Signs are neither Strong Nor Weak-however Planets may have Weak or Strong Placements

[JUPITERASC]

spin-off thread clarifying a potentially misleading inference
that Signs may somehow be either "weak" or "strong" http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=91932

Originally Posted by waybread

No sign is intrinsically strong or weak.
It is made so by the planets in it (or the lack thereof,)
and by its position amidst the house cusps.

Just for example, as the mutable water sign, we might see Pisces as "weak"
but if someone has Pisces in the 10th house with the MC, sun and Jupiter (domiciled) there
with Jupiter trining the (domiciled) moon in Cancer,
Mr. Pisces has a lot of strength in this situation.
Much more so than the sun intercepted in Scorpio (fixed water) in the 12th house.

You get the picture.

Originally Posted by tsmall

There is no such thing as a weak sign.

There are weak placements, but no weak signs.

Signs are neutral.
They have descriptions, sure, like human, mute, violent, bestial, fertile, barren, crooked, long ascending, and on and on,
but at the end of the day, the signs are neutral.

It's the planets both in and that rule them that bring them to life.

Originally Posted by luckyoctober

Hi

There are No weak sun signs.

To say there is, it is belittling astrology.

There are natal charts that indicate a weak personality.

Charts lack of hard aspects,
(especially from saturn to personal planets)
with full of trines and sextiles may point to a weak person.

when there are tough transits, they easily feel depressed and they become paralyzed and Can't cope with problems.
Because,they are not familiar to that kind of stressful energy.

Originally Posted by Kitchy

"there is no such thing as a weak sign"

[duenderoja]

Thank you. Signs have no power, planets do.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by duenderoja

Thank you.

Signs have no power, planets do.

Thanks for commenting

[JUPITERASC]

TROPICAL Astrological SIGNS are distinct from the CONSTELLATIONS with which over centuries, they were conflated


Originally, SIGN meant simply "a Sign of the SEASON"
because
SIGNS were basically a Calender of the Seasons
which followed the Seasonal Path of the Sun on the Ecliptic



source material = HISTORY OF THE ZODIAC an in-depth exploration of the origins of the Babylonian Zodiac
and its location in the ecliptic
which reveals that
the division of the ecliptic into tropical astrological signs
was originally a derivation of Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.)

QUOTE

"...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox,
in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..."Dr. Robert Powell




brief bio of Robert A. Powell : born Reading, England,1947 graduated in mathematics at Sussex university 1968
awarded Master's degree in statistics 1969.
1969 to 1976 lectured in mathematics & statistics in the Department of Computing and Cybernetics at Brighton Polytechnic.
1971 elected Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society.
From its inception in 1971 Powell was a tutor in mathematics for the Open University, until 1974.
Powell left Brighton Polytechnic in 1976 in order to complete his research on the history of the zodiac
during 1976-77 Robert A. Powell was visiting lecturer in astronomy and the history of astronomy at Emerson College, England
Powell also researched astronomical chronology at the Mathematisch- Physikalisches Institut, Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland.

[JUPITERASC]

And so for beginners
a Sign is comparable to an ENVIRONMENT and is NEUTRAL
and is neither weak nor strong nor partial


and so
to use an analogy from nature:

a cactus thrives in sand in harsh sun and dies when placed in nutrient rich soil in shade




i.e.
sand is NEUTRAL
sand IS NOT partial to cacti


similarly SIGNS are IMPARTIAL and NEUTRAL


another example:



a mushroom thrives when placed in nutrient rich soil in darkness and dies when placed in sand in harsh sun

i.e. to be clear then
nutrient rich ground is NEUTRAL and is not PARTIAL to mushrooms

similarly SIGNS are IMPARTIAL and NEUTRAL

hence clearly

Signs are COMPARABLE to an ENVIRONMENT
an environment is IMPARTIAL

SIGNS are neither weak nor strong
Signs are NEUTRAL

[petosiris]

Actually, I think this might be partly incorrect, especially when you consider this from a whole sign perspective. Signs do have power, as declining Pisces has little power, while angular, especially rising or culminating Pisces has a lot of power (as the ruler is benefic and controls a good house).

Thus, Indians are correct to some degree when they say that a planet can be strengthened by having its signs angular or vice versa and I am pretty sure this logic can be seen in some traditional medieval authors (I can think of Umar Al-Tabari, who uses the angularity of the domiciles of the Luminaries, I wonder if it is an eastern influence in particular).

I personally think the problem comes from the conceptualization of signs as houses, which in theory attempts to separate the ruler from the sign, and make its ''ruler'', but in practice does not exactly do that, especially in Hellenistic astrology. What happens in the end is that both matter equally, for if Saturn and Mars are badly placed with the X or the Lot of Fortune, then that person would be of low rank and would arguably be similar if the ruler of the sign is in the VI or XII and opposed by the two malefics.

Now, I know that some Hellenistic and Medieval authors (apparently going back to Petosiris in katarche) say that the ruler signifies the latter part of the matter, while the sign, the initial part of the matter, but that does not work very well from my experience, and seems to me both are taken equally and that time lords are more suited for establishing the ups and downs of the signification over the length of time.

