Detriment, Peregrine, and a mixed mutual reception?

[soratothamax]

I have Sun in Taurus and Venus in Aries. A friend of mine also has Sun in Taurus and Venus in Aries with very few aspects to her sun (there's only one semi-sextile using large orb and other extremely minor aspects).

Now both of them are received favorably to one another. Sun is exalted in Aries, and Venus is the domicile ruler of Taurus. But Aries being in detriment, how would this play out?

Would the detriment come out more loyal, and steady, vs just having a normal detriment? Or would that also interfere with the positive reception?

Also, which is worse? Peregrine or Detriment? Both have the "-5" label. How are both similar and how are they both the same?

[dr. farr]

Our Traditionalist friends would consider Peregrine worse than detriment; however, since I do not believe in the reality of the Peregrine state, I would join with Vedic astrology (which also does not recognize the Peregrine state) and say that most attention should be given to detriment...

[soratothamax]

Why did Traditionlists consider Peregrine the worst?

I want to know the difference between the fall, detriment, and peregrine more?

Domicile is like the Teacher in the classroom. Exalted is like the best student in the class. What "student" would Detriment, fall, and peregrine be likened to? I need examples lol to get the concept.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by soratothamax

Why did Traditionlists consider Peregrine the worst?

I want to know the difference between the fall, detriment, and peregrine more?

Domicile is like the Teacher in the classroom. Exalted is like the best student in the class. What "student" would Detriment, fall, and peregrine be likened to? I need examples lol to get the concept.

Not exactly soratothamax... fwiw IMO it is common knowledge amongst traditional astrologers that:

'Domicile' indicates the planet is most 'at home' aka 'comfortable' in a particular sign.

Exalted means the planet may be compared to 'an honored guest' in the home of another planet

[soratothamax]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Not exactly soratothamax... fwiw IMO it is common knowledge amongst traditional astrologers that:

'Domicile' indicates the planet is most 'at home' aka 'comfortable' in a particular sign.

Exalted means the planet may be compared to 'an honored guest' in the home of another planet

So kind of like the person's house party, it's at their house, they're the most comfortable. They set their own rules. VS. being the honored guest at the party...or how would this work? Like Sun is comfortable in Leo and natural, but in Aries the Sun is honored, so the sun's qualities are exaggerated, embellished, or celebrated?

And detriment is like total enemy? What would fall and peregrine be?

[dr. farr]

Yes, indeed it can be compared to a house party! The applications of Islamic rules of hospitality, and the rules of conduct at royal European courts, are very similar to the ways in which the "court of the planets" was considered to "operate" during the period from late Hellenistic times, through the Islamic transitional era and into medieval European and early Renaissance times, astrologically considered.

I agree fully with JA's brief statements regarding how Traditionalists (as I understand their teachings) consider domicile and exalted; considering the house party analogy, detriment would be a guest that nobody really cared for, that was largely "out of place" at the party; Fall would be where the guest was actually in openly hostile circumstances and surroundings at the party; peregrine (the word means "wanderer") would be where no one at the party knew the guest, where the guest had no connections with the place or with the other guests, kind of like being someone who just wandered in to the party, or crashed the party.

I would like to add that in earlier astrology the peregrine concept meant that a planet had neither + NOR - essential dignities in its place; later (around the late 12th/early 13th centuries AD) this concept changed, so that for the past 800 years peregrine means no + essential dignities, but the planet can have essential debilities and still be considered peregrine (the doctrine states "detriment does not save from peregrine"); so in my opinion the meaning of peregrine changed, from a planet simply being a wanderer with no + or - connections (no essential dignities OR debilities) to a planet with no essential + connections (no essential dignities) but which COULD have essential detriments (essential debilities)-therefore, with this concept, I can see why Traditionalists would generally consider a peregrine planet "worse off" than detrimented-there are at least connections with a detrimented planet, with this peregrine concept there are either no connections at all, or if there are any, these would be detrimented/debilitating in nature.

...however, as I have stated earlier, I do not accept (for me at least) the current (past 800 years!) peregrine concept, as valid...

