Why are Essential Dignities so inconsistent in their placements?

I am wondering. You'd think signs that are exalted would be signs that share a lot in common with the planet and fall would be signs that don't.

Venus in Pisces matches that expectations as it has a lot in common with Venus from artistry to romanticness.

However other placements are contradictory.

For example Capricorn is exalted in Mars. But what does Capricorn have in common with the Martian nature? The Martian nature is aggressive and fiery, something Capricorn is not.Furthermore the hobbies associated with Mars such as sports and militarism is not Capricorns cup of tea.

Another example is Scorpio being in its fall in the moon. Isn't Scorpio emotional and watery? Shouldn't the moon be a good placement?

Yet Aries is exalted in the Sun and this perfectly match the Aries nature (particularly the Sun's extroverted somewhat lax and childish nature).

It also makes total sense Capricorn is in its fall in Jupiter as Capricorn is too pessimistic and cynical for the Jupiterian nature.

Why are essential dignities so inconsistent with their associations in placements? What is exactly the reason why the Sun is in its exaltation in Aries but Mars is in its exaltation in Capricorn, not with Leo or Sagittarius like one expects? Why does Scorpio fall in the emotional moon while Cancer is exhausted in the vibrant spirited Jupiter?

The exaltations are really ancient. There is some debate as to whether they were originally Mesopotamian or Egyptian, and in just which millenium BCE they first were used. Their original meaning was the parts of constellations or asterisms where particular planets were believed to be particularly strong or effective.

Over time, the exalted planets came to be associated with the entire 30-degree sign named for the constellation in which these effective places were located. Then domiciles (sign rulerships) came a bit later, and were in force during the period of Hellenistic astrology.

I think part of the seeming mismatch, too, has to do with some modern astrology losing touch with how the signs are categorized. We usually see the signs written up as an odd collection of static character traits according to individuals' sun-signs. But initially the signs were understood in terms of whether good or bad things happened to king or country when a particular planet was in them (Mesopotamian mundane astrology,) or according to the precepts of ancient Greek science.

Once astrology historically became more concerned with natal astrology, exaltations were seen as conditions in which particular planets could be especially effective. Mars didn't have to match up with the stereotypical Capricorn personality of today. It just had to work well when it was located in this particular sign.

Possibly the thinking, too, was that Mars and Saturn were both considered malefic in traditional astrology; so it made sense for Mars to be exalted in Saturn-ruled Capricorn. Venus and Jupiter were benefic, so it made sense for Venus to be exalted in Jupiter-ruled Pisces.

I don't know if you meant this or it was a slip-up, but signs are not exalted in planets. Planets are exalted in particular signs. Mars is exalted in Capricorn, not the other way around.

Moon is in fall in Scorpio, not the other way round.
Mars is exalted in Capricorn. Signs are signs; they receive no exaltation, fall, detriment or dignity. Planets do. Capricorn is not exalted in Mars.

What if the aggression, impetuosity, individuality and so on typical of Mars is ameliorated and disciplined by the qualities of Capricorn so that, when otherwise well-conditioned, his moderated action works for "good", or at the least strengthens and empowers him as a force within the personality?

Jupiter is exalted in Cancer...not "exhausted." And Cancer is neither exalted nor exhausted "in" Jupiter. It is the planet that is exalted in the sign.

Exalt means to "raise in rank, power, quality," etc. Exaltation stimulates and intensifies. It elevates or "places on high." "Exaltation" can mean "elation, sometimes abnormal or morbid."

Exaltation is not always "good", although usually so. Assume Jupiter in Cancer (exalted) but opposing Moon (his lord because Moon is the Mistress of Cancer). First, he stands iin opposition to his sign-lord, and secondly the sign-lord is herself in detriment...Capricorn is a very difficult position for Moon -- she is in exile, as far from her own land (sign) as can be. And this without consideration of the condition of Saturn, who disposes Moon... or the general tone of the chart as a whole, other aspects to Jupiter, his own rulerships and house position, etc.

The Moon, in such a case, "determines" or "disposes" Jupiter according to her own difficult position, to which are added the negative implications of the opposition aspect itself. Therefore, although Jupiter is empowered by exaltation, the "power for good" is diminished and impedited by the conflicting tendencies of himself and his lord.

