Aries is wiser than Pisces…
…and Pisces is wiser than Aquarius, and so on. Unironically.
There’s a double standard in the astrology community: we’re supposed to believe that “all signs are equal”, but at the same time everyone openly criticises the ones that come first (Aries, Taurus, etc) for being “too green”, “too immature”, etc, and that’s somehow an acceptable thing to do; Everyone admires and celebrates the ones that come last (Pisces, Aquarius) etc for being “innovators”, “wise”, “revolutionary” and that’s somehow also acceptable. I mean, throw the first stone if you haven’t ever smiled at the idea of an “Age of Aquarius” coming soon because it sounds good, and recoiled at basically anything Mars or Aries in the sky. Oh, but we shouldn’t say that. Shhhh. Let’s keep quiet! All signs are equal. Uh-huh, suuure.
This double standard exists and everyone who is into “reading the stars” even at amateur level can attest to its existence; but god forbid we address it! Oh, no no no, it’s a big taboo. A huge no-no. It makes everyone uncomfortable, so everyone just keeps pretending it isn’t there.
I’m here to bite the bullet and finally address it whether you love it or hate it.
Have you ever seen a linear astrological chart? Yea me neither.
I mean, even if you compare and contrast different systems (in Greek you have a circle, whereas Vedic looks more like a square, and who knows what a Chinese chart looks like), you still won’t find any sequence of signs that has a beginning and an end. All of them repeat ad infinitum. Without exceptions.
But regardless, for some god forsaken reason, we were taught to think about time as a linear thing, where the year starts in January and ends in December because someone said so, and the astrological year starts in April and ends in March because someone said so as well. So we think of it in terms of beginnings, middles and ends, like a fruit ripening. That couldn’t be further from objectivity. In reality, if we were to be truly objective, we’d have to look at a calendar and envision a cycle that doesn’t really start or end anywhere, who knows and who cares where the ends are? It just keeps going on ad infinitum, and that’s the only important thing.
If I were to guess why we have this silly notion about linear time, I’d say it’s because we can’t see past our own noses. Ya know, human beings have this habit of making everything about ourselves, don’t we? I think it’s called narcissism. We look at ourselves and go like “oh, look, we have a life cycle that starts in early infancy and ends in death… hm… that means everything else in the world works the exact same way, because I’m the centre of attention”. Perhaps blame it on Christianity (here in the west anyway…) where man was created in the image of God himself or some shit. I don’t know, just guessing.
But regardless of “why” we have a distorted idea of the cycles of nature… The cycles of nature keep existing and keep giving zero fucks to our opinion of them. Astrology is a metaphysical study of time (via observing stars) that tries to describe these cycles of nature as objectively as possible. And what are we doing with it? Why, of course, we’re destroying every objectivity in it and making it all about ourselves as individuals! How very grown-up.
Anyway, before I start ranting too soon, let’s look at archetypes.
Why is Pisces the sweetheart of the zodiac? — Because it embodies compassion and relatability, that’s why.
The concept of Pisces exists for a lot of reasons, and among them is “comfort”. Ya know how the archetype mentions that Pisces has an equal talent for comforting the sufferers, and engaging in escapism [in order to comfort itself at the expense of others]? These are two sides of the same coin, the noble and the coward. They can’t exist without each other, sorry to burst your bubble if you’re a die-hard idealist but we all have shadows, so why wouldn’t Pisces.
There’s some [fickle] logic behind the idea of linearity in the zodiac: Pisces is considered the “last” sign because it represents utopias, dreams and transcendence. We tend to perceive these things as related to the “judgement day”, or “Disney-style happy ending” if you want a secular word. That’s all good and well but… What comes after? Does the world explode or stop existing? Well, no. Life goes on. And if life goes on after Pisces, we must consider that.
Here, let me help:
Let’s dream a bit. Are you with me? Imagine if everyone and every creature on Earth suddenly got what they’ve always wanted. Imagine generalised happiness, everywhere you look. Just everyone and everything holding hands and singing kumbaya together. Would that last forever? I’d love it if it did and I’m sure you agree. But that’s not exactly feasible.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not just thinking of “evil things” and “evil people” ruining the party. No, I’m thinking of something a lot more basic and logical: imbalance.
What happens if Capitalism stops existing, everyone stops competing and starts just sharing all the time, there’s bounty everywhere and people can just live off fruit that falls on the ground? Okay, all good and well, but… This utopian society wouldn’t survive the winter. Ya know, ’cause they’re just living off fruit freely given to them by mother earth. They aren’t even preserving anything for a colder and more scarce time because the mere act of stocking up excess would imply in “not sharing” — and that breeds competition and all those “bad” things that turn people into less-than-compassionate, imperfect, realistic characters.
“That’s why everyone should be on the tropics”, I’m sure some smartass is gonna say. Well, as it turns out, my friend, rainforests can’t simply regrow after being overharvested (or even deforested), and you know why? I’ll tell you why: all that bounty has to come from somewhere. The sun, the rainfall, but especially the nutrients on the ground. If you just take, take, take, and never give back (aye, even without wars or ugly conflicts, even with a strong sense of community and human relatability), you’re empoverishing the soil. Lo and behold, no winter is needed for scarcity to come.
This is the point where Pisces covers its ears and starts chanting “la-la-la I’m not hearing you” and looks for escapism. So let’s move on to Aries.