[soratothamax]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Yes, indeed it can be compared to a house party! The applications of Islamic rules of hospitality, and the rules of conduct at royal European courts, are very similar to the ways in which the "court of the planets" was considered to "operate" during the period from late Hellenistic times, through the Islamic transitional era and into medieval European and early Renaissance times, astrologically considered.

I agree fully with JA's brief statements regarding how Traditionalists (as I understand their teachings) consider domicile and exalted; considering the house party analogy, detriment would be a guest that nobody really cared for, that was largely "out of place" at the party; Fall would be where the guest was actually in openly hostile circumstances and surroundings at the party; peregrine (the word means "wanderer") would be where no one at the party knew the guest, where the guest had no connections with the place or with the other guests, kind of like being someone who just wandered in to the party, or crashed the party.

I would like to add that in earlier astrology the peregrine concept meant that a planet had neither + NOR - essential dignities in its place; later (around the late 12th/early 13th centuries AD) this concept changed, so that for the past 800 years peregrine means no + essential dignities, but the planet can have essential debilities and still be considered peregrine (the doctrine states "detriment does not save from peregrine"); so in my opinion the meaning of peregrine changed, from a planet simply being a wanderer with no + or - connections (no essential dignities OR debilities) to a planet with no essential + connections (no essential dignities) but which COULD have essential detriments (essential debilities)-therefore, with this concept, I can see why Traditionalists would generally consider a peregrine planet "worse off" than detrimented-there are at least connections with a detrimented planet, with this peregrine concept there are either no connections at all, or if there are any, these would be detrimented/debilitating in nature.

...however, as I have stated earlier, I do not accept (for me at least) the current (past 800 years!) peregrine concept, as valid...

Really helpful! Thank you for the information! I like examples. I do think that peregrine isn't as major of a concept as detriment and fall.

So with a detriment, for instance, Mars in Taurus would be out place when dealing with Mars? So a Sun in Taurus in a Peregrine state(I have a friend like this, with minor aspects all negative to her Sun and 12th house) wouldn't be very ego-centered? And neither would the detriment?

What would be the difference between a Sun in Aquarius, and Sun in Taurus? One isn't comfortable with the self-centered Sun and the other just doesn't know anything about the self?

[dr. farr]

Whether or not we can translate the concepts of essential dignity/detriment/debility directly into psychological/characterological traits, is a debatable question: prior to the advancements in personality/psychological delineations in astrology, these essential dignity/detriment considerations were applied to the capacity or ability of a planet to influence the chart, to "act", to "express itself", relative to its place in the chart and in relationships it had in the chart with other planets, houses, and Lots.
In the Sun/Aquarius and Sun/Taurus examples mentioned above, all else being equal the Sun in Aquarius is essentially detrimented (by sign), so the oldtime practitioners would say that all of the Sun's influences in that particular chart, would be detrimentally "impacted" by its essential detriment in Aquarius; whereas the Sun in Taurus is not essentially detrimented (per se, all other considerations being equal) so its influences and reslationships in the chart, would not be impacted like the Sun in Aquarius would be.

I myself have rejected as artificial the division of dignities/debilities into "essential and "accidental"; I just add them both up and come up with a net + or - final result for each planet and then go from there: however, this is NOT what Traditionalist astrology does, they consider a hierarchy, first and foremost essential dignities/debilities, then secondarily accidental dignities/debilities; so, you must study the subject and come to your own conclusions and method, as I did...

[soratothamax]

So how does a person become a detriment, or peregrine, or fall instead of exalted and domicile? Was this developed into them by their parents or other outside influences?

Like Detrimental planets weren't taught to be this way?

I have Venus in Aries. How did a detriment come to play in this lifetime? I'm pretty tomboyish. How would the Venus tell me how this came to be developed?

Or say a Moon in Capricorn. Did the family seem distant or cold, and so they don't have a positive emotional response?

Is it neglect that makes the detriment? Vs. falls have been restricged by the parents? Or abused? Like a Moon in Scorpio, or the family has dark secrets?