To say that a planet is exalted in a certain sign is akin to saying that an old salt is exalted on a boat at sea. But such a simplistic statement doesn't take into account the weather conditions, the condition of the boat itself, whether or not it carries dangerous or illicit cargo and a host of other conditions that will affect the old salt's "exaltation." Does the owner of the boat (the lord of the sign) support the old salt or impede him?

In some cases it helps to think about the planet that rules the sign.

& as dignities only concern traditional rulers, only those planets.

A lot of the planets that are exalted are trine or sextile their home sign, so share a mode of being with that sign.

Traditionally jupiter rules pisces (as well as sagittarius) so in cancer he is trine his home sign.

Mars in Capricorn is harder to figure out, but perhaps it was observed that mars performed well (for the purposes of building great empires) when it was structured by the saturnian influence of capricorn.

Saturn in libra is even more perplexing, but relationships do well with structure, so I have seen it written that this is why saturn is well received by libra - they recognise his benefits and good qualities.

Perhaps it was just that after the others had been assigned there were no more spaces left, so mars and saturn were assigned to fellow cardinal signs, and perhaps it had been observed that mars and saturn performed well with the energising push of a square.

The planets in detriment are opposite their home sign.

A lot of the planets in fall are square their home sign or the sign of their exaltation.

But why venus is in fall in virgo is hard for me to understand, because taurus and virgo are trine. Perhaps it is her rulership of libra that is considered, rather than her rulership of taurus, or because she is exalted in pisces.

Moon in fall in scorpio is also harder to figure out, perhaps it is because scorpio is traditionally ruled by mars and mars and the moon don't combine so easily. But really I'm just guessing.

Anyway, thinking about it is helpful.

Graybeard, I like your metaphor of the old experienced sailor.

Darth MI: If we start with the proposition that exaltations were the oldest essential dignity based on historical evidence, then the domiciles had to fit into this system, as junoisuppose indicates. Exaltations and domiciles are all in a sextile or trine relationship except for Mercury, although this means the traditional domiciles, not the modern ones, because the system of essential dignities was invented in ancient times. So right away we have the potential for a mismatch with sign qualities, because an assignment of one planet to a sign knocks out another possible assignment of another planet.

Just for anyone else following this thread without a clear memory of what they are, here are the domiciles (rulerships) and exaltations. (Detriments and falls are their opposites, respectively.)

Sun: domiciled in Leo, exalted in Aries (trine)

Moon: domiciled in Cancer exalted in Taurus (sextile)

Mercury: domiciled in Gemini (and most would say Virgo), exalted in Virgo (some modern astrologers say exalted in Aquarius, trine)

Venus: domiciled in Libra and Taurus, exalted in Pisces (trine Taurus)

Mars: domiciled in Aries and Scorpio, exalted in Capricorn (trine Scorpio)

Jupiter: domiciled in Sagittarius and Pisces, exalted in Cancer (trine Pisces)

Saturn: domiciled in Capricorn and Aquarius, exalted in Libra (trine Aquarius)

This gets to be a bit of a jigsaw puzzle if we think of planets as being mismatched with the modern character traits of the signs, because to preserve the exaltation-domicile relationship, we can't bump out too many other planets and have the trine or sextile relationship with domiciles still obtain.

Note that some signs have no exalted planets in them.

Then domiciles as described by Ptolemy (2nd century AD) have their own sort of logic, based upon seasonal time and distance from the sun and moon: The signs in the left hand column follow the months' chronological order, the signs in the right hand column are in reverse chronological order.

sun=Leo..........moon=Cancer
Mercury = .......Virgo........Gemini
Venus=...........Libra..........Taurus
Mars=.............Scorpio......Aries
Jupiter=..........Sagittarius..Pisces
Saturn=..........Capricorn....Aquarius

I think the modern planets' rulerships work really well (Uranus=Aquarius, Neptune=Pisces, Pluto=Scorpio) but there is no agreement on exaltations for these planets. And really, the essential dignities system breaks down because there is no way to shoehorn them into the rest of the essential dignities system, with triplicities, terms, and faces.

So far as modern astrology's character traits of signs go, Capricorn is a cardinal (initiative-taking) sign. Its emblem is the mountain goat or sea-goat (half goat half fish.) We have an emblem of a mountain goat climbing to the top of the mountain (Capricornian ambition) or the creature who is fearless (Mars) both on the mountains and in the ocean.

