Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

What about the houses?

The Ascendant is itself the first house, and typically the houses play straight down in the same order as the month's signs. When it plays straight like that, you only really need to know their Ascendant sign to figure what all twelve houses must be... but then there are sometimes people who are born with a 'stagger', allowing for signs to be missing with other signs being doubles in the houses instead of the usual allotment. 

 

 QB stated he's mused with Inqs stagger. 

 What is amusing about this stagger? What does it mean for the individual for which it actualizes? 

 For instance based on your explanation I and Himmler have a gemini stagger? What would this imply if anything? 

AliceInWonderland said: 

What is amusing about this stagger? What does it mean for the individual for which it actualizes? 

The Ascendant is essentially their script, their idea of how life works that the sun attempts to work within and the moon idealizes from. In less words, if Sun's their energy and Moon's their deeper thoughts, then the ascendant is essentially their life-sight. Normally it plays pretty straight, showing where that sign is in their chart to demonstrate roughly where the themes of that discussion are likely to go. 

An easy way to thematically remember the houses otherwise is over how each house itself is represented by a sign. The first house is the Aries house, the second one's Taurus, third one's the Gemini house etc etc. Aries being a straight-forward ascendant sign fits this mold in that an Aries first house would try to handle Aries discussion like an Aries, Taurus themes like a Taurus, so on so forth. The houses each sit on a specific area of thematic focus and discussion, such as the fifth house being "the house of fun" (Leo's house), so what sign you have in that house would show themes of how one might have fun or otherwise focus on the idea of fun as that sign would. 

One's sun and moon sign matching up to a house generally shows a focus on those areas. If a Cancer were to have Cancer in the fifth house (the house of fun) from having a Pisces Ascendant for example, you'd likely see a Cancer who's more focused on fun-seeking than otherwise, while if it were a Sagittarian Ascendant it'd typically have Cancer in the 8th house, the Scorpio house of Transformation, leading to a Cancer who'd be more focused on subjects like change. 

Consequently, with a stagger their conversational themes can get strange. On one hand, in a typical stagger, signs in two of your house signs (the two opposite each other) will be doubled while signs in two other houses (also opposite of eachother) will be missing. In missing signs, when made to discuss those areas they tend to broaden the concept so thinly that it applies loosely to everything... but also handles the concept nebulously. For the signs that double, they will usually combine the two subjects they're spreading into as if they're more closely related. 

If a doubled sign corresponds to their sun or moon, they end up more broadly spread across both subject. If a missing house sign corresponds to their sun or moon meanwhile... it can get weird.

My personal favorite stagger interaction is the first-twelfth house doubling, especially if it interacts well with their sun or moon sign (outright matches being the best). The 12th house is the house of invisible enemies, of blind spots, of the problems you cannot see that others can seemingly identify more readily, while the first house is that of identity, leading to a muddled and confused sense of self that falls either into existential themes or otherwise stranger ideas over life. 

For instance based on your explanation I and Himmler have a gemini stagger? What would this imply if anything? 

In less words, for Himmler he'd likely conflate elements of family (4th) and fun (5th) in a Gemini style, elements of reputation (10th) and social ideals (11th) in a Sagittarian style, while Aries and Libran themes will be loosely understood and thinly applied everywhere. 

You otherwise fall into my favorite style of it apparently, a 1st-12th sun stagger. You otherwise would be prone to conflating themes of coping and functionality (6th house) with your sense of "the other" (7th house) in a gemini style, and also appear to be missing Aries and Libran themes like Himmler is. 

Another friend of mine's a Libran one and it leads to some very interesting existential discussions based on the confusion of identity, how much we couldn't possibly know, meaning of the universe and religion... it comes so naturally to that stagger, let alone when it aligns to a sun or moon. It leads to a certainty in doubt, which while that appears inherently contradictory it humbles them with the gift of knowing there must be more to things than what they're otherwise seeing. 

I'm curious of how accurate my chart is to the interpretations you have had of me, TC. Is there anything in there unique or interesting? I need to learn more about what all it means. I did read the things it told about me, and I do see that there is accuracies in both what is good and bad about me, but astrology is something I'd need to research more in the future, as I wish to know how this could connect to science, and what about seasonal births gives rise to these personality traits. 

