmmmmmm..........
Holiday season, people do get cranky.
For the benefit of students reading. In my opinion, based on research
of some 40 or more years, my simple answer would hold up under
anyone's spy glass. From a point of peace and harmony I have found the
combination of Aries/Scorpio to be the worst there is and that is not
to say an exception to this rule could not exist. Now if you chose to
spend your life looking for a needle in a hay stack, I suggest you prove
me wrong by finding that every loving couple in the sign of
Aries/Scorpio or shut up and do your own thing, I do.
Blessings, Thomas
--
G1
Tissue wrote:
>
> here's my Q...
> wat the worst match??? if any... =)
Ohhhhhhhhhh That's too easy.
No - ok. I'll curb my natural inclination to say "Nicole Brown & OJ" and just say that
there are NO DAMNED "WORST" MATCHES!!!!!!
SUNSIGNS mean little - do not expect guidance from them.
The "matches" that you have throughout your life, conflicted or no, are there because you
need them to learn. Taurus/Scorpio? (Rumored to be nasty.) Let's take a look at
history...
No, you take look at history. I'm tired.
Just read up on it.
Wait - I am being flip. Books will tell you that signs that are in direct opposition to each
other are ... uh... the most problematical. But... Supposing you're a Taurus Sun - with an
overwhelming amount of planets in Scorpio?? Then - Bingo! You got a match that just
might be made in heaven. See?
Take a closer look.
G1
*************************************
G1
Thomas Seers wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hi again. Everyone wrote:
> >
> > << here's my Q...
> > > > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> >
> > > > Thomas
> >
> > > Thomas Seers
> >
> > > Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but
> > > there is a relation
> > > between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square
> > > to each other, like
> > > Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
> >
> > > If I might add my humble 2 cents... I think the worst possible
> > > match would be 2 people who didn't get along, regardless of their sun
> > > synastric and composite, and the countless other factors in them, not
> > > generalize by sun sign alone. Granted I've got limeted experience in
> > > astrology, but for the short time I've been doing it this seems to be
> > > signs are square to mine.
> > > up an extraordinarily large part of the chart (like my friend who's got
> > > nearly half of her planets in Aquarius) then that's a bit different. But
> > > she's still got many other aspects in her chart. Everyone has every sign
> > > somewhere.
> >
> > > Just my thoughts. :-)
> >
> > > Later,
> > > jules
> >
> > like any other discipline. It must be treated with the respect it
> > upon the astuteness of the craftsman and their application abilities.
> > 53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> > -5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
> > combinations. The sun sign is simply ONE of those factors. True
> > myriad of factors, and ALL of these factors reflect the identity.
> > and leads us to an understanding of the psyche and the beliefs of the
> > identity. These beliefs are what is responsible for the created
> > experiential reality and is reflected in the mirror of mind-matter.
> > levels of the same chart, so there is no fixed pattern of anything that
> > makes anyone set as a such and such.
> > In the same way that a doctor would not make such irresponsible
> > demands full and cogent renderings based on complete information.
> >
> > Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> > http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
> > PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
> > (619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
>
> Thomas
> --
> **************************************************
> Thomas Seers AMAFA-Member 27 Years
> P.O. Box 2178 Antioch, TN 37011- 2178
> Web Page-http://www.westworld.com/~belzar/
> Standard Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own
> **************************************************
But, Sweetie - this is NOT a simple matter. Yee gods! I should think that you would
reco that? There simply are NO "worst" matches. Look at the chart, Thomas, Look at
the chart!
G1
*******************************************
"Simple solutions to simple questions = Intelligence. Simple solutions to complex
questions = tyranny." B. Franklin
Edmond Wollmann
Thomas Seers wrote:
> Thomas Wrote:
> > First the 7th house is open enemies and marriage, a contradiction. Now
> > what does it take to resolve a contradiction? That's the point that must
> > be resolved before a relationship can survive and can be done with any
> > and all sign combinations.
I was replying to the statement you made that Aries/Scorpio was the
"worst" combination of sun signs, not the above.
> Now this is a statement I made under Jules. Up till now I have avoided
> your long winded responses and didn't care to cross swords with a fellow
> member of the AFA.
Well I didn't know that you considered it a swordfight. Or my offerings
of as complete an explanation I can give as long winded.
