Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Other Astrology

Other Astrology Here, you can discuss anything else astrological that doesn't belong in the other boards. Includes Reseach and Development, fixed stars, asteroids, symbols systems, karma, and Aquarian astrology.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-05-2012, 02:00 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,873
Which is more significant, planets or signs?

I've seen opinions on both, so I am curious to know what members think. If you chime in with an opinion, please give the astrological reason why you believe it to be one or the other. Traditional, modern, Vedic, or "other" ideas welcomed.

__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-05-2012, 02:30 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

it's a good question............

whether one uses tropical or sidereal will give you some of my answer.. the fact that both can be considered relevant at the same time suggest for me that planets are more significant then signs.. the planet is the energy and the sign is how the energy gets coloured... planets are said to function better or worse in a certain sign, so obviously signs have bearing on the ability of the planet to express it's nature to its best.. signs definitely matter, but then so do house position and aspects which also involve planet position..

think of a planet rising.. is it the nature of the sign or the nature of the planet that dominates? i think it is the planet with the sign offering more texture on how the planet will express, but the planetary characteristics having the biggest say..

it is a good question with no easy answer.. my answer is planets are more important consideration then signs if we separate the 2.. i am thinking of musical analogies like what is more important, the singer or the song? i think the singer, but if you only hear one song the singer sings, you might think the song is equally important. it is, but it hinges on the singer who i think is more central to it all... this will also explain why we only really consider the signs that are occupied by planets while ignoring for the most part the signs not occupied by planets or the angles... what is being sung is where the planets are, not where the signs are.. they are like the songs that get left unsung in charts on a regular basis... fun exercise to find a good analogy for this...

my next would be with cooking.. is it the cook or what is cooked? lol.... i think the cook trumps the cooking.. same deal planets to signs...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-05-2012, 02:45 AM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

The singer is the sign. The song is the planet. The singer can have many original songs, but the song only has one original signer, just as signs can have many planets, but planets have one sign.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-05-2012, 02:52 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

it is fun to turn ideas upside down.. i like to do it too.

i stilll see the planets are the energy source, not the signs.. how else does one explain the conundrun of sid verses trop with one considered more central then the other? without a planet, it becomes more of a mute point..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-05-2012, 03:40 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 11,307
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Ancient Vedic adepts said, "the signs are where the planets live"; to me, they are both almost equally important: signs = the foundations and conditional influences/matrix of the planets, planets = the proximate actions and actualizations, as conditioned by the signs.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-05-2012, 08:33 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

If you had to pick one, would you say that people are/would be "ruled by" one planet (Saturnians, Venusians), or by one sign (Capricornians, Librans)?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-05-2012, 08:44 PM
Frank's Avatar
Frank Frank is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 735
Send a message via Yahoo to Frank
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Planets. Because one can do competent astrology without resorting to signs (as in Cosmobiology), but one can't do astrology at all only with Signs and nothing to inhabit them.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-05-2012, 08:48 PM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

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!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-06-2012, 02:16 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 11,307
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

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.

Forced to pick one, planet or sign, as "ruling" a person? I would pick planet over sign. Forced to pick one, planet or sign, as "ruling" over a group of people, or over a location, etc, here I would pick sign over planet (in most cases) Planets to me reflect strongly on individual things, signs on groups of things...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-06-2012, 02:29 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

they definitely need one another it would seem.. planets and signs are like the 2 halves of the yin-yang symbol.. you don't get the full picture with only half, but if i was stuck, i would rely on planets more then signs. no one does mundane astrology anymore.. maybe it will get resurrected when people get tired of such a focus on natal astrology. then we can think of how the signs might have more bearing on a country then a planet for example..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-06-2012, 08:49 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

@dr. farr - Isn't a person a group of things in some senses? Which means they should be their ruling planet and its sign?

@sandstone - Yes, mundane needs to come back a little, to expand people's knowledge and balance things (mostly perceptions) out.

Last edited by Rebel Uranian; 03-06-2012 at 09:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-06-2012, 09:19 PM
Frank's Avatar
Frank Frank is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 735
Send a message via Yahoo to Frank
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Mundane never really went anywhere. There are still a great number of astrologers who do good mundane work. There is even a whole track devoted to Political and Mundane astrology which I'm proud to be part of at UAC in New Orleans in May.

http://www.uacastrology.com/cgi-bin/...12.cgi?CODE=10
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-06-2012, 09:54 PM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

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
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-06-2012, 10:40 PM
Frank's Avatar
Frank Frank is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 735
Send a message via Yahoo to Frank
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandstone View Post
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
This will be my fifth UAC - and my third straight as a lecturer. I'm been to Preservation Hall before and intend to go again - I was stationed in Biloxi for five months in the Air Force and got to New Orleans whenever possible.

Although there haven't been many dedicated books on mundane astrology recently, it is alive and well in lectures, articles and other discussion forums. I met Baigent once, knew Charles Harvey well prior to his passing, and spend some time with Nick at just about every major conference I lecture at or choose to attend - most recently at the AA of GB Conference in 2010.

I suppose Richard Tarnas' Cosmos and Culture is the most recent popular book that addresses the subject.

My book (whenever I get around to actually sitting down and finishing it), will have a good-sized section on mundane astrology. I think after I'm through preparing my lectures on mundane and rectification for UAC, I'll have enough material to flesh out the book - which will stress practical techniques.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-07-2012, 01:51 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 6,296
Re: Which is more significant, planets or 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.
__________________
"That which you have tried yourself, which you have experienced, which you have recognized as true, and which will be beneficial to you and to others; believe that, and shape your conduct to it." --Buddha, Kalama Sutta

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." --Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

--Philippians 4:8
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-07-2012, 02:12 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,873
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandstone View Post
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!
I think I would go with planets ruling people too, but then we have to talk about which planets, and how we figure this out. I agree that a planet has a nature regardless of what sign it is in, but the sign will tell you how the nature will express itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr. farr View Post
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.

