Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

tsmall, I don't doubt for a New York minute, that you've moved beyond Avelar and Ribeiro's primer. But I needed to start with some sort of template so that Paul (assuming he's actually going to respond to my post, which looks doubtful) and I had some common place from which to start.

Indeed, you've absolutely reinforced my reason for starting somewhere-- with a recent textbook. Because getting into the primary historical literature (where we do see differences) would surely get us talking at cross-purposes, if he's coming from Author or Tradition A and I'm coming from Author B. It's no good doing apples and oranges. If you've got a better primer for common ground to recommend, fine; I don't mind starting there although I may have to purchase it in order to get on your page.

I note that A & R are from Portugal. If they got something wrong: by whose standards? Are we perhaps dealing with differences between Portuguese astrology and English-language traditional astrology? Would German or Italian-language primers construe definitions differently yet again? By what standard is one right and the other wrong. Subjectivity?

In one sense, however, I am delighted to see you take A & R to task. Because it is precisely their genre of negative definition of a planet in fall that turns off a lot of modern astrologers, myself included.

I could certainly give you my own diagnostic for assessing the meaning of, say, Mars in Libra. But it would get us a long way from this thread on dignities and debilities. As I said, I work a lot with aspects, as well as other tools that are not part of this thread topic. In both modern and traditional astrology, obviously a lot depends upon the question that is asked, as well as the rest of the horoscope.

I'll stand my ground on sun-Libra's potential for indecisiveness. They're not all that way (ahem, depending upon what else is going on in the chart,) but I have been married to one for 17 years, and I see it frequently. It isn't that a sun-Libra is weak-minded. On the contrary, this cardinal air sign can see both or multiple sides of an issue very clearly, and both or all sides may seem to have merit. This can make sun-Libras very fair-minded, yet also sensitive to injustice, where the balance of power tips too dramatically.

I fully respect your dedication to traditional astrology, while at the same time, I trust and believe that you can respect alternative methods, be they western modern, Hellenistic, horary, or Vedic. Simply because a school isn't western traditional doesn't mean that its own methods work poorly for what it sets out to do. I don't use many of the delineations that are important to you, and doubt that I ever will.

I've spent enough time looking at traditional astrology, both Hellenistic and neo-traditional, to know that it is not what I wish to do. Write dismissively of me if you wish, but it doesn't capture the essance of my practice.

By analogy, suppose you were just super at playing the clarinet. It was your instrument and you had a real affinity for it. Then the other members of the woodwind section started arguing that you should play some y promoted the bassoon or the recorder. You might even even take up one of these instruments for a short while. But soon you realize that you are a clarinet player. That's the music and instrument you love, and that's what you do.

At the same time, if you'd like to discuss harmonics, asteroids, aspects, or midpoints, please join me. The water is fine. But on a different thread.

p.s. tsmall-- this is a thread about dignity and debility in modern astrology. I would love to hear what more you have to say about it.

waybread said:

I could certainly give you my own diagnostic for assessing the meaning of, say, Mars in Libra. But it would get us a long way from this thread on dignities and debilities. As I said, I work a lot with aspects, as well as other tools that are not part of this thread topic. In both modern and traditional astrology, obviously a lot depends upon the question that is asked, as well as the rest of the horoscope.

Click to expand...

I'd be most interested in how we could found and support, without rancor, such a thread. Because I believe it would be educational.

waybread said:

I'll stand my ground on sun-Libra's potential for indecisiveness. They're not all that way (ahem, depending upon what else is going on in the chart,) but I have been married to one for 17 years, and I see it frequently. It isn't that a sun-Libra is weak-minded. On the contrary, this cardinal air sign can see both or multiple sides of an issue very clearly, and both or all sides may seem to have merit. This can make sun-Libras very fair-minded, yet also sensitive to injustice, where the balance of power tips too dramatically.

Click to expand...

Weeeelll, as someone with an awful lot of Libra in her chart, and while I may have been accused of many things in my life...indecisiveness has never been one of them....except when grocery shopping and trying to make sure I can get, on my budget, snacks that my entire family of six will agree to....or if I honestly have no care one way or the other about the outcome. Ask me to make a decision, and I'll give you one...right or wrong...in the space of moments. Which is why, though I don't wish you to reveal personal information...is your husband's Sun in Libra?? above or below the horizon? What other planets are in Libra? Where is Saturn? Where is Venus? Do you see where I'm going...

You have often said that there are both positive and negative aspects to placements...and I absolutely agree with you, and only postulate that there may be a way to figure out which will manifest easily in a chart. Remember how we said..."what's next? A melding of modern and traditional?" Yeah. That's where all that Libra in me is looking to move toward. Why do we need to make distinctions? Why, for instance, because I don't prefer to look at Pluto or Neptune, do I need to preface any post or delineation with the caveat that I study traditional methods?

waybread said:

I fully respect your dedication to traditional astrology, while at the same time, I trust and believe that you can respect alternative methods, be they western modern, Hellenistic, horary, or Vedic. Simply because a school isn't western traditional doesn't mean that its own methods work poorly for what it sets out to do. I don't use many of the delineations that are important to you, and doubt that I ever will.

