Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Uranus, Neptune, Pluto - Exalted in...

I've been studying the subject of planetary strength and debility for as long as I can remember. 
Having an six out of the ten planets in my chart in either dignity or debility has always evoked questions about what's the best possible placement for a planet? 
There's quite a dilemma on and offline about which sign is the place of exaltation of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. 
I generally incline towards a more or less even distribution of exaltation signs so that if Aries already exalts the Sun it shouldn't exalt Uranus. 
Otherwise a Zodiac sign should be somehow connected to the nature of the planet it exalts. So if Cancer is the natural sign of exaltation of Jupiter that's because cancer is warm, moist, spiritual, needs to belong and so forth. 
There’s an additional view to exaltations. In Traditional Astrology a sign exalting a planet is like a person holding another person in high esteem, even judging him as more than his worth. Somewhat like an overpriced stock in a bubble inflated stock market before it crushes and takes the economy down with it.
In such manner hard working Capricorns overestimate the power of a soldier or an assertive - action oriented man to reach a goal faster and without the hard work (Capricorn exalting Mars). Or take Taurus which provides for other people in material areas but finds it difficult to provide emotionally or, god forbid, to express love (Taurus exalting the Moon). Examples abound but I’ll only mention Pisces exalting Venus in the sense that the fish, being out of this life and fantasy driven in their pursuit of harmony and pleasure, has a lot to learn from Venus’ straightforward ways to be likeable and effective in getting what they want, and all this inside this world not relying on some utopian vision.   
Uranus whose natural ruler is Aquarius is widely considered to have its exaltation in the sign of Scorpio. 
One might think: "Now what a sky god, a titan has to look for in the underworld?" but then you remember that Hades is such an aloof character, alienated from everyone else in his kingdom in Tartarus.
Scorpios revel in the unknown by experimenting and most experiments deal with evolution of the self. Thus you find Uranus in the lowest of places, probing the depths.   
Also, Scorpios are fiercely independent and will not tolerate being dominated by another individual. All in all it fits although one can argue that Aries (Mar's diurnal domocile) fits just as well but it has another planet as its exaltation, the sun which is Uranus’ opposite.   
Uranus’ keywords are proof by themselves for a mars ruled sign; pioneering, unconventional, independent, individualism. Even the darker aspects: accident prone, violent et cetera et cetera.
Still I do believe that the majority got it right as there's a valid connection between Scorpio and Uranus.
Lastly, this will place Uranus’ fall in the stable, conservative Taurus. An antithesis for everything Uranus stands for.
About the traditional idea of exalting a planet; Scorpio’s highest manifestation is considered to be the eagle, which is much an Aquarian motif (with its angel symbolism). It relishes helping others while not caring to suffer the costs in self sacrifice, as Uranian as it gets.   
True to its nature Neptune remains elusive all the way through. I remember some astrologers claiming Cancer was its sign of exaltation. Let's put that claim to the test.
Surely cancer is hyper emotional and is on the lookout for a fairytale real life Cinderella story. But Cancer is not at the least confused (being a cardinal sign), has no theme of personal sacrifice and is otherwise concerned with what's inside his own shell; family matters, needs, desires and such. Cancer is also a sign of plenty situated smack on the summer solstice point so it's connected with personal success. 
All the above are things which fundamentally contradict Neptune's heart and (most importantly) soul. Thus I do not believe cancer is the sign of Neptune's exaltation.  
My very own candidate is non other than Aquarius. A conclusion, British Astrologer, Paul Wade has reached independent of my own considerations.   
Now that must come as a shock, Airy aloof Aquarius having Neptune exalted in its waters ('The Water Bearer' remember?). Well Aquarius may be unemotional to a fault but we must remember that Neptune is a generational planet making it unsuccessful in dealing with the personal level of experience ruled by the personal planets. Pisces’ emotions are a reflection of the wider universe around them, it is not a matter of personal whims and desires. Likewise Neptune in its positive, yang form (Aquarius) is concerned logically and ideally with the notion of unifying, helping, liberating, contributing and giving for the greater good, for humanity. Neptune is the denial of self in the process of empowering another and in much the same spirit Aquarius individuals worldwide are ready to make substantial sacrifices in order to bring a greater good. Plus they are weird and live in a world of their own making. 
Lastly, this will place Neptune’s fall in egoistical, self-aggrandizing Leo, which Neptune doesn’t get at all.
While in the traditional scheme, Aquarius probably exalts Neptune because Neptune doesn’t rely on concepts, words and ideas to achieve his humanitarian goals. It’s less intellectual and less self aware being a true humanitarian by the way of it. That is considering other people’s needs before considering yours.  

Last but not least comes our venerable grim reaper Pluto. I'm pretty sure that Virgo of all signs is Pluto's sign of exaltation. 
In November Mother Nature is dying in front of our eyes as Persephone is descending into Pluto's domain. Wait stop! Rewind… 
A little bit earlier in September we experience that first feeling of blues as the days are getting shorter and summer is crumbling down slowly, layer by layer. Pluto, of course, is the lord of change.
Scorpios 'sting' others while Virgo criticize or 'sting' themselves (look at the glyph). They are both analytical and morbidly realistic. Both are unwillingly attracted to taboo subjects (sex, drugs) and more importantly both Virgo and Scorpio have strong compulsion-obsession issues. Scorpio likes to be in control, Virgo relishes losing control. In the world of BDSM Scorpios are masters while Virgos are slaves, metaphorically speaking.
In a strange kind of way Virgo tends to act like Pluto's yin version. Both Virgo and Scorpio are yin (negative signs) but nevertheless in mars ruled Scorpio Pluto's influence is more virile. 
Last but not least both Virgo and Scorpio are symbols of medicine, whether surgery or the healing art Pluto needs to experience pain in order to heal.
Traditionally Virgo exalts Pluto because it finds more esoteric and efficient ways to knowledge instead of the date comparing, data collecting ways more familiar to Mercury. Practical knowledge, magic and knowledge through intense personal experience are all in the Pluto domain. The glyphs of Mercury and Pluto bear a resemblance as well.

Uranus is exalted in Scorpio 
Neptune is exalted in Aquarius
Pluto is exalted in Virgo (or Leo, see below)


A final note on a prevailing view in the astrological community:  
Concerning Pluto's exaltation in Leo.
Leo is known to be bestial and feral according to traditional terms and is a sucker for wealth and success.
Intense and uncompromising Leo will do everything in its power to succeed. So far all goes well with Pluto's black and white world view, or plain ruthlessness. We must remember though that Pluto is driven by a desperate and often obsessive need for survival while Leo is driven by the need to perpetuate his ego, to prove his greatness to the world.
Leo's have a penchant for drama and magic tricks, that is all which is marvelous, shiny and captivates the crowd, I'll give em that.  
And now some differences: Leo craves applause while Pluto can just as easily shy away from people. Both are suckers for power but the way they execute it is different like day and night. Pluto is the master of darkness, taboo practices and the wavier of secrets, all of which are foreign to the Leonine character who basks in the light of his righteous pride. 
Leo has no motifs of death and rebirth, no motifs of change. It's rather the integrity of the ego. Leo is extreme in his own way but otherwise too addicted to all which is bright and shinny; good moods, good times, humor and fun to want to have anything to do with Pluto's murky waters. 
I do have to admit that by placing Pluto's exaltation in a positive - yang sign we create a rulership scheme which gives all the outer planets a positive sign as their sign of exaltation coupled with their dignified home sign in a negative yin sign. Some additional points in favor of this placement are:
Pluto needs to control things and Leo’s have a knack for organization. Pluto is into gathering knowledge for practical purposes, so it's not knowledge for knowledge's sake like the Mercury signs. This trait is shared by Leo's no nonsense approach when the lion isn't out to play.  
Pluto’s placement in Leo will place Pluto’s fall in Aquarius. Aquarian individuals are usually in favor of technology, progress and bearing things to light and truth, which is truly what Pluto has a hard time with.
Lastly Pluto’s exaltation in Leo creates a highly symmetrical zodiac where every sign has an exalted planet without exception (including north and south node for Sagittarius and Gemini respectively). This is an additional important point in this tangled fall and exaltation debate.   

Those are my thoughts on the subject.
Please agree, disagree and explain your own.
Let us clarify this subject once and for all !

~ Dima  

 The Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme 



  1. One factor is left out here and that is the 'planet' Chiron. If given rulership of Virgo, then Mercury is exalted there, and the 'double assignment' is gone. Leo? Neptune. Scorpio? Uranus (ruler Hades) Aquarius? Chiron. This leaves Hades with no exaltation, but Gemini and Sagittarius have the Lunar Nodes anyway. These also fit the meanings of the Minor Arcana of the Tarot. Degrees? Chosen by Sabian symbols. Neptune in Leo? 23. Uranus in Scorpio? 20. Chiron in Aquarius? 3.

  2. Good thought about Chiron and Virgo, but even if the double assignment is gone you still have to find a place for Mercury's exaltation and it dusrupts the symetrical exaltation scheme. I didn't want to change traditional astrology's original placements so I left Mercury in Virgo.
    Don't do Tarot and didn't have a chance to delve into Sabian Symbols yet. But of course - to each his own in astrology nowdays.

  3. Hi! I love your blog and all the astological info you share! I 100% agree that signs that already have exaltations should definitely not get another one! What kind of bias and discrimination is that?! Aries already has the Sun of all "planets" for its exaltation so why the heck do some biased astrologers want to have it exalted in Pluto too?! No way! Leo though is perfect as the exaltation of Pluto not only because of all the reasons you stated (the balance of the zodiac above all) but also because it corresponds perfectly with the old stories/myths of the Sun god/hero having to undergo a drastic change or even go to the underworld (die) to eventually become a better ruler for his people. And it fits perfectly with the whole yin/yang concept of the Sun (Leo's ruler) representing life/and light and Pluto (his exaltation) representing death and darkness. Such proof of this is already partially seen during solar eclipses! And lastly, if I'm not mistaken Pluto technically really is at its highest point at 17 degrees in Leo!

    But I strongly disagree with the above commentator Paul who thinks that Neptune of all planets should be Leo's exaltation....hehehe....NO. While I'm trying to respect other people's opinions, these opnions have to make sense and sometimes I find that people just assign Neptune to Leo just as to avoid giving him Pluto. The reasons for Neptune being considered as Leo's exaltation makes no sense. First of all, Neptune is far too watery, introverted and dreamy a planet to even consider going well with Leo who's the most fiery (the only sign ruled by the most masculine and fiery planet the Sun!), extroverted and usually materialistic. Some people try to justify it by claiming that Neptune bestows "creativity" well, sorry but the Sun is also one of the most creative "planets" and bestows enough creativity by itself on Leo. Sorry, but it doesn't match up.

    However, Neptune seems perfect for Aquarius who's an air sign but named the "Water-Bearer" and with Neptune, he can finally make use of both air and water elements! Aqaurius is also an "escapist" sign like Pisces although whereas Pisces is more sensitive and escapes towards his emotions, Aquarius escapes from his emotions! But both signs ar on the "highest" ends of the Zodiac wheel and as such usually have the best interests of mankind at heart, Aquarius being considered the "humanitarian" and Pisces being considered the "martyr." So Neptune seems to fit Aquarius best...definitely NOT Leo.

    And with most astrologers having assigned Uranus as Scorpio's exaltation then all the signs would have ruling planets as well as exaltations! So I don't know why most astrologers haven't already fallen into this line of thinking since it best summarizes the very essense of astrology and the zodiac....BALANCE. It's a shame that the bias and prejudice of some astrologers have prevented them from seeing this truth. Pluto is exalted in Leo! Enough said. ;)

  4. Oh and I also forgot to mention....the above commentator Paul asked why Chiron wasn't given an exaltation. Well, Chiron is not considered one of the principal solar system planets. In fact, it's an asteroid. But it's not the only one. Other big asteroids include: Ceres, Vesta, Juno, and some others. So it's not like Chiron is the only one. And some astrologers also assign "exaltations" for these but it seems strange and detrimental since it again throws off the even and equal balance and the asteroids are not even "planets" so I don't buy into their exaltations.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Oh and although you (and quite a few others it seems) have some reservations about having Leo exalted in Pluto just because he usually seems so bright, sunny, warm and extroverted just remember...that as bright and warm as Leo can be, he can also be as equally cold and destructive. This article explains Leo's dark side best and even how many ancients commented on it and feared it.

    Read the fifth paragraph on how Leo "Leo as an adversary makes a bloody-minded opponent and the dominating qualities of this sign are such that they rarely feel appeased with victory unless it involves the total annihilation of the threat...(This sign) has one of the most fearsome reputations amongst the zodiac signs for exhibiting brutal or extreme behaviour. Ancient astrologers referred to Leo as 'bestial', meaning responsive to primordial instincts rather than higher reasoning; and 'feral' because it was considered capable of savage and ferociously destructive traits. This is the darker side of the Leo." http://www.skyscript.co.uk/leo

    So just like you partially admitted and like I said...Pluto is perfect as Leo's exaltation. :D

  7. Hey Marissa,
    Thank you for all your thoughtful comments.

    * some astrologers place pluto's exaltation in aries because according to their method pluto will be exalted in the 'mars' counterpart of it's sign of dignity. according to the same logic neptune is exalted in sag and uranus is capricorn - just one way of looking at things.
    * going into the underworld during the hero's journey - perfect
    * Paul Quay had a point about needing to find degrees of exaltation for the outer planets.
    * about leo as pluto's exaltation point - the feral is a good point i have to admit.

  8. Thanks so much for responding!

    Yeah...I guess to each their own opinion. But I can't help but feel as if some of these astrologers are more biased than they're supposed to be and not only does that line of exaltation throw off the vital balance of the entire system (basically the entire purpose of the zodiac) but that line of thinking for exaltations is way too biased. All the zodiac signs already have their exaltations in tradtional astrology except for Leo, Aquarius and Scorpio. So having astrologers give yet more exaltations for signs that already have it is really unprofessional. They seem to assign these things just because they like that sign and not because it's balanced or it fits the sign's personality. The whole point of "exaltation" was supposed to be that that's where that particular planet had the highest degree, right? I'm sorry...I hope I'm not sounding rude or insulting any of your collegues. It just saddens me that many "disagreements" are technically based on bias and that some psuedo-astrologers that dedicate their sites to bashing one sign like Aries (I've seen one like this) or especially Leo only to praise other signs like Scorpio or Capricorn are ruining the reputation of the field and even the reputation of the respectable and mostly unbiased astrologers. But sadly...this is what I've seen happen and it upsets me. It infuriates me that astrologers want to assign these to them just because they like those signs. I mean, there are some people that think Pluto is exalted in Gemini in one Serbian website! Or that Pluto is "the most powerful planet in the universe!" I mean, come on! It may not have had its importance diminished in astrology, but it's certainly been demoted to a dwarf planet and even in astrology, its influence is only generational like all the outer planets! If nonsense like these don't scream "bias" and "inaccuracy," I don't know what does. : /

    Anyway sorry for the rant.

    Thanks! At least that's how I interpreted Pluto being exalted in Leo.

    True....and I could've sworn that there was one if not two exaltation degrees for Leo that were its highest point (so far) and I guess two points would probably be due to Pluto's strange orbit? But alas, I searched the interent but still haven't found my old source. :(

    Thanks again! Yeah...it kinda goes back to the point I was making earlier. Many modern astrology sites make Leo to be like this harmless kitten who's all cuddles or merely "shines." And while stating Leo's kinder qualities is nice, making him sound to be some harmless, fluffy kitten when he was really an near invulnerable, powerful LION is really annoying. It's part of the modern bias I was talking about. The only way I even found out about Leo's "bestial" and "feral" qualities was in skyscript.uk. Yet all these modern astrologers constantly puff up Scorpio and even Aries sometimes to be "powerful," or "deadly" yet they've completely ignored or dismissed Leo's more forecful, aggressive and darker traits. So sad....I really hope modern respectable astrologers get their act together because I'm losing faith in the field due to all the inconsistency and bias. They should try to find a balanced, equal system where ALL the signs get their fair share of rulerships, exaltations, power and positive traits. I'm glad I found your blog because you're one of the few who is trying to set up a more balanced system! So thanks so much for being one of the few (that I've encountered anyway) to restore my faith in astrology!!! Kudos! :)

  9. I disagree that Neptune is exalted in Aquarius. Neptune is the planet of universal love, spirituality, connection, sanctuary, illusion, transcendence, idealism, and compassion. Aquarius is the sign disconnection, humanitarianism, aloofness, originality, rebellion, and logic. While Aquarius is very ideal, they are highly emotionally and spiritually disconnected. They see the world through logical lens; obviously a quality that could hinder emotional and spiritual understanding. This also hinders Aquarius' compassionate qualities. Neptune seeks to dissolve all boundaries....and while Aquarius also has intention on freedom, it is ruled by Saturn and therefore has strong emotional and spiritual limits, leaving Neptune in a poor situation. It should be no surprise why Neptune is exalted in Leo. Last time Neptune was in Leo it was a time of strong idealism and imagination was creatively expressed through artistic performance. What must be considered is the sign of exaltation is not exactly like the planet (unlike it would be if it was in domicile). The exaltation means the planet best expresses itself in this sign. In Leo, Neptune has a lot of room to be creative and find sanctuary through children and amusements. Neptune expresses itself more generously and warmly in this sign, and yet without being taken advantage of. And even better, unlike most signs, it does not become confused as to who it is, what it wants, or where its going, contrary to how it fares in other signs. Cancer is also a good match for Neptune's exaltation. In this sign, Neptune finds the greatest sanctuary of all; a sense of home, family, and belonging. Cancer also has a compassion that matches the waters of Neptune. In this sign, the universe is family; the family is the universe. Last time Neptune was in Cancer, stories like Peter Pan and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz encouraged ideals of home, but also glamorized a high sense of imagination beyond our reality. Also, around this time, moving pictures were developed as a means of creative expression giving us an even greater escape from the world outside of the movie screen. Naturally, as Neptune could be exalted in Cancer, it could also be falling in Capricorn. Capricorn is filled with rigid limitations and reality...something that Neptune would definitely find a hard time with.
    As far as Pluto goes, I think Pluto fits with Leo. Pluto is the planet of power, empowerment, transformation, the hidden, and destruction. While Pluto is a dark and hidden planet, its objective? To bring things hidden into the light. Healing is one way that Pluto accomplishes this. But when we compare the powers of Virgo to the powers of Leo, Leo has the energy, the will power, and the light that can and does shine light on issues. It gains a sense of self empowerment through creative means. And it respects power. Aquarius is opposite. With Pluto in Aquarius it could get caught up in rebelling just for the sake of rebelling, doing more damage than good. While it is definitely capable of great change on the outside, its fails to do deep changes within. Aquarius avoids the underlying feelings inside of itself, and thus fails to heal psychological wounds in itself and others. Pluto wants to work within. Aquarius does the complete opposite. Aquarius also has disrespect for power and authority. Last time Pluto was in Aquarius, The french revolution took place over the original Monarch under King Louis; half of France was destroyed and a ruthless dictator took control known as Emperor Napoleon. Aquarius often seeks to rebel all the time because it lacks power within. Its not focused nor steady enough to make inner changes, making it lack the will power to sustain Pluto's need for power and deep transformation. This is just my opinion according to the knowledge I have.

    1. Another thing about Aquarius is that while it wants power, it also seeks to free itself from power. So again, it lacks staying power. The need for freedom interferes with the need for power and psychological healing.

    2. I understand and respect your opinion, but I still disagree. I think the "Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme" works best and is the fairest of all the system while taking into account the more newly discovered planets and asteroids. Anythig else than this would just threaten and disrupt the balance of power for the zodiac by giving some signs more exalations when other signs have none. Thus, Leo shouldn't have BOTH Neptune and Pluto as his exaltation. Then, both would also be in fall for Aquarius.

      Yes, Neptune is the planet of universal love, idealism, emotions, etc. But even then these still sound more like attributes for Aquarius than for Leo. Aquarius might be known as the emotionless and logical air sign, but he is still the WATER-Bearer. But rather than hold in his water (emotions), he pours it out for others. Some classical Greco-Roman astrologers even noted how one of Pisces' fish seemed to be drinking from or swimming in the water that Aquarius poured out! This means that even they noted how Aquarius fed his knowledge to and nurtured Pisces thus establishing a bond between the two and they are also neighbors on the zodiac wheel. Both Aquarius and Pisces have this "escapist" tendency but whereas Pisces escapes TO his emotions, Aqaurius escapes AWAY from them but the way he does this is not to ignore them completely but rather to use them for the benefit of others. On the other hand, Leo definitely has capabilties towards compassion for others and is noted to be the most generous sign, he is still highly influenced by his ego. Leo might be a generous and kind king when in a good mood, but is still a KING and everyone else are his subjects. However, Aquarius like Pisces is an idealist too just in a different way and sees everyone as his EQUALS. As you've noted, Cancer is the sign of family but Aquarius is the sign of friendship. He sees all humanity as his friends. And while Leo might be easily flattered or swayed by money and power due to his emotions, Aquarius is not. By responding to the needs of mankind in a more detached way, he can serve them better. He uses Neptune's water for the benefit of others and so to others it seems as though he is incapable of feeling emotions. Aquarius' tendency to rebel also works in his favor for a more idealist world order where everyone has equal value and equal opinions. His personality and vlaues might seem vastly different from Pisces', but they still seem to be two sides of the same coin. Aquarius does work towards the betterment of mankind. He is deep down an idealist, an escapist, and humanitarian. But his methods and approaches are different to Pisces' but they work toward the same end.

    3. Like I mentioned before, modern astrologers have greatly changed Leo's original characteristics and meaning from ancient and classical times. Leo might have great capacity for compassion, but he is still mostly concerned with the ego and he would still prefer to reign as king rather than among equals. Leo rules over the hottest and stormiest part of summer and as such most classical astrologers warned against sea and water travel (Neptune is a water planet) during that time. Ancient astrologers also saw Leo as one of the most potentially violent and tempermental of all the signs. He was given the characteristics of "bestial" (aggressive and impulsive) and the only one to have been fully characterized as "feral" (only half of Sagittarius also had this label) meaning that he was prone to savage and highly volatile behavior. His most common origin as the near-indestructible but highly destructive Nemean Lion also is at odds with everything that Neptune represnts. A king with a temper is not really the best fit for a planet of universal love, idealism, compassion, and emotions. Whenever Leo unleashes his emotions, it's sadly usually the most negative types beccause he lacks the ability to control them. The times that Aquarius unleashes his emotions, however, it's almost always in the best interests of humanity. Unlike Leo who was bestial and feral, the ancients characterized Aqaurius as "human" in not only was he represented by a human, but it also meant that he had the ability to fully communicate and was tactful and graceful with others. Thus, although on the surface, Aquarius might seem detached and aloof, it's only because he uses his emotions in the service of others rather than for himself and it's the best quality in a leader or humanitarian to not let one's emotions consume them. It will prevent making Aquarius suceptible to flattery or the sway of power like Leo often is.

      Thus, according to the "Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme" or maybe even another sheme that gives equal exaltations and domicile planets to each sign, every sign should have its own exaltation. And if Leo can't have both Neptune and Pluto, it seems that if we consider his older, more accurate characterizations; Pluto fits Leo best and Neptune does fit Aquarius in many ways.

      Also, like Leo, Aquarius is a fixed sign and thus does have a lot of staying power but unlike Leo is not on a constant search for power and actually doesn't really need to have it. Whereas Leo must be in a position of power or leadership role most times, Aquarius is fine working behind the scenes and often does, especially in humanitarian causes.

    4. The sign of Leo is representative of the animal of Lion itself and what the sign of Leo often represented in Ancient Greece and Rome. Leo has always been a sign even in ancient Greece that represented royalty. In those days a kingly quality was generosity. And this is why Leo has been affiliated with such generosity. Aside from this, sol ( one of the ones who was the original representation of the sun in roman mythology) was considered very generous and a force for healing. This is the complete opposite of what Aquarius' ruler Saturn was like and even Uranus, its new ruler. While, Aquarius is a water bearer, this is a term to define the clouds which the ancients called the Great Water Bearers. Aquarius is in fact an air sign, more representative of storms, thunder, and lightning rather than actual water. The fact that Aquarius contains its feelings rather than actually feel them is exactly why Neptune cannot function freely in this detached sign. I don't know if you have a particular bias toward Aquarius, however it would not be the first sign to have a planetary debility behind it. While Mars is in detriment in the sign of Taurus, because Pluto is also the ruler of Scorpio, Pluto is also in detriment in Taurus. You see, it comes down to the natures of the planets and whether they will express themselves more openly or with more limitations; even if its not fair to us...we sometimes have to see the planets for what they represent and objectively see how it fits for the planet without completely changing its nature. If Aquarius makes Neptune more "logical" than compassionate by holding its emotions back, then it really isn't benefiting Neptune. Instead, its holding Neptune's dreams and emotional connections in a box rather than channeling it to be more positive and uplifting. The cold sign of Aquarius and Capricorn are too logical and realistic for Neptune to feel even remotely comfortable.

    5. Neptune escapes in EVERY sign that it is in, but it does this in less positive way in the sign of Aquarius and Capricorn. It escapes by limiting its emotions and setting boundaries, which is the opposite of Neptune's objectives. Leo and Cancer can channel the dream world and the emotions without being cold towards them, making Neptune feel more comfortable and the expression more positive. Neptune is in detriment in the logical and critical sign of Virgo, which also has very "humane" characteristics, just like Aquarius. As you can see Neptune is not comfortable at all in the realm of human logic. And while Neptune in Aquarius does help humanity and has ideals, they are missing the deeper spiritual and emotional connections that Neptune has to teach generations. And again Aquarius TRADITIONAL rulership is Saturn, the planet of boundaries, limitations, set backs, order, law, etc. Does this even seem like a planet that would easily work well with a planet that seeks to dissolve those limitations in order to teach us to let go and connect with the spiritual universe? Saturn is far too rigid and realistic for this spiritual connection to be recognized. And both Aquarius and Capricorn embody these qualities. Its not as if I think Neptune is in DETRIMENT in Aquarius (where the energy is blocked). I just think Neptune is in a debilitating situation where as it has good intentions, but because of the sign's inherit lack of similar qualities, Neptune struggles to achieve what it really wants: inner peace, sanctuary, and spiritual, emotional, and universal love. While they want to share their feelings with the world, they must learn to connect with those closest to them first in order to spread their feelings further. This is why the watery planets such as the moon and Pluto do not enjoy the comforts of Saturn based signs like Aquarius and Capricorn. Neptune is also a watery planet, so if those planets struggle with this coldness, Neptune will as well. While Leo has an ego, it benefits Neptune because Neptune often forgets who it is in the midst of its dreams usually. But Leo gives it balance; it has a sense of itself without blocking Neptune from dreaming and connecting to its spiritual and emotional self. To add, it gains confidence, warmth, and the ability to shine. Of course, I think Cancer is an even BETTER candidate as I stated before. Cancer has WAY more to offer Neptune than even Leo. And Capricorn feels way more debilitating than Aquarius does. To each its own I guess.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. I guess we would just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Yes, Leo is the sign of royalty and more recently of generosity which originally came about not so much because of its characteristic of good royalty but because of the abundance of summer and the fertility of the earth. Aquarius is definitely a logical air sign but as the WATER-bearer gives the product of his emotions towards others and uses it for the benefit of others. And it's not so much the myth that Aquarius does not feel emotion (everyone feels emotions!) but that it SEEMS as if he doesn't because unlike most signs, he uses it for the benfit of others rather than selfishly. He is still the sign of friendships, humanitarianism, and idealism. All things that Neptune cultivates.

      Um...I don't have a bias toward Aquarius. I'm actually a Western Leo who wants the zodiac system to be fair for ALL signs and not just the ones we like. And it's exactly that very flawed and uneven system of domiciles and exaltations that causes disturbances in what was supposed to be the epitome of balance. Either we keep the traditional rulerships the way they were or tweak it so that every sign has the same amount of domiciles and exaltations. Traditionally, Mars was Scoripio's ruler and Pluto wasn't discovered yet so traditionally, Pluto had no domicile. Or to tweak now, Scorpio should only have either Mars or Pluto as its domicile but not both since it throws off the entire system off balance. With as unbalanced as modern astrologers try to make it, no wonder people outside the field don't take this seriously.

      Like I said before, Aquarius isn't so much unemotional as it is seemed to be by others. Completely detached people don't work for the benefit of humankind. Rather it uses them more objectively, but still towards the common folk and for idealist purposes. Capricorn and Aquarius might have TRADITIONALLY been ruled by the same planet, but they used Saturn's influences in different ways. If anything, Capricorn was the far more materialistic and practical whereas Aquarius used Saturn's logical and stern influences to exert self-control over his emotions and not let them consume him. Perhaps it seems at odds with the emotionally charged and watery Neptune, but Saturn's need for control, structure and authority also seems at odds with Aquarius' need for freedom and rebellion...and Saturn was its traditional ruler. So the exaltation planets can be interpreted differently. And just like Mercury's approximation to the Sun influences it, Neptune and Saturns proximity to each other also allow them to both, however slightly, influence the other. Aquarius might be logical, but it is also idealist and humanitarian. Neptune is also the " planet of abstract thought" which also fits Aquarius. Plus, it allows him to show his creativity in an inventive way whereas the Sun bestows enough creativity on Leo to benefit for any creativity that Neptune could give. Neptune is too watery, emotional, universal, abstract and idealist a planet for Leo who's much more ferocious, egotistical, fiery, and totalitarian for Neptune.

    9. I also disagree that Leo can channel energy spiritually like Cancer or Pisces can. Those are water signs and the signs of emotion. Water signs seem to be more at odds with fire signs than air signs. I'm really not sure why modern astrologers keep seeing Leo as "spiritual" when there was really no indication of those characteristics in ancient times. Neptune might be in detriment in Virgo but Virgo is not Aquarius. Virgo is an earth sign and while it too is logical as an earth sign, it goes about it more in the earth-like practical, materialistic, neat and orderly way. Aqaurius is more free-spirited, creative, humanitarian and almost idealist. Yes, Saturn was his traditional ruler, but you forget to mention his modern ruler, Uranus who's the planet of rebellion but also inventiveness, creativity, freedom and humanitariansm...all things that Neptune also sympathetizes with. And those three Neptune, Saturn, and Uruanus follow each other and thus, however subtly influence each other on a constant basis. And remember...Pisces' had a traditional ruler once too who was a sign of knowledge: JUPITER. Jupiter might not be the type of cut-and-dry logic that Saturn is, but it is still a thrist and search for knowledge that today is compatible with Neptune's influence and similar to Saturn in the sense that both deal with thought.

      Leo doesn't seem to be a good fit at all for Neptune since it is too watery, idealist, humanitarian and universal a planet. Leo is fiery, realistic, self-absorbed and must usually be in a position of power to understand Neptune's humanitarian ways. And while Neptune does make escapists out of all signs, some signs are naturally more escapist than others. Pisces and Aquarius are two such signs. Sagittarius would probably be another one. However, as a force for ego, Leo would be hurt to be forced to be humanitarian or to escape into a realm of thoughts and emotions.

      True, Cancer would be the best fit and I definitely see your point there, but to make that work, Cancer would have to give up exalting Jupiter. How funny that in esoteric astrology, Cancer and Aquarius already made the switch and the esoterics say that Neptune rules Cancer and Jupiter rules Aqaurius which is how is should be in the exaltation sense of exoteric astrology. I think that wuld make the best sense...to have Jupiter be exalted in Aqaurius and Neptune in Cancer, that way both have equal exaltations that fully represent the planets and signs.

    10. Well...although Aqaurius and Pisces follow each other on the zodiac wheel, I don't think it really works that way in regards to the constellations. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I meant to say that the classical Greco-Roman astrologers saw one of Pisces' fish (Piscis Austrinus) as a constellation drink from/swim in the water that Aquarius was pouring out and was known as the River Eridanus. But I do agree that in the wheel each sign takes a little from the sign before and gives a little to the sign after. But yeah....that wasn't what I meant. I was speaking in astronomical terms.

      You're right by saying that the planets greatly affect the sign they're in and thus it isn't a pure sign anymore, but since the ego is so much a part of what Leo is, it would seem that Leo is hurt more by Neptune than is benefited from it. At least in Aquarius who although very logical is also a humanitarian and a rebel/free-spirit and so is less hurt. And since Leo and Aquarius are opposites, when a planet seems more beneficial for one (Aquarius) this of course means that it's less beneficial to the other (Leo).

      Yes lions can be compassionate...but only towards their family or their pride. Not to all lions in general, not to prey, not to potential predators or rivals. I watched a couple episodes on Animal Planet and although I was warmed by how much they can show compassion towards those they love, I was also amazed by how devious and ruthless they can be to rival predators such as hyneas. In one episode, the Alpha Lion intentionally sought out and killed the hyena matriarch because he knew it would chaos for the entire hyena society! Now while I understand we're talking in purely animal terms, that's not really something a creature of universal love does. Lions are compassionate to a rare few...not to their fellow lions in general and sadly for males, not even to their children. While Cancer is the sign of family, Aqauraius is the sign of friendships. Although less intimate than family, friendships are more casual and still rewarding. Aquarius is also much more humanitarian which translates to compassion for all mankind, not just the rare few.

