Is this Moon in Gemini debilitated

d00dle

Well-known member
In your chart, Moon may act like debilitated for the following cumulative reasons.
1. Moon is in 8th house, debilitated, by house.
2. It is opposed by Neptune.
3. 8th ruler, Mercury is combusted.
4. Moon's sign, Cancer has debilitated Mars.
5. South Node is on the cusp of 4th house.
6. Pluto throws good aspect, but Pluto is itself helpless, in its detrimental sign.

i didn't know Pluto is in its fall in Libra! again, it's a slow moving planet. Theoretically, Moon is debilitated meaning unable to function or express itself easily. would this explain why i have this difficulty expressing emotions and feelings. I tend to over analyzing things and emotionally, i'm not so responsive.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
i didn't know Pluto is in its fall in Libra!
fwiw no one knows that for certain d00dle! :smile:
84 WORD QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA EXPLAINS

"After the discovery of the three outer planets -Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto - modern astrologers speculated on possible domicile and exaltation rulerships for these planets.

It was suggested, for example, that Neptune was the "true" domicile ruler of Pisces (usurping one of Jupiter's two domicile rulerships).

The ancient system was complex and symmetrical, making no allowance for additional, unseen planets, and it is difficult to include them in traditional techniques

Most modern astrologers have therefore abandoned attempts to assign exaltations to these newer planets"

SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(astrology)
 

dhundhun

Well-known member
i didn't know Pluto is in its fall in Libra! again, it's a slow moving planet. Theoretically, Moon is debilitated meaning unable to function or express itself easily. would this explain why i have this difficulty expressing emotions and feelings. I tend to over analyzing things and emotionally, i'm not so responsive.

Pluto is newest and there are uncertainties about it's rulership, exaltation, etc.

However few common practices are:
1. Pluto is co-ruler of Scorpio and Aries; thereby detrimental signs are Taurus and Libra.
2. Some experienced: Pluto is exalted in Aries, thereby debilitated in Libra
3. Some experienced: Pluto is exalted in Leo, thereby debilitated in Aquarius.

I see values in all the above observation.

With reference to your chart, I saw Pluto in Libra and in 12th house. Thereby it is weaker Planet in Chart. I used term detrimental in your context, instead of debilitated.

Although I see values in #2 and #3, I usually prefer #1. Also Pluto is not significant, unless it is closely located at angles or closely in conjunction with Sun or Moon.
 

d00dle

Well-known member
"The main reason that the Moon in Gemini indicates emotional detachment, physical overextension and sometimes lack of sensitivity, is because the Moon is in the 12th sign (house) from it's own domicile (Cancer), and the 12th sign/house indicates those qualities that get ignored, and put away. The Moon also represents the physical body. Therefore the Moon in Gemini represents ignoring feelings, sensitivities, taboos, sometimes health, etc. The reason the 12th represents qualities that get ignored is because the 12th sign/house is the joy of Saturn which represents the principle of agnoia (ignorance or ignoring)."
 

MariaMGF

Member
Maria, thank you for explaining. This makes so much sense. You have described what could be a difficult concept to understand in a way that is elegant, and now I know what I'll be thinking about all day. :cool:

tamara


Thank you tsmall, I tried to be as clear and concise as possible.


JUPITERASC;

“….key to person's character, prosperity, characterises physical body & is the medium through which other lots operate, as it is ‘physical body’/vehicle through which person executes ambitions: is considered gateway.

Interestingly, although the sun and moon have only one domicile Ibn Ezra comments: "as they are both rulers, the domiciles are considered as belonging to one ruler" and Abu Ma'shar also states: “Even though the Moon has only one domicile and the Sun has only one domicile, as they are both rulers, the domiciles are considered as belonging to one ruler."

Thus IMO, it is apparent that for ancient astrologers

(a) sun in Cancer/moon in Cancer is in own domicile

(b) sun in Leo/moon in Leo is in own domicile


AND SO intriguingly however - IMO Hellenistically speaking - a natal sun located in Cancer cannot be regarded as being in own 12th house – irrespective of sect

Likewise -IMO Hellenistically speaking - a natal moon located in Cancer cannot be regarded as being in own 12th house – irrespective of sect

It would seem then that for Hellenistic astrologers, the exception in this case being BOTH sun and moon SHARE not only domiciles but also sole “own 12th” Gemini


From my reading of the authors who developed and used the concept of 'lots' there was never any talk of the lots having psychological meaning attached. I am not saying they can't, but it could be a big mistake to just attach psychological characteristics to them without carefully understanding what they were developed for; then building on that foundation. Personally, I use the lots for the purpose they were designed for in Hellenistic times. In these times the lots were used to investigate specific topics allied to the natal delineation. For example, in looking at ones father, one technique would be to assess the natal Sun/Saturn combined with the lot of the father, then relate these to the fortune houses because angular from a fortune perspective means it IS coming your way, or directly at the person who owns the natal chart.


