Skyscript Astrology Forum

I hope this won't seem too fundamental or silly but has been bothering me for quite some time. I see a contradiction that doesn't quite make sense to me overall, with the traditional assignment of natures to the signs and Planets. According to Lily, and assuming Hot (H) and Dry (D) are masculine, while Cold (C) and Wet (W) are feminine, he assigns the following nature to each:

Fire H & D both masculine qualities.
Mars H & D, Sun H & D, completely masculine but Jupiter H & W, likely fitting him ruling fire and water.

Earth C & W, completely feminine.
Venus C & W matching Taurus, Mercury C & D fitting his ruling both earth and air, feminine and masculine, while Saturn is C & D even though he is considered a masculine deity, but also likely due to him ruling both feminine and masculine elements.

Air H & W even though a masculine element, half masculine, half feminine and the only element that seems to be bisexual.
Mercury, already stated above as being bisexual, Venus C & W with Saturn being C & D.

Water C & W, thoroughly feminine.
Moon C & W, Mars H & D, Jupiter H & W.

Now, it makes no sense to me why all of the elements would be assigned qualities completely fitting the masculine or feminine nature except air. It is true that hot air is capable of holding more water than cold but the cold planets have no dignity where they can benefit air so where does the affinity or assignment come from? By this I mean that water is only square, semisextile and inconjunct to air so there is no harmonious easy way to get the moisture to assign wet to air. Air can easily reach fire which would dry, that makes sense. Water implies emotion where air is logic. Hot and wet sounds like someone in an emotional fit of rage, or perhaps passion.

What most brought this to my mind is Venus' role in bringing balance. If she is in fact, cold and wet she could easily bring balance to hot, dry air and teach Aries how to moderate his severely hot dry nature. Also, I have Venus in Libra in my 3rd and really don't relate to that energy being hot and wet. If you blend hot and wet with Venus' cold and wet you'd have calm communications but with a lot of emotion, even being a big sweet talker, whispering sweet nothings. That isn't me at all. My communication is very Mercurial most of the time which leads me to believe Venus is balancing the Libra hot dry air with cool emotions.

Another thing that is leading me in this direction is my current tracking of Hurricane Bertha. There is an anticyclone involved now and from my research into anticyclones, I've come to the conclusion it must be Venus that rules there. She rotates on her axis opposite of all the others, clockwise instead of counter clockwise, just like an anticyclone does in the northern hemisphere. She brings fair weather to relationships just like an anticyclone does to our climate. It takes warm, moist air from the equator and changes it to cooler, dry air. This sounds like a blending of hot and dry with cold and wet, just as if Air were hot and dry with Venus being cold and wet. It is a descending movement of air, like Libra is descending. High pressure is responsible for deserts, just like the surface of Venus is desert, hot and dry. Not only is her rotation Rx, it is very slow, just as the high pressure, anticyclone acts to slow the force of hurricane winds by spinning in the opposite direction, partially. The Sun's passage through here marks the end of hurricane season for this part of the world also.

Now, when Bertha and the anticyclone met, Moon had just contacted Pluto but also had contacted Venus through declination and through aspect of the solstice point. Venus seems more likely to me than Pluto because this isn't a below ground activity. The anticyclone is over Bertha.

The problem with this is, if air isn't hot and dry then I can't make sense out of all of this. Why would all the elements be assigned a nature that matches gender except for air? Is this open to debate?

Thank you for consideration and patience.
Connie

AquarianEssence wrote: According to Lily, and assuming Hot (H) and Dry (D) are masculine, while Cold (C) and Wet (W) are feminine, he assigns the following nature to each:

Fire H & D both masculine qualities.
Mars H & D, Sun H & D, completely masculine but Jupiter H & W, likely fitting him ruling fire and water.

Earth C & W, completely feminine.
Venus C & W matching Taurus, Mercury C & D fitting his ruling both earth and air, feminine and masculine, while Saturn is C & D even though he is considered a masculine deity, but also likely due to him ruling both feminine and masculine elements.

Air H & W even though a masculine element, half masculine, half feminine and the only element that seems to be bisexual.
Mercury, already stated above as being bisexual, Venus C & W with Saturn being C & D.

Water C & W, thoroughly feminine.
Moon C & W, Mars H & D, Jupiter H & W.

