Response to Kai
We're getting back into this? Who says they aren't perfect? The people who want to change them to fit what they think is right? Keep in mind that these people probably don't understand why the rulerships were given in the first place, but think they were for affinity.
you attempt to blame the entirety of the scientific community's bad view of astrology on traditional rulerships. considering most scientists who have a bias against astrology probably don't even know what those are.
Kai, anyone with any passion for astrology will run into the atheistic meatheads who don't see how astrology isn't the same as a religion and are indeed biased against it for fear that the ultimate concept of it is that they don't have control of their own lives (considering how ultimately stupid and powerless every living creature is compared to the universe, a pretty arrogant way to approach life in my view since really we have very little control of any major thing in our lives). Now, don't make the mistake of getting hostile with me as if I just shoved you. I said I believe ancient astrology isn't perfect, I didn't insult you, so I hope you're capable telling the difference between a personal attack and someone disagreeing your views? Anyway, you seem to somewhat agree with this according to this quote:
Stopping this one here. There are two versions of the triplicity scheme, one that makes sense and follows the rules and one that doesn't. The one that makes sense doesn't give the Water triplicity to Mars all the time.
So some traditions work and others don't. You agree, case closed.
Curious about this statement, since I and every other horary astrologer in the world uses the Terms.
At any rate, I say they're not perfect. I believe that after assigning houses and exaltations things STILL didn't explain things enough, so they made up things like the terms and triplicities to try to rectify the issue. The Egyptians made a terms system then Ptolemy DISAGREED WITH THEM and wrote his own. I tried to find out a justification for them, but the best I could find was something on
RenaissanceAstrology.com about giving the non-luminary planets a certain amount of degrees in each sign according how much dignity they have in that particular sign? What patent nonsense.
Ok, I'd like you to explain that or give me some links to some posts where you do, because I strongly disagree. The way I see it all of the ones that do have a strong following modern and ancient have scary similar affinities. Take Saturn and Capricorn, both are melancholic, cold and dry, in humour, weather and personality. Both instill in the sign/house they should transit or the planets within it that one should be skeptical, understand and play 'by the rules' and that "if you want a job done right you can't depend on anyone else to do it for you." A Venus personality and Libra seem to work the same way: Very vivacious, extremely socially and romantically-inclined, sympathetic and just, a lover of subtle discussion and yet insensitive, narcissistic and fickle at times. Neptune and pisces both involve alcohol and drugs, extreme idealism and sensitivity, secrets and at times lost in some delusion..
Talk about irrational. I would have thought by now we would have all agreed that astrology was completely black and white.
...Is that supposed to be funny?
And because they're mistaken before they even get out of the gate. I know you're not implying that modern/psychological astrologers knew of traditional techniques and then tried them and augmented them to come up with their own techniques. If that's the case then I'm going to have to ask to check your timetables because around the time psychological astrology was really kicking off there were only three traditional books that had been translated and published, and one of those books was second edition of another that had been released. So no, it's not that they weren't afraid to think differently, but because they didn't realize there were really rules in the first place and had to play it by ear.
I'm not playing "mine is bigger than yours" with you over whose system did what. I approach astrology from a psychological perspective because of my own experiences with astrology. I'm not part of astrological gang that's at war with medieval astrology, nor will I defend people who don't check into methods of supposedly experienced people who've practiced it their own way, nor will I maintain something old just for the sake of maintaining it.
I'm not wasting my time explaining the domicile scheme again. It's probably on this forum about a billion times now and it's on the web in countless websites that don't discuss affinity.
Well, I guess that's how much you care about your claim then. Rudeness will not win you any debates with me.
So, because it's old, you don't quite get it, and it doesn't have to do with affinity it's got to go out the window? I would say it's the lack of a structural core of rules that makes the scientific minded shun astrology, not the old ways of doing it, but that's just my opinion. Astrology has gotten rather chaotic and when you hear people talking about souls and karma and whatnot when discussing astrology, it becomes a lot like religion and a lot less like science. it was back then when traditional astrology was really strong that astrology was in the university, not now when pop astrology has all but tried to take over.