[soratothamax]

[QUOTE=dr. farr;401001]
In the Sun/Aquarius and Sun/Taurus examples mentioned above, all else being equal the Sun in Aquarius is essentially detrimented (by sign), so the oldtime practitioners would say that all of the Sun's influences in that particular chart, would be detrimentally "impacted" by its essential detriment in Aquarius; whereas the Sun in Taurus is not essentially detrimented (per se, all other considerations being equal) so its influences and reslationships in the chart, would not be impacted like the Sun in Aquarius would be.

QUOTE]

I get it now!

And okay, say what's the difference between a Sun in Leo, Sun in Aries, Sun in Taurus? A Sun in Taurus wouldn't detrimentally impact the Sun's influence, but it wouldn't make the Sun's influences dominant or exalted either. So it would just make the Sun's influences...nothing?

[dr. farr]

Almost right-but in your example the Sun's specific influence would not be nothing (no planet's influence is EVER reduced to nothing!!) it would be-average: exaltation and domicile (dignities) = above average influences; detriment, Fall (debilities) = impacted, "sickly" or below average influences; neither dignified nor debilitated = average (or equally mixed + and -) influences. I suggest this is a very useful way to think about the meanings/ramifications of the net dignities/debilities, of each planet.

[soratothamax]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Almost right-but in your example the Sun's specific influence would not be nothing (no planet's influence is EVER reduced to nothing!!) it would be-average: exaltation and domicile (dignities) = above average influences; detriment, Fall (debilities) = impacted, "sickly" or below average influences; neither dignified nor debilitated = average (or equally mixed + and -) influences. I suggest this is a very useful way to think about the meanings/ramifications of the net dignities/debilities, of each planet.

Perfect! Thank you that answered my question!

[soratothamax]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Yes, indeed it can be compared to a house party! The applications of Islamic rules of hospitality, and the rules of conduct at royal European courts, are very similar to the ways in which the "court of the planets" was considered to "operate" during the period from late Hellenistic times, through the Islamic transitional era and into medieval European and early Renaissance times, astrologically considered.

I agree fully with JA's brief statements regarding how Traditionalists (as I understand their teachings) consider domicile and exalted; considering the house party analogy, detriment would be a guest that nobody really cared for, that was largely "out of place" at the party; Fall would be where the guest was actually in openly hostile circumstances and surroundings at the party; peregrine (the word means "wanderer") would be where no one at the party knew the guest, where the guest had no connections with the place or with the other guests, kind of like being someone who just wandered in to the party, or crashed the party.

I would like to add that in earlier astrology the peregrine concept meant that a planet had neither + NOR - essential dignities in its place; later (around the late 12th/early 13th centuries AD) this concept changed, so that for the past 800 years peregrine means no + essential dignities, but the planet can have essential debilities and still be considered peregrine (the doctrine states "detriment does not save from peregrine"); so in my opinion the meaning of peregrine changed, from a planet simply being a wanderer with no + or - connections (no essential dignities OR debilities) to a planet with no essential + connections (no essential dignities) but which COULD have essential detriments (essential debilities)-therefore, with this concept, I can see why Traditionalists would generally consider a peregrine planet "worse off" than detrimented-there are at least connections with a detrimented planet, with this peregrine concept there are either no connections at all, or if there are any, these would be detrimented/debilitating in nature.

...however, as I have stated earlier, I do not accept (for me at least) the current (past 800 years!) peregrine concept, as valid...

So would it be that detriment is largely ignored by the sign, and fall outwardly seems to hate it? So if Venus were to enter Aries, would Aries be the one treating Venus that way or would Venus be the one treating Aries that way? I know that the planet enters the sign's home. So would the hostility come from the sign or the planet?

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by soratothamax

So would it be that detriment is largely ignored by the sign, and fall outwardly seems to hate it? So if Venus were to enter Aries, would Aries be the one treating Venus that way or would Venus be the one treating Aries that way? I know that the planet enters the sign's home. So would the hostility come from the sign or the planet?

Just an opinion/observation, but the signs don't "treat anything" from what I know. They are completely passive. It's the planets that carry the energy, and the best way to understand the detriments/fall/exaltations is to understand the ruler ship scheme, and to know why each planet is in detriment/exaltation/fall in each sign. Again, it has to do with the other planets that rule those signs, and with the qualities the signs themselves convey. But the signs? They are neutral.