Basically if you use whole sign aspects, planets and signs work almost the same (angularity and aspect wise) and at this point I think the domicile metaphor is somewhat useful, but also somewhat misleading. Manetho and Dorotheus preserve early delineations (maybe by Nechepso and Petosiris according to Stephen Heilen) where they say clearly that Mars in the degrees of Saturn (Saturn bounds, Capricorn and Aquarius) injures the elders, that Mars in Cancer injures the mother and so on. These delineations make no sense, unless you consider that the non-wandering and wandering stars are strongly linked.

Aside from weak signs, there are bad signs - those of the malefics, unless they or the rulers are aspected by benefics as always, for the seven stars seem more strong and important than the signs in both nativities and katarche (in fact most Hellenistic katarche authors recommend to examine the angular planets, but if there are no angular planets, then you should use the angular signs). One can read Pythagoras, Valens, Rhetorius or any traditional author on the signs to see the difference.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by petosiris

Actually, I think this might be partly incorrect
especially when you consider this from a whole sign perspective.
Signs do have power, as declining Pisces has little power
while angular, especially rising or culminating Pisces has a lot of power
(as the ruler is benefic and controls a good house).

If declining Pisces has little power
whereas rising or culminating Pisces has a lot of power
then it's ANGULARITY that is STRONG
not SIGN itself

Originally Posted by petosiris

Thus, Indians are correct to some degree when they say that
a planet can be strengthened by having its signs angular
or vice versa and I am pretty sure this logic can be seen in some traditional medieval authors
(I can think of Umar Al-Tabari, who uses the angularity of the domiciles of the Luminaries
I wonder if it is an eastern influence in particular).

certainly Traditional Medieval astrology considers A PLANET angularly placed
as powerful

[petosiris]

then it's ANGULARITY that is STRONG
not SIGN itself

Maybe. But consider the following:

There is no such thing as a weak sign.

There are weak placements, but no weak signs.

Signs are neutral.
They have descriptions, sure, like human, mute, violent, bestial, fertile, barren, crooked, long ascending, and on and on,
but at the end of the day, the signs are neutral.

If Leo is known as a beastial, solid and royal sign, then is it not ''stronger'' than the changeable and mysterious Capricorn? (If you say it depends on the area, then that would apply for all astrology.)

Consider waybread's example but with Saturn's domicile. Capricorn is rising and Libra is at the MC compared to having Leo Rising with Taurus at the MC. Abstracting ourselves from any placements, I would be more inclined to say that the latter is more indicative of strength. Hellenistic and Medieval astrologers alike (Valens and Lilly for example) all view Capricorn as indicative of lean people, hunchbacks and barren, not characteristic of the previous with the exception of barren. They both have the same angularity, but different strength because of their qualities, associated with their imagery.

Also Abu Ali al-Khayyat has a doctrine that says cardinal are like succedents, fixed are like angles and double-bodied are like declines. I do not agree with that, but that is a STRENGTH factor by a traditional author.

certainly Traditional Medieval astrology considers A PLANET angularly placed as powerful

Traditional astrologers consider angular houses as best, so they also make a planet - the ruler more powerful - ''accidentally''.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by petosiris

Maybe. But consider the following:
If Leo is known as a beastial, solid and royal sign
then is it not ''stronger'' than the changeable and mysterious Capricorn?
(If you say it depends on the area, then that would apply for all astrology.)

royal, bestial and solid do not equate to strong necessarily
today most royals are figureheads and lack any real strength
bestial is not dependent on strength
solids are not all strong
and so on ad infinitum Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by petosiris

Consider waybread's example but with Saturn's domicile.
Capricorn is rising and Libra is at the MC
compared to having Leo Rising with Taurus at the MC.
Abstracting ourselves from any placements
I would be more inclined to say that the latter is more indicative of strength.

The rationale of the thread is based on placements of planets in signs

Originally Posted by petosiris

Hellenistic and Medieval astrologers alike (Valens and Lilly for example)
all view Capricorn as indicative of lean people, hunchbacks and barren
not characteristic of the previous with the exception of barren.
They both have the same angularity, but different strength
because of their qualities, associated with their imagery.

A lean barren hunchback could be strong

Originally Posted by petosiris

Also Abu Ali al-Khayyat has a doctrine that says cardinal are like succedents, fixed are like angles
and double-bodied are like declines.
I do not agree with that, but that is a STRENGTH factor by a traditional author.