Though, my brain wants to tell me it's just confirmation bias and that I am wrong. Regardless, I'm not here to debate Astrology. I just wish to know more about it's interpretation of my being. 

Turncoat said: 

The relationship between the signs can be surmised both internally and between people by looking at the zodiac wheel: 



As you can see, each month's sign goes in order on this wheel, showing relationships to have probability mechanics based on the distances between them. 

Trine: When the sign's element matches there tends to be a thematic synergy (Leo-Sag-Aries, Scorpio-Pisces-Cancer, Aquarius-Gemini-Libra, Taurus-Virgo-Capricorn). With similar goals and temperaments, but different aspects that they're otherwise handling, it tends to work out fairly synergistically. 

Conjunct: When the sign is dealing with it's neighbor (like Aquarius with Capricorn), their needs tend to clash in ways that slow down the process and lead to minor amounts of disarray in it's function. Generally, the sign before the following one (Capricorn) focuses intently on something that the sign after it (Aquarius) understands and is otherwise trivializing. When both sets of desires clash, there tend to be idealistic differences and synergy problems over having two different reasonings over a similar array of ideas, such as Capricorn's "hip to be square" model that focuses on wealth acquisition versus Aquarius' "hipster" model with ascetic themes, yet both have the tendency to be fascinated (for different reasons) over the mundane. 

Square: When the sign's dealing within it's own temperament (Fixed, Mutable, Cardinal) with the yin/yang opposing, the clash can be more notable than Conjunct issues. Where Conjunct behaviors are similar in understanding but with a difference in opinion and approach, Square signs instead insist on the same approaches towards different aims. An Aquarius versus a Taurus for example; Taurus desires real, tangible things, while Aquarius desires cerebral, personal appreciations that others may not recognize. Both would likely aspire to accomplish their goals in similar ways, but aiming for different things within that can lead to confusion and clashes over endgame goals. When square in an individual you're liable to see a broad approach across non-matching subject matter that may not make sense, while in others interacting it can lead to synergistic lifestyles that can't otherwise agree on where to take it. As a side note, there also tends to be communication issues within square expressions. 

Opposite: When the sign's dealing within it's own temperament (Fixed, Mutable, Cardinal) while also within the same yin/yang association, you get an opposing relationship. By combining introverted with extroverted aspirations, you typically end up with the strengths of both signs commonalities with entirely opposing ideologies. To use Aquarius as an example again, it's opposite in Leo shows how both can be abnormally concerned with what other people are thinking, but what they aim to do with that data is entirely opposite: The Leo will use it to build itself up while the Aquarius will by contrast use it to detach from them if not aim to improve others lives sociologically at it's own expense. As such, the two are liable to argue over matters such as the importance of the self versus the larger world, but both would likely argue through surprisingly similar terms. Opposing relationships have a tendency to lead to rivalries or odd couples through the audacity of otherwise witnessing your methods used for an opposite goal that can otherwise be explained in similar enough terms. When the opposing relationship is within themselves (like my case), it leads to a lot of uncertainty, frustrations, and inner clashes despite having an otherwise fairly unified talent basis. 

Adjunct: When the sign's interacting with one that's one space away from it's opposite (five to seven signs apart), you get a surprisingly synergistic relationship. Many aspects of an adjunct sign tend to fill in the needs the sign's otherwise not as easily resolving, and it's doing so without being as direct of a connection as a direct opposite. Through this near-opposite relationship, it becomes more about the commonalities with an easier time excusing their differences from how they otherwise carry a differing temperament (Fixed, Mutable, Cardinal). While the opposite is seemingly looking for all that you are with the opposite of what you desire as their desires, an adjunct sign is simply walking a different path with some synergistic interests and talents that work fairly well together based on how dissimilar they otherwise are. In an individual, it tends to make for a person who's otherwise more diversified and are otherwise typically more able to appreciate things that don't come as naturally to them. 

 bump, I knew TC's post in Fried's topic looked familiar