jupiter is out of sect too fwiw.. for me it is a case of how one decides which planet is more powerful and which planet would have more of an association with acting verses politics... anyone care to comment on this, i would enjoy seeing what they have to say.. thanks.

Margherita wrote:

In every case if I was too hasty in replying, forgive me

No need for that. I was just clarifying where I think Gabe and I were coming from. Your comments on Ibn Ezra are interesting.

And as Gabe said this Saturn is out of sect, retrograde, peregrine. I believe whoever - Hellenistic astrologer or not- would notice.

Quite so. Plus even with whole sign houses it is less powerful in the first due to its distance from the ASC degree.

One point I have been discussing privately by PM with someone is should planetary placement always take precedence over rulership? My understanding is that medieval astrology strongly emphasizes this. This chart is an interesting case since if you do use WS Saturn is in the domcile and house of Jupiter and Jupiter is aspecting Saturn.

I may be mistaken but I have formed the impression hellenistic astrology puts as much focus on planetary rulers.

What do others think?

Mark

Mark Wrote:

One point I have been discussing privately by PM with someone is should planetary placement always take precedence over rulership? My understanding is that medieval astrology strongly emphasizes this.

I kind of lost track of which Saturn is being discussed in which chart, so my comments have nothing to do with this part of the discussion. However only today I responded to a similar question, and thought I'd drop in my two cents.

I don't know about medieval astrology and what it may or may not say on the matter, but Morin says plenty and as usual gives reasons. His point is that position takes priority over rulership due to immediacy and that the house ruled by the planet is affected but only secondarily. He may use the word "stronger," but I'm going to quibble with that while promoting his point.

According to Morin if a planet in a house is affected by direction, or transit or return the affairs of the house occupied are what is first noticed and the affairs of the house ruled are affected as well but secondarily. I would add that the secondary effects could be as strong and possibly stronger, but they are still secondary.

I used a hypothetical example of the Moon in 7, let's say a man's chart, ruling 11. And let's say the Moon is afflicted by a direction. That direction would affect 7th house matters first and bring in 11th house as a result. Moon would represent the spouse and then we'll further stipulate the hard aspect by direction indicates a serious illness to the spouse. This illness might result in her children having to care for her. The 11th is the 5th of the 7th and in Morin's system since it is opposite the 5th would also indicate the children of the native. This care-giving could be a serious problem for the children, but it is the secondary effect of the illness: no illness = no care-giving.

So the house ruled by the Moon is affected and that effect could be a powerful one on the affairs of that house, but it is the secondary result of the direction to the 7th house Moon. This has little to do with strength of impact on the houses, and more to do with cause and effect.

It also demonstrates that limiting the use of the Moon to the places where it has analogy can give a great deal more precision (if it works consistently). The Moon in the 7th cannot be the mother or the sister, but can be daughters or female friends. A female friend might be a caregiver in this scenario, too. It can't be servants, or aunts, or female clergy. It is most likely the wife and secondarily female partners or lawsuits from women.

The logic is impeccable, but the track record has not been examined in depth, yet.

James_M

jupiter is out of sect too fwiw.. for me it is a case of how one decides which planet is more powerful and which planet would have more of an association with acting verses politics... anyone care to comment on this, i would enjoy seeing what they have to say.. thanks.

True Jupiter is out of sect. You are asking why choose it for career rather than say Saturn? Lets review what does it have going for it?

Chart No. 2



You are right Jupiter is not in the ideal solar phase or in sect but it is still strong here nonetheless.

1 Jupiter is in a masculine sign fitting its sect
2 Jupiter is the most elevated planet in the chart.
3 Jupiter is in its sign of domicile rulership
4 Jupiter is trigon ruler of the fire signs in a night chart
5 Jupiter is the the 10th WS house
6 Jupiter is ruler of the MC
7 Jupiter is the Kurios or Lord of the Nativity

The key determinant here is surely house placements and rulerships. Jupiter (Lord of the Nativity) is in the 10th WS house indicating a Jupiterian career. That combined with the angular in sect Moon (in triplicity) and Mercury in a whole sign relationship to Jupiter by square seems to add to this prominence.

