Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Natal Astrology > Dignities & debilities

Dignities & debilities Board for discussing planets in dignities and debilities in natal charts.


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Unread 10-02-2013, 09:56 AM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprising View Post
I accept the challenge!...
Nancy Anne Hastings used (she passed away in the 1990's when in her 40s) rulership,fall, exaltation,detriment and accidental dignity (I can't remember if she uses triplicity/term/face) as part of her technique, and passed on her tables in one of her 2 prediction books. I use her tables with much confidence, however I am open to new suggestions from anyone who might stumble across an improved system. Nancy explains the meaning of these forementioned terms, so her teachings are easy to follow. I especially enjoy watching my own prog. planets change sign from rulership to detriment, or from fall to...not in fall...
Thanks CapRising, I need the whole set, the entire gamut of dignities and debilities and what she says of them. I assume she's a modern astrologer though right?

What does she say of the dignities she does offer in terms of interpretive differences, such that a planet in dignity means X and a planet in fall means Y?

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Unread 10-02-2013, 10:34 AM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprising View Post
Yes Paul, she is (was) a modernist, I will dig out her book tomorrow and give you a rundown on her technique, but basically from memory a planet in rulership expresses it's nature easily...without much (if any)effort on the natives part, a planet in fall requires effort to work well, a planet in exaltation works well for the native, while a planet in detriment doesn't allow the best expression of the planets nature. I have to word my response carefully here, people who have planets in detriment or fall might get upset if I get too descriptive, Many of us will have a planet progress into a sign of rulership or exaltation as we age, or even planetary progressions into the sign of detriment or fall.
"Accidental dignity" describes the planet that is closest in degrees to the m/c, if there is no planet within....I think it's 60 degrees then there is no planet in accidental dignity. Progressions can take a planet to within 60 degrees of the m/c (or the prog. m/c can progress to within 60 degrees of a planet) at which point the planet becomes "accidentally dignified" I haven't had her books out for some years now, but am fairly sure that I have these figures correct!
Well that sounds very interesting! I would definitely like to hear more of what she says. I've never heard of her. Which book is it all from? I might buy it from amazon or if it's in my local astrology bookshop.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Unread 10-02-2013, 11:16 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 67,643
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Well that sounds very interesting! I would definitely like to hear more of what she says. I've never heard of her. Which book is it all from? I might buy it from amazon or if it's in my local astrology bookshop.
NANCY ANNE HASTINGS is said to have written two books, I personally have read neither - both available on amazon


THE PRACTICE OF PREDICTION
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practice-Pre...+anne+hastings

and

SECONDARY PROGRESSIONS TIME TO REMEMBER
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secondary-Pr...+anne+hastings


QUOTE

Nancy Hastings was a respected astrologer from Massachusetts, certified professional by the American Federation of Astrologers (PMAFA). She was very active in the organizations, serving on the board of NCGR and as president of the New England Astrological Association. Her great promise was cut short when she died of cancer at the age of 46
http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrolo.../hastings.html
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Unread 10-02-2013, 11:22 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 67,643
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

also at this link http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum /showthread.php?p=505300#post505300 dr. farr mentions that 'early Modernist author Manly P Hall used a Table of essential and accidental dignities and detriments'
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr. farr View Post
......An interesting Table of essential and accidental dignities and detriments, which is kind of a mixture of early Modernist and later Traditionalist considerations, can be found in early Modernist author Manly P. Hall's "Astrological Keywords"-I used that Table for many years, before I "moved on" (so to speak) regarding this subject (of dignities and detriments)...
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Unread 10-02-2013, 05:03 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Eternal Autumn, thanks for the clarification. Do you want to say more about how it works? Assuming that I understand you correctly, I wouldn't draw a clear distinction between how a planet operates in a sign as somehow unhinged from the personality and life experiences of the native. All of the planets are part of our "inner sky," and as such we express and experience them. A moon in Libra is going to operate differently from a moon in Aries, for example; but totting up various essential and accidental dignities doesn't give these moons an identity apart from the person who lives them. This separation happens on paper in a book, perhaps, but it doesn't happen in real-time chart interpretation.

