Skyscript Astrology Forum

this is coming out of the previous conversation started by mark on whether uranus has some type of association with the sign aries.. separating a planets nature from the nature of a tropical or sidereal sign is impossible as i see it. my personal subjective basis is based on my early exposure to cosmo-biology - a quick catchphrase to describe a particular school of astrology.. essentially as i understand it - or continue to sort of practice it - there was an element of just focusing on the planets and their relationship to other planets by aspect that helped to define the nature of the event without the addition of house or sign complications.. removing these 2 aspects of astrology is impossible, but i am explaining it to the best of my abilities..

what i am curious to know is how others see the basis for the energy of a planet and whether they see any separation between the nature of a planet, verses it's expression in a particular sign or house. i realize this is tricky to impossible to break apart, but i am curious either way..

further to this conversation - mark was interested in getting some feedback from deb on planetary phase which is something i am especially interested in as well.. the way i see this - much of this, but not all of this is captured in the basic idea behind aspects.. to give an example of significance happening at present is the planetary phase of uranus in relation to pluto - a waxing square aspect. now i know i am going outside the bounds of the way this idea is presented in traditional astrology, but i am curious if others are looking at these types of relationships and if so, if they had anything they would like to comment on regarding this.. the reason i see this as important is i think it forms a good part of the basis for the energy and that planets do not operate in isolation to the other planets.. one could say the relationship with any planet to the sun is clearly the most important relationship, but i don't discount the importance of other planetary pairs or larger groupings.. the triple conjunction of saturn/uranus/neptune and cap in late 80's/early 90's is an example of this. that moment would be an important basis for the beginning of a few cycles simultaneously..

thanks!

James, I find it helpful sometimes to view astrology as a kind of grammar. The planet is the "what", noun, or subject in a sentence. The sign says "how or in what manner" a planet operates, like an adjective or adverb. The house is like a prepositional phrase, indicating "where or in what domain of life" a planet operates.

Then in a different way, aspects also indicate "how" a planet operates-- in connection with one or more other planets. In a simple declarative sentence, we have one concept to consider. In a compound sentence, two or more concepts are combined; perhaps happily or perhaps in conflict with one another.

For example, "I want to go to the beach but I don't have time," could be compared to the sun ("I") in the 5th house of recreation opposite Saturn (here acting as Kronos, thwarting one's hopes and wishes for the future.)

"I want to go to the beach and I will go later, at 3:00," could be compared to sun trine Saturn.

I believe this model works in both traditional and modern western astrology. However, "how" a planet works would seem different in the two systems, depending upon whether you look at modern character traits or traditional dignities and debilities.

I really dislike the modern tendency of some astrologers to conflate signs and houses, or planets, signs and houses. Certainly they can have some commonalities, but they operate differently in an astrological sentence.

James_M

.. separating a planets nature from the nature of a tropical or sidereal sign is impossible as i see it.

Hello James,

This may sound rather contrarian considering my opening a thread on the previous topic of a speculative association between Uranus and Aries. However, I don't agree with your expressed view here that a planet's nature is totally synonymous with a sign in traditional astrology for various reasons. Indeed that thread has largely helped firm up my thoughts on this issue.

However, this certainly comes closer to the thinking of much of modern astrology. The so called alphabet zodiac of Mars=Aries=1st house. Its not just the weaker modern astrologers that do this today. Some of the most highly acclaimed use this kind of thinking. Check out a book like The Twelve Houses by Howard Sasportas. This idea is integral to the book.

Traditional astrological delineation is much more focused on planets than signs. It also makes a clear distinction between the two. In essence planets are the active agents not signs. Planets can have dignities in signs with different elements or modes. For example, Mars can have domicile or exaltation dignity in Aries, Scorpio or Capricorn. It also can have triplicity rulership , bound or decan/face rulership in parts of signs. In regards the latter two dignities planets can have bound or decan/face rulership in in all 12 signs. So planets can also have various kinds of dignity not just association with an entire whole sign through domicile or exaltation rulership.

More fundamentally, signs were only relevant in relation to how they modified the strength or operative quality of planets. Planetary influence could be altered by not just dignity by sign (and reception) but also by house placement, aspectual contact, solar phase, planetary sect , conjunction to fixed stars etc.