> You started something, now chart to chart I'll give
> you lessons SON, I don't need a father. Intellectualism is not my game,
> I do astrology for a living as a professional not as a hobby.
> Astrology has earned it's own respect, as you see in everyday life.
> People like yourself need to learn how to be more respectful, I've
> watched you seek to intimidate others on board, you will strike out
I do not "seek" to intimidate anyone, and I certainly did not call you
names or say I was going to "teach you this and that" as you have. I was
unaware that providing information A) about the facts of astrology and
its complexity, or B) asking you to abide by the code of ethics you
agreed to by becoming a member of AFA was disrespectful,
intellectualising, or intimidating.
>with
> me. If you have something on board to say, say it, should you infer or
> outwardly condemn me, you leave much on board that can easily be
> shredded. I suggest at this point we go our separate ways. I don't like
> your mannerism at all. Good luck on your path.
> Thomas
Well I certainly will leave you alone, I had or have no intention of
condemning anyone. I don't need any luck thank you-it has nothing to do
with anyones path.
> > > Complexity does suite those without the ability to define things in a
> > > simple manner.
> >
> > In simple terms-this is why it is part of AFA's code of ethics. I am not
> > seeking to chastize anyone, but if you don't at least point this out
> > when you do comment isn't that irresponsible? Its not complex-it just
> > aint so-how's that? I just happen to believe its a good idea to explain
> > WHY it aint so.
> > Ed
> >
> > > Thomas
Betty Terry
paul fletcher wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> kim...@enterprise.net wrote:
> paul fletcher <vpf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >Thomas Seers wrote:
> > >> > here's my Q...
> > >> > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> > >> Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> Thomas Seers
>
> > >Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini. Paul Fletcher, astrologer
> >
> > Paul I thought this for a long time too...
> > then I noticed that the *only* couple I knew whose marriage had
> > survived were strongly linked by squares
> > Then I fell in love with someone with whom I connect with a lot of
> > strong squares....and hes hte sweetest kindest partner Ive known (past
> > ones had much trine ans sextile and/or conjunction emphasis)
> > Now I think: this aspect demands the kind of compromise which any
> > relationship will call for, plus it creates the kind of dynamic
> > tension which encourages growth...therefore such relationships have
> > the potential to stay fresh
> > I`m not saying squares always make good relationships...more often
> > they dont...but sometimes they can work!
> > In my case he has a very strong scorpio and I have a very strong
> > eighth house.
> > Robbie
>
> Dear Robbie:
> I'm not saying that rising signs don't change all this stuff. I'd like you to tell me what they
> are. Yes, eighth house stuff as a connection to Scorpio is fine, I was just going by straight up
> sun sign astrology. Yes, I know it's a lot more complicated than that. I was just answering the
> question as posed.
> Best wishes, Paul Fletcher, astrologer
You just can't determine compatibility with sun signs only. There has
to be a comparison of both charts in detail. Every relationship has
challenges and strengths, if you know what they are you can rely heavily
on the strenghts and compromise on the stressful aspects then you can
make your relationship work. However it requires effort on both parts.
For price list of available reports
email bet...@dave-world.net
I wish you love, laughter, and happiness for all of your tomorrows
Chris
Thomas Seers wrote:
>
> Tissue wrote:
> >
> > here's my Q...
> > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
>
> Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> Thomas
That's an opinion I've heard many times before... and perhaps there's
some truth to it... but I'm an Aries (moon Pisces, Asc Capricorn, Pluto
oppose moon, & both sqr the Asc, etc...) and I've found that, in many
cases, I've felt much in common with Scorpios. When the Aries and
Scorpio individuals have other compatible placements in their charts,
the soul bonding can be intense and even lasting (especially if Aries
can learn not to throw furniture, and Scorpio can learn not to slash
tires)...
I've even met married Aries/Scorpio couples... and it lasted a long,
long time... so you tell me: what is going on there?
I have met some Scorpios with whom I felt very, very comfortable. And
no, I am not talking about an Aries that "looks to a Scorpio as a sheep
looks to a wolf". I am no sheep, and many of the Scorpios I've met were
no wolves. They were just intense, emotionally deep, misunderstood
people-- and like myself, some of them could be their own worst
enemies. And some Scorpions have been my closest friends and lovers.