[dr. farr]

Here I unfortunately disagree with my good friend TSMALL (sorry)

I am convinced from my studies and experiences, that regarding dignities and debilities it is in fact the quality/energies of THE SIGNS which is operative: remember that for centuries, the planets were referred to NOT as "rulers" of the signs, but as BEING IN domicile (homes) in the signs; the term "rulership" really did not come into play until early Islamic-transitional times; further, planets do not make a sign "detrimented" or "in Fall", rather it is the PLACEMENT of a planet IN A SIGN, which MAKES that planet dignified or detrimented or in its "Fall"...I think this "activity" of the signs is further demonstrated by the degrees which make them up: a planet in a pitted degree or Azimene degree or elevated degree OF A SIGN is (allegedly) acted upon in its expression of influence/effect BY THAT DEGREE: if signs were passive matrices only, how then could the DEGREES which compose those sign, possibly have any such influences? Of course, later Traditionalist and Modernist astrology dispenses with these (alleged) degree influences (as well as other degree affinitive influences such as Bright, dark and mixed degrees), and in fact has adopted the "signs-as-passive-matrices" doctrine: however, understanding the concept of the pleroma of space, 0 point energy, and other related ideas about the nature of space (the signs, at least the tropical signs, are nothing more than space), as well as my understanding of oldtime (and perhaps long outdated) doctrines regarding signs, to me, they are VERY active components and, for me-as for many of the ancients-in fact the SIGNS rule and modulate the planets (see, for example, the 11th century treatise entitled "The Mystic Astrology of Ibn Arabi", for an interesting albeit metaphysical development of this "space as active influence" concept, as applied to astrological analysis)...

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Here I unfortunately disagree with my good friend TSMALL (sorry)

I am convinced from my studies and experiences, that regarding dignities and debilities it is in fact the quality/energies of THE SIGNS which is operative: remember that for centuries, the planets were referred to NOT as "rulers" of the signs, but as BEING IN domicile (homes) in the signs; the term "rulership" really did not come into play until early Islamic-transitional times; further, planets do not make a sign "detrimented" or "in Fall", rather it is the PLACEMENT of a planet IN A SIGN, which MAKES that planet dignified or detrimented or in its "Fall"...I think this "activity" of the signs is further demonstrated by the degrees which make them up: a planet in a pitted degree or Azimene degree or elevated degree OF A SIGN is (allegedly) acted upon in its expression of influence/effect BY THAT DEGREE: if signs were passive matrices only, how then could the DEGREES which compose those sign, possibly have any such influences? Of course, later Traditionalist and Modernist astrology dispenses with these (alleged) degree influences (as well as other degree affinitive influences such as Bright, dark and mixed degrees), and in fact has adopted the "signs-as-passive-matrices" doctrine: however, understanding the concept of the pleroma of space, 0 point energy, and other related ideas about the nature of space (the signs, at least the tropical signs, are nothing more than space), as well as my understanding of oldtime (and perhaps long outdated) doctrines regarding signs, to me, they are VERY active components and, for me-as for many of the ancients-in fact the SIGNS rule and modulate the planets (see, for example, the 11th century treatise entitled "The Mystic Astrology of Ibn Arabi", for an interesting albeit metaphysical development of this "space as active influence" concept, as applied to astrological analysis)...

That's nice of you, dr. farr, but don't be sad. tsmall never learned anything from anyone who agreed with her. I have been tossing this idea around all day, and I am hoping you can help a little further? I didn't know that it was a more "modern" traditionalist idea that the signs are neutral...I was only thinking about the idea that the signs are what they are, ie divisions on the ecliptic, which are better for some planets then they are for others, admittedly, but the very fact that they do help some planets perform well, while being the downfall (to use a term that encompases all detriments...fall, exile, and peregrine, if we look at that) of others seems to indicate that the signs are themselves just an atmosphere, neither good nor bad, just...existing. The nature of that atmosphere is better for some planets than others? I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept that they play an active role in the influences they confer...and I'm still in love with the monomoiria, and most especially the dwads. That each sign bears within it the other twelve brings a connectiveness to all the signs that I find highly poignant and extremely usefull...but that the signs are active and not passive? I'm not feeling it. Any references? Or thoughts?

