Stuck in a Conundrum!

sandstone · Apr 19, 2012

dr farr - good elucidation of the distinctions on the history of equal house use.. i must have adapted the middle approach as opposed to the straight approach without knowing that anyone did that straight approach.. also i never did an 15 degree rule, and the change in sign would have altered my view on a planet outside the sign on the ascendant.. essentially i am blurring equal crooked style with whole-sign house.. the straight approach sounds typically western- so friggin straight, lol..

zaphod - i think if you go back to the idea that the sign was the emphasis, an angle like the ascendant would have a sign in it and that sign would include all planets in it 'rising', thus the strength of any planet in that sign regardless if it was above or below the horizon line.. however i too think a distinction needs to be made and that a planet immediately above the horizon would 'stand out' in a much more obvious way then one below it.. this will quickly change if one waits around a few minutes or within the next hour whereby any planet below will be above, but this is after the fact of the time for when the chart is drawn up for.. i think the idea that any planet in this area has an accidental strength due it's proximity to this angle.. that said the reverse would be true for the descendant which is why the ascendant and midheaven have always been given greater emphasis then the descendant and i.c. these are some of my thoughts to which others might agree or get confused with..

dr. farr · Apr 19, 2012

The "Liber Hermetis" (first centuries AD, possibly earlier), which used whole signs, did differentiate the influences of a planet:
1) in the first house
and
2) being above or below the ascending degree in that first house

For example, the Sun in the first house:
-if above the ascending degree, in that first house, the indications were very favorable
-however, if below the ascending degree, in that first house, indications for the Sun's influences were given as quite mixed, including some rather negative qualities

So, in the oldtime literature, there was, often, a delineative qualitative difference attributed to indications for a planet in the first house** but above vs below the ascending degree (which they often called the "ascending point")

(Sandstone: an example of the "classical" or "straight" Equal house format can be found on the astro.com free horoscopes site: if you choose "Equal house" for the house system, you will see the chart is of the "classical" or "straight" Equal house construction which I outlined in my earlier post on this thread)

**actually the Hellenists never used the word "house", they always referred to these as "places", the Latin texts always using the word "locus" or "loci", and never the word "domus", in reference to what were later called "houses"

Zaphod · Apr 20, 2012

dr. farr said:
The "Liber Hermetis" (first centuries AD, possibly earlier), which used whole signs, did differentiate the influences of a planet:
1) in the first house
and
2) being above or below the ascending degree in that first house

For example, the Sun in the first house:
-if above the ascending degree, in that first house, the indications were very favorable
-however, if below the ascending degree, in that first house, indications for the Sun's influences were given as quite mixed, including some rather negative qualities

So, in the oldtime literature, there was, often, a delineative qualitative difference attributed to indications for a planet in the first house** but above vs below the ascending degree (which they often called the "ascending point")

Thank you! It makes me wonder why this distinction wasn't carried forward in general practice to the present day (although the Gauquelin's work with Mars in the charts of athletes did focus on the degrees right above the Ascendant, if I recall correctly). It certainly makes as much sense as the way the relationship of 12th House planets to the 1st House is presently handled, but in an opposite way: 12th House planets not right on the Ascendant are currently thought of as "behind the scenes," not as being in a more visible and therefore favorable condition. Whole Sign houses bring this dichotomy into sharp focus.

Your discussion brings up another question I've been pondering. The terms "Ascendant," "rising sign" and eastern "angle" seem to be used rather loosely today. In my early studies they all meant the "rising degree" or "rising point" on the eastern horizon. (In the case of the Midheaven, "MC" and southern "angle" both meant the "culminating degree.") Now I see them applied (at least by some quadrant house users) to the entire 1st House and its resident sign (and, to a lesser extent, 10th House). I don't have a good handle on precisely what was meant by the term "horoscope" as used prior to the 18th century: whether just the rising degree or the entire sign in the 1st House (though I suspect the former). The literature still presents these chart factors as sensitive "points" without dimension, which is why the modern "traditionalists" I've read don't use orbs when considering aspects to them (although the Ptolemaic span of "5 degrees above to 25 degrees below" the house boundaries still seems to be in use for quadrant-based house systems). Does anyone else think there is some "fuzzy thinking" going on in this regard, at least in contemporary usage?