Click to expand...

Merci, and I do. And I'm just going to say out loud in front of the whole forum that, while we might look at astrology from different lights (lol) you have ever been supportive and a champion for me. I also respect you and the astrology you practice...and I've learned tons from you.

waybread said:

I've spent enough time looking at traditional astrology, both Hellenistic and neo-traditional, to know that it is not what I wish to do. Write dismissively of me if you wish, but it doesn't capture the essance of my practice.

Click to expand...

Kumbaya moment over... I'm not trying to be dismissive of you at all, ever. And I'm kind of hurt that you would think so...but I'll get over it.

I hoped I had made my point clear...I do not expect, nor desire, to change your mind about the kind of astrology that works for you, and that you practice. Ever, world without end, Amen. I am simply trying to point out that there really is more to it than the sad and tired arguments, and that most often it really isn't helped when we get traditional astrologers being dismissive of modern methods...or traditional astrologers who themselves can't get past dignity and debility to understand that there is much more going on in a chart.

waybread said:

By analogy, suppose you were just super at playing the clarinet. It was your instrument and you had a real affinity for it. Then the other members of the woodwind section started arguing that you should play some y promoted the bassoon or the recorder. You might even even take up one of these instruments for a short while. But soon you realize that you are a clarinet player. That's the music and instrument you love, and that's what you do.

Click to expand...

Exactly. At the same time...well, I sing alto, and though I like to make jokes about the sopranos...at the end of the day we need someone singing melody.

waybread said:

At the same time, if you'd like to discuss harmonics, asteroids, aspects, or midpoints, please join me. The water is fine. But on a different thread.

Click to expand...

Okay...but do you realize that those are actually harder to understand and interpret than traditional astrology?

Thanks for your kind words tsmall. I have enormous respect for you, your good humour, and your amazing ability to grasp traditional astrology-- with a hugely steep and impressive learning curve. (Humming a few bars of Kumbaya.)

I may have said earlier that when I read Avelar and Rebeiro, or Ptolemy for that matter, I was intrigued by how much of it I previously knew just from studying modern astrology. But of course once we get into crooked signs, hayz, pitted degrees, and the Part of Lentils (not kidding-- it's in Al-Biruni) my brain sort of wanders.

An even more simple (simplistic) traditional textbook is Kevin Burk, Understanding the Birth Chart: A Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation, Llewellyn. To me it seems utterly modern, with a table of essentially dignities shoehorned in. He has a different take on the meaning of exaltation and domicile for planets, incidentally; which is part of why I thought it necessary to find a particular source for discussion purposes.

Burk's domiciled planet isn't the king in its realm, but a consideration of its "strength" in a given sign. It "plays the role for which it is most famous." It is "able to express [its] true nature." A planet in exaltation is like "an honoured guest". They "strive to... express their higher nature."

Don't like that one either? I thought not.

Besides my brain fog in facing the details of traditional astrology, I have more foundational differences. A lot of traditional astrology, in one way or another, deals with prediction. I am much more interested in the chart as a map of the soul's journey on the planet; or at least as a living personality struggling to make sense of life. Human beings are innately messy, hard-to-categorize creatures, and I simply find modern astrology more in keeping with personalities as I experience them today; not through the lenses of the past (although otherwise I am quite the history buff.)

So if you're a take-charge kind of Libra (and yes, one of my neighbours is one of those-- to a fault) I'd wonder where your Mars is at, and so on. In this way both modern and traditional start with some archetypes, but then modify them as one goes through the horoscope. We just go about our diagnostics differently.

I also don't know where some of the essential dignities come from. Ptolemy mentions Babylonian and Egyptian terms: why would one be preferable to another, and on what precisely are they based? The decans at one time seemed to be based upon stars and asterisms in the ancient Egyptian calendar in an abstraction of fixed star conjunctions, but given precession, why would these be meaningful today?

A lot of the sign characteristics (crooked, straight, human, &c) are based on cultural norms about constellations long ago unhinged from the signs.

I just find modern astrology more streamlined and connected to the heavens, although it is easy enough to add back in as much supplementary abstract detail as one wishes. (Intercepted signs, the vertex, Black Moon Lilith, &c.) One can see in the heavens sometimes Venus square Mars; or we can know that a waxing half-moon means moon square sun. I can't see Pluto directly but I know it's out there.

Exaltations have been around for a very long time, probably pre-dating domiciles, but do they mean the same thing today as they did under the pre-horoscopic omen astrology of Babylon?

I can kind of see house joys. Manilius describes them in a way consistent with the ancient Egyptian deities and passage of the sun through its stations.

I hope at some point our traditions (mine is now over a century old; which at one time Hellenistic astrology was, as well) will meld, but it is OK with me if they don't provided practitioners can maintain a healthy respect for one another. Both can produce good results in expert hands; and bad ones in inexperienced hands.

