Do you agree with this? (House Positions = Sign Placements)

D

david starling

Well-known member
Re: sign modifies planet, to waybread

wilsontc said:
waybread,

You asked:


I think of it as sign modifies planet. To me prepositional phrases are too "messy" (must be a Virgo thing). So you get "challenging enjoyment" focused on spirituality/ aloneness (using your alternative word suggestion). I like to use "spirituality" simply because it seems to me as one of the best ways to use Pisces/Neptune/12th house. As you say, more frequently this is used for deception/aloneness/addictions/escapism/etc.

Astro-simply,

Tim
Click to expand...

As a serious 12th House native, I experience it as pure Imagination. Anything goes, unless you establish some "forbidden zones". I feel fortunate not to have Saturn getting his jollies in my 12th. In Placidus, I have Merc Conj. Mars in Pisces, and Moon Conj Venus in Aquarius, all in H12. Whole-sign, with a Pisces Asc, Merc/Mars is in H1. The Merc/Mars Conjuction is at the tip of a Neptune in Libra, Pluto in Leo, Yod. That's probably why I had to take the Whole-sign "Life-path"--couldn't deal with THAT in H12!
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
moonris3 said:
Unfortunately it's true, if you have Venus in 12th house it'll take pisces-like features. And if you have the Sun in 8th it'll have Scorpionic features, as if you have your Asc in Cancer you'll have Cancerian features... nothing new.

The houses are not just "where", just like the signs are not just "how" and the planets are not just "what". There are many other questions such as "when" and "who" and "why" especially, then, to answer those, we have to extend all the symbols, it must be a real dialogue between all the objects, as usual.

Because we know it, there are Leos that will look like Pisces and Virgos that will display their emotions like Cancers... no one's the same. And all these particular "how", "when", and "where" are just there to be interpreted.
Click to expand...

As I see it, the Signs transfer their qualities more THOROUGHLY to Sun, Moon and Planets when a Sign they're in is in a House that matches up with a Sign of the same Element. For example, Moon in Aquarius would be most detached in Air-sign Houses, 3, 7, and 11. Moon in Pisces would be most emotional in Water-sign Houses 4, 8, and 12. Reverse that, with Water-signs in Air-sign Houses and Air-signs in Water-sign Houses, and those qualities would be less pronounced. So, Moon in Pisces in H4, for example, is a STRONG example of Moon in Pisces, but NOT the equivalent of a Cancerian Moon. Of course, Moon in Pisces would be most effective in H12, since Pisces "owns" that House. The Water-sign Houses are the safest and most effective for expressing emotions, for example. Fire-sign Houses are the safest and most effective for "bringing on the power" through placements in Fire-signs. Etc.
 
Last edited:
Y

ynnest

Well-known member
I think its important to bring up the issue of where you start looking at the horoscope as a totality. The different houses represents the different areas of life and the signs on their cusps connected to their rulers and their aspects in combination with planets within those houses and their aspects should tell you about the way we adress these areas. Twelfth house for example is how we bring service to humanity, so mercury or venus within this house should from my observations lead to venus and mercury related services brought to humanity, NOT issues related to personal relationships as this is covered by the seventh house domain.


Y
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
moonris3 said:
Unfortunately it's true, if you have Venus in 12th house it'll take pisces-like features. And if you have the Sun in 8th it'll have Scorpionic features, as if you have your Asc in Cancer you'll have Cancerian features... nothing new.

The houses are not just "where", just like the signs are not just "how" and the planets are not just "what". There are many other questions such as "when" and "who" and "why" especially, then, to answer those, we have to extend all the symbols, it must be a real dialogue between all the objects, as usual.

Because we know it, there are Leos that will look like Pisces and Virgos that will display their emotions like Cancers... no one's the same. And all these particular "how", "when", and "where" are just there to be interpreted.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't think a 12th house Venus in Aquarius or Capricorn is going to take on "Pisces features" unless there is an aspect from Neptune or a planet in Pisces. Traditionally, the only overlap between signs and houses was in medical astrology, where the 12th house and Pisces both relate to the feet. (Aries and the first house are the head, and you work your way down from there.)

I consider myself to be a modern astrologer, but the more I get involved with it (now going on 27 years) the more I think that the conflation of signs and houses just muddies everything.