SniperBomber328 · Apr 20, 2012

dr. farr said:
The "Liber Hermetis" (first centuries AD, possibly earlier), which used whole signs, did differentiate the influences of a planet:
1) in the first house
and
2) being above or below the ascending degree in that first house

For example, the Sun in the first house:
-if above the ascending degree, in that first house, the indications were very favorable
-however, if below the ascending degree, in that first house, indications for the Sun's influences were given as quite mixed, including some rather negative qualities

So, in the oldtime literature, there was, often, a delineative qualitative difference attributed to indications for a planet in the first house** but above vs below the ascending degree (which they often called the "ascending point")

(Sandstone: an example of the "classical" or "straight" Equal house format can be found on the astro.com free horoscopes site: if you choose "Equal house" for the house system, you will see the chart is of the "classical" or "straight" Equal house construction which I outlined in my earlier post on this thread)

**actually the Hellenists never used the word "house", they always referred to these as "places", the Latin texts always using the word "locus" or "loci", and never the word "domus", in reference to what were later called "houses"

What if a planet conjuncts the AC (in this case by 7 degrees), but even in whole sign it still remains in the 12th House? Was it still considered fortunate for th individual, or a negative by the ancients?

JUPITERASC · Apr 20, 2012

SniperBomber328 said:
What if a planet conjuncts the AC (in this case by 7 degrees), but even in whole sign it still remains in the 12th House? Was it still considered fortunate for th individual, or a negative by the ancients?

The planet in question must be in a different sign from the Ascendant SniperBomber328 - then if that is the case, then the planet is in 12th whole sign house and not in 1st house

dr. farr · Apr 20, 2012

Right: for the ancients, to be conjunct the planet had to be in the same sign.
Zaphod: a careful examination of the early Hellenists, regarding terminology they used, shows:
a) that the word "horoskopis" was applied most frequently to the rising sign=1st place (now called first house), however, this term was also applied as well as to the precise ascending degree
b) but usually-ie, most frequently- when discussion of the ascending degree specifically was going on, the term "ascending point" or "horoskopic point" was used (as differentiating from the generic use of the word "horoskopis" in reference to the rising sign=first "house" as a unit)

SniperBomber328 · Apr 21, 2012

JUPITERASC said:
The planet in question must be in a different sign from the Ascendant SniperBomber328 - then if that is the case, then the planet is in 12th whole sign house and not in 1st house

But what if that same planet conjuncts the AC, despite being in the 12th House in 'whole signs'?

dr. farr · Apr 21, 2012

This CANNOT happen in whole signs:

Say, for example, the ascending degree is 0 Taurus: so, Taurus is the ascending sign which in whole sign means that Taurus (all 30 degrees of it)= the first house.
Now, say Venus is posited at 28degrees59minutes Aries: Aries CANNOT be connected with the first whole sign house, which is Taurus, so Aries-and everything within it-MUST be the 12th whole sign house.
But wait a minute :w00t:

! Venus is only 1 degree 1 minute away from the ascending degree of Taurus (0 Taurus) Isn't that a conjunction of a 12th house planet with the ascending degree of the first whole sign house

??

NO: because those who used whole signs (Hellenists, early Islamic transitional era astrologers) followed the rule that CONJUNCTIONS CAN ONLY OCCUR BETWEEN/AMONG PLANETS (OR OTHER ELEMENTS LIKE LOTS OR SENSITIVE POINTS/DEGREES) WITHIN THE SAME SIGN :biggrin:

!
If not in the same sign a conjunction CANNOT OCCUR, according to this (original) oldtime rule.*

(*we begin to see a deviation from this rule around the 12th century AD, when Ibn Ezra allowed conjunctions and aspects to occur which were "out of sign", and this principle gained momentum: in Modernist astrology out of sign conjunctions and aspects are completely allowed; however, this change allowing out of sign conjunctions, etc, did not start to occur until several hundred years after whole sign houses had been forgotten in Western astrology)