The moon in ancient times was a primary symbol of the mature woman, motherhood, the home, and fertility of all living creatures. (Some gardeners today still plant by moon signs.) Perhaps Mars-ruled Scorpio seems unsuited to her. Also the Scorpion was a sign of death and harm in Antiquity: Mesopotamians and Egyptians lived in areas where lethal scorpion stings were common.

For Venus, we might think of the Roman love goddess, the Greek Aphrodite: mother of Cupid (Eros) and the symbol of youthful feminine beauty,sexuality, and luxury. This seems at odds with Virgo, whose namesake was the virgin. In ancient times, when most women married young, Virgo meant a very young girl indeed. By definition, a virgin would be sexually immature and therefore barren, and unitiated in Venusian pleasures.

I am not saying that the history of astrology is required for any and all interpretations, but it does go a long way in explaining the system we have today.

<p>I think its Hand in Horoscope Symbols who says that the exaltations may simply be the sign placements of the traditional planets in a chart for the opening of an ancient temple, or something like that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think that the exaltations are useful to keep in mind. The Sun can really radiate from Aries. The Moon in Taurus can fulfil its need for ongoing nourishment despite the fluctuations of life. Mercury in Aquarius is free to see all the connections between things. Venus in Pisces can experience relationship at the deepest level. Mars in Capricorn is given embodiment and yet is still able to pursue goals. Jupiter in Cancer doesn't just believe in a sustaining power - it feels truly nourished by it. And as for Saturn in Libra - boundaries are very useful and productive, as long as you can understand both sides of them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you go around the zodiac starting at Aries with a traditional planet in mind, note the quadrant of the first sign you come to which that planet rules. The planets sign of exaltation is in the previous quadrant. Or you could say the 4th quadrant from the one you're in.</p>

greybeard said:

Moon is in fall in Scorpio, not the other way round.
Mars is exalted in Capricorn. Signs are signs; they receive no exaltation, fall, detriment or dignity. Planets do. Capricorn is not exalted in Mars.

What if the aggression, impetuosity, individuality and so on typical of Mars is ameliorated and disciplined by the qualities of Capricorn so that, when otherwise well-conditioned, his moderated action works for "good", or at the least strengthens and empowers him as a force within the personality?

Jupiter is exalted in Cancer...not "exhausted." And Cancer is neither exalted nor exhausted "in" Jupiter. It is the planet that is exalted in the sign.

Exalt means to "raise in rank, power, quality," etc. Exaltation stimulates and intensifies. It elevates or "places on high." "Exaltation" can mean "elation, sometimes abnormal or morbid."

Exaltation is not always "good", although usually so. Assume Jupiter in Cancer (exalted) but opposing Moon (his lord because Moon is the Mistress of Cancer). First, he stands iin opposition to his sign-lord, and secondly the sign-lord is herself in detriment...Capricorn is a very difficult position for Moon -- she is in exile, as far from her own land (sign) as can be. And this without consideration of the condition of Saturn, who disposes Moon... or the general tone of the chart as a whole, other aspects to Jupiter, his own rulerships and house position, etc.

The Moon, in such a case, "determines" or "disposes" Jupiter according to her own difficult position, to which are added the negative implications of the opposition aspect itself. Therefore, although Jupiter is empowered by exaltation, the "power for good" is diminished and impedited by the conflicting tendencies of himself and his lord.

To say that a planet is exalted in a certain sign
is akin to saying that an old salt is exalted on a boat at sea.

But such a simplistic statement doesn't take into account the weather conditions,
the condition of the boat itself, whether or not it carries dangerous or illicit cargo and a host of other conditions that will affect the old salt's "exaltation."
Does the owner of the boat (the lord of the sign) support the old salt or impede him?

Click to expand...

Reminsicent of the 'Nautical Metaphor' as expounded by Robert Schmidt

NAUTICAL METAPHOR OF HELLENISTIC ASTROLOGY
DRAWN FROM THE ANTHOLOGY OF VETTIUS VALENS translated by Robert Schmidt of Project Hindsight


'…..Within the nautical metaphor Schmidt explains,

a picture is drawn in the texts enabling understanding of the principles of working with a chart:

Ascendant is called "the helm"

Midheaven is called "praxis" which is the force that drives the ship
(the mast that sticks up with a sail attached).

