Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

In modern discussion of natal aspects in articles I frequently see a desire to move beyond heavy focus on dignities and debilities. I respect improvements and modernizations of ideas so I'm just curious about the philosophies and reasoning behind a desire to rely less on this. Can anyone enlighten a bit? Do any modern astrologers here prefer to maintain a focus on this instead?

I think many modern astrologers reject the idea that there are "good" or "bad" signs or houses for planets. Rather, they would see planets behaving differently in different signs and houses, but not necessarily being better or worse off. This also applies to the "malefics" of yore. Saturn and Mars can be highly beneficial.

For example, Jupiter falls in Capricorn. A modern astrology text might suggest that this placement would be beneficial for an administrator. It might be good for an antiques dealer. The 12th house rules hospitals and prisons, but rather than the native being a patient or inmate, this might be a good house for a hospital employee.

Is Venus in detriment in Aries in a woman's chart? This isn't necessarily a problem in today's western world, where such a woman might simply be assertive or athletic in her sense of her own femininity. The "effeminate" man of traditional astrology might be today's Sensitive Guy.

So our ideas about people and human nature change over time, as well.

I personally think a domiciled planet is extra strong.

The "astrodyne" (or "cosmodyne") system developed by Modernist pioneer CC Zain, can be effectively used as a kind of dignity/debility evaluative methodology, from the Modernist perspective. Personally, I have largely abandoned both the Modernist and Traditionalist dignity/debility concepts and systematic approaches and have substituted instead the ashtakavarga evaluative method of (very) ancient Indian astrology, which works perfectly well whether applied to 7 or 10 planets, and whether used with the sidereal (typical Vedic) zodiac OR the Western tropical zodiac (which is what I always use)...

waybread said:

I think many modern astrologers reject the idea that there are "good" or "bad" signs or houses for planets.

Click to expand...

The more I learn about traditional methods, the more this really is the case. The key is to understand what the dignity or debility means. Are we talking about planets in fall, or planets in detriment? Because they mean different things. A planet in fall (the opposite of exaltation) will experience some amount of guilt around the houses it rules, because a fall from grace presupposes (often incorrectly) a certain amount of blame. A planet in detriment, with no dignity what so ever (by any measure of dignity) is a planet without resources given to it...that does not mean the planet can't find those resources for itself. Peregrine, for example, can mean wily, or street smart. And the way we figure it out has more to do with the nature of the planet, and the nature of the place in which it finds itself. Jupiter in Cancer in the 2nd house in a day chart isn't always going to be the best thing ever...even though he (the native) might expect to be.

waybread said:

Rather, they would see planets behaving differently in different signs and houses, but not necessarily being better or worse off. This also applies to the "malefics" of yore. Saturn and Mars can be highly beneficial.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!! And that will occur in traditional astrology as well. Consider a chart wherein Saturn is the Lord of the Geniture in a day chart, peregrine, applying to the MC, in masculine sign, degree and quadrant...Saturn is more than competent to be the best thing ever for the native, even though Saturn is a "traditional malefic."

waybread said:

For example, Jupiter falls in Capricorn. A modern astrology text might suggest that this placement would be beneficial for an administrator. It might be good for an antiques dealer. The 12th house rules hospitals and prisons, but rather than the native being a patient or inmate, this might be a good house for a hospital employee.

Click to expand...

Again, waybread, I agree. Just because Jupiter is in Capricorn does not mean Jupiter is in a bad way. Which is why both branches say it takes a whole chart, right? What if Jupiter is in Capricorn and Saturn is in aspect from Libra?

waybread said:

Is Venus in detriment in Aries in a woman's chart? This isn't necessarily a problem in today's western world, where such a woman might simply be assertive or athletic in her sense of her own femininity. The "effeminate" man of traditional astrology might be today's Sensitive Guy.

Click to expand...

