BTW Deb - Goca is a girl

(Don't worry - I didn't know either, until I asked)

Deb wrote:Respectfully, I don't agree, because that's the opposite of how I see it. When we mount them, domesticate them, and strap them up with reins to control their movement, then we take away their liberty and assume power and control over them. We are not giving our power to them - we are oppressing and conquering them.
....
So I don't think inanimate objects such as cars, which increase our capacity for movement, and are not generally feared, fit with the 12th house theme. The third house makes a lot more sense here, wouldn't you say?

Hi Deb

I thought you'd probably disagree with me on this! What prompted my post was your rejection of the 12th for cars on the basis that they are not living creatures; I can't really relate that requirement to my understanding of the 12th.

(This doesn't really belong in this part of the forum, but I'll leave it to you to move it if you think it warrants any follow-up.)

What I meant with 'you are in fact in their power' is that when we ride a horse, we give up some of our innate freedom of movement - we no longer have the personal contact with the ground that allows us to propel ourselves - so, while we are actually riding, we become dependent on the horse. As long as we hold the reins and it responds to them then we can treat it as an extension of ourselves, but if, for example, it's startled and bolts, all we can do is hang on until it calms down. (Having been on a horse all of three times in my life, I'm not on very solid ground here, but that's how it seems to me.)

Certainly "we take away their liberty and assume power and control over them", but that applies equally to the 'lesser cattle' that are assigned to the 6th, so I'm wondering about the distinction that causes 'great cattle' to be assigned to the 12th. In your book you quote Ezra's explanation ("Those which serve as a mount for men") and describe it as "illustrating that rulership is based upon levels of servility and mastership"; I can see this up to a point, but I'd be happier seeing the rulership as deriving from the essential nature of their relationship with the chart native.

I'm struggling to express myself here, because these are thoughts that aren't really fully developed. With human slaves I can see that servitude is part of the essential nature of their relationship with their masters, but with animals I would say that it's incidental (as is, in the case of beasts of burden, the fact that they are living creatures). What is essential is the use we put them to, and it should be that, surely, that determines their rulership.

I'm not trying to argue that the 12th is the wrong place for them; it's more that it doesn't make sense to me to assign horses to the 12th and cars to the 3rd, when they play essentially the same role in our lives - they were/are our means of transport. That role (leaving aside a possible role as pets or toys) is the reason they have a place in the chart, so it seems to me that it is that role which should define where they are found.

I think I can see a reason why transport might be assigned to the 12th, but it's coming from an angle that you reject, so I won't offer it here. It's something I started thinking about after I posted a reply to Sari, on the nature of the 12th, in the 'Statistical study in astrology' thread (in the philosophy section) - at the time I half expected you to tell me I was quite wrong, but it was probably while you were in America, so you quite likely didn't see it.

Malcolm