You also have to distinguish between the rising sign and the sun sign, so far as physical appearance is concerned. Not to mention the role of heredity.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
moonrise, I appreciate the thought you put into your post, but I would approach a horoscope differently.

As I said above, some planet-sign-house matches are better than others. I think the 9th house is a pretty good match, but the first house is a terrible match unless you happen to have Aries rising or Mars in the first house.

Then we can break it down further. The moon and 4th house overlap as sharing the meaning of one's home. But the moon further means one's emotional nature and one's experience of Mom. Traditionally the 4th house is the father, not the mother, in the sense of one's patrimony: even today most children take their surname from their father if he is married to Mom or to be part of the child's life. The 4th indicates real estate and "the end of the matter" in a difficult question. In psychological astrology the 4th is one's early childhood conditioning. If we have someone with the moon in Leo in the 11th house and Capricorn on the cusp of an untenanted 4th house, with Saturn in the 8th, the moon and the 4th house are going to be telling us very different things.

In "my" astrology, a sign shows how or in what manner a planet operates.

A house shows where or in what domain of life a planet operates.

These are not the same thing, and we only confuse matters by assuming that a planet "in Aquarius or in the 11th house" mean the same thing. You might get Leo in the 11th which isn't like Aquarius at all, or Aquarius in the 12th which isn't at all like the 11th house.

Also, I work with house cusp rulers, so they flavour the signs and houses considerably.

To a limited extent, we can see the 7th house as representing "other people" in some kinds of questions, but that is typically too general. "Other people" might be one's friends (11th house,) support staff (6th house,) or supervisor (10th house.) Specifically the 7th rules marriage and other long-term partnerships, and is also the house of open enemies.

I would rather see Libra as the Venus-ruled cardinal air sign. We need to see its approach to life as primarily mental, with its relationship dimension conferred by Venus, not by some static personality traits associated with the sign in popular astrology books. To see how a sun-Libra relates, we want to look at the situation of Venus, and perhaps Mercury if Virgo is the sign on the sun's house cusp.

Further, we could see a relationship between Mercury, Gemini, and the third house as ruling communication. But the third house also rules one's siblings and short-distance travel. If someone has Taurus, the fixed earth sign, prominent in the third house, that's not like Gemini (the mutable air sign) at all.

I could go on in this fashion, but essentially the chart gives specific information that is easily muddied by assuming a major sign-house overlap in meaning.
 
obsidianmineral

obsidianmineral

Well-known member
Short answer:

No, I don't agree. Signs being the same as houses is just an error in the way people have thought astrology to be. Just like language changes, so do ideologies and beliefs. Anyway, the correct thing is to think that, say, Pisces is not the same as the 12th house. Different things. Not even that similar.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
moonrise, I can see that I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but the idea that the house with the same number as the sign's order in the zodiac seems to be a recent invention, with the exception of medical astrology. I believe C. E. O. Carter started this idea. If you look back in the history of astrology I think you will see that the sign-house conflation is pretty recent.

Where it really gets screwy is if you say, "OK-- Aquarius is just like the 11th house," but then someone has Taurus on the cusp of the 11th, with Venus in Aries in the 10th square Mars, for example. This gives the 11th a Taurus-Aries flavour, not an Aquarian flavour.

One book I highly recommend is Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky.

Aquarius is not notably into pragmatism or balance. It is the fixed air sign, meaning that its approach to life is primarily mental (air) not practical, which would be associated with the earth element. Balance has been associated with Libra, not Aquarius, because the constellation Libra was anciently called "the scales."

I completely disagree with your notion that Aquarius somehow equates to the 11th house, Libra somehow equates to the 7th house, and so on. I tried to show in my previous post that this idea actually misses a lot of the totality of house meanings, for starters.

The third house doesn't mean "lateral family." It includes siblings, neighbours, and short-distance travel. You can extend this meaning with turned houses, to some extent. To do extended family members like parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, you would use a turned house. For example, Dad is the 4th house, so his brother (your paternal uncle) would be the third from the 4th house, or 6th house.