      But I do definitely agree that Neptune would benefit best in Cancer. Not quite as well in Aquarius and certainly not in Leo who still has the ego for most of his identity. Leo is definitely much more than JUST his pride and ego, but those are still part of who he is. And as the potentially most tempermental, egotistical and fiery, Neptune seems to idealist, watery and dreamy for him.

      How about this? In a perfect world, Pluto would exalt Leo, Neptune would exalt Cancer and Jupiter would exalt Aquarius who I think fits even better than Neptune. We could agree on that, right? ;) But thanks again for this conversation! I learn a lot from you and I don't mind finding someone who disagrees with me as long as we're both respectful. I really enjoy hearing other people's POVs. :)

    11. Hmm...You might be on to something about Jupiter exalting Aquarius. :) Jupiter in Aquarius would grow through knowledge and humanitarian pursuits, which is totally up Jupiter's alley. Jupiter also would be able to express its need to understand the world more openly as well. The only issue would be the Saturn part of Aquarius that would limit the abundance of 'benefits' that Jupiter wants to experience. Saturn and Jupiter are planets that are astrologically different. Saturn is very limiting and rigid. Jupiter is the opposite of limiting. It is about broadening those limits. Saturn causes Aquarius to always have delays in success, and in traditional astrology this was what caused success to come at odd and spontaneous times. (before the discovery of Uranus). And Jupiter still struggles with logic (hence why Jupiter is in detriment in both Gemini and Virgo); it would rather be philosophical. There are some modern astrologers who believe that Mercury exalts Aquarius. There are still astrologers who believe it makes no sense that mercury is exalted and in domicile in Virgo. Aquarius' water does not necessarily represent emotion in astrology. It represents knowledge. Aquarius pours out its knowledge for the world, not its emotions. Not to say they do not have emotions. I never said they don't have emotions. They just block their emotions in order to maintain control, and this could make it a debilitating experience for Neptune. If Neptune was in Leo, there wouldn't be much limitation there. Neptune would be free to roam in this sign. Leo's ego does not limit Neptune's experience; in fact it encourages it. Its necessarily LIKE Neptune (which would be more like Neptune in Pisces, the domicile), but its not debilitating or in other words its not holding Neptune back, like a falling position would. That is what an exaltation means in astrology; that the planet has the ability to express itself to its maximum potential. I'm not necessarily talking about how different Neptune is to Aquarius, but rather how comfortable and how free Neptune feels being 'itself' in this sign. Will there be limits to what the planet is or what it represents or what it can do? Does this sign give people the best idea of what Neptune is trying to achieve? For example, when Mars enters Capricorn, while they are not necessarily alike, Mars can be as focused, as ruthless, as ambitious, and as passionate as it wants without nothing holding it back from its goal, to be successful and useful in the world. When sun is in Aries, the sun can express itself to its maximum potential in Aries, being as youthful and shiny as it wants. The planet does more in its exalted state than it does in its own dominion (domicile is where it is most comfortable, but not at its peak). In Aquarius, Neptune cannot express itself as freely because of Aquarius' mind-over-emotion attitude. It can be ideal and compassionate in Aquarius sometimes, but not without holding in its emotions and not without logic. This makes Neptune feel more disconnected than it would in its OWN sign of Pisces (which is its standard placement). So its not of benefit to Neptune. In Leo, Neptune can express its ideal qualities, its creativity, its compassion, its dreams, and its emotions as freely as it wants to its maximum potential. What is Leo holding back from Neptune?

    12. I don't think we should have to supplement one exaltation for another. I believe it is possible for a planet to be exalted in two signs. Just like there are planets in domicle in two signs. If we see that the planet has much room to express itself in a particular sign, then, no matter how many exaltations or domiciles it has in signs, that is the best expression for that planet. If a person is good at both math and reading, than you're good at both. If the planet does well in more than one placement, than it does.
      Thank you too for conversation! I love to debate. lol You make some really good points, too! I agree that astrological classifications do need a change, especially because the discoveries of the new planets has widened our view of the galaxy. There needs to be like a new century book or something. XD

    13. That was very nicely described about Jupiter in relation to Aquarius. Yeah...I guess it just depends on our interpretations of the zodiac's symbols and their characteristics. Aquarius' water can represent both emotions and knowledge. It is usually said to represent knowledge but since the water element is symbolic for emotions as well, it can also be said that it represents its own emotions that it uses on behalf of others. But I see your point. Saturn's own influences on Aquarius didn't necessarily limit Aquarius both rather allowed Aquarius the self-restraint needed to deal with others. Remember, Saturn might be Aqaurius' old ruler but Aquarius was still a rebel, a free-spirit, inventive and revolutionary. Things that also seemed at odds with Saturn but better fit Uranus and somewhat fits Neptune. Leo can be a kind, noble and compassionate sign, but as Aquarius' opposite, universal humanitariansm and love and idealism aren't his thing.

      Hmmm...I disagree there too. I think in the end, domiciles are still greater than exaltations and represent both the planets and signs relationship to each other best. One astrologer tried to explain it best in this way, "Domicile is the home and exaltation represents the signs at work. A sign in domicile is like someone at home whereas a sign in exaltation is like the guest of honor."

      Leo is just not as dreamy, escapist, idealist, compassionate, or universal a sign to contribute much to Neptune. As every time Leo does unleash its emotions, it's usually more negative than positive. Leo is too fiery, pragmatic, egotistical, and authorative for Neptune. Leo and Pisces aren't much alike. Neptune seems to have more in common with Aquarius. But it's totally cool if you disagree!

    14. Hmm...I kind of do. The whole purpose of the zodiac is to maintain the best amount of balance possible. We can't do that if some signs have two domiciles and two exaltations and other signs have no exaltations. It was somewhat understandable in the past because many heavenly bodies weren't discovered yet, but even then they tried to make the system as fair and balanced as possible with only Leo (as the Sun's domicile), his opposite Aqaurius and the usually negative Scorpio (at the time) not having exaltations. But now that we know of more planets and more heavenly bodies such as asteroids, we should do our best to make sure the system stays fair and balanced for all signs. It's not so much the fact that a planet does better in a certain sign, but rather people's interpretation of that. Many people think Pluto in Leo caused too much havoc to be exalted in it, but others think that because the atomic bomb was discovered at the time and Pluto rules atomic power, that it proved that Pluto should exalt Leo. In the end, balance and fairness should prevail over people's desire to make their sign "look good" or be "more powerful" than other signs by giving them multipile domiciles and exltations. If the universe is indeed naturally balanced and fair, then it already gave the signs the same amount of gifts as it did to the rest of the other signs and it's simply our purpose to find which ones. Having some signs seem "better" than others would defeat the entire purpose of the zodiac. It's not quite the same as having some people be good at both reading and math, since all the signs of the zodiac have various skills and gifts too and no one sign has more gifts than any other except for the interpretations of people. That doesn't mean that's how they are inherently. We should always try to maintain the balance for the signs.

      Yes! Me too! I definitely agree on that. Thanks so much! You've been so thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful and I really appreciate that! Out of curiosity, what's your sign? This has been great!

    15. Which sign? lol My sun sign is in Taurus, my moon sign is in Scorpio, mercury in Taurus, I'm Scorpio rising/ascendant. There's more but...y'know, its a long list XD I'm apart of the Pluto in Scorpio generation. (showing my age).
      I think I should clarify what I said about when I see the planet expresses freely in its exalted state. In Domicile its more natural or standard, but not as exaggerated nor as prominent as it would be in exalted state. Before there were rulership planets in astrology, there was only exaltations. In more modern astrology, the exaltations were considered the "next best thing" to Domiciles. The only difference between them is a planet in domicile is dignified by similarities. The Sun is very much like the sign of Leo and so is very comfortable with its need to shine. In the exaltated form, the planet's qualities are even more expressed (not necessarily as comfortable, more-so exaggerated). For example, Venus in Pisces makes the native even more romantic and loving than it would be in its own domain, Taurus and Libra. Venus in Pisces is even more soft and feminine than if Venus were in its own domain. And so that's what I mean by the qualities expressed are more highlighted than in its domicile. The planet in exaltation is like a planet on vacation or a planet on a playground: they aren't necessarily at home, but still they have more freedom than in all the other signs. Again, planets in exaltation do not (and really aren't) exactly LIKE the signs. Leo may not be exactly like Neptune...after all Neptune is not in domicile in Leo. But it can be exalted in Leo, not because Leo is completely like Neptune, but rather when Neptune is IN this sign NEPTUNE is not limited by Leo's qualities. In fact, the ego gives Neptune a boost. Neptune is more generous and more glamorous in this sign than its own domain. It is also more imaginative and creative in this sign than it is in its own domain. It has a bigger heart in Leo than it does in its own domain. In Aquarius, it is compassionate, but on an intellectual level. Aquarius limits Neptune's emotional qualities by withholding its emotional connections from people, and instead connecting with people with like minds rather than emotions. Aquarius also holds back the spiritual aspect of Neptune with its logic. When Neptune last entered Aquarius, it was the time when people were becoming less spiritually inclined and more worldly oriented. A large number of atheists were on the rise, promoting science over a spiritual creator. Aquarius creates a science vs spirit atmosphere that does the opposite of what Neptune rewards. While believing in science is not a bad thing, science does hinder our belief in something other than the logical and physical world. Aquarius' ideals are rooted in logic, and this is what Neptune has shown to struggle with in the past. Aquarius intends to help others, but it fails to provide that deeper emotional sense of hope that comes from 'just believing without needing the facts". Leo may not have high ideals in life, but it is capable of seeing that anything is possible even outside of the logical field and that's really what Neptune's objectives are.

    16. As far as not having two exaltations, I understand. lol Some people do want a more spread out system. Me personally, I look at the planets as each their own entity with their own representations. And if by observation I see a limitation/powerful expressions in a sign, I will consider it. As far as Aquarius being a rebel, Jupiter is not as concerned about being a rebel. (Jupiter is a planet that represents moral laws and ethics, after all). Its a planet that represents benefits, luck, philosophy, travel, faith, etc. Even though Jupiter can give us freedom, it wants to give us benefits without delay. Aquarius does not get benefits right away simply because it comes unexpectedly, thanks to Uranus and saturn. I have Uranus and Saturn in my 2nd house. They always causes delay for me monetarily which is hardly to my benefit. lol Whereas Jupiter blesses people with benefits. That's what I meant by Jupiter does not work well with the Saturn and Uranian qualities that Aquarius emobody.

    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    19. LOL...true. I was just going with Sun sign for simplicity's sake, but...that's good too. I'm a Leo sun, Taurus moon, Virgo rising and am also Pluto-Scorpio. :)

      Yeah...I guess everyone explains the whole domicile vs exaltations thing differently. And yeah...I heard exaltations were older too though I think it was more in Persian than Hindu astrology since apparently they didn't agree on the position of the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn. Plus, there are a few problems on how to interpret them since originally, the exaltations depended greatly on the degrees which is barely talked about or explained in modern astrology and the fact that some constellations of the zodiac weren't their own constellation yet (like Scorpio and his Claws [ie Libra]) and such would cause a problem with the Sidereal vs Western thing. So I don't know if I agree that view. I think I'll still stick with the domicile is like a sign at home and exaltation is like a guest of honor. I tend to see domicile like the home where one can themself the most. And exaltation seems more like work than a playground to me precisely because many of the signs and exalted planets are not quite alike. Pisces doesn't really seem to be as romantic as Venus would be in Libra or Taurus so I can't really see what you mean. But then again...it might be only that degree on not the sign as a whole. And many astrologers think that the degree numbers themeselves have their own significance regardless of planet or sign so there's also that to consider. I still tend to see an exaltation as like "the star pupil" or "employee of the month" kind of thing. Playground for me is a place that feels too comfortable for signs and planets that don't have all that much in common. Leo is again too fiery, tempermental, realistic, and egotisical to be exalted in Neptune. Not only would Neptune hurt Leo, but I think that Neptune itself would be inhibited by Leo's ego, fiery temper, aristocratic mannerisms, and realism. Neptune and Leo don't really understand each other. Hmm....I think it again all depends on how people interpret the planets in signs. The most recent time Neptune was in Leo was from July 1915 to July 1929 and this then would include WW I and events leading up to the Stock Market Crash in October so...I'm not so sure that helps Neptune's case for Leo. It's true that Aquarius seems more logical rather than emotional but Neptune needs a sign that expresses his emotions in a POSITIVE way, not the negative and often destructive way Leo does. Aquarius might not be that in touch with his emotions, but at least he tries to use them for humanity's benefit rather than unleash fury on the entire world like Leo. Whenever Leo truly allows his emotions to get the better of him, it's sadly but usually negative. He's unhinged and (aptly named) feral in this state. This isn't really a sign that is benefitted from or benefits Neptune. Perhaps then we are right in thinking that Cancer is a much better fit since neither Leo nor Aquarius seem to fit the bill! XD

    20. I guess it just depends...on how people interpret the signs AND planets. I can understand what you're saying, but I still think having equal domiciles and equal exaltations would best maintain the balance of the zodiac and almost any sign can "fit" any planet and vice versa with the right interpretation. If not, then everyone will be clamoring to have the "best" sign and the once serious field of astrology will become nothing more than excuses for "pissing contests" in the "my sign is better than your sign" context which is sadly already happening to a great extent. The whole purpose of the system was to maintain balance and equality. I'm sure that there's a way in which every sign can be assigned one domicile and exaltation and still have it fit them. ;)

      Getting benefits early or late might not really matter as long as they come in the end. But Jupiter IS a planet of knowledge and Aquarius is one of the best signs for knowledge. It is also a planet of good fortune, luck and geneoristy which also sympathize with Aquarius' qualities. Well, if Uranus and Saturn were Aquarius' only influences, its rebellious streak would be unexplainable. Like I said, Uranus and Saturn influence Aquarius in different ways and Saturn's influence differs from its influences on Capricorn. Saturn makes Capricorn more thrifty, materialistic, orderly and authoritative whereas with Aquarius, it makes him more self-controlled and orderly in an inventive and detailed way. The philosophical and travel parts of Jupiter are also important to Aquarius as they both help him become a better humanitarian and the travel part also works well with Aquarius' "escapist" ways. So I definitely think that Jupiter is best exalted in Aquarius while Cancer (who doesn't really travel due to its hominess or philosophize due to its preference for emotions over logic) is more suited to Neptune.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. To be honest, in my opinion, air and earth signs should be not be considered for the planet of Neptune as an exaltation. lol Both of those signs are too logical, mental, and realistic. Fire and Water signs do best with Neptune because Neptune is very spiritual. The last time Neptune first entered in Leo was the roaring 20s, when there was a boom of creative expression and art. The movies began providing a sense of escape from reality like no other amusement before it. The generation of people that has this natal position in their chart carried on their sense of optimism on through the great depression when people relied more on charity than any other generation and there was a strong sense of ethical generosity. This optimism, that hard times would turn up for the better, helped them endure the Great Depression and eventually World War 2. There was strong idealism and puritanism among this generation; everyone admired the movie stars and idealized the glamorous life that was so unique for that time. Neptune represents film and acting...Leo represents acting and center stage. The lion itself is said to be one of the greatest manipulators. They are good at entertaining people because they understand what moves others. Just by examination of the two generations (Neptune in Leo vs Neptune in Aquarius). And again, signs of domicile do not have to be like signs of exaltation. Jupiter is exalted traditionally in Cancer, even though it is nothing like Jupiter's ruler Sagittarius. Mars is exalted in Capricorn, even though it is hardly like the sign of Aries. Its not about whether they are alike when it comes to exaltations, but whether the planet has freedom of expression enough represent itself in the closest way. Leo on its own may not be like Neptune. But when Neptune is IN Leo, Neptune expresses itself much more than it does in Aquarius, without much hinderence. Therefore, NEPTUNE is exalted. Not Leo, nor Aquarius. That's important when determining what position a planet is exalted in.
      Sorry for all the deletes...my computer struggles to show the comments I've made...lol

    3. If we're going to best make astrology fair, it would be better to exclude the idea of exaltations and domiciles altogether. The concept that something is better than another came with that ranking system and it has nothing to do with liking a sign personally. It has to do with examining the planetary qualities and seeing how clearly the planets represented themselves in each sign. We can't just place a planet with a sign just because no planet exalts in that sign. Astrology is not really even about the signs. Astrology is the study of the planets. So whether each sign has a planet exalted in it is not as important as how the planet will express itself and where we will see the greatest (or most debilitating) expression of the planet throughout life.

    4. Understandable, earth and air are logical but then the problem becomes that fire signs are simply too emotional. And usually in a negative way. The most hot-tempered signs as exaltations for watery, dreamy Neptune? Two of them (well, one and a half) considered "feral?" And let's not forget that water and fire are natural enemies. So yeah...I don't quite understand that. Fire is spiritual in the "courage" "warrior spirit" kind of way. Not so much in the "religious" or "higher power is out there" kind of way.

      Actually, I read that Neptune entered Leo in July 1915 to July 1929 and a great, big bad thing happened there. WWI. Pretty much what happens when Leo of all signs has no emotional control. Total destruction. It was a bad time. It picked up a bit with the Roaring Twenties, but then let's not forget Leo's other weakness...the inability to properly handle the economy and finances and what eventually led to the Stock Market Crash in October of that year. Another pretty bad thing. So yeah...Neptune in Leo didn't seem like a good thing. The opposite actually.

      I actually don't really see Leo as that "center stage" "die for the theatre" character that so many modern astrologers want to portray him as. To me, he's the more wrathful, authoritative, regal, proud, fiery, and strong warrior-king the ancients saw him as. I really don't know how the whole "theatre" thing came to be associated with him, but I wish it would stop.

      It just depends on people's interpretations. Because the signs and their exaltations are usually so unalike, I still see them as more "work-related" rather than "freedom-related" because I don't think a person can really be more "free" except in their own home which would be the domicile. I think there's a way were every sign can get one unique domicile and one unique exaltation and have them all fit if people's interpretations match up.

      Hmm...I still don't see how Neptune benefited from nearly destroying the world through Leo in WWI and causing the economic ruin that almost destroyed the American and world economies in the months leading up to the Stock Market Crash of 1929. XD

      Well, perhaps. But again, it wouldn't really be the planets themselves or signs themselves that will "manifest" but rather people's interpretations from them. Right now, you and me are interpreting both Neptune and Leo (and all other signs) in different ways. You can see how Neptune and Leo can not only reconcile each other but even benefit each other. But I see the opposite. It would be the same for any sign and any planet. There shouldn't be the problem of assigning a planet or asteroid to a sign with even remotely similar qualities (or not even similar since as you've pointed out that many exalted planets are NOT similar to their signs) so there shouldn't really be any trouble with that. But sorry, I do think that the whole exaltation thing is based of the personal likes and dislikes of moders "astrologers" and sadly, I've seen them fight and argue about which sign was "better." Some wanted to get rid of the nodes, some wanted to give Aries Pluto inaddition to the Sun, some assigned Vulcan to Taurus inaddition to Venus. So yeah...that kind of half-hearted assigning signs isn't what the zodiac was supposed to be about. Plus, yet again let's not forget that as far as exaltations went, it was originally meant that only that specific DEGREE was exalted and not quite the entire sign. So...I think that as long as the basic system is fair and all signs are paired up with their respective somicile and exaltation, there shouldn't be a problem. Any planet can pretty much benefit or be benefitted by any sign and vice versa...but with the right interpretation.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. With the ranking sysyem came the idea that some planets are better in certain signs than in others. If we want to make the sydtem fair its best to omit the idea of dignities or debilities and rather see each position with its own successes and weaknesses. The idea that leo is associated with creativity can very well be said about the idea of aquarius association with emotions. But even though we would like to think of humans feral lions as descrived skyscript we also have think of how the lions roar has been expressed from a human standpoint.

    1. Yeah, but that wasn't really a ranking system since some planets are better in certain signs than others, and it was as balanced as it could be at that time since almost every sign got an exalted planet. And yes, I agree. Seeing them more as their own "successes" and "weaknesses" instead of "debilities and dignities" would be a better way of putting things. One modern astrologer tried to put it best this way, "It's like comparing someone with natural talent to someone who has to work harder." A planet in its domicile or exaltation is given more natural abilities to excel in that particular area whereas a sign that isn't has to work harder to achieve the same ends. But that doesn't mean that the sign who is naturally gifted in that area is guaranteed to always succeed since the influences of other planets and other factors also play a big part, and that doesn't mean that a sign that has to work harder is always doomed to failure for that planet. Both must achieve a balance. Natural talent and luck will only go so far and if the naturally gifted sign in that planet doesn't make an effort, then its rewards won't be as great as they could've been. And likewise, a sign that has to work harder might not have the natural talents of that planet but if it tries to enhance the common ground it does share with the planet and downplay the weaknesses, then it can succeed too just perhaps not to the extent of the natural sign.

      Hmmm...I'm a bit confused about that last bit. Leo's creativity seems to be a more modern concept. I don't know as much about Aquarius as far as its history in medieval or ancient times so I don't know if the two are comparable or not. LOL...yeah Skyscript might have a strange way of describing Leo, but I like it because it's one of the few sites that try to reconcile Leo's older traits with the new ones most modern astrologers attribute to him now. If anything, it can be argued that a "lion's roar" in human terms is probably even worse than the actual animal's since human emotions and aggression can now lead to the very destruction of earth as almost happened several times in our history. Plus, many must remember that a "lion's roar" is just a warning. Lions do more than just "roar." They attack.

  15. Lions roar to bring attention to themselves and as apart of their hunting tactics they often use manipulation, acting as the prey. Since humans beings do not hunt the way lions do, we must observe where this art if manipulation might show itself in the human world. I noticed you mentioned that war 2 began during neptune in leo and the great depression followed right after. However, we must consider the other planets that usually indicate war and economic downturn, and that would be pluto and uranus. Pluto was in cancer at the time creating an obsession with homeland and power struggles regarding it. Again when observing where neptune fits in we must examine the indications that neptune is involved. Most interpretations have been made after observation. When neptune was in leo we saw the strongest indications of neptune, which is why many believe neptune was exalted. Usually when a planet is falling the planets energy is weakened to the point we hardly see any indications of neptunes influence. But this was not the case last time neptune was in leo. We saw creativity come to life, new forms of escape through the movies, and a generation that most people would consider ideal for entertainment. When neptune was in aquarius internet boomed, but it only served to disconnect us emotionally rather we only connect on a mental level. There were no strong indications of neptunes energy which is why many believe neptune is falling here. What we did see was a blockage with the rise of atheism and a stronger belief in science.

    1. A person with Venus in Pisces is more romantic than the practical venus in taurus and the logical venus in libra. To be romantic means to have a strong sense fantascism involving love and life. Venus in pisces is waaay more fanticiful than venus in pisces by observation. I was giving an example as how venus' qualities is more prominent in its exalted state. And for most of the planets in there exalted state the qualities of the planets are enheightened (or exaggerated). And this is what needs to be considered when we think of adding dignities or debilities to a planet in a sign.

    2. Sorry i meant more than venus in taurus and libra.

    3. Ooooh...I guess that's what you meant before by the "lion's roar" thing. I see. Sorry, it confused me a bit earlier. Yes, I think you have a point there. But it's still quite frustrating when modern astrologers see Leo as almost nothing more than this "attention whore" or "stage star" when he was really so much more than that. The ancients almost never saw him that way, too.

      Actually, it was World War I that happened with Neptune in Leo. World War 2 happened with our very own Pluto in Leo...and that combination just made WWII that much worse. Kinda shows how negative and destructive Leo's emotions really are when not reined in properly. :(

      Yes, you're right. I agree that financial troubles are usually caused by the influences of other planets, but the reason I brought it up is because often (but not all the time) Leo's financial troubles are caused because (at least according to some modern astrologers) they are emotional financial spenders. They shop, buy and spend on impulse and under the influence of emotional Neptune, the emotionally charged Leo made poor financial decisions that perhaps he might not have made if he was under a more logical, or materialistic sign. And the just like other planets influence finances more than Neptune, the internet is usually seen as Uranus' and thus Aquarius' thing. I think maybe modern astrologers have confused Leo's preference for expression as creativity which nowadays seems like the same thing but really aren't. Leo wants to express himself whether he's happy, sad, angry, etc. But Leo's form of expression when he's sad and angry are usually destructive. He can be creative when he's happy and content, but they're not his main attribute...at least not by his ancient and medieval descriptions.

    4. Hmmm...sorry I can't see Venus in Pisces as more romantic than Venus in Taurus or Venus in Libra. Perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on Taurus and Libra's elements. Pisces gives Venus much more idealism but not much more "romantiscm" than Taurus or Libra. It even kind of reminds me of the saying "As romantic as a cold fish." Pisces and romance don't really go together. But I can see that Venus gives Pisces much more artistic ability and an etheral beauty that the other two might not have. But I can't really reconcile the "romantic" part. Pisces is one of the most "escapist" and shy of all the signs and to be romantic one must learn to trust and open up to others which Pisces has some trouble with. So I think it depends exactly WHICH abilities the planets enhance or debilitate in which signs. And this is why I really don't see a big problem in assigning the same amount of planets to each sign. I mean, of course I'm not saying to assign them "willy nilly," but that according to the balance of the zodiac and to the supposed natural balance of the universe, it shouldn't be much of a problem to find an equal amount of unique planets for the signs' exaltations and domiciles that are beneficial to both signs and planets if interpreted correctly.

    5. There are two definitions of romantic. One is condusive to love; loving,tender, etc which easily describes the nature of pisces on its own right but especially when venus is in pisced. But another definition of romantic is an idealized view of life which also describes pisces. Romantic feelings may not always be expressed openly but venus in pisces has the most romantic outlook on love. Venus in taurus is very practical and sometimes security and money rules over a loving relationship for them. Venus in libra often times will get people just for social reasons. But venus in pisces sincerly have love for people. It is the most loving placement by observation. Is it necessarily always as good as it exaggerates?Not always. Even exalted placements have a downside. But when considering exalted we must look for strong indications of the planets energy second to neptune in domicile. When neptune was in leo, neptunes power was more obvious than any other placement as well as neptune in cancer. Neptune in leo probably did cause the great depression...but one could also say that aquarius was responsible for our great recession our recent economic downturn thanks to the mortgage crisis and internet taking over business ventures. But the difference is the people with natal neptune in leo had more hope that things would turn around. They trusted their government much more than the natal neptune in aquarius generation whom so far they dont have much hope in the government or God, which in the long run is hurtful to what neptune represents. The ego cannot hurt neptune as neptune dissolves the ego. Rather in Aquarius it dissolves humanity which is not good. Neptune dissolves whatever sign its in. To dissolve means to dismiss to melt into liquid form to terminate. Which one sounds worse terminating the ego or humanity? If anything the ego could serve neptune some good as it gives neptune more confidence to express its emotions. And since neptune greatly waters down Leos normal aggressive traits we see Leos more creative side. In aquarius we see logic being dissolved as well. That is not good. This is why a planet like neptune does not belong in logical air and earth signs. It does better in fire signs and water signs where it softens the elements to make them purer. Btw fire signs are very spiritual and imaginative in nature especially sagittarius.

    6. Hmmm...that's true about the two versions of "romantic," but I still don't see that Pisces is as "romantic in love" compared to Taurus and Libra. Taurus as an earth sign has the most material love of art and floods people in romantic luxury and security. Libra is the most peaceful and fair sign and will find the balance in any relationship and of course expresses love by maintaining the peace. Pisces is compassionate and idealistic, but their love can also be almost "clingy" and moreso the idea of being in love with love or their ideals rather than the person him/her self. So yet again, it all depends on how people interpret these things. Venus is certainly compatible with Pisces but I don't see it as necessarily its highest expression.

      Yes...but that's the problem with taking events and placements in planets that literally. The influences might or might not have been affected by that planet in that sign. It's very hard to isolate and measure each planet's influence on each sign by itself. Many other influences of course might have factored into the WWI and economic downturn of Neptune in Leo, but then the opposite is true and there might have been other planetary influences that allowed Leo to do so "well" and be so "creative" and "optimistic" since Leo isn't usually associated with those things on its own. It goes both ways. But in the end, both WWI and the events of the Stock Market Crash also happened with Neptune in Leo and those weren't really good things. An emotionally charged Leo isn't usually a "good" or "positive" Leo.

      The ego might not hurt Neptune per se, but it does hurt LEO and thus Leo cannot really benefit from Neptune since a big part of Leo's journey concerns the ego. As Leo's opposite, however, Aquarius is also the opposite of the ego and generally has the best interests of humanity at heart which is more similar to what Neptune does. I don't think Neptune dissolves Aquarius' "humanity." If anything, as his name and constellation suggest (the "water-bearer"), Neptune dissolves Aquarius' self-restraint and allows Aqua to use his now free emotions for the betterment of mankind. When Aqua would usually only rely on logic to accomplish his ends, it is now fueled by the desire (an emotion) to help people. I read that Neptune was in Aquarius from 1998 to 2012. By and large, a more peaceful and somewhat economically stable time than when it was in Leo. Not that it didn't have its problems, too. But it was still better than a World War and the near collapse of the American dollar. Dissolving the logic of Aquarius seems to have better results than dissolving the ego of Leo who then does the opposite and without his own identity doesn't really care what happens to anyone else as shown by the breakout of WWI. The ego not only helps Leo identify and thus grow into his own being, but it interestingly helps him empathize since its through his ego that he interacts with others. Without it, it's kind of a "watch the world burn" scenario where if he doesn't understand his own being, he can't understand those of others. Hmm...I interpreted it as if anything Neptune steamed Leo's more aggressive side. WWI broke out with Neptune in Leo and since Leo had nearly no control of his emotions and since water and fire are natural enemies, there could sadly only be war.

    7. You're right that dissolving logic isn't necessarily good either, but air and water seem more compatible to each other in nature (neither could really overpower the other) and in the zodiac as well than water and fire which naturally cancel each other out so either Neptune is left scathed or the fire sign is. With water and air, they sort of help each other with neither being too extreme. Neptune's affects are less extreme and thereby more useful in air then in fire where its so emotionally charged as to have almost no self control whatsoever. Aqua is less logical but not not extremely so and Neptune is slightly more logical but not extremely so. It's a good balance of emotion WITH logic. Fire signs take emotion and either destroy it or are in turn consumed by it. Neither scenario with fire is good.

      Hmm...I don't really see it, but maybe it's because I don't usually follow too much of modern astrology than I do more traditional astrology. I actually sort of merge the paths into one weird thing, but that's another story. But yeah...fire signs are spiritual in the courageous sense but not so much in the "higher power" sense. Sagitarrius is another strange sign that has changed from its original form in modern astrology where they rely heavily on its philosophical side and ignore its own tempermental qualities. (It was actually considered half "feral") and this is probably because there was another constellation called Centaurus that people often confused with Sagittarius who people usually saw as the good centaur Chiron, when it was actually a representation of the actual aggressive and lustful centaurs. But of all the fire signs, it does have the best thirst for knowledge and desire for travel than Leo or Aries.

  16. Actually Sagittarius has always been affiliated with the Centuars. The Centuars in greek mythology were considered the best archers and healers. And to be perfectly honest with you Neptune is a temperamental planet. Th God Neptune was responsible for earthquakes, floods, drownings, etc. In fact, he and his brothers killed their father Uranus. lol Water signs are also temperamental. They are not calm and steady. Water is a moody element, very similar to fire. To add, Leo has always been considered creative. In fact the lion was always pinned with the Roman God Bacchus, the God of the theater, the God of wine making, and religious ecstasy. His chariot was drawn by lions who were animals that represented him. Lions were always used as a form of entertainment in Rome and so has always been affiliated with the stage and the arts. Even though some things you go by are traditional, some of the ideas you have are also new. Most traditional astrologers do not even consider the generational planets to have dignities. And they follow the old dignity system to not interrupt the balance that has already been set. I personally use old methods and understanding to integrate our modern world.

    You don't believe Venus is in its highest form in Pisces? The definition of exalted means to be superior; placed at a high or powerful level; held in high regard. Venus is put on a pedestal when it is in Pisces. As a result the native is much more exaggerated and lovey-dovey. Physical luxury and comfort does not equal love. Neither does superficial compromise. Love is a feeling. (Look up the definition of love) When Venus is in Pisces it understands this to the most degree. Venus is more comfortable in Taurus and Libra, but is not at its purest and superior form like it is when it is exalted.