Valens says when the domicile lord of the ascendant
(helm)
falls amiss
(a place not connected to the ascendant)
then you have "ektrope" which literally means shipwreck.
We can understand that when the planet supposed to pay attention to the helm is not at his post,
then the ship may drift where you don't want it to go. …..'


QUOTE

'…...Before Valens mentions the 4 elements,
there is mention of the 4 winds
and that these are from the 4 cardinal directions
and that the planets that are of the same trigon
(same wind or element)
show the eminence of a chart.

Schmidt says that the sect light "summons the wind"

and

the trigon lords of the sect light "manage the wind".
The wind will either take you far in life
(when the trigon lords are in angles)

or

you will have no wind in your sail to get anywhere
(or somewhere in between).

Valens explicitly says if subsequent time lord periods are of opposite winds that this is malefic....'


QUOTE

'…..metaphorically,
while sailing your "ship of life",
when a wind is suddenly from the opposite direction
it threatens to topple the boat
and undermine the support (buoyancy) you have built up to that point.

A depression in the ground tends to escape wind.
Literally, a planet in "fall" may not pick up wind as easily
and
might not be a good manager of the "wind".

Places of exaltation in the Thema Mundi all have connection to the helm
(that allows management of the wind)
Antiochus writes of the Master and Lord of the nativity
(Oikodespotes and Kubernetes)
the latter means "governor" or steersman
i.e. captain (of the ship).....'



CURTIS MANWARING BRIEF ARTICLE WHICH INCLUDES THE ABOVE QUOTES http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/hellenistic-sect.html

Why could some planets be both in its domicile and exaltation as wel as detriment and fall in the same sign?

Mercury is both domicile and exalted in Virgo while Mercury in Pisces is both in its detriment and fall.

This confuses modern astrologers so much there have been attempts to place Mercury as exalted in Aquarius instead and its Fall in Leo.

So exalted signs are sextile or trine to the secondary rulers and fall are squaring or opposing to the secondary rulers?

It still doesn't explain why moon is in its fall in Scorpio (since water signs are emotional).

Darth MI said:

Why could some planets be both in its domicile and exaltation as wel as detriment and fall in the same sign?

Mercury is both domicile and exalted in Virgo while Mercury in Pisces is both in its detriment and fall.

This confuses modern astrologers so much there have been attempts to place Mercury as exalted in Aquarius instead and its Fall in Leo.

So exalted signs are sextile or trine to the secondary rulers and fall are squaring or opposing to the secondary rulers?

It still doesn't explain why moon is in its fall in Scorpio (since water signs are emotional).

Click to expand...

Mercury gets its domicile in Virgo because Virgo is the sign next to Leo which is also the reason Mercury rules Gemini. Mercury gets its exaltation in Virgo because Mercury was said by some authors to be dry in nature, thus placing it in Virgo a cold and dry sign. It's not some planets that do this, only Mercury has this going on for it.

Giving Mercury exaltation in Aquarius is interesting, but I don't think it fits the exaltation scheme as it was originally created.

Also the Moon is in Fall in Scorpio, true, but that's because Scorpio is opposite to the sign of its exaltation Taurus. You keep saying that this makes no sense because the Water signs are emotional. They're emotional in different ways. Scorpio is watery and fluid, but in a much more fixed and turbulent manner. It boils, it simmers, and at times it burns thanks to being ruled by Mars. The Moon is a naturally watery planet, and in Scorpio is becomes more fixed and uncomfortable as opposed to the moderated calm of Taurus.

Darth MI said:

Why could some planets be both in its domicile and exaltation
as well as detriment and fall in the same sign?

Mercury is both domicile and exalted in Virgo
while Mercury in Pisces is both in its detriment and fall.

Click to expand...

The androgynous planet Mercury
governs those signs
- Gemini and Virgo -
that adjoin the home of the masculine Sun
and
that of the feminine Moon,
in keeping with its asexual nature.

Ptolemy pointed out that Mercury is never further from the Sun than one sign
in either direction
so
it is appropriate that the cusps of its signs
preserve this relationship with the cusp of the sign of the Sun http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

Darth MI said:

This confuses modern astrologers so much

Click to expand...