Traditional astrologers consider angular houses as best, so
they also make a planet - the ruler more powerful - ''accidentally''.

quite

[or1000]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

spin-off thread clarifying a potentially misleading inference
that Signs may somehow be either "weak" or "strong" http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=91932

Great great great post. Thank you

[petosiris]

A lean barren hunchback could be strong

More often than not, we would say he is weaker. You are arguing semantics now - like the modern astrologer with benefic and malefic - it is the same thing with signs.
There are malefic and benefic signs and bounds and rulers, like it or not. Yes, even Capricorn can be a good sign, as Saturn and Mars can be, depending on the placement, but it is so-held for them to be malefic signs and planets.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by petosiris

More often than not, we would say he is weaker.
You are arguing semantics now
- like the modern astrologer with benefic and malefic
- it is the same thing with signs.
There are malefic and benefic signs
and bounds and rulers, like it or not.
Yes, even Capricorn can be a good sign, as Saturn and Mars can be,
depending on the placement, but it is so-held for them to be malefic signs and planets.

Traditionally there are two malefic planets
and
two benefic planets
Those malefic/benefic planets are stronger or weaker in certain signs
BUT
a sign itself is neither strong nor weak
because
a sign is an environment
so for example
a desert is an environment that is neither strong nor weak
and
some plants thrive in a desert
whereas others do not

EXAMPLE
a cactus thrives in sand in harsh sun and dies when placed in nutrient rich soil in shade




i.e.
sand is NEUTRAL
sand IS NOT partial to cacti


similarly SIGNS are IMPARTIAL and NEUTRAL

[petosiris]

I wonder if I am the only traditional astrologer here who disagrees.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by petosiris

I wonder if I am the only traditional astrologer here who disagrees.

Perhaps not

[ardentika]

I don't agree even with the weak placements. I've found that the debilitated planets are the strongest from a spiritual view. They just don't fit what thr planet is about hence they are "weakened ".

But if we take for example Sun in Libra, they are known for "lacking ego/identity" but the whole purpose of spirituality is being one with everyone and accepting everyone. We all fight our whole lives gainst our ego brain that blocks us from real happiness. So here Sun in Libra shall be exhalted.
You get my point.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by ardentika

I don't agree even with the weak placements. I've found that the debilitated planets are the strongest from a spiritual view. They just don't fit what thr planet is about hence they are "weakened ".

But if we take for example Sun in Libra, they are known for "lacking ego/identity"
but the whole purpose of spirituality is being one with everyone
and accepting everyone.
We all fight our whole lives gainst our ego brain
that blocks us from real happiness.
So here Sun in Libra shall be exhalted.
You get my point.

Interesting idea, but not applicable on our Traditional board
because
traditionally
Sun in Aries is Exalted
and
Sun in Libra is in Fall

Traditional differs from Modernist "Sunsign astrology"
and since this thread is posted on our Traditional board
the discussion is from a Traditional astrological perspective
By all means discuss "Sun in Libra lacks ego/identity so is spiritual & therefore Exalted"
on another thread, on a more appropriate board
such as our Modern Astrology board
or Research and Development

[kirki]

Actually i have been thinking the same about mercury in sagittarius .Seems as the characteristics of this sign are compatible to a real genuine way of communication.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by kirki

Actually i have been thinking the same about mercury in sagittarius .
Seems as the characteristics of this sign are compatible
to a real genuine way of communication.

Traditionally, Mercury is in detriment in Sagittarius

[kirki]

Thank you for your reply,yes i know but in my opinion ,sagittarius straight forward,honest way ,matches to mercury more than gossipy and distracted gemini.Just my opinion.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by kirki

Thank you for your reply,yes i know but in my opinion ,
sagittarius straight forward,honest way ,
matches to mercury more than gossipy and distracted gemini.
Just my opinion.

your opinion is interesting, however keep in mind the table of ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES
for example, Ptolemy tables

[kirki]

Yes,actually you had helped me get an idea about dignities in another post,i just dont agree with some so im just expressing my opinion having my mercury in its domicile,triplicity and terms...

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by kirki

Yes,actually you had helped me get an idea about dignities in another post,

great

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by kirki

Thank you for your reply,yes i know but in my opinion
sagittarius straight forward,honest way
matches to mercury more than gossipy and distracted gemini.
Just my opinion.

Mercury however is Traditionally the "trickster" and not necessarily straightforward

Originally Posted by kirki

Actually i have been thinking the same about mercury in sagittarius.
Seems as the characteristics of this sign are compatible
to a real genuine way of communication.

Traditonally as I mentioned Mercury is in detriment in Sagittarius
and for example
Vettius Valens states in THE ANTHOLOGY FREE to read online
pdf form at http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
QUOTE:

'....This star’s effects go in many directions
depending on the changes of the zodiac
and the
interactions of the stars
and yields quite varied results.....'

Originally Posted by kirki

i just dont agree with some
so im just expressing my opinion having my mercury in its domicile,triplicity and terms...

generalisation is fun and tempting
but unreliable
each natal chart is different

Vettius Valens also mentions
QUOTE:

'....As for the end result
Mercury will make everything capricious in outcome
and quite disturbed.
Even more, it causes those having this star in malefic signs or degrees
to become even worse....'

[IleneK]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

your opinion is interesting, however keep in mind the table of ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES

Your post contains a really nice display of the dignities, JA.
Thank you!

[ConfusedCrab]

Agreed.

I feel like my Gemini Mercury is ‘strong’.