This is to all the people that think Stellar Maze’s commentary on Myers Briggs is bullshit simply because they see the word “astrology” in the tagline of this site.
To them I say “Myers-Briggs is astrology.”
How now?
First off, the dude who came up with what eventually became known as Myers-Briggs was named Carl Jung. It’s ALL based on what he came up with in his book Psychological Types.
The only real difference between what Jung was doing and what astrologers do is that Jung didn’t use an astrological birth chart to assign types – he just said that he observed these types in his patients … whatever the fuck that means. That’s all he said about the origin of these terms that Myers-Briggs people take as a given fact nowadays, while meanwhile the latter discredit astrology based on zero inquiry into it.
However, the first thing that is obvious is that the four basic functions of Jungian typology are the same as the four elements of astrology.
The two basic attitude orientations of Jung can be linked to the modes/quadruplicities of astrology. I solved the problem of the 2 to 3 association (and by extension the 12 signs of astrology to the 16 types of MB). The key is the mutable signs of astrology, which are known by tradition to be “bicorporeal” or “double-bodied”, hence, in Jungian typological terms, they would be “ambiverse”, and as such, each mutable sign can be assigned to both the introverted and extraverted portion of one of the four basic Jungian functions.
This is likely to be confusing if one does not even know what a “mutable” sign is. Most people that think astrology is bullshit (because they heard it on NPR or something) don’t and it is one of the very basic terms of the system. Briefly, mutability is one of the three modes that it is possible for one of the twelve astrological signs to be in.
If you don’t know what any of that shit in the above paragraph meant, you are not in a position to think astrology is bullshit. You don’t even know what it is. How can you think something is bullshit if you don’t even understand what it is?
Many Myers-Briggs people think that Myers-Briggs has scientific validity because of the MBTI. Many of these same people think that astrology is bunk because it has no scientific basis, and moreover, is held to be debunked by the mainstream scientific establishment.
1. Myers-Briggs is not scientific in the sense that many people seem to think it is.
2. Astrology is actually more scientific than Myers-Briggs because it at least has entities that physically exist that can be measured in time and space – planets.
3. Regardless of whether you think that planets and signs can influence human behavior, Myers-Briggs is using the language of astrology, whether its adherents are aware of this or not.
Jung didn’t use an astrological birth chart of a person to assign their type, yet he was using the same language that astrology does to assign type (though clothed in different terms).
And this was smart, because it is really the one error that doesn’t work in astrology – determining a person’s type from their birth chart. The basic language is correct but the application is faulty.
1. A person’s astrological birth chart does not determine their Myers-Briggs personality type.
This is plain from simple observation. It doesn’t match up.
So, yes, this is the one area (and a big one) where modern astrology and astrologers are in error – thinking that the astrological birth chart determines their personality or temperament in the way that Myers-Briggs does, which I would say is – essentially.
However, the system of astrology, as a whole, works very well, in the same manner that Myers-Briggs does, except that astrology is much richer as a language than Myers-Briggs. Myers-Briggs is, more accurately, a branch of astrology dealing with a specific application of astrological thought – the personality type of a person (which is actually a very late application and concern of astrology. A birth chart was never cast for a person until very recently in history. It came with the whole Age of the Individual, which itself is a late development in human history).
This astrological language can be applied to people in the same way as Myers-Briggs is – thru observation of these types in people, same as Jung did. No astrological birth chart necessary.
It is really the language and system of astrology we’re interested in, not its modern erroneous application in the form of determining a person’s essential nature from their astrological birth chart.
However, why throw out the baby with the bathwater (or more accurately, the parent)?
So what if birth chart astrology does not work in the way that we are told it does – as a determiner of personality and temperament? It’s a faulty application, and a comparatively recent one in the whole history of astrology, but why condemn the system based on a faulty application of it?
Moreover, how can you condemn a system which you have about zero knowledge of?
So, if you’re doing Myers-Briggs, you’re doing astrology. Moreover, you’re doing it without being aware of the larger heritage to which it belongs, and as such, missing out on the richness, the superiority, and much extended form of delineation the astrological system offers.
I’ll give you but one example and be done for now:
In Myers-Briggs we only know of one relationship that cognitive functions can have to each other – opposites.
And indeed, that is one of the relationships that planets and signs in astrology can have as well – the opposition aspect.
But, what of the relationships of the other Myers-Briggs functions to each other, besides opposites? What are those?
No accounting is made for what those are, or even if this is a possibility (which of course it’s a possibility, and a probability).