Why is Aries the scapegoat of the zodiac? Because it embodies necessary discomfort, and that’s not as easy to love.
Say what you will about Aries — it’s unrelatable, it’s inconsiderate and selfish, it’s impulsive and doesn’t think things through, etc — we can’t survive without Aries energy. Keep hating. You can’t extinguish fire with hate alone.
But above all else, archetype aside, Aries is the scapegoat because we see it through a lens of linearity and associate it with beginnings. And let’s be honest, every beginning sucks. Nobody wants to be the noob who is subject to ridicule, nobody likes stepping into the unknown and making a new path where there was none. It implies growing some balls and getting your arse off the couch.
Aries is that one dissident guy in the utopia I described above who goes like “fuck this, I’m growing my own veg”, gets a shovel and learns to dig on the go without anyone else’s help. Perhaps he’ll get dirt all over him, maybe he’ll learn the hard way that some seeds need to be started indoors first, but “fuck it”. He did it anyway, he started other more resistant seeds straight on the ground. He’s getting something started. Even if it’s something imperfect or impulsive.
Am I pro-Aries and anti-Pisces? No, not at all. It would be ridiculous. We all have both energies within us, don’t we? If you’re a Pisces reading this far (congrats?), you might be cursing me because you think I’m hating on you, but no, I’m not. You’re more than your sun. You have Aries too, and every sign, on your birth chart. Even if some signs don’t have planets for you, they’ll have houses. So, there. I’m just honest. A bit too direct. Blame it on the Aries moon.
Aries needs its immaturity just like Pisces needs its escapism. They’re “bad” sides but they exist for a reason. Think of a toddler: toddlers are immature, aren’t they? But their immaturity, no matter how “bad”, is the ONE thing allowing them to be determined and fearless, to take the first steps in whatever it is they’re learning, to dream big and ignore all possible dangers on the way. That’s Aries energy. Pisces, on the other hand, has less to do with “age” (if anything, Aquarius is the “cranky elderly person who gives zero fucks”, not Pisces, lol), and more to do with caution. Pisces tests the waters before swimming, because its goal isn’t to get things done; it’s to show the world it’s okay to coexist and stay hopeful. What would Pisces do without escapism? It would definitely lose the will to spread love and hope against all odds. That’s super important too, and that’s why it comes before Aries. Without hope, there’s no spark of enthusiasm translated into action.
Each sign is master of the previous sign and disciple of the next.
I used to know a man who was super proud of his sun in Pisces. Above all else, he’d constantly contrast it to Aquarius in a childish competitive tone, to the effect of “Aquarius is so naive, tsk tsk”. He had a bit of a prejudice against that sign, to the point of making up his mind about someone with sun in Aquarius before even getting to know the person.
If I could time travel and talk to him again as friends, I’d simply say “don’t be so quick to hate on the very sign that makes your existence possible”. Aye, Pisces is wiser than Aquarius, but that is only so because Aquarius prepares the ground for Pisces to be born. So although there’s a bit of a hierarchy between signs, one shouldn’t be foolish to bite the hand that fed him.
…Or would Pisces prefer to come after, Idk, Taurus, will all its earthy materialism and close-mindedness? I don’t think so. Taurus prepares the ground for Gemini instead, providing a strong secure foundation for the “twins” to come back to after every adventure. The sequence in the zodiac is the way it is for a reason.
On the same logic: Aquarius shouldn’t sneeze at Capricorn either just because it’s more conservative and down-to-earth. Capricorn holds all the answers for Aquarius to use Saturn energy effectively, because it went through the trouble of “contacting” this elusive planet energy in the first place, and now Aquarius can reap what has been sown, and dare to dream a lot further.
In short: to be a master doesn’t mean to be an ungrateful arsehole.
Does the endless cycle in the zodiac imply that reincarnation is real?
That’s the question some people might be asking themselves now. I’ll be upfront and say a very definite “no”.
First of all, the afterlife is a mystery, has always been and will always be a mystery. You can have your belief — just don’t be preaching to your friends who have different beliefs. Secondly, how very narcissistic of you to think the entire universe revolves around a human life cycle? Because I’m sure when you say “reincarnation” you mean HUMAN reincarnation. You aren’t thinking of plants or fungi or whatever. In fact, to hell with other beings, aye? Nobody truly cares about those afterlives. “But astrology is a human system”, you say? Aye, humans invented astrology. So what? What’s your point? Am I supposed to agree that planets affect our lives from afar but it’s only human lives? Do they cherrypick and avoid influencing other beings, is that it?
“Oh but the same plants regrow every spring” — nah, they aren’t the same, they’re just related. If they were the same, everything you made of plants last season would just magically disappear. Just saying.
That’s valid for other beliefs too: no, dear Christian person, heaven and hell aren’t a fact, they’re beliefs too. Not everything can be proven beyond any doubt via DNA either, dear materialist. And so on it goes…
I’m only able to think objectively here because I’m taking a detached stance. I couldn’t care less whether or not reincarnation is a thing. I do personally believe it happens (what else would explain my connection with Picts, lol certainly not DNA) but does it happen always? Everywhere? Under every circumstance? Idk, you tell me. Actually, don’t tell me. I don’t care. I can live without certain answers. Uncertainty is a spice not everyone knows how to savour, but I’ll tell you this: once you learn, you know. Life tastes a bit bland without it.
