Skyscript Astrology Forum

1 Aug 2003:

Tom:

Lord of the Geniture

One of the more interesting concepts in traditional Western astrology is that of Lord (or Lady) of the geniture. It is common practice in modern astrology to use the ascendant ruler as the ?ruler of the chart,? but this method has its weaknesses. Suppose the chart has Libra rising and Venus is in Aries in the 8th house? Is this the planet we might wish to be in charge, or the one that truly dominates the chart? I doubt it. It is more usual to lead with our strengths. The idea is to look for a strong planet that has great influence and see how it plays out in the life.

The Lord of the Geniture is defined as the planet with the most essential and accidental dignity THAT CAN ACT. In other words, a powerful Jupiter in the 12th might not be as good a choice as a weaker Mars in the 10th. Generally speaking, planets in the 6th, 8th, and 12th houses have difficulty acting. They usually require a strong aspect or strong reception to achieve their potential, or an enormous amount of will power on the part of the native.

A planet?s essential dignity is found by using the table of dignities and seeing which of its own positions a planet occupies in the chart under discussion. Rulership, exaltation, and triplicity are the important ones; term and face are less so. Accidental dignity has to do with house position and aspects to strong planets, and some other things. So Saturn in Taurus in a night chart might not have much essential dignity, but if he is conjunct the ASC sextile Venus in Pisces in 11, he has a good deal of accidental dignity. Essential dignity is potential; accidental dignity is power. Let?s look at a chart two charts to see how it works. .

George S. Patton Jr., Nov 11, 1885 6:38 PM PST, San Marino, California, 34 N 07/ 118 W06. Solar Fire gives 20 Gemini 06 as the ASC. I love this chart since it is so lacking in essential dignity, and the native became, arguably, the most successful of all WWII Field Generals. The Moon is in triplicity, usually a strong essential dignity, but is in detriment and in the 8th house. Mercury has dignity by face, but is also in detriment. And Mars, whom we might expect to be very powerful in this chart, has no essential dignity at all. So where is the Lord of the Geniture?
We have to look for accidental dignity since there is so little essential dignity to work with. Venus and Saturn would have to be considered since they are in angular houses. However, Saturn is in detriment, and using the ?five degree rule,? he is just inside the 2nd house. Venus in Capricorn isn?t very strong, and neither planet is in the sign of the cusp, so we need to look elsewhere. Mars is powerfully placed on the 4th house cusp. Mars trines, albeit widely, a benefic (Venus), rules the fortunate 11th house, and is the triplicity ruler of the 10th. Mars then seems to be the best choice for our traditional chart ruler, although a peregrine planet isn?t usually a good choice, but only two planets have essential dignity in this chart, and both are in face only and badly placed.

Was Patton martial? I doubt anyone would argue to the contrary. The Patton family left their native Virginia after the Civil War rather than tolerate Union occupation. Young Georgie (as he was called then) was reared on heroic war stories of the Pattons? exploits in the Civil War, and never seriously considered anything but a military career. The fourth house is the house of ancestors and his ancestors were martial; their military exploits date back to the American Revolution. He had what today would be called learning disabilities (note Moon and Mercury, the significators of the mind, are both in detriment), but used enormous will power (Mars) to overcome these problems to become a brilliant field general (Mars is in analytical Virgo) in the manner of his ancestors (4th house). Mars trine Venus in 7 is interesting as well. Venus is the exaltation ruler of the 10th posited in the 7th, connecting Patton?s Lord of the Geniture with his career (honors) (10th) and open enemies (7th).