[dr. farr]

Well, certainly our earliest (remaining) Western source, Manilius ("Astronomica") supports the "active signs" outlook; then much later, taking a look at al-Biruni, and even moreso, Ibn Ezra ("Beginning of Wisdom") with extensive time spent in that book on the signs, might also encourage this outlook; then there is the Ibn Arabi philosophical book regarding astrological metaphysics, which I mentioned in my previous post.

But even with pioneer Modernists, Robson, Carter, Manly P. Hall, we find an outlook leaning toward a more active role for the signs: Carter's book, "The Zodiac and the Soul", and his zodiacal sign section in his "Essays on the Foundations of Astrology", influenced me (early on) toward my "active sign" outlook, and I would also suggest a look at those books, in your own quest as you develop your own insights and outlooks, regarding this question.

[gen6k]

Venus in scorpio is detriment by some. Venus in aries is more im not sure.

supposively venus in scorpio is all consuming, all criticism.
venus in aries is kinda picky, prickly, whimy, ready

yay or nay?

i have venus at gemini 5, i would say that im not ready for love. its kinda a little bit physical mostly virtual.

venus in late aries how about that or even early aries... venus in deep aries, no.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

I would like to add that in earlier astrology the peregrine concept meant that a planet had neither + NOR - essential dignities in its place; later (around the late 12th/early 13th centuries AD) this concept changed, so that for the past 800 years peregrine means no + essential dignities, but the planet can have essential debilities and still be considered peregrine (the doctrine states "detriment does not save from peregrine"); so in my opinion the meaning of peregrine changed, from a planet simply being a wanderer with no + or - connections (no essential dignities OR debilities) to a planet with no essential + connections (no essential dignities) but which COULD have essential detriments (essential debilities)-therefore, with this concept, I can see why Traditionalists would generally consider a peregrine planet "worse off" than detrimented-there are at least connections with a detrimented planet, with this peregrine concept there are either no connections at all, or if there are any, these would be detrimented/debilitating in nature.

Thank you, Dr. Farr! I had been scratching my head over why different writers appeared to have divergent views about what is "peregrine," without being able to place the point of departure in an historical context. It always seemed to me that if a planet is truly "wandering," it isn't being "steered" in any way, either positively or negatively. While this implies a sense of isolation and lack of integration, it would also seem to impart a degree of freedom, a kind of "maverick" status. Depending on the planet involved, and on other indications in the chart, I can see this being an advantage in certain situations while also being aware that it has its "dark" side (speaking as one with a peregrine 10th house Mars).

[byjove]

Even if in detriment, I'm convinced that oppositions and squares have very practical use - you have awareness. Awareness permits understanding, understanding gives the chance of change...(I've Virgo Moon opposite Venus in Pisces).

I like spotting those elements of the art we're using which have divergent definitions like peregrine...if I don't find good historical base, it's in line for elimination in my book...how peregrination is arrived at if at all might be hard to say, but running with the idea that there is an orchestra, and someone at the back is doing their song with their own instrument can ruin the beauty of the concert...as long as a planet is 'seen' by the ASC, add the chance of making positive use of squares/oppositions, the benefits that can be found in Joy doctrine...maybe it is hard to find a maverick/wanderer.

p.s. I was thinking maybe the detriment student is like an art student who is obliged to take a chemistry class. They are not that way inclined but are in that class nonetheless (planets have to pass through detriment, they can't just and skip of course...)

[soratothamax]

Another question: Say you have a domicile in Libra, and jupiter in Libra, would that mean that the Venus in Libra is "dominating" that Jupiter in Libra, bringing the Venus strongly to another area of life?

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Well, certainly our earliest (remaining) Western source, Manilius ("Astronomica") supports the "active signs" outlook; then much later, taking a look at al-Biruni, and even moreso, Ibn Ezra ("Beginning of Wisdom") with extensive time spent in that book on the signs, might also encourage this outlook; then there is the Ibn Arabi philosophical book regarding astrological metaphysics, which I mentioned in my previous post.

