About triplicity rulers
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:40 pm
If you think about triplicity as a natural conclusion to where planets feel allright to their nature, that would be an easier aproach in my opinion.
First of all, Saturn and Mars are put into triplicity when they are actually out of sect in the tradition (Mars being diurnal and Saturn noturnal) with Saturn being "nicer" in a day chart and Mars in a night one (and that is intended to actually weaken then). The thing is, the very nature of the planets would tell us why they would feel slight better here or there, but there is controversy on even that, and this arise from the necessity to give this or that planet two qualities at the same time, when I think we should look to only one at a time.
For example, what we know about each planet for itself?
Jupiter is always moderate hot and moist.
Mars is always exceeding hot and dry.
Saturn is alway exceeding cold and dry.
Luna is always moderate cold and moist.
Venus is always moderate moist and can be moderate hot or cold.
Sol is always moderate hot and dry.
Mercury is a mess, but some would say moderate cold and dry.
Now, even on that there is no absolute certainty, but it is a guideline to work with.
Now, the sun gets too cold in Libra. Saturn for instance would do better with a little bit of heat or moisture, and Mars with a little bit of coldness or moisture. If you look at the cardinal/mutable/fixed nature of signs, we could get a glimpse of what could be the key to this. Mercury does not do well in water and fire signs for example, hence I would never consider triplicity for mercury in those. The Sun also does not go well with Water/Air signs, showing a rejection to moisture (Libra, Aquarius) and the water and earth passives signs being controlled by Luna... the way I see, triplicity is more about considering how harmonic is the placement of a planet in a sign, and if does not go too much against it's naturality. One thing to look at is why does Mars do so well in Scorpio but not so in Cancer (the cardinality of Cancer has to have something to do with this, no?). We also have to separate what is related to life philosofy of the period, for once why Moon in Capricorn was so good for marriage if it's detrimental (well, everyone would like an enslaved, obedient, weak woman in the past, no?). Venus can not stand cardinal fire or fixed water, that must reveal something about her nature that explains triplicity better than just accepting this or that classical author. Now, anyone with astronomical knowledge could also lead the way to understanding this. Some would insist that Luna still could do something in Scorpio, and that is maybe because the sign is not totally contrary to her nature (and so is not Capricorn, although Luna can understand itself well with fixed earth, but not so much with it's cardinal variant). Any thoughts on this?
First of all, Saturn and Mars are put into triplicity when they are actually out of sect in the tradition (Mars being diurnal and Saturn noturnal) with Saturn being "nicer" in a day chart and Mars in a night one (and that is intended to actually weaken then). The thing is, the very nature of the planets would tell us why they would feel slight better here or there, but there is controversy on even that, and this arise from the necessity to give this or that planet two qualities at the same time, when I think we should look to only one at a time.
For example, what we know about each planet for itself?
Jupiter is always moderate hot and moist.
Mars is always exceeding hot and dry.
Saturn is alway exceeding cold and dry.
Luna is always moderate cold and moist.
Venus is always moderate moist and can be moderate hot or cold.
Sol is always moderate hot and dry.
Mercury is a mess, but some would say moderate cold and dry.
Now, even on that there is no absolute certainty, but it is a guideline to work with.
Now, the sun gets too cold in Libra. Saturn for instance would do better with a little bit of heat or moisture, and Mars with a little bit of coldness or moisture. If you look at the cardinal/mutable/fixed nature of signs, we could get a glimpse of what could be the key to this. Mercury does not do well in water and fire signs for example, hence I would never consider triplicity for mercury in those. The Sun also does not go well with Water/Air signs, showing a rejection to moisture (Libra, Aquarius) and the water and earth passives signs being controlled by Luna... the way I see, triplicity is more about considering how harmonic is the placement of a planet in a sign, and if does not go too much against it's naturality. One thing to look at is why does Mars do so well in Scorpio but not so in Cancer (the cardinality of Cancer has to have something to do with this, no?). We also have to separate what is related to life philosofy of the period, for once why Moon in Capricorn was so good for marriage if it's detrimental (well, everyone would like an enslaved, obedient, weak woman in the past, no?). Venus can not stand cardinal fire or fixed water, that must reveal something about her nature that explains triplicity better than just accepting this or that classical author. Now, anyone with astronomical knowledge could also lead the way to understanding this. Some would insist that Luna still could do something in Scorpio, and that is maybe because the sign is not totally contrary to her nature (and so is not Capricorn, although Luna can understand itself well with fixed earth, but not so much with it's cardinal variant). Any thoughts on this?
) into Croatian.