Astrology, in addition to the opposition between entities (such as planets or signs), has defined other relationships that may exist between these entities: sextile, trine, and square. The first two of those relationships between entities are considered harmonious; they aid each other.
In Myers-Briggs there is really only the principle of opposites (which are antagonistic to each other) and any other of these Jungian functions are merely considered as not opposing the aims of the dominant function. This is a negative definition.
By extension, Myers-Briggs is locked into a principle of Twoness or duality, a set of dualisms, almost exclusively (three sets of dualisms, to be exact: introversion/extraversion, intuition/sensation, and thinking/feeling).
At the very least, astrology, in addition to this, has the principle of Threeness, which, in and of itself, expands and enriches the system considerably.
In conclusion, if you lend any credibility to Myers-Briggs, then, by extension, you are lending credibility to astrological thought, the latter of which you are engaging in unawares if you are engaging in the former.
If you don’t think so, I challenge you to refute me.
I have heard many Myers-Briggs people discredit anything written on Stellar Maze simply because they see the word “astrology” in the tagline.
Meanwhile, these ignorant people don’t know that Jung studied astrology and took it seriously, and moreover, that’s where the four basic functions of intuition, thinking, feeling, and sensation come from – astrological thought, at least as far as Jung appropriated these terms and formulated them in a neat, closed-system package that excludes any further possibilities.
Tell me that the intuition, thinking, feeling, and sensation functions do not bear an uncanny resemblance to the four elements of astrology – fire, air, water, and earth respectively.
How now?
What is one to make of this uncanny resemblance?
Myers-Briggs is astrology.
So, for all the people disregarding the entire content of Stellar Maze because they see the word “astrology” in the title, I say…
WAKE UP!
Stop being ignorant, yet accusing others of ignorance based on your own ignorance. It’s very unscientific, to say the least.
That wake up call should also go to all the professional astrologers who offer natal chart readings without any regard to person’s Myers-Briggs type.
It’s only logical that, for example, INFJ and ESTJ with exact same natal charts will be different.
And it’s so fucking LOGICAL, that Myers-Briggs is Astrology.
And Blake, since you mentioned those sextiles and trines, I will give a link to that chart here (where the refuters would have to learn the symbols first): http://tautosmenta.lt/stellarmaze.htm
“But, but… it’s so *cool* to be skeptical of things we don’t understand!”
I think most people think of supermarket magazine sun-sign astrology when they hear the term.
And others gain power and superiority by poo-pooing anything that’s not part of their world.
And still others don’t want to believe that their fate is pre-determined (also not what astrology is).
It’s actually their loss because all this stuff is super awesome and fun.
Curious why you say “three sets of dualisms” and aren’t including the perceiving/judging?
Curious why you say “three sets of dualisms” and aren’t including the perceiving/judging?
The opposition of intuition to sensation function is the axis of perception.
The opposition of thinking to feeling function is the axis of judgment.
I would not say that the axis of perception is in a duality (opposition relationship) with the axis of judgment, but rather each end of these axes are in opposition (a duality) with the other end of itself.
What the relationship of the perceiving axis is to the judging axis is not really defined in Jungian terms, except to say that they they don’t interfere with each other, which is, as I said, a negative definition.
Jung lays heavy emphasis on the dominant-inferior relationship. He hints at an auxiliary, which can assist the dominant function because it is not opposed to it. So there is opposition and not-opposition at the heart of this system. But, not-opposition is just telling us what it is not. So, what are these other relationships besides opposites? That’s what I’m saying.
Astrology has these. Myers-Briggs doesn’t. Myers-Briggs is basically three sets of dualisms.
Thanks for the explanation. This article and the discussions here really inspired me to read and learn a bunch more about astrological aspects this week. I love this stuff.
“But, what of the relationships of the other Myers-Briggs functions to each other, besides opposites? What are those?”
Interesting question. If we go with a direct correspondence to astrology, then for trine it would be the same function in either attitude. So Ni trines Ne etc. since trines involve signs in the same element (usually). Sextiles would be earth with water, and fire with air, but of different modalities (same modality is opposition). So Se with Fi, Ne with Ti, etc. How to account for the mutable signs gets tricky here though.
It seems like Jung’s system of opposites doesn’t correspond with astrological opposites, however. N is opposite of S, but signs in fire and earth are in squares or injunctions. Same with F and T vs. water and air. I think cognitive function relationship depends as much on where it falls in your “stack” as the functions themselves. As in, you can’t determine their relationship in a type without knowing where it is in the stack.