Let?s look at another Scorpio: Nov 12, 1934, 4:40 PM Cincinnati, OH 39 N 10, 84 W 27. The ASC is 5 Taurus 15. The native is Charles Manson, a man who needs no introduction, if for no other reason than he is well known as one to whom most would not wish to be introduced.
Manson?s Lord of the Geniture is easy to spot: Saturn in Aquarius in 11. Saturn is in domicile rulership and triplicity and is in what is generally considered the most fortunate house in the chart. So what happened? Let?s face it, even a highly dignified Saturn isn?t cheerful, but it could give Saturn?s better qualities of self-discipline, organization and structure. This powerful Saturn also rules the MC, the place of honors. Manson would receive honor or recognition through his friends. Note his ?friends? tended to come from conservative, well off backgrounds (Strong Saturn).

Saturn squares the ascendant ruler, Venus, linking Saturn to the ASC and appearance. William Lilly on the coporature of Saturn: ?Most part his body more cold and dry, of a middle stature; his complexion pale, swartish, or muddy, his eyes little and black, looking downward, a broad forehead, black or sad hair, and it hard or rugged, great ears; hanging lowering eyebrows, thick lips and nose, a rare or thin beard, a lumpish unpleasant countenance, either holding his head forward or stooping, his shoulders broad and large, and many times crooked, his belly somewhat short and lank, his thighs spare, lean and not long, his knees and feet indecent, many times shoveling or hitting one against another etc.? (Christian Astrology page 58 ). Not perfect, but not bad considering it was written almost 300 years before Manson?s birth.

It can be argued that Manson exercised his free will by ignoring the strength of his Saturn, and going with the flow, in this case the ASC ruler, Venus, who is in detriment and combust in 7. Patton overcame the problems associated with his ASC ruler, Mercury in detriment, by directing his will power: Mars, Lord of the Geniture, towards a worthwhile goal, a career in the military. Manson wanted to be a Rock star, and wrote and performed music. Venus is the traditional ruler of music and she rules his ASC, but as stated above is very weak, and a weak Venus gives in to the baser desires. He needed self-discipline and structure. The potential (essential dignity) was there (Saturn in domicile and triplicity in aspect to Venus), but it required more power (accidental dignity), and Mars in Virgo in Manson?s chart is accidentally weak in the 6th and cannot give to Charlie what he gave to George.

So what did Manson do with his Powerful Saturn? He gave it to the Moon -- ruler of the 4th house of family and exaltation ruler of the ASC. The Moon is in the rulership and triplicity of Saturn. In Aquarius it will be associated with groups. The Moon is conjunct the (true) north node: where you get help. Being in charge of the group (elevated Moon in 10 exalting the ASC) gave Manson the emotional support we all need. Saturn also squares the Sun-Venus conjunction that has the effect of blocking his self-expression. In summary, Manson certainly had his share of obstacles, but chose the path of debasement, rather than work with a Saturn so full of potential.

Try to figure out the Lord of the Geniture in a famous chart or two. Solar Fire, Winstar, and Janus all have modules that do the essential dignity work for you. Tell us about one or two you?ve worked with or have questions about, and post them. Some charts have more than one possibility, and some careful thinking needs to be done in order to determine the correct one. If you post one and it?s wrong so what? The best teacher I ever had told me, ?You never learn anything by being right.? When Deb comes back, she can correct all my errors, or anyone reading this can do that, too.


-----------------------------------

Sag:

For those interested, here's the direct link to download Janus -

http://www.astrologyware.com/janus3/dem ... 0102.shtml

(Astrologyware require your email address and send the above link to your email, but it takes a while...)

--------------------------------------

Ekati:

Good work Tom. Indeed the Lord of the Geniture, is anything else but the mere ruler of the ASC. And yes, the dignities play the most important part in judging any planetary effect.

Since you have studied Manson's chart, which in your opinion are the significators for killing, in his case?

And a last question... I noticed you use tropical zodiac, not taking in account true stellar positions of planets. Astrology has to do with celestial influence. So how can one believe in celestial influence but not calculate the exact positions?

