conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
This section speaks to the other chapters that you conveniently leapt over where terms, domiciles etc were mentioned.
Do you agree with this? (House Positions = Sign Placements)
- Thread starter VonFinck
- Start date
This section speaks to the other chapters that you conveniently leapt over where terms, domiciles etc were mentioned.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Interdasting... I didn't know you used sect. Maybe you have more in common with the dirty traditionalists than you think, eh?
Cupid Arrow
Well-known member
I have an 11H stellium by whole signs, according to Donna Cunningham, or planets in the 11 makes you Uranian. My friendships hopes and dreams have gone through rehab several times. Meaning friendships have been disruptive, brought back to life then changed again. My 11H is ruled by Libra BTW...
Cupid Arrow
Well-known member
Goodness this thread has gotten sooooo long since I posted. Can't you all agree that planets in houses take on the original house ruler???? I have a Cancer Moon in the 8H, and a Venus is Scorpio, hell, 8H takes on a Scorpio vibe. I also have Neptune in the 1H, I would say it does take on a Arian vibe, I'm very spiritual but I also have Antares in my 1H, I happen to be very my gossssh, I can't even say: this star I can see in my personality.. Loool oh ****..
david starling
Well-known member
I think "conventional" just means a lot of Astrologers are in agreement about it. And, for better or worse, it appears conflating Signs and Houses IS becoming conventional among Modern-astrologers. That doesn't mean those who disagree have to go along with it if it doesn't work for them. Just ATD [Agree To Disagree]!
Obviously, that includes Tropical/Sidereal, Traditional/Modern, and internal disputes within each category.
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
There are no original house rulers. There are original sign rulers.
The traditional 7 planets "joyed" in particular houses, but Jupiter was the planet who had its joy in the 11th house. These planets were not understood as house rulers, but as having particular strength in their house. 5 houses had no planets who joyed in them.
I could certainly comment on your 11th house, but not without a legible horoscope. We'd want to look at aspects to the planet ruling the sign on the cusp of your 11th house, as well as any planets in your 11th house to understand your friendships.
waybread
Well-known member
I think "conventional" just means a lot of Astrologers are in agreement about it. And, for better or worse, it appears conflating Signs and Houses IS becoming conventional among Modern-astrologers. That doesn't mean those who disagree have to go along with it if it doesn't work for them. Just ATD [Agree To Disagree]!
David, I personally think this is a fad from the 1980s and 1990s. In the early 1990s the traditional astrology revival got many modern astrologers thinking about house cusp rulers. I think this was partly in response to a revival of interest in horary astrology, which follows more traditional rules. A few other modern astrologers went off into an "evolutionary astrology" LaLa Land. You cannot judge the entire field of modern astrology today from a few people posting on this thread.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Here's how I see it, comments welcome: When a Planet is a "bad fit" for the Sign it's in, that weakens its effect on the Chart. However (connecting the Signs to the Houses by numbers), if that same Planet in that same Sign is placed in the "House of the Sign" it rules, that would strengthen its effect on the Chart, but it would still have the Sign-QUALITIES of the Sign it's actually in. The House wouldn't confer any Sign-qualities, it would simply strengthen the effect of the Planet in that Area of Life. Not asking for agreement, just explaining the method, no agreement necessary!
Here's a (somewhat unrelated) question, very fundamental: Houses aside, if a Planet is a bad fit for a Sign, in addition to having its effect weakened, does it ALSO do a poor job of expressing those Sign-qualities? Sun in Aquarius seems to express itself quite well! But what about, say, Neptune in Virgo? Maybe the Sun does have difficulty expressing Aquarian-qualities, but it just happens to end up with a good result [IMO].
Here's a (somewhat unrelated) question, very fundamental: Houses aside, if a Planet is a bad fit for a Sign, in addition to having its effect weakened, does it ALSO do a poor job of expressing those Sign-qualities? Sun in Aquarius seems to express itself quite well!
But what about, say, Neptune in Virgo? Maybe the Sun does have difficulty expressing Aquarian-qualities, but it just happens to end up with a good result [IMO].
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
The imperative is that a VEHICLE suits the TERRAIN
for example
when driving in a war zone a tank seems an optimum vehicle
HOWEVER
switch to a 2008-2016 Toyota Land Cruiser for desert regions
and then
when crossing seas or oceans a boat/ocean going liner is imperative
HOWEVER
neither a tank
nor an ocean-going liner
are appropriate transport for New York City streets
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
When a VEHICLE is unfit/unsuitable for the TERRAIN
Here's a (somewhat unrelated) question, very fundamental:
Houses aside,
if a Planet is a bad fit for a Sign,
in addition to having its effect weakened,
does it ALSO do a poor job of expressing those Sign-qualities?
