the new tradition

waybread

Well-known member
Thanks for sharing.

Coming from an English-language perspective.....

Theoretically a rulership, exaltation-- and by extension-- a detriment or fall-- should mean something.

Traditionally a planet in the sign of its exaltation got high marks for this essential dignity, and was believed to have strong powers to act. In horary astrology, for example, in a question about a conflict between two people, where one significator was exalted and the other one was in the sign of its fall, the first one would likely prevail. In natal or event astrology, an exalted planet has a certain sympathy with its sign; and a trine or sextile sign relationship with the sign's domiciled ruler, with the exception of Mercury exalted in Virgo.

But saying that Pluto is exalted in Mercury or Uranus is exalted in Virgo means exactly what?

The modern outer planets have been around for some time as sign rulers, and I believe they work as house cusp rulers ("lords.") I'm not sure what is the benefit of creating two rulers per sign where these have not already been shown to work.

Then what is the point of hypothetical planets? Uranian astrologers have used hypothetical planets (Zeus, Cupido, and so on) for some time but I cannot for the life of me see their purpose.

We now have recently discovered trans-Neptunian dwarf planets like Eris and Sedna, so it would be nice if more astrologers got to work on them. Plus Ceres has been upgraded from asteroid to dwarf planet status. Mythological Ceres (the Roman goddess) was highly creative and feminine.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
As long as we're "sharing", I include the Ascendant and the Age Indicator as Sign rulers, with the Asc as "Native-ruler" of Sagittarius, associated with the archetype of Apollo; and, the Age Indicator as "Native-ruler" of Taurus, associated with the "Earth Mother" Gaia. But this is Modern ONLY. The terms Dignities and Debilities, and "Exalted" is strictly Traditional [IMO], and I don't use them where my Modern "branch" is concerned. (Tradition is at the roots, Modern is in the branches--they not only can peacefully coexist, they're in a Synergistic relationship.)
Btw, in the Ancient Greco-Roman religions, Mercury served Pluto as the conductor of Souls to the Underworld.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
New thread to present to everyone a new scheme of rulerships and exaltations, which includes Neptune Uranus and Pluto, and 2 still unknown objects-planets called X and Y. They represent the feminine creative power (X) and the time and its movement (Y); the scheme includes 2 more planets because, analyzing the mechanism of the placements, it was found that to respect every mathematical rule, the scheme needs 2 more planets. One of this two new planets was traced in 2016 and now scientists concur that there are still many mysteries hiding in deep space, so one day we'll be forced to introduce the new elements into our calculus, like we did for the other planets.

This is an updated version of the placements that takes into account the rules of tradition, and thanks to them introduces 2 new planets that resulted from the analysis.. Do you see it working?

Aries: Mars, Pluto and exaltation of the Sun
Taurus: X, Venus and exaltation of Jupiter
Gemini: Mercury, Y and exaltation of Pluto
Cancer: the Moon and exaltation of Venus
Leo: the Sun and exaltation of Y
Virgo: Y, Mercury and exaltation of Uranus
Libra: Venus, X and exaltation of Saturn
Scorpio: Pluto, Mars and exaltation of Mercury
Sagittarius: Jupiter, Neptune and exaltation of X
Capricorn: Saturn, Uranus and exaltation of Mars
Aquarius: Uranus, Saturn and exaltation of Neptune
Pisces: Neptune, Jupiter and exaltation of the Moon

This is the scheme used in the Italian tradition from 40 years, since nobody in this forum knows of it, I thought it was cool to share.
The word 'Tradition' is firmly established
as being the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information
from generation to generation
especially by word of mouth or by practice:
and is accepted as

a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting
:

therefore 'new tradition' is a non sequitor :smile:


the fact is however
that assigning rulership to the outers is nothing new on our forum
and dr. farr has made an extensive contribution on another thread
as follows
that you may find of interest


I believe that the long established (Western) dignity/detriment model
was developed upon the framework of 12 signs and 7 planets,
and that this model works perfectly well
within the context of the Hellenist and Traditionalist whole system models.

I also question the practicality of attempting to fit other cosmic factors (the outer planets)
into that specific model.

However, concepts such as dispositorship-like influences, elemental qualities, etc
can be applied to these other cosmic factors (the outer planets),
although upon an experimental basis
(until several hundred years of such uses,
and the collection of results from such uses,
have been accumulated)...


I use such considerations (dignity, detriment as traditionally defined)
only as secondary, modifying factors,
and I have borrowed from ancient Vedic astrology the evaluative method called ashtakavarga
(8 sources of energy)
in making my primary estimations of how well each planet (or sign)
will be enabled to express its specific nature and influence,
ie, if a sign or planet is in fact "dignified" or "detrimented" (to use more familiar terms)


I will present the following Modernist allocation
of (traditionally understood) sign, triplicity, sect, joy, term, face affinities of the outer planets: t
hese affinities are followed by a certain group of esotericists I know,
in their various astrological delineations,
to make their determination of "dignity and detriment" in chart analysis.
I present this material without further comment,
and perhaps its will be of some interest
to AW members following a Modernist astrological approach:

Note:
the following allocations clearly are based upon the concept of Pluto being similar to Mars,
Neptune being similar to Jupiter
(which is somewhat different than most Modernist opinion,
which usually makes Neptune similar to Venus),
and Uranus being similar to Mercury.