So maybe:
Opposition: dominant vs. inferior (this seems most obvious), aux vs. tertiary
Trine: dominant and auxiliary (you would get a lot out of it if you used it more actively, but you tend to get lazy), auxiliary and tertiary, auxiliary and inferior, auxiliary and id (same logic as with dominant)
Square: dominant and superego, dominant and id?, superego and id
Sextile: dominant and tertiary
Inconjunct: dominant and fifth function, dominant and eighth function
Well, I’m just thinking off the top of my head here. No idea if this is what you were going for, Blake, but it was fun to make up!
Nirdre , what do you think of this: http://tautosmenta.lt/INFJ_aspects.jpg ?
Nice! I like it! Representing it as a graphic makes it clearer what the relationships can be. One interesting that shows up in this is that here the dom function (Ni) has similar relationships to the other functional opposites (inconjunct with Ne-Si, harmonious with Fe-Ti, and square with Fi-Te).
Your system makes more sense because the functional pairs (Fe-Ti) would probably have oppositional relationships no matter where it is in the stack. But we seem to agree on the dominant’s relationship to the other functions.
My only input here was adding 5th and 8th functions as semisextiles and inconjucts. Relating the so called neutral function with semisextile aspect made sense to me, because then the wheel is complete, so to speak. And all oppositions fall into place. The rest of the aspects are according to Blake. You can see that in the chart which I already mentioned above.
My only input here was adding 5th and 8th functions as semisextiles and inconjucts.
Yes, I’ve done that before, except I do it in the opposite way – 8th function would equal semisextile and 5th function would be the inconjunct.
Reason for this is that it keeps all the introverted cognitive functions on one side of the wheel and all the extraverted functions on the other, which intuitively makes sense.
Good chart, Ignas. I like the visuals.
“…all the introverted cognitive functions on one side of the wheel and all the extraverted functions on the other, which intuitively makes sense.”
It sure does, but then inconjunct seems a more logical place for the least (un)valued function. Well, nobody said it has to match perfectly, so I guess it’s just how it is. If it matched alright, I suppose you would have attributed those functions an aspect already.
“…inconjunct seems a more logical place for the least (un)valued function.”
No, it isn’t. Because Ni wants to keep its friends close, but its archenemy (Si) – the closest.
Ah, I missed the chart above. Thanks for referring me to that.
Ignas, where did you get those relationships to begin with? Is there an article I’m missing somewhere? Or is this from your own conversations with Blake?
I took them from this chart that Prax made a while ago: http://solarcat.strawberryink.ca/images/stellarmaze.html. I guess she discussed it all with Blake prior to me even knowing about Stellar Maze. I took her chart as a reference point and made another one because I liked the idea of doing it a little bit differently.
As far as I know, Blake did not write about the astrological aspects and how they correlate with the functions yet. Only a little bit here: https://www.stellarmaze.com/guide-to-stellar-maze/.
He is hesitant to do that because all this stuff is part of a larger framework that he developed over years, and one needs to have this framework to really grasp the relativity of all the possible formulas. Blake’s own chart includes four forces of nature, geometrical figures and gods know what else, but he keeps his insights mostly to himself in order to prevent the spreading of twisted and fucked up interpretations that he would later have to go unfuck. That’s what he said. (-:
As far as I know, Blake did not write about the astrological aspects and how they correlate with the functions yet.
I’ve alluded to it a little here and there.
So, basically it’s sorta kinda like this, but, yes, must be taken with a grain of salt because, like I was saying to Nirdre, there is a difference between elemental aspects and zodiacal aspects:
So, for Ni, like you got in your chart. If you just take Ni by itself, without putting it as the dominant function of INFJ, you could say that Se opposes Ni and Si squares it.
The reason I did not include Si in the aspect chart is that it really doesn’t make sense to say it’s a semi-sextile or inconjunct aspect for INFJ. The INFJ relationship to Si is arguably the worst of all. As you said, archenemies. Very bad relationship. The worst. It’s a square relationship. Definitely.
The opposition is difficult too, but there is compatibility, complementarity, and, just general interest in the other side of it (a valued relationship).
The square represents two energies that are not only difficult but do not value each other. They fucking hate each other. Well, that’s Ni to Si. Lot of hard work to be done in these type of relationships. The square is truly an aspect of rubbing each other the wrong way. The cross. 90 degrees. Being at cross-purposes. Hell, just being cross (very cranky) at each other.
And so this elemental square relationship exists between any two cognitive functions that are opposite elementally but in the same mode or attitude.
Ni –> Si
Ti –> Fi
Ne –> Se
Te –> Fe
So, for an INFJ, the ISTJ elementally squares them function for function. And so, it should come as no surprise that the ISTJ is an INFJ’s worst enemy. And vice-versa.