------------------------------

Graelhaven:

Manson is incarcerated for leading others to commit heinous murders, not for committing murders himself. He is a guru of misalignment, of misadventure...his villainy is not in his own physical actions but in his leading others to commit crimes of such villainy that he is not allowed into the main prison population and will NEVER be released from prison. he always reminds me of a witches bottle...container for foul things that you wish to keep from the world. One wishes him a long life, merely because one does not look forward to so much evil being released from its container...

--------------------------------

Tom:

Ekati,

Arnold Schwarznegger's chart is a good example of the difference between Lord ASC and Lord of the Geniture. The ruler of his ASC is the Moon in Capricorn in the 6th house (any tropical quadrant house system), and weak. His LoG is (I'm doing this from memory) the Sun in Leo in 2. Arnold's self expression (Sun) is never in doubt: I would venture to say that his Moon, Lady of the ASC, is expressed much differently in private (as most celebrities are different in private than their public image would have us believe).

I use the tropical zodiac for a variety of reasons: 1) I was taught it. 2) There are no defined boundries of the constellations. In other words, regardless of who defines where one constellation ends and one begins, it is arbitrary. Some constellations are huge, others tiny (relatively). 3) The tropical zodiac works. Others would argue that so does the sidereal zodiac,e.g Vedic astrologers. 4) I'm a (Jupiter ruled) Pisces through and through not an Aquarius which I would be using the sidereal zodiac, unless the delineation of Aquarius is changed to reflect Pisces. In that case I doubt it would matter where we say the Sun is at my birth (2/20/48).

Deb has an article published in this month's Mountain Astrologer, and perhaps says the same thing on this site. The problem of the precession of the equinoxes became acute at about the time Ptolemy wrote Tetrabiblos ( a name not given to the work by him). His work may have been an answer to that problem. The answer was, in brief, to ignore it.

I would like to know more about the siderealists viewpoints (Vedic, too for that matter, a sidereal system), however, I don't bother for reasons of time. I'm 55 years old and there simply isn't enough time to thoroughly learn all these things and appreciate them. If others prefer them and obtain good results, as I'm sure they do, so be it. I'm not really interested in "my zodiac is better than your zodiac" arguments. They are like partisan politial arguments. They both have their merits, but after a while there is nothing of substance to be said, and no one changes their minds. Yours is a valid question, though.

Re: Manson. I like Beth's observation that Manson may never have killed anyone (but rumors persist he was present at the LaBianca murders). I'm not much on chart signatures despite the fact that my first wife had aspects in common with Adolph Hitler. So I doubt there is an aspect or configuration that points in this way. When I return home I'll have another look, and maybe answer this question a little better. Right now I have to go earn my daily bread.

-------------------------------

Graelhaven:

If I recall correctly he Tied up the Biancas and told them not to worry and then sent the others in to murder them.

---------------------------------

Ekati:

I think he is a killer too, according to his sidereal chart.
Amazing chart, by the way. Almost all planets are strong and dignified. Will, capability and resolution. His judging abilities though are weak. Probably that accounts for taking the wrong turn, somewhere on the way.
I wouldn't agree with you Beth. He was not a manipulator but someone with attracting unifying capability, a team maker. He attracted like-minded people and also acted as an inspiration point for them. He was an idealist. If only he had clear thinking, so many things would have turned out differently.

As usual, christianity is to blame
And Manson became one more "Satan" symbol for them. Still feared, even in this old age he is. Tut-tut-tut... Those christians...

-----------------------------

Graelhaven:

yup, what really cracks me up is most Xtians dont realize that satanism is a xtian religion... One of my friends who is hindu was wearing a pendant that had this person asking them if they were a satanist and she turned to them and said, oh no, I am hindu I do not worship any of your christian deities... the person in question was a bit dull and was spluttering incoherantly for hours... it was a kale pendant, she was in mourning for someone...

