I've been thinking about the Angles, and have hatched some questions which I would love to hear your opinion on.
Firstly, why is the Ascendant given more attention than the others? The Midheaven is also considered, and sometimes also the Descendant, but I struggle to find much about Nadir, the IC. Are they not intrinsically of equal weight?
Secondly, does the modality of one's angles contribute significantly to the overall energy of one's chart? For example, the majority of people with a cardinal sign rising, like myself, have cardinal signs on all of the angles. What does it mean to have cardinal angles? What do I have in common with the Arian, Libran and Capricornian Ascendants who also have all cardinal angles? What differs between those of us with cardinal angles and those of us with fixed, or mutable angles? In horary astrology, the modality of angles tells us something about timing and nature of the question. Can it offer a similar thematic overview in natal astrology? What about the people who have one axis in a different modality to the other? My twin brother, for example, has his MC/IC in fixed signs, and I consider him to be considerably more "fixed" in nature than I am, despite almost identical placements otherwise. What does the modality of one's angles say in natal astrology?
Lastly, can the angles be dignified or debilitated? If the Ascendant is naturally ruled by Mars, is it possible that a Libran ascendant is debilitated? Could a Leo ascendant be exalted? Similarly, is a Capricornian IC debilitated, and an Arian MC exalted?
Ok, any answers, twinges, further questions, uncertainties or ideas invited