Hi Connie,

First of all, why do you consider Hot and Dry masculine and Cold and Wet feminine qualities? As far as I?ve understood, elements have genders, qualities do not. Then I note that you classify Earth as Cold and Wet, but according to the classical scheme it?s Cold and Dry. Therefore the four elements and their qualities make a perfect fourfold table:
Water is Cold and Wet. The coldness begins to warm up, so we get
--> Air which is Hot and Wet. The warmness dries moistness up, so we get
--> Fire which is Hot and Dry. And then the hotness starts to get colder and we get
--> Earth that is Cold and Dry. There?s a cycle.

AquarianEssence wrote: Water implies emotion where air is logic.

Or so do modern astrologers say. This is something that Liz Greene reasoned (and possibly observed ) in the 70?s, when she tried to connect the four elements with Jungian types. But it?s not in line with the astrological tradition, neither does it fit with the aforesaid qualities of the elements.

It?s true that Hot and Wet (qualities associated traditionally with Air) fit poorly with cool logic and dry reasoning, traits associated with Air in today's modern astrology. Why is it so? We have two possibilities:

1) Modern astrologers are simply wrong. Air is not an intellectual, analytical, detached, level-headed element, but it?s spontaneous, easily excited, social, emotionally sensitive, a bit superficial, etc. ? qualities which fit with sanguine temperament and hotness and moistness.

2) Modern astrologers are right, but the signs have changed over the centuries so that Air used to be Hot and Moist (and all the traits you could possibly associate with those qualities) but it?s not that any more. That could be because of precession, the slow movement of the Vernal Equinox point over the constellations. In other words, these ancient definitions of the four elements would fit better with today?s sidereal signs. Then today?s tropical Air would sidereally be located mostly on Cold and Dry Earth signs ? cool logic and dry reasoning, added with the fact that both Mercury and Saturn are traditionally classified as Cold and Dry, Earthy planets (though many a modern astrologer would rather like to see Mercury as an Airy planet, because they think it?s Air that signifies logic and reasoning).

AquarianEssence wrote: Also, I have Venus in Libra in my 3rd and really don't relate to that energy being hot and wet. If you blend hot and wet with Venus' cold and wet you'd have calm communications but with a lot of emotion, even being a big sweet talker, whispering sweet nothings. That isn't me at all. My communication is very Mercurial most of the time which leads me to believe Venus is balancing the Libra hot dry air with cool emotions.

Or, following my reasoning above, your Venus is sidereally in Virgo, a Cold and Dry sign ruled by Mercury both by domicile and exaltation.

Papretis wrote:Hi Connie,

First of all, why do you consider Hot and Dry masculine and Cold and Wet feminine qualities? As far as I?ve understood, elements have genders, qualities do not. Then I note that you classify Earth as Cold and Wet, but according to the classical scheme it?s Cold and Dry. Therefore the four elements and their qualities make a perfect fourfold table:
Water is Cold and Wet. The coldness begins to warm up, so we get
--> Air which is Hot and Wet. The warmness dries moistness up, so we get
--> Fire which is Hot and Dry. And then the hotness starts to get colder and we get
--> Earth that is Cold and Dry. There?s a cycle.

Thank you Papretis. My mistake, I did have Earth in my notes as cold and dry but typed cold and wet. I had been accepting these qualities without question as I attempt to determine if the hour ruler agrees with the nature of the ascendant, and was so focused on air I missed the same contradiction with earth. I see no contradiction blending the philosophy of yin and yang with traditional or modern astrology. It feels quite natural to me and seems quite logical that all things are either one or both. And how could an element have a gender but it's quality not take on the same gender? I believe I read elsewhere that the first quality is active and the second quality is passive. If so, this too implies yang and yin.

I'm not following how Water naturally turns to air without first having contact with fire to convert it to a gaseous state. I can see Fire interacting with air, Aries with Libra, resulting in Earth and Water, Taurus and Scorpio or Cancer and Capricorn though. I can also accept the possibility of the Hebrew explanation, likely descended from the Chaldean, that first there was air, Spirit, hovering over the waters and separated the waters so that earth appeared, then the lights or fire and the lessor light, the Moon. Now, that would require that spirit-air be hot and dry so that it could expand the water and turn it into vapor that became the firmament or atmosphere. If tradition works it must follow the natural laws set up for planet earth.

AquarianEssence wrote: Water implies emotion where air is logic.