Or none of the above, and we would want to look at the houses Venus rules to see how this would work for the specific native. Venus in Aries does not confer a lack of feminity in women, and it does not confer an implication feminity in men. No more than Venus in Virgo, or Venus in Scorpio. If anything, I would see Venus using her Venusness more in those signs, because if she is completely peregrine then she will find a way to use all the tools she inherently possesses.

waybread said:

So our ideas about people and human nature change over time, as well.

Click to expand...

Yes they do, and yet no they don't. I don't know if I've been able to make it clear here or not, but I absolutely agree with everything you've said, and I also absolutely agree that what you said...there really is no difference between modern and traditional. Other than the path you take to get there.

waybread said:

I personally think a domiciled planet is extra strong.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...sometimes too strong, or comfortable in what it wants/believes. A domiciled planet out of sect isn't always a great thing. Not necessarily for the native, but maybe for the people the native encounters.

Just my two cents worth.

How nice to find some common ground, tsmall!

Just one other thing I would mention re: byjove's OP, is the question of what planets in signs and houses really means. A "modern" book that now seems psychologically outdated yet still helpful is Stephen Arroyo's, The Four Elements. (Read temperament?) Some modern astrologers are taken by the need to focus on elements, but others not.

This is certainly a way to learn something about how a planet operates without getting into terms, faces, &c. I have some difficulty with these because I can't see how they were derived and whether those factors should still operate today.

Both modern and Hellenistic astrology (can't speak to the between ones) are full of cookbook delineations. You can sort of see how the author derived them, but I think it is easy to get caught up in the minor manifestations while overlooking the person's basic motives and orientation to life. Birth chart interpretation doesn't work so well as a set of static personality traits. It needs a dynamic character to it.

In "my" modern astrology (with credit due to some of Jodie Forrest's work):

1. A planet is the "what", like an subject in a sentence. Moods. Identity. Money. Luck.

2. A sign shows "how" or "in what manner" a planet operates, like an adjective or adverb in a sentence.

3. A house shows "where" or "in what domain of life" a planet operates, like a prepositional phrase in a sentence.

4. Aspects (incl. the conjunction) also show "how" planets operate-- in pairs or groups.

Construed this way, astrology becomes a kind of grammar or even a type of composition.

I would venture to guess that much of the above also fits into traditional astrology; but that it is a different dialect of the language spoken by modern astrologers.

Of course there is more complexity to get to. I work with accidental house cusp rulers (lords) and, on occasion, harmonics, declination, and midpoints. So while some of the basics of modern astrology seem very streamlined in comparison with traditional, one can still extract a lot more information about the basic chart through different techniques.

I do think each planet need to be interpreted individually referring back to the nature of the sign it is in, the houses and aspects to other planets, axises and nodes etc for each individual natal chart. I agree with all the above posters and understand your point of views.

Personally, I don't think there are straight rules for anything as each person is very different. Certain qualities maybe good in certain society but will be very very different in other cultural ground. I will take the personalized way on interpreting a chart and consider more how those qualities will manifest in that person's life with the environment that person is in as well as the specific time period for example like war time, famine even the most dignified chart will act very differently as well.

I don't think there is any strict rules. Jupiter in Capricorn might very well be better off in current society as if one is overly optimistic and investing too much during a global economic break down, Jupiter in Cancer will do a lot more harm. Jupiter in Cancer can somehow bring in delusion in it worse form...I am thinking more of what Cancer rules such as properties, housing market, but in a good economic time Jupiter in Cancer would be very happily expanding in a healthy way.

Caprising said:

Sure, there are plenty of other factors to consider after the planet in sign is looked into, I would suggest that the planet in sign is one of the first things to look at, then look at house,aspects,angularity etc. Jupiter in Capricorn wont take risks like Jupiter in other signs will so often misses out on golden opportunities so has to toil for years to make some progress! Jupiter in Cancer doesn't have to achieve material gain to feel good, the enjoyment of ones emotional life is already present!

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. My internal happiness come from my Jupiter at 4th house, conjunction Uranus, antivertex, IC and South Node, in Sagittarius. My greatest luck and happiness come from foreign matters and religious enlightenment.

