Astrology Sun Signs and the Progression Theory
So, in my involvement with other astrologically related sites and a few places here at Sass, I have encountered a few who have approached a theory called the Progression Theory in astrology.
Googling this subject gave me very, very little. So I'm inclined to believe it's mostly a theory. Basically, the theory holds that the first sign of the zodiac, Aries, represents the beginning of human life. Aries, basically, are the "babies." Thus, Pisces are the "old men/women" of the zodiac. Of course, chart placements bring so much to this table it convolutes the argument to degrees, but for argument's sake, imagine that this theory in terms of sun signs does hold water.
This means that Virgo, being sign 6, would represent a time in life around middle-age. That somehow the number of the sign would imply the "knowledge" or "experience" one would gain based upon number of years lived upon this earth. Yes, this would also imply that someone born under a certain sign might "never" have the potential to "advance" toward the next "stage of understanding."
To refute this, being a sun Gemini, Cancer asc. and Sag moon, someone who believed in the Progression Theory would claim that my "wisdom" comes from Sagittarius, and they would say that as a Gem, I have the "Peter Pan" syndrome, am stuck in a mindframe representing that of a teenager and don't have the desire to "grow up." But on the contrary, I am an old, old soul, who grew up way too fast and am already tired of life. I don't want to hear from anyone that I'm still a child inside.
Has anyone else heard of this theory? If so, do you hold credence to it? Can you share some examples that aren't too entirely negative and shed some light on your beliefs? Or some links you might have found to compound this? Thanks for your responses, hope your week goes great :)
Googling this subject gave me very, very little. So I'm inclined to believe it's mostly a theory. Basically, the theory holds that the first sign of the zodiac, Aries, represents the beginning of human life. Aries, basically, are the "babies." Thus, Pisces are the "old men/women" of the zodiac. Of course, chart placements bring so much to this table it convolutes the argument to degrees, but for argument's sake, imagine that this theory in terms of sun signs does hold water.
This means that Virgo, being sign 6, would represent a time in life around middle-age. That somehow the number of the sign would imply the "knowledge" or "experience" one would gain based upon number of years lived upon this earth. Yes, this would also imply that someone born under a certain sign might "never" have the potential to "advance" toward the next "stage of understanding."
To refute this, being a sun Gemini, Cancer asc. and Sag moon, someone who believed in the Progression Theory would claim that my "wisdom" comes from Sagittarius, and they would say that as a Gem, I have the "Peter Pan" syndrome, am stuck in a mindframe representing that of a teenager and don't have the desire to "grow up." But on the contrary, I am an old, old soul, who grew up way too fast and am already tired of life. I don't want to hear from anyone that I'm still a child inside.
Has anyone else heard of this theory? If so, do you hold credence to it? Can you share some examples that aren't too entirely negative and shed some light on your beliefs? Or some links you might have found to compound this? Thanks for your responses, hope your week goes great :)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Super Taurii on -
I have heard of this theory before. I am kind of split on this theory because of the other aspects that contribute to your chart as a whole not just the sun sign. Taurus is supposedly the age ruled to be the "child years." I could see Taurus being a child-like sign because of stubborness. Also the fact that we tend to stick to thinks that are familiar like a child that age would. But because of my other placements in Aquarius which is an "older" sign, I don't find myself to be child-like at all. I don't cling to only things I know. I seek out things that are strange and out there.
-
Permalink Reply by Vegas on -
So if we were to say that the progression theory holds true, then it would apply to later chart aspects just the same in the end, yes?
-
Permalink Reply by Super Taurii on
-
I believe so. I'm not saying we are childish or less intelligent. We just have different natures than the "older" signs. We tend to be more impulsive and explorative while the older signs just "know."
-
Permalink Reply by Vegas on
-
So if someone's got both "old" and "young" they might be more "wise" or "worldly"? Not so much intelligence, since that can occur with any sign, no doubt.