Mark





Mark

thanks mark,

i understand all this and it sounds as though you are concluding on the basis of all of this that jupiter is the dominant planet to chart 2, unlike chart 1 where it is rising.. at least jupiter in chart 2 has greater bearing on the midheaven which is said to oversee one's career in some significant manner.. now back to the other part of my question - which planet emphasized - jupiter or saturn - has a stronger connection to acting or politics? this last part is the part where i note a reluctance on the part of everyone here to respond to directly as i have asked this 2 or 3 times with no response..

tom

my understanding of the way directions work is one has to first look at the nature of how the 2 planets under question interact with one another in the chart under examination.. one planet directed to another by hard aspect doesn't immediately imply something bad based on my observation.. it depends largely on the relationship that exists between the 2 planets.. perhaps others will comment on this too as it is an ongoing question astrologers have to ask themselves and again a weighing consideration with many subjective elements to it. i mention all this in relation to your views on morins approach. i have yet to read book 22, which i plan on doing in the next while..

James_M wrote:

fwiw

for what it is worth i write fwiw.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/FWIW

James-M wrote:

i understand all this and it sounds as though you are concluding on the basis of all of this that jupiter is the dominant planet to chart 2, unlike chart 1 where it is rising..

Yes. In chart one Jupiter is close to the ASC but in a different WS house so there is no relationship by bound. Determining the Kurios in Chart 1 is problematic. Firstly, there are no planets in the 1st by WS and particularly in its bounds. The domicile ruler of the ASC (Saturn) falls in the 6th WS house and is therefore 'unfit for business'. The sources then suggest taking the domicile ruler of the Moon if it is fit for business ie in an angular or succedent Ws house. I am not clear why this should be chosen if it is not the sect light(?). In any case that gives us the Moon itself as the Kurios or chart ruler of Polk's chart while Mars is the oikodespotes (Domicile Master) of the sect light.

Mark

my understanding of the way directions work is one has to first look at the nature of how the 2 planets under question interact with one another in the chart under examination.. one planet directed to another by hard aspect doesn't immediately imply something bad based on my observation.. it depends largely on the relationship that exists between the 2 planets..

I believe i used the word "hypothetical."

I used a hypothetical example

I did.

i believe i wanted to have a conversation, lol.

james_m wrote: now back to the other part of my question - which planet emphasized - jupiter or saturn - has a stronger connection to acting or politics? this last part is the part where i note a reluctance on the part of everyone here to respond to directly as i have asked this 2 or 3 times with no response..

without entering in the Hellenistic (or Schmidt) method about which Mark already replied, I believe one should consider different planets about specific sectors.

If we consider acting I would say Venus (and Mercury) any doubt.
If you talk about the temperament maybe the rising Saturn (or in the first whole sign house if you prefer), but I would in every case consider Jupiter as lord of geniture, better phase and essential dignity.

Moreover, it's true it is out of sect too, but with Placidus houses has a better position, because it is far from an angle, which is better for an out of sect planet, in my opinion.

margherita

thanks margherita,

it is interesting what you say and it is what i struggle with.. sometimes there are cross overs in what people do.. actors of today don't shy away from taking a role in politics necessarily, but it isn't there focus usually.

let me ask you this - if one was only to look at venus and mercury for chart 1 and chart and have to decide which chart was stronger on the basis of this, how would you define the stronger chart?

the reason i ask this is partly what you say, but the other part is that an astrologer has to decide if a planet next to an important angle while in detriment is weaker then a planet in it's fall in the 6th house using placidus, but having a degree of stronger planetary phase to sun.. how do you decide which venus is stronger for example? these are the kinds of questions that others might be able to answer quickly, but i am unable to do so.. if anything i would say i give greater relevance to chart 1 venus due it being on the midheaven angle and i am only address 1 of the 2 planets you associate with acting..


thoughts margherita or anyone else?