Now, history and rules aside, how would I actually delineate the situation I described in my example (ascending degree @ 0 Taurus, Venus @ 28+degrees Aries)?
-Venus would NOT be in the 1st house in my delineation, it would be in the 12th house and totally under the influence of Aries
-but the Aries-modified energies of Venus would reach over and influence the Taurus dominated qualities of the ascending degree, and I would delineate an Aries/12th house Venus as having a significant modifying affect upon the Taurus dominated ascending degree, and through that degree, also a diffuse effect upon the first house.

But please note, this is NOT how the ancients would have delineated the example situation given in this post!!

SniperBomber328 · Apr 21, 2012

dr. farr said:
This CANNOT happen in whole signs:

Say, for example, the ascending degree is 0 Taurus: so, Taurus is the ascending sign which in whole sign means that Taurus (all 30 degrees of it)= the first house.
Now, say Venus is posited at 28degrees59minutes Aries: Aries CANNOT be connected with the first whole sign house, which is Taurus, so Aries-and everything within it-MUST be the 12th whole sign house.
But wait a minute! Venus is only 1 degree 1 minute away from the ascending degree of Taurus (0 Taurus) Isn't that a conjunction of a 12th house planet with the ascending degree of the first whole sign house??

NO: because those who used whole signs (Hellenists, early Islamic transitional era astrologers) followed the rule that CONJUNCTIONS CAN ONLY OCCUR BETWEEN/AMONG PLANETS (OR OTHER ELEMENTS LIKE LOTS OR SENSITIVE POINTS/DEGREES) WITHIN THE SAME SIGN!
If not in the same sign a conjunction CANNOT OCCUR, according to this (original) oldtime rule.*

(*we begin to see a deviation from this rule around the 12th century AD, when Ibn Ezra allowed conjunctions and aspects to occur which were "out of sign", and this principle gained momentum: in Modernist astrology out of sign conjunctions and aspects are completely allowed; however, this change allowing out of sign conjunctions, etc, did not start to occur until several hundred years after whole sign houses had been forgotten in Western astrology)

Now, history and rules aside, how would I actually delineate the situation I described in my example (ascending degree @ 0 Taurus, Venus @ 28+degrees Aries)?
-Venus would NOT be in the 1st house in my delineation, it would be in the 12th house and totally under the influence of Aries
-but the Aries-modified energies of Venus would reach over and influence the Taurus dominated qualities of the ascending degree, and I would delineate an Aries/12th house Venus as having a significant modifying affect upon the Taurus dominated ascending degree, and through that degree, also a diffuse effect upon the first house.

But please note, this is NOT how the ancients would have delineated the example situation given in this post!!

Thanks Dr. Farr. Your posts all the time are extremely helpful and at times relieving. On that note; I suppose my Jupiter is NOT combust due to the fact (if I follow this ancient doctrine) that my Sun and Jupiter are in different signs (despite being 6 degrees close to eachother), that is Scorpio and Libra, respectively.

Though I have to admit, I tend to take what the ancients thought up with a grain of salt, considering they also thought the universe was centered around the earth (along with the other planets).

Zaphod · Apr 21, 2012

dr. farr said:
This CANNOT happen in whole signs:

Say, for example, the ascending degree is 0 Taurus: so, Taurus is the ascending sign which in whole sign means that Taurus (all 30 degrees of it)= the first house.
Now, say Venus is posited at 28degrees59minutes Aries: Aries CANNOT be connected with the first whole sign house, which is Taurus, so Aries-and everything within it-MUST be the 12th whole sign house.
But wait a minute! Venus is only 1 degree 1 minute away from the ascending degree of Taurus (0 Taurus) Isn't that a conjunction of a 12th house planet with the ascending degree of the first whole sign house??