ELEMENTAL ALLOCATIONS
Pluto: Fire + Earth
Neptune: Water
Uranus: Air

SIGN AFFINITIES
Pluto co-domicile in Scorpio (Mars primary dispositor of the sign)
Neptune co-domicile in Pisces (Jupiter primary dispositor of the sign)
Uranus co-domicile in Aquarius (Saturn primary dispositor of the sign)

Pluto: detrimented in Taurus; falls in Cancer; exalted in Capricorn (similar to Mars)
Neptune: detrimented in Virgo; falls in Capricorn; exalted in Cancer (similar to Jupiter)
Uranus: detrimented in Leo; falls in Pisces; exalted in Gemini (similar to Mercury, except that Mercury is exalted in earthy Virgo)

TRIPLICITY AFFINITIES:
Fire Triplicity: day + night co-participant = Pluto
Air Triplicity: day + night co-participant = Uranus
Water Triplicity: day + night co-participant = Neptune
Earth Triplicity: day + night co-participant = Pluto

SECT:
Pluto = nocturnal
Neptune = diurnal
Uranus = both (like Mercury)

JOYS:
Pluto in 6th house (sorrows in 12th house)
Neptune in 11th house (sorrows in 5th house)
Uranus in 1st house (sorrows in 7th house)

PLANETARY ORBIT SCHEDULE
(clearly an extension of the original Chaldean Order)
Pluto
Neptune
Uranus
Saturn
Jupiter
Mars
Sun
Venus
Mercury
Moon
....then back to Pluto

FACES:
Aries: 0-9= Mars; 10-19 = Sun; 20-29 = Venus
Taurus: 0-9 = Mercury; 10-19 = Moon; 20-29 = Pluto
Gemini: 0-9 = Neptune; 10-19 = Uranus; 20-29 = Saturn
Cancer: 0-9 = Jupiter; 10-19 = Mars; 20-29 = Sun
Leo: 0-9 = Venus; 10-19 = Mercury; 20-29 = Moon
Virgo: 0-9 = Pluto; 10-19 = Neptune; 20-29 = Uranus
Libra: 0-9 = Saturn; 10-19 = Jupiter; 20-29 = Mars
Scorpio: 0-9 = Sun; 10-19 = Venus' 20-29 = Mercury
Sagittarius: 0-9 = Moon; 10-19 = Pluto; 20-29 = Neptune
Capricorn: 0-9 = Uranus; 10-19 = Saturn; 20-29 = Jupiter
Aquarius: 0-9 = Mars; 10-19 = Sun; 20-29 = Venus
Pisces: 0-9 = Mercury; 10-19 = Moon; 20-29 = Pluto

TERMS:
Each sign is equally divided into 10 terms of 3 degrees each. The first term of each sign begins with the dispositor (primary dispositor) of that sign, then each following term is of the planet next in order in the Planetary Orbit Schedule (note that these "terms" include the Sun and Moon, which is like the ancient monomoiria planetary allocations of the West, and the triamsha varga allocations of Vedic astrology)

ARIES: Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter

TAURUS: Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun

GEMINI: Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus

CANCER: Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury

LEO: Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars

VIRGO: Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus

LIBRA: Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun

SCORPIO: Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter

SAGITTARIUS: Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn

CAPRICORN: Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Pluto

AQUARIUS: Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Pluto

PISCES: Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon-Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn
 

waybread

Well-known member
It means exactly what you just said, nothing changes in the meaning from english to this updated scheme; a placements is a placement, exaltations mean exaltations and domiciles mean domiciles.
This revolutionizes the entire scheme, I'm sure it creates some problems at first ^^

Well, if it "revolutionizes the entire scheme" then how do you argue that "nothing changes in the meaning in English to this updated scheme"??

It would be interesting if you could give a practical example.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I didn't get a single thing out of this, lol. yeah I know of Mercury myth