I could go on like this, but obviously you'll do your form of astrology, and I'll do mine.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
It's not that complicated. Whether you accept the notion or not, the idea is simply that a Planet is most "at home" in the Sign it "rules", without actually becoming that Sign; and, by the same token, a Sign is most "at home" in the House with it's own sequential number, without actually becoming that House. And, these affinities lead to greater effectiveness in the placements. It's definitely a Modern concept.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
David, the conflation of signs and houses by-the-numbers "is not that complicated." Unfortunately, a lot of the technique of reading horoscopes is more complicated.

It's one thing to say that a planet is most "at home" in its domicile sign, but this does not work for houses. The moon doesn't actually have an affinity with the 4th house if we take its traditional meaning as the father, not the mother. Saturn has no particular affinity with the 10th house, as this is the traditional house of one's mother. Saturn often shows where we feel inadequate and not good-enough, not where we manifest our 10th house matters of our vocation in life.

I could go on in this fashion. Indeed, I already have.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
waybread said:
David, the conflation of signs and houses by-the-numbers "is not that complicated." Unfortunately, a lot of the technique of reading horoscopes is more complicated.

It's one thing to say that a planet is most "at home" in its domicile sign, but this does not work for houses. The moon doesn't actually have an affinity with the 4th house if we take its traditional meaning as the father, not the mother. Saturn has no particular affinity with the 10th house, as this is the traditional house of one's mother. Saturn often shows where we feel inadequate and not good-enough, not where we manifest our 10th house matters of our vocation in life.


I could go on in this fashion. Indeed, I already have.
Click to expand...

I specified it was a Modern idea. Traditional doesn't number the Signs from Aries to Pisces. Thanks for the info on the Traditional House interpretations. Sounds like Ptolemy, because he was so focused on Gender. At least most Modern branches agree with Traditional-rulerships when it comes to Leo and Cancer!
I do object to the word "conflation" in this instance--it's about compatibility of Signs with Houses, not lumping them together into the same category.
For the 4th House, I see it as home, private, protective; and, for H10, as social, career, competitive. Gender isn't the issue, since these roles aren't Gender-specific. If it's a question of which parent is nurturing and loves unconditionally, and which is more critical and motivational, that's not necessarily Gender-specific either.
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
moonrise, let me try this again.

Each house has multiple meanings, and they do not always seem compatible. Traditionally the 10th became the house of the mother in a turned house system: the 4th was the father in the sense that one's ancestral roots and inheritance were determined through one's paternal line. The mother was then 7th from the 4th in a turned house system. Not all traditional astrologers worked it this way, with some giving both parents to the 4th or female relatives more generally tothe 7th house.

But the 10th house as one's vocation and public image bears no relation to the mother. These are simply alternate ways of looking at the 10th depending upon what you wish to learn from it.

Similarly, the 7th is both the house of marriage and open enemies. The 12th indicates deception but also large animals. The 6th indicates one's health but also small animals and people who do some kind of service-related work for us. We don't need to make all of the meanings internal to a particular house consistent with one another.

If you get great results from the type of astrology you do, that's wonderful and I wouldn't want to take anything from your success. But it does seem to me that you risk losing a lot of the finer-grained detail that a horoscope provides when you think of signs and houses as meaning essentially the same thing.

David, if you read Tetrabiblos, you will see that Ptolemy scarcely mentions houses at all. He doesn't even identify what all of them mean. He doesn't say much about gender, either, so far as I recall. He does have some material on male sexual orientation and heterosexual marriage.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
I read that Ptolemy explained that the reason the Sun and Moon ruled only one Sign each, was that the Sun was "too masculine" to be able to rule a feminine, night-Sign, and the Moon "too feminine" to rule a masculine day-Sign. This was his explanation of a rulership pattern already in place, of uncertain origin. To me, it's obvious that the reason has nothing to do with Gender, just the simple fact that the Sun and Moon move in only one direction, whereas the Planets have both Direct and Retrograde-motion. The whole idea that "night"= feminine and "day"= masculine, appears to have been largely his concept. Yang and Yin, when properly understood, aren't about male and female, so I believe his Gender explanation is untenable. Especially since the earliest recorded Moon deity was male--Inanna's father, Sin, in the Uruk culture of the Tigris Euphrates.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
David, have you got a copy of Tetrabiblos? It's available through Internet book sellers, or you could request a free copy through your nearest public library branch via their Inter-library Loan service.