NO: because those who used whole signs (Hellenists, early Islamic transitional era astrologers) followed the rule that CONJUNCTIONS CAN ONLY OCCUR BETWEEN/AMONG PLANETS (OR OTHER ELEMENTS LIKE LOTS OR SENSITIVE POINTS/DEGREES) WITHIN THE SAME SIGN!
If not in the same sign a conjunction CANNOT OCCUR, according to this (original) oldtime rule.*

(*we begin to see a deviation from this rule around the 12th century AD, when Ibn Ezra allowed conjunctions and aspects to occur which were "out of sign", and this principle gained momentum: in Modernist astrology out of sign conjunctions and aspects are completely allowed; however, this change allowing out of sign conjunctions, etc, did not start to occur until several hundred years after whole sign houses had been forgotten in Western astrology)

Now, history and rules aside, how would I actually delineate the situation I described in my example (ascending degree @ 0 Taurus, Venus @ 28+degrees Aries)?
-Venus would NOT be in the 1st house in my delineation, it would be in the 12th house and totally under the influence of Aries
-but the Aries-modified energies of Venus would reach over and influence the Taurus dominated qualities of the ascending degree, and I would delineate an Aries/12th house Venus as having a significant modifying affect upon the Taurus dominated ascending degree, and through that degree, also a diffuse effect upon the first house.

But please note, this is NOT how the ancients would have delineated the example situation given in this post!!

I've been wavering on how to handle tight out-of-sign aspects since I first encountered the "whole-sign" concept as I began exploring traditional methods. I could see that it is entirely consistent with the elemental, modal and polar symmetry of the zodiacal framework, but not with with the contemporary approach to aspects, which is steeped in harmonic theory (division of the circle by Pythagorean whole numbers). Modernists look for sensitive "points" in the cycle while traditionalists see entire "fields" of influence that are turned on and off like a faucet at the sign boundaries. It seems irrational, therefore, that a planet at 29 degrees of Aries is trine to another at 1 degree of Leo when they are actually 92 degrees apart. But some modern writers have addressed the subject; they recognize the angular relationship but note that the nature of the aspect will be weakened by the fact that the signs involved aren't of the element, mode or gender of the "pure" example. I believe Bill Tierney called them "dissociate." This seems to be a faint echo of the "whole-sign" aspect model. For my part, although I still use quadrant house systems, I've decided to consider out-of-sign aspects seriously only if the orb is very small, no more than a degree or two (perhaps wider conjunctions to the ascending degree from the 12th house side are an exception, as are Sun-Moon aspects which strike me as more about phase relationship than specific sign placement). I allow them but I "shade" them according to the less-integrated qualities of the signs and don't give them nearly as much weight. I'm still experimenting with the idea, though.

SniperBomber328 · Apr 21, 2012

There was someone (I think it was BobZemco before his sudden absence) who was lecturing me on a post about a year ago, that in real life there are different radio wave frequencies depending on the planets positions.

I think the example he used was between Saturn and Jupiter. When Saturn and Jupiter were in a Trine (that is the astronomical transits), the radio waves on Earth were much more vibrant and smooth. But when there was a square between Saturn and Jupiter (in real-time) the radio wave frequencies were weak and slightly distorted.

He explained that it was due too electromagnetivity (which he corresponded that the planets do indeed have affects on other planets and much more).

I'll try too look and see whether I can find it.

Well besides the above, the point I was trying to make was maybe, just maybe, planets do have an affect on us (in the sense of aspects), not matter whether they are "out-of-sign" or not. Of course I'm just a beginner in Astrology so all of this is just speculation.

JUPITERASC · Apr 21, 2012

SniperBomber328 said:
Thanks Dr. Farr. Your posts all the time are extremely helpful and at times relieving. On that note; I suppose my Jupiter is NOT combust due to the fact (if I follow this ancient doctrine) that my Sun and Jupiter are in different signs (despite being 6 degrees close to each other), that is Scorpio and Libra, respectively.

Though I have to admit, I tend to take what the ancients thought up with a grain of salt, considering they also thought the universe was centered around the earth (along with the other planets).

SniperBomber238, you have said

SniperBomber328 said:
Though I have to admit, I tend to take what the ancients thought up with a grain of salt, considering they also thought the universe was centered around the earth (along with the other planets).