But even with pioneer Modernists, Robson, Carter, Manly P. Hall, we find an outlook leaning toward a more active role for the signs: Carter's book, "The Zodiac and the Soul", and his zodiacal sign section in his "Essays on the Foundations of Astrology", influenced me (early on) toward my "active sign" outlook, and I would also suggest a look at those books, in your own quest as you develop your own insights and outlooks, regarding this question.

Weeeelll, I have a ton of reading to do already, with the Mathesis, and Valens, and the Dykes translation of Abu Ma'shar & al-Quabisi...but thank you, as ever, for the references. And thank you again, for the one year (today) of helpful learning.

Now, for those of us in the cheap seats (or those who need to order, pay for, and digest) is there an analogy you might give to show how the signs are active? An example?

[dr. farr]

Here's one example, maybe: the rising sign in a given natal, contains no planets: yet the individual's personality closely matches the qualities of that sign, and even the stature and physical appearance of that person, closely matches the appearance/stature reputed as affinitive to that sign. If the signs are passive, only activated by planets, then how could this rising sign have made such an imprint upon this person? The character, personality tendencies, physical appearance, of a sign is not necessarily identical to those of the planetary dispositor (ruler) of that sign (although often there are similarities), so, in our example above, if the sign is passive, and the planetary ruler of that sign does not closely resemble the personality, stature and appearance of that native, then how could such an imprint upon that person, be otherwise accounted for?

Here's another, perhaps: in all the textbooks, the meaning of a sign in a house is always delineated: yes, we know that with an empty house, we look at the placement of the planetary lord of the sign on that house, for indications: but we don't JUST (ONLY) do this, all the books (older ones at least) teach that we ALSO determine the influences of the SIGN of that empty house, upon the affinities and areas of life, connected with that house: if signs were passive, then how could there be such an influence? why would the meaning of the sign upon the house be given at all, if it were just a neutral/passive factor?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Here's one example, maybe: the rising sign in a given natal, contains no planets: yet the individual's personality closely matches the qualities of that sign, and even the stature and physical appearance of that person, closely matches the appearance/stature reputed as affinitive to that sign. If the signs are passive, only activated by planets, then how could this rising sign have made such an imprint upon this person? The character, personality tendencies, physical appearance, of a sign is not necessarily identical to those of the planetary dispositor (ruler) of that sign (although often there are similarities), so, in our example above, if the sign is passive, and the planetary ruler of that sign does not closely resemble the personality, stature and appearance of that native, then how could such an imprint upon that person, be otherwise accounted for?

How could such an imprint upon that person be otherwise accounted for you ask, dr. farr? IMO by the particular rising constellation of course! The rising constellation is after all composed of groups of stars and is not 'merely seasonal' as are the Tropical Signs

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Here's another, perhaps: in all the textbooks, the meaning of a sign in a house is always delineated: yes, we know that with an empty house, we look at the placement of the planetary lord of the sign on that house, for indications: but we don't JUST (ONLY) do this, all the books (older ones at least) teach that we ALSO determine the influences of the SIGN of that empty house, upon the affinities and areas of life, connected with that house: if signs were passive, then how could there be such an influence? why would the meaning of the sign upon the house be given at all, if it were just a neutral/passive factor?

Signs may well 'be neutral' - BUT the influence of a particular starry constellation on a particular house IMO accounts for the phenomenon you mention - however that is merely my opinion and I would not be surprised to find you disagreeing with me dr. farr!

[dr. farr]

Yes this is certainly an alternative explanation, but if (or when) we accept the sidereal proposition, then we are on even firmer ground, that signs (ie the starry zodiacal constellations) are active, NOT passive, astrological factors: if we reject the space-based tropical signs, and say, instead, that the zodiacal matrix is in actuality, that of starry constellations, then we can easily account for the acvtive influence of the starry-zodiacal signs, based upon the stars (and their radiations into surrounding space) which compose those zodiacal constellations (same with the Lunar Mansions/nakshatras as well): with THIS explanation we do not need to accept unusual theories regarding the nature of space-all we need to say is that the sidereal signs are active because of the radiations into their spatial-areas, of the component zodiacal stars comprising each starry sign.
So, for those who decide to follow the sidereal zodiacal matrix, we find reasons in this outlook placing upon even firmer ground, the proposition that signs are ACTIVE-not passive-astrological factors!