Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

waybread said:

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

Click to expand...

Ok, but I'm not the most qualified to answer this question. Please remember that the only reason I got involved in this thread was to try to point out that there were misconceptions surrounding what dignity and debility really does or should mean to traditional astrologers. I couldn't personally allow that to pass, because a thread trashing traditional methods is just as abhorrent to me as a thread trashing all of modern astrology. That said, in my opinion there is a very big difference in how modern astrology views dignity, and to some extent debility. And it is my position that if a modern astrologer really, really wanted to do as I have done and spend a couple of years just trying to figure out how to reconcile them to actual charts...well then she may have another tool to add to the toolbox. Personally, I think sect plays a larger role in chart delineation...because, to me at least, what essential dignity does is provide a planet with inherent resources. It, by itself, cannot tell you how that planet will use those resources (which is why the total condition of the planet needs to come before the aspects.)

Again in my own personal opinion, modern astrology has it going on with interpreting aspects..both the positive and negative manifestations of them. Where it falls down, again in my own opinion (have I stated that enough to make sure I am speaking only from my own viewpoint??) is in waffling between the two. On another thread, waybread, you and I recently spoke about a Jupiter transit and how it will manifest...suppose I had posted my chart, with Jupiter transiting my 8th. Would a modern astrologer have been able to pick out that it would mean I would need to come to terms with death by going to 3 funerals in five weeks?

I would also like to insert my "Libraness" (Sun, Mercury, Jupiter, ASC, and Uranus if you use him all posited in Libra) here and just say...would you two knock it off?

Paul and w, are your Mercury's disjunct? Neither one of you is attacking the other, rather what this thread is doing is causing you to dig in your heels and close your minds, and that is being perceived as "attacking." This is a side effect of playing devil's advocate. Clearly, from other posts made by both of you, Paul has joined us at waybread's invitation. Which obviously means that there is or at least was mutual respect on both sides. What is also clear is that there is a communication problem occuring. I would (again personally) hate to see a mutual respect disintegrate due to an inability to communicate.

byjove...cans of worms all over the place, and to speak to your remark about snobishness...I also didn't find any snobishness here. I believe, though I may well be reading you/the question incorrectly, that you are still trying to find a way around peregrination, and debility. You have it...because the biggest difference between what is perceived as modern is psychology, and what is perceived as traditional is prediction (though they both provide each) and we need to get past that to figure out how to predict what will happen, and then how to predict how an unknowing native would deal with it...and then predict how a prepared native can navigate the choices and make them work for him/her.

Prescience is ever-lovin' useful. No matter what label you want to give to astrology (and I'm no more a fan of labels than I am of weighted scoring systems) at the end of the day the point is the same. How can we help the native prepare for what is to come, and use the resources that are available to him/her? Life...happens, and we all have to live within the limits of the cards we are dealt. The only choice, and the most important choice, we get to make is how we play the hand.

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: these 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

[non-astrological comment - Moderator]

tsmall, I am going to give a personal and very generalized response to some of your points. They aren't exactly about what you asked, but about what I feel moved to say.

I am kind of a pragmatist so far as astrology is concerned. I read charts for people-- some days none, some days several. Part of my pragmatism is understanding what works for me and what doesn't work for me; partly based on my own insights, and partly based on the feedback I get from people. Like yourself I have affinity for some techniques and not for others.

I think musical soloists are like this. After embarking on their careers, they tend emphasize certain composers or genres of music. The pianist who is brilliant at Baroque music may just not have a feel for Brahams or Rachmaninoff. Both he and his audiences figure that out.

I hope to keep an open mind about the techniques I haven't yet immersed myself in, but there comes a point in my now 23-year astrology learning curve, where I am more interested in spending the time to help someone with a real issue in real time with what I know, than to take time away from my current pursuits to master a new technique whose immediate benefit to me is less apparent in my personal cost-benefit analysis.

For example, I really enjoy harmonics. They resonate for me in a way that a table of essential dignities does not. So when I spend time learning more astrology, I am more likely to focus on what appeals to me rather than on something that I honestly find highly arbitrary and whose rationale seems lost in the mists of time.

When I discuss astrology more conversationally, as with you, it is something I "do for myself," as I have never had actual people around me with whom to discuss astrology. Once in a while I will stick up for some principles, as I have on the "death" thread.

My focus in astrology is natal chart interpretation and its near derivatives. If someone wonders about his ideal career; whether she and her BF are suited for one another, why he feels so lonely and depressed, &c. I want to support them.