Or so do modern astrologers say. This is something that Liz Greene reasoned (and possibly observed ) in the 70?s, when she tried to connect the four elements with Jungian types. But it?s not in line with the astrological tradition, neither does it fit with the aforesaid qualities of the elements.

It?s true that Hot and Wet (qualities associated traditionally with Air) fit poorly with cool logic and dry reasoning, traits associated with Air in today's modern astrology. Why is it so? We have two possibilities:

1) Modern astrologers are simply wrong. Air is not an intellectual, analytical, detached, level-headed element, but it?s spontaneous, easily excited, social, emotionally sensitive, a bit superficial, etc. ? qualities which fit with sanguine temperament and hotness and moistness.

2) Modern astrologers are right, but the signs have changed over the centuries so that Air used to be Hot and Moist (and all the traits you could possibly associate with those qualities) but it?s not that any more. That could be because of precession, the slow movement of the Vernal Equinox point over the constellations. In other words, these ancient definitions of the four elements would fit better with today?s sidereal signs. Then today?s tropical Air would sidereally be located mostly on Cold and Dry Earth signs ? cool logic and dry reasoning, added with the fact that both Mercury and Saturn are traditionally classified as Cold and Dry, Earthy planets (though many a modern astrologer would rather like to see Mercury as an Airy planet, because they think it?s Air that signifies logic and reasoning).

You seem to be labeling me as a modern astrologer but I really don't wear labels well, modern or otherwise. I'm not really familiar with Liz Green's teachings so wouldn't know. I see air as thought, likely logic based on current information, until emotion or intuition enters in.

I guess I come to my own conclusions through what I know and what I experience. In my body, I carry out thought in a spontaneous way as you describe. I know when emotion enters in because I can feel heat expanding water and even drying it up. A dry mouth is a good example, happening with anger or with nervousness, both emotions. When thought is left to itself, it is reasonably warm and dry but if emotion enters it throws off the balance, bringing excessive dryness as the waters are drawn to one place and excessive heat, known as extreme passion or anger. We see the same thing in weather patterns or when we try to breath in very humid conditions.

AquarianEssence wrote: Also, I have Venus in Libra in my 3rd and really don't relate to that energy being hot and wet....

Or, following my reasoning above, your Venus is sidereally in Virgo, a Cold and Dry sign ruled by Mercury both by domicile and exaltation.

My sidereal Venus is also in Libra so this wouldn't fit. But if it did, I've noticed I present both versions of my ascendant, Leo and Cancer in my persona so would expect the same in my communications if that were so. We are complicated beings, it seems.

I noticed when reading Mr. Warnock's pages he says he follows a different set of triplicity rulers. I emailed some time ago asking him about this but he didn't see fit to answer.

The way I experience the energies of the chart, one side balances the other when each is integrated properly. I focus my communications through air and fire. If I interact with someone who is extremely fire, not having integrated air I tend to become extremely air in order to balance the energy. If I am left to myself, in writing or though a speaking engagement, I tend to demonstrate both together, even bringing in their partners, water and earth in the grand square scheme of things.

I see one side as needing to be the compliment of the other that will bring balance. I've been trying to convince myself that Venus, with her opposite nature of cold and wet, can balance Mars' hot and dry but then I am left with the imbalance of Aries and Libra, one being also hot and dry if the other is hot and wet. That is 3 hots, 1 dry, 1 cold and 1 wet. Venus can balance and compliment Mars but Aries isn't balancing Libra through either being the same or opposite. The math is off unless Venus is able to reverse the heat simply through her Rx rotation. But if so, it seems like if she reduced 3 hots to 1 in order to Match Libra, she would throw the dry into a -1 or eliminate her own moisture. If air were hot and dry, matching fire then Venus would compliment Mars and keep the balance through the way they governed. Their natures would be in agreement and would govern opposite.

Thank you for the reply.

Or, following my reasoning above, your Venus is sidereally in Virgo, a Cold and Dry sign ruled by Mercury both by domicile and exaltation.

For now I can only comment on this quote. In the sense of 'But then again, sidereally...' This switch-hitting between zodiacs, one as a backup to the other in case things don't quite make sense, bothers me. Why do we need to move the discussion over to the sidereal zodiac rather than stay with the tropical zodiac and search for what we're not easily understanding? It seems like a pursuit for the perfect method rather than a careful use of time and abilities in thoroughly investigating what one particular method has to offer. Too much time can be wasted comparing zodiacs rather than dedicating oneself to a chosen zodiac.

