I'm having another look at the various triplicity ruler schemes. It is clear, from what I've read on this subject so far, that Lilly and Morinus didn't have as good a handle on these as did Dariot, Valens and Dorotheus. So, in general, my preference is for the table as presented in the article The Classical Use of Triplicities on this site (http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html).

This is an excellent article, by the way, but one would never expect anything less from Deb. One minor clarification I would humbly like put forward concerns what is most likely a typo: in the second paragraph of the Breakdown of Rulership Logic section, it is stated that "it might be argued that Mercury should take a part in ruling this [Earth] triplicity because of its dominion over Gemini...". Surely, Virgo was meant here.

But that's not why I'm writing this post - this was just a clumsy attempt to introduce the topic. What really bothers me about the Dariot triplicity arrangement is this. There are four triplicities, three day rulers and three night rulers. The night rulers are the day rulers repeated with the first two positions exchanged, so it will suffice to talk about the first set. Three times four is twelve positions in the day ruler table, for which we have seven planets. In the rulership scheme of things, this is very elegantly handled by giving the luminaries a domicile sign each, and a day and night house for the five remaining planets. However, in the Dariot table, the Moon gets two appearances at the expense of poor Mercury. Now, even though I have five planets in Virgo and my Lord of the Geniture is Mercury, I am not at all partial to this Messenger of God. But seeing it deposed by a luminary that already had her chance in Water is more than I can take!

That's right, IT. I do believe Mercury is neither just male or female, and neither simply diurnal or nocturnal. Rather, it's both of these things (all four - note that this also restores symmetry to the sects). So I naturally take exception when it is replaced by the Moon in the earthy triplicity. It doesn't have to be as it can be both diurnal and nocturnal. So I'd like to propose that this triplicity is ruled by Venus, Mercury and Mars during the day, and by Mercury, Venus and Mars during the night.

OK, I feel better already. While we're at it however, let me mention another inconsistency in the Dariot table. A closer inspection of the first daily rulers of triplicities reveals that they tend to be the domicile rulers of the fixed signs: Sun for Fire (Leo), Venus for Earth (Taurus) and Saturn for Air (Aquarius). But what happened with Water? Surely Mars having dominion over Scorpio should be the first daily ruler there and not Venus, who already took her turn in Earth. Not only that, but Venus was a substitution, so she can only take third place. The watery triplicity must therefore be ruled by Mars, Moon and Venus, in that order.

The night tables are easily generated from the above. As a closing note, I would like to make clear that I am not speaking from experience but simply looking at the table from a geometrical perspective. Experience can follow from here.

Ah, symmetry restored, harmony maintained... Can you guess my Ascendant and its dignified ruler?

Hello,

To Aquirata,

Yeah... Symmetry, very seductive especially to us moderns...

I remember when a French(?) archeologist went to Egypt and when he discovered that the temples were not "aligned" properly he concluded that the ancient egyptians abhorred symmetry... He didn't realize that the temples were aligned to specific fixed stars... (in other words, the temples were symmetrical with the stars...)

So, when we look into some of the concepts of ancient astrology (e.g. Dorothean trigon/triplicity rulerships) we may not see the symmetry behind it and we probably never will find the reason for it... It is very tempting then to rearrange things to our symmetrical Greek/Modern thinking. Ptolemy rearranged the triplicity rulers to his liking and so did others (Morin, ...).

Good point. However, the rulership scheme itself is based on symmetry. Ptolemy's terms also, as you mention. Symmetry is not a modern concept at all.

The question is, is one arrangement better than the other? Is there experimental proof that Ptolemy's terms work better than Egyptian terms? Is there experimental proof that traditional rulers work better than modern rulers? Is there experimental proof that one house system works better than another? Tropical vs. sidereal zodiac? And so on.

What I was trying to point out was that the rationale for arranging the terms according to Dariot is not strong. Or rather, the rationale given assumes symmetry yet the sects violate that symmetry. It is not clear whether they "align" with something. So there is a potential problem.

To me the bottom line is always proof. It's great to respect tradition, but if we don't understand and can't explain or prove why we're doing astrology that way, it is blind faith. Which may work for some, it certainly doesn't for me. And I think most practising astrologers are looking for proof in their daily work, even if it is not an explicit search. But without positive feedback from clients, there is not much point in continuing.

The big question, "does astrology work?", is being answered by practicing astrologers in the affirmative, day in and day out. Does anyone take the time, however, to see why it works this way and not another way? Probably not, or not many. Is it possible to say why or how? Probably yes, but that takes extra effort. Which is what I'm interested in.

Hello,

However, the rulership scheme itself is based on symmetry. Ptolemy's terms also, as you mention. Symmetry is not a modern concept at all.