Heh, try putting two astrologically incompatible people together with the intertype elemental relationship of the square and watch the hatred begin.
This shit is real, yo.
Oh wait. He did talk about astrological aspects regarding intertype relationships here: https://forum.stellarmaze.com/t/is-estj-istj-a-trigger-for-infj/671/3?u.
That’s why I made this chart (more for fun): http://tautosmenta.lt/intertype.htm. Socionics has all the intertype relationships explained (http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm) but for the chart I confined myself to those that Blake talks about himself, because he blends “different” systems (Astrology, Myers-Briggs, Socionics, Enneagram) to his own liking.
It seems like Jung’s system of opposites doesn’t correspond with astrological opposites, however. N is opposite of S, but signs in fire and earth are in squares or injunctions.
Right, that’s the problem of one-to-one assignments. There’s a difference between astrological opposites and elemental opposites, that latter of which is what I think the opposites in the Jungian/Myers-Briggs system should be termed. In astrological tradition it is well-known that the fire element is the opposite of the earth element and the water element is the opposite of the air element.
However, as you say, this would not imply that a fire sign would ever oppose an earth sign in the zodiac or that a water sign will oppose an air sign. They won’t. Rather, they’ll be in a square or inconjunct relationship.
So, I make a distinction between an elemental opposition and a zodiacal opposition. However, oppositions are oppositions. They’re opposite each other. They represent two sides of a duality.
Oy, someday I’m gonna elaborate on this shit in earnest and blow your mind.
Well, I’m just thinking off the top of my head here. No idea if this is what you were going for, Blake, but it was fun to make up!
You nailed it. You’ve got first-rate intuition 😉
“You nailed it. You’ve got first-rate intuition 😉”
Aww, thanks. Although I’m still not completely clear…is what Ignas posted your view of the relationship between functions? But then you said technically the 8th function is a square.
So (in relationship to dom)
Aux: trine
Tert: sextile
Inf: opposition
5th: ?
Id: ?
Superego: ?
8th: square
Maybe superego and id are the inconjuncts then? They do require constant adjustment…
“In astrological tradition it is well-known that the fire element is the opposite of the earth element and the water element is the opposite of the air element.”
Oh, ok. I think I forgot about this. This is what happens when you learn astrology from a mish-mash of sources, many of questionable quality.
Now I’m wondering if some types will have an easier time with their auxiliary than others based on how harmonious their elements are. Like, NTs will have an easier time than NFs because fire/air are more harmonious elements than fire/water. And SFs will have an easier time than STs. I get the impression, for example, that INTJs and ISFJs are both more likely to use their auxiliary and not fall into a dom-tert loop as often as INFJs. Yeah, it seems that NFs are especially prone to dom-tert looping come to think of it, more than NTs. (I don’t know about SF vs. ST as much.)
But as you said, it’s not a direct correspondence, so I could be wrong about this.
“Oy, someday I’m gonna elaborate on this shit in earnest and blow your mind.”
I really hope so!!! I’ve been waiting for the full astrology x Myers-Briggs series from you for forever! 😀
“The INFJ relationship to Si is arguably the worst of all. As you said, archenemies. Very bad relationship. The worst. It’s a square relationship. Definitely.”
Why do you say the role function is a type’s most hated function? Why not the vulnerable/PoLR (or superego as you’ve called it in some articles)? Wouldn’t an INFJ dislike Te the most? After all, you stress in other articles that it’s difficult for them to use at even a minimum level (and the same goes for INFP with Se, etc).
Wouldn’t an INFJ dislike Te the most? After all, you stress in other articles that it’s difficult for them to use at even a minimum level (and the same goes for INFP with Se, etc).
There is a difference between a difficulty in using a function and disliking it. Also, there is a difference between looking at an INFJ in the total constellation of their functions and just looking at their dominant function of Ni. What is fairly certain to me is that functions that relate to each other by being in opposite element but same attitude have the worst relations possible. This is the relationship that INFJ’s dominant function has to the Si cognitive function.