You're presenting a new Modern configuration. It apparently includes two new indicators I've never heard of ( which doesn't mean it's "wrong") bringing the number to 12, to fit the number of Signs. That "Mercury myth" is a form of ancient support for Pluto being strong in Gemini, ruled by Mercury, since Mercury was "in service" to Pluto. But, once you go beyond 7 indicators (Sun, Moon, and Mercury through Saturn), the Dignities and Debilities no longer apply in the Traditional sense, and that includes the term "Exalted" [IMO].
However, I'm studying your blog, and and finding it very interesting. Would you say "exalted" in this case is equivalent to the term "ruled by", as used in Modern-astrology, and "domiciled in", as used in Traditional-astrology?
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
I'll study the blog, which is extremely well organized and worded. What I was saying was about a more prosaic configuration I've worked out on my own that I use in Chart-readings, but haven't felt like sharing much. It too has patterns, and connections to the Ancient-Greek religion (I prefer that term to "mythology", since it was real to them). I've personally begun calling :uranus: "Urania", goddess of the Heavens and the Ancient-Greek Muse of Astrology, and have it as "strong" in Virgo as well (I'm avoiding the term "Exalted"). In my terminology, Virgo is "in service" to :uranus:. (Bummer that the Astronomers have named a piddling asteroid after her!:pinched: Of course, they think very little of Astrology itself.)
Anyway, this is really about this new configuration you find so beautiful and enlightening. So far, the one problem I have with it is the X and Y planets, but I'm still going to study it as a system and try it out on a few Charts.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
There's a recent discussion about how to locate the Astrological Ages in the Chart: Mundane Astrology forum (The Astrological Ages explained using the "Gaia's Trident" method).
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Great point on Pluto/Mercury, and indeed they are associated to 2 signs: Gemini and Scorpio. And it's quite surprising nobody ever noticed these two signs similarities. It's great that you analyze the myths too, they were indeed left in the shadows for a long time, we have to thanks the Junghian archetypes theory for this "re-discovery". And at this point, with psychology, we see well that nothing new was made, it was all there under "our eyes", we were just not ready to give it a name

.....

@waybread
I said nothing changes in the meaning, domiciles and exaltations are the same thing. The revolution is in the "correct" dispositions of the old (they always existed SO the Zodiac must have contained them already...)planets.

Can you show a worked-out example using a chart?

Gemini and Scorpio have little in common-- mutable air and fixed water.

Pluto and Mercury have little in common. Or to put this differently what precisely do you see as their commonalities?

Your comment to me is still self-contradictory. You are assuming something that you could better articulate.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Can you show a worked-out example using a chart?

Gemini and Scorpio have little in common-- mutable air and fixed water.

Pluto and Mercury have little in common. Or to put this differently what precisely do you see as their commonalities?

Your comment to me is still self-contradictory. You are assuming something that you could better articulate.

Waybread, what's your take on "Yods"? (It's relevant.)
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Traditional Astrology is based on PATTERNS formed by the use of the 7 clearly Visibles. Three viable options: (1) Stick with these patterns ONLY (which are concise and very impressive), and reject entirely any new patterns formed using planets beyond Saturn. (2) Forget about patterns and simply add in more planets in a way that "feels right". (3) Respect the traditional patterns, leaving them in place, while using additional markers (including the planets beyond Saturn) to create NEW patterns as an addition to Astrological knowledge.
Btw, this Thread has a much catchier title than "A Treatise on the Fundamental Nature of Astrology", which is really what's being proposed.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Traditional Astrology is based on PATTERNS
formed by the use of the 7 clearly Visibles
That's a distraction from the CORE issue
which is
Modernist astrology IS UNABLE to logically add new planets
to the two thousand year old accepted TRADITIONAL DIGNITIES TABLE
all attempts by Modernists to do so have indubitably
only
rendered any MODERNIST DIGNITIES TABLE risible :smile:


IN CONTRAST

for at least two thousand years
traditional astrology has successfully agreed VISIBLE planetary domiciles
that continue to provide coherent delineative methodology to the present day

BUT
"modernist astrology dubious alleged rocket science"
has FAILED to present any MODERNIST ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES TABLE
reconciling modern invisible planetary claimed "domiciles"
with the two thousand year old accepted
visible planetary domiciles and exaltations



ESSENTIAL

DIGNITIES TABLE - TRADITIONAL

dignities-essential-ptolemic-lilly-table2.gif


Three viable options:
(1) Stick with these patterns ONLY (which are concise and very impressive),
and reject entirely any new patterns formed using planets beyond Saturn.

(2) Forget about patterns and simply add in more planets in a way that "feels right".

(3) Respect the traditional patterns, leaving them in place, while using additional markers
(including the planets beyond Saturn) to create NEW patterns as an addition to Astrological knowledge.

Btw, this Thread has a much catchier title than "A Treatise on the Fundamental Nature of Astrology",
which is really what's being proposed.
 

david starling

Well-known member
That's a distraction from the CORE issue
which is
Modernist astrology IS UNABLE to logically add new planets
to the two thousand year old accepted TRADITIONAL DIGNITIES TABLE
all attempts by Modernists to do so have indubitably
only
rendered any MODERNIST DIGNITIES TABLE risible :smile:


IN CONTRAST

for at least two thousand years
traditional astrology has successfully agreed VISIBLE planetary domiciles
that continue to provide coherent delineative methodology to the present day

BUT
"modernist astrology dubious alleged rocket science"
has FAILED to present any MODERNIST ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES TABLE
reconciling modern invisible planetary claimed "domiciles"
with the two thousand year old accepted
visible planetary domiciles and exaltations