Mercury's changeable and androgynous nature clearly then confuses some astrologers
so
FREE study aid THE PHILOSOPHY OF SIGN RULERSHIP http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

Darth MI said:

...there have been attempts to place Mercury as exalted in Aquarius instead and its Fall in Leo.

So exalted signs are sextile or trine to the secondary rulers and fall are squaring or opposing to the secondary rulers?

It still doesn't explain why moon is in its fall in Scorpio
(since water signs are emotional).

Click to expand...

Scorpio is the traditional home territory of Mars the well known destructive inharmonious brawler/fighter

Scorpio OPPOSES the Moon's Exaltation, Taurus
Taurus is the home territory of Venus the well known benefic fertility goddess

Darth MI said:

Why could some planets be both in its domicile and exaltation as wel as detriment and fall in the same sign?

Mercury is both domicile and exalted in Virgo while Mercury in Pisces is both in its detriment and fall.

This confuses modern astrologers so much there have been attempts to place Mercury as exalted in Aquarius instead and its Fall in Leo.

So exalted signs are sextile or trine to the secondary rulers and fall are squaring or opposing to the secondary rulers?

It still doesn't explain why moon is in its fall in Scorpio (since water signs are emotional).

Click to expand...

If we accept Mercury's prominence in Virgo, then its detriment and fall are in the opposing sign of Pisces. These works for all of the planets. Once you know their domiciles (rulerships) and exaltations, the detriment and fall are always in the opposite signs, respectively. The moon falls in Scorpio because it is exalted in Taurus.

This has nothing to do with Scorpio as a water sign. However, we might think of Mars and Pluto-ruled Scorpio as inimicable to the moon's basic nourishing, caring character.

I don't see why modern astrologers should be confused about this. I'm one, and I'm not.

I don't know what you mean by "secondary ruler." Modern ruler? Traditional ruler?

So far as Aquarius goes, in the essential dignities scheme, the sun is domiciled in Leo so it is in its detriment in the opposite sign of Aquarius. In modern astrology Uranus is domiciled in Aquarius, so its detriment is in the opposite sign of Leo.

I'm not convinced that exaltations work for modern planets. Traditionally Mercury is exalted in Virgo, so we don't need another exaltation for it, but if we want a sign sextiled or trined with Gemini, then Aquarius works OK.

The association between Mercury and Virgo really goes back to ancient Sumer, so far as I can tell. The prototype of Mercury seems to have been a goddess called Nisaba or Nidaba who ruled arithmetic (for counting grain stores), scribes, and astrology. Her functions eventually got superseded by male gods like Hermes and Mercury. Virgo was associated with grain and agriculture in ancient times: her most prominent star, Spica, is the stalk of grain that she holds in her hand. She was also anciently depicted as a date palm, or as a woman holding a date palm frond. In an ancient city-state where farmers paid tithes to the clergy and monarch, Nisaba's counting function was critical.

The sign of Virgo rules grain stores today. Mercury rules arithmetic, writing, and is the traditional ruler of astrology.

But you have to look into astrology's history to make the connection.

Again, the origin of the exaltations is in (depending upon whom you ask) in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. These were simply portions of signs (originally not the entire sign) where a given planet was seen as extra-effective. Falls, domiciles, and detriments came later, historically, and they were shoehorned into a pre-existing exaltation scheme.

One of the earliest workings-out of this system is in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, from the second century AD. It is available in English translation, if you're interested.

Darth MI said:

Why could some planets be both in its domicile and exaltation as wel as detriment and fall in the same sign?

Mercury is both domicile and exalted in Virgo while Mercury in Pisces is both in its detriment and fall.

This confuses modern astrologers so much there have been attempts to place Mercury as exalted in Aquarius instead and its Fall in Leo.

So exalted signs are sextile or trine to the secondary rulers and fall are squaring or opposing to the secondary rulers?

It still doesn't explain why moon is in its fall in Scorpio (since water signs are emotional).

Click to expand...

THE EXALTATION SYSTEM IN BABYLONIAN ASTROLOGY
by Gavin White http://www.skyscript.co.uk/exaltations.html

DarthMI said:

It still doesn't explain why moon is in its fall in Scorpio (since water signs are emotional).