I do very little predictive work, largely out of my philosophical beliefs. I don't want to turn my astrology into fortune-telling. Part of the human maturation process is learning how to live with uncertainty and how to gain experience through our mistakes. Yes, I look at transits, progressions, solar arcs, and solar returns. But I discuss the astro "weather report" in general terms.

But this is just me. Some modern astrologers do a lot of predictive work, notably the professionals.

I like your description of dignified planets having "resources" with a big question being, how they will use them. I do think all planets, whatever their condition, have resources. I think a domiciled planet's resources are strong and apparent.

Maybe an analogy with fall and detriment is what's happening today with the disabilities movements. In the past it was common for able-bodied people to think of disabled people as inferior versions of able-bodied people. Today activists challenge this perspective. In fact, some challenge the concept of disabilities: they are not disabled, just differently-abled. Higher-functioning people with autism challenge the concept of "neuro-normal."

Would a modern astrologer have gotten your funerals with Jupiter in the 8th house? Oh, some would have. Some are highly intuitive, and use a range of predictive/analytical techniques.

What I probably would have said (without seeing the rest of your natal chart and transits,) was that this would be a good time to to explore your attitudes and values about death. Jupiter is the philosopher and also an expansive energy, so this would be a good time to expand your life-philosophy in light of death.

To my way of thinking, this type of personal exploration is far more valuable than nailing a few events and dates. I mean what are people for on the planet? Why are we even on the planet? Is it to focus on the minutia and materiality of daily life? We live these brief lives, so concerned with minutia that are forgotten after they happen. Or is life about something deeper and broader, such that Jupiter can help us to address it?

[deleted response to non-astrological comment - Moderator]

Chiefly, I would still be interested in what interpretive difference you make when reading a chart between a strong, forceful Mars and a, comparatively at least, weaker or less forceful one. For example the difference between Mars in Aries, and Mars in some other sign like Taurus.

Purely in terms of strength, what is the difference, interpretively? Is this strength qualitative or quantitative?

I would also be curious, still, whether you can determine what the optimal and sub-optimal expressions of Mars are likely to be based solely on the chart, and if so whether that is dependent, in some way, on the sign.

Obviously we know that this strength is not related to triplicity or quadruplicity as you were sort of veering toward in a previous post for the reasons I stated in my reply.

As you define strength and forcefulness, and attest that Mars is more forceful and stronger in Aries, do you equally attest that it is as equally strong between being in Taurus as the other 10 (or 11) signs of the zodiac, such that Mars is no more or less strong or forceful in Taurus or Gemini or Cancer?

So far I'm not understanding what you mean exactly by strength and what interpretive differences this make as per my questions above.

Paul,please respond to my earlier question,

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

Click to expand...

I actually addressed your questions, above-- several times. I am not clear where the disconnect is.

Another question to you would be, what is the source of your determination of "correct" and "wrong" interpretations of essential dignities? Who are your primary sources for "correct" explanations?

[deleted trolling comment - Moderator]

Way Bread, I think I made a mistake. The example I gave should have been "To be sure, ancient authors will say planet A in *SIGN/HOUSE/ASPECT* B will make.a native X, Y, and Z. But that'su not the same as when they say planet A in dignity B will act like X, Y, and Z, even though they use similar language.*(Essential dignity, so yes, technically just sign placement, but as far as I know most authors when describing this, are describing the way a planet will interact through aspect, house rulership and reception, etc. They only sometimes make general statements about the native's personality or character from a sign placement. More often than not they will say so from a house placement, less often from aspects. As a side note, it's easy to infer personality from a house/topical analysis of a chart, in addition to looking at the Moon and Mercury for quality of mind, the temperament, multiple lots and.various other things. But honestly, there is SO much more to an individual human being than just "personality"; "modern" astrology fails to illuminate the true image of a life being lived. What about the soul? The spirit? The environments and experiences that will shape who we are? Doesn't it seem more compassionate, humanistic, liberal, and rational to look at a person holistically, and not try to force a seperation from our lives, which are a kind of twin we all share, as they are born, grow, decline, and will die with us? Traditional and ancient astrology is not simple by any measure, and it is therefore wrong to conclude from single sentence descriptions of planet placements or aspects that it is simple, superficial, or overly fatalistic. Because the truth is, it really is paramount to look at the chart as a whole. That was as true then as it is now. You cant really know the ocean by just going to the beach and.staring.at the waves. I feel like modern psychological astrology would agree with that statement, yet, traditional astrology is painted as superficial while their camp maintains a "scientific" confidence that the personality that can be read from a chart is the majority or most important part of who a person is, and mostly ignores what happens to them and what they do. The essential dignity of a planet is just one of many variables that most modern astrologers ignore; the problem is all those variables and complexity give us a precise and detailed view of the native's all, which modern astrology cannot match.)* "