Chocolate or vanilla? They're both good.

And for me, I have always been more interested in prediction (ie determination of likely trends of Cosmic influences, and in which I include astro-medicine) than in character/personality analysis (although of course I DO value this as well) I found value in Modernist, (what we now refer to as) Traditionalist and Vedic concepts and methods, and I also have found elements in all of these approaches which I have rejected: hence I am an eclectic (same, by the way, in my approach to homeopathy, which is my professional field)...

I found my copy of Benjamin Dykes's book, Traditional Astrology for Today, just now, as well. I doubt that you will like it any better, tsmall. One curious note is that my 3 recent primers on traditional astrology do not clearly explain domicile or exaltation: they use metaphors, but they're different metaphors, and convey different meanings.

pp. 47-49. "It helps to imagine that each sign is like a household.... the difference between a domicile lord and an exalted lord is roughly this. Imagine a university department....The department chair is like an exalted lord ...but as we all know, the administrative secretary is the one that really runs the show.... She is like the domicile lord."

(Unless one's chair is utterly incompetent, this is not a description of how an academic department is actually managed, as the secretary may be highly competent does not make academic decisions.)

"...the exalted lord is like the owner of a restaurant, but the domicile lord is the manager who runs it and brings in the money...."

In all fairness, this section is prefaced by a description of house lords, but the conflation isn't helpful.

But here's what throws me off traditional astrology, as a sun-Aquarian.

"The core meaning of detriment is 'corruption,' which carries the basic meanings: disintegration, disunity, lack of control, discomfort, or emnity, and even moral corruption..."

I also have one planet in its fall, and here's what I'm meant to think about it:

"The basic image of a planet in fall is someone who has fallen down a well: they may shout and cry, but no one hears them. In social situations a planet in its own fall usually represents someone disrespected or of low social status."

pp. 50-51 deals with peregrine planets, namely one without essential dignities. (i e., they don't own the restaurant or manage the department.) We learn that the sun is peregrine in Aquarius, "but because he is also in detriment in Aquarius this potentially makes things worse for whatever he signifies in a chart." Bummer. We get a modern and traditional domiciled ruler, but no exalted planet, and now this.

Quite an enticement to use detriments and falls, wouldn't you say?

Interestingly, modern astrology does sometimes have comparable views of personalities, but it would look to other parts of the horoscope to express them. Dykes's description of detriment sounds like a tough square from Neptune; whereas a "fall down a well" sounds like a planet in an intercepted sign in a quadrant house system.

I just can't believe these types of descriptions. They are not consistent with my experience.

Can anyone recommend a better recent textbook on traditional astrology? I am not particularly interested in horary, and have a couple of books on it now.

I think it helps to clarify that these descriptions are for the PLANET'S "personality", not the native's. So, for example, if Jupiter is in Cancer, this means Jupiter will express it's higher nature there, not that the native expresses his higher nature. Whatever Jupiter signifies in the given chart is probably noticeably positive for the native, notwithstanding other conditions. As far as the "fell in the well" analogy, planets can signify people in the.native's life, and a fallen planet would signify someone literally fallen, depressed, or otherwise not great, etc. But this holds for the other signifcations of a planet, which could be a body part, relationship, property, etc. Traditional authors use many "personality" type metaphors because they're the easiest to understand, but that doesn't mean they're describing the native's personality, only a given planet's expression when in that condition. What that may mean for a native's personality is dependent on the rest of the chart.

Apologies, waybread, if you're aware of this. I've been trying to piece together your view of traditional astrology and I feel this may be a topic that holds some confusion. To be sure, ancient authors will say planet A in sign B will make.a native X, Y, and Z. But that's not the same as when they say planet A in dignity B will act like X, Y, and Z, even though they use similar language. I hope this helps.

waybread said:

There doesn't seem to be a way to unsubscribe, Paul. You can send me a PM or just post here about what I said that set you off, if you wish. I am not offended by your style, merely dishing back a bit of what I got.

I sometimes take a detox break, often times involving camping off-line and out of cell-phone range. But with batteries.

Take care, W.

Click to expand...

So it seems. I think with that in mind I'll just post less frequently here instead. I would ask you to treat me with on an equal playing field without recourse to sarcasm and false peity of "yes teacher" 'thank you teacher" but it would seem pointless - in any event Tim will edit you anyway so you appear much more reasonable than your posts are.

No doubt this will get removed also, but I hope not.

I think if we look to the astrologers of the beginning of the 20th century etc. then you see that they were relating back to the tradition. They didn't invent terms like "domicile" they simply inherited them and tried to work out what they mean. All we need to do now is check what they said and refer back to the tradition they thought they were emulating and see if they got it right - we can do this when they couldn't because we have greater access to our tradition.

When we do this we see that they are wrong. They didn't always understand it. They didn't appear to even attempt to understand triplicity term or face. Sect? No chance.