Click to expand...

For the Moon you have to take her exaltation and her relationship with the Sun into consideration.

The Moon is exalted in Taurus and the Sun is exalted in Aries. If these two planets are within those respective Signs, it means that there was recently a New Moon and the Moon's position in Taurus relates to her being visible for the first time after that New Moon has occurred. This puts her at the beginning of her waxing phase, where she is beginning to increase in power.

Keeping this in mind, if the Sun is in Aries and the Moon is in the Sign of her Fall Scorpio, then it means there was a recent Full Moon in Libra. The Moon being in Scorpio will relate to the beginning of her waning phase and shows her decrease in power.

Thus the Moon is exalted in Taurus (relating to her strengthening waxing phase) and fallen in Scorpio (relating to her weakening waning phase).

waybread said:

Exaltations and domiciles are all in a sextile or trine relationship except for Mercury,

Click to expand...

To add a bit more to this, diurnal planets (Sun, Saturn, Jupiter) Trine their exaltation Signs (Sun's domicile of Leo Trines Aries, Saturn's domicile Aquarius Trines Libra, Jupiter's domicile Pisces Trines Cancer) and nocturnal planets (Moon, Venus, Mars) sextile their exaltation Signs (Moon's domicile Cancer Sextiles Taurus, Venus's domicile Taurus sextiles Pisces, Mars's domicile Scorpio sextiles Capricorn). This explains why Mercury must find domicile and exaltation in one Sign as it is neither diurnal nor nocturnal and thus gets double dignity in Virgo as it 1) matches its nature and 2) maintains its astronomical relationship with the Sun.

Astrology in general makes a lot more sense when you drop the idea of psychological Sun Sign traits and just the let the Signs be.

There doesn't need to be a trine or a sextile between the sign of rulership and sign of exaltation of a planet. Note that with Mars and Saturn a square aspect exists instead. Since Saturn rules Capricorn and Aquarius, Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces, etc, it follows that Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo. I don't think it makes sense to say that Mercury is exalted in Virgo. The rulership of Scorpio by Mars and the rulership of Virgo by Mercury both make sense because there is a natural affinity between the sign and the ruling planet in each case. We need Mercury to realise Virgoan needs and values, and we need Mars to realise Scorpionic needs and values. But Mars clearly doesn't function in an exalted manner in Scorpio, and I would say that similarly Mercury doesn't function in an exalted manner in Virgo.

The pattern involving quadrants mentioned in my last post is the only pattern I know of which is consistent for all traditional planets (Assuming Mercury is exalted in Aquarius) and we could add to it by saying that Mars and Saturn must be exalted in a cardinal sign as well as their main sign of rulership being cardinal. With the softer planets, the sign of exaltation doesn't need to be of the same quadruplicity as the sign of rulership.

Miquar, the trine-sextile relationship between exaltations and domiciles pertains to the traditional ruler of one of its signs, not to both. Then Mercury (who else) is the wild child.

Mercury is bivalent in so many ways. It is the symbol of the hermaphrodite, both male and female. As the ruler of Gemini it concerns speech and thought. But Mercury also rules the hands, which may be where we get the association of Virgo with handicrafts.

Mercury also rules youths. One thing I've noticed with people who are strong in either Virgo or Gemini is that there is a "perpetual youth" quality about them. This can be charming, or it can be troubling in a middle age (or older) person with the "Peter Pan syndrome." (Remember the musical version of Peter Pan, and the song of Peter and the Lost Boys, "I won't grow up.") This can be the perpetual student, the senior woman dressing like a provocative teenager, or "the kid with a beard."

I have two Virgo children. My son is a designer, who is extremely good with his hands in a field that requires excellent hand-eye coordination.

I don't know that it "makes sense" to give Virgo both Mercury's exaltation and rulership, but it's been that way for a long time.

Hi Waybread. But if we take Mars as an example, once we remove the signs of domicile and detriment, the eight remaining signs are all either trine or sextile Aries or Scorpio. So I don't understand why this is a pattern.