    The great recession took place between 2008-present. I don't understand how this equals a stable economy. In fact, by historical record the Great Recession was worse than the Great Depression. http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/why-todays-recession-tops-the-great-depression.aspx If you notice from 1929-1942, Neptune was in detriment. Because the Great Depression took place during these years as well as World War II overseas (before America joined the War), there was a strong lack of hope; the movies were filled with newsreels showing the horrific scene of the war and the great depression taking place around the world. There was no mental escape from the reality of the situation. This is an example of Neptune at its worse state.

    1. Yes, I know. But there were TWO kinds of centaur and two centaur constellation types. The gentle philospher-healer and trainer of heroes Chiron who most traditions claim was actually the son of Cronus and a nymph thus making him Zeus' half-brother. The rest of the centaurs by contrast were quarrelsome, lustful, rowdy, and wild because they were the children of attempted rapist Ixion and a cloud that he thought was Hera but was actually Nephele. And in modern astrology, it's Chiron's characteristics that are attributed to Sagittarius not his older attributes of the wild centaur that he had before. In ancient times, the constellation Centuarus was thought to be Chiron while Sagittarius was thought to be the more wild kind.

      Yes, both Neptune and Bacchus were tempermental. But that's not how they nor their affects are portrayed in modern astrology and that's precisely my point. And to be technical, it was actually the Greek Poseidon who had the temper rather than the Roman Neptune. Although most modern Western countries like to think the Greek and Roman gods were exactly the same, they sort of weren't and although the Romans identified their gods with the Greeks, they viewed them differently and some of their personalities weren't the same such as the Greek ill-tempered war god Ares and the calmer and more level headed Roman Mars. I'm actually a Roman-Taíno pagan so the differences matter to me more than it would for others. And actually it was Cronus who defeated Uranus and Zeus defeated Cronus.

      But I still disagree about the use of lions in Rome. They were used for a different kind of entertainment than the "theatre" which was still being practiced in Rome too, but feral fights and gladitorial combats were a different matter entirely. And yes, while both the fire and water elements can still be moody so can earth and air. Water and fire are still natural enemies, however. And unlike the other three elements, fire is the only one that has to be "destorying" something just to exist. The normal states of water, earth and air sees might see them moving, but mostly sees them steady and calm. Whereas even in its warm campfire state, fire is still consuming something and destroying wood just to exist. So it doesn't really have a completely "calm" state and this mesn that when it comes to releasing its emotions, fire doesn't hold back and it usually comes out negative.

      No, not really. Yes, but again there's a difference between being exalted as an honored guest and having full freedom and full control of one's home. Exalted as an honored guest doesn't necessarily mean "superior." LOL....well, I know that love is an emotion but that is not the entire range of Venus. Venus is also art, beauty, romance (a little different from love), etc. In fact, the Greek (and sometimes to a lesser extent the Roman goddess) goddess was more associated with lust than love and lust is physical. I can admit that Pisces seems compatible with Venus but it hardly seems her greatest expression.

    2. No...that's not true. A "depression" is still worse than a "recession" and here's the proof: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/news/economy/ben-bernanke-great-depression/
      The recent economic recession is bad, but the affects of the Great Depression would have been even more devastating if not for (ironically) the gold that the USA received from the UK and all the jobs and factories the war front provided which pretty much saved the economy in the end. And also ironically, the financial policies of the 2008 recession were BETTER than the ones in 1929-1930 and this definitely helped rein in some of the damage. This means that Aqua made better financial regulations and decisions than Leo.

      And I wouldn't necessarily say that Neptune was in detriment from 1929-1942. Like any other time, there was a sense of hopelessness but when the economy picked up due to the demand for war materials, there was the feeling of productivity again and a sense of pride. There was still a great sense of creativity back then...it was just a creativity on how to convince people to either join the war or get involved back home. American WWII propoganda admittedly didn't really begin until 1941, but British propoganda and other countries did. The now famous "Keep Calm and Carry On" was produced in 1939. There were many ways people dealt with the thought and threat of war and escapism was part of that so I don't know if I believe that Neptune was in debilitation then.

    3. A depression and recession are simply two different economic situations. To many, its controversial which is "worse" as they are two different situations led by different factors. Regardless, Neptune in Virgo was at a time of great economic downturn. Neptune in Aquarius is very similar...NOT THE SAME...but similar. Neptune was in Virgo from 1929-1942. If Neptune is in domicile in Pisces....that would mean it is in detriment in Virgo. And Neptune was in Virgo at this time. When Neptune was in Virgo and Aquarius, many lost their jobs, relying on government help or charity. So my point is...they had similar circumstances.

      When Neptune is in any sign, EVEN Virgo, it will attempt to escape, find sanctuary, dissolve, deceive, and create. This does not make it less debilitating just because there are hints of Neptune being there. When dignities are examined its more about where Neptune is expressed at its best ( or the most) and where Neptune is expressed at its worse (or the least). When Neptune is in Virgo, Neptune's energies are blocked which can cause damage in the long run. Imagine Neptune, the planet of illusions in the sign of logic, work, and criticism? Its not going to blend well. This makes people delusional, trying to escape through a sense of productivity but not truly mentally escaping or letting go. Neptune teaches us that sometimes we must let go of things, but when Neptune is in Virgo it finds it difficult to achieve this. It gets lost in details and a lot of confusion of what is reality and what is not often becomes a problem. ("Is what our newsreels portray real, or is it merely propaganda?")

      Neptune was not in Leo during the Great Depression. Neptune was in Virgo. So of course Neptune in Aquarius had better economic regulations than Neptune in Virgo during that economic downturn. During Neptune in Leo there was no economic downturn, in fact it was the reverse. The lower class became a higher class.

    4. That's the point. Venus in Pisces is the "Ideal" form of love. The "superior" form by which Exalted means by definition. Yes, Venus is the goddess of love is more like Taurus and Libra BUT does not have the "ideal" idea on love. Venus becomes exalted in Pisces where it has the purest idea on love. Otherwise it would not be called an exaltation if there were not something about it that made Venus at its superior form. (look up the definition of exaltation).

      http://mythology.wikia.com/wiki/Neptune According to this link, Neptune was quite temperamental and more belligerent than Poseidon. He was not as celebrated among the Romans because of this. He represented the tempestuous nature of the waters. http://www.windows2universe.org/mythology/Definitions_gods/Neptune_def.html

      Water element is never calm. Its full of waves and very unpredictable. And while appearing calm on the surface, something is always is happening underneath the surface. (I have a lot of water in my chart). Just like water, fire is unpredictable. Air is also unpredictable. My point is air signs are no more like Neptune than fire signs. And in some ways fire signs are more similar to Neptune.

      I think you misunderstood the point when people pin Leos with the "theater". Yes, lions were not apart of theater...but they were entertainment. Human "Leos" are also entertaining, just like Lions....the difference is you can't expect humans to act or behave in society the way a lion (animal) would have expressed itself, especially in ancient Rome. Where we would best see Leo's entertaining energy in the modern human world is through the stage or in the movies. This is why when we look at the highly entertaining lion, we compare that energy to what would be evident in a human being who might have Leo Rising or in the chart.

    5. Chiron actually represents both Centaurus AND Sagittarius. According to this book "Skywatcher's Companion: Constellations and Their Mythology". They tell the story of how Chiron came to be affiliated with both constellations in two different hemispheres. I also explained the story a little below. So Sagittarius is very much representative of Chiron.

    6. Well maybe to us people who lose our jobs and our money a "depression" and a "recession" might be the same, but to economists a "depression" is the extreme of a "recession" and so is still worse. It might be contraversial to state which is "worse" by OUR terms, but since the economists are the experts and define the terms, by their terms...the depression is still worse. Yes, Neptune in Virgo and Neptune in Aquarius were similar in terms of financial matters. But then again, there were finanical problems LONG before Neptune entered Virgo. They started in Leo. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 was just the breaking point. Virgo is actually quite good at handling finaces...Leo, not so much.

      Neptune might be in detriment in Virgo but like I said before, although a detriment is considered a weakness, it's still possible to be successful or at the very least decrease the damage if other factors align correctly. That's like a student who is naturally gifted at art but struggles with math. They might struggle with math but as long as they study extra hard and maybe get a tutor, that doesn't mean they will fail. Virgo and Neptune can still learn from each other. Too much emotion is not a good thing and neither is too much logic. And although Neptune in Virgo and Neptune in Aquarius had similar circumstances...so did Neptune in Virgo and Neptune in Leo...both of which occured during a World War.

      Neptune may not have been in Leo during the actual Great Depression, but the factors that led up to it certainly was. There was no economic downturn in Leo? No...that's not true. There most certainly was. No, the lower class WANTED to become the higher class. The lower class WANTED luxury items and to be like the movie stars. That didn't mean they could afford it. And a big part of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 was caused by people buying things they couldn't afford...which sounds a lot like Leo. The other factors were: low wages, high unemployment, high debt, excess of bank loans, and struggling agriculture. http://www.history.com/topics/1929-stock-market-crash So maybe for a little while and on the surface the Roaring Twenties seemed fine, but underneath it all, there was quite a bit of suffering and problems that Leo failed to address. The sign that gives everyone equal footing is Aquarius, not Leo.

    7. Eh...I still don't really see it that way. LOL...I KNOW what "exaltation" means. But I still see the "domiciles" and "exaltations" more like "home" vs "work" rather than "exalted" as "superior" since just like "feral" the astrology definition doesn't always mean the literal definition. Astrology uses the literal definition to explain it, but then adds its own explanation. "Exaltation" in ASTROLOGY is a bit different. And remember, the degree mattered too so even if "exalted" meant "superior" in the literal sense, that only meant that Venus was exalted in the 27th DEGREE of Pisces. All others born in different degrees were not considered (at the time) with those Venusian qualities that the 27th degree of Pisces had. A domicile on the other hand, didn't matter what degree one was born since that planet (or those planets) ruled the entire sign. So...for me, the domicile is still superior to an exaltation.

      I think the main problem is that many articles describe Neptune as the Romans saw him AFTER he became identified with the Greek Poseidon. "This feature has been preserved particularly well in the case of Neptune who was definitely a god of springs, lakes and rivers before becoming also a god of the sea, as is testified by the numerous findings of inscriptions mentioning him in the proximity of such locations. Servius the grammarian also explicitly states Neptune is in charge of all the rivers, springs and waters. He also is the lord of horses because he worked with Athena to make the chariot."

      This means that Neptune was originally considered to be calmer because he began as the god of CALM waters such as fountains, lakes, irrigation, etc. The popular Neptunalia on July 23rd was held in his honor as the giver of fresh water in the summer heat. "The Neptunalia was the festival of Neptune on July 23, at the height of summer. The date and the construction of tree-branch shelters suggest a primitive role for Neptune as god of water sources in the summer's drought and heat." This contrasts sharply with the Greek Poseidon who was th god of the sea and not all water as his Contention with Athean over Athens portrays. (When the city had to choose between Athena or Poseidon to be their patron god, they chose Athena because she gave them the highly useful olive branch compared to Poseidon who could only give them a salt water spring). This is also the difference in the characters between Neptune and Poseidon. Neptune, at least, was quite often regarded as beneficial and calm, especially in the beginning. His temper and affiliations with horses and earthquakes came much later after he was already associated with Poesidon. Poseidon, on the other hand, was ragrded as the god of horses, earthquakes and only the sea and so was just as tempermental and had very few calm moments. So in the end, it seems that Neptune's temper was almost exclusively after he became associated with Poesidon. The original Roman Neptune was much calmer.

    8. ALL the elements have their tempers and unpredictability. All the elements can either be calm or destructive. My original point was that fire is the only element that MUST be destructive in order to exist. Fire cannot manifest without having something to burn whether it's oil, wood, etc. And that's because out of all them, fire is also form of energy. Earth, air, and water are made out of atoms and molecules and as such they can be just as stable or unstable as them. Energy, however, constantly has to burn. So in terms of comparing only elements, fire is unique in that sense and water, air, and earth aren't quite like that. Yes, but fire and water are still natural enemies as far as elements go and both can destroy the other so that's not good. Air and water, though, don't really cause each other harm. They can combine and cause OTHERS harm in the forms of hurricanes. But that doesn't cause the elements themselves harm like water and fire do to each other. In fact, although air can be destructive, it's one of the most complimentary elements and doesn't seem to be a natural enemy of any other element. Too much air can put a fire out, be more often than not, air fuels fire. And air cannot really damage water and air, nor can they damage it. So air seems more compatible with water in that regard than fire. Fire and water do thrive on emotions and in that sense they're similar, but like I said, it's not beneficial when either element can destroy the other. Too much emotion will either implode or explode. A balance between emotion and reason is best.

      As far the theatre....perhaps. But like I said before, the descriptions of modern astrologers don't really describe it like that and that is what I don't like. Like I said before...there's a BIG difference between "entertaining" as far as "tearing things apart" and "entertaining" and "lol...that's cute." Lions in the arena were "entertaining" but it most certainly wasn't "theatre." And THAT is what the modern astrologers equate Leo with..."theatre." Not the more vague "enteratining." There was a danger with lions in the arena. There is none with the connection to "theatre." And so I still disagree that such an emphasis should be placed on "theatre" or even "entertaining" in the descriptions of Leo in modern astrology. Leo wasn't regarded that way in ancient times.

      Well since I don't have that book, I can't prove or disprove it, but according to Skyscript which is actually pretty accurate in presenting the ancient descriptions, Chiron was NOT originally representative of Sagiattarius and it describes how the older civilization of Mesopotamia almost always described Sag in more vicious terms. Chiron was associated with Sagitarrius LATER.

      "They would have us all believe that gentle, healing, self-sacrificing Chiron was placed in the stars to symbolise all that the Sagittarian represents. Honoured for his unselfishness - he had no equal when it came to performing acts of kindness - Sagittarians have unashamedly claimed this motif of exceptional goodness and wisdom as their own. But Sagittarians can never be trusted with the details. Centaurus, the Southern Centaur, is the constellation figure that pays tribute to Chiron. Fierce and competitive Sagittarius faces him from the other side of Scorpio, marked out by the Babylonians long before the Greeks traced their nobler hero in the sky. Chiron was remarkable, not because he symbolised typical centaur-like qualities, but because he alone distanced himself from their wild and savage, lustful drunken ways." http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sagittarius.html

    9. If you want to hear from a website about the differences and similarities to the Recession and Depression, http://americawhatwentwrong.org/story/Now-and-then-is-the-recession-so-different/ Its controversial which is worse because statistics were not taken of job loss until the 1930s. Not to mention there was a strong imbalance of class. There were only the very rich or the very poor. And the rich was very few. For some, especially African Americans, the "Depression" felt no different for them then there life before the historical stock market crash. Today, the recession affects more people in the simple fact that more people had well paying jobs. And as the article stated its difficult to say which is worse. Yes, experts hardly ever agree on historical statistical evidence. The reason is because the 1930s is a different time from us that didn't have the same way of recording things that we do today. NOTE: Remember that economic downturn has more to do with Pluto's influence than Neptune. Pluto rules over wealth, the hidden, the economy. My purpose about Depression Verses Recession discussion was that many see them as two different circumstances with only a few similarities. I was not using this evidence to credit Neptune's position in Leo. My purpose in comparing Neptune in Virgo and Neptune in Aquarius with economical issues is not because Neptune was INVOLVED with the economic issue. My point is the fact that the economic issues of both the Depression and recession influenced a loss of hope. Neptune is more about this than the actual economic situation. It really doesn't matter which is worse. Neptune in Virgo and Neptune in Aquarius SHOWS evidence of a loss of hope and faith in government and the most reliance on charity than generations before it. Pluto was in Cancer during the Great Depression. It should be obvious that there was a transformation in the home as a result of economic downturn because of it.
      Throughout the Roaring 20s, there was not a recorded Economic Downturn. There were a lower class of people, but no world wide economic downturn, not until 1929 when the stock market crash. And again, music was not only available to the very rich. African Americans during the Harlem Renaissance took a very active role in the creation and expression of modern music. The movies was also available to the public long before the roaring 20s, for many different classes. They had Jewish theaters, African American theaters, and white theaters. So the rich were not the only people that enjoyed the privilege of entertainment. Neptune is more on those lines. It represents entertainment and creativity. Neptune is not responsible for economic issues.

    10. As far exaltation...even in ASTROLOGY exalted means to be superior. In fact, when the original exaltation system was set up, it was made to mean high positioned; exilerating and full of strength. While the fall meant weak; humbled. http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EAauthorEssays/EAessaysMP.htm

      Note how this website describes Exaltation vs Dignity: "The proposition of a "planet exalted in a sign" points to a special affinity between a planet and a sign. The sign seems to indicate a particular field of energy which brings "out" (ex-) and "heightens" (-alt) the planet's expression because of a special resonance with its essence and inmost intention. In this sign, the planet comes fully to itSelf. It is fulfilled - its central identity galvanised, its fundamental purpose evoked, revealed and fully orchestrated by the zodiacal context of the sign. Whereas a planet is "dignified" in a sign which corresponds to its character and reflects its nature, it finds its exaltation in the sign which "up-lifts" or exposes the root of its various meanings and functions, while allowing full manifestation of the impulse in which they originate". So obviously many astrologers believe a planet in its exalted state to be the planet at its HIGHEST state. This is not the only website that describes an exaltation this way, especially Vedic astrological websites. Otherwise what would exaltation come to mean. Just because it represents "work" does not mean the planet is not at its highest state. In fact, we are more productive at work than we are at home. We are accomplishing more at work than we are at home. At home, we are lax. We are comfortable, but not much world accomplishment happens at home (unless you have a home like Mercury in Virgo, where home is also place of work). lol Honestly, the ancients would not see the home as a superior place to the workplace. Work was highly valued, especially because it was considered the world of man, while the home was considered the world of women...a LOWER state.

      Poseidon was before Neptune, so I don't see how the Romans ended up reverting. But I know by historical evidence as I've posted above that Neptune was considered much worse than Poseidon. The Romans did not honor Neptune as much as the Greeks before them honored Poseidon.

      As far as the elements...yes all the elements have a state that is not calm...which was exactly my point. Regardless, a destructive personality is not necessarily a bad quality, especially if something needs to be destroyed. lol Neptune is a planet that dissolves and destroys. So it works more "freely" in a sign and an element that would better accomplish its goal. When a planet is dignified (exaltation and domicile) that means the planet expresses itself more FREELY. Obviously, in logical signs like air and earth, Neptune cannot express itself as freely. It is more limited.

    11. I meant job loss statistics were not taken until the 1940s. Sorry lol.

    12. As far as Chiron being compared to Sagittarius....its still up for controversy. But they are still somehow connected by astrologers. Especially because Chiron is the only Centaur to ever be affiliated with archery in Greek Mythology. The other archers never had such connections.
      The Babylonian/Sumarian idea of Sagittarius, whose name was were between Enkidu, Nergal, and Pablisag. While Skyscript describes these Babylonian adaptations to the constellation to be wild, there is more to Sagittarius then just these adaptations...and even these carry a bit of controversy.

      This website shows all of the mythologies pinned with Sagittarius. http://www.serendipity-astrolovers.com/Sagittarius-Mythology.html#axzz3JhVzTbnJ
      Sagittarius has come to mean more than just a wild beast since its Babylonian natures. In fact, all of the signs have expanded their meanings since Babylon. Time and humans evolve....and with it will the meanings of the stars and their relations with each civilization. So to just pin a constellation with one quality is not necessarily the "better" way to interpret the constellations...especially when even THOSE interpretations are not WELL known and still hard to understand in today's society. What we do know is that Chiron had come to be affiliated with Sagittarius by the Greeks, who honored Chiron strongly. Personally, I do not discredit anything that has been closely linked to the signs. The reason for my considerations is because these adaptations give us deeper understanding of how the ancients saw the constellations over time....and apparently their meanings were NEVER stagnant. The meanings changed according to their human values. Same in today's society. We may alter the signs according to our own human values as well. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, its more realistic to our everyday world. What is the point of following a system or descriptions we as humans cannot relate to? The signs are not merely one package, but full of many layers that should not be looked at so simply.

    13. Let me ask this...if you were to give an astrological interpretation of a person's sign as simply wild and untamed, how would that fit in that person's life? How would it manifest? In ancient Babylon they never affiliated the constellations with human beings. They never came to symbolize our natal existence. Anything in the heavens was affiliated with something beyond the human world. So when do we connect the dots to the constellations and humans? This is what modern astrologers consider when handling astrology.

    14. "Depression" and "Recession" are indeed very similar, but again...for actual economists a "depression" is still considered worse even if by a little bit. And although the recession of our time could have been worse in some sense, it was still the fact that our recession had better regulations and policies in dealing with the setbacks that allowed it to be slightly better than the Depression and the Depression was lucky enough to have used an industrial boom in preparation for WWII that eventually minimized the effects of the Depression. And lol...there's an imbalance of classes back then, too. As well as today. Yeah, but then there are articles like this which does indeed say that although the problems of both the Depression and recssion were similar, that "there is a reason why it wasn't dubbed a 'depression."" http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/news/economy/ben-bernanke-great-depression So it seems that although they were indeed very similar, a "depression" is still a bit worse since it's very definition bu economist term is the more extreme form of "recession." But yeah...I guess the line beween the two eventually got blurred, especially since we're living through THIS one rather than objectively reading about the Great Depression.

      And yes, that's true. But every planet has some influence on finances even in a minimal way. Here's a website that literally dedicated to "financial astrology" and claims that Neptune is also the planet of "real estate, copyrights and patents, minerals, oil, and long term possessions; electricty and electrical devices; medicine and biotechnology, and selling and creativity" http://www.magiastrology.com/fin_articles/planets.html So...Neptune has even more of an influence on the economy than we thought...at least according to these astrologists. Plus, although Neptune is a planet of emotion...sadly, many people are emotional spenders which also has an effect. But yes...you're right that usually in the mainstream Neptune isn't considered to be THE planet involved with the economy. And again...is also why isolating the events and influences of a particular planet is so hard. So although things like music and art weren't just available to the very rich, they still needed time and money to dedicate to those things and it was precisely that lavish, artsy lifestyle that many people ended up not being able to afford. Those that wanted to practice or play jazz had to actually BUY the instrument which probably cost the equivalent of a TV today. Those that wanted to go out and party, had to have the money to PAY for dresses, bands, decorations, food, going to the theatre and opera, etc. All those things made a difference and cost money in some way. So yeah....it's widely recorded that things weren't always so financially well in the 1920s and that it was people ACTING rich (buying things they ended up not being able to afford) that at least in part, helped facilitate the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

    15. Eh....there sort of was. Just like it's not until months later when the consequences of overspending finally resurface. Although Wiki is a so-so source, they do usually provide references at the end and according to that article is says that when President Warren Harding took office in 1921 (Npetune was still in Leo), "the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% and following a runaway inflation in the teens was suffering a massive agricultural deflation with prices down 1.55% in 1920 and over 11% in 1921." And although there was progress during the Coolidge years, it goes on to say that "By the latter part of the decade, "buying on margin" entered the American vocabulary as more and more Americans over-extended themselves to speculate on the soaring stock market and expanding credit. Very few expected the crash that began in 1929, and none suspected it would be so drastic or so prolonged." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties#Economic_policies
      So there certainly was a recorded economic downturn. It just didn't rear its ugly head until it was too late in 1929. But it's clear even between 1929-1921 there was wide unemployment, massive agricultural deflation, and "buying on margin."

    16. Yeah...I mean, originally, Sag and Chiron were considered separate but perhaps several hundred years later they were associated with each other and they are certainly associated with each other now. Well, from an archeaology and historical POV, the centuars (at least the ones in the East) were usually depicted with bows and arrows and many shcolars believe the centaur motif originally were the ancient Greeks coming into contact with the "barbarian" tribes on horseback for the first time. In the Bronze Age, horses in Greece were usually used for chariots and were not ridden on horseback until the "Dark Ages" (1100- 800 BC).

      Well of course lol. It's not wrong or bad that Sag has evolved to mean more than just a wild beast, but that doesn't change the fact that those were its origins and that the opposite is also true. Just like Sag and Leo aren't just wild, uncontrollable beasts that also doesn't mean that they are just "the philosopher-traveler" or "attention whore" that most modern websites portray them as either. In fact, many don't talk about their dark sides...but those sites will then talk about Scorpio's, Aries' and Taurus' dark sides. And although it's fine and normal for descriptions to evolve, they should still make a point to hearken back or at least reference their origins since they play a vital part of who the zodiacs are and were ORIGINALLY. Yes, but the Greeks and Romans then adopted their interpretations from other civilizations which again was normal and not necessarily "wrong," but they still at least tried to hold true those constellations' origins. Sadly, I find that most modern astrology sites ONLY make references to the more modern, watered-down descritpions of the zodiacs and don't reference their origins or original descriptions at all and that's not good either. So my point was that although it's normal and ok for the descritpions to change over time, their history and origins should ALSO be taken into account because they were the first descriptions. And when modern astrological websites also don't reference those traits, that is also depriving the signs of part of who they are which isn't right.

    17. Yes and that is true. It is important to consider how the personalties relate to humans and to us in the modern world. But like I said, it is just as important to remember the zodiac's origins because that is ALSO a vital part of who they and we are. And sadly, that is the part many modern astrologers ignore or dismiss. That's ignoring or dismissing a part of who we are and THAT is what I don't like and what my original point was. Astrology should take ALL parts into account, not just the good or modern.

  17. I also see a similar pattern with Neptune in Aquarius. The Great Recession began when Neptune was in Aquarius. This produced also a lack of faith and hope in the government and governmental programs. While it isn't as bad to the degree of Venus in Virgo, it is very similar. To add, at the beginning of Neptune in Aquarius, the world was startled by the crumbling of the world trade center, which left the entire world feeling hopeless, confused, and lost. And to add, with the rise of all the natural disasters that happened within that time frame, there became a lack of faith in God. This created an even greater rise in Atheism and an even stronger lack in faith. Confusion, lack of spirituality, disconnection, hopelessness, no escape, etc all are signs of Neptune in a bad placement. And these indications were more evident when Neptune was in Aquarius than any other recent time in history (next to Neptune in Virgo). Aside from World War I (which lasted only a year for Americans), Most of the late part of Neptune in Leo produced one of the greatest times for entertainment and amusements. There was a lot of optimism at that time, a lot of economic growth with more jobs being available than before. Women had the right to vote. The lower class were rising in economic wealth. Children were required to go to school by law and no longer had to work. Working conditions had improved thanks to the Labor movement. It was a creative time in history; which usually represents Neptune at its best state. Just a thought.

    1. I meant Neptune in Aquarius is not to the same degree of Neptune in Virgo, but is very similar.lol

    2. Yes, perhaps. But like I mentioned before, there's a reason why the Recession of 2008 was still a "recession" and not a "depression." The more recent recession was slightly better because it had better policies and regulations that the Great Depression did not have and was mostly only saved by the sudden income of British gold and the sudden demand for productivity in war materials which also led to an availability of jobs. And the loss of hope in government didn't seem to much of a problem from Neptune's standpoint in the sense that unlike Saturn and maybe Jupiter, Neptune doesn't seem to care about governments all that much either. There was a loss of hope in governments maybe, but there was a rather ironic increase of hope in the human spirit and most countries who were preparing for war at the time began taking measures to make sure that life had a semblance of normalcy. Many people began seeing themselves and their countries as the defenders against evil. So it definitely seemed to be a double-edged sword.

      Plus, since during the time Neptune was in Aqua, it was mostly in the early stages of the war and the real horror of what the Axis, especially Germany was doing hadn't come to full light yet which managed to keep most of the Western population at least, relatively oblivious.

      The same can also be said of WWII. People were already starting to lose faith in religion and the government after seeing the horrors of the first "War to End All Wars" so having more people do so by WWII wouldn't be that surprising. But then there was what little flip side could be had...creativity abounded in the form of inspirational and patriotic posters (abroad first and then in the USA by 1941), the increase of anti-war movies showed the horrors of war but also the triumph of the human spirit, people who originally had no jobs and lost everything once again found themselves productive, and women who were originally suppsoed to stay home suddeny found themselves as the major breadwinners now that most of the men went to war (Aqua's sense of equality). There were just as many creative and good things happening just before WWII as well. And let's not forget that a large portion of the WWII times were greatly influenced by Pluto in Leo (1939-1957).

      Compared to Neptune in Leo (1915-1928), Neptune in Aqua (1998-2012) saw a period of a bit more stability (not such large scale war), social media, advancement in technology, as well as different ways of creative expression in art, unconventional fashion, and music. People even seemed to be going back to religion as evidenced by that accursed religious right Tea Party (and when the more conventional Pope Benedict XVI was in office) which for me as a pagan isn not a good thing, but it shows that there was a big influence of Neptune on Aquarius and despite the fact that some people like the Tea Party took it to the extreme, most people were trying to reconcile science and evolution with their own religious beleifs which is one of the better results when moderate logic meet moderate emotions and spirituality. But you've also made good, valid points which I appreciate! But I guess in end, since neither Aqua nor Leo seem to fit the bill to exalt Neptune, maybe it's best to let Cancer exalt it and give its former exaltation Jupiter to Aqua who seems to fit it better and whom the esoterics already have switched. XD

    3. LOL...I meant the "Same can be said of WWI" not WWII. Sorry about that.

    4. If you look at the statistics for how many people have left religion in the early 21st century, I'd say that Atheism has definitely arisen. World War didn't effect America until 1918...the year the war ended. And the Russians left the war early on to tend to the uprising in their own country. World War 1 was bad, but in that generation was the beginning of what we call entertainment today. Modern music was CREATED during that time. Modern dance outside of the waltz as well. The movies were now apart of the world's pastime. Neptune in Leo originated things that had never been thought of before that time, catapulting us into a new era of entertainment. Neptune in Aquarius did have its new forms of creativity, mostly thanks to technology...but sometimes technology hinders emotional and creative expression. Now that I think its better to leave the generational planets out of the dignity and debility equation until there is a better understanding of where they fit in the universe. Jupiter does well in Cancer, so it would make no sense to get rid of it. Jupiter finds understanding through intuition and care. Luck and benefits come from within the family. The sense of family and home is also broadened in Cancer. And Jupiter definitely seems to be falling in Capricorn, the sign full of limitations and pessimism.

    5. When Jupiter is IN Cancer the home and family is broadened, to be more specific. And when Jupiter is in Cancer Jupiter gives luck and benefits within the context of family.

    6. Hmmm...I don't know. I think that like I said before, Neptune in Aquarius had more of a good balance between logic and spirituality. And actually, it also depends on what people define as "spirituality" because especially for pagans like me, "spirituality" and "religion" (especially the organized kind) are not really the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious This claims that "In April 2010 on USA Today, 72% of Generation Y claimed to be 'more spiritual than religious.''' The article was written when Neptune was in Aquarius and part of Generation Y was born at the time. And there IS such a thing as spiritual atheists. And there IS such a thing as "spiritual atheists."http://www.spiritualatheism.com/ Just because they don't believe in deity doesn't mean that they can't appreciate some form of "mind meeting spirit." This was also a time when many Eastern practices such as yoga, Feng Shui, acupuncture, etc. started becoming popular. So although less people were going to organized religion (Who could really blame them when the Catholic Church was being investigated for pedophilia and when strict organized religion was attempting to supress issues such as gay marriage and a woman's right to choose at a time when many people were crying out for change), that didn't mean they were ignoring Neptune's spiritual awakening. People who don't believe gods can still meditate and connect with their deeper selves.

      Eh, it depends on what you call "modern." The ancients were playing music, then classical music was and still considered a very classy form of music, yes in the 1910s and 1920s there was swing, jazz, etc. And there was much art and celebrities all might have been "created" then, but they certainlt didn't reach their utmost pinnacle then. The New Millenium took these things to a whole other LEVEL and saw music, art, fashion, communication, expression all belnd together and evolve! Now with the rise of technology, there are even MORE ways to express yourself than there was back in the 1910s and 20s. Now we not only have cameras and phones, but smart phones combine them both. People are watching movies as well as going to the theatres like Broadway and the opera (Me!). People don't necessarily have to be published to express themselves. They can blog about it. People are being more exposed to movies, sports, literature, music and even the arts! Plus, in the 1920s, most of the people who were doing the creativity and the "roaring" were the mostly the upper class and rich. And although we still have a long way to go, it's at least a little easier for middle class and even the poor to express themsleves than it was back then since nowadays any video on Youtube or whatever can go viral. Also, the "Roaring Twenties" also had people who were made very cynical by WII called the "Lost Generation." So although the Roaring Twenties certainly had it's good side, the blending of both logic and spirituality seem to be better now than back then. Back then creativity was usually for the few and strict organized religion still had a chokehold on most of the world. Nowadays, there seems to be a better balance and balance is preferable to the extremes.

