Neptune in Dignity and Debility

weirdconjunctions

Active member
I agree about outer planet placements being a generational thing, but what if an outer planet is powerful in your chart? I have Neptune in its fall conjunct my sun and aspecting three other planets as well as my MC. :unsure:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
(Following is purely speculative hypothesis on my part and should not be understood as any kind of an attempt to put forth new theories or practices)


First I'll declare that I completely agree with Frank and others, above, that when applying a traditional or classical astrological model, the existing allocations of dignities, rulerships, debilities and so on, should be left as is: it works (when applying those models in practice) and that's the only really valid criterion to be applied.

But what about a new ("Modernist") model, for those who don't share the more classical or traditionalist outlook? Couldn't the outers be evaluated by the same, say, elemental quality criteria from the past? For example:
-Pluto; from a study of most of the literature (Modernist) since the 1930's, Pluto seems to fit with the qualities attributed (anciently) to "fire"; certainly this would not fit in with affinity to the watery Scorpio, but would with the fiery Aries and Leo, and possibly with Sagittarius as well
-Neptune: the literature certainly suggests a "water" element affinity; theoretically in our (purely) hypothetical scheme, Neptune might be affinitive with the watery Scorpio (lots of dreams in Scorpio too, and "hiiden things" just like under Neptune), in addition to the watery Pisces-and perhaps a relationship also to Cancer
-Uranus: definitely linked in the literature (Modernist literature) with "air", and thus affinitive with Aquarius, but also possibly with Gemini (especially relative to Gemini's mutable nature), and, maybe, the cardinal air Libra as well?

In our Modernist speculations, could the "fully rounded out" 10 planet system be adapted to what the ancient's called the monomoiria (or degree/planet affinities) to reveal the "hidden connections" involved with each planet's placement? In classical (Greco/Roman) astrology each degree of the ecliptic, starting at 0 Aries, is assigned a planetary affinity: of course they used only the known 7 planets, and the Chaldean Order (starting with the most distant known planet, Saturn); in assigning planets to the degrees of the ecliptic, they began at 0 Aries with Mars, and then followed the Chaldean Order (Mars, then Sun, then Venus, then Mercury, then Moon, then going to Saturn to begin the Order again) Of course, with only 7 planets, this led to certain planets being represented more often than others (Mars especially)
What if (pure hypothesis) a new monomoiria using the 10 planets were applied? Starting with the new "outermost" planet, making a New Chaldean Order (Pluto - Neptune - Uranus - Saturn - Jupiter - Mars - Sun - Venus - Mercury - Moon), and beginning the 360 ecliptic degree circle with Pluto at 0 Aries? Using a 10 planet Chaldean Order, each planet would repeat exactly 36 times in the circle of the zodiacal degrees, with no planet getting an excess number of degree affinities.

Well, I am not proposing anything here, nor advocating anything either; like I said, I think the traditional and classical affinities should be followed as they are, when one is applying traditional or classical astrological models; but I present the above for possible thought by our Modern Astrology friends, and, since I am an eclectic and do use some Modern Astrology concepts myself, and also having been made to "think about" affinities by my study of Modernist author Johndro, I thought I'd just pass along a few of my tentative ideas, here in this post, as possible "food for thought" (by those so inclined!)
 
Last edited:

BobZemco

Well-known member
what if an outer planet is powerful in your chart?

I don't know what that means. To me a planet is powerful because it holds a lot of dignities and controls the chart.

Jupiter is the Almuten of my chart and in 6 years he makes a conjunction, sextile, square, trine and opposition to all the planets. Uranus takes 87 years to go round and even then, people who live 87 years don't even get a Uranus Return if they were born when Uranus was in one of its Station Cycles.

A Neptune Return is an oxymoron. Right now I have transiting Neptune in Aquarius opposition natal Uranus in Leo, but then so do 100 Million other people, so what's so unique about that?