The move away from traditional rulerships and aspect theory was also accompanied by an attempt to popularise astrology with sun signs. This had a major impact on serious astrology too. Delineation became heavily focused on signs rather than planets. Hence while a traditional astrologer is more likely to delineate a natal chart based on the planets influencing key areas of the chart a modern analysis often focuses heavily on signs. Aquarius for example was fixed, airy, masculine, diurnal and sanguine. Full stop. You will find hardly any detailed description about signs in the traditional literature. The only two significant exceptions I am aware of were Vettius Valens in ancient astrology (and some of his ideas seem rather idiosyncratic) and Ramon Lull in the medieval period. Otherwise, you will genuinely struggle to find much reference to the signs on their own beyond basic definitions in the whole corpus of traditional astrology.

James_M wrote:

my personal subjective basis is based on my early exposure to cosmo-biology - a quick catchphrase to describe a particular school of astrology.. essentially as i understand it - or continue to sort of practice it - there was an element of just focusing on the planets and their relationship to other planets by aspect that helped to define the nature of the event without the addition of house or sign complications.. removing these 2 aspects of astrology is impossible, but i am explaining it to the best of my abilities..

You are describing the ideas of Reinhold Ebertin (1901-1988) who was a German physician and astrologer. Reinhold Ebertin's main reference text on Cosmobiology was entitled The Combination of Stellar Influences, sometimes referred to as the 'CSI' or the 'COSI', and was inspired by Alfred Witte's Rulebook of Planetary Pictures. Ebertin used Witte's extensive research on astrological midpoints, and a 4th-harmonic "90? dial" developed by the Hamburg School of Astrology as the foundations of his School of Cosmobiology.

Despite all his involvemet in ancient and medieval astrology over the last few decades I understand Robert Hand still works with the Hamburg school/Cosmobiology approach of the 90? dial".

At the moment the only other type of modern astrology I can think of that is heavily planetary based like this is Astrocartography.

I think most astrologers would really struggle though to make meaningful comments on say horary or natal astrology without any reference to signs or houses. Without houses we surely have no way of particularising a chart.

James_M wrote:

further to this conversation - mark was interested in getting some feedback from deb on planetary phase which is something i am especially interested in as well.. the way i see this - much of this, but not all of this is captured in the basic idea behind aspects.. to give an example of significance happening at present is the planetary phase of uranus in relation to pluto - a waxing square aspect. now i know i am going outside the bounds of the way this idea is presented in traditional astrology, but i am curious if others are looking at these types of relationships and if so, if they had anything they would like to comment on regarding this.. the reason i see this as important is i think it forms a good part of the basis for the energy and that planets do not operate in isolation to the other planets.. one could say the relationship with any planet to the sun is clearly the most important relationship, but i don't discount the importance of other planetary pairs or larger groupings.. the triple conjunction of saturn/uranus/neptune and cap in late 80's/early 90's is an example of this. that moment would be an important basis for the beginning of a few cycles simultaneously..

To keep things clearer we probably need to distinguish between solar phase and the synodic cycles between the other planets. The former is a technique based on the traditional planets relationship to the Sun in their synodic cycle. The latter involves other planets. The origins of studying planetary cycles apart from that to the Sun can be traced back to extensive examination of the Jupiter-Saturn phase in medieval, renaissance and early modern astrology. They also explored cycles like that of Saturn-Mars.. Modern astrologers have extended this to include the outer planets too. This is a very popular area of research in mundane astrology astrology.

It seems to get much less attention in modern natal work except for focus on the Sun-Moon relationship influenced heavily by Dane Rudhyars book The Lunation Cycle.

Mark

waybread,

that is an interesting way to put astrology together.. i don't like that parallel myself. i am not sure why. i think there are too many inconsistencies in astrology myself which partly explains why astrologers can never agree on anything. maybe i am a fool for trying to separate planets from signs, but i think always putting the one in context of the other muddies the water so one can't see anything.

Just so you know, some of the words in James' original post did very briefly have me thinking that he meant just sign=planet etc but reading all of it, it was apparent that what he meant was:

does a planet have an essential quality that exists and is distinguishable from how it operates in any sign? (although presumably particularly those where it seems most at home)
(see how I avoided any mention of dignities and thus the modern/traditional debate there )

I think that each planet does have a very clear essence which I see as being much more powerful than the sign mode of expression. Of course we never get to see the planet in the raw as it is always somewhere on the ecliptic.

I think the difficultly in focussing on the essence comes from the need to attribute things to planets via house rulerships in the chart. So Mars, for example, can end up with lots of associations but they are just that- associations, as is the connection with Aries. Mars in pure form is just, well Mars, a type of purposeful energy that sort of ruthlessly cuts through the crap in its desire for survival.