I will be back home in a few days, when I can look up my copy, but my recollection is that Ptolemy simply starts with the signs closest to the summer solstice, Cancer and Leo, and then works his way out from there. Read the first column from outer to inner planets.

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

Note that in Hellenistic astrology the water signs are feminine, so we nevertheless have Mars ruling Scorpio. Conversely, the air signs are masculine but we have Venus ruling Libra.
 
twistandshout

twistandshout

Well-known member
I feel pretty inclined to see the connection between signs and houses as it ultimately helps orient myself better. There's nothing about the priority of each house that separates from the connection to the signs (to me) but seeing the discussion unfold is interesting to me.

As for the 10H/4H/Mother/Father debate, the way I eventually had someone break it down to me is that this is a thinking that's also heavily dependent on the idea that everyone has parents who function within the traditional gender norms. While that may have been the case for ages, that's no longer the case today. Many people will have mothers who take on the role of "father" (as well as mother depending on circumstance) so trying to create that association is slightly futile. Instead, I've found it easier to look at it as Primary vs. Secondary. Primary is still one that I would associate with Cancer like traits. Cancer is a provider, it nurtures, grows and develops. It creates the home and sets up a foundation for roots to take hold and for comfort/security to be placed. It's also a sign that takes care of the actual literal home (property). It CAN be associated with inheritance, it CAN, be associated with the Father, it CAN be associated with the end of matters (as the moon's cycle shows the beginning and the end as well). I don't see this negating its association the Cancer in the least bit, as some people's father's take on Cancer traits while their mothers may take on Capricorn traits.

Same with 10H as the secondary giver. The person who "brings home the bread". The person who helps set the standard for what hard work looks like, the person who's often times the defining face of the family. This tends to be the more "distant" parent who may also be seen as the "Boss" in the house. The one who'll play the bad guy (Like Capricorn often does) and who sets the rules that people tend to abide by. For some people this can be both parents, one parent, a grand parent, anyone really. None of this negates the association to Capricorn to me.

At the end of the day, what connects the two is that Cancer and Capricorn are both interested in legacy. Cancer is more associated with behind the doors legacy (so inheritance, psychological roots, the actual home that can be left for children) while Capricorn is more associated with Public legacy (The title that comes with advancing, the trophies that reflect hard work, the new structure that is left behind for everyone to function within in order to have some semblance of security).

At the end of the day, though, there's a myriad of methods and if it works for you then it works for you. There's a lot of traditional teachings and thinkings that I do not think will last for very long because they're heavily rooted in cultural and social conditions that are slowly dying. If astrology isn't able or willing to evolve with the times then it's not a science or an art form but an archaic teaching that rather than expands and evolves as both do, but restricts and prevents progress. It's ultimately why a lot of super traditional thinkings would never apply for myself or anyone I know in relationship to our charts. A lot of us also don't come from Western families so the archetypes and how we were raised and taught to see the world doesn't really apply. But there ARE the basics that definitely will forever hold true. It's how we choose to integrate it into our reality that will continue to change.
 
Y

ynnest

Well-known member
twistandshout said:
I feel pretty inclined to see the connection between signs and houses as it ultimately helps orient myself better. There's nothing about the priority of each house that separates from the connection to the signs (to me) but seeing the discussion unfold is interesting to me.

As for the 10H/4H/Mother/Father debate, the way I eventually had someone break it down to me is that this is a thinking that's also heavily dependent on the idea that everyone has parents who function within the traditional gender norms. While that may have been the case for ages, that's no longer the case today. Many people will have mothers who take on the role of "father" (as well as mother depending on circumstance) so trying to create that association is slightly futile. Instead, I've found it easier to look at it as Primary vs. Secondary. Primary is still one that I would associate with Cancer like traits. Cancer is a provider, it nurtures, grows and develops. It creates the home and sets up a foundation for roots to take hold and for comfort/security to be placed. It's also a sign that takes care of the actual literal home (property). It CAN be associated with inheritance, it CAN, be associated with the Father, it CAN be associated with the end of matters (as the moon's cycle shows the beginning and the end as well). I don't see this negating its association the Cancer in the least bit, as some people's father's take on Cancer traits while their mothers may take on Capricorn traits.