As a result modern astrology is not in a position to say much of anything at all about dignity as it is not a part of their tradition - except in such ways as they tried to borrow it from the greater tradition and messed it up.

So modern astrologers and dignity/debility - they don't use them so can't have much to say about it. I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong if they wish to, I always welcome being corrected and they can do this by finding me a modern author* who makes regular interpretive use of the difference of planetary dignity which includes domicile, detriment, exaltation, fall, triplicity, term, and face.

Interpretive difference would be in recognising debility as well as dignity such that an interpretation of a planetary placement would differ explicitly based on whether that planet has dignity or not in that sign placement.

Having read many modern astrology books I can think of a sum total of absolutely ZERO.

Of course if modern astrologers want to invent new meanings about what domicile means or exaltation they are of course free to do so and when they later assert, as we've seen by some here, that they do not work then I for one will do nothing but agree with them - yes, the new and invented meanings of domicile and exaltation etc do not work.

The reality is that after astrologer emerged from its post-enlightenment little sleep it did so slowly and with great confusion, the astrologers of the time making regular mistakes about what a particular term meant, but that they used those terms at all is a testament to the fact that they were trying to bridge a gap back to their tradition. It is just that they often made mistakes doing it. We can see this with anyone from the likes of Alan Leo to Ivy Goldstein Jacboson.

(*by which I mean one who is not an astrologer discussing the tradition obviously, there are many neo-traditional astrologers and anyone alive today has the right to be called 'modern', these are not the people I mean)


PS
It's worth clarifying, when we say dignity we mean only essential dignity because that is what it is in the actual tradition. Dignity was not used to refer to the angles of the chart or the 'accidental dignities' that we, as neo-traditionalists, might use. It's a sloppiness on the part of the neo-traditional astrologer. Really we should be talking about dignity in term of the essence of the planet, and the 'accidental dignities' as being accidental fortitudes/strengths. The former is qualitative, the latter is quantitive.

Waybread please do not feel you need to respond to this, however if you do respond to this please do so without recourse to "yes teacher" "no teacher" sarcasm - it is not conducive to reasoned and civilised discussion. If you have other motivations than that then it's best we clarify now.

waybread said:

I don't imagine that traditional astrologers all agree on dignities and debilities. Can we take Avelar and Ribeiro's primer (On the Heavenly Spheres: A Treatise on Traditional Astrology) as decently normative?

Click to expand...

No.

I wasn't asking for what do neo-traditional astrologers think about dignity and debility. That is not the title of this thread. I have not read that book and don't particularly care what they say. The person I was addressing and whose opinion I was looking for was yours, you being, as you say yourself, a modern astrologer and so a perfect person to ask about the modern use of dignities.

Let me try again - ignore what Ben Dykes says, I already know what he says, ignore what Heavenly Spheres say, I don't care about what they say. I am asking you as a modern astrologer.

You say Mars in Aries is strong, in your opinion is that strength qualitative or quantitative strength?
By recognising that Mars in Aries is particularly strong, by extension you must recognise that Mars in other signs are not as strong. This is not a binary if not strong then weak. This is a direction - stronger than something else, weaker than something else. So Mars in Taurus, presumably is weaker than Mars in Aries?

Now maybe you could define how interpretively you would use this idea of 'strength'. Say I am someone with Mars in Aries, PURELY in terms of speaking about strength, describe what Mars stronger means in my chart. Now I have Mars in Taurus, PURELY in terms of strength, describe what it means to have Mars less strong in my chart?

Maybe my language isn't the same as what a traditional astrologer would normally use, so we may have to translate or interpolate here.

Click to expand...

This is what I've been trying to do.

A sign indicates how or in what manner a planet operates. Not well or poorly, easily or with difficulty. Think of the elements and qualities. Mutable air? Fixed fire? These are neutral categories. If a planet appears to operate sub-optimally, the first thing I look at is aspects.

Click to expand...

So do you attest that the only reason Mars fares 'strongly' in Aries is due to the qualities and elements? If not, then we can ignore them as we can safely assume that the reason that Mars in Taurus is 'less strong' is similarly not related to them.

With that in mind addressing your stance that signs do not indicate how 'well or poorly' a planet operates then we can ignore this also.

Instead lets focus on what you yourself attest it does: It offers strength.

So do you agree then that sign placements can confer strength to a planet even if we haven't agreed what that strength is yet? If not what is it, if not its sign placement, which confers strength to Mars when in Aries?

To me, a happy Mars is assertive without being overly aggressive. It might be the natural athlete or the passionate male lover. It is the quality of moving out into the world out of one's own inner sense of momentum. "Un-ideal" qualities would be excessive verbal or physical aggression; or a wimpy doormat personality.

Click to expand...

Great, now, when you look at a chart do you have any idea which of these it will be based on sign or do you only know this from aspect?

If I said that all you know of Mars right now is that in one chart Mars is in Taurus, in the other Mars is in Aries, would you have no "all else being equal" idea of whether Mars would be 'happy' to use your term or 'un-ideal'?