Paul, possibly you are unaware of your own sarcasm in other posts to me, and patronizing tone in your "battery" post. That's OK-- no harm done. As mature adults, we'll just have to get over it.

Re: your second recent post. 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. Although (given the 3 textbooks I've cited above) trads don't necessarily agree amongst themselves, I haven't seen a willingness to consider that Time Marches On and that words can develop multiple definitions over time. For example, a "buggy" ca. 1900 probably meant a horse-drawn carriage; but in 2013 it more likely means a shopping cart in some places. They're both correct in their own contexts.

Moreover, I think it's fair to say that traditional astrologers really like the specificity and concreteness of their craft. Traditional astrology seems more night-and-day, black-and-white. Sometimes they write about this in why they switched from modern to traditional. Well, "messy" is OK for me. Human beings are inherently messy, and I find it inappropriate to apply a rigorous diagnostic on an inherently non-rigorous subject. An analogy would be statistics, where one can apply a powerful detailed technique to a sample that is incoherent. Any order so imposed by the technique is more a function of the technique than of the data.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 10-02-2013 at 05:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Unread 10-02-2013, 05:34 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Paul, possibly you don't see your patronizing tone in this post, but I do. I am willing to respond to this one, but such willingness in the future is tentative and conditional on the same respect that you wish to be given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
I think if we look to the astrologers of the beginning of the 20th century etc. then you see that they were relating back to the tradition. They didn't invent terms like "domicile" they simply inherited them and tried to work out what they mean. All we need to do now is check what they said and refer back to the tradition they thought they were emulating and see if they got it right - we can do this when they couldn't because we have greater access to our tradition.

When we do this we see that they are wrong. They didn't always understand it. They didn't appear to even attempt to understand triplicity term or face. Sect? No chance.

As a result 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.
See my comment below. I don't think you accurately represent the early history of modern astrology. The theosophists weren't trying to retrieve and restore traditional astrology, but to forge something new for their time.

You will find some modern astrologers using domicile, exaltation, fall, and detriment. If there are any astrologers whose works you find particularly obnoxious, let me know, as possibly I have their books. Other modern astrologers don't use them. So we cannot homogenize all modern astrologers together.

Nor am I a representative for the entire body of modern astrologers. I try to read widely, but like you, at some point I stick with what works for me. So please do not hold me up as some type of scapegoat.

With the exception of Burk's book, cited above, I don't see modern astrologers using the finer divisions of face, triplicity, &c. This doesn't mean that some of us haven't looked at them and decided not to use them.

Frankly, when I post on this thread I do so in response to the OP: worth revisiting. This thread isn't some sort of trial or exposure of modern astrology, but an honest question about dignities and debilities in modern astrology. Love 'em or leave 'em.

Quote:
So modern astrologers and dignity/debility - they don't use them so can't have much to say about it. I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong if they wish to, I always welcome being corrected and they can do this by finding me a modern author* who makes regular interpretive use of the difference of planetary dignity which includes domicile, detriment, exaltation, fall, triplicity, term, and face.

Interpretive difference would be in recognising debility as well as dignity such that an interpretation of a planetary placement would differ explicitly based on whether that planet has dignity or not in that sign placement.

Having read many modern astrology books I can think of a sum total of absolutely ZERO.

Of course if modern astrologers want to invent new meanings about what domicile means or exaltation they are of course free to do so and when they later assert, as we've seen by some here, that they do not work then I for one will do nothing but agree with them - yes, the new and invented meanings of domicile and exaltation etc do not work.
Maybe I read too much between the lines, but do you actually find modern astrology to be threatening in some way? As in, you've got this wonderful, high-precision tradition, and these nasty moderns are trashing it through ignorance?