Sun in Aquarius seems to express itself quite well!
then
that vehicle is unlikely to progress either easily or far
SATURN ruler of AQUARIUS may be placed in any of twelve signs
and
as well as consideration of the chart as a whole
that makes the difference
Maybe not
i.e.
AQUARIUS is traditionally ruled by SATURN
and since Saturn may be placed in any of twelve signs
obviously Saturn influence requires consideration
unless one follows a methodology that states
"No explanation - it just happens to end up with a good result"
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time
instead he talks about observations made centuries earlier by Hipparchus
another great astronomer
- Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus
HIPPARCHUS - a century after Apollonius began applying the Apollonian geometry
in the first attempt to describe the movements of the heavenly spheres geometrically.
Hipparchus took the first steps in attempting to make the Apollonian geometry
fit the appearances of the heavens
- particularly in relation to the moon and the sun
- by developing those moving circles as a technique
for dealing with the confusing appearances of the heavens
Ptolemy then expanded on the original ideas of both his predecessors, Apollonius and Hipparchus
i.e.
Ptolemy built on the ORIGINAL work of Apollonius of Perga
who lived approximately four centuries earlier than Ptolemy
and developed a form of geometric particular methods within the geometrical practice
that are to do with circular motion - as well as motions of circles moving on circles and so on
Ptolemy then applied APPOLONIUS original work
to discovering the much sought-after geometrical rationale thought to be underlying appearances
Thus Ptolemy described a rationale that 'explained' retrograde motion
- but incorrectly
- because the planets do not move with uniform circular motion in circles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga
Albert Timashev writing an article
"Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years"
has this to say of Ptolemy:
"Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy
was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school
and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all.
Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal
and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions." http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en
IN CONTRAST Vettius Valens was a practicing astrologer
a somewhat younger CONTEMPORARY OF PTOLEMY
who provided evidence of well over a hundred of his own clients horoscopes.
Ptolemy was a mathematical theorist.
In fact,
while Ptolemy 'compiled'
Ptolemy also altered techniques according to personal prejudice/whim:
and
Ptolemy, mathematician/astronomer and not a practicing astrologer
had a different rationale/perspective to for example
that of Ptolemys younger contemporary proven working astrologer Vettius Valens.
prestigious academic Professor Mark T Riley of CSU states:
"Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity
It is UNIQUE in several respects:
the author was a practicing astrologer
the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates,
including his own which is used as an example many times throughout the work.
Valens unique perspective being that of a practicing astrologer
meant Valens was eager to preserve everything he possibly could intact
for the benefit of future astrologers.
and so
Valens simply compiled without altering what he compiled.
Certainly Valens commented on the various astrological techniques
but crucially, did not alter any.
That fact taken in tandem with
Valen's work being 'the longest extant astrological work from antiquity'
obviously makes Valens an important figure.
waybread
Well-known member
moonris3, it's not that we don't understand your house=sign conflation. It's pretty simple. We just disagree with it.
Houses were in place at least in the century prior to Ptolemy: see Manilius and Dorotheus. Vettius Valens, Ptolemy's contemporary, used them.
Whole signs was probably the earliest system used, but a quadrant system named for Porphyry was also known in late Antiquity. I haven't seen any good evidence of Placidus being used in Antiquity. This is one system that really depends on an accurate birth time, which was hard to do prior to better time-keeping inventions. There is zero evidence that Ptolemy used Placidus houses-- or any house system, for that matter.
I don't think it's weird whatsoever. I'm delighted that you're exploring Ptolemy's work.
Ptolemy was the great systematizer, but he did not collate all of the astrological information available at his time. He was pretty choosey, in deleting the parts he considered magical or unfounded. Valens was more of a compiler.
In taking your main points about Ptolemy, however, I can't see where this leads to any sort of house-sign match-up by the numbers. You won't find this in Ptolemy.
As I mentioned above, there is a problem in some translations, where the ancient Greek probably does translate more concisely into our English word "houses," but if you follow the astrology, the ancient authors did not mean houses in our contemporary sense, they meant signs. I also discussed angles recently-- not sure if you read my posts. Did you?
You'll find this discussion in my recent posts. Did you read them?
What is your source, here? The point being, that with the use of 30-degree pie-slices of the heavens that only loosely correspond to the constellations for which they were named, you can put the Aries Point about anywhere in the sign. The Babylonians had some older measurements that put the equinox at 8 and 5 degrees, but they do not seem to have understood precession.
This didn't work the way your modern house=sign system does. Ptolemy indicates a system of planetary domiciles (moon-Cancer, Saturn-Capricorn) based upon the planets' distance from the sun and earth both temporally and spatially (geocentric orbits.) His system further relates to the Aristotelian qualities of cold/warm/wet/dry, not to a group of modern personality traits.
No, it's not a Bible. But hardly any of its rules and theories have been "proved wrong." Some have been simply ignored, refined, or replaced.
