eternalautumn said:
I have never seen Mercury classified as feminine in any traditional text.
I can think of one instance. It's not a "traditional text", but I think it's just about as good. The days of the week have Mercury in a feminine place.
Niplan said:
Ptolemy never mentions inconjunction as an aspect.
Neither does he mention the semi-sextile, but that was included.
As well, if each of the elements are equaly trined from each other, Common sense would tell you how to fill in the rest,of the shapes, 2 triangles, form a square.
I don't understand what "equally trined from each other" means, but I don't see what common sense has to do with an introduction to traditional astrology article as the grand majority of it is not common sense. What makes it even more confusing is that you explained all of the aspectual natures from the eyes of elements and Trines, which is incorrect and confusing.
furthermore had you read the first part of the post you would have noticed i said this isn't all of it im working on more. This part didn't contain anything to do with the houses or their relationship to each other, which is where the discussion of the shape of the aspects belong. to divulge the number of the aspects and basic shapes at this point in the explination, is necessary due to the fact that it is needed as a key basis to understand that which is the digities and debilities that was the main focus since, it obviously falls in the nature of elemental compatability.
I understand that you still have more coming, but this discussion isn't about any of what's to come, it's about fixing what you already have out. Aspectual philosophy isn't dependent on house relationships, it's dependent on relationships of signs to other signs. I also don't find any truth in the statement that dignities and debilities come from elemental compatibility or what part they play in aspectual philosophy. So if you would please enlighten me.
Also, this isn't based on "new age thinking" or "esoteric msystysm" your studying the meaning of the universe and the chemicals god used to make existance. of course its going to be esoteric. To deny astrology its status as an esoteric art would be to deny its very purpose.
It is based on new age thinking, that's why eternalautumn, Olivia, and I have all separately brought it up as a complaint. I'm pretty sure the traditional astrologers would disagree with you about denying astrology as an esoteric art. They all referred to it as a science and it was actually Ptolemy's wish to separate the science of astrology from the mysticism and mythology that the Egyptians had put in it, and that wish was somewhat expounded on by later authors as well.
If you would have studied something from john dee, one of the great Victorian era court astrologers, and his explanation on the geometric shapes, and the forms of the astrological planets you would understand that the planet sigils themselves, are magical in nature just by the very shapes they make which are viewed as sacred forms
I do know that the sigils are of course magical with their own sets of meanings, that's why they're included in several magical traditions. However, that influences nothing on the aspectual front, so I'm wondering why you decided to reference it as that link holds no information on planetary aspects, their natures, or their classical usage and origin.
Its in those "spin offs" that we understand the very shapes that we use to designate the planets. But i mean, I guess it doesn't matter where the alphabet evolved from.. we just use it blindly right.
The glyphs of the planets have nothing to do with the nature of the planetary aspects. If you would like to have a discussion on the planetary glyphs, then it should be held elsewhere as it is irrelevant to aspectual natures and your article on traditional astrology.
Olivia said:
Yes - I'd personally go with Aristotle's concept of elements (2 part - 1 constant, 1 changing) to show the seasons - Spring - Wet becoming Hot, Summer - Hot becoming Dry, Autumn - Dry becoming Cold, Winter - Cold becoming Wet, since that's where that came from.
Yes, I liked this model somewhat better myself. Then I guess the Greeks got carried away with the constant/changing method of Aristotle and changed Mercury and Venus's temperament to cooling and dry and warming and moist.
I have my own issues with H2 being benefic, because I don't believe it is, even though that's where the gates out of the underworld are, but that's controversial.
I'm curious to hear more about this. Since it'll probably detract from the topic, please pm me about it.
It's something I've been kind of on the fence about for awhile. Does mythological association really make-up for not having a true aspect to the ascendant? Probably not, but I think we're about ready to do anything to make another house fortunate.
Catatonia said:
Mercury is feminine when it's placed in a feminine sign conjunct a feminine planet in a feminine sign by taking on its characteristics.
I disagree, Mercury's sex is never dependent on the sex of the sign it is in. Generally it's either masculine if it is matutine or feminine if vespertine. Though I have seen instances in both horary and natal astrology (I believe it's William Lilly who makes the point of it, or at least is the only person doing so I can remember at this moment) where Mercury's sex can be defined by the planet to whom it has the strongest aspectual relationship to.
[deleted response to non-astrological remarks - Moderator]
