PDA

View Full Version : Attribution of Body Parts VS Circumstances of Birth.


Draco
02-26-2006, 01:19 PM
Hi all,

I have just been thinking, we attribute the cusp of the first house to the crown of the head, because the 1st cusp is birth and our 'coming into being', and as most of us are born by exiting the womb headfirst, then this is why the first cusp is the top of the head, right?

This leads me to think however, what about cases in which the child is born in the complicated manner of being born feet first for example, as happens occasionally, or in births by caesarian section, where the surgeon pulls the child out of the womb by the ankles, and therefore the feet come into the world first.

In such cases, might it not be more appropriate to attribute the 1st house to the feet and the 12th to the head?

Draco :wink:

Radu
02-26-2006, 01:57 PM
Hi Draco

I believe there's a confusion between the signification of signs and houses. They aren't the same and the correlations that exist between them aren't to be pushed until total identification.

The traditional way is the signs=body parts correspondance; there's even a zodiac degree - body element correspondance.

But there's no such thing as houses-body parts correlation. Houses represent the Activity, they don't describe anything physical.

Example: your hands are represented by Gemini, what you do with them - such as writing - is a 3rd house matter. Another one: your heart is represented by Leo, what you do with your heart - the love you feel - is a 5th house matter.

The same goes for all signs and houses.

So, the head is always associated with Aries and the feet are always in correspondance with Pisces.

Draco
02-26-2006, 05:21 PM
Hi Radu,

I believe there's a confusion between the signification of signs and houses. They aren't the same and the correlations that exist between them aren't to be pushed until total identification.

Yes I am aware of this, there is a confusion among some in this respect but I am not among them, I already understand the appropriate rulers and joys of the houses according to tradition. I do not at all agree with for example, the simplistic 11th = Aquarius = Uranus or 1st = Aries = Mars, 'Alphabetical Zodiac' attributions, which so many modern astrologers are fond of and this is a particular bugbear of mine as it is based upon a failure to acknowledge the basics.

(I do not even accept Uranus as ruler of anything).

I am aware, for example, that the ruler of the the 11th is the Sun and that it is the joy of Jupiter, and that the 11th has no particular correlation with Aquarius other than that it comes 11th in the sequence. However, I do feel that the only similarites that can be drawn between the signs and the houses is the correlation of body parts, yet in two very different ways: the signs on an macrocosmic, symbolic and worldly level, and the houses on a microcosmic, physical and personal level. I will come to explain this.

The traditional way is the signs=body parts correspondance

But there's no such thing as houses-body parts correlation. Houses represent the Activity, they don't describe anything physical.

I would see this as the other way round. The houses must represent something physical, as the Ascendant is determined from the moment of birth which is a physical event, and as the top of the head emerges into the world first at birth, then the Ascendant must represent this as well. This is from whence the correlation originates.

Regardless of the point of view, whether it is houses or signs correlating to body parts, surely the concept of relating Aries or the 1st house to the head arises in the first place from the observation that we emerge into the world head-first. This is what causes me to wonder whether for those born feet first, should the correspondence be reversed?

According to Frawley, the only correlation that we can in fact draw between houses and signs is the parts of the body. I would yet find this a little confusing without further explanation:

The way I would see it is that the signs are macrocosmic and outside the personal, the houses are microcosmic and ultimately very personal in that they are determined by the moment of our incarnation as a breathing, individual entity. Therefore Aries represents the symbolic head of the macrocosmic being, it is the head of the world around us, the head of the year, the Godhead, the will of God. The 1st is the head of the microcosmic being, the part of ourselves which first enters the world. The 1st house is different for all of us because we all have different minds and faces. We all have the same set of signs in our charts as we all share the same world around us, we are all dwellers within the same macrocosm, all part of the body of God, yet the houses of our charts all fall in differing places in relation to that encompassing world, making us the myriad microcosmic individuals we are.

It might even be said that the signs are the subtle, or ethereal body, which ultimately, is the same for each of us, the houses are the gross physical body.