ESSENTIAL

DIGNITIES TABLE - TRADITIONAL

dignities-essential-ptolemic-lilly-table2.gif

And yet, WITHOUT Modern Astrology, Traditional Astrology would have been consigned to the dustbin of History. Modern-astrology has grabbed the attention and imagination of millions around the world, and has brought new life to the ancient practice, which has been characterized as "archaic superstition" by Modern-science. Traditional and Modern Astrology are in a mutually beneficial, Synergistic relationship.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
same old same old Modernist Rulership Debacle

And yet, WITHOUT Modern Astrology, Traditional Astrology would have been consigned to the dustbin of History.
Modern-astrology has grabbed the attention and imagination of millions around the world,
and has brought new life to the ancient practice,
which has been characterized as "archaic superstition" by Modern-science.

Vedic, Chinese, Tibetan and other astrology methodologies flourished for centuries:smile:
and continue to flourish
without the dubious "assistance" of so-called Modernist astrology
scrabbling around in the Dustbin of History for Traditional working techniques
to rename
for example
the ancient astrological SOLAR REVOLUTION
has a makeover Modernist style as THE SOLAR RETURN

the fact is
re: WESTERN MODERNIST ASTROLOGICAL HISTORY


Just as an historical interlude that some people may find interesting,
it's note worthy that modern rulerships were assigned
not because of some arduous research and investigation
- as you often hear from many modern astrologers,
but instead by astrologers of the time, cogniscant of the tradition of rulership,
basically went ahead and followed Ptolemy's logic,
by assigning the next planet out with the next sign out.
So flowing from the Sun is the rulership scheme which normally reflects back to the Moon,
but breaking this they just carried on projecting out from the sun.
So the next out from the Sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Mars,
then Jupiter and then Saturn,
and then when Uranus was discovered
we see astrologers explicitly invent the rulership to Aquarius
because Aquarius is the next sign out after Capricorn,
then when Neptune comes along it's assigned the next one out which is Pisces.

This is explicitly stated in the very earliest sources we have for modern rulership.

So the outer planetary rulerships came about

by trying to stay true to the tradition at large,

and absolutely not by channelling
or study of numerous charts
.


Then Pluto was discovered and by this stage in the history our understanding of astrology,
already getting watered down by the time of Uranus' discovery,
find itself in a time where astrology is no longer in the hands of the educated as it once was,
but in the hands of the masses, during a time when it was already simplified
and watered down
and projected through a pseudo-religious lens of the Theosophical movement.

Pluto is discovered and the pattern continues.
It is assigned to Aries and there is a conference in Germany to discuss the matter more fully.
UNANIMOUS agreement dictates that Pluto rules Aries,
and the counter idea, that some were positing at the time,
that it should rule Scorpio are squashed.


Until someone beats them to print,
and writes up the attributions of Pluto
and that it rules Scorpio.
The author beat them to print
and published a successful book
and the rest is history.
It stuck, and from that day forth
Pluto magically started ruling Scorpio.


I point this out
because in the context of rulership even the modern rulership scheme bows to the traditional logic as much as it can.
It does not reinvent anything,
instead it recognises the superiority of the traditional schema
and tries to accommodate itself into it as much as it can
.


The only exception is
that the general lack of understanding of the broader tradition by the time of Pluto amongst the basic astrologer,
thanks to a deliberate watering down of astrological technique
coupled with the unlucky timing of Pluto coming out when the astrological world
was still struggling to emerge from the mini-dark period it underwent
meant that one of the outers went to another sign.

 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Re: same old same old Modernist Rulership Debacle

Vedic, Chinese, Tibetan and other astrology methodologies flourished for centuries:smile:
and continue to flourish
without the dubious "assistance" of so-called Modernist astrology
scrabbling around in the Dustbin of History for Traditional working techniques
to rename
for example
the ancient astorlogical SOLAR REVOLUTION
has a makeover Modernist style as THE SOLAR RETURN

the fact is
re: WESTERN MODERNIST ASTROLOGICAL HISTORY

I should have specified "the Western world", and Tropical Traditionalism. I actually think Modern Astrologers SHOULD rename some of the Ancient techniques (such as Exaltation) out of respect for the Table of Dignities, which, by and large, is being disregarded once the outer planets are taken into account. Yes, SIDEREAL Astrology is alive and well, especially in India. But, Tropical Astrology would have fallen by the wayside.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

@waybread

It's pretty obvious,
Gemini is the sign associated to lies, the theater, masking oneself;

GEMINI from THE ANTHOLOGY by Vettius Valens http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf

Gemini = scholars, those working in education and letters, poets, music-lovers, declaimers
stewards, those who receive trusts;
also translators, merchants, judges of good and evil
sensible people, practitioners of the curious arts and seekers after mystic lore :smile:



Scorpions are the great occultists instead, nothing's clear with them,
they hide the truth, the same thing that an actor has to do.
Of course they can't be the same thing...
SCORPIO = tricky, base, thieves, murderers, traitors, incorrigible
destroyers of property, connivers, burglars, perjurers, covetous of others’ property
accomplices in murder, poisonings, and other crimes, haters of their own family
Vettius Valens, ANTHOLOGIES Book I
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf


Pluto and Mercury have probably one of the most dualistic symbolism in myth,
it was Mercury, the messenger, to accompany the dead souls to the underworld (Pluto),
and it was Pluto to give to Mercury the invisibility helmet that he used to hide himself (Pluto character).
Both characters are expressed in both signs: Mercury/Pluto in Gemini is the "innocent" lies,
to create an entertainment that hides the truth
(but they do so censoring their innermost deep part, Pluto),
in Scorpio is Mercury that accompanies the natives in their quest for the deeper truth..
and they achieve it without anyone noticing, hiding themselves.
There are many other reasons but I'm quite you can make get them yourself.

What charts example do you need?
Can you prove me why is Jupiter exalted in Cancer? Can you show me a chart for that?
prove to anyone that dwarf planetoid pluto is allegedly a planet

I answered your Pluto non-sensical controversy in the other forum already,
why do you follow me around repeating the same things?
Why didn't you answer there,
where I already explained you that you make no sense?

so you continuously repeat your own comments
making same comments on this thread as you did on another thread
and yet
you expect different answers
to the same nonsensical nonworking non logical theory
and example of your repeat comments :smile:
This system doesn’t work “because it creates the holes it cannot fill”. Those holes were already there, passed unobserved by the traditional scheme we’ve been using for millennia. The theory I’m presenting you in no way puts those planets (X and Y) there, to fill the holes; the procedure indeed is reverted: because the Zodiac follows rigorous mathematical and geometrical rules, which are: the anti-clockwise motion, (respected in the succession of the seasons where astrology comes from), the doubling of the planets (think of the luminaries Sun and Moon that oppose Saturn AND Uranus, but first of that think of the double domiciles that only some signs have the privilege to have), and ultimately, the mirror effect for which to every element in the Zodiac there’s its opposite; then, for this, if you have two holes in there, you are missing two pieces. It’s logic. We have 12 signs, in 12 houses, and 10 planets. Only 10, why? This not only creates holes in the chart, but it makes the entire logic of the Zodiac crumble. We must have 12 planets. The last 3 planets that we now commonly acknowledge and use have been discovered, over all, not much before than 100 years ago. I’m not surprised there are still many differing interpretations about such planets. We’re still studying them, and we’re the first to see them work. Anyway, I really suggest anyone in this forum to spend a google visit looking for the rulership of the “new planets” (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) and you’ll see that the official “English” astrology agrees on the Neptune rulership for Pisces, the Uranus one for Aquarius, and the Pluto one for Scorpio. They’ve not been given arbitrarily, the discourses were long and for a time they took into account the characters of the signs too, so it was even believed that Neptune was ruling over Taurus, or Uranus over Scorpio. But since the Zodiac is built on logic, it was understood (it was a French guy called Andrè Barbault) that the way to follow was another: the planets are placed following their progressive distance from the Sun, which is our reference point inside the Zodiac system; if Saturn, the old “furthest” star, occupies the opposite placement facing the Sun, as it does in Aquarius opposing the Sun domicile in Leo, then the “new” planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) must follow the same logic. And it was followed, it is now commonly applied, but not fully. The author I’m translating went further. Not only she gave a double domicile to all the “new” planets, because logic says every planet has two domiciles (the Sun and the Moon are not planets and their role is very special for the entire system, SO they act differently) but following all the rules that the Zodiac presented along the way, she found the correct exaltations too. By finding the exaltations, that, like the name suggests, denote a movement, she discovered something incredible: the Zodiac was moving, just like a wheel. Try to apply any “classic” domicile-exaltation scheme to the Zodiac, nothing happens. But I don’t want you to try do any of this “magick”, I know all of this sounds crazy to you. Instead, apply any “classic” domicile scheme to the Zodiac, and analyze it, but analyze it well. Why are the opposing signs not owning opposing planets? Why do the planets follow different paths? Why are some signs “blessed” with more planets and others left empty? And the same for the houses. Why are schools of thought diverging from each other? Mathematic is not a matter of opinions. Neither science.
Now I’d like to note something particularly important, that you point out but don’t seem to quite explain to yourself well: Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, that i keep calling “new” planets, have always been there. We couldn’t see them, but they were there. And do you think we’re arrived at the end of our findings? We’re not far maybe, but we’re not there yet, in terms of our solar system discoveries. Inform yourself, it’s proven, there’s another major planet beyond Pluto.The most experienced scientists think that others are there too. They’re playing a role even now that we can’t see them and are more concerned about what to eat for breakfast tomorrow, they don’t stop existing just because we are not ready for those. Same thing for logic. Same thing for the Zodiac. They don’t stop working just because you can’t understand them.

