Possible pre-Ptolemaic reasons for the Sign rulerships in Modern astrology

wilsontc

Well-known member
Re: Why do the Moon and Sun Rule One Sign in Ancient Astrology?

It's about the possible pre-Ptolemaic reasons for the Sign rulerships now fully accepted in Modernistic astrology, including using input from Heliocentrism, which was definitely known in ancient times.

[Renamed the Thread based on this thread description, since the reason it was in Modern astrology was confusing - Moderator]
 
Last edited:

Bunraku

Well-known member
Re: Why do the Moon and Sun Rule One Sign in Ancient Astrology?

Still haven't seen a convincing use of the joys in a chart reading other than musing or adding dramatic flair to make the text look palatable.

With its natural placement in a wheel and its apparent symmetries and groupings it seems like it's more of a pedagogical tool.
 

david starling

Well-known member
C.t. asked me to explain the 12/12 patterns, so it wouldn't look haphazard and arbitrary, or strictly intuitive.

For now, I will stop just prior to the Modernistic 10/12 pattern which went beyond Saturn. Again, I used a numbering sequence, relying on the Hipparchian concept of Aries as Sign #1 and on to Pisces as #12, in Direct-motion.

First, using the fact that the Moon and Sun are unidirectional, they rule only one Sign each, and the planets being bidirectional, rule 2 Signs each.

Then, using the concept of the Heliocentric model, proposed by Aristarchus and known to the astrologers of the Alexandrian scientific community through the tutelage of Hipparchus, I used its most obvious feature, the fixed, fiery Sun, to designate the #5Fixed-Fire sign as its Domicile-sign.

Then, arranging all 7 ancient rulers into their two categories and starting with the faster moving rulers in both:

Sign#4Moon-#5Sun/#6Mercury-#7Venus-#8Mars-#9Jupiter-#10Saturn, and, it comes to a standstill with 10th-sign Capricorn as Saturn's Domicile-sign, with the full sequence bounded by the two signs of Solstice, #s 4&10.

"Solstice" can be generally interpreted as reaching a limit, and stopping: We've run out of planets in the ancient sense. Then comes the word that gave tropical astrology its name: The Greek word "tropikos", turning around, and going in the opposite direction.

So, having stopped at Saturn, and starting back, Saturn gets its 2nd Domicile-sign, #11, followed by Jupiter's 2nd, Sign #12, then #1 for Mars, #2 for Venus, and finally, #3 for Mercury.

And, thus matters stood, until the discovery of a star-like planet, outside the orbit of Saturn, which could be seen without a telescope, but which had been cataloged as a faint star due to its slow movement: The "still, small voice" of the Heavens.
 
Last edited:

Osamenor

Administrator
Staff member
Re: Why do the Moon and Sun Rule One Sign in Ancient Astrology?

Still haven't seen a convincing use of the joys in a chart reading other than musing or adding dramatic flair to make the text look palatable.

With its natural placement in a wheel and its apparent symmetries and groupings it seems like it's more of a pedagogical tool.
I had an astrology teacher--a modern astrologer who, like most modern astrologers, works with some traditional techniques--teach us the planetary joys and say, there's no clear reason for them, this is just what traditional astrology says. The only explanation I know of that makes any sense at all is that the diurnal planets joy in the above the horizon houses while their nocturnal counterparts joy in the opposite houses below the horizon, while Mercury, being some of both and the interface (communicator) between self and the world, gets the first house.

Well does it work or not? Test out on horary and see if the Moon is actually VoC or not with a quintile :devil:
Even modern astrologers don't use non-ptolemaic aspects for the purpose of determining VOC. At least, I've never run across any who did. Those aspects have other purposes, but they don't seem to work for that one.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
@Osa

Re: what your modern astro teachers says, now would be a good time to post this link about the possible reasoning behind the joy system here

David, a couple years back I had the thought to combine Kiril Stoychev's alternative exaltation system with the planetary friends and enemies chart (a western traditional discussion of the table can be found in Joy Usher's book "A Tiny Universe: Astrology and the Thema Mundi Chart) in order to determine hidden affinities and aversions among the outers and the traditional seven planets.

I haven't done much further research along those lines since I'm focused on other things, but I figured I'd share the idea so that someone interested to travel down the rabbit hole. The intricacies of your particular system is instructive on what's possible.
 

david starling

Well-known member
@Osa

Re: what your modern astro teachers says, now would be a good time to post this link about the possible reasoning behind the joy system here

David, a couple years back I had the thought to combine Kiril Stoychev's alternative exaltation system with the planetary friends and enemies chart (a western traditional discussion of the table can be found in Joy Usher's book "A Tiny Universe: Astrology and the Thema Mundi Chart) in order to determine hidden affinities and aversions among the outers and the traditional seven planets.

I haven't done much further research along those lines since I'm focused on other things, but I figured I'd share the idea so that someone interested to travel down the rabbit hole. The intricacies of your particular system is instructive on what's possible.


I think your designating it as intricate may be because I included Sign numbers.

If I remove those, we have only four obvious, and uncomplicated factors.

1) The Moon and Sun move in only one Geocentric direction, and rule only one Sign each.

Whereas, the 5 original astrological planets move in two Geocentric directions, and rule two Signs each.

2) The sequence based on rate of motion, from fastest to slowest, has the Moon at one end, and Saturn at the other. And since the Moon is closest to the Earth, it's at the beginning of the sequence.