Dykes's description of detriment sounds like a tough square from Neptune; whereas a "fall down a well" sounds like a planet in an intercepted sign in a quadrant house system.

I just can't believe these types of descriptions. They are not consistent with my experience.

Click to expand...

So it's not the conclusions he makes which you disagree with - in other words you think you can see quite happily from a chart when a planet is 'fallen down a well' and 'corrupted' and so on, you just shift WHERE you see that indication to being a square from Neptune? Your problem isn't with the surety of the statement, nor with the actual interpretation itself, it's just with what you use to determine it?

Caprising said:

I accept the challenge!...
Nancy Anne Hastings used (she passed away in the 1990's when in her 40s) rulership,fall, exaltation,detriment and accidental dignity (I can't remember if she uses triplicity/term/face) as part of her technique, and passed on her tables in one of her 2 prediction books. I use her tables with much confidence, however I am open to new suggestions from anyone who might stumble across an improved system. Nancy explains the meaning of these forementioned terms, so her teachings are easy to follow. I especially enjoy watching my own prog. planets change sign from rulership to detriment, or from fall to...not in fall...

Click to expand...

Thanks CapRising, I need the whole set, the entire gamut of dignities and debilities and what she says of them. I assume she's a modern astrologer though right?

What does she say of the dignities she does offer in terms of interpretive differences, such that a planet in dignity means X and a planet in fall means Y?

Caprising said:

Yes Paul, she is (was) a modernist, I will dig out her book tomorrow and give you a rundown on her technique, but basically from memory a planet in rulership expresses it's nature easily...without much (if any)effort on the natives part, a planet in fall requires effort to work well, a planet in exaltation works well for the native, while a planet in detriment doesn't allow the best expression of the planets nature. I have to word my response carefully here, people who have planets in detriment or fall might get upset if I get too descriptive, Many of us will have a planet progress into a sign of rulership or exaltation as we age, or even planetary progressions into the sign of detriment or fall.
"Accidental dignity" describes the planet that is closest in degrees to the m/c, if there is no planet within....I think it's 60 degrees then there is no planet in accidental dignity. Progressions can take a planet to within 60 degrees of the m/c (or the prog. m/c can progress to within 60 degrees of a planet) at which point the planet becomes "accidentally dignified" I haven't had her books out for some years now, but am fairly sure that I have these figures correct!

Click to expand...

Well that sounds very interesting! I would definitely like to hear more of what she says. I've never heard of her. Which book is it all from? I might buy it from amazon or if it's in my local astrology bookshop.

Paul_ said:

Well that sounds very interesting! I would definitely like to hear more of what she says. I've never heard of her. Which book is it all from? I might buy it from amazon or if it's in my local astrology bookshop.

Click to expand...

NANCY ANNE HASTINGS is said to have written two books, I personally have read neither - both available on amazon


THE PRACTICE OF PREDICTION http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practice-Pr...380711950&sr=1-3&keywords=nancy+anne+hastings

and

SECONDARY PROGRESSIONS TIME TO REMEMBER http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secondary-P...380711950&sr=1-1&keywords=nancy+anne+hastings


QUOTE

Nancy Hastings was a respected astrologer from Massachusetts, certified professional by the American Federation of Astrologers (PMAFA). She was very active in the organizations, serving on the board of NCGR and as president of the New England Astrological Association. Her great promise was cut short when she died of cancer at the age of 46 http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/hastings.html

also at this link http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum /showthread.php?p=505300#post505300 dr. farr mentions that 'early Modernist author Manly P Hall used a Table of essential and accidental dignities and detriments'

dr. farr said:

......An interesting Table of essential and accidental dignities and detriments, which is kind of a mixture of early Modernist and later Traditionalist considerations, can be found in early Modernist author Manly P. Hall's "Astrological Keywords"-I used that Table for many years, before I "moved on" (so to speak) regarding this subject (of dignities and detriments)...

Click to expand...

Eternal Autumn, thanks for the clarification. Do you want to say more about how it works? Assuming that I understand you correctly, I wouldn't draw a clear distinction between how a planet operates in a sign as somehow unhinged from the personality and life experiences of the native. All of the planets are part of our "inner sky," and as such we express and experience them. A moon in Libra is going to operate differently from a moon in Aries, for example; but totting up various essential and accidental dignities doesn't give these moons an identity apart from the person who lives them. This separation happens on paper in a book, perhaps, but it doesn't happen in real-time chart interpretation.

Paul, possibly you are unaware of your own sarcasm in other posts to me, and patronizing tone in your "battery" post. That's OK-- no harm done. As mature adults, we'll just have to get over it.

Re: your second recent post. I think part of the slippage on this thread is that sometimes traditional astrologers assume that theirs is the correct way to interpret a chart variable. Although (given the 3 textbooks I've cited above) trads don't necessarily agree amongst themselves, I haven't seen a willingness to consider that Time Marches On and that words can develop multiple definitions over time. For example, a "buggy" ca. 1900 probably meant a horse-drawn carriage; but in 2013 it more likely means a shopping cart in some places. They're both correct in their own contexts.