    7. True. But Jupiter also does well in Aquarius. Jupiter might be expanded in the family in Cancer but in Aquarius, Jupiter is expanded to ALL humanity. Honestly, we as a society need to eventually think what's best for humanity as a whole than just ourselves (Aries), the ruling class (Leo) or even only extend our goodwill to just our family like in Cancer. Broadening our experience with humanity in general is preferable than broadening it with just our family whom we should already understand and love. Broadening it with all humanity like Aquarius does would make society better as a whole. So...I would still prefer to switch Jupiter and Neptune. Hmm...that's a good point. Having Jupiter in fall in Leo would be strange since Jupiter is the night ruler of the fire signs. But then...I guess it depends on which system we choose to use and if we choose to combine the systems because the traditional system that placed "day" and night" planet rulers don't take the outside planets into account at all. Jupiter in fall in Capricorn is a good though. But the it still seems that Jupiter would benefit more from being in Aqaurius than in Cancer and Neptune would benefit more from being in Cancer than Aquarius and especially in Leo. So I suppose a different system would just have to be found that can keep most of traditional astrology in tact, but find an equal and fair way to deal with more newly discovered heavenly bodies for each sign.

    8. That's a good point about Jupiter in Aquarius expanding towards humanity. The only thing is again, benefits are limited in Aquarius because benefits usually come unexpectedly and not readily. Jupiter in Cancer doesn't just expand its family (which could be represented of humanity becoming family), but Jupiter also gains understanding on an emotional/spiritual/watery level, which is much deeper than the mental level Aquarius' provides. When Jupiter is in Aquarius it does have understanding of the human mind, but not deep enough to say it is exalted. Cancer on its own right also has strong intuitive abilities that work with a philosophical planet like Jupiter. Jupiter can expand on that intuitive ability when it is in Cancer. Cancer is also a sign of growth. Jupiter can gives benefits to the family and through the family. Jupiter is also the planet of faith, and it is more profound and deep in Cancer as well.
      Consider what this website describes about Jupiter position in the reflective water signs. http://vicdicara.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/what-is-exaltation-why-is-jupiter-exalted-in-cancer/ Jupiter's goal is emotional happiness and self-realization. (Jupiter was traditionally in domicile in Pisces). A water sign like Cancer is highly reflective, just like Pisces. Also, the website describes cardinal mode of expression one that grows and expands. Cancer is a cardinal sign, so Jupiter definitely expands and grows on a deep intuitive level in Cancer. Jupiter's "mission" (emotional happiness and self-realization) is more easily fulfilled in Cancer than it is Aquarius.

      Yes, Jupiter does not feel right falling in Leo. It feels more debilitating in a sign like Capricorn, where it has more limitations, the opposite of broadening limits.

      With more asteroids/planets being introduced, once we decide where those asteroids/planets exalt in a sign, the system still may not have an even arrangement where every planet has a separate sign it exalts. It will always be difficult to achieve because there are so many planets/asteroids in our galaxy that might eventually be apart of the astrological system.

      Honestly, Its really not necessary to have a planet exalting in every sign anyhow. What should be important is that every PLANET is examined to have a place of dignity and debility, rather than whether each sign has one. Planets are the most fundamental parts of astrology, not necessarily signs. If two planets exalt in a sign, so be it. The planet expresses itself well there. But to change the original system could make things even more complicated. Its better to examine the generational planets without messing with the original system. Especially because they have been delicately placed in the original system with their own meanings and understandings.

    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    10. Logic and spirituality NEVER mix. This is why Neptune is in detriment in Virgo. Logic has no faith in something that doesn't exist outside of facts. How can Neptune be at its maximum when its weighted down by facts and processes? Aquarius and Virgo are two of the most logical signs in the Zodiac. Believe it or not Neptune's goal is to achieve understanding outside of what we see in reality. You may not think this is a good thing, but it is necessary. Every planet reflects needs in our human existence. While Atheists can be spiritual, however, many modern atheists will believe "fact" over fiction. Neptune cannot possibly be comfortable in a generation that disbelieves in ANY form of spirit. Spiritual hope is limited when there must be facts. Organized religion does not equal spirituality; its rather the emotional connections that people have with a belief in something other the material world. In the past, many easily believed in forces beyond human understanding, much easier than they did when Neptune was in Aquarius.

      The thing is during the 1920s...many that were in the lower class rose to upper class. Even African Americans, who were once considered at the bottom, also took part in being creative during the Harlem Renaissance, establishing new forms of art and music. So it does depend on how you see it. Today, we live in a more scientific generation, rather than an artistic one. Technology is apart of that science. It has "upgraded" what we use to see as art and music. When Neptune was in Aquarius', synchronized vocals in music was really popular. lol But again, this logical type of world we live Neptune cannot feel completely comfortable in. And often times technology might expand accessibility, but can limit personal creativity.

    11. What stops Atheists from believing in a God? Religion has nothing to do with God. Its possible to believe in a God or creator even without being in an organized religion. Again, the belief in something other than what is reality is very difficult to achieve in throughout this generation. Its not that they don't have a spiritual side...we all do. But there is limitation behind factual minds. Most Atheists (true atheists) do not form because they don't believe in religion (there are agnostic people who do not not discredit a God, but also do not partake in a religion). Atheists describe people who do not believe in a spiritual creator or God (deities). A synonym for an Atheist is a skeptic, a non-believer, a doubter, a "doubting Thomas". Neptune seeks to believe all, to find hope even if things do not exist. A doubting Thomas is a person who is skeptical and refuses to believe something without proof. Aquarius and Virgo are highly skeptical. This does not sound like Neptune at its most comfortable position. A non-believer is also a synonym of Atheists; which means a person that does not believe in something. Its just something to consider. I'm not saying having a religion makes you the most spiritual (totally not true lol). But the disbelief in a God or some form of spiritual creator is definitely more limiting for a planet like Neptune, a planet that seeks to find hope through spirituality. At the time Neptune in Aquarius, Neptune has found a sense of spirit, but with no strong emotional connections/attachments to the spirit outside of logical understanding.

    12. There are a lot of people that get involved in Yoga, Feng Shui, even astrology. But do they emotionally believe that it influences their life on the deepest level outside of simply a pastime or as a thinly involved practice to minimize stress? Again, scientists can be spiritual....but just with more limits behind facts. That can create a "fall: in spirituality every once in a while.

    13. I also want to clarify what I mean about a science vs religious generation. To be religious means relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. This sounds more like what Neptune is about, but it describes the opposite of Atheism. Neptune in Aquarius produced a conflict towards religious ideologies, a generation that does not put there complete devotion towards ultimate realities. This interferes with Neptune's objective: to help us to transcend beyond the logical and physical world, which is necessary for our human existence. As humans we have a need to put faith in something divine, especially when we are downtrodden, victimized, etc. Neptune wants to provide escape mentally and physically from the everyday world, but this can be a limiting experience in logical signs that only focus on what can be proven through logic.

    14. Perhaps...but it doesn't really matter if benefits come late or at once as long as eventually, they come. Jupiter doesn't seem to really specify when benefits come. Benefits come swiftly in Sagitarrius because that is the domicile (and perhaps Pisces too), but many other signs might have to wait for Jupiter's benefits. And actually, if anything, Jupiter is more cautious in water and earth signs than in fire or air signs. "When Jupiter is in fire and air signs, there’s a tendency to surge forward into the new. In contrast, water and earth signs take a more cautious approach, as receptive signs." http://astrology.about.com/od/jupiter/a/Jupiter-In-Elements.htm

      And that's another thing that should be taken into account, too. Not just the elements of the signs, but also the dualities and fire and air are more active, masculine dualities than water and earth which are more receptive and feminine. Jupiter is a philosophical planet and thus is more suited for thinking and logic than for watery feelings.This article also says that in air signs, Jupiter is expanded through ideas and as a philosophical planet, ideas are right up its alley. "Jupiter in Aquarius expands through its freedom to the very edges of what's known, even if that veers into the odd, eccentric or revolutionary." It's all a matter of interpretation.

      Yes...Jupiter falling in Leo would be strange but mostly because the ancients had Jupiter as the night ruler of the fire signs, but that same system didn't know about the newly discovered planes and asteroids so...perhaps a new system that hopefully combines both the ancient and modern traditions will shed more light on this.

      Yes, that's true...but I still think it could work because once every sign has its equal planets, all the other planets or asteroids should not be assigned but rather work with the signs in other ways.

      I disagree. The purpose of the zodiac (at least now in modern times and with the Western as opposed to Sidereal) is balance through the signs. It's still very important that the signs remain equal and that no one sign has more power or planets than any other. Depending on interpretation, it is still very likely that every planet could be made to feel most comfortable in a different sign. I would prefer if the original system could meld with or include a new system that is more balanced because after all...balance is the entire purpose of the zodiac.

    15. I don't believe that at all. I think you might be confusing "spirituality" with "religion" and "logic" with "materialism." Logic and spirituality not only CAN mix very well, but according to many are NECESSARY for balance in life! Neptune might be in Detriment in Virgo, but that's not always a completely negative thing. Opposites attract and are sometimes necessary. If we again consider that "domiciles" and "detriments" in terms of "home" vs "foreign place" rather than in terms of "success" vs "failure," it's clear that although a planet will never be as comfortable in a foreign place as it is in its own home, it's still a chance for new experiences. Much like a student leaving home and going to college for the first time. The experience is what you make of it. It can either be the best time or worst time of your life. That is also why so many astrologers claim that a sign's best match is often their opposite! This means that Leo is often paired with Aquarius and Pisces is often paired with Virgo. They balance each other out. No, what I don't think is a good thing is EXTREMISM and extremism is not necessary. Many atheists ARE spiritual but many "religious people" are not "spiritual" and often believe "fiction" over "fact" or even worse, confuse "fiction" WITH "fact." And that is a BIG problem in this world. Neptune is a spiritual planet but I highly doubt that the belief of actual "spirits" is a requirement of its duties. Religion is not at all necessary when dealing with spirtuality that has no defined religion, no defined roles, no organized limitations.

      No, they didn't. They WANTED to rise to the higher class, but like I emntioned before, because so many bought high end things that they couldn't afford, it snow balled into the events that led to the Stcok Market Crash of 1929. The finanical situations that brought it to the breaking point occured LONG before Neptune was in Virgo. People were still unemployed in the 1920s, there were much lower wages, there was high debt, etc. All these things happened while Neptune was in Leo that eventually led to the crisis of the stock market crash with Neptune in Virgo. So if anything...Neptune in Leo was living a lie. In Leo, Neptune created one of its best illusions and everyone was fine pretending that everything was ok when there were so many problems going around. It was an illusion most readily accepted after the devastating events of WWI. This was not necessarily a good thing. Because so many people were wrapped up in the arts, finery and all the distractions, they didn't pay attention to what was actually going on until it was too late. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me. With Neptune in Aqaurius, things were similar, but there's more of a balance now than there was then. Technology is allowing us to be more artistic (nearly all smartphones come with cameras), fashionable (breaking old rules about what's acceptable and what's not), etc. Technology is changing the way people are more innovative. Computers do more now than just coldly catalogue information. They can be VERY useful in art projects, commercials and allowing people to express themselves in general in even more diverse ways than before.

    16. Why is it necessary at all to believe in a god? LOL...yes, it does. Or at least MOST organized religion has everything to do with believeing in a god...not only that but organized religion actually CONTROLS how people beleive in that specific god. There's a difference between in believing in something "outside" of us and believing in a "god" as defined by most organized religions. While many atheists don't believe in a god, many are now accepting the possibility of life on other planets...an idea which would've been laughable before. And many researchers now think that almost all religions had origins where extraterrestials met with and guided our ancestors. So in a way...the two might be one and the same.

      Yes, many atheists are sceptics, but like the link I gave you, many atheists can also be spiritual. And honestly, the goal here is to find BALANCE between logic and spirituality rather than the perverse extremism that curses our generation. A healthy dose of spirtuality with a healhty dose of logic is best. Spirituality helps logic find its humane side and logic helps ground spirtuality and adapt it to the world we live in. Many athetists might be skeptics, but most of them are healthy skeptics. They're the ones that won't be fooled with a fortune tellers tries to charge them $20 that they could use on groceries. But when something that COULD be reasonable presents itself they're willing to listen. On the contrary, what prevents a Christian from following the words of Mohammad or a Jew from worshipping Zeus? It's the religious people that automatically think they have all the answers and are the ones that try to portray thier BELIEFS as the ultimate TRUTH. When if a god exists, who's to say what version of him is the right one? What if "God" is a woman? What if as I believe, there are many Gods? What if the entire universe is a manifestation of the divine? Why should athetists just accept something that even theologians and religions have trouble answering? Blind faith isn't faith...it's just blindness.

    17. Um, I don't think people would waste their time and money on yoga, feng shui, meditation, etc. if they really didn't believe in it. And honestly, as long as they themselves see the value and that it helps them in someway, wahtever that way may be, is all that matters. Whether they take it to heart or not isn't our place to decide. Just like all those people that CLAIM to be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. How many of them actually take to heart the words of their sacred books instead of just going through the motions or keeping up appearances? That same fakeness and lack of understanding are even more prevalent in people who claim to be religious than those that at least give different things a try. While scientists might be limited by "facts," most religions are limited by their very blind "faith" that they PORTRAY as "fact" to be "spiritual which is why I truly believe that "religion" and "spirituality" are two very different things.

    18. Yeah again...being "religious" and very "spiritual" at least in our generation are two very different thing. The dictionary definition of "religion" has about 8 different meanings. So when I think about "religion," I mean the organized kind which is more strict, controlled, worhsip in a set group, etc. whereas "spirituality" (also has about 8 different definitions) and is more free, individual, relaxed, etc. Neptune sems more about "spirituality" than an organized religion and ANYONE can be "spiritual." Well, I already provided the proof and links that atheists can be spiritual. And honestly, many times it's the atheists who are more humane, more tolerant, more accepting of different ideas and beleifs than their own as opposed to as opposed to religious extremists who think they're right no matter the evidence, no matter that their actions are contrary to their words of supposed peace and love and tragically often resort to war and violence to force their message onto others. That is NOT "spirituality" either. Not by a long shot. And as a pagan, I don't believe that humans "need" to believe int he divine. It's not necessary for survival and it's not even necessary to be "spiritual." There are many religions or belief systems that promote spirituality without having to worship or believe in gods and the link I gave proved that. Another one is Buddhism. So the extreme version of "religion" is a very bad thing, too which is why Neptune NEEDS balance. Neptune needs the yin to its yang. ALL the planets and signs do. And that's what the zodiac is about. Balance.

      And that's why we eventually need the Age of Aquarius. We are living in times wehre all this religious extremism is clouding not only reason but also simple HUMANITY for each other. People are killing, raping, torturing each other in the name of such-and-such a god that might not even be real....and even if he/she was, might not even be THEIR version of the god. What can possibly be desireable about that? If anything, the atheists version of "spirtuality" is by far more preferable and indeed I'd rather live in a secular society where everyone should respect each other's beleifs and where the law is based on evidence than some religious society that forces its beleifs on others without bothering to consider other theories. That can NEVER be "spirituality" to me. A healthy dose of logic and reason is necessary for any religion. If the Gods did not want us to use our reasoning even in regards to our universe, then they shouldn't have given them to us. ;)

    19. Neptune is the planet that is about divinity and spirituality. Neptune teaches us that sometimes we must let go of reality and understand those things that are not apart of this world. Perhaps the Gods did want us to have reasoning; hence why Mercury and Uranus bring us into the logical world, while Neptune helps us escape reality as we see it. It may seem like this is not necessary...but that is what Neptune teaches us: that we as human beings have a need to believe in something other than reality; something that is divine or other-worldly.
      True balance is achieved when the planet achieves its purpose in the most effective and REFINED way possible, not necessarily in a limited/debilitating fashion. Asking Neptune to be logical is like asking a person missing a leg to run a mile. There will be limits. The best way to achieve Neptune's balance it to put Neptune's abilities to effective use. Give its idealism purpose by being creative with it. Give all of its compassionate energy through qualities of generosity.
      Its not about whether Gods exist that really helps us understand Neptune. Its the belief that something spiritual is guiding our world that Neptune can relate to. Neptune believes all, connects all. In a positive placement this is not limited, rather it is refined. In a negative placement, this goal is a struggle to achieve. Personally, I'm not a religious person. lol.

    20. Objectively, Neptune is not about being in a physical religion and I think you misunderstand my point in this. Neptune can achieve its purpose in the best way possible (helping us to escape the daily world) not through an ORGANIZED religion, but when we see evidence of strong belief in something outside of our physical reality; that is a sign that Neptune is achieving its goal. There is nothing wrong with having faith in something even if you have no physical proof. This my friend is often done through intuition. Intuition is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. Neptune gives us the greatest intuition because it believes all. We need to understand this side to us. We need to believe that all is possible.

      There is a difference between being in a "religion" and being a "religious" person. Yes, organized religions in physical form have caused problems...but being a religious person is something very different. Believing in something religiously is not bad, especially if you have strong faith in things that are positive. A Buddhist can still be considered religious. If you're referring to Christianity that is one popular idea of religion, but it is not what religion is as a whole. Religion can take many forms. Neptune has always ruled religion for that reason: because it provides hope to people who believe that anything is possible even if we cannot factually comprehend it. Neptune wants to open our minds to possibilities.

      Its true that all the planets need balance. But again, there is a difference between refining and limiting. Logic limits spirituality. If you constantly need proof for things, then you really can't believe in the possibilities. We have three planets that represent logic: Mercury, Uranus, and Saturn. Neptune is not one of those planets that are here to teach us logistics. Neptune is here for the purpose of helping us understand things outside of that realm.

      People losing faith in ANY way represents Neptune at its worse. When Neptune is at its worse placement, it is said to "look bad" in the face of people. When Neptune is in a good placement the generation has strong sense of understanding of the "other" worlds. A generation that tries to escape through "facts" cannot possibly represent Neptune at its best. And again, its not that Atheists aren't spiritual...its just when a person believes that facts should prove EVERYTHING, that reflects a LIMITED spirituality. There is a difference between having NO spirituality and having a LIMITED spirituality. Neptune in Aquarius showed the strongest limits to spirituality, where facts define existence. Neptune is the EXACT opposite of that. This could feel very uncomfortable for a planet that truly believes all possibilities intuitively. Its ability for intuition outside of facts is exactly why I believe Neptune is exalted in Cancer.

    21. Here's an example of how sometimes many could mistake a debilitating position as a "balanced" position. Venus represents love, pleasure, lust, money, attraction. When Venus is in Virgo, many of these qualities are limited. While one could say Virgo "balances" Venus' superficiality with shrewdness and reserves its need for pleasure, the reason this placement is considered debilitating is because it is limiting Venus' qualities. Pisces however, REFINES Venus' qualities without limiting. When Venus is in Pisces, we still see evident Venusian qualities...the difference being that it is expressed in a more refined way. The same when Sun is in Aries. We could say that Sun in Libra is a more balanced approach to the Sun's expression. But the reason it is considered debilitated is because the Sun's self expression is limited by the weight of indecisiveness and consideration of others.

      Don't get more wrong: I believe that the debilitated placements are just as necessary for a planet as the dignified placement. After all, the planets must cross through every sign, even the debilitating ones. And even the debilitating positions come with unexpected rewards. But I'm just presenting the fact, that a debilitating placement comes with limitations for the planets because the qualities struggle to blend with opposing qualities of the sign while trying expressing itself.

    22. I must reiterate that Neptune is not about being in a religion. It is about the feeling that there are possibilities. For a person to say "there is no God"...that means there is a limited possibility in that person's eyes. When a person says "all Gods are one" or "there could be a POSSIBILITY of a God"...they have truly understood the connection that Neptune has to teach. They have not limited their possibilities....they have now understood that anything is possible. They are not skeptical as if to say "it doesn't exist". Rather they open their minds to the possibilities of existence of many things.

    23. Yes, I agree with you on Neptune being the planet of "spirituality" but I don't think "divinity" comes into play since you don't have to believe in the "divine" to be "spiritual." Hmmm...well, I can't speak for anyone else, but many of us pagans believe in moderation and that the Gods gave us BOTH "logic" and "spirituality" to find the best balance and as a warning to not rely too much on one or the other but to try to have them work together. We shouldn't spend our physical lives waiting for a "savior" to come and make everything better but at the same time we should remember that we are all still connected to this planet and act accordingly rather than coldly. Yes, but the fact remains that it's not always GOOD for each and every planet to fulfill its truest purpose and that's why the planets almost never act alone but act with the influences of other bodies. It will never be good for Neptune to be TOO emotional or Saturn to be TOO strict or even the Sun to burn TOO brightly. Things are not balanced in that way. Each planet should be able to fulfill its duty without going to the extreme and it does with the help of other influences. But again...one does not need to believe in the "other-worldly" or "divinity" (at least the term in the way most people use it) to be able to use Neptune's benefits or to be "spiritual." Many people who don't believe in any gods or any other worlds still can meditate or be "spiritual" in the sense of having that "compassion" and "connection" to their inner selves and other creatures. Oh I see. But perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you mean?

    24. But I think I already showed evidence that even atheists can be "spiritual" without necessarily believing in other "worlds," "gods," or "other realities." There are many ways to be "spiritual." And I genuinely believe that there "being nothing wrong in believeing in something without physical proof" is true but only to an EXTENT. There is nothing wrong if it will only affect that person individually. In that case, everyone is free to believe whatever they want. But when people try to force those beleifs on OTHERS and change or enact laws based on them and even worse, cause wars in the name of such "beliefs," then no...there IS something wrong in that case. And sadly, that's what's happening in the world today. Too many people are too extreme in those beleifs and that's very upsetting. Atheists and other non-religious people can be "intuitive." They might not believe or call it that, maybe they call it "good judge of character" or some other thing, but they still can have those qualities.

      Again...it depends. If that belief will only affect the life of that particular person, then it is not bad and it is their right. But when it is forced upon others, then it is very bad indeed. Well, I was talking about extremism in general in ALL the major organized religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhsm, etc.) that has led to bloodshed. That is not to say that those religions are "bad" (I'm a pagan but my family is Roman Catholic), but rather that the extremism of some of those faiths is what's bad and why believing in something with no proof when it affects others is bad.

      I don't really believe that. I agree that there's a difference between "refining" and "limiting," but I don't think it's the "spirituality" itself that gets "limited" but rather those limitations prevent the "extremism" of that "spirituality" which certainly does need limitations to some extent at least. Just like "logic" too needs limits. In other words, a "spiritual" person still needs logic to prevent that person from being dumb or naive. And a logical person still needs some form of "spirituality" (in this sense, a certain compassion and understanding of others) to prevent that person from being cold and unfeeling. That is why most planets work with each other in balance, to prevent either one from being too powerful or too extreme which would be bad news for humanity.

      Perhaps, but like I said....people can "lose faith" in organized religion, but then turn to "spirituality" and still have it represent Neptune which was the case for Neptune in Aquarius according to the link I sent which showed that although people were lsoing faith in organized religion, they were still turning to a form of "spirituality" at least and so in a way, still made full use of Neptune and so I don't think Neptune was at its "worst placement" then. People were still turning to Neptune just in a different and unconventional way which is what Aquarius is all about. But again...the same goes for all those people that follow a religion who think that their "intuition" or "spirituality" is a good replacement for "facts" and "logic." Just like "logic" can't prove EVERYTHING, niether can "spirituality." They need each other. Yes, I believe Neptune is exalted in cancer too, but just because it would be in fall in Virgo, doesn't mean it can't learn anything from it. It just has to fnd a way to work WITH Virgo and other influences to be successful.

    25. Hmm...that's a good example. But I think in way, it's almost like "wanting" something vs. "needing" something. Venus might be "limited" in Virgo to an extent, but it's Virgo's very shrewdness and conservatism by allowing a person to save money to actually be able to ENJOY those qualities. Venus may WANT to be lavish, luxurious, etc. but it must also be reminded at times to tone it down and enjoy beauty and luxury in a different way. There is still beauty in subtlety. It's just a different type of beauty. Venus might not WANT that, but sometimes it NEEDS that. Justlike a rish Hollywood person always wanting attention, plastic surgeries, etc. Yes, that person has a right to those things and that person might enjoy themselves best at those times, but for that person to be whole and healthy, they also need to know when to stop or at least slow it down. And that's why I continue to see the "domiciles" and "exaltations" in "home" vs "guest of honor" terms rather than "best" and "limited" terms, especially when the exaltaions were considered only for the degrees of those signs whereas the domicile extended to the whole sign.

      Oh yes. I think I'm beginning to understand what you mean now. And yes, that planet might not LIKE being in the debilitaing planet, but it certainly NEEDS it. I guess I see it like a mother feeding their child medicine...it tastes yucky and you don't want it, but in the end, it will only help you get stronger. XD

    26. I still don't really agree about that. A person who says "There is no God" might be limiting that particular possibility, but they still open themselves to others (like alien life or just being "spiritual" in other ways). But don't you think that the "religious" person who says "Jesus is the ONE TRUE God" or "There is no God but Allah" ALSO "limiting" themselves to other possibilites? And this was my point and why I separate "religion" from "spirituality." Yes many atheists might limit themselves by usually only focusing on the "facts," but many "religious" people limit themselves even MORE by sticking to their VERSION of the "spirituality" which they often pass as "facts" with almost no real reason and very often don't accept other possibilties either. So they're certainly no different. In my experience, an agnostic person or atheist person is at least open to other possibilties whereas many "religious" people stick to their beliefs strictly often without even consdiering others and even go out of their way to try to prov the other wrong when it's not something that could ever really be proved. The people that allow the possibility that THEIR god exists very often do not think OTHER gods exist and that is STILL limiting so again...even in this instance, the atheists are still preferable for me as a pagan because at least they put ALL "religious" beleifs on the same level whereas many other organized religions are hypocritical in that sense and take THEIR version as the "truth" without considering other possibilties either so I don't think those "religious" people know Neptune's true meaning either.

    27. Yes, I do think a person that simply says "there is only one true God" is as bad as a person that says "there is no God:. Both of these limit Neptune's need to dissolve boundaries. Ironically, Neptune had both extremities the last few times Neptune was in Capricorn and Aquarius. Opposition of people who are rigid in their beliefs. God verses No God. Its still the same issue when one limits themselves.
      Neptune is a planet that is Agnotistic. But what Neptune seeks to be is in a state of Omnism...the recognition of all religious beliefs and respect for them. Syncretism is also Neptunian in that it merges all religious context and meanings. THIS is what Neptune is trying to achieve. Connections, seeing all as one, is exactly what Neptune is about, without skepticism.

      Atheism is still the opposite of Omnism and syncretism. Atheism does not believe in anything religiously. And again your idea of religion is based upon already established well known religions. But a religion can take any form. There is nothing wrong with believing in anything religiously or in other words with devotion. In fact, religion is linked to spirituality for that reason. Believing something with all your heart and spirit can make for a VERY spiritually powerful person. It doesn't have to be Christianity. It doesn't have to be Islam. It can take any form. This is what NEPTUNE relates to.

    28. Yes, that is what I meant by Exaltation and fall. lol sorry if I was not clear before. Debilitations are necessary for the planet. It is limiting, but sometimes for the better. Neptune in Aquarius, in my opinion is Neptune can be considered a debilitating placement. It makes Neptune more logical than it would normally be. Neptune might find this very difficult, but in the long run Neptune will learn from it. In our world, the rise of Atheism/liberalism verses religions/conservatism seems to cause a lot of ruckus in our spiritual generation. But in the long run we will hopefully learn to our minds to both ideas without the tug-o-war. Neptune could be exalted in Leo...for the simple fact that Neptune expresses itself more freely in this sign with hardly any restrictions. But while Neptune feels more exaggerated in this sign, that doesn't mean its "Perfect". Anytime there is limitation, astrologers consider debilitations. Anytime there is freedom of expression, astrologers consider dignity. Both are necessary for the planet...for the sake of balance.

      I don't believe that dignities and debilities will ever be equally distributed for the simple fact that the signs are not as important as planets. Even if seven planets had the same sign in dignity...it really would not matter. As long as the planet has its own ranking and understanding. Astrology is study of planets, not signs. Trying to fit every planet with a different sign is difficult, because planetary meanings have to be taken into account and should be handled delicately. Most astrologers are not going to consider one asteroid for dignity without considering how dignities affect other celestial bodies. In the end, trying to equally distribute signs may not work easily.
      Jupiter is the planet of Philosophy. Philosophy does not need facts; in fact philosophy is often concluded based upon personal observations. Aquarius is not a bad sign for Jupiter...but I don't think its the BEST position for Jupiter. Jupiter is a planet of moral law, faith, philosophy, teaching, understanding. Its goal is to achieve personal happiness and self-realization. While I feel Aquarius is very much like Jupiter in many ways, it is not concerned with anything personal. Jupiter achieves its goal directly in Cancer, the sign of emotions. Jupiter lightens Cancer's mood and Jupiter also gains even deeper understanding of life than all the other signs. Aquarius, being ruled by Saturn traditionally, gives great limits and boundaries to Aquarius' success. Uranus does too. These attributes conflict with Jupiter. Aquarius has understanding in the abstract sense, but there is one area that Aquarius is said to have the hardest understanding; its own emotions and the feelings of others. When Jupiter is in Cancer it has found that inner understanding of itself and others. It can care for others more thoroughly because it understands much more deeply than in Aquarius.

      Jupiter and Neptune are not the most logical signs in the zodiac and teach us lessons that might conflict with planets like Mercury and its higher octave Uranus...as well as Saturn. This is why Neptune and Jupiter are said to do poorly in Saturn based signs and mercury based signs. Those type of signs are too limiting for both Jupiter and Neptune.

    29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    30. Another example of exaltation vs Domicile: Its like the difference between eating at home (domicile) vs Going to the finest restaurant in town (exaltation). The restaurant's food is not what you would normally eat at home comfortably, but has the best food in town. A fall is like eating something you absolutely distaste, but sometimes food we don't like is good for us. Detriment is like eating food that's not normally food that is not normally edible to human beings. lol But this could very well be a chance to try something new and be innovative. A peregrine placement, a planet with no dignity (nor debility according to some astrologers) is like eating at a friend's house. Its not the best food but its not necessarily the worse. So all the dignities/debilities can be looked at in that way. The planets are eating, and what they might have the easiest time devouring reflects a dignity. What might be the toughest to eat would reflect a debility, even if this limitation is necessary.

    31. I also want to re-emphasize the difference between being in a religion (according to the dictionary) and being religious. The dictionary definition of religion: is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe". Let me make this clear; just because a person is APART of a religion DOES NOT mean they are religious. There are people who affiliate themselves as Christians or Muslims or buddhists, etc...but they are not necessarily "religious".

      To be religious reflects something on the inside...something that is felt, and the feeling is usually shown though a sense of devotional self sacrifice..which also apart of Neptune's goals. There are three definitions of Religious from Merriam-Webster dictionary. The first one I mentioned already. But there is another definition: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful. And this can be towards anything. There are people who write religiously. There are people who walk religiously...there are people who talk religiously. But people who are religious may not be apart of an organized RELIGION. I know one person who has strong faith in a God. She believes there is a strong force at hand in her life. But she is not necessarily apart of an organized religion. This is where you must understand this difference. Neptune relates to those who seek divine acceptance and those who are willing to sacrifice for the sake of spirit. Neptune is the planet of sacrifice and it believes in giving into the spiritual forces that we cannot see. It believes that we truly understand when we let that spirit guide us. It is our greater intuitive side. And as stated: ATHEIST CAN BE SPIRITUAL. I agree. But if they believe that spirit should be logical, they are asking for proof of existence rather than believing through intuition or accepting there could be a possibility even if there is not physical evidence. This limits spiritual connection because they demand something physical out of something that may not take such forms.

      Atheists can be spiritual...NEVER did I say they are NOT spiritual. I said their spirituality is limited because logic prevents them in believing in some ideas.

    32. Well, yes it SHOULD be the same, but sadly many astrologers only count the "religious" people as "spiritual" although atheists can be "spiritual" as well and religious people too strict in their beleifs also limit themselves. It's why I think Neptune in Aquarius wasn't a bad thing emotionally or spiritually because just as in the link I gave, even though there were more atheists, they still considered themselves "spiritual" which means they still benefitted from Neptune's influence. Well...the opposite is also true. For me personally, I think it's the extremism of religious beleifs that are causing most of the world's problems rather than the rise of science and logic which is actually desperately needed. Well...yes, my "idea of religion is based on existing religions" precisly because THOSE are the religions that not only exist in our world but also provide the MOST "religious" thoughts and beleifs and as such are probably the provide the most energy for Neptune and are most affected BY Neptune. I already said that yes, there IS something wrong with beleiving in something devotedly if there's EXTREMISM and especially if there's no proof because those actions will not only affect that particular person but EVERYONE so yes...there's something wrong with that. Logic, on the other hand, influences people but only AFTER it has been proven that doing so in that particular way will be the most beneficial. Therefore, it is logic and not "religion" or even "sprituality" that is best for humanity as a whole. There's nothing wrong with acting accordingly to something if the facts prove it. In fact, it is what separates us from the rest of the animals but also what gives us most responsibility. We need BOTH. But the extremism of that religion or devotion is what's harmful, not benefical at all to humanity. And although that devotion doesn't HAVE to be Islam or Christianity or anything mainstream religion, it often IS just because there are so many of them. And sadly, the extremism of those very religions are also part of Neptune and thus also why Neptune often DOES need to be restricted in some way to be beneficial just like the other planets.