Also, I guess I just can't accept that a planet can be in domicile and exaltation in the same sign. To me, domicile is where a planet feels at home - where it can just be itself, for better or worse. But the sign of exaltation is the way of being through which a planet can best become more than is generally expected of it, imo.

miquar said:

Also, I guess I just can't accept that a planet can be in domicile and exaltation in the same sign. To me, domicile is where a planet feels at home - where it can just be itself, for better or worse. But the sign of exaltation is the way of being through which a planet can best become more than is generally expected of it, imo.

Click to expand...

QUOTE

'…... 'The Twins' is named from two bright stars dominating the Gemini constellation.
Duality is a central feature of its symbolism
in ancient times the constellation Gemini was seen as a reminder that contradictory forces must be brought together
and recognised as mutually dependent upon each other.
The two pillars that represent the sign
signify the incongruous forces of left and right,
black and white,
ignorance and understanding,
evil and good,
death and life.
Myths attached to Gemini are characterised by the contradictory aspects of the twins
- in the Roman tale they are Pollux, born immortal, possessing great strength,
and
Castor, born mortal but exceeding in ingenuity and logic.......'




QUOTE

'….Rather than be parted by death
Castor and Pollux agree to share immortality
by living alternating lives on heaven and earth.
The mortal partner turns to intellect to compensate for the immortal vibrancy he does not possess -
yet the myth demonstrates the eternal union and mutual reliance of conscious reasoning and unconscious belief
in the refusal of the twins to be separated.
Gemini is essentially a sign of polarity which swings rapidly through realms of conscious and unconscious,
and just as rapidly swings back,
suggesting that intellectual propensity is only half of a Geminian's inner motivation...'

OVERVIEW AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF GEMINI THE TWINS http://skyscript.co.uk/gemini.html

junoisuppose said:

...
Mars in Capricorn is harder to figure out, but perhaps it was observed that mars performed well (for the purposes of building great empires) when it was structured by the saturnian influence of capricorn.
...

Click to expand...

Exaltation of a planet is based on "where its energies are best expressed".

Capricorn streamlines Mars energy the best so that one get best focused. Similar thing applies to exaltation sign of other planets.

Darth MI said:

It still doesn't explain why moon is in its fall in Scorpio (since water signs are emotional).

Click to expand...

To be emotional is not enough to represent harmoniously the moon. The energy of the moon is bounding, caring, being gentle , being feminine. Scorpio as archetype isn't that good ato those things. Actually we can say that this sign can't represent those qualities I am talking about.
Scorpio is water sign and water signs basically are about bounding, but Scorpio is martian sign so it doesn't bound the same way Pisces and Cancer does. Scorpio is obssesive and passionate so it's like there is hidden fire in it. But obssesion and passion are too extreme emotions. When something is extreme, it isn't balanced and the Moon can't feel good in a place where it is suppossed to be extreme.
The first thing which comes to my mind when talking about Scorpio archetype is not its caring nature, it's the lust for power. Scorpio has really powerful infuence over others and it's not afraid to use it. When you want to be dominant is various situations, you can't be caring. Many people with Scorpio Moon could say that their mothers were very powerful women and they were kinda scary. Moon in Scorpio leaves the impression that you live extreme, you live on the edge and people around you feel the same way. Moon is about motherhood - imagine a girl with Scorpio Moon - she sees her monter so extreme and she things her mother can abandon her in any moment - so this is really not the perfect place of the Moon to express the motnerhood.
Scorpio girls are not feminine in the traditional way - they will not obay, and they will not be the passive type of person in a relationship - perhaps they will pull the strings behind. This is not that type of behaviour which represents the Moon as achetype.

Darth : I've wondered the same about dignities and the rules thereof...and I came to my own conclusion : to use the squares. It works in every case IMO.
Sun isn't exalted in Aries, but in Taurus. They seem to be the happiest. Taurus is one square before Leo.
Moon is exalted in Aries, it brings the most vitality, Aries is one square before Cancer.

The imagery that comes to mind is, the driver and the vehicle. Sign is the driver, planet is the vehicle.
In domicile, we have the race car driver in a race car. It's ideal.
In exaltation, we have a child in a race car, it's dangerous. Exciting for the driver (exaltation), but dangerous.
In fall, we have, say, a jet pilot, or space shuttle pilot, in a race car, their expertise is greater, but ultimately boring for them(fall).
In exile, it's hard to use the metaphor, but it's generally incompatible...difficult to understand how one is supposed to function.