this isn't traditional so take the comments off the board if they need to be removed..

i view trying to understand astrology something like taking out the ingredients of a bowl of soup and trying to analyze why it tastes the way it does.. it really can't be done properly!!

venus in taurus - a nice flavour in itself, which probably wouldn't hurt the soup if it was one of the main ingredients on an angle, or buried somewhere within.. but you are not going to get any idea of what the flavour of this is without connecting it to all the other flavours in the chart.. that is the dilemma.

regardless whether it hits an angle or not, i think it is going to add something to the soup.. put it with mars in aries and it is going to be different then with mars in cancer.. have it so that saturn is hard aspecting it is going to change the flavour too.. i don't know if this is qualitative or quantitative, but it is the way i usually think of blending all of these different energies. one energy might seem to dominate if it is the sole planet on an angle for example, but even then i am not so sure. i think all the energies are at work and what we have is the product of a blender - pureed soup if you will.. certain planetary positions are going to sweeten or sour the overall taste and it is our task to find some way of harmonizing it all to where it is palatable.. the astrology of cooking, 101, lol...

Hi james,

Your analogy sounds like an astrological Sm?rg?sbord.

I accept delineation is about synthesizing numerous diverse factors. That doesn't mean applying some intellectual discrmination to its different elements is useless.

For example, solar phase. On the one hand Ptolemy tells us solar phase changes the nature or quality of a planet. So that seems entirely qualitative. On the other hand other ancient astrologers like Serapio tell us planets are 'strong' in opposition to the Sun. Of course The moon is full in opposition to the sun. In addition this idea finds an echo in the Indian idea that retrograde planets are more powerful in expression. The superior planets Mars, Jupiter and Saturn will be retrograde and brighter in the night sky in opposition to the Sun.

There is also the notion that oriental planets are more forceful in expression. Although qualitively that can be problematic for say a feminine planet like Venus.

I am also intrigued how people delineate planetary speed. How do people understand speed or planetary motion in the context of this topic? Does greater speed make a planet stronger in expression? Dignity tables certainly give planets more points for this. Outside of horary or electional astrology though how do you interpret that?

James one thing is for sure..you have made me damn hungry!

Mark

sorry if i made you hungry.. i would invite you over, but you aren't even on the wrong side of this continent!

to me essential dignity suggests the planet has a natural affinity and ease of expression without considering anything else.. once you start considering all the many things that astrologers typically factor in, it starts changing it all. for me, the sun, moon and ascendant are the critical 'ingredients'.. all these other factors including all the other planets will aid or hinder the planet getting its best interests looked after. venus in taurus setting in a nocturnal chart might sound better then it rising in the chart of a gemini sun rising.. perhaps it wouldn't come out as easily or be more warlike as they say about venus rising as opposed to setting..

i have venus in taurus on the descendant in a nocturnal chart. a close friend and a fantastic keyboard player is a gemini with venus in taurus setting as well.. we both like chocolate cake, lol... i think this placement is going to share some things in common regardless of all these other factors, but it makes sense that it would be modified by other considerations as well - maybe 146 considerations is too many, but i agree it will be modified a number of ways. sorry for the food distractions taurus people!

Hi James,

With respect I am not sure if you are really getting my point here or not.

We all know there are many factors involved in delineating a chart.

I am basically challenging the usual centrality of essential vs accidental dignity and the point scoring mentality that goes with it. Its basic limitation is that it mixes together qualitative and quantitative factors together as if they are completely synonymous.

Several people here have noted that planetary sect and solar phase can have a qualitative influence on a planet too just like essential dignity.

So I am trying to explore here what factors people see as conveying strength or power to a planet.

Ultimately, I fully accept all this has to be pulled together in a chart interpretation. Still, I think its useful to have a clearer understanding of qualitative and quantitative influences in a chart. Its not a topic that gets as much emphasis as it should in my opinion.

Mark

hi mark,

i think you are correct in that i am not getting it!!

actually - i never really was drawn to the scoring concept to figure things out. all you figure out is how to score things and i have never been convinced it told me much. i think that system was invented for horary, but perhaps some historian can correct me on that too as i have at least a 50/50 chance of being wrong on that as well.. some of us don't mind being wrong, lol..

there are just too many factors to consider and the scoring system doesn't factor them all, or give any insight into why they get scored the way they do - retrograde - being one of many scoring approaches i don't agree with.. i guess this is like coming out and saying i don't agree with lilly, lol.. so be it..the good thing is next to no one will listen to me anyway!

here's an idea was expressed recently - stationary planets - that gets completely shredded or passed over in this essential or accidental dignity approach.. this is one of the many reasons i can't get into the scoring game.

James_M wrote:

i think you are correct in that i am not getting it!!