Quote:
The reality is that after astrologer emerged from its post-enlightenment little sleep it did so slowly and with great confusion, the astrologers of the time making regular mistakes about what a particular term meant, but that they used those terms at all is a testament to the fact that they were trying to bridge a gap back to their tradition. It is just that they often made mistakes doing it. We can see this with anyone from the likes of Alan Leo to Ivy Goldstein Jacboson.
It's not central to the OP, but I presume you are familiar with Campion's 2nd volume of his History of Astrology. I think your history is somewhat incorrect. I outlined it last night on Jupiter Ascendan't thread on a topic similar to this one. Actually the modern astrology that emerged after traditional astrology's demise was in the hands of the theosophists and groups like the Golden Dawn. They weren't interested in precise prediction, but in the potential of astrology as a tool for personal enlightenment. They weren't trying to recreate traditional astrology: some of them were very critical of it.

Quote:
(*by which I mean one who is not an astrologer discussing the tradition obviously, there are many neo-traditional astrologers and anyone alive today has the right to be called 'modern', these are not the people I mean)

PS
It's worth clarifying, when we say dignity we mean only essential dignity because that is what it is in the actual tradition. Dignity was not used to refer to the angles of the chart or the 'accidental dignities' that we, as neo-traditionalists, might use. It's a sloppiness on the part of the neo-traditional astrologer. Really we should be talking about dignity in term of the essence of the planet, and the 'accidental dignities' as being accidental fortitudes/strengths. The former is qualitative, the latter is quantitive.
What is the source of your certainty about correct and incorrect usages? Some of your dispute seems to be with other traditional astrologers, like the ones I cited above.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 10-02-2013 at 05:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Unread 10-02-2013, 07:10 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Caprising, I have Hastings's Practice of Prediction. My pet peeve with astrology books is that so few are indexed, complicating any quick search; but this book is mostly based upon aspects, including "minor" aspects. Have you got a page or section on essential dignities here? I didn't see it.

Paul, I explained above (to tsmall) why I chose to use a single book as a template. As there is no single modern astrology or single traditional astrology, I wanted to minimize confusion that could arise from differing yet unarticulated definitions. Our conversations, further, would operate more productively if you didn't try to rebut every last little thing that I write. I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to all of these little critiques-- veiled, recently, as leading questions.

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.

I repeat that simply because Mars in Aries (and Scorpio) is strong (syn. powerful, forceful) in "my astrology" this is relative to 10 other signs, not specifically to Taurus. Think about olives labled "large", "jumbo" and "colossal;" or Sears "good, better, best" qualities. Olives in my supermarket are never graded "small," nor does Sears compare "good, better best" to "shoddy" or "low-quality" merchandise. Also, I truly get that you don't think my usage agrees with yours; but then it doesn't have to.

Possibly an underlying and as yet undiscussed issue is that modern and traditional astrologers have different views of the planets. For example, in traditional astrology, Mars is masculine, nocturnal, hot, dry, firey, choleric by temperament, and malefic. The traditional system of domiciles and exaltations, moreover, seems to operate on a binary system of opposites. If Jupiter is the "manager" or "king" in Sagittarius, then Gemini axiomatically has to be a sign where it is somehow the opposite. If one doesn't accept this schema, however, then a planet can potentially work as well in one sign as any other.

Since analogies seem to be the order of the day for traditional astrology textbook authors, however, perhaps I can give mine. I like to think of the planets as members of an extended family or a committee. They have their different personalities. They might represent different interests (house) or operating styles (sign.) Some get along beautifully with one another, others quarrel, and then there may be the loner who doesn't interact very much with the others (aspects). As is the case on a committee, some personalities are stronger or more forceful than others. (domicile) The charge to the committee is to run your life with you.

p.s., Actually I learned most of my modern astrology from Robert Hand's early books. If you have them, you will get a better idea of "my" modern astrology.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 10-02-2013 at 07:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Unread 10-02-2013, 09:31 PM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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'.

Quote:
Although (given the 3 textbooks I've cited above) trads don't necessarily agree amongst themselves
That is certainly one conclusion, the other is that domicile confers different things depending on context and there's been some confusion there.

Quote:
Moreover, I think it's fair to say that traditional astrologers really like the specificity and concreteness of their craft. Traditional astrology seems more night-and-day, black-and-white. Sometimes they write about this in why they switched from modern to traditional. Well, "messy" is OK for me. Human beings are inherently messy, and I find it inappropriate to apply a rigorous diagnostic on an inherently non-rigorous subject.
It's probably worth differentiating people from techniques. Traditional astrologers often like clear techniques and methodologies.