As to Manson, I said evil,If that is satan to you, okay, but that is not what I meant. He is evil. you probably can tell by photos, but if you ever see his eyes you will understand what I mean. And he has suggested that he has killed before, but he was not charged or imprisoned for murder IIRC, but for inciting, accomlice and organizing... again, its been a while since I've reviewed that info, its something I am not fond of.

one of the things I most recall of that entire episode, is that they found him in a cupboard, that a small child would have difficulty getting into, if some of his hair hadn't been sticking out, no one would even have looked there. It was under a bathroom sink where you might store towels or something. incredibly small space.

Which brings me to a very interesting question, Can a chart tell you if someone is Evil? if so, how?

Arnie question,
after looking at his chart again, I wonder if much of his fame, power, etc... isnt' attained through partnership? for instance, when he was Mr Universe, perhaps his coach? now perhaps his agent? manager? wife? etc...
his first and secodn house are both nicely full, but his tenth house is blatantly empty?

---------------------------

Deb:

Tom - I've had chance to read this thread properly now and think you've written a very good explanation of the Lord of the Geniture that will be useful to put in a more exposed location for students to refer to.
Once I get myself back on track and caught up with things I'd like, with your permission, to work this into a little article or perhaps a glossary entry.

Beth, I think your question is interesting; I'm going to start it as a new topic thread so that replies to that can be kept separate from the issue of LoG.

-------------------------

Tom:

Hi Deb,

Permission granted. I'm flattered, believe me. If you'd like it reworked a little, let me know, and I'll do that.

Beth,

I don't know that anyone gets to a high position in life without help. And some get more help than others.

I don't know that empty houses are indicative of much, although my friend Morin would disagree. Arnold's MC ruler is well placed in 5 and is in a tight trine to the Mercury - ASC conjunction.

Scorpio isn't the best place for Jupiter, but there are worse places. Write me privately I'll tell you what NYC astrologer Debbie Kempton Smith says about Jupiter in Scorpio. It's rated 'R' and this is a family board.

AP - This is an archived post, but may still be responded to.

Let me respond to a couple of things, but I don't have time for all at the moment. Also on the other thread please note: I've changed my mind (a nice way of saying I made a mistake) about Patton's LoG.

First, there will be no wrath as no wrath is possible from a man who was recently humbled by a sixteen dollar CPU fan.

One thing I think about this topic is; this is one reason why I do not like "Horary" astrology. If you know the planetary positions, dignities & detriments it would be easy to ask questions knowing that at that moment this or that planet has the "Lord of the Geniture" status is given enough weight to make the answer you want

There is a little misunderstanding here. There can be no "Lord of the Geniture" from a horary chart. The word "geniture" indicates we are dealing with a nativity. The strongest planet in a horary chart may or may not play a role in the delineation. Its strength only becomes relevant if it is a significator of something involved in the question. In a nativity however, all planets are important therefore the strongest planet is very important. I would argue this is true in modern as wel as tradtional astrology.

Secondly it is quite true that an astrologer could quite easily "rig" the outcome of a question by asking at a particular time. But tell me, what good would that do? The answer would be useless. Horary depends on the sincerity of the querent. Such a question isnot sincere. The goal is truth not manipulation.

In my opinion, he was lucky to have had an upbringing that set him on the military path otherwise, this was a sure fire, violent, prison candidate in the making, not the sort of chap to take home to mother.

I seriously doubt the above is true, and since it is based on a purely personal judgment. People who lean towards a life of crime don't do so because there are no wars to fight. While there is little doubt he was suited to his profession, and that he loved it, and that he was most uncomfortable when there were no wars, he did not go on a criminal rampage between the two world wars.

When he was a child he was called, affectionately "Georgie" by his family. He was profoundly influenced by his immediate family and his ancestors, but he was no psychopath. Americans and maybe the British as well don't seem to know how to relate to warriors. We like to have the when we need them, but wish they were somewhere else when we don't. It is our lack of comfort with their necessity that makes them seem unpleasant to have around. This is reflection on us - not them.

IMO I think Mercury as Asc ruler with Mars as Sun ruler fit him very well.

