Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:56 pm**

I would like to thank everyone too who expanded on this initial question.

With so much to digest, I am printing it out so as to read it more slowly and save.

Best,

RC

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:35 am**

Hello again,

From Tom

Regarding the Moon: I believe RC quoted Lilly as saying the Moon did not "delight" in Gemini. I would tend to think of a lack of delight as far less of a problem than "corruption." If the Moon is weak in Gemini it is not as serious as debilitated malefics in hard aspect to something.

Agreed. I don?t think Moon in Gemini is ?corrupted? ? corrupted being such a strong word! Weakened, scattered, probably better?

But I still have a problem with the idea that all planets are corrupted in the 12th of their domicile.

As I mentioned in the previous post, all the planets (minus sun and moon) when situated in the 12th from one of its domicile still make aspect to the other sign that it rules. So, the unrejoiced condition of being 12th from its domicile sign applies only to the luminaries i.e. when sun is in Cancer and Moon in Gemini. But sun in Cancer at least aspects Aries (the sign of his exaltation) whereas moon in Gemini neither aspects her domicile (Cancer) nor her exaltation sign (Taurus). This is why moon in Gemini is the only consideration we look at for this ?12th sign from domicile? aphorism. Moon is totally peregrine in Aries, Gemini and Leo and Sun is totally peregrine in Taurus, Cancer and Pisces. Planets do not have signs that they are totally peregrine in as they rule one part of every sign as term rulers. Moon in Gemini is slightly more ?unrejoiced? due to peregrinity and 12th sign from domicile aphorism compared to Moon in Aries or Leo (who she is totally peregrine in).

Similarly, only the luminaries can have signs where they are totally peregrine in the whole of the sign (Moon is peregrine in the whole signs of Aries, Gemini and Leo whereas sun is peregrine in the whole signs of Taurus, Cancer and Pisces). This is because the planets (minus luminaries) have parts of the signs ruled by them by term rulership.

It is interesting to note that Gemini is the 12th house in the Thema Mundi (the one advocated by Firmicus Maternus).

In terms of interpretation though, we would look into many more factors than just this simplified rule (of course!!!).

Steven said that signs in aversion should also be included and not just 12th from domicile (if we wish to consider this at all) but again all the planets (minus luminaries) when situated in the 12th or 6th or 2nd or 8th from one of its domicile still make aspect to the other sign that it rules. So the ?unrejoiced? conditions of being in aversion to their domiciles again apply only the luminaries. By this formula, sun is ?unrejoiced? in Virgo and Pisces (in Cancer and Capricorn he still aspects Aries, the sign he exalts) and Moon is ?unrejoiced? in Gemini and Sagittarius (in Leo and Aquarius she still aspects Taurus). I strongly feel that we should exclude Pisces and Sagittarius as they are signs rule by the Greater Benefic (Jupiter). In conclusion, sun is ?unrejoiced? in Virgo and Moon is ?unrejoiced? in Gemini. It seems that we end up luminaries having ?unrejoiced? condition in one of Mercury?s sign each! Taking the Greek concept of Mercury (exposed by Rob Schmidt), Mercury is the principal of contest, of keeping things in the air, suspense, servility, etc. ? not a very cozy place for the King and Queen!

As for being in the opposite house of its joy, this would be an accidental debility, if in fact it is one. I don't recall too many problems associated with Venus in the 11th, or Jupiter in the 5th. We may be putting too fine a point on things here. I will pay closer attention to these things from now on though.

Agreed. Brady calls the opposite house of Joy as the house of gloom! But I don?t think I?ll ever describe Jupiter in 5th or Venus in 11th being gloomy?

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:39 am**

Hi all,
I am very happy to be here with so many good astrologers.

For me one thing appeared clear: there seems to be at least at the level of understanding, a very big problem with integrating fully logical (logical with the astrological system) the signs. Reading all this thread it came in my mind an article written by Giuseppe Bezza, in which he argues that we must make a distinction between the different analogies used to divide the circle of zodiac. First he makes a distinction between the immaterial zodiac and the material one.
Again what is important is that some divisions were created using the relations between signs and another factor: for example with time, with planets, with elements.
But there are also significations which are derived using only the analogy system, without any logical construction besides the analogy one.

Every division reveals a different complex of signification of the zodiacal circle.
The mistake I think it?s important to avoid is to mix this kind of systems used in order to extract the significance of the signs either between them, or with inappropriate system of dividing planets.
To be clearer in the original post there seems to be a mixing between one of the division of signs: in 4 using association with elements and a system used to create a link between the signs and planets. That?s why the result was discouraging.
For me it?s more and more clear that the signs are the most abstract element in astrology. The whole circle seems a land of no were that has an enigmatic link with all that surrounds us here. In order to understand the concept of immaterial zodiac I think that we must enter in the philosophy that was at the base of the ancient astrology. And from this perspective the circle of immaterial zodiac is a perfect representation of mundus imaginalis. So from this point of view is incorrect to limit the significance of the signs. Their significances can?t be limited, what we can do is to control the interpretation by using correctly the correlations that were created by the ancients.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:40 am**

Dear Steven:

Thank you for this post.