However, when we learn astrology we cannot grasp the essence of Mars without words - so we use the associated words to instil in ourselves the meanings in the chart ( often through cookbooks whether they be old or new) until we feel so comfortable with the essence that we can apply it more directly. At least, that is how the learning process seems in retrospect.

Regarding phase, I am very much an astrologer that works with cycles. And I would put phase of pairs high on the list - but sadly there is far less literature on this than on signs and I am still struggling with it to some extent, although I always work from the outside in so that I can view cycles/or phases if you prefer, within the context of the next one up. OK that is going to sound confusing, ignore it if I have muddied the water further.

Amelia reflects my idea of just completely removing the role of the signs and getting down to the planets energy without the burden of a connection to a sign. we read about this in some of the traditional and modern texts on astrology where the idea of how a planet works is expressed independent from the signs. i suppose if i was to write it again it would to be say - lets remove the concept of signs from the conversation completely to get at what we think the nature of any planet is.

it makes sense to me that uranus would operate outside the bounds of saturn and go beyond what is implied by saturn. i say this without any thought of the relevance of sign or house position and meanings. it is a very simple idea really - maybe what i specialize in, lol.. aside from this the idea that uranus would knock some of the order and balance that saturn is noted for solely based on the idea that it circles out further beyond the realm of saturn makes sense to me.

Hi James-- It's fine if you don't interpret charts as kind of a grammar. Normally I read a chart more holistically, but sometimes a template helps to dinstinguish between the "what" vs. the "how" vs. the "where."

For example, what is the big difference between Venus in Taurus vs. Venus in Libra? She rules both signs. Venus is the "what", but how Venus operates will vary in a fixed earth sign (more material or practical with a "steady-on!" approach) vs. in a cardinal air sign (more mental, pro-active.)

One easy way for me to distinguish how planets operate in signs (which is based in traditional astrology) is to consider signs in terms of their elements. I don't need to consider, for instance, whether Leo is supposedly proud, showy, playful, or (gasp) narcissistic. Let's just see Leo as a fixed fire sign for starters, and see where that gets us.

If I could use only one method in natal chart interpretation, it would be looking at aspects, because I just see these as so much identifying major life issues and motivations. If you wished to do so, from aspects, you could derive mid-points; and then parallels and counter-parallels can be seen (sort of) as comparable to aspects. But you don't have to concern yourself so much with signs and houses.

But because this one modern method works for me personally, doesn't mean I care to associate with the other excesses and obfuscations of some types of modern astrology. So (Mark) if we are going to position the traditional and modern schools as opposed to one another, I hope we can delineate exactly what sort of modern astrology is intended, because they are not all alike. (And thanks for doing this in your post, with the Sasportas example. )

James, if you do several other forms of astrology (not natal) you can't just remove planets from signs!

In horary astrology, you have to look at signs on the relevant house cusps, and I don't think you are liable to confuse them with planets. The planets rule the Signs of Note in a question, but then we are less concerned with a whole list of static personality traits associated with a sign, and more concerned with quickly identifying its planetary ruler and seeing what this planet is up to.

The one type of astrology where you do get a lot of sign-house overlap is in medical astrology. We can associate people's sexy bits with both Scorpio and the 8th house, for example. But I think it is too much of a stretch to extrapolate from medical astrology to the entire field in general.

I read on another forum post that CEO Carter was the astrologer who really started the planet-sign conflation, but I can't verify this.

What bugs me about *some* modern astrology cookbooks is a tendency to delineate a planet (say Mars) "in Libra or the seventh house." [Grrrr.] This makes no sense. If Mars in Libra is in the 12th house, it isn't going to behave like a 7th house Mars in another sign. A 7th house Mars in Aries isn't going to behave like a Mars in Libra. It particularly isn't going to behave like a 12th house Mars in Libra.

Amelia-- I believe that you know the following already, but this is just my take on the points you raise. Yes, planets have properties independent of the signs they operate in. Just as you are going to be you, regardless of whether you are at home, travelling in a foreign and unfamiliar setting, or possibly at work where you have to follow uncongenial expected norms. You can't exist as some organism isolated in a sterile laboratory, but you are going to show up a little differently, depending upon whether you are visiting Grandma in a nursing home or going to a Halloween costume party with your friends. Mars will always symbolize your native assertiveness or aggression, and how you feel about men; but these will manifest themselves differently depending upon your immediate circumstances.

