I am revisiting certain portions of your book Radically Deep [Fundamentals of Astrology]. In the section on Friends and Enemies you write that the Second House signifies true friends, while the Twelfth House signifies enemies who detract from and belittle us.
Would I be correct to infer that, for a Virgo Ascendant, a Libra Ascendant native would a true friend [since Libra is the Second House for Virgo], while a Leo Ascendant native would be a detractor [Since Leo is the Twelfth House for Virgo]?
Your inference has two problems. The first is a common problem, that almost any single technique or principle of interpretation tends to have: seeming like it alone is grounds for proclaiming a verdict. The second is a special problem: that synastry is not the same as a house system.
To elaborate on each…
Proclaiming a Verdict on a Single Evidence
It’s never a good practice in any sphere to reach a verdict after considering only one piece of evidence. So, even if your theory was good, you would have to remember that it is one of many principles. And therefore a Leo native might actually be an excellent partner for a Virgo native – even if that one principle works against it.
Synastry is not a House Schematic
The bigger mistake is to assume that Synastry works on a House Schematic. It simply does not. It works on the complimentality or contrariness of elements and modes in the zodiac. Since these elements and modes are in geometic patterns of squares and trines, synastry is basically a system of squares and trines.
Signs that are square to each other clash and struggle with each other. Signs that are trine to each other help each other.
Half a trine is also helpful, but less vigorously.
Half a square is a much less vigorous clash.
The only additional part of the theory is to clarify the special function of the conjunct and opposition signs. Strictly speaking the conjunct sign could be thought of as either a square or a trine, and the opposite sign could be thought of as either a square or a half-trine. So these two spots are special.
The opposite sign is a clash, but in a positive way: a clash that inspires growth and is fascinating to engage in. Hence it is thought of as the most compelling and important configuration.
The same sign is helpful, but in a less motivating, more grounding and reassuring way.
Let’s map this out, taking Aries as the example reference point.
- The opposition sign for Aries is Libra.
- The trines are Leo and Sagittarius
- The squares are Cancer and Capricorn
- The half-trines are Gemini and Aquarius
- The half squares are Taurus, Pisces, Virgo and Scorpio
Let’s do it again, for your example, Virgo as the reference point.
- Opposition = Pisces
- Trines = Taurus, Capricorn
- Squares = Sagittarius, Gemini
- Half-trines = Scorpio, Cancer
- Half-squares = Libra, Leo, Aquarius, Aries
Where do you find the signs you asked about? You find them as half-squares.
What does that indicate? Mild, quiet clashing.
How important is it? It depends on how exactly the two ascendants are near the same degree (or Moon, Venus, etc, whichever point is the reference point). And it depends on whether or not there are other compelling alignments between the chart.
An opposition is more compelling than a trine or square, both of which are more compelling than a semi trine, which is more compelling than the least important thing: the semi-square.
Leave a Reply