This logic entirely escapes me. In Aristotelian proto-science, warmth and moisture promoted plant growth, whereas cold and dry conditions were inimicable to growth. But a planet like Mars could be excessively hot. This didn't really relate to "strength." Aries is no "stronger" than any other sign unless it happens to fall on a chart angle in a particular horoscope.
The Babylonian calendar did start with Aries, as it corresponded with the lambing season. They didn't use houses, however.
I don't know if you're familiar with the idealized thema mundi chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema_Mundi of ancient astrology, which gives Cancer rising, and shows the planets in their domiciles. The rationale for Cancer rising apparently was to start the chart with the signs at the warmest part of the year.
Ptolemy here deals with seasons, which are, well, seasonal. Houses are diurnal. Note, too, that the order of rising signs is the reverse of the order of sun-signs.
Now, I'm really mystified. Nowhere in either your excerpt or this overview have you explained that Ptolemy confirmed houses=signs. He didn't like to divide quadrants into discrete houses, for one thing, so that is a leap of logic. You can hardly pin on him a theory that had no currency until the early 20th century.
Senecar
Well-known member
well said
SIGNS are neither strong nor weak
HOUSES may be strong or weak
for example
angular houses are strong
houses 1,4,7 & 10 are all angular houses
Houses cannot be strong or weak, but the planets in the houses are ?
waybread
Well-known member
In traditional astrology, houses, not signs, have strength or weakness; as modified by their ruling planets. Valens has perfectly awful things to say about Aquarius and Capricorn, apparently due to their Saturn rulership. Then a strong Venus in a man's chart was believed to make him "effeminate"-- not good in their day
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
HOUSES are either:Houses cannot be strong or weak, but the planets in the houses are ?
angular = 1st, 4th, 7th & 10th
succeedent = 2nd, 5th, 8th, & 11th
or
cadent = 3rd, 6th, 9th & 12th
houses are not all equal in strength and power
i.e.
If a planet is located in an angular house it is much more forceful in its effects
than it would be in a cadent house.
in CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY William Lilly writes:
The angles are most powerful
the succeedents are next in virtue
the cadents poor, and of little efficacy:
the succeedent houses follow the angles
the cadents come next after the succeedents.
In force and virtue they stand so in order:
1 10 7 4 11 5 9 3 2 8 6 12
The meaning whereof is this
that two planets equally dignified
the one in the Ascendant
the other in the tenth house
you shall judge the planet in the Ascendant somewhat of more power
to effect what he is significator of
than he that is in the tenth:
do so in the rest as they stand in order
remembering that planets in angles do more forcibly show their effects.
david starling
Well-known member
This Thread has become very educational concerning the differences between Modern and Traditional views of the Planet/Sign/House relationships. Additionally, waybread has a good overview of the differences within Modern-astrology concerning the Sign/House relationships. I just want to add, that in the late 1960's, I thought it was taken for granted that the Signs themselves were numbered, beginning with Aries. Of course, I now know that it's apparently a "minority-view". Answering the Thread's question, "Do you agree with this? (House Positions = Sign Placements"), for me, the answer is a qualified "No"--because "=" implies SAMENESS in both nature and function. Houses CAN determine which Sign-qualities are MOST ADVANTAGEOUS in a particular area of life, but don't confer qualities themselves. [IMO]
Last edited:
snufflebottoms
Member
Ptolemy may have said that Venus in Scorpio and Moon in Cancer being trine is positive but I have heard some say (in other online discussions) that it would be better far better to receive the trine from Venus in Pisces, not just because Venus is exalted there but because it stops the Moon from being received in her fall (aspected by a planet in the Moon's sign of fall) The idea would be that since Venus is not only in detriment but in the Moon's fall, it would be better she doesn't aspect the Moon at all, even by trine which is usually a positive aspect.
It's something I've considered recently. Not sure how I feel about it.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Not necessarily "weakens it's EFFECT on the chart"
because
traditionally
as I just mentioned not all houses are equal in strength
and so
if a planet that's a "bad fit" for the Sign it's in
is located in an angular house
and
houses 1, 4, 7, 10 are angular
then
that planet "is much more forceful in its EFFECTS
than it would be in a cadent house"
david starling
Well-known member
Not necessarily "weakens it's EFFECT on the chart"
because
traditionally
as I just mentioned not all houses are equal in strength
and so
if a planet that's a "bad fit" for the Sign it's in
is located in an angular house
and
houses 1, 4, 7, 10 are angular
then
that planet "is much more forceful in its EFFECTS
than it would be in a cadent house"
Good--I was pondering the difference between the strength of the effect of a Planet which is in its Fall in a Sign, but located in an Angular-house, compared to that Planet in its Exaltation in a Sign, but located in a Cadent-house.
So you're new to the concept of reception? http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig6.html
P.S. I also found out about it very recently so no problem here.