However, INFJ also has this relationship to Te from their Fe auxiliary function, which more implies a difficulty in using the Te function. INFJs often look up to and respect people that use Te well, as long as they aren’t also using Si along with it (ISTJ, ESTJ). So, they don’t devalue Te, it’s just difficult for them to live up to. Which is why I suggest they use Te minimums – as little as possible to get the job done, but no more. However, an INFJ needs to use a minimum of Te to be successful in the Fe solution I suggest for them. And since I’m more interested in helping an INFJ get into action, it is necessary that they use Fe to do so. But, for Fe to work they must have Te minimums, which is sorta like the “rigor” to the flow experience. In astrological speak, it is balancing the trine aspect (which is very harmonious, but complacent) with the square aspect (which is discordant, but bracing…like a bracing wind, it compels action). It is ideal, and even necessary, to have components of both (Fe and Te) in usage for the INFJ to be successful in action. In essence, it is not that INFJs don’t value Te, it’s that they find it very frustrating to use. Or rather, they don’t value Te to the degree that they find it difficult to use. It’s similar to an astrological square aspect for INFJ from the POV of usage rather than outlook (the way they see things).
Now, the dominant function is just that – the outlook, the way a type sees things, their POV. And for INFJ, their Ni outlook does not disdain Te at all, in fact, it’s quite a favorable relationship.
Rather, it’s Si that has this clashing relationship with their Ni outlook. And from this POV (which is THE ULTIMATE POV of a type), the INFJ simply hates the Si outlook most of all. It’s like two people that will look at the same picture and see completely opposite things in it. And this is very frustrating precisely because you are looking at the same picture. It’s like “Dude, why are you seeing the very things that I’m not or that I don’t think are important in this picture?!” And that’s it too, these two people will emphasize the opposite things that they think makes the picture important or defines it in some way, and ignore/devalue the things that the other person thinks are the most important. In the case of the perceiving functions of Ni/Si, it leads to the one thinking the other must be blind or something. “Are you fucking blind that you don’t see what I so clearly see in this same picture we’re looking at?!”
For contrast, functions that are opposite each other in both attitude and element aren’t even looking at the same picture. They exist in different space, so to speak, and so don’t rub each other the wrong way. How can someone rub you the wrong way when they aren’t around most of the time?
But, so it is with functions in the same attitude. They are close in some way. Familiars. But, when they are also in opposite element, they see and do everything exactly the way that you wouldn’t and vice-versa. And you’re trapped with them in some way. They are there with you all the time, and you actually begrudgingly need them because they are the negative space to your positive space. Without both, there is no picture at all.
This is the meaning of the astrological square aspect and is, arguably, the worst relationship between entities (planets, signs, and as I am now saying, cognitive functions) possible.
If the dominant function is the most important function of a type hierarchically, then it would be Si that is most hated (devalued) by an INFJ. And it is from my observation and experience of the type.
Actually, if you wanna get really deep, it may be Fi that is most hated by an INFJ. Certainly I think if you put together Si and Fi, you basically got INFJ’s kryptonite right there. That combo is their death right there.
Te is actually quite positive for them in small amounts. And they should learn to like it a little (acquired taste perhaps) because a little Te goes a long way for them.
I suppose the same is true of Si for them as well. A little. Because “for want of a nail the kingdom was lost”. That sort of thing.
I wish I was good at Te. I’m jealous of INTJs for that all the time. If someone came up to me and gave me a magic Te wand, I would take it. Or at least be tempted to. I have no desire for Si. That kind of life looks like torture…
In fact, there was a period of my life where I was desperately trying to get better at Te by reading productivity books and trying to use organizational tools developed for Te users. Ti my way to Te. It was an utter failure. Fortunately, I discovered Blake’s Fe series and finally gave up (for the most part, except for some relapses here and there) and have been trying to embrace my “do whatever I feel like whenever I feel like” ways. I have been way more productive this way. So thank you, Blake.
We hate Fi and Si the most? But I thought Fi was our heart.
Fortunately, I discovered Blake’s Fe series and finally gave up (for the most part, except for some relapses here and there) and have been trying to embrace my “do whatever I feel like whenever I feel like” ways. I have been way more productive this way. So thank you, Blake.
You are totally welcome 🙂 I’m glad to hear that it has helped you.
We hate Fi and Si the most? But I thought Fi was our heart.
Well, I don’t know I’d go so far as to call Fi the heart of INFJ, and if it may be termed as such, it is certainly the more problematic and darker side of the heart for them. And from an astrological POV, since I have assigned the Fi id of INFJ to an implied Moon position of Scorpio (because the id is equivalent, at least in part, to the astrological meaning of the Moon), this position would be problematic just from this POV because the Moon is considered “fallen” in Scorpio by astrological tradition, and as such the id of INFJ is particularly problematic.
However, implied astrological placements aside, I think the id is problematic for all types, regardless if one could term it as “the heart” of a type, which is a bit misleading to say without qualifications.