Sorry for any confusion. Please excuse any mistakea for now, Im in my phone.

eternalautumn said:

Way Bread, I think I made a mistake. The example I gave should have been "To be sure, ancient authors will say planet A in *SIGN/HOUSE/ASPECT* B will make.a native X, Y, and Z. But that'su not the same as when they say planet A in dignity B will act like X, Y, and Z, even though they use similar language.*(Essential dignity, so yes, technically just sign placement, but as far as I know most authors when describing this, are describing the way a planet will interact through aspect, house rulership and reception, etc. They only sometimes make general statements about the native's personality or character from a sign placement. More often than not they will say so from a house placement, less often from aspects.

Click to expand...

Oh, no problem. I take your points.

I should clarify that my knowledge of traditional astrology is from the recent Dykes, Burk, and Avelar and Ribeiro books cited above, plus Karen Hamaker-Zondag's and Barclay's books on horary astrology. My real interest in traditional astrology is more Hellenistic, stemming from fascination with the historical origins of horoscopic astrology, notably house meanings (yes, I've read Holden!) I have copies of most of the surviving Hellenistic works translated into English. I pretty much read Ptolemy cover-to-cover, but my readings of the other authors (like Valens) are more of the nature of scanning, with a focus on specific topics that interest me. I never set out to become a neo-Hellenistic astrologer.

As a side note, it's easy to infer personality from a house/topical analysis of a chart, in addition to looking at the Moon and Mercury for quality of mind, the temperament, multiple lots and.various other things. But honestly, there is SO much more to an individual human being than just "personality"; "modern" astrology fails to illuminate the true image of a life being lived. What about the soul? The spirit? The environments and experiences that will shape who we are?

Click to expand...

But modern astrology does this, too! To a fault, some might say. There are various branches of modern astrology and a big one has been termed "soul-centred astrology." Isabel Hickey, Alan Oken, Jan Spiller, Dane Rudhyar, and Jeff Green are examples. Not to mention the karmic past-lives crowd. Sometimes traditional astrologers conflate modern astrology with modern psychological astrology, but that is only one branch (cf. Liz Greene, Howard Sasportas.)

Doesn't it seem more compassionate, humanistic, liberal, and rational to look at a person holistically, and not try to force a seperation from our lives, which are a kind of twin we all share, as they are born, grow, decline, and will die with us?

Click to expand...

It sure does. This is totally consistent with most modern astrology, so far as I can make out.

Traditional and ancient astrology is not simple by any measure, and it is therefore wrong to conclude from single sentence descriptions of planet placements or aspects that it is simple, superficial, or overly fatalistic. Because the truth is, it really is paramount to look at the chart as a whole. That was as true then as it is now. You cant really know the ocean by just going to the beach and.staring.at the waves. I feel like modern psychological astrology would agree with that statement,

Click to expand...

Yes, totally. I would never describe traditional astrology as "simple"!

yet, traditional astrology is painted as superficial while their camp maintains a "scientific" confidence that the personality that can be read from a chart is the majority or most important part of who a person is, and mostly ignores what happens to them and what they do.

Click to expand...

Just for the record, I do not identify with modern psychological astrology. Some of their teachings have merit; but oftentimes as borrowed from beyond astrology. Others are actually offensive, like old undigested material out of Freud's playbook. A behavioural scientist today would find their psychology material thin indeed! There is nothing scientific at all about modern psychological astrology so far as I can make out. Conversely, a lot of traditional astrology was the science of its day.

I wouldn't describe traditional astrology as "superficial," although it can be so in specific instances, just as any type of astrology can be.

We can't generalize about modern astrologers ignoring "what happens to people and what they do." Few people on this forum inquire about their soul's journey. If someone posts about here about her career dilemma, I would hope to offer practical advice.

The essential dignity of a planet is just one of many variables that most modern astrologers ignore; the problem is all those variables and complexity give us a precise and detailed view of the native's all, which modern astrology cannot match.)* "

Sorry for any confusion. Please excuse any mistakea for now, Im in my phone.

Click to expand...

Well, hard to say. Probably we've all seen traditional astrologers who are so occupied with delineating all of the fine details of essential and accidental dignities in a horoscope that they never quite get around to dispensing the solid career advice or suggesting how a distressed man can make improvements in his life. (If you've not come across this tendency, try Rafael Nasser's book, which gave a dozen astrologers of different persuasions the task of reading a "blind" horoscope.)