Moreover, I think it's fair to say that traditional astrologers really like the specificity and concreteness of their craft. Traditional astrology seems more night-and-day, black-and-white. Sometimes they write about this in why they switched from modern to traditional. Well, "messy" is OK for me. Human beings are inherently messy, and I find it inappropriate to apply a rigorous diagnostic on an inherently non-rigorous subject. An analogy would be statistics, where one can apply a powerful detailed technique to a sample that is incoherent. Any order so imposed by the technique is more a function of the technique than of the data.

Paul, possibly you don't see your patronizing tone in this post, but I do. I am willing to respond to this one, but such willingness in the future is tentative and conditional on the same respect that you wish to be given.

Paul_ said:

I think if we look to the astrologers of the beginning of the 20th century etc. then you see that they were relating back to the tradition. They didn't invent terms like "domicile" they simply inherited them and tried to work out what they mean. All we need to do now is check what they said and refer back to the tradition they thought they were emulating and see if they got it right - we can do this when they couldn't because we have greater access to our tradition.

When we do this we see that they are wrong. They didn't always understand it. They didn't appear to even attempt to understand triplicity term or face. Sect? No chance.

As a result modern astrology is not in a position to say much of anything at all about dignity as it is not a part of their tradition - except in such ways as they tried to borrow it from the greater tradition and messed it up.

Click to expand...

See my comment below. I don't think you accurately represent the early history of modern astrology. The theosophists weren't trying to retrieve and restore traditional astrology, but to forge something new for their time.

You will find some modern astrologers using domicile, exaltation, fall, and detriment. If there are any astrologers whose works you find particularly obnoxious, let me know, as possibly I have their books. Other modern astrologers don't use them. So we cannot homogenize all modern astrologers together.

Nor am I a representative for the entire body of modern astrologers. I try to read widely, but like you, at some point I stick with what works for me. So please do not hold me up as some type of scapegoat.

With the exception of Burk's book, cited above, I don't see modern astrologers using the finer divisions of face, triplicity, &c. This doesn't mean that some of us haven't looked at them and decided not to use them.

Frankly, when I post on this thread I do so in response to the OP: worth revisiting. This thread isn't some sort of trial or exposure of modern astrology, but an honest question about dignities and debilities in modern astrology. Love 'em or leave 'em.

So modern astrologers and dignity/debility - they don't use them so can't have much to say about it. I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong if they wish to, I always welcome being corrected and they can do this by finding me a modern author* who makes regular interpretive use of the difference of planetary dignity which includes domicile, detriment, exaltation, fall, triplicity, term, and face.

Interpretive difference would be in recognising debility as well as dignity such that an interpretation of a planetary placement would differ explicitly based on whether that planet has dignity or not in that sign placement.

Having read many modern astrology books I can think of a sum total of absolutely ZERO.

Of course if modern astrologers want to invent new meanings about what domicile means or exaltation they are of course free to do so and when they later assert, as we've seen by some here, that they do not work then I for one will do nothing but agree with them - yes, the new and invented meanings of domicile and exaltation etc do not work.

Click to expand...

Maybe I read too much between the lines, but do you actually find modern astrology to be threatening in some way? As in, you've got this wonderful, high-precision tradition, and these nasty moderns are trashing it through ignorance?

The reality is that after astrologer emerged from its post-enlightenment little sleep it did so slowly and with great confusion, the astrologers of the time making regular mistakes about what a particular term meant, but that they used those terms at all is a testament to the fact that they were trying to bridge a gap back to their tradition. It is just that they often made mistakes doing it. We can see this with anyone from the likes of Alan Leo to Ivy Goldstein Jacboson.

Click to expand...

It's not central to the OP, but I presume you are familiar with Campion's 2nd volume of his History of Astrology. I think your history is somewhat incorrect. I outlined it last night on Jupiter Ascendan't thread on a topic similar to this one. Actually the modern astrology that emerged after traditional astrology's demise was in the hands of the theosophists and groups like the Golden Dawn. They weren't interested in precise prediction, but in the potential of astrology as a tool for personal enlightenment. They weren't trying to recreate traditional astrology: some of them were very critical of it.

(*by which I mean one who is not an astrologer discussing the tradition obviously, there are many neo-traditional astrologers and anyone alive today has the right to be called 'modern', these are not the people I mean)

PS
It's worth clarifying, when we say dignity we mean only essential dignity because that is what it is in the actual tradition. Dignity was not used to refer to the angles of the chart or the 'accidental dignities' that we, as neo-traditionalists, might use. It's a sloppiness on the part of the neo-traditional astrologer. Really we should be talking about dignity in term of the essence of the planet, and the 'accidental dignities' as being accidental fortitudes/strengths. The former is qualitative, the latter is quantitive.