It is the houses that are within the signs, not the signs that are within the houses. Just as matter emerges from the spiritual, the spirit is not somehow encased within matter.

Aries is always Aries, wherever it is in a person's chart, the Godhead is always the Godhead, because it is macrocosmic and outside of us, however we might relate to it, it is always itself unto itself, transcendant and unchanging. The 1st cusp in any individuals chart is never the same, just as no two minds or faces are ever the same. The relation of the houses to the human body apportions each of us our own individuality.

In short, the signs are the macrocosmic body of 'God', the houses the microcosmic body of the particular individual, if you see what I mean. This is the only correlation that can be drawn between the signs and houses.

I don't expect you to agree, just to understand my point of view, which is based upon a logical concept.

Example: your hands are represented by Gemini, what you do with them - such as writing - is a 3rd house matter.

I would see it that Gemini represents the macrocosmic, impersonal hands of the world; the hand of God if you will; signs, signals and symbols. The third house is my own personal, physical hands, as well as what I do with them, such a writing or sculpting, because I would be unlikely to be able to do these things without my physical hands. Such a view between signs and houses would explain why it is that God is said to have made man in his own image.

I'm just trying to put across my viewpoint, and explain that I am aware of and do not presume an 'Alphabetical Zodiac'. My attribution of the houses to the personal physical body is based upon a quite reasonable observation.

Draco :wink:

Radu
02-26-2006, 06:41 PM
I would see this as the other way round. The houses must represent something physical, as the Ascendant is determined from the moment of birth which is a physical event, and as the top of the head emerges into the world first at birth, then the Ascendant must represent this as well. This is from whence the correlation originates.

Regardless of the point of view, whether it is houses or signs correlating to body parts, surely the concept of relating Aries or the 1st house to the head arises in the first place from the observation that we emerge into the world head-first. This is what causes me to wonder whether for those born feet first, should the correspondence be reversed?

Ok, since this is the starting point of your theory, I'll start commenting with this paragraph.

First, I'll remind you that the natal chart is set for the moment when the newly born inhales for the first time. Whichever it is, it's posterior to the baby's exit out of mother's womb. So, it really doesn't matter at all if the baby comes out head first or feet first, not to mention the third possibility - the C section :)
The baby must be entirely outside mother's body in order to be considered born and to own a natal chart.

The Ascendant of the natal chart is correlated with the first action performed by the newly born on his own - that is the first breath. A baby that doesn't breath isn't born alive so doesn't have a horoscope, no matter which part of his body came out first.

So, no house to body correlation, no reversed correlations. These are the basic bricks of astrology. They are not subject to astrologer's personal interpretation. Any other technique may be approached differently, but not the basic meanings of planets, signs and houses.

Most babies birth head first is associated with Aries and not with the first house.

A head wound will bleed more abundantly when the Moon is in Aries and not when the Moon is in the 1st house and so on.

The way I would see it is that the signs are macrocosmic and outside the personal, the houses are microcosmic and ultimately very personal in that they are determined by the moment of our incarnation as a breathing, individual entity.

This is a good idea. But the houses don't represent on the microcosmic level the same concept as the signs on the macrocosmic level. They are totally different concepts.

In astrology, due to the law of analogy, the SAME astrological element describes a similar phenomena on different levels: the Sun represents the Spirit on the macrocosmical level as well as the basic personality on the microcosmical level.
The same with zodiacal signs: Aries represents on the macrocosmical level a spiritual/psychological concept and on the microcosmical level a body part (the head).

I hope it's all clear now.

tararoseastrologer
03-16-2012, 10:08 AM
Interesting idea, I ultimately agree with Radu though, but it's fun to play around with theories.

dr. farr
03-17-2012, 04:52 AM
I accept that houses can have reference (affinities) to anatomical areas (this is a very ancient idea found in early Islamic era astrology, as well as in Vedic astrology); however, the primary analogies are by sign affinities an planet affinities; houses can be used to show reflex ramifications or subtle connections (as we find in acupuncture) between apparently unconnected areas/parts of the body.