I don't believe the Outers can run a chart, if for no other reason than they don't often do much.

dr. farr said:
What if (pure hypothesis) a new monomoiria using the 10 planets were applied? Starting with the new "outermost" planet, making a New Chaldean Order (Pluto - Neptune - Uranus - Saturn - Jupiter - Mars - Sun - Venus - Mercury - Moon), and beginning the 360 ecliptic degree circle with Pluto at 0 Aries? Using a 10 planet Chaldean Order, each planet would repeat exactly 36 times in the circle of the zodiacal degrees, with no planet getting an excess number of degree affinities.

That would make perfect sense and be far more logical than what is in place now. The Chaldean order is based on planetary speed and the ability to aspect. Mars can't aspect Venus unless he turns retrograde and runs at her with cutlery or something.

On top of that, the Chaldeans used the Sumerian sexigesimal number system of repeating multiples of 10 and 6, so 10, 36 and 360, well that fits right in.

I don't think they really gave much thought to rulerships for the Outers. All of them are basically Saturnian in nature. It's like, "Uranus, you're Saturn, Jr., oh, Neptune, you're Saturn III, and Pluto you're Saturn IV" (I'm paraphrasing Lee Lehman).

 

Kenoshamaensa

Well-known member
I found this conversation extremely interesting, as I've tended to regard the outers differently as well, looking at their aspects only when a personal planet is part of it, since it indicates the ability of that individual to channel that particular energy at a personal way that another person might not.

Anyway, when I've looked at the planetary placements of these in people's charts, I really don't treat the signs in the same way I do for personals (or even Jup/Sat). Houses, yes, but I don't pay nearly as much attention to things like exaltation, ruling, etc., so I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on why various of you don't, as well.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Following along with the Modernist speculations I made in my earlier post in this thread, could we allocate the following "dignities" to the outers-not based on any type of "rulership" concept, but rather upon an "elemental affinity" or "elemental resonance" basis?

+Pluto "elementally dignified" in the fiery triplicity of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius
+Neptune "elementally dignified" in the watery triplicity of Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces
+Uranus "elementally dignified" in the airy triplicity of Gemini, Libra and Aquarius

Could we also, possibly, assign "detriments" to the outers as well, based upon dissonance of elemental qualities in the relationship between planet and sign?
For example:

+Pluto "elementally detrimented" in Water signs: Cancer, Scorpio (!), Pisces
+Neptune "elementally detrimented" in Fire signs: Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
+Uranus "elementally detrimented" in Earth signs: Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn


...just food for thought!
 

VeryVenus

Well-known member
The north node is exalted in Gemini
The south node is exalted in Saggitarius

The reason there are three signs left over (Leo, Aquarius, Scorpio) is that this system was developed for the nodes plus seven planets, nine in all, with three left unassigned.

With these three signs remaining, "moderns" attempt to "fill them up" with the outers. The "old rules" said that only one "thing" could be exalted in each sign (nodes and planets).

Now, if you give Leo to Neptune, you have two signs left over, Aquarius and Scorpio. But then you would have to consider both Uranus and Pluto exalted in their own signs, flip them (which would be pretty weird), or have them exalted in signs that already have been used.

Your only solution is revise the whole system, and I think that most people are not going to agree with that. :)

Gaer

Gaer,
It's well known that Uranus and Mercury have an affinity - and I have encountered it to be true in my experience. So Mercury is "also exalted" in Aquarius, and Uranus exalted in Gemini.
I don't believe Sun and Neptune to have an affinity. In fact Sun is too self centered while Neptune more receptive...it needs to be needed by others and has no problem expressing emotions. But Neptune and Jupiter have an affinity so it's possible to hypothesize that Neptune exalts in Sagittarius.
Now this leaves Leo to Pluto. Leo being fixed and Pluto bringing in the "inner transformation"...well, once again this is doubtful. I would think Pluto would exalt somewhere where change was welcome. This leaves Virgo as the only sign standing. I am going to deduct that it's Virgo - because I know quite a few Virgos who are ALL ABOUT self transformation and growth.
This concludes our Outer Planet Dignity Investigation :)
Angel
www.astrodetective.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Draco stated:

All of the outer planets are beyond dignity and debility. I'm not so into tradition that I think that the outers should be ignored completely, but I do contest that they have any place in an already holisitic and complete system of essential dignities and debilities.