From The Dictionary of Astrology by James Wilson, Esq. (1819):

Planets are said to be nocturnal when they excel in the passive qualities, moisture and dryness. Thus, Venus and the Moon are nocturnal, because they are moist, and Mars because he is dry. The true reason why Ptolemy made Mars nocturnal was because his heat and dryness should be opposed to the cold and moisture of the night so as to mitigate his noxious qualities.

Ptolemy says, the Moon and Venus are feminine because they are moist, and Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, and the Sun, masculine because they are drying. Mercury sometimes dries and sometimes moistens, and is therefore sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine ... Again they are diurnal and nocturnal, and those that are diurnal are masculine, and those that are nocturnal feminine. Fortunately all the masculine planets are diurnal, except Mars, who being nocturnal is feminine, although in reality masculine. Mercury is diurnal when oriental, and nocturnal when occidental: this is said by some to be contrived with a view to moderate the effects of the malefics. Saturn being made diurnal that the heat of the day may moderate his coldness; and Mars nocturnal, that the moisture of night might moderate his dryness: their meaning is, that they are not so malignant at these times.

Placidus divides them according to their active and passive qualities: those who possess active qualities, as heat and cold, are masculine; and those who rely more upon their passive qualities, as dryness and moisture, are feminine. Thus, the Sun is masculine, because of his heat, as he is more hot than dry. Saturn is masculine, by being more cold than dry. Jupiter is masculine, by being more hot than moist. Mars is feminine by being more dry than hot. Venus, feminine, by being more moist than hot. And the Moon is feminine for the same reason ... As to Placidus, he is at issue with Ptolemy in this question (though he probably did not know it,) for he says, Mars is feminine because his passive quality, dryness, exceeds his active quality, heat: whereas Ptolemy makes moisture the only passive quality that is feminine.

The Victorian and Edwardian astrologers believed that Uranus was cold and dry, whereas modern astrologers tend to think that it is hot and dry. In any event, it appears to be more dry than hot (or cold), therefore feminine and nocturnal.

Again, the Victorian and Edwardian astrologers believed that Neptune was hot and moist, whereas modern astrologers tend to think that it is cold and moist. In any event, it appears to be more moist than cold (or hot), therefore feminine and nocturnal.

Interestingly, if one believes that Uranus "rules" Aquarius and that Neptune "rules" Pisces, this would place the exaltation of Uranus in Aries and the exaltation of Neptune in Capricorn (according to the ancient teaching that diurnal planets are exalted according to their trines and nocturnal planets are exalted according to their sextiles, with the clock, against the order of the signs, except for Mars and Jupiter, masculine planets exalted in feminine signs that cast their exaltations in the opposite direction to the others).

If you look at the signs, you'll notice a pattern in the elements:

Aries - Fire
Taurus - Earth
Gemini - Air
Cancer - Water
Leo - Fire
Virgo - Earth
Libra - Air
Scorpio - Water
Sagittarius - Fire
Capricorn - Earth
Aquarius - Air
Pisces - Water

The traditional order is fire, earth, air, and water according to the signs. Bonatti explains this as: "generation happens most strongly be heat (fire), endures by dryness (earth), corrupted by moisture (air), and destroyed by coldness (water)."

However, the natural order of elements is fire, air, water, and earth. According to the traditional explanation, the motion of the planets corrupts the natural order, so by the time it gets to us, we get what we get. This is why we live in an imperfect world. If the elements came down to us uncorrupted, then it would result in preservation, not corruption.

Since you mentioned asking Chris Warnock about triplicity rulers, I'm not sure what he has on his site, but I'm pretty sure it's the same list I use. The triplicity rulers he uses comes down from a long tradition. I'm going off of Bonatti here.

Fire - Sun, Jupiter, Saturn
Earth - Venus, Moon, Mars
Air - Saturn, Mercury, Jupiter
Water - Venus, Mars, Moon

In this list, the first planet is day ruler, the second is night, and the third is participating ruler, which is a ruler that rules over both day and night. Later traditions don't use participating ruler as much.

Kirk, I agree that switching zodiacs back and forth would only cause to confuse, although there may be some benefit to blending for certain purposes of study.