      And I don't know if Neptune in Aquarius would be a "fall," but either way, they can both still learn from each other. But I still don't agree with Neptune being "exalted" in Leo because Leo is too emotional as is and with Neptune's watery infleunce, precisely because there are no restrictions (which can be a bad thing...Think of a teen having no restrictions and you can easily see the disaster that will follow) that excess of emotion can lead to negative results.

      Yes, but that doesn't matter. One does not have to believe in a religion or anything of the sort to be "spiritual." Spiritual atheists exist.

    33. Oh I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. But I still think that the whole "exaltation" and "fall" thing will probably always be a matter of opinion especially in regards to the outer planets because the system that set that up not only didn't know of the existsence of the outer planets, but it was a system that was highly reliant on the DEGREE of the sign and not on the sign itself. And I don't really think Neptune is suited to be exlated in Leo...Neptune is still too watery, emotional, illusionary, and escapist to be able to work well with a fiery, tempermental, and egotistical Leo. Yes, but an excess of emotion usually leads to more negative things than positive things.

      I don't agree that the planets are more important than the signs. At least in Western astrology (which most of our hemisphere uses) the signs are EQUALLY as important as the planets. And yeah it would matter because if the signs were not important, then they would've been scrapped in favor of only the planets. And no...having seven planets in one sign would destroy the natural order and power of the zodiac which is why that shouldn't happen and why the ancients themselves tried to make the signs and system as equal as it could be. Every sign except Leo and Cancer had two domiciles and thus two debilities and every sign except Leo, his opposite Aquarius and Scorpio had their exaltation and fall. The reason for that was so the system would be as equal as could be. I don't think it would be that difficult to find a plent for each sign since each sign would just express that planet differently and depending on the interpretation, the planet could fit the sign. Plus, the universe should be naturally balanced anyway if astrology is true and so it's only a matter of FINDING the equal planets for the signs.

    34. Um...Philosophy might not need "facts" per se, but it certainly needs LOGIC and it was precisely that very need for logic and trying to discover the origins of the universe that led some philosophers to create their own beleif system rather than 100% adhere to the pagan religious system of their time. Just like "religion" and "spirituality" aren't the same thing, "logic" and "facts" aren't the same thing. The ancient philosophers didn't sit down and research or list all the "facts" of their beleifs, but they certainly analyzed their beleif systems and tried to correspond it to the world around them to find better answers to universal questions. For instance, Aristotle and Pythagoras were two great examples of philosophers that used logic as well as facts to create their respective beleifs. Aristotle used what he observed in the natural world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) and Pythagoras used math (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras) . So yet again, this is just more proof that logic and "facts" aren't one in the same but are still heavily reliant on the other. One can argue that perosnal observations are a form of "fact" since it's observable. So...yeah. And not only that, but they are perfect examples of logic and spirituality going hand in hand as it should. Philosophy still uses a form of logic and that logic is what the basis of much of our secular laws and society is based on. So Aquarius would certainly do very well in Jupiter. But I don't really want to debate Cancer's exaltation in Jupiter or anything right now because it's another one of those things that's a matter of opinion. It adheres to the ancient system of exaltations but because the zodiac needs balance and we already agreed that Neptune is best exalted in Cancer, I don't think Cancer should have both exaltations. Cancer is about family and emotions which fits Neptune perfectly. Jupiter is more about good fortune, optimism, philsophy and travel which also fit Aquarius who also uses those thing, especially travel and philosophy or logic in humanitarian efforts. I don't think Jupiter really cares whether its benefits are used personally or universally as long as they get used.

      Jupiter might not be "factual" per se but it IS a highly "logical" sign and any type of logic would greatly benefit and be benefited from Aqaurius.

    35. Yes, I suppose that is a good way to put it. But I again still don't put "exaltation" as that important since yet again, it was heavily reliant on the DEGREE of the sign. So if an Aries person was born in the 24th degree, they wouldn't necessarily have the benefits of the exaltation of the Sun. However, any degree of Aries would still have the benefits of having a Mars domicile. So although your description certainly helped me understand the system better, I still don't think exaltation is as important as domicile.

    36. Uh...no. A religious person IS religious. You just quoted the dictionary definition yourself. But the problem is that it means all the negative people too not just the positive ones. Those people ARE religious in the sense that they do indeed "follow an organized set of beleifs and cultural systems" even if some of those are done negatively or to the extreme. So sadly...they are STILL "religious." They're just not entirely "spiritual" which is different.

      For me, that is what "spiritual" means. Like I said....there might be different definitions of "religious" but there also different definitions of "spritual" and talking about "religious" in a spiritual sense would cause one to think of the organized religious connotations instead. That is why people used the term "spiritual" instead. And in that case....one can believe in logic or "facts" religiously too. Those are also a set of organized beleifs or a cultural system. So even by that definition, an atheist can also be "religious." But that's very confusing so that is why I don't use that term and used "spiritual" instead.

      Yes, that is why a "spiritual" person doesn't need organized religion or even beleif in a god. Again...I don't quite understand what you;re trying to say in this regard. "Spirituality" is not something that can ever be "proven" or "factual" so to that is a moot point. But "spirituality" can certainly be "logical" and indeed SHOULD be in the sense that we are not blinded by faith alone and try to relate our "spirituality" to the world around us in the time period we are living in. This is what the philosophers did. They used not only "spirituality" but also tried to make it work in a logical way. In that way, the two are balanced and the world as a whole is balanced. Extreme "religion" is bad because it affects others and extreme "spirituality" is bad too because it still deprives that individual a part of who they are. Like the swamis in India who fast or deprive themselves of physical pleasure. In their religion on spirituality they're probably doing a good thing, but in only focusing on the spirit, one completely ignores the mind and body which are also VERY important. So extreme spirituality is also to be avoided and that's why logic while "limiting" or "restraining" it, makes it work its best because it uses it as it was meant to be and uses its influences as benefically as possible. Logic and spirituality NEED each other to work their best because blind faith causes people to neglect their useful logic and blind logic causes people to forget their spirituality. They are not at all incompatible.

    37. Believe it or not the definition of a spiritual person is a person that is related to RELIGIOUS ideas. May I give you the link to the definition?

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spiritual In this dictionary its says a spiritual person is a person that relates to religious ideas. Here is another dictionary definition. http://www.yourdictionary.com/spiritual
      This another website that relates spirituality to religious.

      I'm not personally attacking atheists here. I'm being objective on the matter, not personal. Its best to see this objectively rather than subjectively, so that you can get a clearer understanding on the bigger picture what I am saying. I'm seeing atheists and religious people outside of my own personal feelings on the matter.
      Yes, many religions have done horrible things. But that does not exclude the fact that Neptune relates to the religious people because of their spiritual devotion and ability to sacrifice their life in order to become more spiritual. Neptune is very much about spiritual sacrifice, spiritual devotion, spiritual hope, spiritual faith. Religious people have these qualities normally.
      I'm not sure if you read everything I said, but being religious does NOT mean you are in a RELIGION. There is a difference between being RELIGIOUS/spiritual and being in a RELIGION. There are PLENTY of people who are religious that do not define themselves by a religion. To be religious means to be devoted to something divine. A person can be devoted to something divine without being in an organized sanctioned religion of people. To be spiritual means to relate to something that is other than physical or logical, which includes a religious person.
      The reason astrologers count religion as part of Neptune is because religion has come to be identified with believing something without logic or facts. Would you not agree that religious people believe things without logic or facts?
      Neptune is very much like this in nature. Neptune believes all without logic or facts. It is the opposite of Mercury, a planet that needs factual evidence. This is why Mercury is falling and in detriment in Neptune's ruling sign Pisces.
      An atheist would normally be skeptical of certain ideas, and this skepticism is different from Neptune's nature. Its more like Uranus and Mercury's nature. Its even like

    38. Philosophy is very logical, but is also very personal compared to general agreed facts. Jupiter is the planet of philosophy. Its opposite planet is the planet of general agreed facts. Jupiter's philosophy is very personal compared to Mercury.
      For example, your personal philosophy is that atheists can be more spiritual than a person who identifies with a religion. That is a personal philosophy. This is why Jupiter is in detriment in signs like Gemini and Virgo...these signs are not very personal in their approach to logic. Aquarius is also very logical...but it is also not very personal. They are more factual and go by generally agreed thoughts. Gemini and Aquarius particularly are Whereas the signs of Sagittarius and Pisces are more PERSONAL in their views of logic. Again, this point had nothing to do with atheism. I don't understand how atheism got mixed up with the idea of Philosophy...

      I want to ask you this about the idea of atheism vs religious...do you believe that the term "atheist" reflects a planet like Neptune more than the term "religious"? Let's be objective here. Pretend you are not a pagan, or an atheist of some sort. Pretend you are agnostic. Is a person who disbelieves something more in line with Neptune than a person who believes something strongly? The planets are based off of ancient ideas of importance. Spirituality in the ancient days WAS very important. Was it right? May not have been by PERSONAL opinion. But Neptune is what it is, whether we think its right or not. It is a planet that represents spiritual devotion and identifies with those who look to spirit to solve their issues in the world.

    39. Astrology is the study of planets. Here is the dictionary definition of astrology: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrology
      The signs are not the biggest part of that study. When we examine a natal chart, we don't look for the signs position. We look for the planets position in those signs. Even when it comes to the house placements, we look for the planets position in those houses. When we look at aspects, we're looking for PLANETARY aspects, not aspects to signs. So obviously, the planets are the most fundamental part of astrology. When we place a dignity in the chart system, we are not saying the SIGN is dignified. We are saying the PLANET is dignified in this house/sign. So this is why I say its more important to focus on the planet's position and understanding rather than try to fit EVERY celestial body with only 12 signs. Its never going to be possible to maintain that balance. Especially, because there are many more planets than just the nine that are closest to the Sun. And as time goes on, and technology improves, more planets will be discovered. And they too will eventually also be considered in this dignity/debility system...just like our recent Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. So this is why I say it will be difficult to achieve this in the long run. Its better that we focus on how the planets fit within the system, rather than how the signs do.
      As far as exaltation by degree, there are different systems that consider exaltation by degree and exaltation by sign. Regardless, this is what it means to be "exalted" according to astrology. The planet is in a higher state, or full of energy/strength. Whether you personally don't believe it is up to you. But generally, and factually this is what it has come to mean.

    40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    41. A planet in its exalted state doesn't necessarily mean it is the nicest or most "morally good" placement for the planet. lol Exaltation in astrology means the planet has more energy. For example, Sun in Aries (sun in its sign of exaltation) is not necessarily the nicest or fairest placement. So one might ask why is it exalted? Both Sun and Aries are selfish, right? In fact Sun is extremely selfish in Aries, compared to Leo, right? But that is exactly why it is exalted. lol Exaltation means the planets energy is more profound or more exaggerated. Neptune is an emotional planet. Which is EXACTLY why I do believe it could be exalted in Leo. Neptune is even MORE emotional in Leo. The difference is when Neptune is in Leo, its emotions are now directed toward creativity and drama. When Neptune is in Aquarius, Neptune is limited by the logical air sign. Even if this, in your opinion, is morally better for Neptune....limitations according to astrology constitutes a debility. Neptune (planet of illusion) cannot express itself as freely in Aquarius (a sign of logic) and therefore cannot be considered a dignity.. and in fact can be considered a debility. Where Neptune expresses itself more freely is called Neptune in "dignity".
      Let me reiterate that "dignity" doesn't equal morally good. It just means the planet feels more powerful and more free in this sign and thus feels dignified and comfortable.

      Its not so far off that Neptune would be exalted in Leo, even elementally. Neptune is more exaggerated in Leo, and its evident by the generation that has this placement. The strong similarities to fire and water are also evident. Just look at Mars. Mars (a fire planet) is dignified by triplicity in all the Water signs. So apparently fire and water do have some strong common ground. Water planets nor fire planets do well in air signs nor earth signs. Why is this? Because both fire and water are emotional in nature astrologically. Air signs and earth signs are not emotional; they are of the rational mind. Just a thought

      Also I should mention this. An atheist can be religious, as well. Because to be religious means to believe something with devotion. In fact an atheist can be apart of a religion.
      Definition of religion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
      Atheism means a person that doesn't believe in GOD or deities. But it doesn't mean that they don't believe in SOMETHING, right?
      Take note: A religion is not necessarily the worship of a God. A religion means a collection of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe.

      My point was that atheists can be religious/spiritual...but their spirituality is sometimes limited because many want physical proof of existence. Its not that this is morally wrong....there's nothing wrong with wanting proof of existence. Its just that it conflicts with what NEPTUNE is trying to achieve: to believe all, even if there is no physical proof.

    42. I hope I was clear about the idea of Philosophy. Jupiter is logical, but not as logical as Mercury, Uranus, and Saturn...Philosophy is logical, but more personal compared to factual logic. Just making sure I made this point clear.

    43. Yes, true. But it ALSO says "relating to sacred matters." And dictionary.com says that a "religion" is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." In the original meanings. the owrds were almost the same. However, that has somewhat changed since then....http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2002/07/Spiritual-But-Not-Religious.aspx#

      Yes, I understand that to a point, but MY point was that just because atheists are atheists doesn't mean that they're not "spiritual" and just because religuous person is of a religion that doesn't mean that they ARE "spiritual" so using the labels of a person's religion or atheism isn't really a good way to measure the influence of Neptune because one can be "spiritual" with being "religious" and one can be "religious" but still fail to grasp "spirituality."

      Yes, Neptune still has reign over religions and religious people even the negative side of it and thats why many times, it's a GOOD thing that Neptune is reined in sometimes by logic just like it's a GOOD thing that logic is reined in sometimes by spirituality. The idea is that no one planet becomes too powerful or extreme to throw off the balance.

      I think it was trying to differenitate between a religious person and a person in a religion that confused me. Because a person in a religion IS a religious person...but not necessarily a "spiritual" one. And the other definition of religion can apply to atheists too in the sense that atheists can and often do sacrifice themselves in pursuit of compassion, love, etc. So, I don't agree that "religious" people have those normally. Those qualities are inherent in anyone and everyone. Again, atheists might not call it that, but they do have it all the same. And it's not so much as having personal feeling in this regard...this is the subjectiveness. It's quite factual that there are spiritual atheists and non-spiritual religious people. That's why using "religion" as a measure for Neptune's influence isn't the best idea...

      I know why it's included in Neptune, but I've also explained why it technically shouldn't be. Yes, it's the opposite of Mercury but at the same time..when dealing with people...they are rarely as extreme as planets are. There are logical people who use spirituality sometimes and there are spiritual people who use logic sometimes. Rarely do you have find people who are ONLY spiritual or ONLY logical. Which is why measuring them by "religion" alone when other spiritualties even atheism can also count in Neptune's favor. So yes, there might have been more atheists when Neptune was in Aquarius, but there was also a greater increase in "spiritual" people as well and that was also the point where being "religious" and being "spiritual" began meaning slightly different things. People now understand them differently than their original definitions.

    44. Yes, but Western Astrology deals with the fixed 12 constellations and seasons.http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/astrology/western-zodiac/

      And it's also why there's such a colossal difference between astrology and ASTRONOMY. Clearly....it's not JUST about the planets and heavenly bodies or else there would only be one astrological system or perhaps none at all. The planets are extremely vital, but they're far from being the ONLY deciding factors. Else why does the system even keep the signs to begin with if they're not needed? Yet they're still used. And Western Astrology in particular has kept even the same dates that the signs had when Sidereal has moved on. So especially in OUR astrological system, the signs still matter significantly.

      And although there might be more planets than the nine in our solar system, its really only our solar system that matters because anything farther than that cannot possibly have a significant influence to affect us. And this is also why Western has kept to the 12 "signs" and not constellations of those signs. We should only pay attention to the heavenly bodies in our solar system and how they relate to the signs because anything farther away than that...will probably have little to no effect. That's why I say that the signs are just as important if not more so than the planets whose only 9 or 10 are within our solar system and would have any affect on us at all compared to the seasons themselves. It's why Western still uses the signs to a great extent. We already probably discovered as many planets and large bodies in our solar system that we will ever find, so now it should work. Ten planets (including Pluto and perhaps Charon which might be is the only one of Pluto's "moons" to be spherical and might be considered a dwarf planet at a later date) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charon_(moon)#Classification_as_a_moon_or_dwarf_planet..

      This would allow for each sign to have its own planet including the Moon and Sun and its own exaltation. Ah yes, but originally it was exalted by DEGREE so when people claim that exaltation is older than domiciles that is what I counter with. It was older, but only as it was regarded by degree of that sign. Just because in modern times, much of the sign is regarded as having that exaltation doesn't really matter because then it becomes a matter of opinion. So technically...domicile is still the best expression of of the planet's qualities not exaltation. Like I said...the sign was originally exalted by the degree...that modern astrology has yet again ignored this now is just another part of why that system is flawed. And it's why domicile is regarded as the best expression which ruled the entire sign and not just the degree. So just like modern astrology changed HOW the signs are considered "exalted," the definition has not come to mean much...because the original system of degree that set that up is ignored. You can't take one without the other...With domiciles...there's no such contradiction. People are picking and choosing what they like about the exaltation system and ignoring what they don't so I don't think so. It works both ways.

    45. Hmmm...in terms of philosophy, I think we might be nitpicking here. Logic is based on (at least partially) agreed facts. Much of the ancients' philosophy had "agreed facts" until another philosopher came and made different observations. Much of it was factual, too. My personal philosophy that atheists can be more spiritual than religious people is personal but is also based on facts and evidence. I gave the links describing such people and in my own encounters, atheists tend to be more compassionate and understanding toward my faith and other options than religious people who are stuck to their ways regardless of either facts or possible options. (I may be a pagan now, but I was Catholic before and the indoctrinization is ALSO a form of limitation so I know first hand. I went through it.)

      The emphasis on whether "personal" logic is of great importance or not is also a matter of opinion. One can argue that it doesn't matter whether it's "personal" or not as long as logic gets used. Same goes for "spirituality." The form it takes is up for interpretation but Neptune doesn't specify what kind works best for it. I don't think atheism was mixed up "philosophy." I was probably responding to you again on "religious" people (a term I don't really use precisely because of its many connatations). So again...I don't really understand why a personal logic vs impersonal logic should matter as long as logic in some way and form gets used. Just like "spirituality." They don't really care about the form they take since the planets don't specify like that. Jupiter is a philosophical and therefore logical and partly spiritual planet. Neptune is an emotional and spiritual planet. They don't really cut hairs.

    46. I think this is the difference between us. I don't see Neptune in terms of "religious" vs "atheist" at all. I see it terms of "spiritual" which EVERYONE has or has the potential to have. You again might think people who "don't believe in god" to be "limiting" themselves or their "spirituality" but again I don't that matters. A person that is an atheist can be spiritual and often is. They might not call it that, but every time one of them takes a few minutes of their day to enjoy the sunrise or fell the rain or rest in solitutde...isn't that "spiritual?" Aren't they enjoying a feeling or something that can't be explained? But I've had different experiences with religion than most people and a lot of it wasn't good and now I follow a religion that most people don't. That, of course, has had an effect on how I regard the term "religious" and why I view them the way I do. And in my opinion, people who hold to their beleifs so strongly without any facts yet regard people like me to have no gods or faith aren't just "limiting" their spirituality like the atheists...they're worse. Atehists at least will often give things a chance and will at least have the deceny to regard ALL religious beleifs on the same level. If they don't believe in Santa, or Zeus or Thor; then they're not going to believe In Allah or Yahweh either. Many "religious" people, however, will often believe Allah or Jesus as "their one true god" but will laugh in my face if I tell them I pray to Zeus. That for me, is VERY "limiting" of them. I don't think they're using Neptune's energy at all when they do that and at least atheists are consistent and not hypocritical. The ancient ideas of Neptune were created BY pagans who DID believe that all other gods and spiritual beings were possible. They just didn't honor them because they wanted to follow the ways their ancestors prayed. Paganism back then was tied with nationalism or tribalism. And in Roman times the old ways expanded to include different faiths from various parts of the empire. It was not until the rise of monotheism that suddenly religion limited spirituality by limiting how people thought or how many gods there were, etc. This is another difference. Your using Neptune's description of ancient times when religion was paganism and was just as expressive and unlimited as the many pagan beleifs. Now, most of the world is monotheistic and most if not all monotheists limit themselves by claiming THEIR truths are "superior" simply because their books say so. They claim there is ONLY one god and that's that and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to a fiery pit. This is their BELIEFS and we can sugar coat it all we want, but it's right there in their texts. And that to me, is why I can never see that kind of religion (the majority of the religions on earth) as "spiritual" in that sense because they too are limiting themselves even worse than te atheists are who at least are consistent and not hypocritical. So that's why my answer is that Neptune's influence shouldn't be measured in terms of "religions" at all but rather "spiritual." Atheists can be spiritual and religious people can be far from "spiritual." Say there's no god is at least more objective and consistent than saying "there's only ONE god and we know all there is to know about him." Don't you think?

    47. That's true but there are other reasons why Leo wouldn't be good to exalt Neptune. Leo doesn't show its emotions in terms of "creativity" and "drama," (both too modern connotations of Leo's expressions), Leo usually shows its emotions explosively which is probably not how Neptune wants to express them. It limits Neptune by only expressing itself after the dust settles. By using emotion without a lot of the spirituality that goes into it. Remember, Leo is also primal and raw, not really the "spiritual" kind. He's more animalistic. And again...for me, the exaltations and such are kind of a moot point because people nitpick the old system by taking out the degrees. Without the degrees, there's not much claim that Aries in and of itself exalts the Sun. It was the degree and sign together that made it exalted. So...that's why I'll continue to see domiciles as the best expression of the planets, not "exaltation." That's a system that's now either flawed, broken or at best, incomplete. "Exaltations" and "falls" only really work with the old system that included the degrees as well. Without it, it seems to be just another "pissing contest" of which sign has more or better planets. Until the day comes when the signs have equal planets for "exaltations," it will be either a matter of opinion or a matter of nitpicking an old system by ignoring an inconvenient part of it...the degrees.

      Again...that's yet another matter of opinion. Fire and water elementally and nautrally don't get along. This why fire sign and water sign people are often at each other's throats! Fire gets along best with either other fire people or air people and water signs often get along best with either other water or earth people. Remember, the duality (masculine/feminine) also plays a part not just elements and in that sense fire and water have less in common. Fire and air are both "masculine" or "active" while water and earth are both "feminine" or "receptive." So...that's a case against fire and water too. The problem with fire and water is...if it's good, it can be very, very good, but if it's bad...well, you can't get much worse than that.

    48. Yes...I know an atheist can be "religious" in that regard to that particular definition of "religious." I admitted that before. But that's why I said that I don't use that particular term "religious" because it's very confusing for me. I don't use that term and if an atheist hmself heard someone call them "religious," they would not like it. So I use "spiritual" instead and I think it's a better fit for what we were describing than "religious" which even if it had the right definitions, is often misconstrued today. But that's why I kept saying that an atheist can be "spiritual" and even "religious," which is why I said that using that term or religions in general to determine Neptune's influence is not a good idea. Anyone of any or no faith can be "spiritual" which is why even using religions is in a sense, limiting Neptune itself.

      Yeah, but see I don't see it that way. I don't see them as "limiting" themselves just because they don't believe in a god anymore than a monotheist believes in one god and knows exactly how he is and what he wants. Yet only the atheist is described as "limiting" himself? I don't see how the monotheist is any better. If anything the atheist at least uses personal logic (not necessarily "facts") to at least consider the possibility and if they do, then they are willing to admit the existence of other creatures or other beings as well. Most "religious" people, especially monotheists (the vast majority of religions in the world) swear thier very lives up to their idea of their one god...but then will laugh or roll their eyes if you ask them about unicorns or aliens or the Olympians or fairies. And that's another thing....if atheists "limit" themslves by not believeing in God, how many millions of others "limit" themsleves by not believing in such creatures? Do people who don't believe in unicorns or elves "limiting" themslves, too? What about Zeus? Do you see why this is difficult for me to grasp? For me, it's all the same. Yahweh or not. Allah or not. Zeus or not. Atheists don't "limit" themselves in that sense. At least not in the way I understand Neptune's influence. If they do than others are doing it, too and just don't know it.

      Hmm...well I think it depends on the emphasis placed on "logic" vs "facts." I think Jupiter is more logical than factual, but in the end, it doesn't really matter since Jupiter is a good example of using both spirituality and "facts" or personal logic in the best way. It uses them and is not really specific about it. But in that sense, it can still do well with Aqaurius as opposed to Cancer who seems to be more emotionally based rather than logical.

    49. When I say Atheists are limiting, I mean that their need for "facts" limits Neptune's need to go outside of factual logic and understanding. Again, it has nothing to do with Atheists being "limiting" as people. The topic is about Neptune and where Neptune will show ITS "limitations". Atheists are very FACTUAL and this does not agree with Neptune. That was my point the entire time. The reason this does not agree with Neptune is because, while Atheists are capable of being spiritual/religious, many of them demand physical and logical proof of existence, especially in today's modern society. Again, as people they are very open minded. Its just that they're spiritual side can sometimes be limited because they need facts for everything in order to believe something exists. Do you not agree that this is the opposite of Neptune's ideals? Neptune believes without facts, atheists need facts to believe.

      I never said atheists are more limited than other religious people. Atheists are the most mentally open minded people in fact, hence why Uranus is a planet that promotes atheism as well as Pluto. And to add, of course, there are many religious people who are mentally limited and rigid.

      However, the type of limitation I'm referring to is not mental. While other religious people are mentally limited (because they refuse to believe in other things but God), they are not necessarily spiritually limited. Most religious people do not need "facts" to prove their God exists. They just believe he does without physical proof. They trust their God exists. Is this morally right? Maybe not to everyone. But this powerful belief in something without needing facts is very similar to Neptune's ideal. Its about having faith without needing physical/logical proof that shows that Neptune is involved. I hope I have made this clear to you.

    50. My discussion on philosophy had to do with my opinion that Jupiter is more personal and therefore I can't consider it being exalted in Aquarius. Jupiter represents personal philosophies, unlike mercury which represents general agreed facts, as well as Uranus. Mercury and Jupiter are planets that are clinically opposite. You do not need generally agreed facts to have a personal philosophy on life. Most philosophers came to their conclusions before others agreed with them. And there were many who disagreed with ancient philosophers. Socrates, being one of them, hence why The Apology, written by Plato was made. Many philosophies are based off of personal experience and observations. General agreed facts are based off of theories that many agree is true.
      Example: My personal philosophy is that a person cannot be a TRULY spiritual person if they always need facts to prove things existence. This is based off of my personal experience and observation. BUT it is not a generally agreed fact. Again, Jupiter is very personal as a planet. This is why I do believe Jupiter is exalted in Cancer. Cancer is the most personal sign in the zodiac and I haven't met a person with Cancer in their chart who doesn't have a personal philosophy on life. While Cancer has a bad reputation of being biased (because they go by their own personal experiences to determine situations), this is very much in line with Jupiter's functions as a planet.
      An agreed fact of life is that we all die. Who can disagree with that? This is more like Mercury, Saturn, and Uranus. Jupiter goes by its own experiences and observations rather than the agreed majority. Mercury and Uranus go by agreed facts and opinions by people.

    51. This is what I don't understand. I don't think of atheists as "limiting" themselves in the spiritual sense. One doesn't need to be "religious" to be "spiritual" like we've said many times before. Atheists rely on more "perosnal logic" than "facts" since many who don't believe in a "god" might still believe in aliens or other things. That's kind of like saying people who aren't scientists "limit" themselves when it comes to "facts" or "logic." People don't need to be scientists to be influenced by Mercury and people don't need to be "religious" to be influenced by Neptune. So I can't really agree with you there. ALL people are influenced by the planets at different times and we all have those qualities in ourselves no matter what religion or occupation we have. Atheists are not "limiting" in their sense of relating to Neptune anymore than everyone who aren't scientists are "limiting" their understanding of Mercury. Logical people can be spiritual and spiritual people can be logical. They both go hand in hand. So I don't really see any as being "limited" since they just simply use those influences in different ways at different times, but that doesn't means it's being "limited." It merely means it's being used differently. And again when you say "Neptune believes all," that might be true, but then it also does not represent the relgious people since they do NOT "believe all." They believe only as much and only as far as THEIR interpretation of their holy books allow. That's not "believeig all" and thus, by your definition, is not a representation of Neptune that does "believe all." Jews don't believe Jesus is a god, Christians don't believe Zeus is a god and on and on. This is precisely why "atheists" as a non-religion should not be used to make this point. Yes, they "limit" themselves by not believing in a god, but religious people also limit themselves by not believeing in ALL the options Neptune makes available. That's limitation, too. Not just the atheists.

      Yes, but I wasn't speaking about mentality either. And this is what I'm trying to tell you. They don't need "facts" but for them their books ARE "facts" and they very much do limit themselves spiritualy by beleiving in ONLY what their churches, mosques, etc. say, but blatantly ignoring or denying the possible existence of other beings or other spiritualities. It doesn't really have anything to do with morals in this conversation, but rather their hypocrisy is saying that atheists limit their spirituality and their understanding of Neptune when religious people ONLY beleive that their OWN god (and only their VERSION of him) exists and absolutely deny the possibility (with far more stubborness than atheists who at least are open to the idea) that anything else is possible. This, to me, is even MORE "limiting" of their spirituality and of Neptune. Because they do need a form of "facts" (their holy books) and they only believe to a limit (whatever their book says and nothing else). That's not what I think Neptune's ideal is at all.

    52. You do realize there could be more than nine planets in our solar system, don't you? The nine planets we have are simply the ones we've discovered so far. But with more technology, more planets in our galaxy will alter the way we see astrology. Before Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were first discovered, there were only SIX planets. The dignity system at that time was set up according to those SIX planets. But then guess what happened? With better technology, three more planets were discovered: Uranus,Neptune, and Pluto. So what makes you think this could not happen again? There might be three more planets in OUR solar system that we haven't seen yet, but might be discovered very soon. This is why I said, as time goes on, and with better technology, an equal "sign" system will not be possible, especially if more planets (not just asteroids) are discovered.

      Astronomy and astrology have one thing in common. They BOTH study the PLANETS. The difference between them is that Astrologers believe that the planets have an affect on the way events occur on earth. Astronomers are purely studying the planets outside of the earth's atmosphere. Astrology is more psychological in its approach to the planetary positions. Astronomy is purely scientific. They both study the motions, calculating the distance between planets and stars. They also calculate the orbit of the earth. They simply do it for different reasons.
      The root word "astro" relates to the stars, celestial objects, or outer space. This means that astrology and astronomy study similar things. The suffix is "-ology" which means "study of". "-Onomy" means "law" or "knowledge". Astrology is typically the current study of planets that has not been set up in a system of laws. Astronomy is referring to something that has already been studied and has been set up in a system of laws. In other words, astronomy is the "law/knowledge of planets".

      "Modern" (or should I say recent) Western astrologers have tried their best to put all of its efforts into the displaying the signs, which only frustrates almost every person that has studied astrology for years. ALL of astrology is the study of planets. Even Geocentric Tropical Western Astrology. Western Tropical astrology particularly studies the position of the Sun. The Sun is related to the seasons in this Western Tropical astrology. This is where the Sun is in detriment in Aquarius came from: the fact that the Sun is in the coldest time of year during its time of Aquarius, and is blocked from shining during the winter months. Winter represents having the longest nights and the shortest days. The sun sets sooner during winter. But of course, this still has more to do with a celestial body than it does the signs. The fundamental part of EVERY astrology is the position of the planets and stars. The signs are modifications to the planets' energy.

      Most astrologers who focus more on signs than planets usually do so because its simpler to grab attention for everyday horoscope readers. Would you not agree that amateurs relate better to signs than they do to planets? However, the true study of astrology is more about the position of planets whether its within the signs, houses, and the planetary aspects. Even compatibility is hardly determined by the signs. The strongest force of compatibility is done by a synastry chart, which reflects lovers' PLANETARY aspects. But sadly, recent astrologers have made the signs out to be the strongest force of compatibility only to find that even two people with planets in similar signs by duality still cannot get along. This is because the way a planet expresses in a sign will be altered by other planetary positions.

      So, again, when considering dignities, its the planets that should be focused on, not the sign. The signs have no table of dignity/debility...the planets do. The dignities and debilities of the planets are what we are looking for.

    53. Yeah, for me, it doesn't really matter whether logic is more personal or impersonal as long as some form of logic exists in Jupiter enough to go well with Aquarius and it does.