Agreed. One of the problems I encounter when discussing traditional concepts with people more familiar with modern astrology is that the moderns reflexively associate almost everything with personality. Patton's Venus in Capricorn as LoG has little if anything to do with his personality. It is his use of Venus (something I struggle with) that is significant.

Tom, you mentioned that 'Patton used his free will' to rise above his circumstances and Manson did not. The term 'free will' annoys the hell out of me because, who really has any 'free will'?

"Free will" is kind of a catch phrase in astrology as well as out, so let me clarify. If we take the position that the ruler of the ASC is the life we are "given" and the lord or lady of the geniture is the life to which we aspire, it naturally follows that in order to obtain the life to which we aspire that we make a conscious decision to do just that. I used the term "free will" to express that in two words. It is accurate, but perhaps the choice of words could have been better.

I'm not going to get into one of those tedious "fate vs free will" arguments as they never are resolved and no one really learns anything from them. I will say I am attracted to the folowing quote that I think came from Schopenhauer (sp?) "Man has a free will, just not the will to use it."

Carl Jung (among others) agree that we are guided by our unconscious or subconscious side, 90% of which is inaccessable to our conscious minds.

While it is probably true that Jung and others believe that, it is neither verifiable nor is it necessarily true. I have a problem believing that all of us are on autopilot 90% of the time. Although I don't doubt the influence of our environment.

As for Manson. It is not certain that he ever killed anyone. He definitely was not at the Tate murder scene although he may have been present at the Lobianco murder scene. If that is true then he isn't a killer but rather a sadistic manipulator. I would be more inclined to look for that in his chart.

Tom

Thankyou for your informed response and your little CPU fan quip, (did the fan not give you the tell tale rattling noises prior to cooking your CPU?).

The fan did make the noise and I replaced it, incorrectly and burned out the CPU and the motherboard. In fact the motherboard was rigged to shut down before such an event could occur, but I, in my inimitable fashion, kept turning it back on until it burned out everything. You see Duncan, the directions are there for a purpose. Would that I read them first and lined up the grooves rather than simply trying to match the way the old one was installed, then the final cost would have be sixteen dollars instead of $335.

His early life involved intense study of Homers Illiad, Shakespeare and others, this does not sound like the best material for the undiagnosed Dyslexia sufferer. Did no-one spot his inability to use letters and numbers efficiently? How many times did he re-sit math?

His family at first considered him mildly retarded because he could not grasp math and reading. Dyslexia, by the way, means difficulty reading. It was an unrecognixzed affliction in the late 19th century. He had that and difficulty with math as well. By the time he was old enough to grasp the above authors, he was beyond what I would call an early life. When he attended West Point he passed his courses the old fashioned way: he memorized things with the help of others. Learning disabilities are a complex subject and it has been said that Einstein may have been an early sufferer, but I doubt that. Some say the "symptoms" vanish as the individual matures. Since Patton was born in 1885, there would have been no such diagnosis and my comment is the repetition of an educated guess. A debilitated Mercury in Sagittarius in 6 does seem to support that.

You said he was called "affectionate Georgie", are we all not affectionate until our terrible 2's? This was a man who was known as "old blood and guts" I would not say this sounds very affectionate. One of his key phrases was "lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way" very apt, I could not have said it better myself.

I may have missed a typo. It should have said he was called affectionately, "Georgie." This was a comment from his grandson or great grandson, on TV. The man was quite young so probably a great grandson. He painted the picture of this charming little boy. The child is the father of the man. All children do not have affectionate nicknames. Rather they earn some others. Patton's childhood nickname is consistent with his sanguine temperament.

Patton used to give "pep talks" to the troops before battle. He used to write tyem down and rehearse them. The tough talk did not come naturally, but rather was part of his job.

"Old Bood and Guts" was a nickname given to him in WWII and he hated it. He was a tough man - no question, but being a tough man in wartime is necessary and proper. Statistically soldiers stood better chance of survival under Patton than under many other field generals including "The Common soldiers' General, Omar Bradley. But to your point, no one ever called him "Old Blood and Guts" to his face.