It’s quite mind blowing to think that our zodiac system already knew of those planets before they were discovered, and I can agree that that’s something better left to some very interested and scrupulous archaeologist or biologist to find out; but if we take for valid that the Zodiac works, and we know it does, we must respect its logic. Every discovery is followed by a correction of the previous established thought-structure, so how can you expect to keep finding planets in the solar system and keep all the old data as if nothing had changed?
Some things must be corrected, and it will be for the better; only when we’ll find the new object we’ll be able to name it, but we’ll be able to name better the Sun too and the Moon and Mercury, and so on. That’s how all the developments in astrology, and in the history of humankind have always worked. And, we here know, the times must be ready, then we’ll be able to accomplish our “destiny” (Just think of the psychology field, and quantum physics relationships with astrology). However universal it might be.

“Our” system, I mean the Zodiac, says that, logically, we must have other two planets beyond Pluto. I’m not objecting against it, I can’t.

Mercury fits well in Scorpio for the very reasons you described, lol. Scorpio is the “trouble-maker” (lol sorry Scorpios) of the Zodiac, how could it be so without Mercury giving its best in here? Scorpio is even the sign related to money, like the 8th house, and by affinity Mercury was the god of thievery and commerce, if you can make money, you need that detached brain. Indeed it’s even the coldest, the most “logical” of all the watery signs, and I’m sorry, that’s not just because of Pluto and Mars.
Uranus instead is considered the satellite of Saturn, the anti-luminary opposed to the Sun, so that the opposite of the Moon is Uranus (Cancer-Capricorn), indeed its symbology is all about technology and action, symbols in direct contrast with the soft, sugary moods of the Moon.
The example of Pisces-Mercury is a good one, in facts Pisces is double ruled by Neptune and Jupiter. So Pisces is indeed lacking Mercury, and the attentiveness of Virgo, but here you get confused; Mercury is quickness, and so it’s “reception”, like antenna, Mercury is the ears. Not the tongue, that’s Jupiter. And that’s just why Taurus and Sagittarius are such talkers. Taurus in facts has the exaltation of Jupiter.

I’m sorry for the denomination of the “weaker” and “stronger” domicile, but it was used in my translation of the Morpurgo theories, maybe I should change the name because Morpurgo calls them “primary” and “basic” domiciles. They correspond to the “day” and “night” ptolemaic positions, but my denomination was used just to make the process behind this particular phenomena more clear:
why are there 2 domiciles for each planet if the 2 characters-signs are so different? That’s the explanation behind the ptolemaic denomination of the“day” and “night” domiciles, but saying that doesn’t underline the part I wanted to refer to, id est, motion: every position of every planet inside the Zodiac is in motion, from the “weaker” or Morpurgo says “basic” or Ptolemy would call it “night” domicile, to the exaltation. The “weaker” planet is even the one that manifests itself less powerfully for a sign. Venus is stronger in Libra, a very raffinate sign, Taurus instead could be described as a good tempered mother, lacking a real polish that is given by its dominant X, but even by a lack of the opposed Mercury (Scorpio), that makes them so recruiting to futile movements and close to everything that would challenge their stability, in other words very fixed.

I’m not expecting anyone to switch to this system, and I don’t want to, but explain me why your system works instead, because if you apply strict logic to it, you’ll see it rusty in some pieces, and you can soon find yourself using some “esoteric” force. I’d like to avoid that.

_I edited the typos_

Including or not including Pluto would be indeed a lesser problem for this scheme, since we know we are still missing some planets. Anyway it is a matter about what astronomy wants to consider a planet then, but astrology doesn't take such classifications into consideration, and the de-classification of Pluto still leaves many doubts inside the astronomical circle itself. Yes the Sun and Moon are exceptions and always been in our symbology, they are no planets too. They were all called all planets once, I'm aware of that.
 

tripleooo

Well-known member
This post is based upon the moonris3's response: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=767798&postcount=76
My post can be found here: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=767744&postcount=61

Those holes were already there, passed unobserved by the traditional scheme we’ve been using for millennia.

Can you please explain me what “holes” are you talking about? Do you mean the system of exaltations which may not be much of a system?

The theory I’m presenting you in no way puts those planets (X and Y) there, to fill the holes

I really can’t describe it otherwise. As I stated, these planets may as well just not exist, and this way the hypothetical planets X and Y are nothing more than “filling the holes”.

the procedure indeed is reverted: because the Zodiac follows rigorous mathematical and geometrical rules, which are: the anti-clockwise motion, (respected in the succession of the seasons where astrology comes from), the doubling of the planets (think of the luminaries Sun and Moon that oppose Saturn AND Uranus, but first of that think of the double domiciles that only some signs have the privilege to have), and ultimately, the mirror effect for which to every element in the Zodiac there’s its opposite; then, for this, if you have two holes in there, you are missing two pieces.