Quote:
I don't think you accurately represent the early history of modern astrology. The theosophists weren't trying to retrieve and restore traditional astrology, but to forge something new for their time.
Theosophists? I wasn't being just so specific, but the group of astrologers I had in mind certainly INCLUDES theosophists.

When astrologers say "Mars rules Aries" where are they getting this from? Certainly they are not 'forging anew' - they are borrowing from the greater tradition. SImilarly when they use technical terms like exaltation, they are also borrowing those terms from the tradition. Often they were trying to reinterpret the tradition in light of their own philosophies, whilst still keep the ethos of that tradition. The problem is they didn't have enough to work with.

Quote:
Maybe I read too much between the lines, but do you actually find modern astrology to be threatening in some way? As in, you've got this wonderful, high-precision tradition, and these nasty moderns are trashing it through ignorance?
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.

As you should already know, I use traditional methods, I use modern methods, I use whatever I see works. How can I be threatened by what I use? I was educated by modern astrologers and attended a modern astrology school. You're assumptions are off mark.

Quote:
It's not central to the OP, but I presume you are familiar with Campion's 2nd volume of his History of Astrology. I think your history is somewhat incorrect.
Not only familiar but have read it a couple of times now. And Jim Tester's history. And James Holden's. And read several of the key texts from that era. I do not think my history is incorrect. By all means hold a contrary view, but you are correct, it is not central to the OP.

Quote:
They weren't interested in precise prediction, but in the potential of astrology as a tool for personal enlightenment. They weren't trying to recreate traditional astrology: some of them were very critical of it.
Who said otherwise? I said that when they used astrological technical terms it is clear from how they're using them that they're trying to derive them from older sources. When Sephariel gets promissor and significator confused he didn't just pluck those terms out of nowhere, the derived them from the tradition, then confused them. When Ivy Goldstein Jacobson gets her stuff wrong it's because her source was, direct or derived, from Lilly and he's confusing to read. When astrologers assigned Uranus as ruler of Aquarius they did so trying to keep to the tradition.
You mention Theosophy and skepticism of event prediction, the main reason for this is the influence of Alan Leo, who tried to understand traditional astrology (see him mucking up primary directions for example) and opting instead for simplifying things. He predicted events quite happily - right until he was sued for it and then instead decided that a more 'esoteric' nature would be more desirable. Sephariel went on to create a (much much) better manual of primary directions, which were event driven, and without messing up the formulae in the way that Alan Leo did, but even here confused some technical wording.

They were all looking to the tradition and trying to revive it into the world they were living.

Honestly Waybread I think it is your history which is lacking here. I am not saying they were trying to 'recreate' traditional astrology, however they were trying to revive parts of it and reinterpret for their own time, but in doing so often got the tradition they were examining woefully wrong. Particular astrologers who were also, comparatively, technically inept, like Alan Leo, contribute a great deal to the simplification and watering down of astrological technique from the tradition, but the source was still the tradition, even if deviated from.

[deleted trolling comments by request - Moderator]

Last edited by wilsontc; 10-03-2013 at 04:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Paul_ For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (10-03-2013)
  #59  
Unread 10-02-2013, 09:39 PM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
Paul, I explained above (to tsmall) why I chose to use a single book as a template. As there is no single modern astrology or single traditional astrology, I wanted to minimize confusion that could arise from differing yet unarticulated definitions. Our conversations, further, would operate more productively if you didn't try to rebut every last little thing that I write. I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to all of these little critiques-- veiled, recently, as leading questions.
Why? I was asking for your take, you being one modern astrologer, so instead, on a subject of modern astrology, you choose traditional astrology books?

Quote:
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.
I could, but then you might, as you did to Tsmall, make a little PS reminding me that this is about modern use of debility. As my use of it is from the tradition we wouldn't want to be going off track, that is, of course.

Personally, as you consider yourself modern, and appear not to consider yourself traditional, you are better placed to offer your views I would have thought.