Same with 10H as the secondary giver. The person who "brings home the bread". The person who helps set the standard for what hard work looks like, the person who's often times the defining face of the family. This tends to be the more "distant" parent who may also be seen as the "Boss" in the house. The one who'll play the bad guy (Like Capricorn often does) and who sets the rules that people tend to abide by. For some people this can be both parents, one parent, a grand parent, anyone really. None of this negates the association to Capricorn to me.

At the end of the day, what connects the two is that Cancer and Capricorn are both interested in legacy. Cancer is more associated with behind the doors legacy (so inheritance, psychological roots, the actual home that can be left for children) while Capricorn is more associated with Public legacy (The title that comes with advancing, the trophies that reflect hard work, the new structure that is left behind for everyone to function within in order to have some semblance of security).

At the end of the day, though, there's a myriad of methods and if it works for you then it works for you. There's a lot of traditional teachings and thinkings that I do not think will last for very long because they're heavily rooted in cultural and social conditions that are slowly dying. If astrology isn't able or willing to evolve with the times then it's not a science or an art form but an archaic teaching that rather than expands and evolves as both do, but restricts and prevents progress. It's ultimately why a lot of super traditional thinkings would never apply for myself or anyone I know in relationship to our charts. A lot of us also don't come from Western families so the archetypes and how we were raised and taught to see the world doesn't really apply. But there ARE the basics that definitely will forever hold true. It's how we choose to integrate it into our reality that will continue to change.
Click to expand...


Why not set aside traditional teachings and instead start of with a fresh mind by looking at real life individuals and their correct charts without any bias and then make conclusions based on real observations?
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
ynnest said:
Why not set aside traditional teachings and instead start of with a fresh mind by looking at real life individuals and their correct charts without any bias and then make conclusions based on real observations?
Click to expand...

Without a starting base of axioms, you won't be able to sensibly classify your observations as the descriptions and definitions of said observations have no frame of reference or grounding with established principles.

If you want to look at a real life person's chart without any "bias", where would the idea that Saturn has anything to do with death and hardship come from? Where would the idea that Mercury deals with communication and speech originate? Paying attention to tradition is acknowledging that nothing exists in a vacuum.
 
T

tripleooo

Well-known member
ynnest said:
Why not set aside traditional teachings and instead start of with a fresh mind by looking at real life individuals and their correct charts without any bias and then make conclusions based on real observations?
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's better to reinvent the wheel? Traditional astrology will not make you biased if you're not biased yourself, but it will provide you with a great amount of knowledge and observations that have been effective for centuries. When you try to see the world only through your eyes, it's in fact much easier to become biased. Taking into consideration other people's experience and observations will make you more open-minded and will help you get a better understanding of a subject you're interested in, be it astrology or something else.
 
Y

ynnest

Well-known member
My point is that since we are entering the aquarian age the old illusional concepts about astrology needs to be released so that the factual truth can lead us forward. There are many misconceptions out there that deviate from the fundamental core astrological principles and these I believe needs to be cleared out. To play with the thought of objectively observe individuals in real life is thus from my perspective a fresh experimental take on this to start re- learning the fundamental principles that sometimes seems to be forgotten in discussions where some people seem to believe that there are opinions about astrology when there in fact are actually fundamentals that can't be overlooked, like you said conspiracytheorist. Hope this brings some clarity to both of you.
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
While I'm undecided on the Aquarian Age issue, this forum has a heavy practical component to its astrology - for just the reasons you've stated. People want to test what conventions are worth keeping and which one are worth throwing out. RMC threads where people put their learning to actual charts and see which observations are relevant; as well as threads that asks specific questions about what aspects and signs cause x to occur, with ample examples from real life.

So why not add your personal findings to the table?
 
Y

ynnest

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
While I'm undecided on the Aquarian Age issue, this forum has a heavy practical component to its astrology - for just the reasons you've stated. People want to test what conventions are worth keeping and which one are worth throwing out. RMC threads where people put their learning to actual charts and see which observations are relevant; as well as threads that asks specific questions about what aspects and signs cause x to occur, with ample examples from real life.

So why not add your personal findings to the table?
Click to expand...


I agree with you that in principle the forum could work as an enlightened source of observational examples even though it is more complex than that since many of the mainstream false astrological belief systems still has energetic nourishment which interfere with the process of giving people the opportunity to truly understand this advanced form of spiritual science.
 
Top