Caprising said:

I have to disagree with both of you!
Each planet has an expression which works better in some signs and worse in others, take Jupiter for example, modern keywords are expansion/optimism/luck, now put Jupiter in the sign of Cancer and expand the caring quality's of mothering/nurturing/homemaker and you usually get (there are exceptions) a terrific emotionally nurturing mother, try putting Jupiter in Capricorn and what gets expanded is the saturnian quality's, which can be good for business purposes but more often than not leads to depression/pessimism, and an inability to enjoy life, often these natives try to find satisfaction through the business world causing the home life to suffer. Jupiter governs optimism but in Capricorn optimism is restricted, which isn't the best expression of Jupiter!
Venus in Aries does not make for good social graces in either sex, (that would be Libra's domain), use the keywords-Aries...impulsive/rash/impatient....you get the picture! Planets work differently in different signs, and work well in certain signs and not so well in others....would you like more examples?

Click to expand...

Well, let me offer some examples, too, Caprising!

In modern astrology (at least in my edition) any planet in any sign or house can have a positive or negative manifestation. I personally think that close hard aspects are about the most telling thing in a chart, but even they can express themselves brilliantly. A planet in its fall doesn't automatically condemn it to disgrace or the negative manifestation-- of which you gave a good illustration.

Jupiter, for starters, is not the most personal of planets. We might imagine someone with a happy sun-moon-ascendant triad and a strong 10th house, with his Capricorn Jupiter beautifully aspected. He might be a natural business leader who does well for his employees and community.

With a 4th house placement, this person might exhibit a love of antiques or family history. In the second house, this person might be the careful, prudent saver who does well in retirement because she started some conservative investments at a young age. And so on.

Also, I usually use Placidus, and so often find Sagitarrius on the cusp of the Capricorn planet's house. Well, then Jupiter will have a lot to say about how that planet functions. If Jupiter rules the Capricorn Jupiter, you get some positive reinforcement here. Maybe she enjoys collecting old books, for example.

We have to be careful (and I am not saying you do this!) not to fasten on the negative astrology cookbook delineations, and then pull our character readings up behind it. (But mightn't a Saturnian be tempted to do this, because this is how she construes the world?) Rather we have to allow that each planet in a sign, house, or aspect has multiple potential interpretations; and as Poyi and others note, they will modify a particular placement. As we go through the chart, we can see how these are more or less likely to manifest.

Possibly a woman with Venus in Aries will lack some social graces (depending on the rest of the chart) but then she might just be a world-class athlete; or work in a career (like as an oil rig manager) where social graces are not required skills. Singer Susan Boyle has Venus in Aries, and while no one would describe her as model material, it clearly didn't hurt her meteoric career or her art. Today we're not so constrained by concerns with lady-like behaviour.

waybread said:

... A planet in its fall doesn't automatically condemn it to disgrace or the negative manifestation-- of which you gave a good illustration.

...

Possibly a woman with Venus in Aries will lack some social graces (depending on the rest of the chart) but then she might just be a world-class athlete; or work in a career (like as an oil rig manager) where social graces are not required skills. Singer Susan Boyle has Venus in Aries, and while no one would describe her as model material, it clearly didn't hurt her meteoric career or her art. Today we're not so constrained by concerns with lady-like behaviour.

Click to expand...

Yep, this exactly what has got my attention. I've come across a few situations where modern astrologers put forth very good points about how fears and conerns regarding certain planet/house/sign combinations may have been legitimate in the past, but surely not today. Medicine has clearly come a long way over the past few thousand years and illness is not what it used to be. Not that we are lacking in saddening or lethal conditions, instead, we have never been more equipped to deal with illness, surely, than now. (that then, makes me wonder about the arrival of Uranus to our consciousness and see how technology has played a part)

The point about females with planets in Aries, such as Venus, again, exactly what I'm thinking about. Here, in many places in the world (I think most of us are in the West) females aren't frowned upon for taking high-ranking positions outside the home. In many ways, I think we've de-genderized parts of society, not entirely, but partially and professions are one of them. Male models and female construction workers...female school principles/headmasters and male teachers etc.