BUT are you aware that the Tropical House System originated almost two thousand years ago and is based on that very same ancient idea that “the universe was centered around the earth along with the other planets”

Almost two thousand years ago mathematician Claudius Ptolemaeus thought of a brilliant solution that explained the apparently retrograde motions of the planets and was convinced he had solved the puzzle of earth's position in the universe. Unfortunately, although mathematically brilliant, Ptolemy's “solution” was incorrect. Here's a link to a page describing Claudius Ptolomaeus theory of the universe as “a mad, but clever proposal” http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html

However it took approximately fifteen hundred years before Kepler disproved Ptolemy's daft idea that planetary “epi-cycles” explain the retrograde motion of planets. In the meantime, Ptolemy was the great authority on the subject and astrologers followed his notion that the Vernal Point at the Spring Equinox is FIXED PERMANENTLY at 0º Aries. Unfortunately, the Sun at the Spring Equinox rises at 0º Aries only every twenty six thousand years approximately! At the time of Ptolemy, the Vernal Point was still in Aries BUT NOT AT 0º Aries. The fact is that the Tropical Zodiac is out of sync with precession and as the centuries pass, the two Zodiacs are drifting further and further apart and only re-converge to align every twenty six thousand years or so.

In contrast to the Tropical Zodiac, the Sidereal Zodiac, being in sync with precession illustrates all planets and points as being approximately 24 º earlier than those of the Tropical Zodiac. Hence on 20 March 2012, the day of the Spring Equinox which is the exact same day Tropical Astrologers celebrate the Sun's entry into Aries, Sidereal astrologers noted the Sun's position as 6º Pisces! In fact it was not until 13 April 2012 that Sidereal Astrologers celebrated the Sun's entry into Sidereal 0ºAries a full twenty four days after the 'Tropical Ingress'.

Tropical astrologers are therefore said to use Signs based on the seasons while Sidereal astrologers use Signs based on the constellations. Although intriguingly, some Tropical astrologers are now using precession corrected charts.

One of the interesting factors is that delineations using EITHER zodiac apparently 'work' for astrologers using either method

JUPITERASC · Apr 21, 2012

SniperBomber328 said:
On that note; I suppose my Jupiter is NOT combust due to the fact (if I follow this ancient doctrine) that my Sun and Jupiter are in different signs (despite being 6 degrees close to each other), that is Scorpio and Libra, respectively

SniperBomber328 Any planet within 12 degrees of the sun is considered to be "under the sun's beams" according to William Lilly Horary volume, (p.300):

"A Planet within 12 degrees of the Sun, is said to be under his Beames, and then hath not fortitude, let it be in what Signe it will;

Unsurprisingly, combustion is a controversial subject on which astrologers disagree. Here's a link to a comprehensive discussion on Skyscript entitled "combustion" http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=716&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

sandstone · Apr 21, 2012

hi snipebomber,

you are asking some good questions.. they get into the grey area of astrology and many folks who like everything black or white will struggle with the grey areas.. it is a value judgment on what to give more emphasis in astrology and every astrologer will do it somewhat differently.. if you believe that signs need to be weighed heavily, whole sign-houses help to do this and they dictate the design of the houses.. if you believe that aspects - like a 6 degree conjunction to the ascendant have relevance and indeed most astrologers do - then the question becomes one of how do you weigh this against the planet/ascendant being in a different sign for example? i haven't read all the comments, but this is the kind of philosophical position you find yourself in having to answer to what you feel needs to be given the most weight.. in the case of your own chart you will continue to live it and get insights over the course of your life that will help you better understand just what it all means.. in the meantime keep on asking tough questions and don't settle for simple answers!

