Display posts from previous
Sort by

14 by Tom
The chart I cited is rated B. I used it only as an example as Jagger is probably well known to almost everyone reading this. I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the chart.

Morin would combine the meanings of the two houses so death or evil from friends would be one possibility, but the 11th is loaded and has more than "friends" as its meaning. A full delineation of the 11th is necessary first. Moon is right there exalted but on Algol, as well not to mention the POF and Uranus. The 8th, too can mean death or near death. It can also mean spouse's or partner's money or wealth, and Morin was a big believer in the idea that a house can, albeit more weakly, take on the meaning of its opposite. This seems to be more likely to be true if the one house is occupied and the opposite is not. Then the opposite takes on some of the meaning of the occupied house. In this chart both the 2nd and 8th are unoccupied, so I wouldn't put much credence into this idea here.

The 11th is also "gifts from the King" or wealth from honors or fame, and the 8th is spouse's wealth. Since the 11th is occupied and the 5th is not, the 5th could take on meaning from the 11th even though the ruler of the 5th is not in the 11th. Jagger recently was involved in a legal spat (7th) with his ex spouse (7th) over how much of his fortune his children (5th) were entitled to - now. Saturn in the 11th, he said, "none." Perhaps he meant none until his death.

17 by james_m
i think the idea of working with a wrong chart (unknowingly of course!) really emphasizes much of the content in my previous post.. giving an A rating from memory seems sketchy..

18 by Tom
Time for an editorial. The topic here is how to read an empty house. In that context I posted a chart that demonstrated a particular astrologer's techniques pretty well. I even went so far as to state it was a "B" rating and that I was not vouching for the validity of the chart. None of that seems to have made an impression. The topic now seems to be how valid is the chart that was used as an example to help answer the question.

It doesn't matter if the chart I selected is right, wrong or fictional. It doesn't matter if Jagger has Gemini on the ASC or Leo or Capricorn. My answer was on topic. The topic is not which chart is right for Mick Jagger or what is wrong with astrology or astrologers' techniques. The subject is how to read an empty house. Let's stick with that. Other topics within the traditional framework, may be taken up elsewhere on this Forum. I know a little wandering happens from time to time, but this is heading in the wrong direction and since it is a great topic to explore, I want to stay on it.

19 by JPskyman
Thanks to everyone for their great responses! As the original poster of this topic, I want to say that I have really learned a lot from all of you.

There seems to be a general consensus:

To read an empty house--i.e., a House without a Planet in it, we must:

1. look to the Sign that rules the empty House; and

2. look to the Planet that rules the Sign that rules the empty House. [;and]

Do we then add a third prong to the analysis?:

[3. look to the condition of the Planet that Rules the Sign that rules the empty House--its Sign, House, Configurations/Aspects, angularity, essential dignity, accidental dignity, etc.]

Tom has cited Morin--do the Hellenistics have a different approach? Yes, I know that there are different schools and approaches within each era, including the Hellenistics, but I didn't know if we could point to a text or example.

Thanks, JP

21 by JPskyman
Now that we have dealt with how to interpret an empty house, the next question is how to deal with the bigger picture in broader chart interpretation and emphasis?the significance of planets in houses compared to houses devoid of planets, and whether that indicates emphases?and lack-of-emphases?in houses, and accordingly, the sectors of life represented by the houses.

Put another way:

Are we to look at the houses that DO have planets as being especially emphasized in the native, at least vis a vis the houses that DO NOT have planets?

Or, is that a misinterpretation of the house system?in that the mere presence of planets in a house does not mean that that house?and its significations?is emphasized? And rather (only) that planets in houses do not necessarily emphasize those facets of life, but rather only (or mostly) that the planets themselves are impacted/colored/affected/influenced by the Sign and House they are in?

For example: a chart with a spread of planets in say houses 5 through 9?with no planets anywhere else?do we say that the native?s life is going to be emphasized by the themes of those houses?and, for lack of a better term, at the expense of the themes of the other houses?

The key piece here is EMPHASIS. Obviously, it would be natural to expect that the presence of a planet in a house will ?say something? about that house and its significations. But so often in more ?canned? interpretations we read about how much the life will be influenced by a certain matter simply because a planet (or more than one or two) happen to be in that house?and that seems too narrow for nearly any human being--especially when the planetary spread is over such a shallow area of houses.

Thanks, JP
[/i]

22 by Tom
Are we to look at the houses that DO have planets as being especially emphasized in the native, at least vis a vis the houses that DO NOT have planets?
It would seem that in most cases the houses with several planets would be emphasized in the life more than the houses with one or none. Houses represent areas of life. If a natal planet "hits" planets one after the other during a progression, direction, or transit, this area of life is being emphasized over and over again, compared to other houses.

However let us not forget that these planets, too, move by direction, progression etc and they could, if the positions in the chart permit, gang up on a single planet over and over and emphasize that house more than the house that held them.

The answer then is probably, "It depends."

23 by AstroNovice
tom, do you use progressions? (you were referring to secondary progressions right?) Because I always got the impression you stuck mostly to traditional techniques. Anyways, after my own conversion to traditional astrology I pretty much abandoned my modern tool kit, but if you still use secondary progressions then that 's a pretty good endorsement of the technique to me.

24 by Tom
I answered this yesterday, but it didn't seem to get posted. Oh well. Secondary progressions were developed, we think, by Placidus in the 17th century as a check on primary directions. There may have been earlier instances of secondaries or something similar; I'm not certain. I think that would make them traditional. Worsdale used secondaries this way as well.

I like the logic of primaries better, but primary directions are no more certain to coincide with everything important in the life than are secondary progressions or anything else.
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”