This natural modernisation, the advent of technology and societal change and progress provides, for me at least, good reason to reduce the emphasis on dignity and debility in general. I don't think Sun in Libra people are debilitated when I look around and there is no lack of successful Mercury in Pisces natives either.

byjove said:

This natural modernisation, the advent of technology and societal change and progress provides, for me at least, good reason to reduce the emphasis on dignity and debility in general. I don't think Sun in Libra people are debilitated when I look around and there is no lack of successful Mercury in Pisces natives either.

Click to expand...

I know a person with Mercury in Pisces he has the most romantic mind, great with his study with Chemistry, great understanding of the religion and occult science including astrology. I remember reading Lilly's book though Mercury in Pisces has always been related to magician and occult. Mercury in pisces just functions in the opposition fashion.

Of course, I use signs as well as house cusp rulers with the tropical zodiac. But I am mindful that both tropical and sidereal astrologers produce good results despite the fact that a planet in a given sign in the tropical zodiac will be in the previous sign in the sidereal zodiac unless it is in a very late degree. A planet remaining in its own sign in its own terms or face gets bumped out, of course.

So this is why I am somewhat suspicious of the idea that a planet somehow "works better" or is "more at home" or "expresses its true nature" better in one sign than another. In my Susan Boyle example, above , her tropical Aries Venus moves to being a sidereal Pisces Venus, yet this changes nothing about her that I can make out. My big exception is domiciled planets, which I think really are strengthened by being "at home."

Part of my perplexity, too, with the traditional take on planets in signs is that society has changed enormously since the development of traditional society, as byjove notes.

When my mother was born in the US, women couldn't vote. When I was born, in my state married women couldn't divorce except for cases of adultery or abandonment, hold credit in their own name, and routinely identified themselves as "Mrs. Robert Jones" or "Mrs. Joe Schmoe." Discrimination in education and careers was perfectly legal. Women were routinely excluded from professional schools on the grounds that they would drop out to have babies, thus wasting their education. A middle class woman was expected to marry well and stay home looking after her home and family. Today American women make up just over half of the work force. There were big debates ca. 1970 about "free love" vs. virginity before marriage.

A Venus in Aries woman might today be better suited for life in 2013 than one who meets the traditional, acceptable images of femininity exemplified by Suzie Full-time Homemaker-- who is statistically in the minority in most urbanized developed countries.

I could go on, and on, but I've made my point.

In the middle age average men don't even live passes 40s-50s to experience the progressed sun like us these days. There are a lot of external factors to consider in modern time astrology. People just simply died from illnesses a lot easily. Women used to die from child birth. Homosexuality, religions that is non catholic etc. Many more examples suggestive enough the need to adjust our way of interpreting natal chart these days.

In the past 12th house is extremely debilitated house these days can mean faraway land that people can easy reach now. Or behind the scene professional.

Caprising said:

Sun in Libra isn't termed "debilitated", it's said to be in "fall", which I totally agree with! "fall" means that the planetary energy isn't easily expressed, so in the case of sun in libra the suns keywords (self identity etc.) don't come without some effort, but when progressions take ones sun into the next sign (between 0 and 30 years of age) most of these issues should resolve themselves! Having ones sun in debility (Aquarius) is different again, the native tends to do an "about face" every now and then revolving around his/her self identity....which includes other sun issues like fatherhood for a male for example!
Mercury in Pisces progresses into Aries (unless one has a long retrograde period in ones natal) which should give the natives mercury a boost in an arian fashion (probably via a very active mind for example). Rulership/fall/dignity and debility don't indicate everything about a person, a good 3rd house can for example make up for a debilitated mercury in day to day life! People who have a personal planet in rulership or dignity more often than not have that planet progress into a sign of detriment or fall, so as we reach middle age we generally become more alike (and more accepting of other people) as we experience different planetary placements!

Click to expand...