Andrew, I guess I would have a hard time accepting this man's words without careful contemplation because of his words in the beginning, "Planets are said to be nocturnal when they excel in the passive qualities, moisture and dryness. Thus, Venus and the Moon are nocturnal, because they are moist, and Mars because he is dry. The true reason why Ptolemy made Mars nocturnal was because his heat and dryness should be opposed to the cold and moisture of the night so as to mitigate his noxious qualities."

First of all, I have not experienced the night to be more moist or dry than the day. The day and night are more dry or moist depending on the season and location. Here in the summer there is more moisture in the air in the day but on the ground at night, the reverse for the winter. But Snow is more dry than rain so I would call the Aquarian season in the North dry and the skin is also dry then. I suppose we must also remember that these men all lived in the Northern Hemishpere too so were approaching it from a limited view. The Moon is more nocturnal and she is never dry. If she were there would be no milk for her children. Fortunately she doesn't stay in the dry signs for long at a time. But I must also say that cold is to me, more passive than moisture. At least that is the response it triggers in me. Night is colder than day too. So how can only moisture and dryness be passive and nocturnal? It is coldest just before the dawn.

As for James Wilson's words "should" and "so as to mitigate his noxious qualities", I highly doubt Ptolomy made Mars be anything other than he is by assigning more passive qualities to him. Apparently you are saying that Ptolemy disagrees with Lily who assigns wet to Jupiter. It seems to me none of the highly respected masters agree so I must make my own judgments. I also cannot agree that hot and cold are active and masculine with wet and dry being passive and feminine. Hot is the opposite of cold so hot must be masculine-active-yang with cold being feminine, passive-yin. One is the opposite, compliments and balances the other. Male cannot balance male any more than two wrongs can make a right, IMO. Water is one of the most active elements on earth and potentially the most violent. I personally would rather see Mars stay hot and dry all the time. To give him Scorpio makes him a dangerous energy. Giving him the night, even more so.

I tend to think Uranus acts as an honored guest of Pluto since he takes the things we have outgrown on our evolutionary path and hands them over to Pluto to recycle. Mars is exalted in his waning square position from Aries so Uranus could be exalted that way also. As for Neptune, I think Leo would love to shine his light for all of mankind without respect for only those in his closest circle. Neptune would dissolve the boundaries that separate the star from the audience. After all, can the Sun only shine for one? Venus, said to be exalted here, rules in a waning inconjunct from Libra just as Pisces is from Leo. I don't experience Neptune as hot. I think there are more earthly waters cold than are warm.

I'm sorry, it seems the more I think carefully here, the less I can support some of the masters, unless I am really just missing something very important.

Thank you Mithra. You may be right that he uses these. Do you really think the elements came to us corrupted or perhaps it may be more that man has corrupted the elements through misuse? For example, I don't see air as corrupting fire. In fact, it provides fuel to keep the fires burning. Water, on the other hand, can destroy fire. I also cannot see air as wet and water as simply cold. It is wet, first of all.

AquarianEssence wrote:Thank you Mithra. You may be right that he uses these. Do you really think the elements came to us corrupted or perhaps it may be more that man has corrupted the elements through misuse? For example, I don't see air as corrupting fire. In fact, it provides fuel to keep the fires burning. Water, on the other hand, can destroy fire. I also cannot see air as wet and water as simply cold. It is wet, first of all.

No I don't think it's man corrupting the elements. It's pretty clear in the tradition that it's the motion of the planets that corrupt the elements. Think of it this way:

If the elements come from heaven or god or what have you, and the stars administer them, and the elements descend from above down to earth, then the elements are effectively being filtered through a planetary lens.

When the elements are perfectly balanced, then you get the best of them. However if they are not balanced, then corruption happens. Air when balanced with fire makes a bigger flame. Too much air, and you blow it out. Water and earth balanced makes life grow, but too much water, and you have a flood and the earth disappears.

As for you not experiencing night as moister than day, it really has nothing to do with your experience. The reason why they say it this way, is that the Sun is of the fire element and has a drying and heating effect. The Moon is a water element, which has a cooling and moistening effect. The degree of those effects depends on where you live, but the effect is there at some level.

The trick here is to try to understand why astrology is set up the way it is, which I think you are doing. Many moderns get too hung up on their personal experience before understanding the foundation. The foundation is more important to learn first.

Andrew, I guess I would have a hard time accepting this man's words without careful contemplation because of his words in the beginning, "Planets are said to be nocturnal when they excel in the passive qualities, moisture and dryness. Thus, Venus and the Moon are nocturnal, because they are moist, and Mars because he is dry. The true reason why Ptolemy made Mars nocturnal was because his heat and dryness should be opposed to the cold and moisture of the night so as to mitigate his noxious qualities."