Is it impossible to regard the outer planets, interesting as they are, without finding it necessary to squeeze them into a system where they do not belong, because they epitomise forces so great and as yet mysterious that they are above and beyond any such categorisation?

Trying to cast dignities and debilities upon the outer planets is not only unecessary and inappropriate, but damaging to an already badly wounded and confused art.

I can agree with most of this, yet when I observe Pluto in Leo, and read what the Modernes wrote I have to admit to the exaltation.

And when I study a natal map that has scorpio on the 7th, the hair on my neck goes up, for I am continually seeing the detrimental Pluto influence there; NOT a nice place to be!

Yet, for those of you who know me via horary debates I stand firm on Traditional Horary with the exception of Outers Not ruling houses though being used in horary as Deb Houlding teaches:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary_intro.html

I know of those devout Ultra-Trads whom would never even stoop so low in their opinion as to note the transits of outers much less the cjts in natals and I respect them intensely but sometimes it's like the correlation of the heredical views of the early Church in Europe that persecuted the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler in that did the RC Church have their heads in the sand?

article-1264092-081d0a9f000005dc-144_468x3392.jpg


Don't get me wrong I preach that a true astrologer once he sees it should diligently study the Trad lore and the Ancients that spawned it!

However in reading William Ramesey's Astrology Restored, when he states '...about questioning the Ancients..', which Lilly apparently did often. I think we should scrutinize both Moderne and Traditionalism, testing the waters continually!

Otherwise we may become stuck in our beleifs that are seen as astrological prejudice:

EB01g972.jpg
 

VeryVenus

Well-known member
Following along with the Modernist speculations I made in my earlier post in this thread, could we allocate the following "dignities" to the outers-not based on any type of "rulership" concept, but rather upon an "elemental affinity" or "elemental resonance" basis?

+Pluto "elementally dignified" in the fiery triplicity of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius
+Neptune "elementally dignified" in the watery triplicity of Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces
+Uranus "elementally dignified" in the airy triplicity of Gemini, Libra and Aquarius

Could we also, possibly, assign "detriments" to the outers as well, based upon dissonance of elemental qualities in the relationship between planet and sign?
For example:

+Pluto "elementally detrimented" in Water signs: Cancer, Scorpio (!), Pisces
+Neptune "elementally detrimented" in Fire signs: Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
+Uranus "elementally detrimented" in Earth signs: Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn


...just food for thought!
This is an interesting thought, but there's no such thing as "elementally dignified". But I understand what you mean - they belong to either fiery or watery "triplicity", and thus, would simply be dignified by triplicity.
Now as far as exaltations go - feel free to check Plolemys table of essential dignities - they do not go by elements. Moon(water/cold and moist/cardinal) is exalted in earthy/cold and dry/fixed Taurus. While by looking at elements ONLY we can see how earth can be receptive of water, the next one:
Jupiter (fire, hot and dry, mutable) exalts in Cancer(water/cold and moist/cardinal) throws a complete "elemental" curveball at you.

It's in their divine qualities that they fulfill each other. Cancer needs nourishment - and Jupiter is the ultimate giver, he needs to connect. Taurus is all about security - and Moon says bring it on.
Now with Scorpio and Neptune.
Scorpio is the slowest moving of the water signs it is after all a fixed, self centered sign - and it has a quality of precision and focus: it's the ultimate investigator. Scorpio wants to connect through dark, deeply hidden emotional side of himself and others. Now for the Neptune: Pisces energy is just the opposite, its unfocused and defused - it reaches far instead of deep within, it defies boundaries of "how far it can go" - its all about dissolving themselves in the needs of others. It has tremendous compassion - wanting to elleviate the suffering of others.