Watch out, Cap. Disregarding progressions (in which you have a point) you are one small step away from getting traditional delineation methods.

That's why I have come to value the wholistic ashtakavarga evaluative method so much: it provides insight on the DEGREE (HOW MUCH, how intensely) a dignified planet is in fact dignified, and on the DEGREE (HOW MUCH, how intesnely) a detrimented planet is actually detrimented-which are rather useful things to know...

Caprising said:

Men make terrible mothers, no breast milk to feed the infant, no womb to produce the infant etc., Women are born with the necessary equipment to hopefully ensure the infants survival , that is the reason why the majority of women stayed home up until recently! The glamorisation of working life portrayed by the popular media in recent decades (not to mention financial issues) has enticed women out of their natural role and has enslaved them into working 9-5 while still being a mother more often than not! Social engineering has been subtly operating under the illusion of womens liberation, when in reality women haven't been liberated from being a mother and wife, many now have to fit their 8 hour (or more) day job in with their still present mother/wife role!
This might suit women who have a Capricorn moon for example, but the Cancer moon mums that I know would rather nurture their offspring fulltime rather than leave them with strangers...that is why the moon is said to rule cancer, because the moon does "it's thing" best in that sign!
Venus in Aries often results in spontaneous love affairs while in a "partnership", among other selfish behaviours, after all Aries is about the self, that reason and others is why venus is labelled "in fall" when in aries!

Click to expand...

Gosh-- the old "biology is destiny" argument. I haven't heard this one for ages.

Not sure what this has to do with astrology but the belief that "the majority of women stayed home up until recently" is historically incorrect. I don't know which culture area you wish to address, but if we start with Europe before the 19th century, poor rural women were working in the fields on the lord's estate or as domestics, as their town sisters worked as market vendors, domestic servants, and the like. The middle class was tiny until the 18th/19th centuries, depending upon the country. Aristocratic women hired governesses, wet nurses, and tutors to look after their children. We look to Victorian England's middle class sensitivities for the glorification of the stay-at-home Mum.

I don't know what generation you are, but as a Baby Boomer, I grew up thinking I woould be only a wife and mother. The careers that interested me were prejudiced against women, and legally so. And while I am happily both a wife and mother, at some point around age 20, I realized how deeply unsatisfying my own Phi Beta Kappa mother found her homemaker-in-the-suburb status. I wanted my own career and I set my sights fairly high. This had nothing whatever to do with the media, who were anti-feminism back-when, as you may recall.

Don't tell me about the Double Day. Been there, done that. And women in the workforce have been a huge boon to the economy in developed nations. They have created far more jobs and family disposable income--and given women the financial independence to leave abusive husbands.

The two-parent/children at home/housewife-mother family today is a minority. Most women work because they must to support their children. Many households are headed by single mothers.

I was one of the lucky ones, in that I was able to do a lot of flex, part-time work while my children were little. I didn't leave them with strangers, but with a long-term care-giver who was devoted to them, and with enriched pre-school environments with caring teachers where I got to know them.

And as Gloria Steinem pointed out in the 1970s, most children are born with two parents. An argument for Suzie Homemaker is equally an argument for the emotionally detached, nearly-absent father who puts in 60-hour work-weeks? We're past that.

There is no conspiracy theory at play here: no social engineering. (One wonders by whom: the Republicans??) Rather, smart women woke up and realized that they were men's equals. They began to demand social, political, and economic equality.

So great, now all Aries venus natives are selfish philanderers? What a super argument for traditional astrological dignities and debilities.

Caprising, Shall we try to reason through this one?

Please consider how your personalized view of society and astrology becomes a kind of Procrustean Bed, in which the huge variety of human life must be stretched or trimmed to fit. (For readers who might be unfamiliar with this metaphor, see: http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/procrustes.html )

I hope you are not one of these individuals unable to view people in contexts outside of your own personal experience! I selected the example of Europe, but would you prefer to discuss Africa? Asia? The USA? In sub-Saharan Africa women historically were the farmers in most regions. In rural America, farm women may have been "at home" but cooking for the threshing crew, milking cows, churning butter, raising a vegetable garden, home canning, and sewing the clothes didn't leave much time for focused attention on their individual children. Oftentimes the oldest daughter was the surrogate mother to her younger siblings.

