frank question : If we use "modern planets" in the Domicile scheme, where do they fit in the other Essential Dignities?
what is your answer frank?
oh, i see it was a hypothetical question to see if anyone was silly enough to try to answer... thanks frank.
One thing that "modern" astrologers hang on to is the "Astrological Alphabet" that dictates:
Aries=1st House=Mars
Or
Gemini=3rd House=Mercury
(Caveat - I knew Zip Dobyns - who developed the "Astrological Alphabet" and told her I disagreed with its premise. We still got along famously.)
This is incorrect as far as the separation of energies of planets/houses/signs go.
Mars is NOT Aries nor the 1st House.
Venus is NOT Taurus nor the 7th House.
Planet !=Sign !=House. Period.
Hey, Frank. As you know, a lot of modern astrologers don't believe in conflating planets, signs, and houses, either. I, for one. So maybe identify which other modern astrologers you mean.
Who decided that Uranus "ruled" Aquarius, Neptune "ruled" Pisces or Pluto "ruled" Scorpio?
As I remarked before, students of Zip Dobyns.
So who's a student of Zipporah Dobyns? Not most people practicing modern astrology, I should imagine.
Well, we are in the traditional forum, after all.
The easy answer is, if we go back to the source material (Hellenistic) there was one lost author that all others built on.
But they never disagreed on Domicile rulers.
I know who originally designated the "modern" planets as sign rulers. I wonder if those "modern" astrologers who tout the "modern" rulers know exactly where and when those "rulerships" started.
Frank, this is demonstrably not the case.
Do you have numbers? Zip was a friend of mine, we disagreed on some things. You might check with her children, Mark, Maritha and Rique Pottenger.
As I understand the new "Traditional Astrology" forum, it's not meant to debate Traditional vs Modern but a place for those who use traditional means to have discussions on traditional/classical astrology without "moderns" bothering those who wish to talk about traditional methods.
So, why are you here?
Frank, this is just getting "curioser and curioser." Thankfully I first learned astrology by reading the older modern astrology books of Robert Hand, and this isn't a mistake that he makes. On another thread, you once mentioned being a friend of astrological historian Nicholas Campion. His 2nd book on the history of astrology gets into the theosophical movement, the Golden Dawn, and other movements of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. These "founders" of modern astrology postulated a more esoteric approach to astrology; into which the outer planets fit very well.
We both know that astrologers with formal astrology training have different mentor-student lineages, and then there is all kinds of cross-fertilization across the Atlantic and beyond. Alan Leo was British, yet his book sold really well in the US, for example.
What is "demonstrably not the case" ?
Please - try to prove a negative. I await that.
Do you mean me, Frank? I am responding to your questions. But you seem to have a chip on your shoulder against modern astrology.
Your statement that, "there was one lost author that all others built on" is demonstrably incorrect.