Can you see yourself how different they are? Can you see how sensitive Neptune in powerful Scorpio would be peregrine, wondering through the most of its sign to find balance between inside and outside, giving and receiving? I would think that in "some degrees" it finally finds weak dignity here by either terms or face and finally resolves a conflict of how much of personal power and personal views does he want to enforce on others? I believe in the heart of hearts that Scorpio's cause is a noble one but his methods, when combined with Piscean energy, it is having trouble "reaching the masses" and runs a risk of being misunderstood. Sometimes Neptune in Scorpio can be VERY wacky and opinionated, so I can see that we cannot talk about any sort of "exaltation" - more of an acceptance of powerful and charismatic arrogance, with a mission of bringing out the unique inner vision(or inner world, microcosmos) to the masses (outer world, macrocosmos) through art, acting, escapism, creation, religion, philosophy, drugs, ect.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
The basis of exaltations seems to be relative to the Equator in its origins: when we transpose eliptic degrees to equatorial ones, 21/22 Libra equates to 0 degrees of the equator: Sun Falls to the equator (0 equatorial degree) at that point in the sign of Libra; Sun exalts at the same degrees of Aries, those ecliptic degrees of Aries being the most removed from 0 of the equator. Moon falls in ecliptic Scorpio which, along with ecliptic Virgo, are next in line relative to 0 of the equator (which area is held by ecliptic Libra) Venus falls in Virgo: Moon is exalted in Taurus and Venus in Pisces: these 2 ecliptic signs are next most away from 0 of the equator (ecliptic Aries holds the position most away from 0 of the equator) Mars and Jupiter hold a middle ground relative to 0 of the equator: Mars exalted in Capricorn and falls in Cancer, and Jupiter is exalted in Cancer and falls in Capricorn: ecliptic Cancer and Capricorn are equidistant for 0 of the equator. Saturn apparently loves the equator-Saturn is exalted in Libra (near 0 of the equator, the opposite of the Sun) and falls in Aries (the ecliptic sign most away from 0 of the equator, again opposite the Sun) Mercury seems to like the equator too-it is exalted in Virgo (next sign away from 0 of the equator) and falls in Pisces (next sign away from Aries-the most distant sign from 0 of the equator), the reverse of Venus.

No, exaltations and falls are definitely not related to any elemental considerations whatsoever!
Personally I speculate that they originated when the equator, rather than the ecliptic, was used as the central "path" for astrological considerations and delineations...
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Modernist pioneer Charles Carter (in his excellent book "The Zodiac and the Soul") discussed qualitative affinities of the outers with the 7 traditional planets: Carter connected Uranus with Mars, Mercury and the Sun; Neptune with Venus, Jupiter and the Moon; Pluto with Mars, Saturn and (somewhat) with the Sun.
I have found these affinities suggested by Carter to be of much value in practical delineation and prediction...
 

poyi

Premium Member
Modernist pioneer Charles Carter (in his excellent book "The Zodiac and the Soul") discussed qualitative affinities of the outers with the 7 traditional planets: Carter connected Uranus with Mars, Mercury and the Sun; Neptune with Venus, Jupiter and the Moon; Pluto with Mars, Saturn and (somewhat) with the Sun.
I have found these affinities suggested by Carter to be of much value in practical delineation and prediction...


I also agree with Carter's observations. Pluto is surely penetrative (Mars shaprness), deep (Saturn the hidden matters) also with the nature of active structural transformation, restructuring with the Sun along with Mars both representing Creation.