It’d probaly be more accurate to say that the dominant function is “the heart” of a type and that the id position represents some of the “fallout” of this heart. In any event, the id position of any type has a “negative” character to it of the cognitive function that tenants it.
If Fi is the heart of INFJ, it is certainly a dark heart. It is more the heartbreak of an INFJ. They feel Fi deeply but experience in an almost wholly “negative” manner. Negative motivation etc.
“I’ve got a square old heart
And no one makes the parts that I need
To repair and pull me from this well, pull me from this well
But I’ll be waiting, yes I’ll be waiting
‘Cause I’ve got a square old heart
They don’t makes the parts that I need
To repair and pull me from this well, pull me from this well
But I’ll be waiting, yes I’ll be waiting”
Square Heart by The Black Heart Procession
Since i was little, i was interested in astrology, magic and the occult, but not because of my family, it was just me in secret looking to read every magazine i could catch on the subject. I am very happy reading your blog, and when i saw more starling articles i just had to become a subscriber, because your vision of mbti + astrology is the one that for me makes more sense.
I really don’t know much about astrology because i never took it seriously, but now i’m learning b
i don’t know anything about astrology <- disclaimer.
but somehow it makes sense that personality castings would come later. i imagine at first, that measuring the sky and observing seasons, all went together in some way with human endeavors (the preparation for winter goes together with internal process, the rush of energy in spring goes together with its own internal processes etc). so it makes sense in a way these calendrical (word??) patterns started to reflect back at people. as if to think about seasons you're just necessarily influenced by the human experience of seasons, basically subjective experiences. it's like a subjective observation of the universe. like an unlocking of the subjective via objective tools. or a marriage of sorts. it helps that hugeness of subjective experience has a good mirror in the hugeness of the universe.
and then the planets and positions are like pointers in the hugeness. they have names. they’ve got location. and there’s interactions and timings. i love how old this stuff is. and its hard to look at it without seeing it from after science revolution point of view. how do you fly to before and look at it from there.
waking up to the observable universe hand in hand with waking up to the universal within us. you can flip points of view where you think it’s all within, all without, no distinction, no way to know, etc.
Hey Blake, this article was fascinating! I’d really like to learn more about astrology (and then make my way towards understanding the jungian type-psychology through astrology), but after doing some online research, I’m finding it hard to find reliable sources. It seems to me that there’s a lot of fake noise and dead-ends one can easily get lost in. Could you recommend some sources of information on astrology which you would deem trustworthy? Thanks!
Hey Blake, this article was fascinating!
I know it is and I wrote it meself 🙂
I’d really like to learn more about astrology (and then make my way towards understanding the jungian type-psychology through astrology), but after doing some online research, I’m finding it hard to find reliable sources.
That’s because there is no reliable sources on the internet. Except for me, and maybe Cafe Astrology. Astrodienst too. But me the most.
And me.
Did I mention me?
Yeah.
No, seriously, I take myself the most seriously of all internet sources. And you should too.
It seems to me that there’s a lot of fake noise and dead-ends one can easily get lost in.
Yeah, it’s called the internet.
Could you recommend some sources of information on astrology which you would deem trustworthy?
Me.
Also, check out Secrets from a Stargazer’s Notebook by Deborah Kempton-Smith and The General Principles of Astrology by Aleister Crowley and Evangeline Adams.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites like Stellar Maze to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Blake, do you have any recs for charting software? I’ve used Astrodienst for my natal chart and upcoming transits but I’m curious to see what was going on astrologically at the times certain events and major shifts took place for me in the past.
Blake, do you have any recs for charting software?
I use Astrodienst software, which is free, except I do pay a small yearly fee for being able to store in excess of one hundred natal charts in their system.
I’ve used Astrodienst for my natal chart and upcoming transits but I’m curious to see what was going on astrologically at the times certain events and major shifts took place for me in the past.
You can do that on Astrodienst for free (at least, last time I did this sort of thing, it was free). You can look at transits and progressions to your natal chart for any date in the past (well, at least any date since forward from the date of birth). You choose the appropriate charting option, select the natal chart you wanna analyze, set the date in their thingie and you can see the transits and/or progressions that were going on at that date and how they relate to your natal chart.
Awesome–I found it in there. Thanks. My 8th house Mercury took over and kept me up half the night, lol.
Ha, the midnight madness found you!
Hahaha, noted. Thanks!
Which house system do you use again? Was it Placidus? I couldn’t find the answer on Google. I just saw in a comment of yours that you don’t use intercepted houses – I’m not sure if that means that you use an equal house system or you just don’t find them too important in the chart interpretation.