The spheres of the planets are closer to us than the sphere of the zodiac, so it would seem obvious that the planets will exert more influence over us than the signs. That said, the signs describe the environment in which the planets find themselves, and down to the basest nature, describe the environment the planets live in. Perhaps the difference between Pavarotti the homeless bum who sings in Grand Central Station for what people will throw in his hat, vs. Pavarotti the world renowned tenor who sings to packed theaters?

Yet, if we look at charts (especially natal ones) we can see that the signs themselves do have some influence, especially on the houses (at least, this newb sees this using whole signs.) For example, I have been trying to understand why my husband is so....religious, or evangelical, for lack of a better term, about what he believes regarding diet and exercise. He has zero planets in Virgo. But, Virgo is his 9th house, and is ruled by Mercury in Scorpio. Funny, but he doesn't realize how "intense" his communication about his dietary beliefs really is (he brings it up to everyone, ad nauseum) What is really interesting is that looking at his sidereal chart, i can still draw the same conclusions based on planetary placement in houses and signs...this ties back into what james said re both zodiacs being able to work, and for me further strengthening the idea the it is the planets that have more influence. But dang, no matter how you slice it the signs are terribly important.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-07-2012, 02:27 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,873
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
Hi waybread! I've been thinking about you, lol...

I agree, though I do think it needs to go a step further. Venus in Aries is in detriment, and I think it is important to understand why this is, and how that will manifest in the native. What about the nature of Venus is antithetical to being in Aries? Traditionally, we can consider the nature of Aries vs. the nature of Venus, and then too it would depend on the placement of the Moon. Is it in Capricorn, ruled by Saturn? How is Saturn situated? Or, is it in Cancer, the domicile of the Moon? This is why the signs matter in determining how the planets will express their inherent nature, isn't it?
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-07-2012, 02:50 AM
Frank's Avatar
Frank Frank is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 735
Send a message via Yahoo to Frank
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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
I go with the following:

Planet = Verbs (action, movement, etc)
Signs = Adverbs (modifies the verb's expression)
Houses = Nouns (people, places, and things)
Aspects = Adjectives (modify the nouns - place-based relationships)

I expand on it a bit more in this post:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=18247
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:06 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

frank,

thanks for your post and update. i look forward to reading some of your thoughts on mundane astrology. best of success at the meeting in new o and enjoy yourself. i love new orleans - french quarter area over towards mareingy or however you spell that and frenchman st.. i didn't enjoy bourbon st, near as much as frenchmen st area and there is a lot of music over there too.. favourite restaurant is an inexpensive place called the praline connection at 542frenchmen st.. more upscale - k pauls is pretty awesome.. give us an update on the conference when you are on the other side of it, if you can..

waybread

- nice post.. i tend to value aspects more then not probably due the fact i gravitated towards ebertin methods more.. it is fascinating to go back and try to push the other elements of astrology up into a more central role, but i do think they all have a say and it is a balancing act bringing all the components of astrology together..

tsmall

- that sounds straight out of the heavenly sphere book, but i can go with that too..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:18 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,873
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandstone View Post

tsmall

- that sounds straight out of the heavenly sphere book, but i can go with that too..
shhh. We are what we eat (or read) no? lol. It made sense to me, at any rate...
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:28 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 11,307
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Remember too that signs represent (are) energies: each sign is an elemental energy (quality) and, further, each sign is a modulation of energies (ie, cardinal, fixed, mutable) So signs are not completely passive, or "only" symbolic, in their essential nature.
We have a sign with no planets, ok: but that sign is an energy and is a modulation of that energy, and thus has an influence: Aries on the 10th house, but no planets (or dodekatemorion of planets) therein: an "empty" 9th house, to be delineated ONLY by the situation of the planetary "lord" (in this case Mars)? No way is that all there is to it: Aries on the 10th house means we have FIRE qualifying that 10th house, and an active modulation of FIRE, ie, CARDINAL FIRE, which, TOGETHER with the condition of the lord (Mars) all typify the 10th house, in that chart.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:31 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 11,307
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

[QUOTE=Rebel Uranian;370282]@dr. farr - Isn't a person a group of things in some senses? Which means they should be their ruling planet and its sign?

Yes, and that's why both are significant: but your question was about picking one, and I responded to that (a theoretical question to me; in actual delineation I would not emphasize one over the other)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:34 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

dr farr - what is with that silly logo next to your name? did you have to pay for that, or is it like when you do over 5000 posts and someone gives you a golden handshake or something? it looks bizarre, but it doesn't show up when i go to hit reply..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:36 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

hey, if i didn't like you as much as i do, i would be taking pot shots at ya with my trusty pea shooter, lol...
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-07-2012, 03:40 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 11,307
Re: Which is more significant, planets or signs?

Hi!
No, its what AW uses to denote those who have purchased a membership: a few others have these too, eg, Culpeper and Wintersprite.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
planets, significant, signs

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I talk to my planets C0rnholio General Chat 8 07-26-2011 06:57 PM
how significant are these planets in my horoscope. purpleshirt Read My Chart 3 07-09-2011 11:02 AM
Aspects/Houses tikana Education Board 4 06-07-2010 10:31 AM
Planets are Living Things kk23wong Spiritual Realm 2 08-04-2009 11:00 AM
The Collective Planets Shining Ray Natal Astrology 7 08-29-2007 03:04 AM



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2012, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.