But I don't think Pluto is detriment in Scorpio as Mars rules this in traditional rulership and Pluto is matching with it nature. Being a Scorpio Sun, Mercury, Saturn and Pluto. I can say my water is not the water like Cancer and Pisces. The Water of Scorpio is rather like Ice/boiling water fitting it extremeness. If we see Cancer as flowing water, Pisces as mist. When we see Cancer as pleasant water like rain, river or spring, Pisces as the boundless ocean, lost in direction, then Pluto as the water that runs deep into root of the beneath, the drain water all the ugly dirty water that got removed from the system to assist better purity.

Anyhow, all outer planets have more than one elementary characters. Mercury ruling both Air and Earth elements, most people agree Mercury exalts in Virgo or perhaps Aquarius. Venus ruling both Air and Earth again but exalts in Water element Pisces. Jupiter rules both Sagittarius and Pisces, how fire and water be matching, while he exalts in Cancer. I am sure the rules for the traditional dignity and debility can also be used to form modern dignity and debility with the outers.

The other side of the idea is, if outers representing transcendence outside the boundaries and rules of the physical world Saturn, can we really be able to limit them into the Dignity and Debility as they simply doing different things in different signs but always to lift to elevate the matter beyond the physical boundaries.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I also agree with Carter's observations. Pluto is surely penetrative (Mars shaprness), deep (Saturn the hidden matters) also with the nature of active structural transformation, restructuring with the Sun along with Mars both representing Creation.

But I don't think Pluto is detriment in Scorpio as Mars rules this in traditional rulership and Pluto is matching with it nature. Being a Scorpio Sun, Mercury, Saturn and Pluto. I can say my water is not the water like Cancer and Pisces. The Water of Scorpio is rather like Ice/boiling water fitting it extremeness. If we see Cancer as flowing water, Pisces as mist. When we see Cancer as pleasant water like rain, river or spring, Pisces as the boundless ocean, lost in direction, then Pluto as the water that runs deep into root of the beneath, the drain water all the ugly dirty water that got removed from the system to assist better purity.

Anyhow, all outer planets have more than one elementary characters. Mercury ruling both Air and Earth elements, most people agree Mercury exalts in Virgo or perhaps Aquarius. Venus ruling both Air and Earth again but exalts in Water element Pisces. Jupiter rules both Sagittarius and Pisces, how fire and water be matching, while he exalts in Cancer. I am sure the rules for the traditional dignity and debility can also be used to form modern dignity and debility with the outers.

The other side of the idea is, if outers representing transcendence outside the boundaries and rules of the physical world Saturn, can we really be able to limit them into the Dignity and Debility as they simply doing different things in different signs but always to lift to elevate the matter beyond the physical boundaries.
Another opinion :smile:
I'm of the opinion that unless the pre-existing schema for assignation of exaltation is fully understood,
we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets:
On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?

Clearly the current logic was not based upon "this planet really really suits this sign" kind of mentality. Therefore I would encourage Element to move away from his rationale.

I agree with whomever mentioned the aversions of the Thema Mundi. But really I'd be inclined to not see Neptune as ruling Pisces either so I'm not sure how popular that theory would be. I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr (if I understand him properly) and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs - I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.

I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio. I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course. It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Neptune rules Pisces and Sag.
Not all astrologers would agree :smile:
- for example

I'm of the opinion that unless the pre-existing schema for assignation of exaltation is fully understood, we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets: On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?

Clearly the current logic was not based upon "this planet really really suits this sign" kind of mentality. Therefore I would encourage Element to move away from his rationale.

I agree with whomever mentioned the aversions of the Thema Mundi. But really I'd be inclined to not see Neptune as ruling Pisces either so I'm not sure how popular that theory would be. I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr (if I understand him properly) and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs - I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.

I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio. I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course. It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Most astrologers do agree about it.

I don't think there's anything that all astrologers agree on.
Most modern astrologers do not agree at all regarding the 'rulerships' of the outer planets, in fact there are multiple opinions on the subject :smile:
.....we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets:
On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?

...I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr
(if I understand him properly)
and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs
- I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.

I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio.
I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course.
It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.
 