Sorry, I didn’t read the hyperlinked comment thoroughly enough. So it does look like you indeed use a house system that would avoid intercepted signs/houses altogether (either a whole-sign or equal house system). I’d still be curious to know the reasoning behind your house system preference. What’s so wrong about having intercepted houses in a chart? How does that make “shit too complicated and nuanced”?
And also, did you change your mind about the house system preference along the way? Because I specifically remember you mentioning about my Mars (in Scorpio) being in the 8th house earlier this year in a consult. And that could only be the case if you used a system that would yield intercepted signs/houses in my chart (Aquarius ascendant).
And yeah, maybe I am asking annoying Ti questions that don’t seem to matter, but I am just trying to learn and properly grasp the fundamentals of astrology – that’s all.
C’mon, please? I wouldn’t like to build castles out of sand – just the würst.
I tried to post a longer reply but I’m not able to at this time.
So it does look like you indeed use a house system that would avoid intercepted signs/houses altogether (either a whole-sign or equal house system).
Yes, I use both equal and whole-sign houses together.
I’d still be curious to know the reasoning behind your house system preference.
My reasoning is that whatever other house systems may be valid, equal and whole sign measurements MUST be true, by logic actually. Each zodiac sign is 30 degrees. Always. So, it’s just applying that same logic to the beginning of first house (Ascendant). Whatever degree of whatever sign that is rising is treated as 1st degree of Aries (I sort of think of 1st house as daily Aries, whereas the actual zodiac sign of Aries is yearly Aries), and since Aries spans 30 degrees, the next house starts at the same degree, but of the following sign. I like this because it’s neat and follows the logic of the zodiac signs, which are never more or less than 30 degrees.
I also look at the whole sign measurement of a planet in an equal house chart. I just look to see if it’s in the sign that’s on the cusp of the house it’s in, or if it’s in the sign on the cusp of the following house (those are the only possibilities). If it’s in the same house by both equal and whole sign I consider that a pure placement, if it’s in the sign of the following equal house, then I consider it a mixed placement. In the latter case, I would give the general signification to the whole sign placement, and the particular signification to the equal house placement.
And also, did you change your mind about the house system preference along the way? Because I specifically remember you mentioning about my Mars (in Scorpio) being in the 8th house earlier this year in a consult. And that could only be the case if you used a system that would yield intercepted signs/houses in my chart (Aquarius ascendant).
I haven’t changed my mind about house system since consulting with you, but in the beginning of my studies I used Koch houses simply because the person that I learned astrology from used them. I don’t necessarily think Koch houses don’t work, but at some point I discovered whole-sign houses and I thought that those must be true since a person is considered to be what whatever sun sign they are, whether it’s the 1st degree of that sign, or the 30th degree. And like I said, I see whole-sign measurements as GENERAL measurements. And I think there must always be some truth to measuring planets in houses this way, by the same logic of measuring zodiac signs this way.
Per your chart, I think I meant your 8th house Venus, but I might have confused it with Mars when I was talking to you. So, that was my error.
Thanks so much for the reply, Blake! 🥰
Especially given that I get this vague impression that you are super busy at the moment – so all the more appreciated.
I’ve been looking around the webz about house systems, and it seems like you are the only one to my knowledge thus far who mixes equal and whole house systems in the way that you do it (ascribing general signification to whole sign placement & particular signification to equal house placement). That’s pretty neat, I like it.
And nigga, I can’t believe you didn’t tell us any of this until now! That really changes up the game – most people on the forum have been posting charts using the Placidus house system including myself. And I now realise that my Pluto is “purely” placed in the 10th house using your method, although I’ve been rambling about it being in the 9th house in the Saturn in Aquarius (square Pluto) thread. I’m going to have to fix that thread now.
In fact, I like better all the house placement shifts in my chart when converting from Placidus to the mixed equal/whole-sign house system.
…Like my purely placed 8th house Venus that you mentioned (which is in the 7th house using Placidus). After all, I always wanted to fuck the Phantom of the Opera. 😈
I use a dual house system similar to this, but I use placidus/whole sign not equal sign/whole sign as I find placidus to be more specific to a native’s individual circumstances and provide greater nuance for interpretation. Same general general principle though, planets that don’t change houses are pure placements, and planets that do are more flexible/dynamic in presentation. Placidus chart would be more how an individual experiences themselves (subjective), and whole sign would show an individual as an operator in the world (objective). I personally think the whole sign chart is represents a persons ideal manifestation, though I’ve noticed how the native feels about that will depend on the specifics of the chart changes.