Click to expand...

What is the source of your certainty about correct and incorrect usages? Some of your dispute seems to be with other traditional astrologers, like the ones I cited above.

Caprising, I have Hastings's Practice of Prediction. My pet peeve with astrology books is that so few are indexed, complicating any quick search; but this book is mostly based upon aspects, including "minor" aspects. Have you got a page or section on essential dignities here? I didn't see it.

Paul, I explained above (to tsmall) why I chose to use a single book as a template. As there is no single modern astrology or single traditional astrology, I wanted to minimize confusion that could arise from differing yet unarticulated definitions. Our conversations, further, would operate more productively if you didn't try to rebut every last little thing that I write. I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to all of these little critiques-- veiled, recently, as leading questions.

Howbeit instead of viewing "my" definitions as another pedagogical exercise contra modern astrology, you give me your concise, brief definitions/explanations of domicile, detriment, exaltation, and fall? Then perhaps I can respond to how I see these as similar or different than mine or my understanding of other divisions of modern astrology. No analogies, please, as the ones quoted above confer different meanings-- by traditional astrologers.

I repeat that simply because Mars in Aries (and Scorpio) is strong (syn. powerful, forceful) in "my astrology" this is relative to 10 other signs, not specifically to Taurus. Think about olives labled "large", "jumbo" and "colossal;" or Sears "good, better, best" qualities. Olives in my supermarket are never graded "small," nor does Sears compare "good, better best" to "shoddy" or "low-quality" merchandise. Also, I truly get that you don't think my usage agrees with yours; but then it doesn't have to.

Possibly an underlying and as yet undiscussed issue is that modern and traditional astrologers have different views of the planets. For example, in traditional astrology, Mars is masculine, nocturnal, hot, dry, firey, choleric by temperament, and malefic. The traditional system of domiciles and exaltations, moreover, seems to operate on a binary system of opposites. If Jupiter is the "manager" or "king" in Sagittarius, then Gemini axiomatically has to be a sign where it is somehow the opposite. If one doesn't accept this schema, however, then a planet can potentially work as well in one sign as any other.

Since analogies seem to be the order of the day for traditional astrology textbook authors, however, perhaps I can give mine. I like to think of the planets as members of an extended family or a committee. They have their different personalities. They might represent different interests (house) or operating styles (sign.) Some get along beautifully with one another, others quarrel, and then there may be the loner who doesn't interact very much with the others (aspects). As is the case on a committee, some personalities are stronger or more forceful than others. (domicile) The charge to the committee is to run your life with you.

p.s., Actually I learned most of my modern astrology from Robert Hand's early books. If you have them, you will get a better idea of "my" modern astrology.

waybread said:

I think part of the slippage on this thread is that sometimes traditional astrologers assume that theirs is the correct way to interpret a chart variable.

Click to expand...

I guess this is something to take up with traditional astrologers. Not sure why you're directing it at me, unless you think I'm a 'traditional astrologer'.

Although (given the 3 textbooks I've cited above) trads don't necessarily agree amongst themselves

Click to expand...

That is certainly one conclusion, the other is that domicile confers different things depending on context and there's been some confusion there.

Moreover, I think it's fair to say that traditional astrologers really like the specificity and concreteness of their craft. Traditional astrology seems more night-and-day, black-and-white. Sometimes they write about this in why they switched from modern to traditional. Well, "messy" is OK for me. Human beings are inherently messy, and I find it inappropriate to apply a rigorous diagnostic on an inherently non-rigorous subject.

Click to expand...

It's probably worth differentiating people from techniques. Traditional astrologers often like clear techniques and methodologies.

I don't think you accurately represent the early history of modern astrology. The theosophists weren't trying to retrieve and restore traditional astrology, but to forge something new for their time.

Click to expand...

Theosophists? I wasn't being just so specific, but the group of astrologers I had in mind certainly INCLUDES theosophists.

When astrologers say "Mars rules Aries" where are they getting this from? Certainly they are not 'forging anew' - they are borrowing from the greater tradition. SImilarly when they use technical terms like exaltation, they are also borrowing those terms from the tradition. Often they were trying to reinterpret the tradition in light of their own philosophies, whilst still keep the ethos of that tradition. The problem is they didn't have enough to work with.

Maybe I read too much between the lines, but do you actually find modern astrology to be threatening in some way? As in, you've got this wonderful, high-precision tradition, and these nasty moderns are trashing it through ignorance?

Click to expand...

Why would I be threatened by modern astrology? I use modern astrology myself - all the time. I consider myself every bit a modern astrologer as a traditional one.

As you should already know, I use traditional methods, I use modern methods, I use whatever I see works. How can I be threatened by what I use? I was educated by modern astrologers and attended a modern astrology school. You're assumptions are off mark.

It's not central to the OP, but I presume you are familiar with Campion's 2nd volume of his History of Astrology. I think your history is somewhat incorrect.

Click to expand...

