frank,
i think it is really cool you are involved in the astrology meeting in new orleans.. stick yer head in preservation hall just off bourbon st. for me. i think you will really dig it and it is a must see for a musician..
my impression is hardly anyone is doing mundane astrology, or if they are, it isn't being highlighted in any public way.. most all of what i see is natal and horary.. tell me what is up on the mundane astrology front these days. it has been a long time since baigent, harvey and campion put out their book.. anything in book form that is new that you know about? thanks - james
hey - here is an interesting thought... what rules what? planets rule signs, or signs rule planets? to me it is another little window on what is driving what in the process...
as for planets or signs ruling people.... hum.. planets.. following planets predates the creation of the zodiac so far as i know as well.. the zodiac was a means of mapping out the sky.. the planets were there before the man made map - zodiac.. more ruminations on this fwiw..
i do share dr. farrs perspective that it is all important, although i am not sure about equally important.. i think a planet has a nature regardless of the sign it is in.. the sign and house gives more detail on the area and way it might express more uniquely to the person.. it is hard to separate it all though..
i like what frank said!
Historically, planets were not given as rulers or lords of signs; rather, they were given dignity by being in their domiciles (homes) in signs; further, planets get dignified or debilitated by signs, not signs becoming dignified or debilitated by planets; signs make planets exalted or in their Fall, not the other way around. So, to me, signs have primacy, but it is a passive type of primacy, planets being the active, proximate impulses channeling into manifestation, the qualitative potentialities of the signs.
tsmall, I am not sure what would be the meaning of signs without planets. Signs would just be pie-sectors of the heavens, named for some constellations whose spaces they now scarcely overlap.
I would put aspects between planets at the top of my list. I started thinking this way back when I learned astrology through Robert Hand's Planets in Youth and Planets in Transit. Although he gives planets-in-signs and in-houses delineations, the meat of these books is really planets in aspect.
If we think about the disputes between proponents of sidereal vs. tropical zodiacs; or of different house systems, it is interesting that each group can nevertheless do really good interpretive work. So to me that suggests something going on in a horoscope regardless of sign and house placement.
I think of chart-reading as a kind of grammar or sentence-structure.
Planet: the noun or subject
Sign: a modifer, comparable to an adjective or adverb
House: a location, comparable to a prepositional phrase.
Aspect: an action verb
So, for example, lets suppose you have Venus in Aries square moon in Cancer.
We could say that your independent approach to relationships challenges your deeply caring emotional needs.
Planet: the noun or subject
Sign: a modifer, comparable to an adjective or adverb
House: a location, comparable to a prepositional phrase.
Aspect: an action verb
tsmall
- that sounds straight out of the heavenly sphere book, but i can go with that too..