I am not saying that there is no symmetry in Dorotheus' arrangement of the trigon/triplicity rulers. I am saying that there probably is an arrangement but we do not see it...The origin of the ancient trigon arrangements is lost over the centuries...

The question is, is one arrangement better than the other?

In terms of practicality, I don't know.

Is there experimental proof that Ptolemy's terms work better than Egyptian terms? Is there experimental proof that traditional rulers work better than modern rulers? Is there experimental proof that one house system works better than another? Tropical vs. sidereal zodiac? And so on.

There are proofs both ways. You can "disprove" by examples though you can never make universal proof out by laying down examples (no matter how many). To proof something to be true, it must be shown to be true for all cases. To disprove something, you just have to give an example. In studying astrological effects, you can never have a control group e.g. you cannot study the effects of one dignified planet over another debilitated planet while keeping other effects the same. The part to keep other effects the same is just higly improbable if not impossible. We cannot "control" our variables i.e. our planets. We can only study the validity of astrology through historical cases and in retrospect...and even this is...

It's great to respect tradition, but if we don't understand and can't explain or prove why we're doing astrology that way, it is blind faith.

There are many levels of faith. Blind faith is faith w/o any examination. I could have faith that something works though I do not understand it. Of course I would have greater faith if it works and I understand the reason behind it. In this case, I would say that I have faith (albeit not completely) in Dorotheus because I think he knows his stuff. It is a shame that he did not lay out the reason. If he did, I would probably have GREATER faith in him. Personal experience in chart delineation would then increase/decrease my faith in his arrangement.

The big question, "does astrology work?", is being answered by practicing astrologers in the affirmative, day in and day out. Does anyone take the time, however, to see why it works this way...

Due to the difficulties of isolating conflicting/supporting/interacting of the myriad factors in astrology makes it difficult to support/reject any arrangement (or any astrological theory for taht matter!). Dorotheus' arrangement seems to sing to me more than others'. Others' arrangement might sing better for you...

I'm having another look at the various triplicity ruler schemes. It is clear, from what I've read on this subject so far, that Lilly and Morinus didn't have as good a handle on these as did Dariot, Valens and Dorotheus.

You forgot Ptolemy. Lilly used Ptolemy's system of two triplicity rulers, one for day and one for the night. I reacall Lee Lehman quibbling over whether or not Lilly correctly interpreted Ptolemy, but the thrust of the argument has escaped me.

Morin invented his own triplicity system which is, frankly, pretty elegant. The Day ruler is the ruler that has two dignities in the element. For example: the Sun rules Leo (fire) and is exalted in Aries (fire) so he gets the day rulership of the fire signs. The night ruler is the planet that rules the cardinal sign of the triplicity, so the night ruler of Fire is Mars, and the third or participating ruler is the remaining planet that rules a sign in that element. In this case it would be Jupiter as he rules Sagittarius. This can be doe for all the elemets.

Mornius believed that the triplicities were strongly associated with the elements whereas the Greek system seems to be more associated with sect.

I don't know any any of these men were lacking in knowledge of the use of triplicities, but there is a different perspective. I've never tried Morin's system, nor do I know anyone who has. I can't say how well it works or doesn't, but I still think it is elegant.

Tom

astrojin,

In studying astrological effects, you can never have a control group e.g. you cannot study the effects of one dignified planet over another debilitated planet while keeping other effects the same.

I disagree with this statement. Control groups come in two varieties: real or generated. Real control groups are being used in social studies all the time. This can also be done in astrology. For example, one can study people with certain traits, professions, etc. vs. those that lack the feature under examination. Given large enough samples, significant factors will emerge. A control group can also be generated automatically, much like in AstroDatabank. Here it is advisable to use a group several times the size of your experimental group so spurious effects can be avoided.

There is no requirement to "keep other effects the same" if by this you mean planetary phenomena. It is true that statistical studies will never give you 100% results, but what will in life? The likelihood of the Sun rising tomorrow morning is very close to 100%, but it is still less than certainty. So it is with other phenomena and proof - one can only talk about confidence levels with respect to any scientific experience, evidence, theory, model, etc.

Hi Tom,

You forgot Ptolemy.

Oh, that guy! He was certainly an expert on rulerships and terms, but I'm not sure about his triplicities.

I've never tried Morin's system, nor do I know anyone who has. I can't say how well it works or doesn't, but I still think it is elegant.

And that highlights one of the basic problems with our astrological worldview. No astrologer in the world has evidence for the workings of astrology with the exception of their personal experience with clients or otherwise. This is perfectly fine within the daily life of the practitioner, but is lacking in the context of astrology as a body of knowledge. The rulership scheme is very elegant, but do we have evidence to support traditional rulers vs. modern rulers? Any evidence to say which house system works better in what application? Any evidence with respect to aspects, orbs, harmonics? Asteroids, fixed stars? Tropical vs. sidereal zodiac? The list goes on and on. The papers and talks presented in the usual venues provide no evidence whatsoever. They are simply case studies, and case studies can be designed to show anything. I am not saying they are designed that way on purpose, just that they can be misleading. Moreover, they are nearly always after the fact.