Under the right conditions, an Aries can be as emotionally intense,
calculating and vengeful as the stereotypic Sun-sign Scorpio-- and so
can a Virgo, a Leo, a Libra, etc...-- it just depends on the placements
of other things. And yes, I have been able to "freak out" Scorpios who
thought they were "invincible"-- it was just a matter of throwing in a
little unpredictable and intense behavior, a product of my teenage
years... but we all learn as we get older, or at least that is the
hope...
Smiles,
Chris
--
* Christian Thorsten * Karl Marx is the opiate of *
* B.Sc., biochem. * atheistic masses *
Jules
Thomas Seers wrote:
<<Jules wrote:
>
> Hi again. Everyone wrote:
>
> << here's my Q...
> > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> >
> > Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> > Thomas>>
And then replied:
>
<<My, My,
From a simple question came a simple answer.>>
Not to be nitpickety, but that wasn't what I wrote. I quoted it so I
could reply and then I wrote a reply of my own on the subject. :-)
<< Holiday season, people do get cranky.>>
I wasn't being cranky with you, all I was saying taht it isn't fair
to just go by the sun signs, in my (admittedly limited) experience. Not
only that, but it tends to put people off astrology when they read that
they're in a "worst possible combination" relationship; not only is it
misleading but it's not fair to those who don't know about the rest of
their charts. Don't you think it's best to just tell the truth: that
there are so many different aspects to the chart that it's impossible to
narrow it down to the sun sign? It's so much better to be thorough than
to just give out the simplest answer. I've had very fine and even smooth
relationships with people whose sun signs were not supposed to be
harmonious. And I've also known lots of lovely Aries / Scorpio
relationships.
<< Now if you chose to
spend your life looking for a needle in a hay stack, I suggest you prove
me wrong by finding that every loving couple in the sign of
Aries/Scorpio or shut up and do your own thing, I do.
Blessings, Thomas>>
That didn't sound too much like a blessing. ;-)
Later,
jules
Kevin Burk
paul fletcher wrote:
>
> Thomas Seers wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > here's my Q...
> > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> >
> > Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> > Thomas
>
>
> Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but there is a relation
> between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square to each other, like
> Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
Others have already addressed how worthless sun-sign compatibility
comparisions are, so I won't take time out to repeat that here.
I do, however, want to point out that even these generalizations about
"difficult" aspects don't hold up when all of the factors are
considered.
Aries/Scorpio are quincunx, true, but they are both ruled by Mars, and
find common ground there. This is not necessarily an incompatible or
difficult combination.
As for squares? The same thing applies. Sagittarius and Pisces?
Square, yes. But they're also united because Jupiter rules both signs
and therein lies the common ground. The same applies to Gemini and
Virgo, both ruled by Mercury.
Not to mention the fact that squares are stimulating and exciting, and
without squares, there would be no action. There's nothing more lazy
than a trine.
Looking at personal compatibility factors, my rule of thumb (in a field
where really, there are no general rules) is to look for a nice balance
between the "hard" aspects which will make things exciting for the
couple, and the "soft" aspects, which will give them a break from all of
that excitement. Of course, even here, as I mentioned, the "rule"
doesn't always hold up - two individuals with mostly "hard" aspects in
their natal charts are _used_ to the constant stimulation of squares and
will probably be bored to tears if there are nothing but trines and
sextiles between their charts. And two individuals with mostly "soft"
aspects in their natal charts may need a flowing, natural, easy exchange
in a relationship and might have difficulty with more than one or two
"hard" aspects between their charts.
--
*****************************************************************
mailto:kb...@astro-horoscopes.com
http://www.astro-horoscopes.com/~kburk
Astrological Horoscopes & Forecasts
P. O. Box 16098 San Diego, CA 92176 (619) 221-5534
*****************************************************************
paul fletcher
>
>
>
Kevin Burk wrote: paul fletcher wrote: Thomas Seers wrote:
Tissue wrote:
> > > > here's my Q...
> > > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> > > Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> > Thomas Seers
> >
> > Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but there is a relation
> > between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square to each other, like Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
> > -- Paul Fletcher, astrologer
>
> Others have already addressed how worthless sun-sign compatibility
> comparisions are, so I won't take time out to repeat that here.