Ok I expanded my point above while you posted. Just to be clear I am not defending the point scoring approach at all. Quite the opposite!

Nice try to bring in stationary planets. But you had a whole thread devoted to your pet subject. Now its my turn!

Mark

i got that mark. thanks! lol the stationary planet comment!- james

Qualitative degrees have been converted to numerical scales. For reasonable reliable communication.

The Pain score:

http://painconsortium.nih.gov/pain_scal ... gScale.pdf

they are combined with visual clues:

http://www.mvltca.net/Presentations/mvltca.pdf

If zero is no pain and 10 is the worst you ever had:

& 10 = genuine grief.
& Zero= geniune relief.
+ 10= craving for dope
= got it.


PD

I'd like to ask what you think of the statement that 'the ruler in the house can realize the affairs of that house' so independent of the fact if it is an strong (angular) house or not. I think R.Zoller mentioned that in his course.
I'm asking because it was stated several times that the planet's power to act depends on its angular (or succeedent) position among other things, and that seems to contradict the above statement by Zoller.

On the topic of planetary phase, I always thought that it was mostly a matter of quantity , in accordance with the theory of combustion and under the beams, which is considered by most to be a strong weakening of the planet's power to act, unless it is in domicile, where t is then on its throne, and thus protected against combustion. I don't see an oriental Venus qualitatively weakened, she just has a more active, masculine character. But within 30 degrees of the Sun she does seem to be less able to act.

As far as joys are considered, I'm still hesitant. Saturn in 12 should not be able to act much, as 12 is a very weak house strengthwise, but more often then not, we see lots of trouble arising from this position. That can only be explained if we see joy as an accidental, quantitative strengthening. Or so it seems to me.

Questions upon questions.

Yuki

Hi guys

I should say that essential and accidental dignity are not differential but complementary factors. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating to pour all ingredients (essential and accidental dignity) in a blender and make a cocktail or mush. We should be scrupulous in our choice of ingredients and their right proportion to make a palatable cocktail, I mean a good judgement.

If we interpret a chart, be it a native, event, etc., on average we are dealing with 20% essential and 80% accidental dignity.

Considering the proportion, (1) good and strong essential dignity (house, exaltation) can only mitigate bad accidental debility, (2) bad and strong accidental debility can utterly sweep away good and strong essential dignity or even alter it into a strong and bad accidental debility,(3) good and strong accidental dignity can completely overcome bad essential debility, and (4) strong accidental dignity can extremely boost strong essential dignity.

Example:
We have a day chart with Libra rising and Venus in Taurus, the 8th sign (house). Venus has exceptional essential dignity - apart from the sign, she rules the triplicity. So, the native must be extremely happy with her position... This we put on one side of the balance.

Let' us start putting weight (accidental dignity or rather debility) on the other side of the balance.

Venus is placed in the 8th sign (aversion ASC) which she rules by house and triplicity, making her an unrelenting lady of death and other unpleasant things related to the 8th house. We see that her exceptional essential dignity has altered into a terrible accidental affliction.

Venus is hemmed in by both malefics, which naturally and here by accident pertain to the 8th house. She is aversion to the Sun, the sect luminary.We can put and put accidental debility on the other side of the balance and see that there has nothing left from Venus's essential dignity, instead it has turned into a terrible accidental affliction.

We can't strictly say that essential dignity is a qualitative one but accidental one a quantitative one; everything is relative though.

I would not like to discuss here the relative weight (score) of various accidental factors, as the scoring tables differ from author to author. Perhaps, I would start soon a new thread on this topic trying to make a reasonable hierarchy of various accidental factors.

Good evening,

Perhaps i shall venture to gently rock the boat of the idyllic harmony in this thread by proposing that, like nearly every-thing else, astrological essential planetary debilities and dignities do not consist only of quality. Like quantity, quality is one of the categories forming part of the framework of Aristotle's logic expounded in Organon. One category alone is insufficient to define some-thing.

How are the various essential planetary dignities to be measured, evaluated? In contrast to Hellenistic astrology, Mediaeval (and Indian) astrologies introduced more or less elaborate, complex systems of quantitative evaluation that gradually included accidental as well as essential debilities and honours. Configuration with pivots is an example of the former. Renaissance astrologers, ex. gr. Mr William Lilly, further developed such systems, for example by paying attention that the total points of possible disabilities be identical to the total possible points of possible honours.

The meanings of 'essential' and 'accidental' are directly derived from Aristotle's 'system' that included 'philosophy of nature'.

Best regards,

lihin

I remember Robert Schmidt saying that some things such as the finding of the Kurios, that the planet with "more counters" is the captain (for instance). This was not a "weighted" dignity scheme, but simply counting all attributes as equal.