Ja'far ibn Muḥammad al-Balkhī (787–886), known as Abū Ma'shar, lived in Baghdad in the 9th century and Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) were pre-cursors to Medieval Horary Astrology. Outside of the Hellenistic community very little was known about Greek horoscopic astrology, one clear example is the arabs thinking of lots as parts and mutiplying them beyond all proportion, the truth was they were just trying to emulate what the Greeks were doing with only tidbits of information and failed to even notice how lots were contructed. They just thought you could take any two parts and project them from the asc etc.

I respect of the Sun and Moon both ruling cancer and Leo you have lost me. The Zoroatrians developed a system where the Sun was said to 'be happy' in both Cancer and Leo, but in no ancient sources have I ever found it said that the Moon could rule both signs. The Greeks would have thought this was heresy as the Moon was described as being a "counterfeit light" and the Sun is "ruler of ones all".

I am at a loss when you say "Hellenistically speaking... because I am well versed in Hellenistic astrology and I can reiterate that the moon in Gemini would have been considered in its own natural 12th place.

It would seem then that for Hellenistic astrologers, the exception in this case being BOTH sun and moon SHARE not only domiciles but also sole “own 12th” Gemini



Please provide a reference for this because I cannot find a single Hellenistic astrologer who stated and/or recorded this.

You quote the link to Vettius Valens Anthologies which I know particularly well, are you familiar with the Ten books? The free online translation, Robert Schmidt's translation or both? I cannot source your assertions in either of those and would be grateful for your source. Thank you

Maria
 

MariaMGF

Member
"The main reason that the Moon in Gemini indicates emotional detachment, physical overextension and sometimes lack of sensitivity, is because the Moon is in the 12th sign (house) from it's own domicile (Cancer), and the 12th sign/house indicates those qualities that get ignored, and put away. The Moon also represents the physical body. Therefore the Moon in Gemini represents ignoring feelings, sensitivities, taboos, sometimes health, etc. The reason the 12th represents qualities that get ignored is because the 12th sign/house is the joy of Saturn which represents the principle of agnoia (ignorance or ignoring)."

As a psychological stance on this Moon position I would consider it in a very similar way, well said.

Maria
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
From my reading of the authors who developed and used the concept of 'lots' there was never any talk of the lots having psychological meaning attached. I am not saying they can't, but it could be a big mistake to just attach psychological characteristics to them without carefully understanding what they were developed for; then building on that foundation. Personally, I use the lots for the purpose they were designed for in Hellenistic times. In these times the lots were used to investigate specific topics allied to the natal delineation. For example, in looking at ones father, one technique would be to assess the natal Sun/Saturn combined with the lot of the father, then relate these to the fortune houses because angular from a fortune perspective means it IS coming your way, or directly at the person who owns the natal chart.
As is evidenced I clearly stated that my remarks concerning the Part of Fortune are sourced from an "educational blurb" written by member Ray Austin available on the Education Board of this forum for all i.e:
fwiw, The Education board of this forum offers “an educational blurb” that includes information relating to the Part of Fortune and states clearly that the Part or Lot of Fortune is: (THE FOLLOWING 98 WORD QUOTE IS SOURCED FROM THE EDUCATION BOARD OF THIS FORUM FROM INFORMATION POSTED BY RAY AUSTIN):

“….key to person's character, prosperity, characterises physical body & is the medium through which other lots operate, as it is ‘physical body’/vehicle through which person executes ambitions: is considered gateway.


STRONG
– has vitality to achieve fortune/auspicious character & potential for great prosperity. If other lots are fortunate, is a good medium through which privileged promise can operate.


WEAK – physical form and/or character may hinder attainment/is not conducive towards success. Possibly no great promise of prosperity. If other lots promise great things, person may be too weak to realize such gains/not care for great success”
I respect of the Sun and Moon both ruling cancer and Leo you have lost me. The Zoroatrians developed a system where the Sun was said to 'be happy' in both Cancer and Leo, but in no ancient sources have I ever found it said that the Moon could rule both signs. The Greeks would have thought this was heresy as the Moon was described as being a "counterfeit light" and the Sun is "ruler of ones all".