Well, regarding the second argument, in my previous response I’ve already said that in my opinion the outer planets cannot have any rulership and provided the arguments to support my point of view. So your second argument mentioning that Sun and Moon oppose Saturn and Uranus doesn’t sound like an argument to my ears at all. The first argument seems really dubious as well, the system of rulerships has never been based on the succession of the seasons and not everything in astrology can be boiled down to it. I cannot argue with the “mirror effect” though which in turn was well used in the traditional astrology: Sun-Saturn, Moon-Saturn, Mercury-Jupiter and Venus-Mars are all the pairs where one planet mirrors another.

We have 12 signs, in 12 houses, and 10 planets. Only 10, why? This not only creates holes in the chart, but it makes the entire logic of the Zodiac crumble. We must have 12 planets. The last 3 planets that we now commonly acknowledge and use have been discovered, over all, not much before than 100 years ago.

The opinion you provided using the phrasing “we must have 12 planets” sound a lot like wishful thinking to me. We really have no reasons to suppose if these planets exist or not. Why can’t I create a theory which states that there have to exist not 12, but 24 planets? Or 144 maybe? They exist, trust me, they’re just not discovered yet, but will be soon.

Anyway, I really suggest anyone in this forum to spend a google visit looking for the rulership of the “new planets” (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) and you’ll see that the official “English” astrology agrees on the Neptune rulership for Pisces, the Uranus one for Aquarius, and the Pluto one for Scorpio. They’ve not been given arbitrarily, the discourses were long and for a time they took into account the characters of the signs too, so it was even believed that Neptune was ruling over Taurus, or Uranus over Scorpio.

In fact, there is an ongoing debate among many astrologers whether the outer planets rules any signs or not, and if they do, then what signs it is. I’m really not the only person who thinks that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto don’t have any rulership and I already expressed this opinion, giving my own explanation.

Why are the opposing signs not owning opposing planets?

Not sure what you mean by this question. There are 4 pairs of planets in the traditional astrology, and the opposing signs are ruled by the planets of a specific pair. Don’t see anything questionable here.

Why are some signs “blessed” with more planets and others left empty?

Once again, because the logic of many modernist astrologers is flawed regarding this issue, and there are in fact no signs being “blessed” with more planets than the other. I’m talking about the outer planets here. If you mean exaltation, it is hardly a blessing for the sign.

Now I’d like to note something particularly important, that you point out but don’t seem to quite explain to yourself well: Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, that i keep calling “new” planets, have always been there. We couldn’t see them, but they were there.

Yes, I understand that.

Inform yourself, it’s proven, there’s another major planet beyond Pluto. The most experienced scientists think that others are there too.

Maybe there are other planets but how can you talk about their rulerships if these planets are not even discovered yet? It can turn out that the qualities of these planets will not match the predicted qualities which would help them to become rulers of Taurus, Gemini, Virgo and Libra. Maybe there are three planets that should be assigned to each sign? We’ll never know unless we see definite proof which cannot be provided by your theory.

Every discovery is followed by a correction of the previous established thought-structure, so how can you expect to keep finding planets in the solar system and keep all the old data as if nothing had changed?

I do recognize the outer planets’ importance because their aspects and positions in houses are necessary to take into account. For these reasons they should be used. The system of the essential dignities, however, is a totally different story. I do not think it should be updated and I’ve already stated my own reasons for this opinion.

Mercury fits well in Scorpio for the very reasons you described, lol.

Read my reply again then… I thought my explanation was clear enough.

Scorpio is the “trouble-maker” (lol sorry Scorpios) of the Zodiac, how could it be so without Mercury giving its best in here?

I don’t see the point of your question. What are you trying to say?

Scorpio is even the sign related to money, like the 8th house, and by affinity Mercury was the god of thievery and commerce, if you can make money, you need that detached brain.

You contradict yourself here quite a lot. Taurus and the 2nd house are related to money as well, yet you say that Taurus is the sign where Mercury is in fall? And as I said, Scorpios cannot be detached, like air or earth signs, they are always very passionate and emotional.

Indeed it’s even the coldest, the most “logical” of all the watery signs, and I’m sorry, that’s not just because of Pluto and Mars.

The most logical water sign is still less logical that the least logical air or earth sign. That’s just how it works.

Uranus instead is considered the satellite of Saturn, the anti-luminary opposed to the Sun, so that the opposite of the Moon is Uranus (Cancer-Capricorn), indeed its symbology is all about technology and action, symbols in direct contrast with the soft, sugary moods of the Moon.

Here we go again… Can you explain in which way is Scorpio related to technology? And in which way is Uranus about action? And how do these qualities make it the opposite of the Moon?

The example of Pisces-Mercury is a good one, in facts Pisces is double ruled by Neptune and Jupiter. So Pisces is indeed lacking Mercury, and the attentiveness of Virgo, but here you get confused; Mercury is quickness, and so it’s “reception”, like antenna, Mercury is the ears. Not the tongue, that’s Jupiter. And that’s just why Taurus and Sagittarius are such talkers. Taurus in facts has the exaltation of Jupiter.