OK, so the next questions that follows:
1) So how do you interpret the MC/IC angles in a chart? This might just be due to my ignorance (still learning!), but I’ve more or less equated the significance of both of those angles with that of the 10th and 4th house, respectively. After all, those two angles mark the cusp of the 10th and 4th house in quadrant house systems like Placidus or Koch. But in both the equal house and whole sign house systems, the MC/IC angles might fall outside of those two houses, sometimes stretching to the 12th/6th or even 1st/7th house axis in extreme scenarios. You see nothing wrong with these points falling outside the 10th/4th house axis? And I suppose you always blend the significations of the 10th house (cusp/ruler/inhabiting planets) with the MC sign/house placement?
2) I really like this general vs particular signification you came up with for MB types and whole sign/equal house planetary placements. If we were to disregard all other contributing factors to a planet’s expression, when considering Planet X in Sign Y in House Z, would you interpret Sign Y as the general signification to the planet and House Z as the particular signification? Or nah?
Sorry to keep bugging your ass!
So how do you interpret the MC/IC angles in a chart? This might just be due to my ignorance (still learning!), but I’ve more or less equated the significance of both of those angles with that of the 10th and 4th house, respectively. After all, those two angles mark the cusp of the 10th and 4th house in quadrant house systems like Placidus or Koch.
Yes, but since I’m not using quadrant systems, everything is just measured from the Ascendant in equal and whole signs. As such the MC/IC angles are no longer the beginning of the 10th and 4th house. I would interpret them as having bearing on 10th/4th house matters of career and home, respectively. Tbh, I don’t really put that much emphasis on these points besides as emphasizing planets that are conjunct these points (as a measure of strength). I have a punk-rock approach to astrology – pull the guts out of the chart and leave it at that. I got that from Debbi Kempton-Smith. I think many astrologers get too focused on stuff that isn’t that important in practice. They are finer points. And then they are led into errors on that account, trying to justify things using chart factors that are simply not that important – like intercepted houses. I’ve come to this fast method after years and years of being led on wild goose chases by astrologers who don’t know what they are talking about, especially in the age of the internet. So much bad info out there.
So, if a planet is conjunct any of the four angles, it’s strong. That’s the first thing to note. Obviously, if MC is in different sign than 10th house sign, it will be some sort of mixed signification. I would also look at planetary dispositor(s) of 10th house and where they are by house, sign, and aspect. I think that often tells you what realm to look in for career prospects.
You see nothing wrong with these points falling outside the 10th/4th house axis?
I’ve made my peace with it 🙂
But that’s the reason quadrant house systems are used, they are a compromise between Asc and MC axes. And I’m not saying there is nothing to them, it’s just that I realized that whatever other ways of dividing up 360 degrees of circumferential space there are, the equal and whole signs MUST always be true, by logic. Like, for example, if Venus is in 8th house by either of those measurements, then it must be interpreted in that way to some degree. Otherwise, the logic of the planets being in the zodiac signs is in error too. That’s just how I look at it, and there is a satisfying and clear feeling I get from measuring this way. It’s neat and simple. House equals 30 degrees like the zodiac signs. One sign per house. Whether you use whole sign or equal.
I really like this general vs particular signification you came up with for MB types and whole sign/equal house planetary placements. If we were to disregard all other contributing factors to a planet’s expression, when considering Planet X in Sign Y in House Z, would you interpret Sign Y as the general signification to the planet and House Z as the particular signification? Or nah?
Whatever zodiac sign a planet is in I would always consider it a general signification following the logic of whole-sign houses, which is no matter if it is the first degree or the last degree of the sign, if any degree of that sign is on z house, that house in under the general influence of that sign, and the sign itself is a general signification for the planet placed in it.
The degree of a zodiac sign is a particular designation, and in some sense, not really a part of the zodiac sign in the general sense, ie it can have its own influences.
In a nutshell, the way I see particular vs. general signification is the difference between a first and last name, which also is like the difference between the ascendant and sun.
And in my view, you should grasp the general first before you get into the particular, because if you don’t you are bound to go on all sorts of dumb wild goose chases. The particular begs its meaning and context from the general. This is also the difference between sensation and intuition.
However, the particular is much more powerful, actual, and immediately noticeable…
as a general rule, lol.
Because castles made of sounds melt into the sea eventually.
Interceptions aren’t something I think people should focus on when learning astrology. I don’t think they are a matter of primary, or even secondary significance. The way I see it, there are 12 houses and 12 signs. One sign is going on each of those houses.
I use equal houses with whole sign houses.