I don't have my own astrological software, so normally in reading charts on-line in this forum, I go with whatever the OPer has posted, occasionally asking for additional charts. If I want to spend a lot of time with a chart, however, I will look at some harmonic charts, midpoints, asteroids, BML, several house systems, transits, progressions, and probably a few I've forgotten.

Other modern astrologers feel they get good predictive results from primary directions, or Magi astrology, or.....

But Eternal Autumn, haven't you seen both uncannily accurate and totally incorrect natal chart readings across traditional, modern, and Vedic astrology? I have, and it makes me think there's something else going on than whether an astrologer (metaphorically) drives a Chevy or a Ford.

waybread said:

Paul, If you can take what you dish out, please respond to my earlier question,

Click to expand...

I already responded to that question. Perhaps the moderator deleted that as well, I do not know. However that question was answered. To summarise, my definition is not modern, therefore, according to your prompting of tsmall to remember the title of the thread, perhaps not relevant.

In any case as yours are modern - even if not mean to be representative of modern astrology, merely one modern astrologer - perhaps you could instead answer mine first?

I actually addressed your questions, above-- several times. I am not clear where the disconnect is.

Click to expand...

It would be helpful then if you went through my questions and highlight the areas where you've answered, because I cannot find them.

Paul, you've already answered your own question. I've declared myself as a modern astrologer, and taken the flack.

You wrote:

... we see that they [modern astrologers] are wrong ....

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

So modern astrologers and dignity/debility - they don't use them so can't have much to say about it. ...

Click to expand...

But wait, there's more:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

I use traditional methods, I use modern methods, I use whatever I see works. ....I was educated by modern astrologers and attended a modern astrology school. You're assumptions are off mark.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be helpful to find it, exactly.

On my comment that I initially learned modern astrology through the early books by Robert Hand:

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

Click to expand...

[deleted trolling comments - Moderator]

waybread said:

And I smell another set-up, not your genuine desire to learn what I think.

Click to expand...

If you do not wish to discuss the matter with me, and as I said before (unless it was also removed) if that is the case it would be better to state it bluntly.

If you do, then you'll have to assume that my questions are questions.

Yes, it would be helpful to find it, exactly.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean with your quoted pieces. I assume you are wondering why I don't offer my own if I say that I'm every bit the modern astrologer? Is this right?

In which case let me clarify. Like modern astrologers, and unlike traditional ones, I use elemental balances (very often) in reading charts, I also use solar arc directions, I use aspect patterns, I use some psychological astrology approaches etc. these are all modern astrological approaches and I use them, just as equally probably, as I do my traditional astrology approaches of profections, dignities sect and so on.

However, to underscore the point, when I use dignities I am not really using them as a 'modern astrologer' because my opinion of them is greatly shaped by the tradition that I've examined, and then I guess reinterpreted in my own way, however the ethos for them is very much traditional and therefore, except as a contrast, not really in scope.

I am wary that were I to offer my view, you would, as you have to tsmall, suggest we keep the focus on the modern.

On my comment that I initially learned modern astrology through the early books by Robert Hand:

Click to expand...

Right but those books don't include any real analyses of the dignities and debilities - or do you disagree? Stating your authors does not inform us on how you use the dignities.

[deleted response to trolling comments - Moderator]

For the record, here is Robert Hand's modern astrology take on the principal essential dignities. He does not address sect, terms, faces, joys, &c. We can like Hand's analysis or not: I am merely reporting, because I thought people on this thread who don't have Hand's early books might appreciate a thoughtful modern interpretation. Since turning to traditional astrology, Hand's views have changed; although he appears versed in traditional astrology to some extent in this section. He refers by name to Ptolemy and Morin, and to "tradition" more generally. I will paraphrase a lot to avoid exceeding our 100-word copy limit.

And yes, Paul-- this analysis still makes sense to me. Let's depersonalize this, shall we? I would love to see an explanation of the the ancient tables of essential dignities that makes sense for today's sky (or the Babylonian sky, for that matter) and today's Gestalt.

In his handbook Horoscope Symbols (1981), pp. 200-210.

"One of the most ancient, persistent, potentially useful, and, at the same time, potentially troublesome part of the lore about the signs...concern the 'dignities' of the planets, or their relation to signs."

He notes that modern astrologers often say that a domiciled or exalted planet "works well," whereas a planet in detriment or fall works badly.