Where do even get this from??? It just seems like you’re trying to reinvent the wheel. Mercury is the ears, but not the tongue? What? And why do you think that Taurus people are good talkers? I’ve had a completely different experience. Also, again, I see a contradiction. If Mercury is not in its fall in Pisces, then they should have the ability to speak well, as Pisces is ruled by Jupiter (according to you), right? But I’ve already stated that Pisces are the ones who have much trouble speaking. Moreover, how does being a good talker mean that you’re bad at “reception”? Your tongue helps you to voice what is in your head, yet you say it as if your brain and tongue are two completely alien and non-related things. Also how can Taurus be a good position for Jupiter? Jupiter is all about generosity, while Taurus usually prefers to keep things to themselves. They are not very expansive and open-minded also.

The “weaker” planet is even the one that manifests itself less powerfully for a sign. Venus is stronger in Libra, a very raffinate sign, Taurus instead could be described as a good tempered mother, lacking a real polish that is given by its dominant X, but even by a lack of the opposed Mercury (Scorpio), that makes them so recruiting to futile movements and close to everything that would challenge their stability, in other words very fixed.

I’m sorry but this makes no sense to me. Libra Venus people actively seek relationships and want to get involved in them, they look for harmony, balance and peace. Taurus Venus people also want harmony and peace and for them it is stable. Taurus is more intimate and “warm” than Libra, in my opinion, it needs simple and earthly pleasures and rules money more than any other sign. So Taurus and Libra are different but it absolutely doesn’t mean that Venus works more effectively in one sign than another. I get it, without these principles the system doesn’t work, and that’s what I’m trying to say: the system doesn’t work because the principles it’s based upon do not work as well.

I’m not expecting anyone to switch to this system, and I don’t want to, but explain me why your system works instead, because if you apply strict logic to it, you’ll see it rusty in some pieces, and you can soon find yourself using some “esoteric” force. I’d like to avoid that.

To be honest, I’m also not expecting you to magically change your opinion on your system. What do you want me to explain exactly? The system of exaltations? If you want to, I can, because I’ve been thinking about the algorithm that could be used to put all the traditional exaltations into place and I think I’ve come to some sort of solution. Not saying it’s flawless and it’s not easy as with your system but still, fairly interesting. I can also explain why the newly assigned exaltations for the traditional planets do not work.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Waybread, what's your take on "Yods"? (It's relevant.)

Do you refer to Gemini and Scorpio being in a quincunx relationship? This aspect indicates some tension. Not so strong that it demands that we do something about it, like the square; but not an easy flow like the trine. Sort of like something in the house that needs repairs, but not so badly that you must do something about it now. But it bothers you every time you look at it.

In a yod, a pair of quincunxes are joined at an apex planet, which is the midpoint of a sextile joining the quincunxes. The nature of the sextile and apex planet give some indication as to how to resolve the tensions of the quincunxes; and thus the apex planet has a fair bit of evolutionary pressure applied to it.
 

waybread

Well-known member
@waybread

It's pretty obvious, Gemini is the sign associated to lies, the theater, masking oneself; Scorpions are the great occultists instead, nothing's clear with them, they hide the truth, the same thing that an actor has to do. Of course they can't be the same thing...
Pluto and Mercury have probably one of the most dualistic symbolism in myth, it was Mercury, the messenger, to accompany the dead souls to the underworld (Pluto), and it was Pluto to give to Mercury the invisibility helmet that he used to hide himself (Pluto character). Both characters are expressed in both signs: Mercury/Pluto in Gemini is the "innocent" lies, to create an entertainment that hides the truth (but they do so censoring their innermost deep part, Pluto), in Scorpio is Mercury that accompanies the natives in their quest for the deeper truth.. and they achieve it without anyone noticing, hiding themselves. There are many other reasons but I'm quite you can make get them yourself.

What charts example do you need? Can you prove me why is Jupiter exalted in Cancer? Can you show me a chart for that?

The Roman god Mercury had several roles, but his main one was messenger to the gods. He was one of the few gods who could traverse the divine realm of Olympus, the surface world of humans, and the underworld. Mercury had a role as a psychopomp, but he was a predominantly Olympian god. He had some dealings with Pluto (Hades) but he was certainly not the only god to do so.

Mercury was associated with liars and thieves, communication, crossroads, and trade. I am unaware of any particular connection to the theatre, which in astrology is usually a 5th house matter. I am not clear in what manner the theater is about hiding the truth. It often deals with fictional topics, but that is different than lying.

But Gemini has many associations beyond its Mercury rulerships. I think a lot of Geminis would take offense if you accused them of being liars!

Scorpio, in many ways, is about uncovering the truth. In modern astrology it rules detectives, for example. But many sun-Scorpios have no interest in occult matters.

More traditionally, Mercury is about how the mind works on a day-to-day basis, whereas Jupiter is about the "big picture".

I asked you to give a chart reading to show how you would use these multiple sign rulers in practice. For example, when you look at house cusp rulers (lords). For example, suppose someone asks you for career guidance?
 
Top