Mixing dignities; the results?

[MSO]

So while reading Lilly, I decided to read over the dignities and how he defined them. It's quite interesting, especially for decanate:

Originally Posted by William Lilly

a Planet having little or no dignity, but by being in his decanate or face, is almost like a man ready to be turned out of doors, having much ado to maintain himself in credit and reputation

And we all know that being in domicle is being the lord of your own castle, so to speak.

So the question is, if a planet is in both, how do we interpret that? How do you delineate the planet if it is terms and face? Or triplicity and exaltation?

If a planet is in domicle and decanate, is it a ruler of his own destiny on his last breath? Like a King fighting to the last man for his Kingdom? Or does the decanate cease to be of importance due to the domicle? And if so, do you still add points to the weight scale for decanate in such a situation?

[Anachiel]

Originally Posted by MSO

So the question is, if a planet is in both, how do we interpret that? How do you delineate the planet if it is terms and face? Or triplicity and exaltation?

If a planet is in domicle and decanate, is it a ruler of his own destiny on his last breath? Like a King fighting to the last man for his Kingdom? Or does the decanate cease to be of importance due to the domicle? And if so, do you still add points to the weight scale for decanate in such a situation?

Always the stronger. So, in your example of a signficator in both domicile and face, it is like King who is very strong. That face adds to his strength, not detracts.

The more dignity you have, the better. So, this also adds to that significator's fortitude.

If it was a term and a face, this is much better than just a term, or just a face. It adds dignity and fortitude to that significator.

[Moog]

I think it means he's a super king in his ultra deluxe castle

[MSO]

Originally Posted by Anachiel

Always the stronger. So, in your example of a signficator in both domicile and face, it is like King who is very strong. That face adds to his strength, not detracts.

The more dignity you have, the better. So, this also adds to that significator's fortitude.

If it was a term and a face, this is much better than just a term, or just a face. It adds dignity and fortitude to that significator.

I understand that it's stronger when you have more than one essential dignity, the question I have is how does it play out? How does the planet act then, if he has these two seemingly very different outlooks on life?

[dr. farr]

Probably, first one way and then the other way (within the context of the planet's specific influences)...but, then, I only look at total dignities/debilities (essential and accidental totals) as one of several delineative factors regarding each planet.

[Anachiel]

Originally Posted by MSO

I understand that it's stronger when you have more than one essential dignity, the question I have is how does it play out? How does the planet act then, if he has these two seemingly very different outlooks on life?

Again, always the stronger. They don't play out individually or in some sort of hybrid combination.

If the planet is in rule and face, then it is like a very strong King. You don't mix the rule and face meanings, just the strength...and fortitude if neccessary.

If it is just term and face then it is moderately ok but, certainly better than just the term or, certainly better than just the face alone.

[Anachiel]

Also, think of it like a poker game. Right. You have 5 cards (dignities)...the more of these you have, the stronger your hand is against whatever it is you are up against. But, having a King when you already hold an Ace does not detract from the King. It only adds to the King's strength. Got it?

It's not like you are reading the Tarot or something with dignities. Each individual dignity that a planet has is not individually interpreted. Only the stronger dignity is used for an "interpretation" and any additional dignities add to that initial strength.

So, one more example being; if the planet was in term and face, it would be a rather average person, perhaps a bit above the rest of the average people (due to the extra dignity of face there). It would not mean a common person about to be turned out. The face dignity adds to the term dignity, it does not detract from it.

[MSO]

Originally Posted by Anachiel

Also, think of it like a poker game. Right. You have 5 cards (dignities)...the more of these you have, the stronger your hand is against whatever it is you are up against. But, having a King when you already hold an Ace does not detract from the King. It only adds to the King's strength. Got it?

It's not like you are reading the Tarot or something with dignities. Each individual dignity that a planet has is not individually interpreted. Only the stronger dignity is used for an "interpretation" and any additional dignities add to that initial strength.

So, one more example being; if the planet was in term and face, it would be a rather average person, perhaps a bit above the rest of the average people (due to the extra dignity of face there). It would not mean a common person about to be turned out. The face dignity adds to the term dignity, it does not detract from it.