The lesson to get here is "if it's not broke, don't fix it"
Oh please. You know I've studied astrology vigorously, I'm no newbie. And I certainly don't care to maintain some old standard just because some people are afraid of change. What you consider "rulership" and "dignity" is different than what I consider them to be. Yeah, I'm sure you're going to tell me I'm wrong and that your way is the only way without even considering why that makes people less likely to want to discuss things with you, but I want to hear that about as much as I want to hear that astrology is imaginary by from skeptic of equal stubbornness. As far as modern astrology being chaotic and complex, well, get used to it, that's life. There's is no perfection or perfect order anywhere, Pluto's affinity with Scorpio in spite of the pretty order of olde demonstrates
that pretty clearly. If the universe were simple we wouldn't need the shrinks that Chiron probably rules.
I've already pointed out to you have Mercury rules medications of all kinds. Mercury was the appointed ruler of medication when herbal remedies and alternative medicine was all there was. Before the days of those "processed, poisoned pills", when we gathered our medicinces from the plants that grew right beside our food plants, Mercury was all there was for medication. Your idea that somehow Mercury no longer has hold over the exact same thing that he did 500 years ago baffles me. The argument that Mercury shouldn't rule the herbal medications that astro-physician Nicholas Culpepper proscribed for his patients is absurd. Just like your apparent assertion that herbs can't kill people if they take too many of them, unlike the medicines of modern medical science. If anything, Chiron would rule the newly discovered modern medicines because they seem to have more in common.
If you're talking mythologically or because of its glyph, we already discussed this, you're thinking of Asclepius. Mercury never ruled medicine in mythology or astrology, just as a proxy through Virgo, the sixth house and that thema mundi-based assignment of the 12 houses by the 7 traditional planets.
I'm in agreement with you that Chiron neither rules Virgo, the 6th house or medicine, though for different reasons. But (
and this goes out to anyone who isn't a Virgo but has an opinion about this, esp. you, Kai and Katydid) you just don't understand. You don't understand what it's like to be a Virgo and come to the realization that the planet every non-analytical self-appointed astrologer doesn't influence you and is clearly of a stronger connection with it's other sign. I feel we have no ruler (accept maybe when Mercury turns retrograde, really the only time I find a direct impact on my life by Mercury) and I understand what it means when someone says "I'm a Virgo and I feel that *insert celestial body here* is my ruler..." Almost every other sign has some planet to call its ruler, I feel we just have Mercury because there isn't really anything else for certain yet or because we're having Mercury forced on us by ultra-traditionalists who don't have our best interests or expanding the knowledge of the nature of Virgo in their hearts
at all.
And how dare you claim you know the sign Virgo and what it's like to be under a Virgo influence better than someone who is?
I'd counter and say that Virgo isn't health obssesed, most astrologers would agree that Virgo's "mission" is about perfection. She wants the perfect work and living space which is why she's so clean, ordered, and organized. She wants to submit the perfect work which is why it's all reviewed, analyzed, and edited if needed. She wants the perfect lover, which oftentimes leads her to unrealistic expectations and turns her nitpicky. She wants the perfect body, so she tries her best to be in perfect health. This is also why people who a Virgoan influence fall into destructive habits like bulimea, anorexia, and anything else you can think of, because they strive for perfection in a society that focuses on unrealistic stereotypes.
I like this, I don't totally agree with it but I like it, good describing, you should try thinking for yourself more often. However I must point out that
Mercury doesn't rule order, even
Shining Ray's post on page 2 agrees, Mercury is a restless energy. And I don't think eating disorders are Virgo issues, I think that falls under Venus' domain considering that we usually hear about young women succumbing to them; being socially accepted and being seen as "pretty" is furthermore a Venus issue and then considering that Venus is in Fall in Virgo it would seem that such issues are diminished in Virgo. Remember also, Virgo is a sign of intelligence, common sense and prudence and one that's "used to not fitting in". I don't think Pink and Rachael Ray would ever have an eating disorder to be popular (both have Sun and Venus in Virgo).
Also,
Virgo is no more wounded than any other sign. The water signs are considered shy and secretive, Capricorn is considered chronically depressed and solitary, the air signs are thought to have commitment and attention issues...