Wilson reports the tradition as conveyed by Ptolemy and Placido. Ptolemy writes in his Tetrabiblos:

They also assigned to each of the sects the two destructive stars, not however in this instance on the principle of similar natures, but of just the opposite; for when stars of the same kind are joined with those of the good temperament their beneficial influence is increased, but if dissimilar stars are associated with the destructive ones the greatest part of their injurious power is broken. Thus they assigned Saturn, which is cold, to the warmth of the day, and Mars, which is dry, to the moisture of the night, for in this way each of them attains good proportion through admixture and becomes a proper member of its sect, which provides moderation.

Lilly, like Wilson, follows the classical definition.

As for James Wilson's words "should" and "so as to mitigate his noxious qualities", I highly doubt Ptolomy made Mars be anything other than he is by assigning more passive qualities to him. Apparently you are saying that Ptolemy disagrees with Lily who assigns wet to Jupiter.

Lilly writes that Jupiter is "Temperately Hot and Moyst," i.e., intrinsically warm and moist.

I personally would rather see Mars stay hot and dry all the time. To give him Scorpio makes him a dangerous energy. Giving him the night, even more so.

As Deborah Houlding writes, "Mars is damaging through its excess of heat and is better able to produce a beneficial influence when its natural qualities are harnessed than when they are promoted, as they would be if Mars were aligned with the diurnal sect."

I tend to think Uranus acts as an honored guest of Pluto since he takes the things we have outgrown on our evolutionary path and hands them over to Pluto to recycle. Mars is exalted in his waning square position from Aries so Uranus could be exalted that way also. As for Neptune, I think Leo would love to shine his light for all of mankind without respect for only those in his closest circle. Neptune would dissolve the boundaries that separate the star from the audience. After all, can the Sun only shine for one? Venus, said to be exalted here, rules in a waning inconjunct from Libra just as Pisces is from Leo. I don't experience Neptune as hot. I think there are more earthly waters cold than are warm.

Porphyry notes in his commentary on the Tetrabiblos that diurnal planets are exalted according to their trines, nocturnal planets are exalted according to their sextiles, except for Mars and Jupiter: masculine planets exalted in feminine signs, they cast their exaltations in the opposite direction to the others. The classical tradition has no affinity with the idea of affinity, i.e., "this planet 'should' be exalted 'here' because it 'seems' like it should." I do not care to speculate about Pluto, as I no longer include it in my astrological work.

The best book on the elements and temperaments (from a classical point of view) is the one by Dorian Greenbaum. I highly recommend it.

Oh, but how can a foundation be understood if it can't first be experienced? Many have book knowledge but can't apply it at all. Then if the author lacks understanding then the error is perpetuated through following it without question and lacking understanding.

Something in me rejects the idea that an amazing cosmos like ours was established and set in order in a faulty manner.

Kind Regards,
Connie

AquarianEssence wrote:Oh, but how can a foundation be understood if it can't first be experienced? Many have book knowledge but can't apply it at all. Then if the author lacks understanding then the error is perpetuated through following it without question and lacking understanding.

I'm mainly going off of Bonatti plus a little bit of general info that's percolated into my brain from too much reading and thinking.

One of the benefits of someone like Bonatti and many other traditional writers, is that they combined earlier masters' works and combined them with their own experience. Astrologers like Bonatti did hundreds of charts, and occasionally still made a few mistakes. That's where application comes in like you said.

If you haven't done so already pick some of these books up and try to replicate what they are talking about. THEN apply them to people you know. This pretty much is rocket science. It ain't easy and can get very confusing at times. Personally I'd rather go off the instincts of someone who's done hundreds of charts over my own experience, since personal experience can be wrong. I know I've changed my mind a billion times on my own chart as I'm learning.

AquarianEssence wrote: Something in me rejects the idea that an amazing cosmos like ours was established and set in order in a faulty manner.
Connie

Nature is flawed, and the cosmos is part of nature. Read Aristotle's "On Generation and Corruption". Think of this in terms of the heavenly spheres with the Earth at its center and heaven at the top. As the will of God and the rays of the stars come down, they get filtered and filtered until they reach us in an altered form. I think it's a pretty good model.