Hmm I like.

I think I understand it pretty well. The only thing that really gets to me is how negative face sounds.

I can imagine domicle and terms easily, a king going about his affairs as if it were normal, certainly stronger than one who believes what he is doing to be of utmost difficulty. But face... that's catchy. I get what you're saying though, certainly stronger than not having face. Maybe domicle and face can be interpreted as if the king does feel like he's about to be turned out, which in turn makes him a more effective ruler than one who is blissfully unawares of civil revolt (figuratively, of course).

[Anachiel]

Originally Posted by MSO

Hmm I like.

I think I understand it pretty well. The only thing that really gets to me is how negative face sounds.

.... But face... that's catchy. I get what you're saying though, certainly stronger than not having face. Maybe domicle and face can be interpreted as if the king does feel like he's about to be turned out, which in turn makes him a more effective ruler than one who is blissfully unawares of civil revolt (figuratively, of course).

Although face is weak, it is still a dignity. Better face than peregrine when you come right down to it if there is no other saving grace. Face is like you are about to be turned out but peregrine is a wanderer with no power, unable to affect the situation, generally.

Don't read to much into it. Again, a planet in domicile and face would not feel at all threatened in any way and/or well defended and fortified. It just gives him more dignity and fortitude than he already had being in domicile alone.

[Lissa]

What about planets in debility/fall but in their face or term?

[byjove]

+1 A planet in debility/exactly conjunct an angle?

Aspects are very positive and strong, almuten and ruler are strong.

[Anachiel]

Originally Posted by Lissa

What about planets in debility/fall but in their face or term?

Then it is an impoverished, as I put it. So, in your example, a planet in it's detriment but, also in it's term is like a person of no means (or power) but, yet in a common situation or environment. They are not turned out and wandering or completely done in but, rather, may be in a bad way somehow but yet, taken care of, in some way, to some degree.

Here is a practical example: A person asking about their job and they are signified by a detrimented planet also in it's own term. Then the person is really, probably, not happy and in an environment that is contradictory to them in some way, yet, they are supported (paid) and able to somewhat function there. See?

[Lissa]

Originally Posted by Anachiel

Then it is an impoverished, as I put it. So, in your example, a planet in it's detriment but, also in it's term is like a person of no means (or power) but, yet in a common situation or environment. They are not turned out and wandering or completely done in but, rather, may be in a bad way somehow but yet, taken care of, in some way, to some degree.

Here is a practical example: A person asking about their job and they are signified by a detrimented planet also in it's own term. Then the person is really, probably, not happy and in an environment that is contradictory to them in some way, yet, they are supported (paid) and able to somewhat function there. See?

Yes I can see that,many thanks

Could you please explain a little about planets in detriment/fall but conjunct angles?And mutual reception between planets that are either peregrine or detrimented/in fall (say Venus in Aries and Sun in Pisces exalting each other)?

[Anachiel]

Originally Posted by Lissa

Yes I can see that,many thanks

Could you please explain a little about planets in detriment/fall but conjunct angles?And mutual reception between planets that are either peregrine or detrimented/in fall (say Venus in Aries and Sun in Pisces exalting each other)?

Well, the Angles are a different story altogether from dignity/detriment. An Angle will simply add to a planet's fortitude, but not it's dignity/detriment. So, a person signified by a planet in detriment only ( no other dignity/detriment) will really be in a bad spot but, they have fortitude, ability to endure, even though things are rough.

In your example above of Venus and the Sun, then both are doing quite well. Maybe not without each other but, it is a given from the circustances, they assist and, as Bonatus puts it, malice is abated.

Lilly gives us pause from his Table of Fortitude and Debilities, that if a planet is in mutual reception by rule or exaltation that, regardless of whether it is peregrine where it is at, it is not really peregrine for the strong mutual reception saves it. So, it only appears peregrine and proves one should not judge a book by it's cover. It's as if it has a patron supporting or assisting it.

[Lissa]

Once again thank you so much Anachiel,you made that clear for me!I really appreciate your metaphors,very clarifying

Cheers,
Lissa