I am at a loss when you say "Hellenistically speaking... because I am well versed in Hellenistic astrology and I can reiterate that the moon in Gemini would have been considered in its own natural 12th place.

Please provide a reference for this because I cannot find a single Hellenistic astrologer who stated and/or recorded this
I posted as follows, clearly stating my source
Interestingly, although the sun and moon have only one domicile Ibn Ezra comments: "as they are both rulers, the domiciles are considered as belonging to one ruler" and Abu Ma'shar also states: “Even though the Moon has only one domicile and the Sun has only one domicile, as they are both rulers, the domiciles are considered as belonging to one ruler."
Much of "Hellenistic Astrology" either did not survive or has not yet been translated from Ancient Greek and Latin. :smile:

Project Hindsight are currently processing a vast number of Ancient Greek Latin manuscripts as yet untranslated into English. Andrea Gehrz has translated some of Valens
member Chris Brennan is in the process also of translating a number of manuscripts apparently
You quote the link to Vettius Valens Anthologies which I know particularly well, are you familiar with the Ten books? The free online translation, Robert Schmidt's translation or both? I cannot source your assertions in either of those and would be grateful for your source. Thank you

Maria
MariaMGF, I clearly prefaced my remarks with IMO - but you omitted that part of my post when you quoted it - therefore, to avoid misunderstandings, here is my comment in full
Thus IMO, it is apparent that for ancient astrologers

(a) sun in Cancer/moon in Cancer is in own domicile

(b) sun in Leo/moon in Leo is in own domicile


AND SO intriguingly however - IMO Hellenistically speaking - a natal sun located in Cancer cannot be regarded as being in own 12th house – irrespective of sect

Likewise -IMO Hellenistically speaking - a natal moon located in Cancer cannot be regarded as being in own 12th house – irrespective of sect

It would seem then that for Hellenistic astrologers, the exception in this case being BOTH sun and moon SHARE not only domiciles but also sole “own 12th” Gemini

Interestingly, the situation morphed over the centuries and for traditional astrologers the sun has now no dignity in Cancer and the moon has no dignity in Leo :smile:
 

MariaMGF

Member
As is evidenced I clearly stated that my remarks concerning the Part of Fortune are sourced from an "educational blurb" written by member Ray Austin available on the Education Board of this forum for all i.e:

I posted as follows, clearly stating my source

You sited 'a' source yes, but you implied by siting your source that it must be a reliable source of information, is it?

Much of "Hellenistic Astrology" either did not survive or has not yet been translated from Ancient Greek and Latin. :smile:

This quote has been knocking about since 1993, a great deal of information has been published since then.

Project Hindsight are currently processing a vast number of Ancient Greek Latin manuscripts as yet untranslated into English. Andrea Gehrz has translated some of Valens
member Chris Brennan is in the process also of translating a number of manuscripts apparently

I know all about PH and have nearly every translation produced by them in the last 19 years. The Greek Track, The Latin Track, the phase foundation lectures, the conclaves held in Maryland and Definitions and Foundations, the latest book, the several discs, hand-outs and personal correspondence with the Schmidt's and more. Yes, I am aware of everything going on in that camp, are you?

MariaMGF, I clearly prefaced my remarks with IMO - but you omitted that part of my post when you quoted it - therefore, to avoid misunderstandings, here is my comment in full

Do you not think "IMO & Hellenistically speaking" is a contradiction in terms, you cannot be speaking 'Hellenistically' if you are voicing opinion about the Hellenistic tradition? Hellenistically speaking means to speak as a Hellenist or representative of that tradition. The clarity lies with that very contradictory statement. Anything anyone writes is a personal opinion, when you say IMO you are stating your opinion, if you do not write this in one of your posts whos opinion is that?

I will agree to 'fully quote you' even though this site is not easy to navigate with the ipad, in return, could you agree to speak clearly? Thank you.

