posted December 16, 2003 12:13 PM         

Part of the general answer, when one reads her books, is that she did not like to be judged by her age, that age is just a number that need not be recognized, especially by those working on physical immortality. That submission to a life lead by an age, a number, one would be subject to all the negative images that age can bring.

Perhaps she also enjoyed being a bit of the mysterious astrologer, who didn't want to be astro-analyzed by others.

posted December 20, 2003 03:27 PM         

I think if you read closely into Star Signs and Gooberz, you will be able to piece together a fairly accurate horoscope for Linda...

But Leo Rising... I think not! And As for the Scorpio Moon, that is not correct either... I think that was a blind.

But I've been dogging this chart and working on rectifying it on and off for years now.

Any other thoughts?

In the Light...
A

posted December 20, 2003 08:45 PM         

You may not be so far off the mark!

In the Light...
A

posted December 21, 2003 10:57 PM         

Well Trillian, from what I have been able to gather from careful reading of Gooberz and Star Signs, this is my best educated guess about her Sun/Moon/Ascendant:

As we all know, she was definitely an Aries Sun. I believe that her Moon was in the later degrees of Libra and I'm currently using an Aries Rising chart for her, but I think one might also be able to pitch a good case for Taurus.

As I say though, this is only my educated guess, she was never one for sharing her birth information, and as I say, she did get quite upset when I told her that I had put together her chart from the information that she had included in both of the books that I mentioned. What a lovely display of Aries temper I was graced with!

In the Light...
A

posted December 22, 2003 02:00 PM         

I understand your way of thinking, but Linda's actual birthdate was 4/9/1925, so having the Moon in anything other than Libra or Scorpio would have been impossible on that day.

The time really is the only matter under question. All of Linda's objections to the side, I do believe that that is the actual date.

Hope that helps somewhat.

In the light...
A

P.S. Interesting that you chose to mention Marilyn Monroe in this regard. Linda had a special reason that she disagreed with Marilyn's published birth data. She may just have been right.

posted December 22, 2003 02:05 PM         

Aselzion, those are interesting placements. I guess it's unlikely that we'll ever know for sure, but fun to speculate on anyway. I'm so glad you're here, as you're able to remind us of the human Linda, the woman who did have a fine Aries temper! I know all about that Aries temper first hand!

posted December 22, 2003 05:57 PM         

Trillian, I think Linda's secrecy came from her strong Arian desire to appear self sufficient. I also believe that some of it was due to her belief that Time was her enemy... in true Martial tradition, she was going to overcome that enemy... or die trying.

In terms of why I believe that her Moon was Libra and not Scorpio, it has to do with the fact that I believe she also had Aries Rising. (as I said, I also believe that one might pitch a fairly convincing case for Taurus as well.)

More to the point, Linda often referred to herself as a sort of Quadruple 9. I'm not sure if she did that in print in Star Signs, or if it was something she said directly to me while I was living with her.

1) She was an Aries SunSign ruled by Mars = 9.
2) She was born on the 9th day of the month, another 9.
3) Her name added up to a 9, with the Mars again.
4) And if, as I believe she had an Aries Ascendant, that would complete the "9" picture 4 times, thus giving her a quadruple 9 vibration.

Now, I know that she was not referring to her birth name as that gives a 4 name vibration.

So, if she did have an Aries or Taurus Ascendant that could only put the Moon in Libra, on that date and in that year. And I have a very special reason to believe that IS in fact the correct day and year.

But as I say, This is only my best educated guess.. but I did know her, and I think I'm pretty close. As always, I may be wrong...

Ahhhh... all of this talk has made me take another look at the chart I have on my computer for Linda, and this particular chart gives 9 degrees of Gemini Rising, which would put her Mars almost exactly conjunct the Ascendant. But of course that would maker her a Quintuple 9 vibration as the 9th degree would give us yet another 9, and then Mars on the Ascendant would count for another 9 vibration. Hrmmm...

Well, regardless... be her Ascendant any of these signs (Aries, Taurus or Gemini) the Moon still is in Libra. It did not enter Scorpio on that date until approximately 6:04pm.

Ok, so I'll stop for now, but I think that about sums up my reasoning.

Hope it's helpful.

In the Light...
A

P.S. Or might I be one of those individuals that Linda paid to disseminate disinformation?!?

posted December 22, 2003 08:41 PM         

Though she certainly has "Aries eyebrows," doesn't she? I have them too, and while I'm a triple Aries, I can't attribute the eyebrows to my rising sign.

Thanks so much for taking the time to share your reasoning.

posted December 23, 2003 01:59 PM         

But since Pluto is the higher octave of Mars, Scorpio would be something like 90 (number 9 increased 10 times, since Mars is 9 and Pluto is 0), which does equal 9 in the final count, but nevertheless that would make Linda a 10 or more times 9, wouldn't it?

posted December 23, 2003 03:08 PM         

Sing it!

Lilith.. Welcome to Linda Land! Yes I know about the Mars rulership of Scorpio, I am rather a bit of a Traditional astrologer myself, even though I have a penchant for Esoteric Astrology. However, when I say Esoteric Astrology, I do not wish that to be construed as that jumble of so-called Esoteric rulerships that has to do with the Heirachies and Rays.. I cannot really make head nor tail of the authors that discuss that bit of horror.

Is Pluto the Higher Octave of Mars? On a metaphysical level, I tend to believe that Neptune is actually the Higher Octave of Mercury and that Uranus is the Higher Octave of Venus. I cannot prove this, but the Rosicrucian Fellowship, and Max Heindel actually pitch a good case for why this may be so, and I am inclined to agree with their rationale.

Pluto tends to bring things to Light. It's keynote is the power that "unbinds magnetic or atomic bonds". It stirs things up from the bottom and sort of forces us to take a good, long, hard look at them, whether we really want to or not. Pluto is the power that results in putrefaction and decay, hence the "unbinding or breaking up of magnetic bonds". Now, this process, that which breaks down what is old and worn out (particularly in the human body), is the same one that if transmuted (another Pluto keyword) is responsible for the indefinite prolongation of Physical life.

I can see that as associated with the sign Scorpio, but I'm not so sure it represents a Higher Octave energy of Mars, I'll actually have to think on that one a bit.

In terms of what you said in regard to her Aries/Libra conflict... well said!

Bright Blessings...
A

posted December 23, 2003 04:52 PM         

I know you know sign rulership, I just wanted to slip in another piece of food for thought. I believe that looking at things from all kinds of perspectives, even if not all of them are to the point, helps stimulate the mind.
About Pluto: actually, I personally feel it to be the only ruler of Scorpio, somehow I never could attribute Mars to both Aries and Scorpio since the energies strike me as very different. Yes, all what you wrote about Pluto is Pluto for me as well, I see it as such myself, and I believe that Pluto itself incorporates the "power" keyword in its own way so well that Scorpio does not need Mars as well. And speaking of that, I think this is the reason Pluto is believed to be the higher octave of Mars: for me at least, Mars represent personal power or rather strength, while Pluto is all-encompassing power, Mars is direct and instant aggression, Pluto is quiet, enduring aggression, and therefore all the more powerful - the higher octave.

Actually, I don't think any of the transsaturnian planets should be thought of as higher octaves of anything since they represent independent energies in their own right, and I think this "higher octave" business is sort of a transition from the old days when traditional astrology was exclusive. On the other hand, I think traditional astrology works because it is linked to archetypes we still carry in our subconscious, so unless the archetypes change, traditional astrology will work for most people. And that I believe is also the reason why astrologers are encouraged to consider both rulers - since for some people the traditional astrology applies more, and for some, less.

love & peace