      Yes, but again you need some form of "logic." And much of ancient philosophy WAS on generally "agreed facts" until another philosopher came about and brought about his own philosophy but ONLY brought another train of thought after explaining WHY that philosopher didn't agree with his predecessors. They didn't just write what they wrote on nothing but blind faith. They had logical reasons and explained them. Hehehe...yeah, I studied Socrates and according to Plato, he had a habit of asking theoritical questions to get a deep answer. He didn't go around saying, "I think this book feel from the sky so we should all believe it and JUST it no matter what." Quite the opposite, in fact. He dared to question and dared to THINK. That was philosophy.

      And lol..of course the philosophers had disagreement among themselves. The scientific world TODAY has disagreements within it. Not every scholar or scientist is going to agree with every other one, but whatever disagreements they have must be proven in some way. They didn't say "I don't like what you say and that's that." They had to exlain WHY. That's logic, not blind faith. Same with philosophy. That doesn't mean that there weren't at least SOME things generally agreed on and based on "facts." Philosophy is the same way.

      Dictionary.com defines philosophy as "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." So it's clear that rationality (whether personal logic or facts) is a BIG part of philosophy. And not just the blind faith. Philsophy is spirituality and "personal logic" and even "facts" working together.

      See, I don't think that's a "personal philosophy," but rather an opinion. And people are free to have their own opinions of course, but to have a philosophy DOES need some sort of personal logic or "fact." That's like saying religious people can never be truly logical if they always rely on the spiritual world to provide for them. Many people would be offended if that were said, so many people would probably be offended if the opposite were said too. So I don't agree.

      Jupiter doesn't need to be ALL "facts." It has logic and that's enough. That's why Aquarius would do better. Cancer is almost all emotion which Jupiter really isn't. In Jupiter you have to actually think, not feel. I don't really know what the fact that everyone dies has to do with it, though. Again, I don't think that matters to the planets. The planet that deals with death is of course Pluto. Jupiter, Mercury, etc. don't really have an opinion on that and if they do, it's not nearly as important as the rest of their qualtities. Jupiter is a thinking planet, whther personal or impersonal and Neptune is a feeling planet. Thus, Cancer would do best In Neptune and Aquarius would do best in Jupiter. And like I once said, it's ironic that the "spiritual" side of astrology, the esoterics, (thus, probably ruled by Neptune itself) have already made this connection and assigned them that way.

    54. To be religious is related to spirituality. I've already given the definition of spirituality and religious in a link in my previous post above....it clearly states they are related to each other. Most "Godly religious" people hardly need facts to believe in their Gods. In fact, religiously spiritual people are not logical in their approach to their religion at ALL. Most Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hellenic Polytheists, etc have never even READ their texts. I know so many people who claim to be Christian and Muslim, and they have never actually read the bible or the Quran. And yet they still believe in their God. In many Muslim countries women are not allowed to read, my cousin being one of them. And yet, they STILL believe in their God. . This may seem blind to you. But Neptune is a planet that seeks to move us to spiritual sacrifice, spiritual devotion, spiritual faith. Religious people are devoted to their beliefs. They have faith in their God. They sacrifice and dedicate their life to their "God", whomever he may be to them. Neptune is blinding in a sense. Neptune tells us "so what if it doesn't make sense?" It makes you feel in a daze. It seeks to change our sense of reality so that we may see the world through intuitive faculties, rather than logical ones.
      If they were that logical, do you think that they would be so devoted to a God that doesn't exist physically? Neptune is very much about believing in things without the need of facts.
      Atheists have very logical and factual minds. Facts obviously do not agree with Neptune. Again, Atheists are open minded to many different things. But their need for proof is obviously not something that is Neptunian in nature. The synonym of an atheist is a skeptic. How is this in any way related to Neptune? Neptune is not skeptical. That's Mercury and Uranus. These are the planets that represent the rational mind. Do you think religious people are more rational in mind or atheists? Atheists are probably the most rational and logical people in the world. And again, atheists do have a spiritual side....we ALL do, even agnostic people. BUT their need for facts to prove things is the opposite of Neptune's qualities. Neptune is illusion. The need to believe something without facts. Most atheists are skeptical of religion because they have not seen any positive physical results from religion. As a result, it causes them to be skeptical of spiritual things and thus need they constantly need more physical and logical proof of existence. This can limit spirituality.

    55. Perhaps, but it would be in the "outer solar system" which barely revolves around the Sun and as such isn't exactly part of our solar system. Our GALAXY and our solar system are two different things. I don't doubt that we'll definitely find more cosmic bodies in our galaxy (we've found many beyond that), but in our immediate solar system? I think we would have found something more by now if there was anything more to find. So that's why I again say that as far as our immediate SOLAR SYSTEM....we've found most of whatever's to be found. Our GALAXY and others far beyond? Probably not. But that's why I said that anything farther than the nine planets in our solar system...is much too far away to be effective. Thus...we've found all the ones already that will directly affect us. Anything else is too far away.

      Yes, that's perhaps the ONLY thing that astronomers and astrologers have in common. But that's why the signs are very important to astrologers too, especially Western/Tropical astrology. LOL....I know their definitions, I studied Ancient Greek. But again....that was way back when astrology and astronomy had similar roots. Astrology has changed since then and many astrological systems have cropped up other than the usually unified one the ancients had.

      Lol...no one denied that the planets were not of importance or that astrology was orignally the study of the planets affecting human life. But denying the signs' importance, especially in regard to Western Astrology is ill advised. Yes, and the Sun being in Leo during the hottest and storiest part of summer (thus why I always kept emphasizing Leo's stormy personality rather than that "show kitty" modern astrologers try to portray). The signs in astrology, especially Western are ALSO very important and that was my point. If modern astrology could do well without the signs, they wouldn't even be included.

      But that's not really answering the question of why even the more "serious" astrologers have not abandoned the signs. Why is that then? You'd think that the more "serious" astrologers would want to disassociate themselves from the "sun sign horoscope" astrolgers and yet, they also pay close attention to the signs. The degrees, houses, aspects all are paid close attention too but the signs are ALSO represented. Very few astrologers completely ignore the signs. And certainly not in Tropical/Western. Yes, but it's the planets IN the signs that declare compatibility and not JUST the planets themselves. It's still in relation with the signs. Sun IN Leo, Moon IN Taurus, Rising IN Virgo, etc. You can't just say Sun, Moon, Rising, Mercury, etc. Those planets and words alone mean nothing without their relations with the signs.

      No, it's the planets IN the signs that we look for. Not just the planets by themselves. So that's why I still think that finding planets for the signs shouldn't be that difficult and that any other planets outside our solar system is too far away to have any affect. It's the planets and signs working TOGETHER that make it modern astrology. The signs were all originally constellations and as such are ALSO heavenly bodies. But now that Western/Tropical astrology has placed them in a "fixed" position, they matter just as much as the planets.

    56. Maybe I should make clearer what I mean about Philosophy. An example of agreed facts and personal facts: Science vs Philosophy. Both are based upon "facts"...but they are very different. This website describes the difference between them beautifully:
      To read more: Difference Between Philosophy and Science | Difference Between | Philosophy vs Science http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-philosophy-and-science/#ixzz3K41K4HhW

      "Figuratively speaking, science is best likened to the human mind while philosophy is to the human heart."
      Philosophy is more vague than science. In this instance its similar to Neptune (except that it more rational). Philosophy is strongly based on principles. In fact, according to this website Philosophy hardly needs observations.
      Shakespeare once said: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in YOUR philosophy". Philosophy is objective, but not necessarily scientific or generally agreed by everyone as a fact. Because Aquarius is not very personal as a sign. It is said that Aquarius has mental understanding, but not so much personal understanding. Cancer has the STRONGEST personal understanding of itself. Jupiter can accomplish its goal in a much clearer fashion than in Aquarius. Don't get me wrong; I don't think Aquarius is a debilitating placement for Jupiter. I just don't think its strong enough to call it the best placement for Jupiter.

      lol I never said philosophy is not rational. I said philosophy is very personal and not always based on general agreed facts. People may agree with someone's philosophy but that doesn't mean that majority of civilizations see it as logical and scientific facts.
      Here is another website that describes the difference between facts studied scientifically vs facts studied philosophically. http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy

      Mercury, Saturn, and Uranus are the most scientific planets in the zodiac. In fact, Uranus represents science, discovery, and invention. Ironically, this is one of Aquarius' ruling planets. Jupiter is in detriment in Gemini and Virgo, because they are more scientific signs than they are philosophical. Aquarius is very similar to Gemini in that way.

    57. And I already gave a definition that showed that the original meaning of both "religious" and "spiritual" has CHANGED. If not in a definition sense then certainly in a realistic sense. People see the two words as slightly different. "Religious" people believe that their books ARE "facts" and that was one of the points I was trying to make. They see THEIR god or rather their version oh him as the ONLY way. They do not open themselves to other possibilites much the same way you claim atheists "limit" themselves. This, to me, is religious people "limiting" themselves as well.

      LOL....exactly. Yet they would still believe thier book that they never read as "FACT" to the extent that many of them are still trying to get that taught in public schools. It IS "fact" for them. But it is "fact" without RATIONALITY. And there lies the difference. And exactly....they believe in THEIR god...and ONLY their god....and ONLY their version of him. That is a very limited "spirituality" if it can even be called that. With atheists at least, they are more broad in their understanding or acceptance of the spiritual world. The Atheist Experience on Youtube (I can't find the specific episode) once actually admitted the possibility that elves or other deities are more plausible than the monotheistsic god because at least the other beings are not all powerful. This means they have broadened their view on spirituality. Monotheists, however, will say that ONLY Yahweh, Allah, etc. exist and will try to make you read it or study as if it was a "fact." That's why they're limited. And this, I think, is the point of our misunderstanding. If Neptune is supposed to be as you say, "believe all" then I say that NO ONE truly spiritually "believes all." And this is why I was so confused. Religious people only believe SOME...the some that their books or churches or whatever tell them to believe. They do not "believe all." Just because they believe 100% in Jesus or Allah, doesn't mean that they believe in other options of reincarnation, or other gods, etc. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Religious people are just as "limited" as atheists, if not more! They are not spiritually free.

      Atheists might not believe in a god or afterlife, but they are spiritual in other ways. No person is expected to have an all or nothing approach to the planets like that. That's like saying people who aren't good at math or science aren't truly "logical." But just like "spirituality," people can be logical in many ways not JUST math or science. People can be "spiritual" in many ways too not JUST having to be affiliated with a religion. Even if the planets are extreme and unlimited, the people they affect can NEVER be that way. People always take the planets' influence only to degrees. Very few people will only live and breathe logic and very few will only live and breathe spirituality. Because niether extreme is beneficial. This is my point. Even if what you say is true about Neptune "beleiving all" or Mercury "thinking all," people as a whole can never "beleive all" or "think all." Religious people don't "beleive all" and even logical people don't "think all." There are disagreements in the religious world between themslves and there are disagreements in the scientific world between themselves. Some think alien life is possible, some believe in the string theory, etc. But very few will 100% accept every scientific theory and very few will 100% accept every religious possibility. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say now. It's not about which is "morally right" or which is more "mental." It's about that no people as a whole can ever adhere to any planet's extreme whether spiritual or logical, atheist or religious.

    58. lol If you talk to ANY astrologer that has studied for years, NONE of them say that the planets in SIGNS declare compatibility. In fact, the planetary aspects ALTER the signs expression. The Synastry chart is the main source of compatibility examination among astrologers, and this chart DOES NOT examine signs. ONLY planetary aspects. Its not that signs do not have their place. Signs are modifications of the planets. They give the planets "style" or personal "type". But they are not the most fundamental parts of astrology. I must put emphasis on this, especially because when examining dignities and debilities, we are looking at the planets. In recent times, the only reason astrologers today put so much emphasis on signs is because it catches on quicker for amateurs. But for major astrologers, we know that planets are fundamental. They are the backbone. The houses nor the signs are not important without the planets. When their is a transit period, most astrologers examine the planets rather than the signs.
      Again, its not that the signs don't have their place in astrology. They just aren't as important as the planets when it comes to any study that is called "astrology". Western Tropical astrology is has become the study of mostly the Sun. Sun Sign astrology being popularized by William Lily. He was the first newspaper astrologer. This is what popularized the idea of "the signs". but unfortunately, commercially the fundamental parts of astrology was overlooked.
      Planet=Our fundamental human needs and instincts
      signs=the "type" of human need and instinct
      aspects=how those human needs will be expressed
      houses=where or how these feelings will be expressed or manifest in our lives

    59. Science and philosophy might be different but philosophy and "religion" or pure blind faith is ALSO different. That's why I said that philosophy is spirituality and logic going hand and hand. The people who were ancient philosophers would not fit in with those that were wholly religious anymore than those that were wholly scientific. They were a BLEND of both worlds.

      Because philosophy is based on at least some form of RATIONALIZATION, it is still logic and thus still closer to (however slightly) to "facts" than to emotions which as you've said many times, need no rationalization. Emotions don't need to be explained. Thoughts do.

      All that is well and good, but again...most of the famous ancient philosophers included Pythagoras (570-495 BC) who was not only an Ionian philosopher but was also credited with the Pythagorean theroem (a2 + b2 = c2). Those are facts. Aristotle, another famous philosopher (384-322 BC) and was thought to be one of the earliest fathers of formal logic. (MICHAEL DEGNAN, 1994. Recent Work in Aristotle's Logic. Philosophical Books 35.2 (April 1994): 81–89.) Either way, this is still a far cry from the blind faith and non-rationalization of the emotional and spiritual Neptune.

      Yes, but it doesn't have to be "based on agreed facts" 100% to still fit Aqaurius quite well. The fact is that Jupiter is "rational" more than "emotional"." But it is certainly the perfect blend between "spirituality" and "logic." But an entirely emotional and spiritual planet that follows blind faith like Neptune is not much better fit for Jupiter than an entirely factual planet like Mercury. Jupiter is its own planet and thus has its own qualities. But as far as "rationalization," it's still closer to Aqaurius than to Cancer.

      Jupiter is more in detriment in Gemini than in Virgo (since Pisces' modern ruling planet is now Neptune and not Jupiter) and from my opinion, it seems to be because Gemini's main personality trait is duality and as such often . But even in ancient times, Virgo was thought to be not only in domicile but also exalted in Mercury, so that's the sign that the ancients thought best emphasized Mercury's qualities. And Virgo was a detriment to Jupiter in a different way than in Gemini because Virgo was far more frugal with finances while Jupiter was far more generous. But modern astrologers have replaced Jupiter with Neptune when it comes to Pisces. But whatever reason Jupiter is in detriment in Gemini (probably its dual and extreme nature rather than Jupiter's temperence and moderation), it's probably not because of its intellect because Jupiter is STILL not only a rational planet but is an air planet. So...it would still do quite well in Aquarius.

    60. Religious people are not as reasonable as atheists when it comes to their beliefs...therefore they are NOT as humanly logical as atheists. By definition of human logic: to have a reasonable way of thinking, especially through validity. You can go by your own personal meaning of the word logical, spiritual, or even religious if you prefer. But this is the definition.
      I have already mentioned that Atheists CAN BE spiritual....but it is within limits. Atheists, way more than religious people, need more physical and logical proof that a "God" exists. Religious people do believe a God exists (and are devoted) even if their is no proof. Neptune is a planet that is not rational nor logical. Never has it been this way. It is here to teach us to leave the realm of logic. If you want to find a planet that represents this, there are three as I've stated. ALL people have a spiritual side: there is no such thing as people having "no spirit". But some people are expect more physical proof and logical proof of existence. And atheists are those such people. Many religious people have NEVER read the bible, Quran, or anything else. How does this equal logic? Yet they just believe for hardly a valid reason. This is the OPPOSITE of logic by definition. Atheists are not like Neptune. Atheists are more than likely to be Skeptical of religious beliefs, like Uranus and Mercury. This difference is pretty evident and obvious. Neptune is not a scientific planet. It is not a planet that can present physical proof nor does it seek to. It is a planet that seeks to help us escape that logical and physical world. To see things with our heart, not our mind.
      Don't misunderstand: Its good that atheists use both their mind and heart. And to many this is "balanced. But from the view of Neptune, and as far as what it represents, this is limiting. Asking Neptune to be logical and physical is like asking a sick person to run a race. Its good exercise, but its going to take a lot of work to get going.
      This website describes the difference between the logical mind and a spiritual heart and why these two STRUGGLE to merge.
      This website is exactly as the ideal of Neptune. Transcending beyond the logical/physical realm of mind. Getting away from being skeptical and from seeing things as an "issue"...by letting it all go.
      This is another website that describes the difference between the disbelief in God, science vs Spirituality, and why people like religions so much. http://opheliasmaverick00.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/logic-vs-spirituality/
      Have you ever asked a person why they are so religious even after all the things that religions have done?
      This website also explain why Logic and Spirituality will always be at odds. Its very abstract.

      Religious logic is less reasonable than human logic. You yourself have said that religious people are not open to gay people. Is this very reasonable (logical) to you? The need for consistency, validity, completeness, and soundness when examining religion relates to a person who has a humanly logical mind. All of these things represent the realm of logic.

    61. Again....the main astrology I am aware of, is the kind that has the aspects and houses in the SIGNS. Anything other than this, I have no knowledge of and thus can't really comment on it. All I know is that, is that MANY astrologers give a natal chart based on the planets placement in the SIGNS. I myself found out my planetary alignments this way.

      The signs have more than their place though, at least in Tropical/Western. They are a VITAL part of the system. Are they AS important as the planets...maybe not. But can Western/Tropical Astrology function AS WE KNOW IT without them? Probably not. They were in place and regarded along WITh the planets as constellations thousands of years ago and the ancients themselves saw fit to continue to use them. We still use them. They have a vital place in astrology. And most astrologers still use them. To deprive them of their place or to ignore their function is to ignore a piece of astrology. They were also there at the beginning.

      But I do appreciate and like how you broke down the factors of astrology in an easier to understand way. That does help. But my point was that whatever astrology was before, it's now all those factors working well together and that finding planets to fit the signs or vice versa (equally) should not be such a big problem now that most planets in our solar system have been discovered and along with the sun and moon, fit the 12 signs almost perfectly.

    62. Yes, Jupiter is not EXACTLY like Neptune. That should be obvious. BUT both Neptune and Jupiter deal with the heart. That was the comparison I was making. The difference between Jupiter in Neptune is that it is more rational and objective than Neptune. But Jupiter is still based upon a personal perspective on life. Formulas created based upon philosophy are not scientific. They are based upon a person's own principles. While Neptune is more about spiritual principles, and Jupiter is more philosophical principle...both rely on principles to determine their answers rather than scientific logic.

      Its interesting: here is one definition of "principle" found at dictionary.com: "A principle is fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion; a personal or specific basis of conduct or management; according to personal rules for right conduct; as a matter of moral".
      Science could care less about moral law and cares mostly about what exists and what doesn't. It does not make calculations based upon personal philosophy necessarily. Philosophy inculcates one's own belief or right and wrong. Jupiter is much more personal in Cancer than it is in Aquarius. There are many signs that are rational like Jupiter and even fiery like Jupiter. But Jupiter's goal is to achieve something personal for itself....which is why Cancer fits as that sign's exaltation.

      Blind faith begins with a deep sense of spirituality. Neptune is the planet of blind faith. lol Jupiter is the planet of blind philosophy. Both are outside of the realm of science. Whether you see it as "blind" faith is up to you. But it is faith none the less. And Neptune relates to faith in something without needing physical and logical proof of existence. Simple.

    63. Yes, but like I said before. Spiritual people aren't "spiritual" 100% of the time. Logical people aren't logical 100% of the time. Spiritual people can be logical and logical people can be spiritual. Even the most "religiously devoted person" about to give their very life to their god STILL has to deploy logic in the sense of knowing what food to buy, how much all that will cost, etc. Even the most "logical" person STILL has some sort of need for the "spiritual" realm by even pondering unanswerable questions or by taking some quiet time or whatever. Do some employ one over the other? Yes! But it's rarely if ever 100%. It's rarely if ever, all or nothing like you claimed Neptune is in terms of spirituality.

      It is again NOT about whether Neptune is logical or not. We both already know that it isn't. It's about that atheists, scientists or whatever are not "limited" in their influence of Neptune because EVERYONE is "limited" when it comes to the planets to a certain extent. The Christian uses SOME of Neptune when they say "I believe Jesus is God" but they DENY the rest of Neptune when they say "Zeus doesn't exist" or "There's no such thing as reincarnation." That's also a limitation when it comes to Neptune. Now logical people also don't use 100% of Mercury or Uranus or whatever because those people that learn about or are good at math are not always good or know about biology. Those that are great at physics, might be terrible at chemistry or logistics. Like I said before, there are many different kinds of "spirituality" and many different kinds of "logic." Everyone limits themselves in regards to both to a certain extent. The people that believe Jesus' words, won't believe Mohammad's. The people that believe in string theory through logic don't really believe in the theory of relativity anymore (e = mc2). So...even if the planets themslves are extreme and unlimited...people by and large are not. We are all constantly "limiting" ourselves in regards to either "spirituality" or "logic." The vast majority of us might believe in SOME for of religion or spirituality, but we ignore or deny the other part. (Those that believe in reincarnation, don't believe in resurrection and vice versa) And those that use math for grocercy shopping do not use it to the level of astrophysics. Or those that know about computer software won't know much about surgery. All different types of spirituality and all different types of logic. Each person will have limitations to an extent.

    64. And this is my point...atheists might feel more of an affinity for Mercury or Uranus or whatever, but many felt close to Neptune as well. (As the article I sent which claimed that many people classified themselves as "spiritual" as opposed to "religious" during the time Neptune was in Aquarius proved). Just like there are many religous people that perhaps might feel closer to Neptune, but still enjoy Mercury's communication skills (look at how many mega-churches in the southern USA that are using larger infrastructure and how many have TV broadcasting to get to their followers! That's Mercury's doing!)

      This is why extremes don't work. Religious people still need and use logic and logical people still need and use spirituality. Just because you adhere more to one doesn't mean you completely forsake the other. And just because you adhere to one, doesn't mean you adhere to it 100%. Even religious people are still limited in their spirituality by not accepting everything else that could be possible. And logical people are still limited in their logic by not knowing as much about math as they do biology or however else. So I STILL don't agree with the whole "limiting" thing. Religious people are also VERY limited in that case, too. And logical people might not know ALL there is to know about logic which is also "limiting."

      People need BOTH. And the vast majority of people will never belong to JUST Neptune or JUST Mercury. And if that person doesn't adhere to Neptune or Mercury 100%, that's STILL a "limitation" no matter what religion or occupation that person is. I don't know if we're understanding each other on this point. For me....ALL people have "limitations" in regards to Neptune and in regards to all other planets because unlike the planets, people are influenced by ALL of them. Religious people might feel slightly more towards Neptune than Mercury but it won't be 100% and they will still limit themselves a great deal by not considering reincarnation, the pagan gods, etc. This is why even religious people are "limited."

    65. Um...no. Jupiter deals more with the MIND than the heart. http://www.astrology.com/jupiter-planet-luck/2-d-d-67283
      All these sources cite Jupiter as a "thinking" planet or in pursuit of knowledge. Jupiter is STILL "rational" and thus is more similar to Mercury and Uranus in that regard whereas Neptune is much more emotional and needs NO "rationalization." Jupiter still uses its head slightly more than its heart. Neptune still uses its heart with almost no head. Jupiter is still an AIR planet. That really can't be changed. It's an air planet for a reason.

      Again...Mercury isn't just the planet of science and that's that. It's a planet of communications and trade. Even Skyscript describes Mercury as (ironically) ruling over "Literary men, philosophers, mathematicians, astrologers, merchants, secretaries, scriveners,[5] diviners, etc." So even logical Mercury has an affinity for philosophers and such. And Uranus also isn't just a planet of hard, cold facts. It's also a planet of revolution, free will, and even "expanded consiousness" (http://www.astrology.com/uranus-planet-rebellion/2-d-d-67285). So to describe them as just factual, cold planets is a bit unfair. Philosophy needs SOME rationalization while emotions do not at all and without any form of rationalization, it doesn't have a great affinity with Jupiter.

      Yes and Dictionary.com also defines philosophy as "the RATIONAL investigation of the TRUTHS and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." So...philosophy still has to be "rational" and still has to be a certain pursuit of a truth. Not just blind belief in willy-nilly. It still has to follow a certain process and blind faith especially without trying to think or question it, is frowned upon. Philosophy still goes hand in hand with the mind. It does allow for the heart....but not as much as the mind.

      LOL...no. Jupiter is certainly not "blind" by any means. Philsophy is the RATIONAL INVESTIGATION (notice it says investiagation and mere "acceptance") of TRUTHS (notice it says "TRUTHS" not "opinions" or "beleifs"). Philosophy is and always will be in connection with the MIND. It doesn't matter what kind of "logic." Neptune will always rely on blind faith without any regard to the "truth" or "investigation" or even "questioning" which Jupiter is very much against. Trying to remove the rationalization from philosophy is futile. NEPTUNE might not need "proof," but Jupiter certainly does. It will never just blindly believe anything like Neptune. It will always use rationalization whereas Neptune never will. Jupiter is an an AIR planet at the end of the day. That more than proves it affinity for logic over emotion. Sorry, but Jupiter belongs more to the head than the heart.

    66. That's not true that ALL the planets closest to earth have been found. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/7994/20140614/new-planets-discovered-near-very-old-star.htm

      The scientists are constantly finding new planets, very close to our planet Earth. Just because they haven't given them names as of yet does not mean they will be found. Then many Dwarf planets, like Pluto, have also been recently discovered. So its not possible to have the kind of system where all the "signs" will be equally distributed. Its not really necessary either.

      I'm not sure which astrologer told you that "signs" were the most fundamental part of astrology. But the more you begin to study astrology, no matter what kind, the more you will see how planets are much more important than the signs. The houses and signs are nothing without planets. They are tools to compliment the planets. Not the other way around. And when looking at houses, hardly ANY astrologer is going to look at the sign by house. There are too many different house systems, and with most house systems, houses are usually on a cusp between two different signs. There's even a house system that excludes the signs altogether. lol The houses are there to examine the planetary manifestation. The signs in a natal chart are of little importance, especially if there is no planet inside that sign. Even if you go to Skyscript, most of the astrologers discuss the planets, while the signs have loose influence. I think before you decide to change the dignity and debility system, you should first study astrology more. Again, astrologers have a very intricate system set up for a variety of different reasons. And the planets need to be understood in order to see where they are placed. No astrologer can call themselves an astrologer if they do not study the planets. And anybody who studies signs more than planets is not an astrologer, or more than likely one of those "newspaper" astrologers.

    67. The figurative "heart" is still in the mind. You thought these people were referring to the literal heart? The literal heart is nothing but an organ. So of course they don't mean that. This should be obvious. Even the emotions work in the mind, my friend. According to Vedic astrologers, the moon is also the planet of the mind. This does not change the fact that Philosophy is more personal and philosophy is the study of principles. Jupiter is the planet of principle, moral law (philosophy), and culture. This planet USES its mind to study the figurative heart. It explores moral essence. Jupiter/Philosophy is about morals not scientific facts. Even the websites YOU posted say this about Jupiter. It makes conclusions on the basis of personal principle and OPINION as stated by definition. Its a rational opinion, but it is still very personal. I NEVER SAID PHILOSOPHY IS NOT RATIONAL. lol I've expressed several times that it is rational in its approach. The difference between it and SCIENTIFIC logic is that philosophy is personal. It is a personal rational mindset. Aquarius is rational. So? Gemini is also rational. so is Virgo. But neither of these signs are personal. Jupiter seeks personal happiness. Cancer is the most personal sign in the zodiac. Jupiter can achieve its aims more directly in this sign. And yes, Mercury is the planet of logic, but I did not say it was scientific. Mercury is the planet of communication, as well as intellect, and awareness. Obviously, it is the planet of human logic. Intellect is obviously used in the case of humanly logical and factual mind.

      URANUS, Aquarius' ruling planet is the planet of scientific discovery. This is the one I'm referring to.

      Alwaysastrology.com also mentions that Jupiter is about our own ideologies and morals. Jupiter is also a planet that wants you to relax and enjoy life. It is very much a personal planet. And some astrologers believe Jupiter to be a fire planet. Regardless, when looking for dignities, we are looking at the qualities of what the planet represents and how much freedom that planet will have expressing itself. Jupiter expresses its need for deep understanding best in Cancer. I agree with the ancients on this one.

      BTW, Cafeastrology.com also mentions that Jupiter values instant results...which Aquarius also does not give to Jupiter easily. Aquarius benefits always come too unexpectedly, with delay as I've mentioned a while ago.
      Have you ever heard of blind logic? Habe you ever heard of blind philosophy? These sayings mean a person cannot see anything outside of these realms. "Blindness" has nothing to do with believing in "willy-nilly". Blindness has to do with ignoring other ways of thinking or being blind to other ways of thinking. When I say there is blind philosophy, this is a person that only see things through their own ideology/philosophy.

    68. There was a documentary on Youtube talking about people who have "blind logic". A blind logical person struggles to understand emotions and spirituality. A blind philosopher struggles to understand life outside of moral law and principle. I wanted to make this clear. Blindness comes in many forms. Its still blind ness. lol

    69. Where Mercury differs from Jupiter is that Mercury represents logic outside of moral understanding. If you read any articles comparing Jupiter with Mercury, Jupiter is described as being Vague and broad compared to Mercury. Mercury simply wants to know. Jupiter is about "inspired" reasoning. Jupiter is less practical than Mercury. http://www.auxmaillesgodefroy.com/mercury_and_jupiter

      Jupiter wants deeper meaning. It looks for something more than what can be explained through scientific facts. Mercury acts how something works; Jupiter asks why does it have to be this way?

    70. The article you gave says this planet orbits "next door to our sun." It's called Kapteyn b and orbits its own star. Thus, it is still NOT in our solar system and as such would probably have no effect on us. Yes, we already admitted that scientists discover new planets all the time, but not ALL the ones that they discover are going to matter astrologically and there's only a very slight chance that we haven't discovered all the planets in our solar system by now. So like I said...with the 10 planets (including Charon) and the sun and moon, those are really all the planets that are needed and are exactly the same number as the signs. Coincidence? Probably not.

      LOl...I didn't say an astrologer told me that the signs were the most fundamnetal part of astrology. I said that most serious astrologers still USE the signs and as such that makes them vital. The houses and aspects are quite new to astrology compared to the age old system of the planets transiting the signs or constellations. The planets are the basic part, yes. But very rarely will any astrologer dismiss the signs completely. Ergo, the signs have also their important place within that system. If the planets are the barin or heart of astrology, then the signs are like the liver. You can never live without your heart and brain but can you can live without a piece of your liver. But can you live without an entire liver? No. The signs are STILL used by astrologers whether they be "newspaper" ones or serious ones.

      Yes, but Skyscript also describes the SIGNS in quite in depth. If Skyscript felt the signs were not important at all, they wouldn't even include them. And yet lo and behold...they do. I might not know a huge amount of astrology but I did study it in graduate school along with my other classical classes and even then we learned about BOTH the planets AND signs. To ignore the signs is to ignore a part of astrology. Most astrologers know that and so most astologers still use both.

    71. The figurative "mind" has many functions, but first and foremost is its ability to THINK. At the end of the day, Jupiter is a planet of philosophy and KNOWLEDGE. And philosophy as we defined many times before, is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." It is NOT about allowing emotions to cloud judgement. It is NOT about accepting something blindly without at least form of investiagtion or questioning or some form of "fact." Yes, and I ADMITTED that philosophy is "spirituality" and "logic" coming into balance. There is SOME heart in philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it's not closer to Mercury and Uranus (both planets that Skyscript also describes as ruling over philosophers and such) that at least uses their minds than to Neptune that does NOT use its mind at all. It's STILL more similar to Mercury and Uranus in that regard. It's not about which is more "personal" to which is more "impersonal." Rationalization is STILL rationalization and the fact remains that Jupiter uses it to a great extent while Neptune doesn't use it at all. You've often said that Neptune "believes all without any proof" or even any logic. That alone completely disagrees with Jupiter in the sense that the very essense of Jupiter is about investigating and asking questions and finding at least some form of basic "truth." You've admitted that Neptune is about "believing all" without any of that. I call that blind faith. It has no logic at all either personal or impersonal.