Quote:
I repeat that simply because Mars in Aries (and Scorpio) is strong (syn. powerful, forceful) in "my astrology" this is relative to 10 other signs, not specifically to Taurus.
Not specifically, but then I didn't suggest otherwise, but you do think that Taurus, incidentally, would be weaker for Mars, or that Mars would not express as strongly as in Aries. So you recognise a concept of "stronger than" and "weaker than".

But let's go with the point, do you therefore think that Mars is EQUALLY 'strong' (your word) in Taurus as in Cancer as in Capricorn as in Gemini etc.?

Quote:
Also, I truly get that you don't think my usage agrees with yours; but then it doesn't have to.
Let me clarify, your usage absolutely does not agree with mine. I thought that was clear.

Quote:
The traditional system of domiciles and exaltations, moreover, seems to operate on a binary system of opposites. If Jupiter is the "manager" or "king" in Sagittarius, then Gemini axiomatically has to be a sign where it is somehow the opposite.
I think you'll find that modern astrologers, where they use detriment and fall at all, also retain that notion.

Quote:
If one doesn't accept this schema, however, then a planet can potentially work as well in one sign as any other.
It could, but then you don't think so. You think Mars works 'stronger' in some signs than in others - according to your earlier posts.

Quote:
As is the case on a committee, some personalities are stronger or more forceful than others. (domicile)
And by contrast then some are weaker. So what is the interpretive difference you would offer to someone PURELY in terms of his 'strength' and 'forcefulness' with regards Mars being in, say, Aries, and, say, Capricorn?

Quote:
p.s., Actually I learned most of my modern astrology from Robert Hand's early books. If you have them, you will get a better idea of "my" modern astrology.
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]

Last edited by wilsontc; 10-03-2013 at 04:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Paul_ For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (10-03-2013)
  #60  
Unread 10-03-2013, 01:56 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Oh, thanks, Caprising-- I've got the other Hasting's book, and it's not there. But a fair bit on minor aspects.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Unread 10-03-2013, 03:58 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tsmall For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (10-03-2013), poyi (10-03-2013)
  #62  
Unread 10-03-2013, 04:53 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

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

Last edited by dr. farr; 10-03-2013 at 05:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dr. farr For This Useful Post:
tsmall (10-03-2013), waybread (10-03-2013)
  #63  
Unread 10-03-2013, 06:06 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

[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?
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by wilsontc; 10-03-2013 at 04:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Unread 10-03-2013, 11:32 AM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

[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.

Last edited by wilsontc; 10-03-2013 at 04:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Unread 10-03-2013, 03:55 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Paul,please respond to my earlier question,

Quote:
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.
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]
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by wilsontc; 10-04-2013 at 06:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Unread 10-03-2013, 04:08 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Unread 10-03-2013, 05:02 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalautumn View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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?
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.)

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

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

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Unread 10-03-2013, 08:49 PM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
Paul, If you can take what you dish out, please respond to my earlier question,
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?

Quote:
I actually addressed your questions, above-- several times. I am not clear where the disconnect is.
It would be helpful then if you went through my questions and highlight the areas where you've answered, because I cannot find them.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Unread 10-03-2013, 09:20 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

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

You wrote:

Quote:
... 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. ...
But wait, there's more:

Quote:
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'.
Quote:
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.
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:

Quote:
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]
[deleted trolling comments - Moderator]
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by wilsontc; 10-04-2013 at 06:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Unread 10-03-2013, 09:34 PM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
And I smell another set-up, not your genuine desire to learn what I think.
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.

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

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

Last edited by wilsontc; 10-04-2013 at 06:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Unread 10-05-2013, 03:38 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

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[s] 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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Unread 10-05-2013, 04:25 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

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...
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Unread 10-05-2013, 06:42 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 16,228
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

"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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Unread 11-28-2013, 03:16 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 67,643
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

Paul unfortunately has since closed his account, however we have his opinions via his posts on the forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
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.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JUPITERASC For This Useful Post:
  #75  
Unread 11-29-2013, 04:52 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Modern Astrology: Dignities & Debilities

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dr. farr For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
astrology, debilities, dignities, modern

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ゥ 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.