And let's not forget the oh-so-heartwarming experience of upper-middle and upper-class children shipped off to boarding school at young ages during the past century. Where's Mummy in this picture? Not home with the milk 'n' cookies waiting.

Our own personal experiences are valid yet highly limited. This is why we read history, current events, geography, and so on, to extent our purview beyond the limits of our own personal lives.

Kids throughout history have blamed their parents for all kinds of things. If you grew up in a world of stay-at-home Moms, that says something about your socio-economic class, and your particular point in space and time. Both society and astrology are much bigger than this.

As a middle class Baby Boomer growing up, I had a stay-at-home mother, as did the majority of my school friends. As college students we blamed our parents for all kinds of problems with our upbringing.

And you can see this in peoples' horoscopes. If someone has astrological earmarks of a troubled relationship with Mom and/or Dad, how else can their actual parent/s appear to them? This doesn't mean that the child is objectively correct! Siblings' and parents' horoscopes might tell quite a different story.

Parent/child relationships also vary by generation (boomers, generations x and y, &c.) The Millenial Generation (https://students.rice.edu/images/students/AADV/OWeek2008AADVResources/Characteristics%20of%20the%20Millenial%20Generation.pdf ) are far better connected to their parents than previous generations were. And of course most of their mothers worked outside the home during their childhoods.

Your notion that women are dupes of the media or that feminism was "hijacked by vested interests" is truly insulting to women's intelligence. The professional women I've known (who are many) didn't work hard because of crass materialism. They worked hard because they had it in them to do more than spending their lives dusting the furniture and fretting about their husband's "ring around the collar." Raising children is a noble profession, but do not forget that children grow up, leaving Mom with empty time on her hands. Any woman needed ca. 1970 to have job skills in case she didn't marry a financially well-off husband, he left her, or she had to leave him. Women then and now want careers for themselves, just as their brothers and husbands did.

The old trope of my father's generation that "my wife will never have to work" is precisely because they were very familiar with married women who worked: in textile mills, sweat shops, domestic service, and the like.

Few women today under 60 would even call themselves feminists. Rather, the idea that they will have both a career and a family is taken-for-granted. The 1970s feminists did their work so well that their political agenda is largely completed. The best example being Sarah Palin. If an ultra-conservative woman can have a big family and run for Vice President with none of her conservative brethren batting an eye, we've had a sea-change.

And here's the kicker. You cannot tell from a horoscope without supplementary data whether it belongs to a male or female.

Sure, some of us felt that the women's movement sold us a bill of goods as we put in "the double day." But life was equally difficult and frantic for stay-at-home women who raised seven kids, notably if Dad drank the paycheck. And where is the father in all of this (if present)? Hopefully he is sharing the domestic work load.

Each sign placement of venus has its positive and negative expressions (even venus in Libra and Taurus), if you take the time and effort to do a few hundred chart readings for people face to face then the differences between the planets in sign become much more obvious, most people exhibit both the positive and negative expressions during the journey from childhood to adulthood...

Click to expand...

I quite agree, and yes I have read hundreds of charts for people on-line.

I wonder how much of the idea that planets "don't work so well" in detriment or fall is primarily the astrologer's confirmation bias. The old-style astrology says what to expect, so into the Procrustean Bed the horoscope native goes.

Western women today are not what they were during your childhood or my grandmother's era. If traditional debilities cannot keep up with social realities, horoscope reading can only suffer.

Gosh-- one hopes a Capricornian person would be somewhat attuned to history! One of the reasons to study history, geography, sociology, or cultural anthropology is to learn a broader perspective on humanity than our own personal purview and life experiences. Living abroad for a while is a big help, also.

Our current norms in Australia, the US, &c. are not necessarily "the truth" about human nature, but may be culture-bound in very specific ways. We get a lot of posts on the chart-reading threads by people from India, who come from very different traditions and expectations.

As astrologers, we have to see human nature as much broader than our own little contemporary worlds. Indeed, so much of the astrology we practice is over 2000 years old.

This (Sagittarian? 9th house?) more panoramic view is especially important if we are going to generalize about large groups of people; notably if the majority of those groups might feel differently about themselves than we do.

If a child has a chart showing a troubled relationship with mum or dad you can't heap all of the blame onto the child,(try 50/50 if you want to put blame on someone)....

Click to expand...

I don't want to blame anyone. How constructive is that? If anything, trans-generational chart comparisons should give us a lot of compassion for both parties. Each generation has been blaming its youth since the days of Plato. When I was young, teenagers were criticized for all sorts of things, from too much TV-viewing to talking on the phone too long, to silly preoccupations with the Beatles. If we had cell phones and social media, no doubt we would have over-used them. Somehow many of us turned out OK.

More worrisome to me is how middle class kids get funneled into so many structured extra-curricular sports and lessons that I wonder how much time they have simply to be kids. But here again, history is a helpful antidote. Back when most people in Australia and the US lived on farms or worked at skilled trades, kids went to work as soon as they were old enough to be helpful. Somehow society survived.

My generation-- and my mother's-- were raised with Dr. Spock's guide to raising babies and young children; and were more apt to see their pediatrician as omnisicent than parents do today. No doubt you are familiar with the writings of German psychologist Alice Miller: advice for parents has been around since children were invented.

If you have good luck with conception charts as accurate tools, I salute you.

I don't shoehorn the outer planets into traditional dignity tables. I do think the modern domiciles work just fine. But that's about it. You do see occasionally a modern astrologer citing a modern outer's detriment, exaltation, or fall but it's not even clear why they bother, as it doesn't seem meaningful in modern chart interpretation.

I have to stress that if you find traditional essential dignities and debilities helpful, I have no quarrel with that. My point of debate is more about the awareness of human nature that is equally important in a natal chart interpretation.

So a modern take on a natal chart with say - Mercury in Saggitarius, Mars in Aries and Venus in Leo would be that Mars here is the only notable (just from an initial take on placement, before further considerations); it's in it's domicile? What about exaltation, if Mars were in Capricorn?

I've been listening to some deliniations and the modern astrologers don't see a problem with the fall and debility placements of planets and I wonder is that related to the modern take on houses too e.g. 6th and 12th aren't 'bad' places.

When I started learning astrology (which was modern) I didn't understand the reasoning or choices behind these decisions and having learned something about where the ideas came from I'm interested to see how they've changed in modern chart reading and why. I have a distict appreciation for roots, but I don't think anything can remain the same.

Byjove, I think all of these planets are "notable"-- but a domiciled planet would be extra-strong.

Modern astrologers wouldn't normally use the expression "accidental dignity" though I think it sums up a lot of their work. Possibly these planets in fire are linked through two sextiles and a trine: they're like a team of horses working in harness. Three planets in fire signs gives the person a certain amount of energy and initiative.

I think you can find a few deterministic, negative modern astrologers out there, but by-and-large, I think we're more interested in the potential of human beings to make something of their lives, through what the Fates hand them at birth. Venus in Leo will express itself as Venus in Leo, but it can do so in empowering or disempowering ways; and maybe in a mixture of both.

Maybe this is more of my own take on astrology, but I really dislike the idea expressed by both modern and traditional astrologers that people are merely the sum of a bunch of static personality traits, as though we are checking off items in a list. I think it makes far more sense to see people as dynamic beings. What motivates them? Where does their personal growth lie? What challenges do they face?

I think I began to feel this way when I realized that somehow my sun in Aquarius was supposed to be in detriment. Yet I am very happy with my sun-sign, wouldn't change it if I could, and I never saw it as particularly problematic. Ditto for another planet in its fall. I have no essential dignities in my horoscope whatsoever, so far as I can make out, but am helped somewhat in traditional astrology by some accidental dignities.

I also reject the idea of "bad" houses. We really have to think through the philosophy or theology behind this one. Yes, I understand the traditional reasons behind the poor reputation of the 6th, 8th, and 12th; yet people can and do find their niches within them and live productive, happy lives.

I realize that this thread is about the use of dignity and debility in modern astrology, but some of the ideas posted could leave a reader with misconceptions about what those dignities mean traditionally. I'm all for everyone drawing his or her own conclusions and using astrology the way that works best for them. I've all too often seen "traditional" astrologers get hung up on the dignities and not look any farther than that. Dignity is only one consideration among many, many others that astrologers should consider when determining a planet's ability to perform, and how it will perform.

waybread said:

Maybe this is more of my own take on astrology, but I really dislike the idea expressed by both modern and traditional astrologers that people are merely the sum of a bunch of static personality traits, as though we are checking off items in a list. I think it makes far more sense to see people as dynamic beings. What motivates them? Where does their personal growth lie? What challenges do they face?

Click to expand...

I dislike that idea too. It would be foolish for anyone to consider that humans don't grow, get motivated, or face and overcome (or not) challenges all through their lives. I for one can say I've learned some pretty tough lessons and that I have experienced huge personal growth in the learning of them. My approach and out look to life has changed quite a bit over the course of my life. No, I do not find this at odds with traditional astrology.

waybread said:

I think I began to feel this way when I realized that somehow my sun in Aquarius was supposed to be in detriment. Yet I am very happy with my sun-sign, wouldn't change it if I could, and I never saw it as particularly problematic. Ditto for another planet in its fall. I have no essential dignities in my horoscope whatsoever, so far as I can make out, but am helped somewhat in traditional astrology by some accidental dignities.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty happy with my Sun sign too. I have Sun in Libra in 12th house/1st sign. That's in fall and cadent. Some would also say it is peregrine. That means absolutely no dignity what so ever, and in a "bad house" as well. Peregrine planets are cunning in the sense that they need to develop sharp skills in order to obtain the resources they need. The dictionary defines cunning as:

1) dexterous or crafty in the use of special resources (as skill or knowledge) or in attaining an end <a cunning plotter>; displaying keen insight

2) characterized by wiliness and trickery <cunning schemes>; having or showing skill in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion.

Alright, so how do I tell if my Sun in fall peregrine in the 12th is going to be skilled in deciet to obtain her ends, or is going to be skilled in using the resources to be found with keen insight? This is why it is important to understand that dignity or lack of it is not the be all and end all of a planet's condition.

Sun in Libra in the ascending (masculine) sign, in masculine degree, masculine quadrant is in hayz. There is nothing out of sect about my Sun, which means there is nothing hidden. Sun in my chart is completely who/what it appears to be. Further, it is in a degree that is both bright and increasing in fortune. Does that mean my peregrine Sun was born with skilled insight? Hardly. What challenges has Sun had to over come? A square to Mars in Capricorn has provided plenty of challenges/lessons. How do I know that those lessons will help me grow? Because the square is applying and it perfects.

waybread said:

I also reject the idea of "bad" houses. We really have to think through the philosophy or theology behind this one. Yes, I understand the traditional reasons behind the poor reputation of the 6th, 8th, and 12th; yet people can and do find their niches within them and live productive, happy lives.

Click to expand...

I think this is an over-generalization of why these houses are considered "bad" although "bad" is a misnomer. Have you ever been ill? Owned small pets? Hired a plumber? 6th house. Have you ever been afraid? Paid taxes or incurred debt? Inherited anything? 8th house. Do you have enemies you are unaware of? Been in the hospital for any reason? Done anything that undermined your own efforts? 12th house.

It can be easy to come to the conclusion that traditional definitions of dignity and debility are where the buck stops because often that is what we see of traditional astrologers, most of whom are also just learning or haven't gotten past Lilly. I just wanted to point out that that isn't so.