Maria
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
You sited 'a' source yes, but you implied by siting your source that it must be a reliable source of information, is it?
I have clearly stated that the source I cited is Ray Austin's article on the Education Board of this forum and since the implication is (although correct me if I am wrong) that it is unreliable then it may be a good idea to offer your own clarifying article on the subject to the Education Board?
This quote has been knocking about since 1993, a great deal of information has been published since then.
Exactly... just as many of these quotes have been knocking about for over a thousand years
I know all about PH and have nearly every translation produced by them in the last 19 years. The Greek Track, The Latin Track, the phase foundation lectures, the conclaves held in Maryland and Definitions and Foundations, the latest book, the several discs, hand-outs and personal correspondence with the Schmidt's and more. Yes, I am aware of everything going on in that camp, are you?
I have no doubt you are well versed on this subject MariaMGF
Do you not think "IMO & Hellenistically speaking" is a contradiction in terms, you cannot be speaking 'Hellenistically' if you are voicing opinion about the Hellenistic tradition? Hellenistically speaking means to speak as a Hellenist or representative of that tradition. The clarity lies with that very contradictory statement. Anything anyone writes is a personal opinion, when you say IMO you are stating your opinion, if you do not write this in one of your posts whos opinion is that?

I will agree to 'fully quote you' even though this site is not easy to navigate with the ipad, in return, could you agree to speak clearly? Thank you.

Maria
No matter how clearly one speaks, one is frequently misunderstood:smile:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
"The main reason that the Moon in Gemini indicates emotional detachment, physical overextension and sometimes lack of sensitivity, is because the Moon is in the 12th sign (house) from it's own domicile (Cancer), and the 12th sign/house indicates those qualities that get ignored, and put away. The Moon also represents the physical body. Therefore the Moon in Gemini represents ignoring feelings, sensitivities, taboos, sometimes health, etc. The reason the 12th represents qualities that get ignored is because the 12th sign/house is the joy of Saturn which represents the principle of agnoia (ignorance or ignoring)."

doodle, can you say where this quote is from? I'd be interested in reading it.

Do you not think "IMO & Hellenistically speaking" is a contradiction in terms, you cannot be speaking 'Hellenistically' if you are voicing opinion about the Hellenistic tradition? Hellenistically speaking means to speak as a Hellenist or representative of that tradition. The clarity lies with that very contradictory statement. Anything anyone writes is a personal opinion, when you say IMO you are stating your opinion, if you do not write this in one of your posts whos opinion is that?

I think that the internet, and the interaction it provides, makes it very easy to misunderstand what we are reading. Adding an ampersand where none existed can change the entire meaning of a thought. Perhaps it would be better if everyone left off using the texting abbrivations that have clearly become common on-line, but clearly make understanding difficult. There was no ampersand/and included in the post here. The quote was, translated, "In my humble opinion, Hellenistically speaking..." This implies that the poster is offering an opinion. There are many varied opinons offered here at AW, and most of them do not included cited references.

I respect of the Sun and Moon both ruling cancer and Leo you have lost me. The Zoroatrians developed a system where the Sun was said to 'be happy' in both Cancer and Leo, but in no ancient sources have I ever found it said that the Moon could rule both signs. The Greeks would have thought this was heresy as the Moon was described as being a "counterfeit light" and the Sun is "ruler of ones all".

I am at a loss when you say "Hellenistically speaking... because I am well versed in Hellenistic astrology and I can reiterate that the moon in Gemini would have been considered in its own natural 12th place.

I am just a lowly student with exactly ten months of learning, so I would not presume to contradict you...and after having seen this topic come up both here and in a private conversation with another educated astrologer elsewhere, I need to go back through my notes and find the exact reasons/references...because I do very much remember reading that the Sun and Moon are fully familiar with each other, and so are able to "stand in" for one another if the occasion necessitated. If we extrapolate, as we are wont to do, that would mean then that the Moon could rule both signs?

I believe it was here that I first discovered this concept...

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40285

(keep in mind that this thread was started and encouraged by someone with absolutely no knoweldge of astrology at the time)

and specifically this post

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=314910&postcount=42

that shows the idea that Sun and Moon go together like peanut butter and jelly isn't such an outlandish idea?
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
For what it's worth, Ezra appears to be somewhat alone in that line of thinking (think Maternus's lord of geniture...uh..."calculation") It doesn't seem to appear anywhere before or afterwards, at least not to my memory. I'm not at home now to check this.
 

kimbermoon

Well-known member
Would anyone care to comment on the current eclipses underway?
On May 20th there was a Solar Eclipse in Gemini [travel, communication, the mind]...on June 4th there will be a Lunar Eclipse in Sagittarius[education, philosophy, culture and the law]. This pairing represents the differentiation between the lower mind and higher consciousness. Then on the 5th there will be a rare transit of Venus over the Sun [said to be connected to the Mayan prophecies. Omens in the sky?
 
Top