I love these practical type of analogies (eletricity, batteries and such). It does help me at least, understand and relate better to how to view the actions and interractions on the placements of the planets.

I had used one such practical analogy in another thread about how I related collection of light & prohibition with a game of football.

Best,

RC

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:00 pm**

Great Post Steven, but you're showing your age. Cars don't use generators any longer; they use alternators.

However the analogy stands.

For those who are unfamiliar with pro tennis, I'd like to explain the reference to the "Grand Slam," to put what happened to Connors in perspective. There are four major events in professional Tennis, The Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open. Each event is referred to as a "grand slam" event or in tennis jargon "a slam." Winning all four events in a calendar year is called winning the Grand Slam. This feat has been accomplished by only two men, American Don Budge in 1938 when world class tennis was primarily amateur and all the grand slams were amateur events, and Australian Rod Laver who did it twice: 1962, as an amateur, and 1969. as a pro. Pros were not allowed to enter Grand Slam events until 1968 (For the record three women have turned the trick, Maureen Connelly, Margret Court Smith, and Steffi Graf).

The major difficulty in winning the Grand Slam is the court surfaces are different from venue to venue. This profoundly affects the game. Australia plays on a rubberized court (or they used to), The French is played on slow red clay, Wimbledon is played on fast grass, and the US Open is played on a hard court. However when Budge and Laver did it, I believe three of the four events were played on grass. Only the French was played on a different surface, clay. In order for a player to win it today, he or she has to be the very best on all surfaces. That Connors, at the top of his game having the necessary skills was denied a chance to do it was a dark moment in tennis history. Since Connors era, the only man considered in a class good enough to win all four was Germany's Boris Becker, and he didn't do it (although we can't count out Roger Federer who plays like a machine).

Tom

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:25 pm**

Hi again,

To Steven,

Practical question:
One who has Aquarius rising and Saturn in Capricorn.
How would you tackle this? Saturn (Lord of the 1st) is in the sign in aversion to Aquarius but in the other it rules (Capricorn) and at the same time in the house in aversion to the first and cadent. How do you "delineate" Saturn in this case? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it god for one or bad for another - if this is so good for what and bad for what?

Thanx

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:13 am**

At times like this I hit a wall. I?m getting that gnawing feeling that this can?t ? or shouldn?t ? be all that important. I love astrology, but when it gets twisted around and convoluted in cases like these, with all its strange ?this and thats?, I get the feeling that modern astrology did well to drop elements of it. It?s possible to focus on the system more than on what the system is meant to do. We can spend years with all this, but is it time well spent? Does it really add to accurate delineation? Maybe I?m foolish to question it. But maybe I?m on to something.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:19 pm**

Can someone tell me why Mars is dignified in Scopio - a water, sign - wet and cold, while Mars is a fiery planet, whereas the Moon is in its fall in Scorpio even though Scorpio is a water sign like Pisces & cancer ?

The original question has an answer that's been missed in amongst all the minutia. The answer is in that great chart that in the even better introductory article on this very web site. Take a look at this chart because the answer is all there.
Planets Ruling Signs.

Though what Steven brings up about how planets fare in the 12th house from their sign is interesting, I wouldn't say that this position is part of the main canon of traditional technique. It seems to be a secondary factor, or one that's not used by the majority. As Tom says, Saturn in Capricorn is in the 12th from it's other sign of Aquarius. As far as the Moon in Gemini, peregrine is peregrine and that's all we need to interpret the chart.

The fundamentals of what planets rule what sign, and thereby also in what signs they have their detriments can all be explained by that chart I cited above. The exaltations and falls such as the the Moon in Scorpio are of a different origin.

Traditional astrology is a system and a coherent one at that. This chart is neither complicated nor convoluted.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:40 pm**

Hi Mark,

Welcome back. You've been missed.

Tom

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:28 am**

MarkF wrote:
Can someone tell me why Mars is dignified in Scopio - a water, sign - wet and cold, while Mars is a fiery planet, whereas the Moon is in its fall in Scorpio even though Scorpio is a water sign like Pisces & cancer ?
The original question has an answer that's been missed in amongst all the minutia. The answer is in that great chart that in the even better introductory article on this very web site. Take a look at this chart because the answer is all there.
Planets Ruling Signs.

Though what Steven brings up about how planets fare in the 12th house from their sign is interesting, I wouldn't say that this position is part of the main canon of traditional technique. It seems to be a secondary factor, or one that's not used by the majority. As Tom says, Saturn in Capricorn is in the 12th from it's other sign of Aquarius. As far as the Moon in Gemini, peregrine is peregrine and that's all we need to interpret the chart.

The fundamentals of what planets rule what sign, and thereby also in what signs they have their detriments can all be explained by that chart I cited above. The exaltations and falls such as the the Moon in Scorpio are of a different origin.

Traditional astrology is a system and a coherent one at that. This chart is neither complicated nor convoluted.

Hi Mark F:

Thanks for the reference. It was very helpful.

RC

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mars/Moon - dignity and fall?