TamaraL

Well-known member
I have Neptune in capricorn and I can say that I feel it's effects very intensely (it's 1-degree from my ascendant; and possibly chart ruler). From my situation I would agree that it's in fall in Cap. As a sun in Cap as well, I'd like to be practical, dependible and straightforward; but it seems I can never see relaity for what it is, and I'm always lost in a dream world (many people often say I appear as if I'm not-quite-here). So definitely this position is putting me off. ... I also have Neptune conj my mercury and a lot of times people do not take my arguments seriously, as if I'm not realistic.

So I know it's a generational planet but maybe it affects the person more when it's on the ascendant or maybe even a certain house placement could highten its affect to the individual. Maybe even in tight conjunct to personal planets.
Like someone else said I can see Neptune being a better influence on a Leo too.

I have the same placement (Neptune in Capricorn conjunct Uranus & Saturn) so I tend to be really unrealistic, not so much grounded, very imaginative always applying imagination first to solve a practical issue.. (friends call me : "in her own little world"). You post helped me a lot to 'see' that indeed this placement can put someone off.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yes, most do agree.

Most books and authors list Neptune as ruling Sag and Pisces.

The ppl who disagree are mostly traditionalists who don't use the outers as well.

Uranus ruling Aq and exalted in scorps.
Pluto ruling scorps and Aries.
Neptune ruling Sag and Pisces.

Are the consensus opinions today.

The only real divide is that some astrologers only give pluto to scorps and others assign jupiter to just sag and neptune to just pisces.
On the contrary
there is no consensus
Exaltation
rulership
and so on
are all Traditional concepts
clearly illustrated on the TRADITIONAL TABLE OF DIGNITIES AND DEBILITIES


Dignity and Debility is a Traditional concept


Regarding Traditional Dignity and Debility - Modern Astrology relies on it
:smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Dignity and debility is both a traditionalist and modern concept
Because Traditional astrology IS OLDER THAN Modern astrology

THEN

Dignity and Debility ORIGINATES from Traditional Astrology:smile:

Traditional astrologers can delineate Dignity and Debility without using Modern Astrology concepts

Modern Astrologers cannot delineate Dignity and Debility without using Traditional Astrology concepts

Modern Astrologers are entirely dependent and reliant on Traditional Astrological concepts

Because both actively use it and both have contributed to it
Traditional Astrologers are the originators of the concept of Dignity and Debility

Modern Astrologers tinker with the concepts

A traditionalist concept would be the old house system, which traditionalists mainly use
Perhaps you refer to http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.html
It seems to me that what you're arguing is that only the traditionalists who lived 100's of years ago are allowed to assign degnities and debilities to planets.
My contention is in fact that astrologers who originated Dignity and Debility are now called Traditional astrologers
and those Traditional astrologers do not need Modern Astrological opinions in order to delineate

I disagree
And there are many who disagree with you
 
Last edited:

poyi

Premium Member
I watched a video by Robert hand the other day and knowing Robert hand from having a few of his books.he studied both modern and traditional. I took his points on since outer planets holding the power of generational effects as well as transcendence these three should not rule any signs as well as debility. However when Neptune in Pisces may function more comfortably due to similar natural and only through these Neptune transit in Pisces we are into much higher focus on catholic sexual abuses and their lies of many 12th house institutions under public investigation. I also see Pluto being in Capricorn governing major structural reformations. But I don't take the idea that Pluto doesn't function well in other sign as he always will bring elimination, destruction and rebirth but transcendence sense. Only when these outer planets particularly at close contact with personal axises then it will show significant otherwise not 100%. Though I have been comparing both outer and inner planets when reading charts both chain rulership lead me to the same dispositor or am still under research and trial believe I will continue to use both and compare. But surely I don't take the point dignity and debility as those outer can perform comfortably in certain signs but not truly holding the rulership, if so their status of transcendence would be completely meaningless.
 
Top