>
> Aries/Scorpio are quincunx, true, but they are both ruled by Mars, and
> find common ground there. This is not necessarily an incompatible or
> difficult combination.
>
> As for squares? The same thing applies. Sagittarius and Pisces?
> Square, yes. But they're also united because Jupiter rules both signs
> and therein lies the common ground. The same applies to Gemini and
> Virgo, both ruled by Mercury.
>
> Not to mention the fact that squares are stimulating and exciting, and
> without squares, there would be no action.
Dear Kevin:
Yes you can talk about just how exciting squares can make life into -- however, unless
you're into Aquarian Hollywood serial marriages, I wouldn't want that kind sheer instability
which is what you are really talking about.
You know very well you are talking about defying the rules of astrology when you even
suggest that squares are to be allowed validity in marriages. Mars and Venus, areas like
that OK but heavy items like Sun square Saturn, etc. are areas to be identified with
dominance of one over the other and can be identified as the source of long-term heavy
duty headaches. Saturn in the 7th on the other hand can give some stability.
In short, there's a helluva difference between 40 year marriages and five year Hollywood
flings. That's an element you should be explaining here.
The original poster told me that they were ignoring the squares between the Leo and
Scorpio cusps.
-- Paul Fletcher, astrologer
Thomas Seers
Hello,
In astrology today we have many with an expertise in presenting things
with an eloquent flavor through intellectual jargon.
I suggest you have a party and invite pairs of people with the same
Rulerships and then watch the short circuits take place.
Common sense and logic DICTATES that if you take the wire from the
negative side of a battery and couple it with the positive wire, you
will short circuit the battery leaving it useless. In astrology we are
working with the principals of energy that the battery represents.
Planets in Rulership take on a negative or positive quality and the
interacting principles mirror the principles of the battery.
You can intellectualize all you want, a field test in a party
atmosphere ( so no one knows ) will present reality. These are things I
did years ago because of all the BLAH,BLAH in books on astrology, when I
was trying to learn astrology myself. Also using nature as your backdrop
to your studies in astrology ( more honest reactions )will allow you to
advance much faster in astrology. Animals and children are a fantastic
study area for viewing the aspects day to day.
Example: I have studied 25 parrots with the moon in scorpio, they all
are super possessive, the humans with this Moon are also, but more often
hide or deny it.
Edmond Wollmann
jules...@aol.com wrote:
> But Mr. Fletcher, I must respectfully and politely disagree again. While
> on one hand squares and other hard aspects are difficult, on the other
> hand aren't we supposed to learn to deal with the energy and try to make
> it work if it's worth it? And shouldn't we learn the lessons of compromise
> and compatability, otherwise we have to repeat the lesson again and again.
Yes you are correct. Tension is essential for growth. The difference
between anxiety and excitement (the energy probabilities of quadratures)
is the approach. When we judge things as negative and not "fitting" we
expereince anxiety-when we acknowledge that we create our reality by our
definitions and that whatever is in our lives is there for a
reason-perhaps an exciting developmental reason then we can ACCEPT
tension as positive and allow it to become our excitement, bliss and
insppiration-which is what ANY developmental aspects (unjudged) are.
The universe is precisely balanced between negative and positive energy.
Let me say at the outset that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with
"good and bad". These are subjective value judgements and really tell us
little about the nature of any idea, but much about the observer.
Because the universe is so balanced it is inherently positive. In other
words to be so balanced is positive itself. But the whole of exsistance
is IN EXISTANCE because this polarization externalizes and manifests the
"All That Is" from nonphysical into physical. Which brings us to
negative aspects. Please understand "affliction" as another word for
dis-ease. A state of being in which contradiction, conflict and the need
for resolution exist UNRESOLVED. This state of being if unresolved
allows organisms to attack because of the belief in powerlessness, but
negative aspects are not inherently in a state of dis-ease. It is the
resistance to growth reflected as a need through the negative aspects,
that all pain and suffering is the effect of. Squares and oppositions
seek resolution and fulfillment towards ease (trine). This is not
inherently "bad". This actually implies awareness of the paradoxical
nature of "things". Tension is required to walk upon the earth. The
resistance of our legs to the constant pull of gravity allows us to MOVE
instead of remaining in an inertial state. Without developmental tension
nothing moves. It is negative energy that drives the material universe.