      Jupiter is never going to be as logical as Mercury or as factual as Uranus because it's its own planet. But it still uses SOME logic and some "facts" and it's still an air planet that relies more on its head than on its heart. If it's never going to be as "factual" as Mercruy or Uranus, that doesn't mean it's ever going to rely on pure emotion like Neptune. That doesn't mean it will ever NOT use logic at all like we both agreed Neptune does. Thus, it will never be closer to Neptune than to Mercury and Uranus. In their own ways, whatever those may be, Jupiter, Uranus and Mercury all have in common that they pursue knowledge and use their minds more than their hearts. Those ways might manifest themslves differently, but they do nevertheless. Neptune will always be a planet of emotion and worse, ("worse" in the sense of being bad for Jupiter and what Jupiter represents) we've also agreed that it was the planet of ILLUSION. So not only does Neptune represent emotions and spirituality, but it represents illusuion too and as such can never be at peace with philosophy since philosophy forces people to ask questions and yearns to investigate. With emotion, not only is it forced to rely more on its emotion than judgement, but throw illusion into the mix and it will never get answers to its question because it can never observe an illusion and get the right answer. This is devastating to philosophy. Jupiter is still closer to Mercury and Uranus than to Neptune. Jupiter uses logic while Neptune uses none. That still proves it has greater affinity for Mercury and Uranus than Neptune.

    72. Again...the idea of whether or not fortune comes "quickly" is a moot point for me. Jupiter might want to bestow quick riches but honestly, as long as they are used is all that matters. And Aquarius might delay things but Cancer often does things without rushing as well so I don't see how this has anything to do with what we're talking about. The speed of getting the benefits don't really matter as long as they're used.

      Um...logic by it's definition cannot be "blind" in the same sense that faith is. Because in order to BE logical, one must examine all other available options according to investigation or observation. Faith believes without question. Logic at least DOES open itself up to other ideas and options as long as those ideas are reasonable or can be observed in some way. Can mostly logical people be "close-minded?" Sure. But that's not the same thing as "blindness." They can be close-minded when it comes to the idea of the spiritual world but many of them still TRY to entertain the thought and give it a chance. But "blind faith" is completely ignoring logic. Completely taking reason and logic out of the equation. They would be willing to die for thier god without question without even bothering to TRY to look at other spiritual points of view let alone other logical points of view. In this sense, that's "blindness." Not ALL "religious" or "spiritual" people are of course. Many of them DO entertain other spiritual ideas and thus those are the ones that do not follow "blind faith." But the ones that simply accept their teaching as "pure truth" without entertaining anything else? That's blindness plain and simple. To be logical means to at least try to entertain other ideas, but that's not necessary for "faith" and that's why the saying "blind faith" is much more common than "blind logic." And philosophy is still the "rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." It is rational at the end of the day. Neptune and emotions are not.

      Again...to be "logical," one must at least TRY to entertain other ideas and other ideaologies. Many atheists who will swear up and down that there "is no god," will still investigate that theory and still find ways to prove themslves right or wrong. Most religious people do NO "investigation." Thus, THAT is the reason for their "blindness." Logical people at least have a REASON why they believe what they do. And not only do those particular kind of religious devote themslves to that ideology, but very few will even bother to entertain some other thought. They won't even entertain other SPIRITUAL thoughts let along logical ones. Logical people do, at least, try. At that's the difference. And why "blind faith" is more common than "blind logic." Logic can't really be "blind" because it deals with things that can be observed. Spirituality is often "blind" because it usually only sees one thing and JUST that one thing. That's the difference.

    73. Yes, but what does that matter. Jupiter is different from Mercury. But Skyscript still claims that Mercury also ruled over philosophers. But they are different planets and of course won't be exactly the same. But yet again...BOTH still use their minds. Whether personal or impersonal, it doesn't matter. They still both use it. Neptune does NOT. You've claimed that Neptune "believes all." It can't "believe all" with logic. And Jupiter certainly does use logic so it's still more similar to Mercury and Uranus than to Neptune. It's still an air planet.

      Oh and one last thing...you claimed that science doesn't really care about "morals" and that's simply not true. Science of course DOES care about morals and ethics. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-thinking-about-science-triggers-moral-behavior/

      So...one can't just accuse science of not being moral or not caring just like that. And this is where I think we had ur earlier misunderstanding. One does not need to be "religious" or even "spiritual" to have morals and do the right thing. And even if Neptune is the planet of spirituality, it is also the planet of emotion. ANYONE can use its influences. Just like ANYONE can use Mercury's or Uranus' influences not just inventors or scientists. Neptune might have a greater affinity for "spritiual" people but anyone can be "spiritual." But spirituality sadly, isn't always focused on "morals" or ethics either. One example is the caste system in India. The idea that a person is reborn to a lower caste because of something thought to have been done in a previous life. This means that many people are suffering poverty and hunger and by that ideaology they would deserve it. Spirituality and Logic both try to "do the right thing" or have morals. It's not JUST the realm of spirituality. : /

    74. I think you misunderstand my comparison to Jupiter and Neptune. Jupiter is considered Mercury's opposite planet. In other words, they do not get along and when they are aspecting in a chart the native struggles with the need to know and the need to explore what he/she feels he/she already knows. So, no, Mercury and Jupiter are not more closely related than Neptune is with Jupiter. In fact, both Jupiter and Neptune are planets of faith and spiritual inspiration. Both are planets of understanding. Both are planets that represent beliefs. Mercury maybe logical like Jupiter but that is where the similarities end. lol Uranus is a planet of rebellion/freedom and this is not always in line with Jupiter's need to maintain moral law. Uranus is scientific, Jupiter is not. Their similarities also end and logic.

      Science is not directly the study of morals. You also misunderstood this point. Its not that scientists don't have "morals". Many scientists are moral. This should be obvious. But the "study" of science does not explore personal morals and ideologies. Science is about experiences and experiments to validate physical existence. These are two different areas of study. The study of science is typically different from the study of philosophy.

      As far as the discovery of planets, there might also be one that could replace Pluto as apart of the nine planets in OUR solar system. Here is the website.

      As described there might be a planet that surrounds the sun. After all, Pluto is no longer considered a planet scientifically. Yet, another planet might be able to take its place. So again, with higher technology, new planets will be discovered. Not just major planets but dwarf planets like Pluto too.

    75. And yes there is such thing as blind logic. Blind faith refers to a person that has faith in something and cannot see things outside of their faith. "Blind Faith" is a FIGURE OF SPEECH that refers to a person who is CLOSE MINDED. So if a logical person is capable of being "close-minded", figuratively, they are also considered a person to have "blind logic".

      Yes, Neptune believes all...because it believes anything is possible. While Jupiter is more logical in approach to beliefs, it also believes anything is possible, hence why it seeks to explore and broaden the mind outside of our everyday living and understanding (which is the opposite of what Mercury is trying to do). Jupiter can ALSO have "blind faith" because it has very high ideals. The difference is that Neptune let's go of the logical mind to achieve spiritual faith. Jupiter gains knowledge to gain deeper understanding of our world in a broader sense. Jupiter is a little more physical than Neptune. Jupiter has a looser attachment to spirituality; it only represents the moral principles of spirituality, NOT THE EMOTIONAL PART OF SPIRITUALITY ITSELF. Just to make this clear.

      Here is the thing you must understand about morals: they are always personal. For example, you don't think religions are moralistic. But the reason you don't think so is because religion has failed to meet YOUR moral standards. But religious people have their own morals that they believe for right and wrong and they follow by it. It doesn't mean they are wrong for what they believe just because your personal morals go against theirs. This goes back to what I said about Jupiter being very personal in its approach to logic. Morals are also very much influenced by culture which is why Jupiter represents culture. And funny thing is our morals are even more moved when we feel something deeply on an emotional level. That is exactly where Cancer comes into play.
      Note what the website below says about where morals come from, and I quote: "the systems of moral reasoning and conscience tap into, or more accurately emerge from ancient neural systems grounded in EMOTION, in particular in attaching EMOTIONAL value or valence to different stimuli, including the imagined consequences of possible actions".
      Here is the direct website: http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2011/06/where-do-morals-come-from.html
      So Cancer motivates Jupiter's morals and moves its understanding in a direct fashion. Aquarius is one of the least emotional signs according to astrology. Don't get me wrong, Aquarius' can be philosophical in many ways. But it does not have the deep personal understanding that Cancer has. Not to mention Jupiter and Saturn also do not get along, so Jupiter often struggles in signs ruled by Saturn. The moon and Jupiter are said to work well together according to astrology. To ignore Cancer's deep understanding and intuition simply to make room for Aquarius would not be reasonable. Jupiter thrives best in Cancer also because it's goal is more easily realized in Cancer. Jupiter can directly achieve happiness when it seeks to achieve that happiness WITHIN. You can't achieve happiness without if you have not achieve greater happiness and contentment within. And Jupiter is definitely about personal happiness.

    76. I'm sorry. I thought someone told you signs were more important than planets. Skyscript has very in depth descriptions for all parts of astrology. Many people do not understand where the signs came from, so naturally Skyscript gives depth in order to speak on the origins of the signs. After all, signs are apart of astrology. Of course they have articles explaining the origins of every part of astrology. But regardless, astrology is the study of the planets. Skyscript has more articles discussing the planets than they do the signs. And especially the dignity/debility system is more focused on the planets. Planets not only have dignity/debility by sign, but they are also said to have dignity/debility in corresponding houses. So again, the dignity system is for the sake of planetary examination. When astrologers examine and rectify charts, they always look for planetary influence. The signs are secondary compared to the planets. Signs and houses have no meaning in astrology without the planets. And the only time a sign is strongly significant is when a planet is peregrine (without aspects). Even then, the planet will be more heavily altered by the house that it channels its energy in. Again, I'm not casting aside the signs. They have their place. But in the case of astrological study, you have to keep in mind that astrology's fundamental examinations are based upon the planets. And ESPECIALLY the dignity and debility system should have more planetary focus. After all, it is called "the Planetary Dignity Chart", not the "Signs dignity chart".

    77. No, I don't think so. Jupiter is an AIR planet, not a water planet. Jupiter is STILL a "mental" planet more than an "emotional" planet. Planets can square and trine, but they don't really have "opposites." Jupiter is still a THINKING planet...which is part of Mercury but not Neptune. This is affirmed by most astrological sites. Even if Mercury is Jupiter's "opposite," it doesn't seem to be because of its affinity for logic since Jupiter uses it as well. Neptune doesn't use such things so no. Thus, Jupiter is MUCH more similar with Mercury and Uranus that at least all use logic than with Neptune or Mars that don't and rely primarily on emotions. Nearly all the astrological sites still describe Jupiter as a THINKING planet. There are no "thoughts" with Neptune. Just emotions.

      Science USES morals as well as ethics and "spirituality" isn't necessarily the study of "morals" either and I think maybe you misunderstand that point. If anything, sometimes "spirituality" removes empathy for people who do not believe in what you do. Thus the reason why so many religions (especially monotheistic beleifs) are at odds even when they're supposedly all worshipping the same "god." I've already sent a link that firmly affirms that one is unable to even think about science without also thinking about morality. "Spirituality" and "religion" do not necessarily NEED "moral codes" either as long as they follow "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances" the definition goes on to say, "OFTEN containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." But "often" is not the same as "always" and when that "moral" code includes stoning people for adultery...well...one wonders if that's "moral" at all. So..."morality" is NOT the fundamental principle of "spirituality" either. They might use it, but it's not a tenet. Science is the same. It's not based on the principles of "morality" but it's clear that it does play a vital part. But to be "religious" isn't necessarily to be "moral" either. The basic principle of "religion" is as defined by Merrian-Webster is either "the belief in a god or in a group of gods," "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods," or "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group." And even the Dictionary.com definition describes the "moral" part as an after thought rather than a fundamental part of a religion's basis. The study of "religion" is NOT about "morals" either.

    78. Again...I disagree. To be figuratively "blind" means that you don't take into account any other option. At all. But "logic" as defined by Dictionary.com is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." Which means that they must at least examine other options. "Belief" as we both agreed many times before needs no "logic" and so it needs to "thought." It is simply accepted as is. So "logic" (in my POV at least) cannot truly be "blind." It can be "close-minded" in the sense that one can examine other options but still stubbornly stick to their ways even if other options are slightly more effective. But it cannot be truly "blind" in the way that "faith" can because in order to be "logical," one must at least TRY to entertain other isead and methods. It's a fundamnetal part of being logical. Beleif or "spirituality" does not rely on that at all so if one never questions their "faith" or "belief," THAT is "blindness." Because it is never questioned. That's more extreme than being merely "close-minded." "Faith" might never need to be questioned, but "logic" contantly needs to be and that's why faith is considered "blind," but logic isn't quite.

      I already argued my POV that Jupiter is still an AIR and THINKING planet at the end of the day and so is more similar to Mercury and Uranus than Neptune. Yes, Jupiter has ideals (so do all the planets to an extent because all the planets probably represent the ideal of their best qualities). Jupiter is the planet of luck, fortune, authority, philosophy, etc. but it's still the planet of knowledge and as such is more geared toward the mind rather than emotions. It still needs logic and Neptune and Mars don't. I don't think we'll ever be able to agree on this point, but Jupiter's qualities is always described as being an air planet with more similarities to the logical planets than the emotional ones. If Mercury is indeed its "opposite," it must be for others reasons such as Mercury's communication skills (while Jupiter is more direct), or perhaps that Mercury is of course mercurial and changes often whereas Jupiter is more sanguine or perhaps that Mercury is more youthful and impulsive where Jupiter represents maturity. There are many other reasons why JUpiter and Mercury might not get along well that wouldn't necessarily mean it has to do with Mercury being too "logical." Of course, Mercury's analyzing nature might be part of it too since at least for Jupiter SOME "spirituality" is taken into account. But in the end, Jupiter's nature still seems to more mind over heart and is still usually described more as a thinking planet rather than a "feeling" one.

      if Cancer has more "personal understanding" than Aquarius, it still lacks the thinking power and "traveling" mentality of Aquarius both of which are important to Jupiter. Cancer definitely "feels," but doesn't really "think" and thinking is still more important to Jupiter than "feeling" is. Jupiter is also the planet of travels and Cancer is a well known homebody. Aqaurius on the other hand, does both. Cancer might grasp the "emotional" part of philsosophy, but not quite the mental part and the mental part is more vital. Eh...I think Jupiter thrives best in Sagitarrius not Cancer. There are some things that Cancer can't quite grasp with Jupiter which I've already discussed. I think that's why I like the esoteric placements for them more.

    79. LOL...that's ok. They didn't. I was just talking about my opinion in the astrological branches I've seen that of course deal with the planets but 90% in how they relate to the signs. Of course you're right that the planets are the MOST vital part, but the signs have beome intrisically linked to them too. Thanks so much for helping me understand this particular aspect better. I think I understand more now. But I think that because there's only a limited amount of true "planets" in our solar system that will affect us, it shouldn't be too hard matching them up evenly. I still doubt that it would bode well for astrology or the zodiac if one sign had seven exalted planets, and other signs had none. The acnients still made the sign to planet system as balaned as it could be so we should try to do the same.

    80. I think I've also alrady described that being "moral" is not really a fundamental part of a "religion" or to be "religious." The way Merriam-Webster described a "religion" is the "beleif in a god," and Wordnik.com described it as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." Even Dictionary.com first describes it as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances," with the "often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" tacked on as an after thought. So "morality" is not the primary focus of "religion" and as I've said, it often is at odds with it, especially the more old fashioned ones. It's not about what I personally think about the "morality" of religions, it's what is actually defined...and most definitions don't include it's supposed "morality" as a requirement. Thus, it's not the MAIN focus of "religion" or "spirituality." "Morals" aren't directly related to either science OR "religion" but perhaps a little of both. But to say that science is not the study of morlas and "religion" somehow is, isn't quite true either. If "morality" comes into religion at all, it's only as an after thought not as the primary focus. One can be unemotional and still be "moral" or one can be emotional and still be "moral." Morality isn't directly linked to EITHER science or "religion."

      The website link about morality is talking about a book written by a theist so...it's going to be somewhat biased. But here's my link that argues that science CAN answer moral questions: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en

      Perhaps we will never really know where "morality" truly comes from. In my opinion, it's "spirituality" AND "logic" working together. But just like sceince isn't necessarily focused on "morality," "religion" isn't either. Morality isn't really the primary focus of either one or the other.

    81. As far as Tyche or Planet X or Nibiru goes...This year (2014), NASA's Wide-Filed Infared Survey Explorer (WISE) telescope failed to spot it and concluded that Tyche does not exist as they originally defined it and the more accepted theory now is that it's not a "planet" but if it exists, it is a "comet swarm." http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2014/03/nasas-wise-survey-fails-to-spot-planet-x-or-nibiru-or-tyche-2476588.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_(hypothetical_planet)

      And if fact, astronomers have doubted its existence in our solar system even in 2011. http://www.livescience.com/33032-mystery-planet-tyche-probably-not-there.html

      So again...most of the "true" planets in our solar system have been mostly discovered already. And Pluto has only been designated to "dwarf planet" because it is a "celestial body that orbits the sun and has a spherical shape but is not large enough to disturb other objects from its orbit." It' still a size of a planet, but it just hasn't cleared its orbit of other objects. Pluto is still a "planet." It's just smaller than most and has a different orbit.

      Besides...astrology needs to make up its mind on how far it differs from astronomy. It needs to decide to what extent asteroids, planets, dwarf planets, comets, the moons of other planets, etc. are going to affect us, how close or far they need to be to have an effect, and in what ways those heavenly bodies have an influence if any. That's why like I said...the main "true" planets are all that's really needed. Anything else probably won't do much or is too far away.

    82. This comment has been removed by the author.

    83. 3.) Did you know that emotions are apart of the MIND? Emotions come from thought, especially deep thought. Cancer is considered "thoughtful". In astrology. The emotional moon (Cancer's ruling planet) is considered one of the planets of the THOUGHT and MIND. This is why it has come to represent memory and psychic ability. I NEVER SAID JUPITER IS A WATER PLANET. lol I said that Jupiter achieves its goal much easier in Cancer than in Aquarius. There are many planets that are of different element than their exalted signs. Venus is also an air planet, but it is still exalted in Pisces. The reason for this is because the goals and rewards of Venus are easier to obtain in Pisces than all the other signs. Mars is another planet that is not of the same element as Capricorn. Yet, Mars is exalted in Capricorn because its goals are achieved much easier in this sign. (Also some believe Jupiter to be a fire planet. Its element is debatable.)

      4.) I have no idea why you are comparing philosophy to spirituality. I never compared these two. I only compared Jupiter to Neptune. Jupiter represents more than philosophy. It represents morals as well. And morals are formed through our EMOTIONAL stimuli as I've posted above. Jupiter also represents beliefs. Yes, Jupiter is a mental planet...but the side of the mind it uses is different from Mercury. And as I've stated Jupiter represents morals, beliefs, faith, and religion (the moral principles of religion). Of course, religion does not have to INCLUDE morals. But normally there are a set of principles that INFLUENCE the morals of the people in that religion. And again, their morals may not be like YOUR morals. This is because morals are personal. This is where Jupiter comes in. You can research more about Jupiter and every website says that Jupiter represents beliefs and religion. Neptune also represents more than spirituality. Neptune represents laws of the universe, as well as moral law from a spiritual/emotional stand point. Jupiter is different from Neptune because it is more logical, yes. However, what Jupiter uses mentally is irrelevant to what it represents. Both Jupiter and Neptune represent morals,

    84. (continued) religion, beliefs, and mental expansion. Jupiter and Neptune both DIRECTLY represent idealism. Both have said to move a person to blind faith. And like the link I posted said, Jupiter's mentality is moved through inspiration, not actual physical facts. That is the difference between Jupiter and Mercury as well.

      4.) Science is not the direct study of morals. In fact, this is why scientists and philosophers have been at odds in recent times. Philosophy answers the questions that cannot always be answered through science. I've given several websites that have shown the very difference between science and philosophy. Philosophy explores morality in the social/cultural world and seeks to find one true moral/ethical way of living. Science explores social world/culture for very different reasons. Science is not seeking to find one true moral way of doing things. Science wants to know the fundamentals of existence. More people today are scientific than philosophical. But science cannot really answer which moral principles are "true".

      Also here is a website that describes the moon as a planet of the MIND. http://www.livingskillfully.com/moon.html We learn how do things first through the memory and sensory stimulus of the moon. Just thought I'd post it.

      5.) Spirituality can influence our personal morals. Anything can influence our morals. lol Logic can influence our morals as well. Religious people have morals that are usually influenced by their religious principles. Atheists have morals that are influenced by their environment. Scientists have morals that can be influenced by science. MORALS ARE PERSONAL. There is not one general moral law. There are MANY moral laws. Just like me and you have different morals from each other. But our morals are directly influenced by our emotions.

      What you think is right or wrong may not be what every person thinks is right or wrong. Spirituality can also influence philosophy, as it has done the philosophers of old.

    85. Cancer, even more than Aquarius, actually IS a sign of travel. In fact, the crabs often making voyages from sea to land in order to mate. The crab can make a home anywhere for this very reason. Symbolically, Cancer's also have spiritual travels as well as physical ones. They go on these journeys to better understand their own place in the universe. Aquarius is not as directly involved with travel. And again, Jupiter's rules travel for the simple fact that travel is linked to understanding. This is Jupiter's ultimate goal: understanding and self-happiness. Cancer is a personal sign just like Jupiter is a personal planet. Jupiter can achieve its goal much faster than in Aquarius.

      6.) I want to mention about Tyche, the planet that was discredited. This was an example of how things can be spotted in the universe sometimes unseen. All though it is no longer considered a planet, that does not mean there is not a planet out there. And there are new Dwarf planets like Pluto, such as Chiron, Orcus, and ERIS that are being considered in the system. Even with the entrance of Chiron, Orcus, and Eris in the dignity system, the equal sign system will not be possible. There aren't an even amount of planets that could match the signs. And even if we did limit some dwarf planets, we would still have to consider whether the signs chosen help the planet expressed freely. We still can't throw any old sign with the planet. We still have to examine if the planets fit well with that sign.

    86. When the ancients made the dignity system, there were only six "planets". This means the ancients knew that not EVERY sign would have a planet exalting it. In fact, they placed Mercury as exalted in Virgo, which is also the sign of its rulership. So obviously, the ancients did not care whether the signs were equally distributed. Modern astrologers are the only ones that pin the new planets in the dignity system. But the original was set up in a way were the ancients did not care to consider signs equally exalting a planet. The dignity system is for the planets. Hence why it is called the Planetary Dignity system. Not the signs.

    87. Religion has a strong connection to morality. Religion is a collection of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe. How does this not influence morality? Mulims believe it is right for women to cover themselves fully. This is their view of right and wrong: this is apart of their moral beliefs. It may not be YOUR moral beliefs, but it is their's. This is also why, as I've said several times, morality is very "personal" and is stimulated through the emotions.

    88. This comment has been removed by the author.

    89. 1.) The logic I've been referring to is "Factual" logic when it comes to blindness. There are of course many different types of logical mindsets. There is emotional logic, spiritual logic, moral logic, etc. BUT there is such thing as people who only see things if its proven by physical facts. They neglect to see things intuitively and/or spiritually.

      2.) Logic is open only to things that can be physically investigated and proven/deduced. Here is another definition of logic: correct reasoning; valid induction or deduction. When a person has a "logical" mind they always want valid reasons for things. http://www.yourdictionary.com/logic It believes even if it is not valid or logical. "Blind Faith" in figurative terms means the person is closed minded. Therefore, if a logical person is capable of being closed minded, they are blinded by logic. They only believe things that can be proven with reasonable evidence.

      Sorry I accidentally deleted my 1st post. lol I had to do it over

    90. Recently found by the dictionary. The antonym of logic is intuition. In other words the opposite of logic is intuition. http://www.synonyms.net/antonyms/logical

      To be blind is to not be able to see. A person who is blinded by logic cannot see things intuitively (or struggle to). In this way logical people are "blind".

      Also "blind faith" does not ONLY pertain to religious people. Atheists can also have blind faith in their belief in science and humanity. Faith comes in many forms, not just religious forms.

    91. I meant there were only five planets in the past, as well as two luminaries.

    92. Yes, if we want to get technical and scientific, emotions ARE part of the "mind." But then, doesn't that make them more "logical" since emotions themselves can be explained by logic and scientific facts rather than "spiritual" or "supernatural?" cancer is considered "thoughtful" in the way that sending someone a thank you note is "thoughtful," but they are regarded far more as an "emotional" sign rather than a "thinking" or "logical" sign. Lol...I know you didn't say that, but you did deny that Jupiter being a air planet had more in common with Neptune than with its fellow air planets, Mercury and Uranus and since they're all air planets but Neptune is not, Jupiter then would of course have more in common with the air planets and the air signs than water planets and water signs. Jupiter fulfills SOME of its duties well in Cancer (the ones you mentioned certainly count), but other duties don't fare as well including its affinity for knowledge and logic as opposed to emotion and travel as opposed to staying home. Those duties Cancer won't fulfill that well at all, but Aqaurius would. Yes, you've said that before and the ancients did assign them that way, but again...they also assigned them that way with the degree. Plus, I feel like we've already discussed the whole "exaltation" vs "fall" thing to death by now...lol.

    93. 4) Well, I said that "philosophy" is part "spirituality" but leans more toward "logic." Jupiter like all the planets represents MANY things: travel, philosophy, knowledge, optimism, luck/good fortune, authority, etc. The fact that we get SOME of our morals from our emotional side don't negate the ones we get from our logical/scientific side. Even the link/article you gave mentioned that many morals were decided in a scientific manner. Yes, but yet again..."philosophy" isn't just "emotional" or even about "morals." Those things were certanly part of it, it's true. But you still forget the LOGICAL part. Philosophy was just as much about "logic" and the earliest scientific method as it was part "morals"/ "emotional"/ or "spiritual" if not more so. Again...religion uses and influences SOME morals. But just like the link I gave, science does too. Morals aren't ONLY the domain of the emotional, especially since one can't always 100% accurately acertain what's "moral" without SOME logic in the mix. This is why much of the Western world, although still mostly monotheistic, hasn't followed the Old Testament laws in centuries. Because we've learned that much of it was NOT very "moral," at least not for our time and place. Thus, morals are not just the domain of the emotional. Like I said....that article is a REVIEW of a book written by a theist and so that book and the article are based on OPINIONS, not so much fact. Many others disagree that morals come directly from our emotions.http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/science-seat-where-morals-come-from/ :


      "CNN’s Kelly Murray: Tell us about the title of your book."

      "Frans de Waal: Well, the reason I chose that title is, when I bring up the origins of morality, it revolves around God, or comes from religion, and I want to address the issue that I think MORALITY IS ACTUALLY OLDER THAN RELIGION. So I’m getting into the religion question, and how important is religion for morality. I think it plays a role, but it’s a SECONDARY role. Instead of being the source of morality, religion came later, maybe to fortify morality."

      So just because there might be traces of "morality" in "religion," that doesn't prove that's where they orignally come from or that religion is based on "morality". "Morality" is based just as much on science and logic as it does on emotions.

    94. 4) contd.) Um...actually most websties claim that Jupiter is the planet of KNOWLEDGE and PHILOSOPHY, not so much "beleifs" and "religion" which are different. No...I still firmly disagree. Neptune might be about "blind faith," but yet again Jupiter relies on LOGIC more than emotions. There's a reason it's an AIR planet not a water planet. And logic doesn't go with "blind faith" at all. Logic is Logic. Jupiter might not be as factual as Mercury or Uranus, but it STILL needs logic just as much. And one can be logical in ideal systems. One doesn't need "emotion" or "spirituality" to have a sense of "idealism." And Jupiter is certainly not as emotional as Neptune. Jupiter doesn't use "physical facts" as much but it still does use them and logic more than "blind faith."

      4) 2) Yeah....and niether is "religion." Philosophers quarrel with scientists as much as they quarrel with theists. Yes and I gave MY links and articles which agree that while science isn't the study of morals, "religion" isn't either. "Morality" came later. Religion isn't about morals. In fact, they do much the same as science does in terms of trying to find out our origins but instead of looking to facts and logic, they look to the supernatural. They're not about "morals." At best, it might've been just a side effect. Yes, people use the word "mind" to mean different things. But "mind" = "emotions" and "mind" = "logic" are two different things and most websites state that Neptune is an emotional (ie a "feeling") planet while Jupiter is a "thinking" (logical) planet. Again...Jupiter is an air planet, not a water planet. Air = logic, water =emotions.

      5) Again...so can science. "Spirituality" or "Religion" is not based on "morality." There is no concrete proof is comes ONLY from emotions. The scientific world and even theist world are divided on the issue of where morality comes from at best. Again...anyone and everyone has morals and no, you can't really say WHERE they come from because like I said, the professional opinion is divded on this point. Theists claim it comes from "God" or "religion," but scientists claim "morality" is older and is a evolutionary or learned behavior. Morals are USUALLY personal. But they are STILL mostly logical and usually agreed upon. The general agreement in the most of the world (monotheist or otherwise) is that it's NOT ok to kill people. That is just one of the many generally accepted "morals" or "laws" or whatever we want to call it. So morals are not JUST "personal." "Morals" are both "personal" AND "impersonal" Logical AND spiritual. But emotions and "spirituality" do NOT entirely claim "morals." And again...that article is an OPINION not a fact. Here's a scientists that dsiagrees and claims that "morals" are OLDER than "religion." http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/science-seat-where-morals-come-from/

    95. 5) Lol...I don't think so. Nearly every astrological website comments on Cancer's dislike of travel and perference to stay at home. Actually crabs might travel to shore once in a blue moon, but it's usually for a short time and often not extremely far since the ocean and shore border each other. That's hardly the kind of travel Jupiter represents and hardly the kind that Sagitarrius and Aqaurius are known for. Although Jupiter can mean "spiritual journeys" too, it's far more well known for physical journeys. And Aquarius is a sign that takes much more physical journeys than Cancer, a known homebody. Jupiter is LOGICAl planet just like Aquarius is a logical sign. Whether personal or not, it's still logic.

      6) Tyche was still discredited as a "planet." And many of the others are asteroids, moons, or whatever the nodes are. This why I said that while astrology and astronomy still focus on the study of the planets, astrology has strayed from its origins and doesn't agree with many generally accepted "facts" from astronomy. Astrology needs to make up its mind about how it wants to perceive the many and various objects in our solar system (anything beyond that is too far). There is a SLIGHT chance that there are other "true" planets in our solar system and even if there was it might be too far to be effectual. Yes, the dignity system can be equalized, but it should only focus on the "main" or "true" planets. I don't think astrology can truly keep up with astronomy if it accepts every asteroid, comet, other planets' moon, etc. into consideration. I'm fairly sure that with the right interpretation, almost any sign can fit any planet or vice versa. It's the interpretations that give the planets their significance after all.

    96. Yes, but yet they STILL made it almost equal to the zodiac system leaving only Leo (sun's domicile), his opposite Aquarius and the usually negatively percieved Scorpio as without exaltations. The domicile and detriment system was even more balanced with each sign except Leo and Cancer (both who had luminaries as their domiciles) shared a planet. So basically, the ancients MADE it work. And for some ancient astrologers the signs certainly were just as important as the planets, "But of quite a different class are those five other orbs [planets], that intermingle with them and wheel wandering on every side of the twelve figures of the Zodiac. No longer with the others as they guide couldst thou mark where lies the path of those, since all pursue a shifty course, and long are the periods of their revolution and far distant lies the goal of their conjunction. When I come to them my daring fails, but mine be the power to tell of the orbits of the Fixed Stars and Signs in heaven." - Aratus of Soli (3rd cent. BC) http://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html#C

      I read somewhere that this was because that while Asia had very good and accurate calendars, much of the Western world such as Greece and Rome did not have very accurate calendars and so in order to predict bad weather, the harvest or stormy season, etc.; they had to rely on the constellations and what happened each season a particular constellation came into the sky...thus the 12 zodiac were chosen. And that's why Tropical/Western astrology relies more on the signs than even the planets. And why for Western the signs certainly matter and why they should continue to be as balanced as the ancients tried to make them. Yes...the sign and planet need to work well together but like I said...the right interpretation is needed since its the interpretations that give the planets their significance. Either way, the ancients still tried to make sure that the signs were as balanced as they could be. And it's why Western astology continues to rely more on the signs than on the planets. Even Sidereal doesn't follow the planets movements 100% accurately which would give the sun in Scorpio only a little more than a week at the expense of Ophiuchus which the sun spends far more time in. This is a strong suggestion for both Western and even Sidereal's stubborness in letting go of the traditional 12 signs and hence their importance.

    97. Science ALSO has a strong connection to "morality." It's not the sole domain of "religion" or even "spirituality." Like I said...there's a reason why most of the Western world despite being largely monotheistic doesn't follow the Old Testament laws to the dot and why we don't understand why much of the Middle East (also mostly monotheistic) still does. It's because in most of the Western world, "morality" is driven mostly by logic now and outdated religious texts cannot really guide us as far as what's "right or wrong" anymore. Maybe it worked then but it doesn't now.