Hand discusses Ptolemy's symmetrical explanation of the domiciles, a function of their orbital period and distance from the sun. Ptolemy was less concerned with planet-sign affinities than with his schema. After the discovery of Uranus, which upset the Ptolemaic schema, astrologers explained planet-sign rulerships on the basis of affinities. This was the basis for assigning trans-Saturnian modern rulerships of signs, not their distance from the sun. The discovery of major asteroids further complicated the Ptolemaic system.

"Clearly the ptolemaic criteria for establishing sign rulership are in chaos and cannot be maintained."

The system of exaltations and falls pre-dates Ptolemy, though their origin is obscure. [They have a much longer history than domiciles in both Babylonian omen astrology and in Egyptian star calendars.] Hand finds some planet-sign affinities but others seem mis-matched. Saturn, for example, though exalted in Libra, supposedly inhibits its ruling planet Venus. Mars is exalted in Saturn-ruled Capricorn, yet Saturn falls in Aries. However, planets are domiciled and exalted in signs that either sextile or trine one another by sign. The problem is that some of these signs square each other. For example, Saturn is exalted in Libra, yet by sign Libra squares Capricorn.

Ptolemy [per usual] tries to rationalize the system of exaltations, but a lot of his reasoning wouldn't have made sense even in Ptolemy's day. For example, some of his explanations are based on the climate of ancient Greece, yet Ptolemy was a significant ancient geographer and map-maker; who knew this climate didn't pertain throughout the known world.

Things don't get more logical in using specific exaltation degrees, rather than entire signs. For example, the sun is exalted in 19 degrees Aries, and it falls at 19 degrees Libra. But this system juxtaposes Mercury at more than 28 degrees from the sun. Probably this system was based on the planets' sidereal heliacal rising position in the 8th century BC at the date of a temple dedication; but this wouldn't make much sense today.

Traditional western astrology uses dignities principally to judge how easily or not a planet will work, as well as to evaluate the matters of a house based upon its cusp ruler.

He goes into some additional topics like the "natural" zodiac/house affiliation, which doesn't concern us here.

Hand come down against the "shakiness of the whole doctrine of exaltations"; and "the attribution of "any special value apart from the logical affinities and conflicts that exist between signs and planets." He also notes the differences with the sidereal (Hindu) and western zodiacs, which are off today by about 27 degrees. [For example, a Jupiter at 15 degrees Capricorn in a western tropical zodiac is in its fall; but the same Jupiter would be at about 19 degrees Sagittarius in a Hindu horoscope, and thus domiciled.]

I don't doubt for a minute that traditional astrologers can produce great results using both the primary and secondary essential dignities. I don't doubt that Hindu astrologers and modern western astrologers can get good results-- all using different systems. I personally think there is something more cosmic and different going on than adherance to particular techniques.

Right-whole system models WORK, whether or not their various components are objectively true. And experts in each long-established whole system model can obtain excellent delineative and"predictive" results, far above statistical chance, using their model.
For those in practice, (BLUE COLLARS, like me) that is all the matters.

But there is something else, something beyond: there is the nagging question about "truth" "real", "nature of reality" that haunts us (as human beings)...to obtain excellent results in delineation and prediction, we don't NEED to know the TRUTH-but as humans the divine spirit within us, makes us WANT TO.
Hence some of us continue to delve, to look into history, to experiment, to consider various perspectives: yes, we follow (in practice) whatever whole system model works well for us, but we know inside, that there is a TRUTH behind such models, and that each such model MISSES that TRUTH, so some of us keep up the SEARCH...

"Who can...doubt that a link exists between heaven and man...gifts outstanding did nature give and the power of speech and breadth of understanding and a wing-swift mind, and into whom alone indeed has God come down and dwells, and seeks himself in man's seeking him?....Who could know heaven save by heaven's gift and discover God save one who shares himself in the divine? Who could discern...the vastness of this valuted infinite, the dances of the stars...had not nature endowed our minds with divine vision, had turned to herself a kindred intelligence, and had prescribed so great a science?"

Manilus, Astronomica 2: 105-125, 1st century CE.

Paul unfortunately has since closed his account, however we have his opinions via his posts on the forum

Paul_ said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes Paul correctly understood my perspective: no, I do NOT consider Neptune, Uranus or Pluto to be dispositors ("rulers") of any sign-but yes I do consider them to be affinitive to certain signs and dissonant with other signs: for me, if X planet is in, say, Aquarius, then I consider SATURN to be dispositor of that planet, PLUS I consider Uranus to have a relationship to that planet as well (because of the affinity of Uranus with Aquarius), but NOT at the same level (the level of dispositorship) that Saturn has.