If these aspects are seen in preponderance in the chart it reflects a
powerful developmental potential. Like the universe balance is
important. It is the judgement of tension that creates anxiety. It is
the welcoming of tension that is felt as excitement. Tension is
essential for growth. Ease is not necessarily "good" and tension is not
necessarily "bad" so there are no good and bad aspects!
The positive aspects of trine and sextile are the areas where tension
FINDS resolution. They allow for the integration of developmental
tension. Self-empowerment is the recognition that you chose this chart
that you have now for a reason, the hallway of your developmental
choice. You are always creating your reality 100%-even when you use 90%
of this ability to create the illusion that you only have the other 10%!
It is the negative aspects that need attention-the trines support the
squares. What awareness or resolution can be gleaned from this square or
opposition? There is no end. There will be levels higher and higher in
regards to that developmental awareness that can be achieved, welcome
it. Therefore the more developmentally aware will have MORE negative
aspects-not less. The positive aspects have nothing to support and ease
if developmental tension is not acted upon. Negative aspects are your
prescription for action chosen before incarnation, and aspect patterns
are the psychological reflection of how these things are delt with by
the personality. Psychology is simply the understanding of the exchange
of psychic material consciously and unconsciously and the resulting
behavior therefrom. It is an analysis of the individuals beliefs about
their ability to manifest themselves. Positive and negative aspects tell
us the identity's belief in the ability to manifest, integrate and
express the idea that they are. Please encourage them in their ability
to do so. It is belief and approach that determines effect extracted. It
can be an exciting exploration of consciousness, the waking up to other
levels of knowingness (Uranus) instead of percieved external limitation
and threat (Saturn). The choice of course is yours. This applies to
synastry as well and depends on the awareness and willingness for growth
of the parties involved.
> <<Yes you can talk about just how exciting squares can make life into
> -- however, unless
> you're into Aquarian Hollywood serial marriages, I wouldn't want that kind
> sheer instability
> which is what you are really talking about.>>
> I don't think it's fair to say that they would automatically be
> "hollywood serial marriages" since perhaps the people involved aren't the
> "hollywood" types of people. Maybe they're truly and deeply in love and
> they're evolved kinds of people who are willing to try to work it out. If
> people love, then they'll stay together. If they have a "hollywood serial
> marriage" then they were probably those types of people to begin with. In
> my limited experience I've found many couples with these hard aspects who
> were willing and able to to be patient and deal with it. It makes the ond
> so much stronger if you can deal with it. I think it's highly unfair to go
> around telling people it won't last if they have difficult synastry. It's
> negative and it's also misleading.
> <<You know very well you are talking about defying the rules of
> astrology when you even
> suggest that squares are to be allowed validity in marriages.>>
> I don't mean this to be rude or disrespectful, but so what? I
> respectfully point out something that you seem to be missing and that's
> free will. Astrology only inclines people to be a certain way; it sets
> things up, gives opportunity or or obstacles and what we ultimately do
> with them is up to us. Astrology is not the be all and end all of
> existance, and while it holds many answers (I find it holds most answers
> in fact) it isn't THE BIG answer nor is it the only one. It's only part of
> the whole and abother huge part is free will and soul evolution. And big,
> huge soul love for someone else is possible without peachy keen planets
> and aspects and can also help to override the effects of negative aspects.
> I don't mean to denegrate astrology or deny the effects of negative
> aspects in either synastry or personal natal charts (my Venus / Saturn
> square for example... I don't need lessons on how hard they are to deal
> with.) And I'm not trying to run away from the truth of astrology either.
> But it's not the end of everything.
It is a tool!
> << Mars and Venus, areas like
> that OK but heavy items like Sun square Saturn, etc. are areas to be
> identified with
> dominance of one over the other and can be identified as the source of
> long-term heavy
> duty headaches.>>
> True, but again, so what? There are many people who are able to live
> with it and love all the more. ANd again, perhaps the couple realizes they
> have that tendency and will be able to avoid it. In fact I know that many
> couples do.