      Religion seems to be the other side of the coin to science. BOTH try to discover the origin of the universe. "Morality" isn't the entire focus of either yet both benefit it and both are benefitted BY it. Science seeks to discover cures to devastating illnesses, to try to create new devices to make life easier and hopefully, more enivromentally sustainable for people. science deals with moral AND ethic questions everyday. How does THAT not influence morality? And why then if both East and West are mostly monotheistic (and supposedly worshipping the same god but in different ways), what exactly makes most of the laws and "morals" in the Middle East different from the laws and "morals" of the West? Much of Islam's sharia laws can be found in the Old Testament, yet most of the Western world does not follow those "laws" or "morals" anymore. Why? Because "morality" is NOT just the domain of "religion" and in fact is becoming increasingly more logical. Yet some Middle Eastern women may choose or choose not to wear the veil...yet still call themselves "Muslim." Thus, even to some Muslim women, the veil is more a choice than a "moral" or political issue. LOL...I actually like the veil and as long as the woman is not forced, it's entirely her choice whether she wants to wear it or not. SOME "morals" are personal, but many others are based on logic and agreed "facts" or "laws." The fact that many Muslim women might choose not to wear the veil yet still see themselves as dedicated Muslims is precisely why using that wasn't a good example of a "moral" and how even people of the same faith differ on what their "morals" are. So even if some morals are personal, they're not always personal JUST because of religion and just because some morals are personal doesn't mean that many others are widely held and accepted across different faiths and beleifs. That's logic's doing.

    98. 1) Um...no. It's this type of word play that confuses me. For me, logic is logic. And logic uses the brain as in the ability to rationalize and reason. Emotions, etc. might be created in the brain (lol..what isn't?), but they are usually without reason and rationality. THAT is why they are "blind." They do not need to be questioned or investigated. Logic, however, demands to be. According to Dictionary.com logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." Thus, logic's very definition is about investigating and about finding out the "right" or "wrong"; "correct" or "incorrect." Emotions are not about that at all. So there is no such thing as "emotional logic," "spiritual logic," etc. There is only rational logic. By its very definition. And if something is rational, it usually weighs many options. Compared to "religions" or "spirituality" which as we've agreed many times do not need logic and often don't use it at all. That is what makes "emotions" as a whole "blind." Like the well known expression that "love is blind." Why is love (an emotion) "blind?" Because when people fall in love, nothing else really matters. Not their appearance, occupation, not even if it's abusive. Love often is beleived to have no reason behind it or rational. That's why love and faith are often said to be "blind." Because they cannot reason or usually don't need logic or reason to be felt.

      2) lol...then there is no such thing as "emotional logic," "spiritual logic," etc. If logic is only open to things that can be physically investigated. Yes..."correct REASONING." Religions might try to debate, argue, etc. but it's usually circular (and thus pointless) precisely because it can not and probably never will be PHYSICALLY proven and thus cannot be truly "logical" which as you admitted is only open to things that can be physcially investigated. Religion and spirituality might try to "investigate" themselves but if it's something that is not physical, it cannot be truly proven "right" or "wrong" (it cannot be ever be truly "reasoned").

      Again...in my opinion, being "blind" is the extreme of "close-mindedness." A logical person can be "close-minded" and stick to old fashioned theories and outdated methods, but they usually TRY to search for newer information and other methods of doing things. The extreme of the "close-minded" religious people on the other hand are even more extreme than the typical "close-mindedness," precisely because they do not use logic to justify their beleifs. It's the LOGIC itself that separates "close-minded" people with "blind" people in the sense that even "close-minded" logical people (if they are true to the definition of 'logic") will investigate other options and at least try to give other possibilties a chance. Religious extremists will not do so. The extreme of a "close-minded" "religious" person will follow their holy book to the last word without considering any other religious or spiritual options let alone any logical options. The very lack of "logic" is what makes an extreme "close-minded person" blind and a "close-minded" logical person merely "close-minded." For me, there's still a difference.

    99. Yes....I can understand that "logic's" opposite is "intuition." But then "intuition" is not "logical" and thus can be "blind" because it's very essence relies on something that cannot be seen or proved. Thus, its very essense IS "blindness." A logical person has to rely on the physical world.

      Yes, others can have "blind faith," (ie "blind faith" in love, "blind faith in their luck", etc.) but not atheists because they do not "believe" in the way religious people do. Their "beleifs" (they're not really "beleifs...lol) are founded on logic or "facts" (or the lack thereof of "facts"). Many of them do entertain the possibility of the "spiritual" realm or the beleif in a "god" but without any real proof, they fail to see the point in forcing their lives to revolve around such things. But they're not quite as afraid of being wrong as religious people are and as such are not as "blind" as they are. And it's not really a "belief in humanity or science." A beleif cannot be proven. Science CAN be. And if we're talking about the "religious" kind of faith and the "having trust in someone" kind, then "faith" CANNOT come in the logical form since it's second defintion on Dictionary.com is a "belief that is not based on proof." So LOGIC is the antithesis of "blind faith" and as such cannot be "blind" and cannot be "faith." But I do agree that "blindness" comes in many forms. But for me, it's the lack of logic itself in emotion and spirituality that allows it e identified as "blind," like "blind love" and "blind faith." It's their inability to rationalize or investigate the reason for themslves that makes them so. Logical people can be obstinate, close-minded, arrogant, etc. but if they're true to the definition of "logic," then they at least have to weigh the options. "Religious" or even "Spiritual" people don't have to and as such that's why the extreme among them are "blind."

  18. The thing is...when a planet is exalted....it becomes more LITERAL. Otherwise you shouldn't be looking for a generational planet (which usually represents events) in an exalted form. A planet in exaltation is more prominent and obvious to people in the outside world. (unless other aspects in the chart alter the expression). So you would have to look for indications of exaggeration/debilitation to CONFIRM what is and what isn't. You can't just place a planet in a sign and not observe how this plays out in our everyday world. Otherwise there would be no point in the dignity system at all. And again, NEPTUNE heightened Leo's creative side during that time. Leo on its own is nothing without the planets. Sun in Leo or mars in Leo is different from Neptune in Leo. They express differently because there are different planets highlighting different things in this sign. NETUNE in Leo is more creative, more glamourous, more optimistic, etc than it probably would be had another planet would be in Leo. That's why its better to look at each planetary placement separately because they don't all produce the same type of expression. A moon in Leo, a Venus in Leo, and a Neptune in Leo is going to be much softer than a Mars in Leo or a Sun in Leo. Again the planets mean everything in astrology. And especially when it comes to dignities. The planets' expressions in those signs is what we should be looking at, not the sign by itself. Even if Leo normally does not express itself this way on the rising or when Sun is in Leo....that does not mean that it does not express this way when NEPTUNE is in Leo.

    1. Hmmm...I don't know about that. Even when planets or asteroids are in their domicile or exalted sign, they can and are STILL influenced by other factors which is what makes trying to isolate those events so hard. For example, take Neptune in Virgo (1928-1942) and Neptune in Libra (1942-1956) and compare them to Pluto in Leo (1939-1957). They were going on at the same time. Which major events stick out for which? And which of them take the "credit/blame" for WWII? While observing how the planets play out is important, unless those single events and influences can be isolated from other factors (which is ridiculously hard), it won't do much good because we can never be 100% or even 80% sure about how those influences play out until after they happened. Or else those events are almost impossible to isolate and judge on an inidividual basis and until we can do that, we can't be sure which planet is influencing which sign.

      Yes, but Neptune in Leo was not the only planet exerting its influence on Leo at the time and it wasn't up in the sky by itself. Like mentioned before, when Neptune was in Virgo and then in Libra, Pluto was still in Leo. Libra is the sign of justice and peace but even then still had to deal with 3 more years of war. So the length of time the planet is in the sign and what people choose to highlight is also a factor. Plus, the exalted degree too was a factor. Although the planets in the signs might have different expressions, they're really not the only things influencing them at the time.

      Like I said, I'm not too sure about Neptune in Leo being more creative, or optimistic, etc. And no...according to early sources, Leo wasn't really depicted to be "creative." That seems to be more of a modern addition. And when Bacchus used the lion motif, it wasn't in his "theatre" aspect but rather when he was travelling with his crazed Maenads (who ironically would tear beasts apart with their bare hands and in one story [that of Pentheus], the queen mother tore her own son, the king, apart after he spied on their rituals because in her madness, she thought he was a lion!) So...I can't say I agree. Yes, the planets' expression are different but they overlap and especially when you bring the influences of other planets at the same time in the mix, it's quite a sticky situation. The problem is that some people including myslef, can't seem to see Leo expressing himself that way in Neptune AT ALL. Like I said, with WWI happening in Leo, I can't see him as being "optimistic," "creative," loving," or anything of that sort. And that's the problem...as long as people look at the same event and see two different things...isolating which planet is best in which sign based on the evnts themselves is going to be quite difficult.

    2. Now you see why most traditional astrologers think its wrong to place dignities/debilities on generational planets. :) Because generational planets are best examined from an event point of view, not a personal one. After all, they represent an entire generation, so defining whats dignified and debilitated is something we can't truly define in that broad of a sense. In order to see what planet is dignified/debilitated in what sign you would HAVE to examine how it plays out in the real world, but that would be very difficult to define by an entire generation. Personal planets are altered by aspects and houses...but aspects do not change the nature of the debility or dignity. And a planet in debility and dignity is much more evident than a planet with no strong debilities or dignities. Unfortunately, with generational planets they cannot be looked at in the same terms as the personal planets. But I still find it interesting to consider. :D
      Again, I'm not looking at Leo separately from the planet. You have to remember the sign expresses itself differently according to what planet is IN that sign. Neptune is creative and imaginative WHEREVER it is. When its in Leo its brings out Leo's creative sides, its sensitive sides, its compassionate sides. It brings out the BEST in Leo. Just like Mars brings out Leo's aggressive sides. Venus brings out Leo's affectionate sides. Leo on its OWN may not be this way, but its not about that when it comes to Planetary dignities. It comes down to how well the PLANET expresses itself in this sign. Of course you can't see Leo this way on its own....that's why Neptune benefits in the sign of Leo...because it BRINGS OUT the softer qualities of Leo. It dissolves Leo's ego, and dissolves Leo's need for attention....it enhances Leo's creative, affectionate side. It highlights a more positive side to Leo that would not be evident if other planets were in this sign.

    3. Bacchus also used lions to draw his chariot...http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Dionysos.html
      Bacchus also represented the wild and untamed fierce energy. But also in the book "Dionysus: myth and cult", many regarded Dionysus to have the "gratitude and loyalty of a lion". Baccus (greek Dionysus) might have a lot to do with why so many regard Leo to have such entertaining qualities and creative energy...because Dionysus has become so strongly affiliated to the Lion as a symbol for himself. Not so much that these affiliations are wrong or right, but rather this might be where the modern affiliations came from. According to a Laconian poet, it was said that Dionysus drank lion's milk.

      And again in Rome Lions were always considered an animal of entertainment. Just because they are fierce does not mean they are not entertaining. lol Have you ever went to a zoo or wildlife park and examined a lion? They are one of the most entertaining animals to see. It should be no surprise as to why they represent entertainment and the theater when it comes to the human world. In fact most Olympic games had symbols of lions which not only represented power but also apart of the great entertainment of Rome. This is because in almost every culture, while lions were feared, they were also admired and many were captivated by them. Even skyscript describes Leos this way: " They are attracted to passion, drama and crave attention. This latter is particularly evident in Leos, who revel in positions that draw attention to them; where it is not forthcoming they will make conscious and unconscious attempts to foster it though the use of strong, vivid colours, dramatic gestures and overblown expressions."
      So apparently this is something that has been evident of Leo for a very long time.
      May I also mention that Skyscript describes Leo as "they seem to possess an optimistic belief that everything will work itself out in the fullness of time". This might be why many believe Neptune is exalted in Leo: Neptune's energy seems more superior in the optimistic sign if Leo.
      Also the website describes Leo as extremely romantic. "They are often said to act foolishly by placing too great a faith in human nature".

    4. As far dignities and debilities go...it depends on which type of astrology you are interested in. In Horary, astrology, the debilities and dignities are sometimes more powerful than aspects and will be seen more literally. Horary is a more predictive type of astrology.

    5. Yeah...true. But then again, the same is true for ANY planet not just the generational ones. Some astrologers even think that generational planets affect on an indivudual level, too so then that makes the generational planets even harder to determine. And personal planets are hard too precisely because they are also affected by degrees, houses, and aspects so to isolate how one specific planet does in one specific sign with all that going out is still really difficult.

      Yes, I know. But I'm also saying that I don't really see that in Neptune in Leo. I can't see Leo as being more creative, optimistic, sensitive, etc. even with Neptune in Leo since WWI occured with Neptune in Leo and so it brought out some of the WORST in Leo, not really the "best." There might have been some creativity with music, fashion, and art but that seemed to be overshadowed by the first of the World Wars. So if we're to judge exaltations of the generational planets with events, having WWI happen doesn't really prove how well Neptune does in Leo. If anything, it just showed how a great release of emotion for Leo without control ends negatively. But I guess we just choose to emphasize and interpret things differently. But I don't think I really agree that it brings out Leo's softer qualities. But maybe it can, if other influences don't factor in at the same time which of course, they would in reality.

    6. Yeah...I know that lions were used to draw Bacchus' chariot (I'm both a pagan and have a Master's in Classics) but that was what I meant. They were used in Bacchus' madness inducing travels and not in Bacchus' softer theatre side. Yeah, perhaps. The modern aspects had to come from somewhere after all. But...it still feels a bit off for me personally because modern astrology seems to focus almost ONLY on the "softer" "creative" side or over-emphasize it while ignoring Leo's more aggressive qualities. This then gives a wrong impression of Leo as thing almost "kitty-like" character when really he was more tempermental.

      Eh...yeah, but then again "entertaining" as in "tearing things to pieces" and "entertaining" as in "innocent fun" are two VERY different forms of "entertainment. And modern astrology definitely doesn't use the fiercer kind. Also, actors in ancient Rome were regarded on the same level as witches and whores...which I find odd. So ancient Rome definitely had a very ambivalent view on "entertainment" than modern people do now. And yeah...because again, the Olympic Gmaes were also very differnt from the "theatre." The Games were about strength, speed and athleticsm whereas theatre was about comedy/tragedy, plot and characters. They were different.

      Well that's because like I mentioned before, Skyscript combines BOTH the ancient sources with the more modern attributes, but that doesn't mean that Leo was thought of like that by the anicents. It was an interesting but long process gave Leo the modern attributes he has now.

      Skyscript also mentions that: "However, should a Leo have cause to view another as a predator, then never was a creature more sensitive or responsive to assumed slights and imagined threats. Open-minded tolerance and relaxed confidence fall away as ego-driven urges swing into gear. A Leo as an adversary makes a bloody-minded opponent and the dominating qualities of this sign are such that they rarely feel appeased with victory unless it involves the total annihilation of the threat. Leos are well known for sensitivity to their own emotions, and yet they are far less empathetic to the thoughts and feelings of others; hence this sign has one of the most fearsome reputations amongst the zodiac signs for exhibiting brutal or extreme behaviour." And especially concerning that part about Leo's emotions...it seems like a purely emotional Leo is not a good thing. And Skyscript ends by warning modern astrologers of trying to make Leo seem domesticated by saying, "We simply need to remember that the lion can act like a pussy-cat at times, but it in its own heart it is always a magnificent creature that can never be fully tamed or manipulated against its will." So yeah...

    7. And yes, you're right as far which kind of astrology people use which is again why it's hard to get people to fully agree on the planets and their signs. Traditional astrology had its own interpretations, horary (like you said), esoteric, etc. which each have their own interpretations and such.

    8. Well, I know that many do regard Leos as proud and ferocious and they are by no means subtle even in the human world. lol In fact, they are entertaining BECAUSE they are ferocious. But that ferocity of course would not be expressed in human form the way an animal lion would express itself. So this is why so many astrologers consider where the "Lions" (Leos) need to express its ferocious personality might be expressed in the human world.

    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    10. Neptune can bring out the creative and sensitive sides to ANY sign, even a sign like Aries. lol Its just that when Neptune is in Leo, Neptune has a lot energy that it can use. Leo normally isn't the most sensitive sign. But when Neptune is in Leo, it highlights the generosity of Leo and the entertaining sides. Also I did more research on Lion's hunting style. The lion was described by wildlife specialists as creative in the way that they hunt. They always try different creative ways to get their food, sometimes even acting as their prey. So creativity and acting are inborn qualities of the lion.

    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    12. Wars usually indicate Plutonic forces, not Neptunian forces. Pluto was in Cancer so its understandable why Lands were at war. But it more than likely had to do with Pluto rather than Neptune. Hints of Neptune usually involve creativity, art, ideals of the time, escape, hope, and spirituality. Yes, that time was a time (in the beginning) of a war. But NEPTUNE still managed to show strong hints of creativity, optimism, and art when it was in Leo. PLUTO was not exalted so of course there were going to be vicious wars. And the fact the world wars lasted THROUGHOUT the entire Pluto in Cancer generation (which was a LOOOONNNGG generation) shows that it had more to do with Plutonic forces than Neptunian ones. But there were strong signs that Neptune was at its most creative, most ideal, most artistic, and most optimistic time in history when it was in Leo, despite the wars that were happening through plutonic forces of Pluto in Cancer.

    13. Hmmm...that's a good point. But I guess the problem for me is just the WAY modern astrologers characterize Leo. For many of them, it's almost like that's ALL Leo is...the "entertainer" when that's actually more of a secondary attribute. They never really give Leo an in-depth description.

      Perhaps, but Neptune also rules emotion and Leo commonly releases his emotions in a more negative way than positive so even if Neptune made Leo more "sensitive" and creative," it really wouldn't be in a positive way. Like how you're describing a lion's hunting patterns. Yes, but then again that might be the human equivalent of a human hunter catching prey in a creative way and mimicking the mating calls of animals in order to kill them. That's still different than the "show their pretty faces and strut" type of acting and creativity that modern astrologers give Leo. So "creativity" and "acting" are more like secondary qualities in my opinion.

      That's true. But again, Neptune rules emotion and not all emotion is positive so when all that pent up emotion builds up, people react negatively and since Leo is classified as both "bestial" AND "feral," he has a hard time dealing positively with his own emotions and even feeling empathy for others so a strong release of emotion for him wouldn't be good. Although the materials, weapons etc. of war itself might be a Plutonian thing, having emotional Neptune in such a fiery, tempermental and hot-headed sign like Leo certainly didn't help matters. Another problem of interpreting planets in signs is the unfair fact that some planets like Neptune take credit for only good qualities while other planets like Mars and Pluto are attiributed mainly negative stuff. And while Vedic astrology does assign the terms "benefic" or "malefic" to the planets, these were only assigned to the traditional planets and not the generational ones so Neptune and Pluto, at least in traditional Vedic astrology, aren't considered "harmful" or "beneficial" yet.

      And it's interesting to note that both WWI and WWII had to deal with devstating events in a hiearchy (the shooting of a duke in the First and dictatorships all across Europe in the Second) and the aristocracy is ruled by Leo. Actually, Pluto was in Cancer for only WWI (1914-1939), Pluto was in Leo for the even more devastating WWII (1939-1957) and even a great chunk of the nearly disasterous Cold War (generally thought to be around 1947-1991). And since WWI was only 4 years long in the many 25 years Pluto was in Cancer seems to suggest that it definitely was not just Pluto in Cancer that caused the First World War. WWII wasn't really in Cancer or if it was, it could have been no more than a few months or so since Pluto in Leo started in 1939 too. Leo though seems to be volatile no matter what planet is in it. But perhaps it's all these planets in the different signs working together that lead to such events...both good and bad. But I still don't think Neptune had its best time in Leo per se. I still think it had a much calmer time in Aquarius. and especially in Cancer.

    14. But look! I found this little quote from "Astrology.com.au: Neptune and Astrology" and I cracked up because it looks like we both had valid points on Neptune! XD Here's what it said on Neptune in the fire signs: "When the planet is positive in the fire signs of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, its action may be quite creative on one level but being a water planet posited in fire signs, may not yield the most beneficial results." Neptune in the air signs: "The air signs can fall both ways, positively and negatively, with Neptune there and these include Gemini Libra and Aquarius. In the air signs the intellectual and rational processes are the dominant sign and with a well-placed Neptune these three signs of the zodiac will experience incredible heights of imagination whereby they can uplift others through artistic and even design and literary works. In the sign of Aquarius, that of humanitarianism, Neptune also would be in a formidable placement to assist in accelerating the evolution of humankind." But I think our original agreement that an exalted Neptune in Cancer is best because then it says, "By far the most resonant element for Neptune however, would be the water signs of Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces, over which Neptune has jurisdiction. The element of water has long been associated with the emotional, psychic and spiritual level of man. Is it any wonder then, that Neptune found in these water signs will trigger the innate qualities as mentioned? This is the pinnacle of life - to have the accelerating influence of Neptune in this element; however astrology is never cut and dry." And it goes on to say that other influences, especially of the Sun, Saturn and Mercury might still cause negative results. Anyway, here's the link:http://www.astrology.com.au/astrology/planets/neptune.html
      Take care! :)

    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    16. lol You're right about modern astrologers not giving in depth descriptions...naturally, most signs are not given in depth descriptions. Most websites describe Scorpio as the most sexual sign in the zodiac (even though the true scorpion does not have actual penetration intercourse in order to procreate). Yet, there is so much more to Scorpio than just sex. Taurus also gets really bland descriptions. There are simply described as stubborn creatures and typically sensual and lazy, when honestly Taurus is very sociable, accommodating, and capable of doing hard work for long periods of time. So, you know there are many qualities that astrologers pin with certain signs. And although they aren't too far off, in-depth astrologers usually don't have such "cook book" explanations which is good to know. I think there should be better explanations of the signs regarding human expression.

    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    18. Yes World War I and World War II began during Pluto in Cancer. While in America and Europe the war had only begun in 1939, in Asia the War began in 1937, so that's why I said Pluto was in Cancer during that time period. And Yes Pluto was also in Leo during the time of the second world war. Pluto showed strong indications of power struggles during 1939-1957, when Pluto was in Leo. Pluto is both powerful when mixed with planets like Mars and Pluto. But with the moon, venus, and Neptune it expresses itself more creatively rather than ferociously. Moon, Venus, and Neptune temper Leo's qualities because they are softer planets. You'll find Leo to be more creative with these three planets in the sign of Leo.

      Nice find about Neptune. :) I think we can both agree that Neptune is exalted in Cancer more than the other two. Cancer provides a good sense of escape for Neptune and has the same watery quality that Neptune has.

    19. In other words, with softer planets like Venus, moon, and Neptune Leo is still ferocious...just ferociously creative. lol

    20. Yeah...I just wish there could be better, in-depth descriptions for all the signs. LOL..yeah poor Scorpio and Taurus. XD But yeah...they should be more in-depth and specific.

      I see. But see, the article I read claimed that before 1939, it wasn't a "World War" yet before 1939 so I didn't take that into account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
      (Axelrod, Alan (2007) Encyclopedia of World War II, Volume 1. Infobase Publishing. pp. 659.) So...although Pluto was in Cancer during an Asian war, it really wasn't a World War until 1939 when Pluto was in Leo.

      Yes...that's why even though domiciles and debilities, exaltations and falls are important; it doesn't always gaurantee that the sign will be successful or fail just because it's in one of those planets. That's why the other factors that are involved also matter regarding exaltions and falls and why it's usually so hard to isolate their influences.

      Yup! I think so, too.

      "Ferociously creative?'" Hmm...sounds interesting. lol XD

  19. BTW the reason Sagittarius was called half-feral according to skyscript is because Sagittarius is representative of the Centaur who is half man half beast. So of course, it would be half feral. To be feral means to once be domesticated but sent back into the wild afterwards or descendants of domesticated animals. Sagittarius is represented half horse half man.

    1. Yes, I know. But over time people began to confuse the half-feral Sagitarrius (who originally was supposed to be the real lusty, rebellious, and wild centaur) with the more gentle philosopher-healer Chiron who was actually the other constellation Centaurus. And no...it's not just because Sagitarrius is half horse. The animal zodiac were called "bestial" (meaning that they were "responsive to primordial instincts rather than higher reasoning" but only Leo and half of Sagitarrius were called "feral." No, according to Skyscript, "feral" means that those that were capable of "savage of fercoiously destructive traits." Skyscript also states that Mesopotamians referred to Sagitarrius as the "Strong One" and "Giant King Of War" and also explains how Sagitarrius got confused with Centaurus (who earlier had been Chiron). But while the horse might be domesticated, the lion never is which is why Leo is the only sign that is fully "feral." So yeah...in ancient times, both Leo and Sagitarrius were seen as more savage and tempermental than they are now and have undergone a strange "taming" in modern astrology. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the modern traits that are given to them nowadays are their "real" traits.

  20. Yes, that's exactly what I said about Feral. To be feral means to be let into the wild, especially after being in captivity or domesticated. http://www.mdavid.com.au/nature/feral.shtml Maybe I'm speaking mostly scientifically. lol But yes it means wild, out in the wild.

    I must mention that according to the book "Skywatcher's Companion: Constellations and Their Mythology", there is a story why Sagittarius IS Chiron, as well as Centaurus. The book says Hercules was trying to get rid of troublesome centaurs and accidentally shot Chiron. Although he had healing talents, he wasn't able to heal himself. But because he was immortal at the time, he was to suffer from this wound eternally unless something changed. Seeing how pained he was, Roman father of the Gods, Jupiter (greek Zues), had Chiron trade places with titan promotheus and in the end, Chiron died a natural death instead. Jupiter in the end placed Chiron in the sky as Sagittarius, which is how Chiron in Rome came to be represented by both constellations. :) You should really read this book. It has some interesting information.
    Chiron's personal skills included medicine, music, ARCHERY, hunting and prophecy. Because Chiron is the most well known Centaur, his qualities had come to symbolize archery in ancient times, especially because he taught Achilles the art of archery. This might also be why so many believe Sagittarius is affiliated with Chiron. There are many that believe Chiron made the constellation Sagittarius to help the Argonauts as well.

    Btw, placing it in the category of half-feral still might have more to do with Sagittarius being represented as lastly half animal. Why else would they place feral as a term for its qualities if it wasn't represented as some sort of animal? And most times Sagittarius is closely related to half horse (or half goat) creatures.

    1. Yes, but that's the scientific definition. But the astrological definition is a bit different since technically a ram, scorpion, and goat can be considered "feral" too since those animals are not necessarily "domesticated" in nature but they are not considered "feral" in astrology. They're considered "bestial," but "feral" is even more intense. So only Leo and half of Sagitarrius are considered "feral." So the scientific definition is different from the astrological one.

      Yeah...but books written in modern times still combine both the ancient and modern interpretations. Perhaps that book explained why or how Sagitarrius came to be confused with Centaurus over time, but Sagitarrius was still originally the wild kind of centaur and Centaurus was still originally considered to be Chiron. Somewhere along the line they got confused or even merged with each other. Yeah...like I said before, as a pagan and with a Master's in Classics, I already know a lot of those stories. (Which is also why I hesitate to call them "myths" since that word has changed over time to a more derogatory definition. I mean, the monotheistic religions don't use the word "myth" to describe THEIR stories...ugh. Sorry for the little rant, but I have an ambivalent view on that word. It's not directed at you, but just that word in general) Sadly, unless modern books reference ancient sources, sometimes they can get the story wrong which I've seen in other books. But yeah...maybe I'll borrow the book from a library or something and see for myself. :)

      Maybe, but I read somewhere that it was not just because Sag is half-horse but more because that those born in the last half of the decans of Sag were more prone to those "feral" qualities than those born earlier. Although being half-horse might certainly be an explanation, I think it has more to do with the decans than the actual animal itself. Because otherwise if it was just based on the animals themselves, like I said, why weren't the stern Capricorn (half-goat), the usually negative (at the time) and tempermental Scorpio (scorpion) and aggressive Aries (ram) even when they were both ruled by Mars considered "feral," too? They were considered "bestial," but "feral" was a slightly different and more intense. Something else made the ancients classify them as such and it seemed to be their more aggressive and savage personalities than the animals themselves.

    2. Well Scorpions are not animals...they are arachnids. So that might be why they are not put in the same category. And Goats are not feral in nature because they are heavily domesticated in the goat half, not wild like most animals. If you ever examine Goats they are less wild than most other animals and they make up the largest number of domesticated animals in the world. They are described by skyscript as bestial, because...well they have bestial like natures. Feral refers to a wild animal. So Sagittarius must have a wild, animalistic side to it. It could refer to the Decans, which would mean that those on the last Decans carry the more bestial, animal side of Sagittarius more than the early decans of Sag who might carry the more humane side. But that's just a theory.
      Because Ancient Rome has so many stories regarding the constellations, it is unclear whether Sagittarius is in reference to Chiron or not. But they seem to be related in some way according to the Romans. I'm an educator so of course, I would see it more as apart of ancient mythology. Sorry for offending you in that way.

    3. Sheep (Rams) are also less wild because they are grassland animals. Horses are much wilder and harder to tame than Sheep. Lions are less tamable than horses. The only sheep that is hardest to tame or the Bighorn sheep due to their size.

    4. Uh, actually Scorpions ARE animals. They are from the animal kingdom. Arachnids is their "class." But they're still animals. Yeah, but there are still plenty of mountain goats and rams in the wild. But in that case, horses are also quite domesticated (according to Wiki, by 3000 BC, there was widespread domestication of horses) So even in anicent times, horses were considered "domesticated" too. So, it doesn't seem to be just the animal symbols that are being classified since horses, goats, and rams are all kind of domesticated and not considered "feral" in the wild. And scorpions are also animals...although finding out how the anicent classified scorpions at the time would take some research. But yeah...it seems like if we were going simply by the animal symbol, only the lion would be considered "feral." Why half of Sagitarrius if it was just his horse half when horses were domesticated widespread too at that time?

      Yeah, Skyscript includes the scientific definition for better understanding, but then it goes to explain how those terms relate to astrology. "Bestial: symbolized by the four-footed animals. These signs lack in social graces and are reputed to display an animalistic reaction to their emotions, sometimes indicating coarseness and a poor appreciation of polite manners. They can also be a little inarticulate." "Feral: literally means wild, uncultivated, savage or brutal. This relates to the cruel and insensitive streak that Leos can sometimes display when they disassociate their actions from their feelings and empathetic consideration of others. It is also one of the reasons why Leo is taken to signify uncultivated territory and places where wild animals roam."

      So yeah...that's how Skyscript explains it. True, and it could be a bit of both...that the horse half of Sagitarrius symbolizes the last decan half. But like I said...if it was going by JUST the animal, that wouldn't make much sense since the horse was being domesticated right along side the ram and goat to be considered purely "feral."

      LOL..yes, you're right the ancient Romans did. It would make sense considering how many different and foreign religions were coming in to Rome (Isis, Cybele, etc.) in their later years as an empire so as they were borrowing from different cultures at the times, they probably confused or blended many of them. Oh no worries! Like I said...it wasn't you at all! You couldn't have known. It's a personal preference I do. I know that whenever you say "myth," you don't do it in the derogatory way most people today do. So please don't think you offended me! I like our discussion and although I disagree with some of them, you have the right to your own opinion too. :)

      Yes, you're right that rams were domesticated also, but then again horses are technically a domesticated animal even back then so to call it would be strange calling them "feral" right along side a lion if it was based on purely animal symbols.

    5. I tried to find a better source since Wiki is a bit unreliable since anyone can edit it and I found this: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?gtrack=pthc&ParagraphID=bov

      It claims domestication of the horse happened around 3,000 BC whereas sheep, goats, cattle and pigs are dated to have been domesticated between 9,000 BC- 7,000 BC. So I guess the horse was considered slightly more "newly domesticated?" XD Though I guess it depends which ancient civilization created and followed that astrology. The horse was probably more newly domesticated in anicent Sumerian and ancient early dynastic Egypt, but for the Greeks and Romans, the horse was already domesticated for a few thousand years.

    6. Very interesting find you have here! I didn't know the Horse had been domesticated for that long. True...the Scorpion is an animal...its just not as hard to tame. Feral animals like horses or lions are harder to tame and therefore, they are more like Feral. Goats and Sheep are easy to tame so are not quite as feral. Goats are more used for domesticated purposes than horse are, even today. In recent times horses are not as common for domestication as they use to be (thanks to modern technology). Goats are still used to produce milk along with cows. Sheep are used also, but not as much as the animals that produce dairy. So that's kind of what I meant by Feral would be referring to some kind of animalistic behavior that is wild. lol Sorry if it wasn't clear.

    7. Yeah, I know...it was eye opening for me too! Perhaps...and I guess their small size helps that too. LOL..Oh I see what you meant now. Yes, that seems to be the case. :)

  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

  22. Replies
    1. lol It is an interesting topic. :) I like interesting and engaging discussions. :D

    2. LOL...well, it would save us a lot of time with all these replies! She's certainly giving me a run for my money! ;)

      Oh...but I hope you don't mind all these replies and feedback on your blog. If it bothers you, we'll stop.