Horary is a different beast as there is a very high emphasis on prediction. Once again, the practitioner have a feel for techniques that worked for her in the past, and this can be honed through a lifetime of study and practice. But do we know if we perhaps utilize only 5% of the most significant factors available to us? Well, no, because no-one can say for certain what works and what doesn't from a set of hundreds of thousands of factors. It is impossible to examine all of them even if one is totally dedicated to astrology for life. This task, however, is possible with the help of computers.

I have recently started examining these factors in one particular context (which do not necessarily translate to other applications), and the list of most significant factors contains quite a few surprises. This work has just begun, but I foresee a major shift in this century from astrology based on personal experience and tradition to astrology supported by scientific studies. This prediction goes against the popular shift towards the divinatory view, so it is contrary enough to warrant mention in case it comes true.

Oh, that guy! He was certainly an expert on rulerships and terms, but I'm not sure about his triplicities.

See Tetrabiblos, Book I, chapter 18 page 83 (Robbins) Of the Triangles. Or if you have Ashmand, Book I chapter XXI, page 29, The Triplicities. Robbins was not an astrologer, Ashmand was, which is probably why Robbins used the word "triangles." I don't own Schmidt's translation.

I think the use of the triplicities is an excellent example of why statistical studies (I assume that's what you mean when you say "evidence") don't lend themselves to validating or invalidating astrology. Not only is there disagreement of what they are (do we use two? three? Does Mars rule water day and night? Is Morinus' system better or worse than the others? Do night triplicity rulers have an effect in day charts and vice versa?), but they are used differently by different astrologers. While all this would send a scientist running from the room holding his head in his hands while he was screaming, astrologers are quite comfortable with it.

For example, see Dorotheus' use of triplicities, Al Khayyat's use of triplicities, Morin's use of triplicities, and Lilly's use of triplicities. Someone is going to test all that? And if they do and the test results come in differently than an astrologer expects, will the astrologer change? Doubtful.

If people wish to pursue this line of thought, I suppose there is no harm in doing so. I just don't see it ever accomplishing much in my lifetime.

Enjoy your pursuit.

Tom

Tom,

I think the use of the triplicities is an excellent example of why statistical studies (I assume that's what you mean when you say "evidence") don't lend themselves to validating or invalidating astrology.

It seems to me you are making a point contrary to what you are stating. It is exactly the confusion over triplicity rulers, houses, zodiacs, etc, that statistical studies can sort out. Hard evidence will pour clear water in the glass, so to speak. Having said that, it is still quite possible that the results will show e.g. that both tropical and sidereal zodiacs are valid.

Someone is going to test all that?

I or somebody else will. Just wait and see.

And if they do and the test results come in differently than an astrologer expects, will the astrologer change? Doubtful.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's an entirely different issue.

I just don't see it ever accomplishing much in my lifetime.

Well, getting to a ripe old age there, aren't we? Seriously, if you get the grace of living for a few more years, you will see changes. Of course, if you won't want to change, that's your prerogative.

It is exactly the confusion over triplicity rulers, houses, zodiacs, etc, that statistical studies can sort out.

The problem is the premise: i.e. statistical studies have some sort of validity in all things. There are no statistical studies or anything else that can validate that statement. Statistics are used, misused, and abused all day and night long in all fields, each position claiming to have done it correctly while the methods of all others are wrong. Why something like astrology is going to produce better or even useful results when almost nothing else does, is quite beyond me.

Tom

The statement is that statistics have something to say about correlations, not that it has validity in all things. Astrology is in some way the study of correlations between celestial and earthly phenomena. You can be sure that statistics will have something valid to say about that because that's been the collective human experience for the past 350 years or so. Sure, statistics have been misused, but that doesn't invalidate the discipline or its applicability.

What I don't like about control groups, especially in nativities is this:

they generate non-live persons for charts.

in other words, how many abortions (doesn't matter whether intentional or not), infant death or those that never took nourishment, etc.

Do you see my meaning? how many of those charts could have sustained life to adulthood?

taking the "art" out of the science of astrology, is like making a robot equivalent and equal to life. And life is not equal amongst us, nor animals, terra.....amongst themselves.....etc.

How many times have you delineated someone's chart and saw failure (for example) and yet they managed to succeed or acquire. when looking back you note the accidental dignity of this or that by particpator or natural ruler or translation of light........or vice versa of this whole paragraph?

The two-dimensional is not the whole and cannot be.
I realize this is abstract, but I know not how to be more eloquent or poignant in explaining myself. I really need to increase my vocabulary.