SniperBomber328 · Apr 21, 2012

JUPITERASC said:
SniperBomber328 Any planet within 12 degrees of the sun is considered to be "under the sun's beams" according to William Lilly Horary volume, (p.300):

"A Planet within 12 degrees of the Sun, is said to be under his Beames, and then hath not fortitude, let it be in what Signe it will;

Unsurprisingly, combustion is a controversial subject on which astrologers disagree. Here's a link to a comprehensive discussion on Skyscript entitled "combustion" http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=716&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

sandstone said:
hi snipebomber,

you are asking some good questions.. they get into the grey area of astrology and many folks who like everything black or white will struggle with the grey areas.. it is a value judgment on what to give more emphasis in astrology and every astrologer will do it somewhat differently.. if you believe that signs need to be weighed heavily, whole sign-houses help to do this and they dictate the design of the houses.. if you believe that aspects - like a 6 degree conjunction to the ascendant have relevance and indeed most astrologers do - then the question becomes one of how do you weigh this against the planet/ascendant being in a different sign for example? i haven't read all the comments, but this is the kind of philosophical position you find yourself in having to answer to what you feel needs to be given the most weight.. in the case of your own chart you will continue to live it and get insights over the course of your life that will help you better understand just what it all means.. in the meantime keep on asking tough questions and don't settle for simple answers!

Thanks jupiterasc, and I know that any planet(s), despite being in different houses, are still combust or under-the-suns-beams if 8* to 17* near the sun, respectively. I was just administering the ancient doctrine that Dr. Farr has posted (in which I have quoted) and applied it too me. But I wee where you're coming from.

Thanks sandstone for the advice. I must say, I love your unconventional writing. I suppose it will be a "trial and error" type of case for me. Since I always say non-sensical things I sometimes come off as meaning something else, but I asure everyone that I am in no way being ambiguous, and what you see is exactly what I mean (which can also be missinterpreted).

Thanks everyone for all the reponses! I feel like I learn something new about Atrology on this thread alone. Perhaps it has do with the "unconventional" turn this thread has taken (which is a good thing)! :biggrin:

I appreciate all the time everyone takes to reply to eachothers messages!

Judy_AzVirgo · Apr 22, 2012

SniperBomber328 said:
See my mystery is this. Why is the 12th House more debilitated than the 6th House in Traditional Astrology? I understand why the 8th, 6th and 12th are debilitated in a sense, but can anyone help me with the above question?

I've been thinking about this in a logical manner and I came too the conclusion that I am stuck in a conundrum! Trad. Astrology indicates that since the 6th House is Injunct the AC (despite being under-the-earth) and the 12th House is in a Semi-Sextile (therefore Combust) from the AC (despite being over-the-earth), the 12th House is more debilitated than the 6th. Seems a good reason sure, but then I look at the 8th House and the 2nd House and see the opposite happening, yet the 2nd is stronger than the 8th (too most Trad Astrologers).

Yet the 8th is NOT Semi-Sextile the AC (therefore not combust) and over-the-earth. The 2nd House (succeedent like the 8th) is under-the-earth and combust the AC. In the logic from the first paragraph, shouldn't the 2nd be more debilitated than the 8th?

Many can argue that under-the-earth houses aren't as badly affected by the sun therefore resulting in the 2nd and 6th being less debilitated than the over-the-earth houses i.e. 8th and 12th. In that logic as well, then assuming the 5th and 11th houses, shouldn't the 5th be stronger than the 11th house (assuming we are using the above logic...so don't get hyper and try to justify the otherwise, I know already).

Of course this is all theory and irrelevant to current astrology. It's just my way of trying to make sense of things (not trying to start an astrological revolution or anything)! If anyone could help me with this puzzle, I would greatly appreciated!

This is my first post to the website. The discussion intrigues me, but I'm amazed that so many people seem to accept the idea of the debility of houses, and are discussing which is the weakest. Really? Do you also believe that Mars and Saturn are malevolent, with no redeeming qualities?

I have always thought that astrology reflects the times in which we live... or ought to. Our value systems are quite different than those of the ancients (i.e., no slavery and few servants to populate our 6th houses; little concern over "evil" influences), and we have an expanded set of celestial objects to work with in our interpretations. Also, we have access to large libraries of books about astrology, and the experience of many astrologers to learn from -- something few ancient astrologers had. I can certainly accept that some planets under pressure are difficult to deal with, and require the development of inner strength. But do we really need to perpetuate the prejudices of the ancients?