How would you delineate a moon in capricorn semi-square venus, square and a half to Mars, square and a half to pluto and inconjunct his asc? His early life was full of ease and comfort eh?

I wouldn't. I don't use minor aspects. I find them next to useless. Ditto Pluto. Again if we toss in enough technique and have prior knowledge we can get almost any chart to fit anyone.

No Tom, this was based upon Patton having the lucky planet jupiter in the forth and the conjunct aspect with the NN. How can we delineate a chart if we do not use personal judgment?

I shall blame Merc Rx. I meant to say "value judgment" and value judgments are a nice way of saying personal bias. If the astrologer has an axe to grind, he'll find something to justify his preconceived notion. Patton was not a monster. We may not like him personally, but he was a human being, a father, a husband, who happened to be a tactical military genius.

Isn't the lucky planet Jupiter in detriment in Virgo?

It is however based on certain planetary rules common to all of us. Your statement in the second sentence above is at best naive, you are suggesting that the circumstances we are born into will not affect our behaviour.

See what I mean about value judgments? My statement is not naive at all. At worst it is a reductio ad absurdum Your statement that he would not be a good person to bring home is wildly inaccurate. He married into a fine family. And now we are getting personal rather than sticking to the subject.

you are suggesting that the circumstances we are born into will not affect our behaviour.

I suggested no such thing. Again you're reading way too much into it. I specifically said that environment was a factor. Dealing in absolutes is not productive.

If I am reading this correctly ...

You're not.

you are stating that if Manson had been born into the Patton family he would still have been a 'psychopath?'

I stated nor implied no such thing. I said that environment was a factor.I believe it was you who said we all act 90% of the time subconsciously, and if that subconscious can be determined with accuracy from the birth chart it seems that Patton would be Patton if born to Charles Manosn's mother and vice versa. No I never said nor implied that. I don't believe it either. Lots of people have charts that have Royalty all over them, but unless you're born into the Royal family, you aren't likely to become King or Queen.

Manson had the second worst childhood I've ever heard of (The first was the Boston Strangler's). Becoming a productive human being in those circumstances is difficult. It is not impossible. The same is true of people born with difficult charts in decent circumstances. They can either overcome the difficulties or submit. Patton's fierce will resulted in his overcoming them despite his lack of social grace (which he had when he needed it).

'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The Americans love 'warriors' as the box office suggests. It seems the Americans will always try to concoct a hero out of just about any military conflict that involves them.

Millions of Americans went to see The Godfather that doesn't mean we all want to be gangsters or that we worship them. This is a most confusing accusation since it implies that all people go to the movies for the same reasons. I would suggest that even reduced to such a simplistic motive, that motive is little more than desiring vicarious thirlls. Want to get an idea of what combat was like in WWII? Go see Saving Private Ryan. Want to get involved in someone's love life? So see "You've Got Mail."

By "warrior" I mean a person whose personality and circumstances get them invovled in wars to that person's fulfillment. The "citizen soldier" is not necessarily a "warrior," although he may fight very bravely and with honor. At the end of the war he goes home and gets on with his life as millions of American soliders, saliors , airmen, and marines did at the end of WWII. The same was true in England. But what of the person whose life is intertwined in war? That person has a difficult time in peacetime. Patton was such a man. His family life between the two world wars was difficult for a variety of reasons. WWII gave him a new lease on life.

Americans have a tough time with a man like this and so, I would imagine would the people in Great Britian and elsewhere. When Hitler's Panzers were knocking on the door, Europe needed men like Patton and England's Montgomery to name 2. But afterwards they are a problem. Both England and the US were sick of warfare by 1945 and while Patton wanted to arm the Germans and continue the thing until the Russians surrendered, the public was fed up. So what to do with Patton? Well he was killed in an accident before that became a serious problem (although he had his command taken from him).