Moon-Sun-Mercury-Venus-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn

3)The most obvious feature of the Heliocentric system is that the fiery Sun is fixed in the center. And, using that to shed light on the Geocentric astrological rulerships, simply apply that feature to the description of Leo as the "fixed-fire" Sign. Then we have, using the rate-of-motion sequence in direct order:

Moon:cancer:--Sun:leo:--Mercury:virgo:--Venus:libra:--Mars:scorpio:--Jupiter:sagittarius:--Saturn:capricorn:

4) Then, apply the retrograde order, and the idea that the planets moving in 2 ways implies rulership of 2 Signs, and we stop at Saturn, by adding :aquarius: to Saturn's rulership domain; and, on back around the Zodiac, adding :pisces:to Jupiter's, :aries: to Mars, :taurus: to Venus, and :gemini: to Mercury.

I think it's fairly elegant and uncomplicated.
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
The reason I used the word intricate is because of the resulting dignities that your system uses -- 5 for each sign. Not based on a subjective ordering of planet to signs based on affinity, but on a cipher where the planetary rulerships are placed. It's why it doesn't jar me when you say that you just follow what affinities show up in the pattern.

Do you see intricate as a criticism?
 

david starling

Well-known member
The reason I used the word intricate is because of the resulting dignities that your system uses -- 5 for each sign. Not based on a subjective ordering of planet to signs based on affinity, but on a cipher where the planetary rulerships are placed. It's why it doesn't jar me when you say that you just follow what affinities show up in the pattern.

Do you see intricate as a criticism?

More like, not what I was going for regarding the original Domicile assignments.. I was trying for easy and uncomplicated when it came to the ancient sequence.

12/12 does get intricate, especially because of the application of a "coefficient of change in position" to determine the Domicile-rulerships of the Fixed and Mutable Signs.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Let's see if I can explain the basis for the categories of rulerships.

In Direct-motion, from one Sign to the next, take the modality of the Sign in transition, and the Element of the Sign into which follows.

Picking an easy one, with standard Modernistic Domicile-rulers, and with Domicile-rulerships as THE key to the entire arrangement (in all cases):

Scorpio to Sagittarius:
Start with Scorpio's Modality, Fixed.
Then the Element of Sagittarius, Fire.
That gives Leo as the "Facilitator" of Scorpio's transformation into Sagittarius.

Then, Scorpio's Element, Water, is paired with the Modality of Sagittarius, Mutable.
That gives Pisces as the "Catalyst" for the transformation.

The Domicile-ruler of the Facilitator is the Sun in this case, which I've labeled the "Regulator" of the process of transition.
The Domicile-ruler of the Catalyst is the "Motivator" of the process in this one case, Neptune.

The Motivator Neptune is "In Service" to both the Facilitator, in this case, Leo; and, to the Regulator, the Sun. And, Pisces, the Catalyst, is the "Devotional" Sign to the Sun.
This is why the Sun is "Exalted" in Pisces.

The Regulator functions as the most important non-Domiciled ruler of the Sign in transition.
For Scorpio, that's the Sun, making Scorpio the "fiery" Water-sign.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Well, I tried, but it still looks difficult to follow.

Anyway, for those who think 12/12 leads to crazy results, I just want them to know that there IS "a method to the madness".

And, it ends up with a Modernistic equivalent to the Traditionalistic table of Dignities and Debilities. Although it's much more about the Dignities.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
One problem with the explanation is that it's filled with jargon, and also unspoken axioms (like your system is predicated on the modern-only rulership system which has it that Pluto/Scorpio, Uranus/Aquarius and Neptune/Pisces)

Those explanations might be in order,but then now this would become much more involved than we were expecting.
 

david starling

Well-known member
One problem with the explanation is that it's filled with jargon, and also unspoken axioms (like your system is predicated on the modern-only rulership system which has it that Pluto/Scorpio, Uranus/Aquarius and Neptune/Pisces)

Those explanations might be in order,but then now this would become much more involved than we were expecting.


One-on-one Domicle-rulership was the intent.

Instead of stopping at 10/12, which destroys the Table of Dignities without replacing it.

12/12 is definitely intended as a Modernistic advancement.

Trad is a restoration of how it was done in the past, and I'm not cancelling it, I just prefer Mod, which has room for innovation, and looks to the future.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Isn't Trad filled with jargon? :unsure:

I'm using ancient jargon myself, in 12/12.

12/12 has patterns that delineate the Domicile-rulers. Nothing haphazard about them. In fact, in retrospect, I was pleased to see how many of the 12/12 Domicile-rulers matched up in the case of both Trad and Mod.

I set up what I consider reasonable patterns, and let the chips fall where the might. Not all that many surprises, actually.
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Not necessarily a criticism, just that terms like regulator, catalytic ability, sense of purpose, facilitator etc, are new jargon and would need to be addressed so that the explanation would be more understandable to someone who has just encountered it.

Traditional has the benefit of being thousands of years old, and still new people find it necessary to create threads to clarify unfamiliar terms and to see demonstrations of principles in charts.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Not necessarily a criticism, just that terms like regulator, catalytic ability, sense of purpose, facilitator etc, are new jargon and would need to be addressed so that the explanation would be more understandable to someone who has just encountered it.

Traditional has the benefit of being thousands of years old, and still new people find it necessary to create threads to clarify unfamiliar terms and to see demonstrations of principles in charts.

I KNOW! Doing this alone leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Top