Personally, in my work I've done charts for several 6th house Sun people who are in the health-care field, and one 6th house Sun who's a human resources director for a good-sized company. I can think of only two cases where a 6th house Saturn, with difficult aspects, seems to be involved in long-term health issues (one a physical ailment, the other chronic anxiety). Also, I recall reading an astrology book by Dr Mitchell Gibson, a psychiatrist with 4 or 5 planets in Virgo in his natal 6th (including his Sun).

On the whole, I find the 6th house Sun to be fairly positive, not "debilitated" or "weak". I believe that the 12th house also can be positive, if its energies are explored rather than feared, and utilized rather than shunted away. Same goes for the 8th house.

BTW, my natal Aries Moon is at my 6th cusp, opposite Neptune in my 12th. I'm glad to say I've experienced no more sorrow or other bad stuff than the average bear.

sandstone · Apr 22, 2012

snipebomber - thanks!

hi judy,

welcome to the forum! your post intrigues me too.. i know some will say in astrology the goodness or badness of something, but i don't think one can discount the valuable and useful side to all of this too, that is often overlooked.. thanks for emphasizing this in your post.. some of it seems to come down to whether one has more of an emphasis on free will verses a more fatalistic view of astrology, and some of this might be as you say - adopting views of older astrologers from the deep past while ignoring any wisdom that might be expressed in the present.. i think this has to do with a big conversation on traditional verses modern astrology too which periodically gets discussed on these threads... some people want to adopt the old ways just because they are old and not necessarily because they are any better, but that they have quickly concluded this.. most of the astrologers on this site are receptive to the value of any system if they think it works and is useful. i hope you continue to post and offer more of your personal perspective!

Moog · Apr 22, 2012

Judy_AzVirgo said:
This is my first post to the website. The discussion intrigues me, but I'm amazed that so many people seem to accept the idea of the debility of houses, and are discussing which is the weakest. Really? Do you also believe that Mars and Saturn are malevolent, with no redeeming qualities?

I have always thought that astrology reflects the times in which we live... or ought to. Our value systems are quite different than those of the ancients (i.e., no slavery and few servants to populate our 6th houses; little concern over "evil" influences), and we have an expanded set of celestial objects to work with in our interpretations. Also, we have access to large libraries of books about astrology, and the experience of many astrologers to learn from -- something few ancient astrologers had. I can certainly accept that some planets under pressure are difficult to deal with, and require the development of inner strength. But do we really need to perpetuate the prejudices of the ancients?

Personally, in my work I've done charts for several 6th house Sun people who are in the health-care field, and one 6th house Sun who's a human resources director for a good-sized company. I can think of only two cases where a 6th house Saturn, with difficult aspects, seems to be involved in long-term health issues (one a physical ailment, the other chronic anxiety). Also, I recall reading an astrology book by Dr Mitchell Gibson, a psychiatrist with 4 or 5 planets in Virgo in his natal 6th (including his Sun).

On the whole, I find the 6th house Sun to be fairly positive, not "debilitated" or "weak". I believe that the 12th house also can be positive, if its energies are explored rather than feared, and utilized rather than shunted away. Same goes for the 8th house.

BTW, my natal Aries Moon is at my 6th cusp, opposite Neptune in my 12th. I'm glad to say I've experienced no more sorrow or other bad stuff than the average bear.

It sounds like you're an expert on traditional astrology, so it does seem fair that you can consign it all to the bin and call it 'predjudice'.

Moog · Apr 22, 2012

sandstone said:
some people want to adopt the old ways just because they are old and not necessarily because they are any better, but that they have quickly concluded this..

Yeah, there's hordes of traditional astrology hipsters around here... you can't move for them. :lol:

sandstone · Apr 22, 2012

it is not so much the numbers, but the profusion of posts by certain posters that want to lead/entice novices down a particular path while ignoring the many other paths available.. just think valens or whole signs and stop right there, lol..

Stuck in a Conundrum!

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned