Do you agree with this? (House Positions = Sign Placements)

twistandshout

Well-known member
If I understand you correctly you mean that there are fundamental rules that have always been existent but that have been overshadowed by different cultural or likewise notions?

Yes, exactly. I feel like this is ultimately what causes the dissonance when it comes to discussing things like the 4H/10H/Mother/Father aspect of the chart that often times becomes the crux of what people say disproves the notion of associating sign rulership to houses. It will, of course, be hard to see the association if we continue to allow our perception of astrology to be purely defined by a lot of archaic thinking.

I get why people have the appeal to traditional understandings of Astrology but I suppose since I, personally, have gone into Astrology with having a mixture of Modern and Traditional learnings, I don't see the appeal of holding so tightly to the traditional understanding and definition to a lot of things. It's not to say that they're WRONG. But rather that they have a context in which they're accurate but that context is not every situation if that makes sense?
 

david starling

Well-known member
Yes, exactly. I feel like this is ultimately what causes the dissonance when it comes to discussing things like the 4H/10H/Mother/Father aspect of the chart that often times becomes the crux of what people say disproves the notion of associating sign rulership to houses. It will, of course, be hard to see the association if we continue to allow our perception of astrology to be purely defined by a lot of archaic thinking.

I get why people have the appeal to traditional understandings of Astrology but I suppose since I, personally, have gone into Astrology with having a mixture of Modern and Traditional learnings, I don't see the appeal of holding so tightly to the traditional understanding and definition to a lot of things. It's not to say that they're WRONG. But rather that they have a context in which they're accurate but that context is not every situation if that makes sense?

In the trades, this is known as "the right tool for the right job"!
 

twistandshout

Well-known member
@twist

If astrology is a science, like you said, and like I believe it to be too, then the solutions are always one. If we get differing results (and we know most results are.. a bit too broad, if not usually wrong) then it means we're applying the wrong procedures, for even if we apply different methodologies in a scientific research, we have to get just one result.

This to say, if the 4th house is related to the sign of Cancer, ruled by the Moon, then it can't mean male-like things. This is not a sexist statement and has nothing to do with society. It's life as simple as it is: male+female= life. No matter how many embryos you can nowadays reproduce with a computer, they'll be made as well by the male and the female. The Sun and the Moon can't be mixed following trends. The zodiac, which is life itself, can't be "updated" to social trends. No matter how many trans or gay people are out there nowadays, they've always been there. Same with the "collective consciousness", it's broader than your geolocation, weather might influence it but then, it will influence everyone.

We really need to rediscover the zodiac, this means, to me, to rediscover the real traditions. They're way before Ptolemy, way before humankind..

It's not to say that it's associated with "male-like things" but rather our perception of what constitutes Male and Female roles today is vastly different from the time when Astrology was readily and actively practiced on a larger scale. Essentially boiling this down to "male" and "female" will continually become an issue, especially as we, on a larger scale, are learning to accept a wider range of gender roles and experiences. This is why I feel looking at those two houses as Primary vs. Secondary is a bit more appropriate. I don't mean this as favorite vs. least favorite but rather Primary being much more present and active (as Cancer is a very intimate sign) vs. Distant and either idealized or feared (as Capricorn tends to be).

So no, this isn't about the idea of social trends but rather evolution. Women are no longer restricted to being the home maker. Some men fulfill this role in the roles of their children while the women go out and are the primary sources of income. Alternatively, restricting it to Male and Female also kind of negates the opportunity to even look at someone's chart if they have two parents of the same gender.

Even this discussion alone is showing the dissonance in perception. My father died when I was young and while the placement of my mother and father are still relevant in relationship to my chart, I can still see my mother in both placements as well since she was the primary care giver and acted as both the Mother and Father (which is amplified since Capricorn is my 4H ruler which I always found humorous).
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
@twist

If astrology is a science, like you said, and like I believe it to be too, then the solutions are always one. If we get differing results (and we know most results are.. a bit too broad, if not usually wrong) then it means we're applying the wrong procedures, for even if we apply different methodologies in a scientific research, we have to get just one result.

This to say, if the 4th house is related to the sign of Cancer, ruled by the Moon, then it can't mean male-like things. This is not a sexist statement and has nothing to do with society. It's life as simple as it is: male+female= life. No matter how many embryos you can nowadays reproduce with a computer, they'll be made as well by the male and the female. The Sun and the Moon can't be mixed following trends. The zodiac, which is life itself, can't be "updated" to social trends. No matter how many trans or gay people are out there nowadays, they've always been there. Same with the "collective consciousness", it's broader than your geolocation, weather might influence it but then, it will influence everyone.

We really need to rediscover the zodiac, this means, to me, to rediscover the real traditions. They're way before Ptolemy, way before humankind..

Zodiac on the ceiling of the PRONAOS OF HATHOR TEMPLE IN DENDERA
Learn how the Ancients used symbolism to tell a greater story
- the story of consciousness and creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iabPmxh9tc4

even Diodorus Siculus explained
in his work BIBLIOTHECA HISTORICA FIRST BOOK CHAPTER LXXXI

"There is no country
where the position and movements of celestial bodies are observed with greater accuracy
than in Egypt"

Ancient Egyptians were such advanced astronomers
they even identified modern constellations as we see them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqSNvHDg3G8

also

In ancient times Hellenistic astrologers aka Traditional astrologers
used THEMA MUNDI as a teaching aid
Thema Mundi places Cancer as the 'natural first house' :smile:





thema-mundi-small.jpg




Eric Francis notes:

“Thema Mundi is the chart that truly is one of the ancient keys to astrology.
Keys lead to doors and doors lead to different places
this is the beginning of an adventure”
http://planetwavesweekly.com/dadatemp/1832374392.html


QUOTE
:
“Cancer, sign of mothering associates with the 1st, house of incarnation
where one comes into tangible form.

Aries is Thema Mundi 10th house of fiery initiative, career, fame, worldly expression.
Capricorn does not fit the outgoing initiative required of 10th.


Aries as the natural sign associated with 10th helps us understand Aries Point
which seems closer in meaning to 10th than to Ascendant.


Children are often conceived in 5th house
overlaying the house of passionate sex with the sign of mysteries of birth and death makes sense.
A fun romance, can involve you deeper than you planned”





THEMA MUNDI PDF
http://www.azastrologers.org/Article...ThemaMundi.pdf



NoblehorseThemaMundi_img_0.jpg
 

twistandshout

Well-known member
@moon

I think ultimately we're saying the same thing, it's just mincing words at this point :lol: We both agree that the charts are set up around the concept of balance, it's really just a matter of what words we use to define the balance is all.
 

twistandshout

Well-known member
Well that's ultimately exactly what I was arguing in my previous post re using Mother/Father as defining terms for those houses (and why it causes such huge dissonance). My entire statement is that using Male and Female as defining factors is ultimately more restrictive because on a whole, our perception of what role a Man and a Woman play have changed and continue to change drastically. Even the perception of Mother and Father is changing. My stating myself as an example (though anecdotal and understandably why anyone would want to dismiss it) was to show it's use in practice. But this hasn't really changed at all across the board from other charts I've seen in which their parents have switched roles or have non-traditional roles.

The long story short is - There's probably more flexible language to be used to make sure we're not unnecessarily boxing out experiences and, at the end, preventing ourselves from allowing Astrology to evolve as our perception of the roles that we play at large evolve as well.
 

waybread

Well-known member
@twist

If astrology is a science, like you said, and like I believe it to be too, then the solutions are always one. If we get differing results (and we know most results are.. a bit too broad, if not usually wrong) then it means we're applying the wrong procedures, for even if we apply different methodologies in a scientific research, we have to get just one result.

This to say, if the 4th house is related to the sign of Cancer, ruled by the Moon, then it can't mean male-like things. This is not a sexist statement and has nothing to do with society. It's life as simple as it is: male+female= life. No matter how many embryos you can nowadays reproduce with a computer, they'll be made as well by the male and the female. The Sun and the Moon can't be mixed following trends. The zodiac, which is life itself, can't be "updated" to social trends. No matter how many trans or gay people are out there nowadays, they've always been there. Same with the "collective consciousness", it's broader than your geolocation, weather might influence it but then, it will influence everyone.

We really need to rediscover the zodiac, this means, to me, to rediscover the real traditions. They're way before Ptolemy, way before humankind..

No, astrology is not a science. This thread clarifies why:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8963

I hope you will also read Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky.

The traditional association of the 4th house as one's father and paternal inheritance has no reference to the moon as Big Momma. There is nothing intrinsically feminine about the moon: in Scandinavian pagan lore, the moon (Mani) is masculine and the sun (Sunna) is feminine; probably relating to the sun's more life-promoting traits in a cold climate. The Babylonian moon god Sin was masculine, and our western astrology ultimately derives from them. Khonsu, the ancient Egyptian moon god was masculine.

Until fairly recently, even in the West, one inherited one's surname, and any goods or land, from the father. In this sense, the 4th house also relates to family history (genealogy.)

In terms of modern astrology, I think the 4th does have meaning as one's early childhood conditioning. But of course, Dad (or his lack) has an impact on one's childhood as well as one's mother.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
No, astrology is not a science. This thread clarifies why:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8963

I hope you will also read Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky.

The traditional association of the 4th house as one's father and paternal inheritance has no reference to the moon as Big Momma. There is nothing intrinsically feminine about the moon: in Scandinavian pagan lore, the moon (Mani) is masculine and the sun (Sunna) is feminine; probably relating to the sun's more life-promoting traits in a cold climate. The Babylonian moon god Sin was masculine, and our western astrology ultimately derives from them. Khonsu, the ancient Egyptian moon god was masculine.

Until fairly recently, even in the West, one inherited one's surname, and any goods or land, from the father. In this sense, the 4th house also relates to family history (genealogy.)

In terms of modern astrology, I think the 4th does have meaning as one's early childhood conditioning. But of course, Dad (or his lack) has an impact on one's childhood as well as one's mother.
Fact is one thread on one astrology forum is not the final word on the matter :smile:
particularly in view of the fact that "astrology" has not been defined
Vedic astrology for example is viewed as a Science in India
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
@twist
I'm sorry if I sound so strict when expressing my ideas, I agree on your analysis too, but some points we make are really different, and I can see we get there from the same premises... we just get some different conclusions, which is totally fine, because we both explained why that is so...

@way
No way I'm gonna read skyscript! Ffffss :D I don't wanna sound like a nazi, but seriously, I've read maaaany inaccuracies on that site, about things that people from this forum were defending like they were written on the Bible, because they found it on Skyscript. I'm especially talking about the history of astrology; if you get on skyscript it'll look as if there are answers to all of your questions, I don't know why they do that.. but I saw them making statements which are not explained if not by a vague "tradition says so". And they're wrong statements, because yes tradition could have said that (they don't tell what tradition though and I've seen them attributing systems to the wrong people..) , but it just didn't mean that thing in that way, for that purpose. Skyscript is all about horary predictions. That's a part of astrology I have many problems accepting, honestly.


To me astrology is a science whatever skyscript has to say about it. Even better, if it says it is not, it's to me another good reason to think it actually is. :p Come on, skyscript doesn't even count Uranus and Neptune.. duh.

Edit: Ive just read that, and that's a hella thread you started on skyscirpt, waybread. I really liked reading it but unfortunately I don't see it in the same way at all... some points were enlightening because you say basically that empirical data have no weight in the scientific approach yet you accuse astrology of not following those rules... Hm.
Another petty tiny detail I'd like to clarify is that the distinctions between astrology and astronomy have always existed, in facts they analyze different things. The skepticism on astrology always existed too, and you can find so many ancient authors that would give very doubtful considerations about the astrological system. It's always been for a few people, that's for sure. The strictly scientific methodology that you talk about, stems out of a very precise period of human kind, Illuminism. Illuminism isn't that much back in time, and it can be seen as responsible for having changed our world perception too. But that doesn't mean it is the ultimate way of seeing things. Einstein, more recently, traced a big line on all that mind frame.. we evolved from the illuministic "scientific" approach, and thanks to it, to a more relative approach to everything. Post modernism here for you. It's not the end of our discoveries, and I think, when talking about astrology, the best contextualization for it must be drawn to the present, the contemporary times, for astrology is applied here and now, not for someone who lives in the 1700 and used to call "demon" everything he could not understand, that's the past, we evolved.. a bit.

Though we don't know how it works physically, astrology is not a faith.
You can experience, observe and know how it applies first hand :smile:
There are sound reasons why it has proved so difficult to test the real practice of astrology under scientific conditions
and why so many tests have been flawed.
However, some simple experiments have yielded results
that are consistent with a scientific basis
to the fundamental premise of astrology
even though the practice is an art rather than a science

http://www.astrologer.com/tests/basisofastrology.htm
 

ynnest

Well-known member
No, astrology is not a science. This thread clarifies why:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8963

I hope you will also read Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky.

The traditional association of the 4th house as one's father and paternal inheritance has no reference to the moon as Big Momma. There is nothing intrinsically feminine about the moon: in Scandinavian pagan lore, the moon (Mani) is masculine and the sun (Sunna) is feminine; probably relating to the sun's more life-promoting traits in a cold climate. The Babylonian moon god Sin was masculine, and our western astrology ultimately derives from them. Khonsu, the ancient Egyptian moon god was masculine.

Until fairly recently, even in the West, one inherited one's surname, and any goods or land, from the father. In this sense, the 4th house also relates to family history (genealogy.)

In terms of modern astrology, I think the 4th does have meaning as one's early childhood conditioning. But of course, Dad (or his lack) has an impact on one's childhood as well as one's mother.


The astrological main stream methods that most people have learned and bought into are correctly not under the scientific paradigm. Whats important to understand however is that there Are correct methods and paradigms that actually Are working under the scientific radar and that can be objectively tested and consequently never fail to deliver results based on standard measures.

I nevertheless understand that based on where we are at now in our collective understanding of astrology it would be a false statement to call it a science since its not working within the parameters of its original functionality.
 

Senecar

Well-known member
This is how I see it:

Ex. A person has Aries Venus in the 12th house. They'll act like an Aries in a relationship but their romantic relationships may have 12th traits. (Secretive, Spiritual, Forbidden, Unavailable Partners)

Why? Because the sign would be how you experience the energy and the house would be where.

But I've seen a lot of people do this:

Ex. Venus In Pisces/12th House > Description, pretty much saying the 12th house and Pisces are the same.

I personally don't agree with this method but I'm still new to this and I could be wrong. Do you think it's acceptable to interpret it that way?


Ben Dykes says in the book "Astrological Prediction, by Oner Doser, Edited by Ben Dykes 2015", that when a planet is viewed as a Time Lord in natal charts, it is for management responsibility of one's life for a specific amount of time, as a way of making longer period of life intelligible. (pp.2)

So when Venus is for example in 11th house, it means his friends, when it is in 8th house, mortality and fear and so on. (pp.2)

Therefore which house a planet is in, determines what the planet is about, and will be doing.
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
Though we don't know how it works physically, astrology is not a faith.
You can experience, observe and know how it applies first hand :smile:

For the ancient and medieval astrologers, astrology was a faith? :)
The divination comes down from the God, and astrology is a tool for it?
 

waybread

Well-known member
@way
No way I'm gonna read skyscript! Ffffss :D I don't wanna sound like a nazi, but seriously, I've read maaaany inaccuracies on that site, about things that people from this forum were defending like they were written on the Bible, because they found it on Skyscript. I'm especially talking about the history of astrology; if you get on skyscript it'll look as if there are answers to all of your questions, I don't know why they do that.. but I saw them making statements which are not explained if not by a vague "tradition says so". And they're wrong statements, because yes tradition could have said that (they don't tell what tradition though and I've seen them attributing systems to the wrong people..) , but it just didn't mean that thing in that way, for that purpose. Skyscript is all about horary predictions. That's a part of astrology I have many problems accepting, honestly.

It sounds like from the rest of your post that you actually went back and reconsidered. That's good. Please realize that Skyscript has many contributors, some of them modern, so there is no unified Skyscript point of view. It was established by a traditional western astrologer, but it has many archived articles and threads by other people: some modern, some traditional, but then the trads do not agree among themselves. I haven't found the articles (which are vetted) to attribute "systems to the wrong people," so I'd be curious to learn why you say this. The threads, of course, are open to anybody regardless of their level of expertise.

Horary does seem to be favoured by western traditional astrologers, but you will certainly find a lot of it here!! My feeling is that a horary reading is either accurate or it isn't; and hopefully we get feedback from the querent as to whether we hit or missed the mark.

To me astrology is a science whatever skyscript has to say about it. Even better, if it says it is not, it's to me another good reason to think it actually is. :p Come on, skyscript doesn't even count Uranus and Neptune.. duh.

"Skyscript" will express a range of opinions on the modern outers. Some trads don't use them at all. Some will use them as supplementary data points, but not as sign and house cusp rulers.

Edit: Ive just read that, and that's a hella thread you started on skyscirpt, waybread. I really liked reading it but unfortunately I don't see it in the same way at all... some points were enlightening because you say basically that empirical data have no weight in the scientific approach yet you accuse astrology of not following those rules... Hm.

Thank you. I didn't "accuse" astrology of not following rules, nor would I ever say that "empirical data have no weight in the scientific approach..." I am shocked that you would get that from my posts. Science very much follows an empirical approach, but it goes well beyond mere observation, via the scientific method. Other fields may be empirical, like history and cultural anthropology, but we wouldn't classify them as "hard" sciences like physics, "medical" sciences like hematology, or "natural" sciences like botany.

Another petty tiny detail I'd like to clarify is that the distinctions between astrology and astronomy have always existed, in facts they analyze different things. The skepticism on astrology always existed too, and you can find so many ancient authors that would give very doubtful considerations about the astrological system. It's always been for a few people, that's for sure.

I think this is correct. However, I don't think too many scholars in the past were interested in astronomy for this own sake. The reason to study it was usually to further astrology. Astro-meteorology was also an application of astronomical events. As you point out, skeptics of astrology have been around for a long time, notably in ancient Greece. Some think that Ptolemy wrote Tetrabiblos as a response to Cicero's criticisms of astrology, written 150 years earlier. http://www.astrology-and-science.com/H-cice2.htm


The strictly scientific methodology that you talk about, stems out of a very precise period of human kind, Illuminism. Illuminism isn't that much back in time, and it can be seen as responsible for having changed our world perception too. But that doesn't mean it is the ultimate way of seeing things. Einstein, more recently, traced a big line on all that mind frame.. we evolved from the illuministic "scientific" approach, and thanks to it, to a more relative approach to everything. Post modernism here for you. It's not the end of our discoveries, and I think, when talking about astrology, the best contextualization for it must be drawn to the present, the contemporary times, for astrology is applied here and now, not for someone who lives in the 1700 and used to call "demon" everything he could not understand, that's the past, we evolved.. a bit.

We could debate this, although it takes us off-topic. There doesn't seem to be one "father" or one single intellectual movement responsible for the scientific method. It seems to have developed in bits and pieces, beginning with the Greeks and moving on through the Renaissance and modern period with different contributors. A lot of older 19th century/early 20th century science actually didn't use the scientific method as it is understood today. The point being, that today, laboratory and field sciences are characterized by rigorous methodologies, usually requiring statistical verification of results, that you usually do not see in astrology (the Gauquelin studies notwithstanding.)
 

waybread

Well-known member
The astrological main stream methods that most people have learned and bought into are correctly not under the scientific paradigm. Whats important to understand however is that there Are correct methods and paradigms that actually Are working under the scientific radar and that can be objectively tested and consequently never fail to deliver results based on standard measures.

I nevertheless understand that based on where we are at now in our collective understanding of astrology it would be a false statement to call it a science since its not working within the parameters of its original functionality.

I agree! I am inclined to think of astrology as a system of divination and character analysis using prescribed methods. These methods vary between schools of thought (modern, Vedic, Chinese, &c,) and even between individuals within the same school.

I don't think anyone would consider the disciplines of history or the law to qualify as sciences. Yet a lot of their research is highly empirical (based upon observation.)

I'm starting to use a new (to me) word: proto-science. The work of Aristotle or even Galileo wouldn't seem so scientific today, yet historians of science would claim them as contributing to the body of scientific theories, laws, and information that constitute science today. Of course, a lot of Aristotle's ideas do not hold up to scientific scrutiny, like there being four elements instead of the periodic table. Galileo, in discovering the moons of Jupiter, speculated whether they had astrological meaning. But both men confronted the religious orthodoxies of their day.

In the second century CE, the "new" astrology promoted by Ptolemy did fit within the "scientific" parameters of the Hellenistic world. But not all astrology did. Vettius Valens, in his Anthologies, for example, includes the work of a now-lost astrologer Petosiris. He was supposedly an ancient Egyptian scribe, although the person writing under his name was probably a more recent Hellenized Egyptian (or Egypt-ized Greek.) Valens critized Petosiris and others of his genre for speaking in "mystic riddles," vs. the applied techniques that Valens used himself. Firmicus Maternus (4th century, Mathesis) drops a lot of hints that portions of astrology came out of the ancient Egyptian religion and were considered secret information to the priests.

Because of the major impact of Ptolemy (cf. also his Almagest) on subsequent astrology we may think of ancient astrology as more scientific than a survey of it at the time would have revealed.

This is a useful site for anyone interested in the history of ancient astrology. http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
@way

lol cool @ the 4th house because I just wanted to bring it up as a clear example of that. This basically proves the point. There's always an opposition, that's the key to the world. Male-Female is just the basic, no matter how evolved we might be, that will always be there, like the rules of astrology don't change over time just because we allowed divorce or abortion.
If your 4th house is in Capricorn, of course it will take very strict features, in contrast to the natural tender nature of the Cancer(=female) traits. Mars in Capricorn is just male, that's opposed to the Cancerian very female traits. Then if you have Capricorn in 4th no doubt you'll give a "natural" (for you) reading of "alternative" meanings to your home environment.. but that happens to everyone with their charts, for not everyone have the houses in the "correct" place... but guess what? There's no "correctness" in such matters. Astrology is above that, it just says: "hey, you have the female side of your personality that is printed on patriarchal values, now you live it out yourself!" this gender split of symbols is actually above genders too, for everyone has a male and female side.

sorry to hear of dad..

Didn't you mention post-modernism? If you really want to get post-modern about it, the polarities are invented or created, not observed.

Sure, biological men and women are anatomically different-- but we are hardly opposites. We're all human. Typically we look more alike than different. (Two arms, two legs, one head, and so on. Maybe insects or bacteria are better candidates as our "opposites.") Most of the differences ascribed to men and women are cultural, not natural; the evidence of which can be seen by a cursory review of gender constructions in cultural anthropology.

Yin-yang is another a cultural construct. It's not objectively somehow "out there."

Binary oppositions have a lot of persuasive power as mechanisms for organizing information. It's just that they are not objectively real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition A lot of seriously political movements are dedicated to deconstructing harmful binaries based upon gender, race/ethnicity, and religion.

I don't know how much information you have on the whole LGBT community and issues facing transgender people, but they are doing a lot to change the hetero-normative ways that conservatives understand gender.

I couldn't quite follow your analysis of Capricorn. Traditionally the signs are divided up as male and female. The earth and water signs are female, while the air and fire signs are masculine. I personally do not find this type of dichotomy to be useful, but there is nothing about Capricorn that is distinctively masculine.

What do you make of sun-Cancer men? The idea that men with their sun or a lot of Cancer placements in their chart are somehow feminine just doesn't jive with my experience. I do think some of them use their Cancer natures in the healing or education professions; but then you'd have to buy into a sexist notion that women are invariably nurturing and caring, while men are inherently uncaring and indifferent to make a meal out of this one.

Oh sure, we could get into Jungian animus-anima divisions, but this takes us a long way from the OP and Jung's actual ideas about women were pretty sexist.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
There's a basic STRUCTURE to the Astrological systems. We accept that as a given. (Tropical is the structure that appeals to me, personally, and the one I know the most about, so I'll focus on that.) This Thread involves that foundational framework, because, Tropically, we're in agreement that there are 12 equal Sign-divisions measured along the Ecliptic (objectively Earth's orbital path, subjectively the Sun's). And, we're in agreement that the first points of the Cardinal-signs are located at the Sun's position at the beginning of each of the 4 Seasons. But, were NOT unanimous in numbering Aries as Sign #1 through Pisces as Sign #12. Those of us who do (I even use basic numerology to obtain information about the numbered Signs), have no problem connecting a Sign to the House of the same number. In which case, there's a PATTERN as to which Signs are most compatible with which Houses: Besides being most effective in the House of the same number, using the agreed-upon Elements for the Signs, we can also say a Sign is more effective in any House connected by number to a Sign of the same Element. For anyone who DOESN'T accept the numbering of the Signs, this pattern doesn't work. I think that's the crux of the matter. Numbering the Signs is a Modern idea, as I understand it, although it does receive some oblique Traditional support from the use of the First Point of Tropical Aries as a marker for the Sidereal Ayanamsa.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Yes, exactly. I feel like this is ultimately what causes the dissonance when it comes to discussing things like the 4H/10H/Mother/Father aspect of the chart that often times becomes the crux of what people say disproves the notion of associating sign rulership to houses. It will, of course, be hard to see the association if we continue to allow our perception of astrology to be purely defined by a lot of archaic thinking.

I get why people have the appeal to traditional understandings of Astrology but I suppose since I, personally, have gone into Astrology with having a mixture of Modern and Traditional learnings, I don't see the appeal of holding so tightly to the traditional understanding and definition to a lot of things. It's not to say that they're WRONG. But rather that they have a context in which they're accurate but that context is not every situation if that makes sense?

I don't think this is the issue. I consider "my" astrology to be modern western, but few years ago I decided to learn traditional and horary. Now I am a lot more eclectic, but hopefully the field as a whole will become more diverse. Today, in an interesting reversal, some trads tend to see modern psychological astrology as yesterday's school. (John Frawley, anyone?)

So far as my posts here go, sometimes its easier to dismiss a particular method if we do not know the historical reasons behind it. Learning the reasons, maybe we can see the logic in them.

To y'all:

As I've said a few times here, I think some planet-sign-matches work a lot better than others. Jupiter-Sagittarius-and the 9th are a much better match than Mars-Aries-and the 1st house, unless one happens to have Aries rising or Mars in the first. If someone has Pisces rising with Saturn in the first house, than that "first chord" conflation is really inappropriate. Medical astrology is a special exception.

Moreover, we lose a lot of the valid and alternative meanings of the houses and signs, because we would have to toss out whatever does not fit whatever it is that we think a given planet, sign, or house actually signifies.

Then we're in danger of morphing Pisces to fit the 12th house, or Venus to fit the 2nd house, or vice versa. Maybe you can read a nativity this way, but I think you'd run into difficulties with horary, which isn't about the querent's personality in most cases.

Once you make up your mind to conflate signs and houses, then you sort of have to trim out the 12th house rulerships of large livestock, hospitals, and prisons if these do not fit with your pictures of dreamy, sensitive Pisces.

I have Jupiter in Capricorn in the 4th house in Placidus (Sagittarius on the cusp) and so long as we confuse the 4th house with Mom due to a moon-Cancer-4th confusion, you'd never get my interests in genealogy (family history,) restoring old houses, or certain types of history. None of these are Mom-related, and in my case, my actual mother had zero interest in these topics. These topics do come up in the more comprehensive listing of 4th house affiliations that do not muddle it up with Cancer.

My feeling about whether the MC or IC represents Mom or Dad, is to reflect back on your experiences of these people. See which is the best fit for you. But if you had a stay-at-home Dad while Mom joined the Air Force, we can throw the gender stereotyping of Cancer out the window.

Deborah Houlding, in her book Houses: Temples of the Sky takes the second house as an example. If you translate the second house as Taurus, then presumably you get Venus as the ruler of second house matters like money. But Venus doesn't rule money. Mercury is the planetary ruler of currency and trade. Venus does rule luxuries like jewelry, which are financial assets to some people, but here you'd want to look at the actual situation of Venus. If the native has Venus in Leo in the first house, she's more likely to love wearing expensive gold jewelry than if she's got Saturn in Taurus in the 9th or Venus in Aquarius in the 7th house square Mars.
 
Last edited:
Top