Joe Flanigan's astrology chart.

[icarus]

Bored last night, but unwilling to go to bed or do actual work, I started doing Joe Flanigan's astrology chart.



Okay, yes, he has all that heavy-handed Capricorn-ness. Yes, he has that managerial ability and fine intellect. Yes, he has a very serious sense of right and wrong (with ultra high standards for all, plus a few unconscious yet convenient loopholes for himself) -- but other than that, this is the most... feminine... chart I've ever read.

Are we sure he's straight?

I mean, check out that Mars in Libra, that "let's all get along," cooperative, "let's be fair," careful not to step on any toes, restrained actor. And over there, that vain, insufferably cute-tastic Jupiter - Venus opposition (complete with sweet tooth, aww, give the little boy a cookie). The playful, spontaneous and oh-so-available Venus trine Uranus. And that "hell hath no fury" possessive moody moon in Scorpio. The ineffable and vague Saturn in Pices, brooding on past wrongs. The melodramatic Ingrid Bergman-like "aloneness" and personal distance and mystique of Venus in Capricorn.

So much "look at me" and "pay attention to me," using attraction, and oh, so much love of creature comforts, of tasteful surroundings --

-- I swear, I read this and I'm expecting a Hollywood starlet from the 1940s, dripping with diamonds.

Instead we have... Joe. With his shirt untucked.

Huh?

Tres amusement.


ETA: The great thing about astrology? Voyeurism.

This chart suggests that he has such jealousy and fear of being cheated on that he'd happily put one of those electric dog collars on whomever he's with. On the other hand, it also shows that--if I'm reading this right--he pushes it to the edge with his flirting. And sometimes tips over that edge.

Comments

Re: A little more from the books.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

The nature of astrology is you're given too much information, and the rest is all weed-whacking. Figuring out what's important, what to emphasize. I'm being lazy and just giving you the raw, unprocessed data.

The rule of thumb: if a trait shows up once, it's a possible. If it shows up twice, it's likely. If it shows up three times or more, it's a definite.

What's turned up a lot?

The religious stuff is everywhere; the artistic talent; intuition; television has been mentioned more than once; his skill plus unpredictable luck with the stock market; the "doesn't practice what he preaches" hypocrisy; conceit has turned up a couple times; oversensitivity; brooding; and his gentle, graceful manner have all been mentioned several times.

*weed whacks* I can do a real reading, but I'm feeling lazy tonight.

Re: A little more from the books.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

you're given too much information, and the rest is all weed-whacking. Figuring out what's important, what to emphasize.

Well, there'll always be something that fits and a lot that doesn't. & ;-) I don't actually believe in astrology, but I do love all sorts of psycho-analysis (see also my fondness of the Myers-Briggs typology). And if the horseshoe fits?

oversensitivity; brooding; and his gentle, graceful manner have all been mentioned several times.

All of that strikes me as spot-on. Of course, we are most likely to focus on the traits we perceive to be important and defining, much as we do with characters--certainly there are, shall we say, differing takes on John Sheppard out there; I just don't buy all of them. *g*

(And Laziness I get.)

Re: A little more from the books.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I don't really buy astrology either because a chart is formed by placing the person at the center of the universe, as if everything revolves around and is a reflection of them. Yogachara is in sync with that view, however ideas on Tathagatagarbha (similar to Jungian psychology) are not. I think that astrology is theoretically unsound.

Your reasons are based on ignorance of how astrology is done.

Picking and choosing? No. You're not allowed to do that. You're only allowed to describe what's there. Like a traffic report. There are rules of what you emphasize and what you don't. Granted I didn't weight one factor against another when playing around here, but I did pick traits according to their importance.

For example, the intuition, spiritual stuff, and tendency to regret the past and brood -- there are seven factors that point to that being important (1) saturn dominance, 2) saturn in pisces, 3) an opposition, 4) a trine, and 5) a sextile to saturn, 6) saturn rulership of the sun/mercury/venus in capricorn with an aspect to venus, and the 7) neptune rulership of pisces over saturn being echoed in the aspect from saturn to neptune in scorpio -- which has an 8th house connotation concerning death, the occult/alchemy, and secrets, while pisces has a 12th house connotation, meaning the past, the unconscious, and mysticism, while saturn is related to discipline and restriction, so yes, he's either highly intuitive and spiritual or crazy).

I may want to make his tendency to be brash, argumentative, and tactless more important (I didn't get to that last night but he tends to get pissed off when things are "unfair!") but there are only three factors that point to it (Two squares to the 1) sun and 2) mercury, plus the 3) venus rulership of Libra). However, I would note that it repeats something I've seen in more other areas -- namely, his holding grudges.

The stuff about television... that's there because of the importance of venus (art) and uranus (electronics). There's lots of stuff that ping-ping-ping keeps underlining those two.

So that's how weighting works. But you have to accept the concept that the ego is the center of the universe. Which is far too Freudian for me.

Re: A little more from the books.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I never claimed to have any knowledge of astrology. It's very obvious you've got a handle on it.

Indidviduals do love to be placed at the centre of the universe, of course, so the appeal of astrology makes sense that way. & ;-)

Re: A little more from the books.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Indidviduals do love to be placed at the centre of the universe, of course, so the appeal of astrology makes sense that way. & ;-)

Oh, yeah. *eyeroll* Tell someone at a party that you know some astrology and they immediately want you to do their chart.

I sympathize with doctors who always get asked, "Oh, I have this little pain in my upper sacrum...." Folks never seem to get that "You know, the going rate for a consultation is fifty bucks an hour" and that's cheap considering how much research it takes to do it right.

For me the thrill is in the voyeurism. It has the fun of being a little window without the ethical problems of standing in the bushes with a camera. And, hey, I could easily get something wrong -- but what does it matter?

Non sequitor: Wow. Someone next to me just farted and ooh... I think she needs to cut out the rich foods.

Re: A little more from the books.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Tell someone at a party that you know some astrology and they immediately want you to do their chart.

Tell someone you're a lawyer, and they immediately tell you their problem and expect you to solve it: There's also a reason that ain't for free. *g*

For me the thrill is in the voyeurism. It has the fun of being a little window without the ethical problems of standing in the bushes with a camera. And, hey, I could easily get something wrong -- but what does it matter?

I like that angle--we're looking at public records, surface level only, and then look at what this information implies about a person.

re: your NS: & :-/

Re: A little more from the books.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

"For me the thrill is in the voyeurism. It has the fun of being a little window without the ethical problems of standing in the bushes with a camera. And, hey, I could easily get something wrong -- but what does it matter?"

I like that angle--we're looking at public records, surface level only, and then look at what this information implies about a person.

Exactly. And there's no possible harm in this form of voyeurism at all. Because unlike public records, a source people will trust, if you say, "Oh, I got this information from his astrology chart" -- who's going to bank on that? Yet it digs into the heart-level psychological profile, the depth of information that I like to know about people. I'm a writer for a reason.

Re: A little more from the books.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Oh, I should admit that there are plenty of people who just pick and choose what they want to see and don't give the traffic report. But that's called "sucking." *laughs*

And I should add that I don't have his birth time so can't truly calculate his chart as if he were the center of the known universe, so what I have is way too sketchy to do a fine job.