Not only familiar but have read it a couple of times now. And Jim Tester's history. And James Holden's. And read several of the key texts from that era. I do not think my history is incorrect. By all means hold a contrary view, but you are correct, it is not central to the OP.

They weren't interested in precise prediction, but in the potential of astrology as a tool for personal enlightenment. They weren't trying to recreate traditional astrology: some of them were very critical of it.

Click to expand...

Who said otherwise? I said that when they used astrological technical terms it is clear from how they're using them that they're trying to derive them from older sources. When Sephariel gets promissor and significator confused he didn't just pluck those terms out of nowhere, the derived them from the tradition, then confused them. When Ivy Goldstein Jacobson gets her stuff wrong it's because her source was, direct or derived, from Lilly and he's confusing to read. When astrologers assigned Uranus as ruler of Aquarius they did so trying to keep to the tradition.
You mention Theosophy and skepticism of event prediction, the main reason for this is the influence of Alan Leo, who tried to understand traditional astrology (see him mucking up primary directions for example) and opting instead for simplifying things. He predicted events quite happily - right until he was sued for it and then instead decided that a more 'esoteric' nature would be more desirable. Sephariel went on to create a (much much) better manual of primary directions, which were event driven, and without messing up the formulae in the way that Alan Leo did, but even here confused some technical wording.

They were all looking to the tradition and trying to revive it into the world they were living.

Honestly Waybread I think it is your history which is lacking here. I am not saying they were trying to 'recreate' traditional astrology, however they were trying to revive parts of it and reinterpret for their own time, but in doing so often got the tradition they were examining woefully wrong. Particular astrologers who were also, comparatively, technically inept, like Alan Leo, contribute a great deal to the simplification and watering down of astrological technique from the tradition, but the source was still the tradition, even if deviated from.

[deleted trolling comments by request - Moderator]

waybread said:

Paul, I explained above (to tsmall) why I chose to use a single book as a template. As there is no single modern astrology or single traditional astrology, I wanted to minimize confusion that could arise from differing yet unarticulated definitions. Our conversations, further, would operate more productively if you didn't try to rebut every last little thing that I write. I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to all of these little critiques-- veiled, recently, as leading questions.

Click to expand...

Why? I was asking for your take, you being one modern astrologer, so instead, on a subject of modern astrology, you choose traditional astrology books?

Howbeit instead of viewing "my" definitions as another pedagogical exercise contra modern astrology, you give me your concise, brief definitions/explanations of domicile, detriment, exaltation, and fall? Then perhaps I can respond to how I see these as similar or different than mine or my understanding of other divisions of modern astrology. No analogies, please, as the ones quoted above confer different meanings-- by traditional astrologers.

Click to expand...

I could, but then you might, as you did to Tsmall, make a little PS reminding me that this is about modern use of debility. As my use of it is from the tradition we wouldn't want to be going off track, that is, of course.

Personally, as you consider yourself modern, and appear not to consider yourself traditional, you are better placed to offer your views I would have thought.

I repeat that simply because Mars in Aries (and Scorpio) is strong (syn. powerful, forceful) in "my astrology" this is relative to 10 other signs, not specifically to Taurus.

Click to expand...

Not specifically, but then I didn't suggest otherwise, but you do think that Taurus, incidentally, would be weaker for Mars, or that Mars would not express as strongly as in Aries. So you recognise a concept of "stronger than" and "weaker than".

But let's go with the point, do you therefore think that Mars is EQUALLY 'strong' (your word) in Taurus as in Cancer as in Capricorn as in Gemini etc.?

Also, I truly get that you don't think my usage agrees with yours; but then it doesn't have to.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify, your usage absolutely does not agree with mine. I thought that was clear.

The traditional system of domiciles and exaltations, moreover, seems to operate on a binary system of opposites. If Jupiter is the "manager" or "king" in Sagittarius, then Gemini axiomatically has to be a sign where it is somehow the opposite.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that modern astrologers, where they use detriment and fall at all, also retain that notion.

If one doesn't accept this schema, however, then a planet can potentially work as well in one sign as any other.

Click to expand...

It could, but then you don't think so. You think Mars works 'stronger' in some signs than in others - according to your earlier posts.

As is the case on a committee, some personalities are stronger or more forceful than others. (domicile)

Click to expand...

And by contrast then some are weaker. So what is the interpretive difference you would offer to someone PURELY in terms of his 'strength' and 'forcefulness' with regards Mars being in, say, Aries, and, say, Capricorn?

p.s., Actually I learned most of my modern astrology from Robert Hand's early books. If you have them, you will get a better idea of "my" modern astrology.

Click to expand...

Right, that was back when he knew nothing about traditional astrology and the dignity system. Something he rectified and now advocates and now attests that modern astrologers do not understand the dignity system - of course that's an opinion you'll have heard before.
[swearing deleted by request - Moderator]

Oh, thanks, Caprising-- I've got the other Hasting's book, and it's not there. But a fair bit on minor aspects.