A better example is that of Winston Churchill. He, was a warrior as well, but not for the sake of war, but for the sake of country. He fought in WWI and he warned, with no effect, of the German threat. Ultimately he kept the spirits of England up with his warrior's attitude of never surrender. He held his nation together and became justifiably recognized as one of history's greatest statesman. His reward? He got dumped in a general election. Who wanted that old warhorse around? In the mind of the electorate, he had outlived his usefulness. I mean he was warning us about the Russians and they were our allies, right?

We want and celebrate warriors when they are fighting for us. But when the fighting is done, we wish they would go quietly to some other place so we could get on with our lives.

I guess this is an unconscious attempt to bolster the ego, this is an over compensation that often happens when an individual has no positively reinforced background to fall back on.

I cannot accept this whimsical switch from sociology to individual psychology. There are 300 million of us and the vast majority are well adjusted. Talk about naive.

Where the brits are concerned the culture is full of warriors;

Yes and what happened to them after the wars? OK they get nifty statues in public squares, but when they issue a call to arms when we don't see a danger (even if they do, and are ultimately proved correct) we wish them away. They are uncomfortable to have around in peacetime. I'm not even saying this is avoidable if we want to live in peace, only that the attitude exists. We're glad to have them when we need them, but really don't want them around if it can be helped.

You state that C G Jungs work is "neither verifiable nor is it necessarily true"

I didn't say all of Jung's work. I only questioned the idea that we are all on autopilot almost all of the time. I'm sorry, that is not verifiable and that a bunch of people choose to believe it doesn't make it any more verifiable or even accurate. I will admit that I think the idea of a collective unconscious is silly. I'm not a big Freud fan either. In fact I think in the overwhelming majority (not all) of cases that psychotherapy whether practiced using Freud, Jung or the local gypsy is pretty much useless and wildly overvalued. There are therapists who agree with this. But if we all operate on a subconscious level, then why bother with astrology, or psychotherapy, or anything else? We're all programed. Oh the witch doctor can help us to be different and happy. He knows all. Imagine getting paid to play God.

The same could be said of astrology

The same could be said of modern psychological astrology. Go back to where all this began, the Lord of the Geniture. Venus is it in Patton's chart. Venus is not part of his personality or at least Venus doesn't tell us only of his personality, and maybe not much at all about his personality. The ascendant, the significator of the manners (Mars in Patton's case) and the ruler of the ASC give us that. I don't have the chart and my astro software is not up and running just yet, but from memory, Venus is the exaltation ruler of his MC, his career. This is part of what Venus represents. It isn't a major factor in his personality unless she rules the ASC. It is his career (and whatever Taurus and Libra are doing). I think properly practiced natal astrology can help people make choices they are facing and will face. I think so-called "psychological astrology," particularly when practiced by people with no psychological training, isn't very helpful.

Feeling perky and proud with my new hardware I even toddled over to Noel Tyl's site and found, much to my surprise, an intelligent question put to the group. The guy asked the members if they were going to visit an astrologer would they rather know about their personslity, their parents or their future? The answer is pretty obvious. They have a handle on their personality, and with all due respect to Jung, Freud et al, they know about their parents, but what about the future or what should they do with their lives? Being told they have a great potential to be a healer isn't too helpful, yet that is pretty much what modern psychological astrology does. It tells people a whole bunch of things they already know about themselves and almost nothing else.

If we only debate on pure facts, nothing ever changes, it is only when we challenge the facts that growth occurs

You're entitled to your opinions; you're not entitled to your facts - Plato. (He didn't really say that)
Tom

no one ever called him "Old Blood and Guts" to his face.

Well you see, if it doesn?t apply, you wouldn?t; and if it does apply, well, you wouldn?t.

I ought to start compiling a list of your classic quotes:

"You see, the directions are there for a purpose"
- Tom, newly enlightened after destroying his computer for the sake of a $16 fan