> And about the square sun signs - the love of *my* life has a sun sign
> square to mine. Sun signs, while a major part of the person, are after
> all, only sun signs, and there's ever so much more to the chart. And if
> they're such a huge, mondo, all encompasing part of the chart, then I defy
> anyone to guess what my sun sign is. ;-) Okay granted maybe I wrote
> through my rising sign a few times, but have a go at figuring it out if
> you like.
> Pleasure and goodies and trines to all,
> jules :-)
> PS Any email replies should be sent to my real email address
> <Ju...@hamptons.com> and not this AOL one. Having a little problemo with
> hamptons so I had to resort to this. Byyeeeeeeeeee!
Brice D. Fleckenstein
> Under the right conditions, an Aries can be as emotionally intense,
> calculating and vengeful as the stereotypic Sun-sign Scorpio-- and so
> can a Virgo, a Leo, a Libra, etc...
Especially us Leos with multiple Scorpio planets....
5Aug59....
--
Brice D. Fleckenstein (ci...@surf-ici.com)
Central Indiana Gamers' Association
THE place to play your face-to-face games in Central Indiana!
5356 Hillside Avenue, Basement
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Mon - Fri 6:30 PM - Midnight
Sat Noon - Midnight
Sun 2 PM - Midnight
(317) 251-2442
(317) 251-CIGA
jules...@aol.com
But Mr. Fletcher, I must respectfully and politely disagree again. While
on one hand squares and other hard aspects are difficult, on the other
hand aren't we supposed to learn to deal with the energy and try to make
it work if it's worth it? And shouldn't we learn the lessons of compromise
and compatability, otherwise we have to repeat the lesson again and again.
<<Yes you can talk about just how exciting squares can make life into
<< Mars and Venus, areas like
David A. Deaton
In article <19961205001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jules...@aol.com wrote:
> And about the square sun signs - the love of *my* life has a sun sign
>square to mine. Sun signs, while a major part of the person, are after
>all, only sun signs, and there's ever so much more to the chart. And if
>they're such a huge, mondo, all encompasing part of the chart, then I defy
>anyone to guess what my sun sign is. ;-) Okay granted maybe I wrote
>through my rising sign a few times, but have a go at figuring it out if
>you like.
I agree whole-heartedly. My first wife (and so-far only one) was Leo and I
Scorpio. I'm happy to say that our divorce after 13 years of marriage and
four children was NOT over conflict in our Sun signs - to the contrary, square
signs for us was a source of stimulation in our marriage. It might be
necessary to note, however, that our Suns were not square within a reasonable
orb - she was early Leo and I late-middle Scorpio; in addition, the respective
dwads of our Suns were compatible. I suspect that square Suns that fall
within less than a 4-degree orb (only my opinion of allowable orb) will indeed
be incompatible - that has been my ovservational experience so far. BTW,
although my ex and I found our Sun square stimulating, our real compatibility
came through my Taurus Moon trining her Capricorn Ascendant TO THE MINUTE! We
had other compatible aspects as well, some by house-placement only.
Yes, one must take a holistic view of synastry and not judge by Sun signs
alone.
Sincerely,
L. Savage
paul fletcher wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> Kevin Burk wrote: paul fletcher wrote: Thomas Seers wrote:
> Tissue wrote:
> > > > > here's my Q...
> > > > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> > > > Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> > > Thomas Seers
> > >
> > > Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but there is a relation
> > > between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square to each other, like Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
> > > -- Paul Fletcher, astrologer
> >
> > Others have already addressed how worthless sun-sign compatibility
> > comparisions are, so I won't take time out to repeat that here.
> <snip>
> >
> > Aries/Scorpio are quincunx, true, but they are both ruled by Mars, and
> > find common ground there. This is not necessarily an incompatible or
> > difficult combination.
> >
> > As for squares? The same thing applies. Sagittarius and Pisces?
> > Square, yes. But they're also united because Jupiter rules both signs
> > and therein lies the common ground. The same applies to Gemini and
> > Virgo, both ruled by Mercury.
______________
I was just lurking and saw the references to Sagitarius and Pisces. How
worrying! I have been married 11 years to a Sag (BD..Dec. 5/53)...we
did have some interestig moments earlier in our relationship but as time
goes on we are becoming more considerate as well as united in our
outlook (not as much as I would hope esp. in terms of selling up and
moving to Costa Rica) I am born March 16/62 (female). Will we ever see
eye to eye? Or are we doomed because we are squared?
paul fletcher
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Kevin Burk wrote: paul fletcher wrote: Thomas Seers wrote:
> > Tissue wrote:
> > > > > > here's my Q...
