Hi again, Teragon.
Thank you for sharing the chart that you drew up. It shows some general guidance about some compatibility likelihoods among astrological signs ("sun-signs", most probably). I think you will agree about the potential deficiencies and, therefore, possibility of misleading by accepting this chart as a definite guidance in actual interpersonal relationships. This potential guidance is most often taken in the context of sun-signs but a personal astro-profile includes much more than sun-signs. Sun in astrology is only one of the "planets" of interest. It is a very important one but it is doubtful if it is singly the most important.
Besides, there is the issue of "degrees". For instance, one person's Sun might, depending on that person's birthdate, be on 1st degree of Aries or on the last (the 30th) degre of Aries. In either situation, that person is an Aries according to the Sun-signs table. But this difference in degrees might change the whole picture in terms of intrapersonal or interpersonal "compatibility". Let's say a second person has their Sun on the 1st degree of Leo. Now, in the case the first person's Sun is on the 1st degree of Aries, then there is a "trine" (120 degrees) aspect between that the Suns of the two people, which is accepted as a very "harmonious" and favorable aspect. So this will result in a very favorable interpretation about the possible relationship. But in the case the first person's Sun is on the 30th, instead of the 1st, degree of Aries, then this means there is a "square" (90 degrees) aspect between the Suns of the two persons, and the square angle is accepted as a very "challanging" aspect to form between two astrological planets, and will result in a radically different (kind of negative) interpretation. You see, in either situation (Sun is on the 1st degree or on the 30th degree of Aries), the first person is still an "Aries" but the beginning and the ending degrees of the sign hold very different potentials. This is only one of the numerious factors in terms of why accepting the general sun-sign compatibility chart alone as a realible source of recommendation can be misleading. This doesn't mean that the table is "worthless", it can teach us many valuable things about the functioning of some natural (probably universal) forces but it alone can be very misleading when it comes to making serious assumptions about the future of a relationship, be it a romantic or other kind of relationship.
And even if the Suns of two subjects are actually in astrologically challenging positions, many other items of astrological profiles of those subjects can render that relationship a very constructive one. And even if "many" of the astrological profile items of two subjects are placed on challenging positions, they can still have a generally good, constructive relationship if they are sufficiently STO-oriented, empathetic, understanding, etc. Vice versa, very favorable aspects between the astro profiles of two subjects don't necessarily mean they will/can have a very good and constructive relationship. And what about karmic, pre-incarnational and post-incarnational plans of various types of relationships and/or missions at deep/high spiritual levels, which might not be reflected in the comparative astrological charts in terms of primary factors other than some secondary ones like transits, progressions, and many others? Ways of life are too many. Our own STS programs and the STS attacks/manipulations that we are subjected to will complicate the picture even more. You see, it is too complicated. Objective contextual knowledge with sufficient observation are essential for making critical and at the same time reliable astrological recommendations regarding relationships.
I must say that what attracts me in this thread that you started is actually a basic/general exploration of astrology's compatibility with our understanding of our life. This can surely include the specific subject of astrological interpersonal compatibility but focusing on a specialization on this specific issue will probably not be as productive and might even prove counter-productive within the specific conditions of this forum. I'm certainly not in a position to speak with authority about what is good to discuss and what is not, but I just want to share my feeling about it.
I might also would like to exchange opinions about one of the astrological clues that Martina referenced but I think that then this could eventually lead to a very subjective or personal astrological chatting among us. One of the reasons in my mind for this probable result is, as I previously mentioned, that there are numerous astrological variables to consider before one will be able to make sound conclusions and recommendations. And even if any one of us was (or is, or will be) possessing such profound and multifaceted knowledge of astrological interpersonal compatibility issues, it would still be doubtful, I think, if this forum is a suitable venue for offering of such personal astrological guidance. This would necessarily deserve an astrology forum. I completely agree with Don Genaro's views that you quoted.
Also, before comparing the astrological profiles of two subjects, we need to be sufficiently able to explore and understand the astrological profile of any single one of them. "Intrapersonal" compatibility issues are more elementary to be explored and understood than "interpersonal" ones. Astrology is very complex and multifacted even in the case of a single person. And without sufficient contextual knowledge and observation, it can be inefficient and even dangerous to make absolute conclusions just based on the apparent astrological profile of a person. This needs to be left to astrologers with relevant specialization, which doesn't mean that each one of them will be reliable at the same high level each time.
I think that one of the main benefits of an amateur interest in astrology is that even a partial exploration of the validity of astrology can tell much to a person in religious/philosophical terms. I remember the deep positive excitement I experienced when I first read general sun-sign characteristics in an astrological reference book. And I was to discover the interpretations of other planets in various signs, various aspects among them, houses, etc. "Wau!", I said. "Life/Universe knows about me somehow!" I think this is about the exploration of the "universal/existential network". There were also some frightening elements in the book. In its interpretations for some planets in some signs with certain bad aspects, it told about agonies, diseases, violent deaths etc. Such parts were very depressing and inferiority and guilt inspiring to me.
My interest in astrology in the context of this forum is based on exploring possible relations between some basic astrological lore and some other main topics of the forum. In your first post in this topic, you made such a potential relation/compatibilty:
Gurdjieff speaks about the "Law of Three", or the three forces which are responsible for the production of phenomena, they being termed the positive, the negative, and the neutralizing. In astrology, the three modalities, the "cardinal", the "fixed", and the "mutable", would necessarily correspond with the trinity described.
I like exploring such potential relations/compatibilities, especially when this enables us to have a deeper or wider insight into both astrology and other topic(s). I surely respect your will to deal with the subject as you like. I'll just check to see if something attracts me.