This is where I get hung up. I have a sprinkling of the "latter" signs in my chart but nothing that I would think would constitute a major influence. I feel absolutely beyond wanting to be young as a Gemini, even past wanting to raise a family as a Cancer asc. might suggest, I want to go straight to the success and recognition Cap might acknowledge, and my Cap placements don't even come into play until Mars and Neptune. Jupiter in Pisces, in my mind I've hardly any time for the restraints of family and it's never been a desire of mine.
Do you believe soul age ties into astrology?
-
Permalink Reply by Super Taurii on
-
I'm split still but I think it comes down more to the Big 3 mostly.
You have a mix of Young(Gemini) Middle(Cancer) and Old(Sagg.) So I guess thats maybe why you feel like an old soul.. You have that young energy, the stability aspiration of the middle group but the wit of the older sign. Because all your signs have a little bit of every "Age". you feel as if you have seen it all, which you definetly have.. And you have expirienced alot more things than someone your age.. Its like you have lived a lifetime already even though your life has just started.. Which you have told me many times :) I dont think the older signs are more "expirienced" I think they just have some sort of "knowing" even though they haven't expirienced something first hand. Younger signs are more explorative and rely on learning and expiriencing, And the middle signs rely on acquired instinct... This is a bit more psychological than astrological.. I'm philosophizing =P
-
Permalink Reply by joswanprince on -
I have heard from sources and I put my own input
Aries- babies, infant, pra-cognitive thinking, the first emerging of ego and sense of self (in the mirror)
Taurus- toodlers and childhood. highly dependent to parents, needs for comfort, cry for security, transition to solid food, potty training. Egocentric world, latent talents, early violence and showing desire. 6 years old= the true core of your personality that will stick with you forever.
Gemini= pre teens and Teenagers. The time of social awareness, the sense of being a part of social environment. Expanding world (home vs. school) Sagittarius 9th house yearn. Multiplying, coping mechanism, variety and interests. Learning and education time altogether with brilliant physical activities. Mercury rules mind and body, air and earth, gemini and virgo. He is the magician, pre-teens (12 yo) is the time when a child fully developed motoric and neurocentric skills which can lead them to get what they want. The stage of sexual instability, also.
Cancer= Early adulthood, young adult, college. This stage has its own stress. One become fully aware of his/her fertility and hormones, this is the mating game. To exceed in this era of youth and beauty is considered lucky and blessed. Many of us struggle to reach happiness/balance since Cancer is squaring Libra and Capricorn, two of considered mature and taking charge signs. However, Cancer is a home of us, a comfort zone, a desire of happiness that we strife to have
by working, studying or simply looking thrills in life (Jupiter exalted in Cancer, Cancer= The Chariot)
Leo= gosh I'm tired :(
-
Permalink Reply by Vegas on
-
Sounds Freudean but more psychological by the book than how it could affect an adult with the sign.
-
Permalink Reply by joswanprince on
-
disagree
-
Permalink Reply by joswanprince on
-
It's my compilation mix of my psychology 101 class of human life-span and Gary Goldschneider secret language of birthday book. He put a human life cycle in the first chapter before he unraveled 365 days of birthdays.
U can toss my points but I'm inspired by how he separating human life span in zodiac cycle.
I like to connecting the dots/ philosophizing..lol
I still kind of lost between Libra-Sags time frame because 80-90 years life span seems too short to fit 12 zodiac signs. I minimize the years into 80 yo, cuz we aren't life more than 100 years.
-
Permalink Reply by Vegas on
-
I wasn't tossing them, they make a lot of sense, I was wondering if that means the person under that particular sign will have those traits throughout life, even though they represent life stages.
-
Permalink Reply by joswanprince on
-
Astrology is Macroism vs.Microism. Larger bigger things had influence to lesser smaller things.
Imagine that zodiac band of life stage is bigger than a band of natal chart or our natural cosmos. I believe it's a cracking code of natural life cycle itself. Mostly people will pass these stages or some of them not (death while birthed) or death in a young age.
I believe our life started from Cusp of Rebirth= Pisces-Aries and all around until we back to Pisces= the 12th or completion. No matter what sign we are..
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by Jeffrey Kishner on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