> > > > > > wat the worst match??? if any... =)
> > > > > Sun Signs= Aries/Scorpio
> > > > Thomas Seers
> > > >
> > > > Really? The first and eighth houses probably won't hook up anyway but there is a relation
> > > > between them of course. The worst sun sign matches are signs in square to each other, like Scorpio, Leo, or Virgo and Gemini.
> > > > -- Paul Fletcher, astrologer
> ______________
>
> I was just lurking and saw the references to Sagitarius and Pisces. How
> worrying! I have been married 11 years to a Sag (BD..Dec. 5/53)...we
> did have some interestig moments earlier in our relationship but as time
> goes on we are becoming more considerate as well as united in our
> outlook (not as much as I would hope esp. in terms of selling up and
> moving to Costa Rica) I am born March 16/62 (female). Will we ever see
> eye to eye? Or are we doomed because we are squared?
Dear People: In case I get blamed for saying squares by Sun Signs don't work -- I wasn't
meaning to leave out the many many variables in astrology and will say again, simplistic sun
sign astrology doesn't function adequately which is why we have astrologers to find the way
through the complexities.
-- Paul Fletcher
Jules
<<In case I get blamed for saying squares by Sun Signs don't work -- I
wasn't
meaning to leave out the many many variables in astrology and will say
again, simplistic sun
sign astrology doesn't function adequately which is why we have
astrologers to find the way
through the complexities.
-- Paul Fletcher>>
Yes, I pointed out that the rest of the chart was as important, but
I still don't think it's fair to say square sun signs don't work at all.
ANd that was my other point.
Now come on. I took all that time to write out my nice little wordy
reply and only got one answer so far... ;-)
Later all,
jules
Herman Van Roey
In article <32A432...@sympatico.ca>,
paul fletcher <vpf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
snip
>Dear Kevin:
>
>Yes you can talk about just how exciting squares can make life into -- >however,unless you're into Aquarian Hollywood serial marriages, I wouldn't >want that kind sheer instability which is what you are really talking about.
>duty headaches. Saturn in the 7th on the other hand can give some stability.
>In short, there's a helluva difference between 40 year marriages and five >year Hollywood flings. That's an element you should be explaining here.
>The original poster told me that they were ignoring the squares between the >Leo and Scorpio cusps.
>
>-- Paul Fletcher, astrologer
What about evolution ? Where has the individualization of mankind gone to ?
Methinks a square with Saturn might just be a sign one invites another to
tease oneself into taking one's own responsibility instead of being
controlled by the other... Or it might indicate the need to be challenged
by the partner to discover and develop one's own need for structure and
identity.
I don't know about Hollywoodian affairs (live and love in Belgium, aye I
do;) but couldn't short-term relations that have *heavy* Saturn squares be
considered evolutionary steps of the individual as he makes his way towards
authenticity in every aspect of life ?
It aint medieval times no more (or has my time-spacial matrix lost some
links with what's called reality on this plane ?).
@ Just kidding, kiddo. You do not have to leave heaven and reincarnate in
earthly hell...; you ARE there already ! Hohohoho ! @ (from the
not-so-friendly fairy-tales telling fairy)
Herman-the-Merman
kim...@enterprise.net
The concept of incompatibily suggests that if people are incompatible
they will not be attracted to each other! The debate over sun squares,
or any squares, assumes much, and it is easy enough to find results to
back up ones understanding. The fact remains tho that people with hard
inter-aspects do become atracted to each other and form strong
relationships. What other guideline for compatibility can we use?
It seems there are those who would promote the concept of a harmonious
rel;ationship...one in which the couple do not experience conflict, as
"real compatibility". But what if these people are not growing and
learning? It could be that they co-exist without much deep or
meaningful interraction.
I think Jules is onto something in his rule-questioning/breaking,
after all, the traditional astrology that most of us start with has
suffered centuries of re-telling throught the filters of
socio-political biases.
Surely as humanity evolves, so must our understanding and assumptions.
Peace
Robbie