The planets' characteristics (with some subsequent modifications) got assigned by the Babylonians prior to the development of our 12 zodiacal signs. The planet Mars was associated with the war god (Nergal, Ares) for a few thousand years, which is why it rules soldiers.

From my experience signs aren?t similar to planets, but the mythology of the ruling planets or associated planets is reflected in the signs. I work in the sidereal zodiac, but I?d like to illustrate how sidereal Pisces is like tropical Aries as they are in the same sky area. Traits seen in tropical Aries which are related to Mars are largely due to the mythology of Poseidon/Neptune in sidereal Pisces. However the planet Neptune itself has additional symbolism based on the birth charts of people with Neptune in a prominent position.

By the fourth century B.C.E., Neptunus, Roman god of the waters, had come to be associated with Poseidon, Greek god of the sea. Poseidon was known as the ?earthshaker? because of his habit of creating earthquakes and storms at sea. He possessed an irascible and unsettled nature and loved speed and adventure, racing his chariot over the waves so fast that the axle of the chariot remained dry. It was Poseidon?s responsibility to determine the victor in naval battles, and he didn?t hesitate to send storms to destroy enemy fleets.

Poseidon shared a number of traits with Ares (Mars). Aggressive and tempestuous, Poseidon didn?t take kindly to being told what to do by his brother, Zeus. Poseidon supported the Greeks during the Trojan war, echoing the boundlessness of Pisces by claiming that the earth belonged to all the gods in common.

Poseidon also continually tried to expand his authority by disputing the ownership of various land and cities with the other gods. The restless sometiimes argumentative nature of the mythological Poseidon/Neptune are in keeping with the traits of sidereal Pisces--a restless sign often lacking forethought and serenity, but filled with enthusiasm for the adventure of life. Like Jupiter, the traditional lord of Pisces, Poseidon retained firm sovereignty over his domain and was continually trying to extend his powers and influence.

Poseidon stirred up storms at sea and granted victory or defeat in naval battles. He liked transforming himself and others, such as changing men to women and vice versa...

?Poseidon grants miraculous powers....therefore when anything extraordinary or inexplicable happened the Greeks used to exclaim, ?Oh Poseidon, your cunning.?? (Larousse Concise Encyclopedia of Greek and Roman Mythology, 1965, pp. 245-247.

We might agree that the observed energy of tropical Aries and sidereal Pisces is similar. Aries is ruled by Mars, Pisces by Jupiter, with the influence of Neptune.

I searched AstroDatabank for stelliums in sidereal Pisces (mainly the sky area of tropical Aries); Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars In Pisces:

10 homosexuals (male and female)
06 astrologers
02 sports (rugby, skating)
01 politician
01 attorney
01 physician
02 therapists (physical therapist, sex abuse therapist)
06 media (1 TV host, 2 actors, 2 advertising executives, 1 screenwriter/playwright)
02 musicians
01 history and philosophy writer
01 astronaut

Neptune conjunct ascendant
Sidereal Gemini (mainly tropical Cancer)

Louis Bunuel, surrealist filmmaker
Autant-Lara, Claude, active in film from age 16
Balanchine, George, most famous choreographers in the field of ballet
Armand Barbault, French engineer and alchemist, a member of a noted French astrology family

Bauer, Hermann, esoteric astrologer and publisher
Duvalier, Francois, physician and Haitian dictator
Waschwill, Fritz, pro astrologer, author
Collin, Rodney, pro astrologer, occultist, author

Losey, Joseph W., theater and film director
Burl Ives, folk singer and actor
Jean Bruno, librarian at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, interested in parapsychological phenomena
Gilbert, test pilot who became a secret agent
Dolores Cannon, past life repression therapist (Leo)

There is some evidence here for Neptune?s relationship to film, stage and screen and astrology and the occult. There are 668 charts in AstroDatabank with Neptune conjunct the ascendant within 5 degrees, Gemini through Capricorn (tropical Cancer through Aquarius). I had sorted the charts by Neptune, and sidereal Gemini/tropical Cancer was the first sign in the list.

A few charts with Neptune in 9th trine the ascendant:

Timothy Leary, LSD guru
Jane Roberts, channeled ?Seth?
Francis Regardie, British occultist, the prolific spokesman for the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn."
Aistrop, Radamie Herman, American spiritualist, a medium and minister, faith healer, midwife, and astrologer

There are 475 charts in AstroDatabank with Neptune in the 9th trine the ascendant within 5 degrees. There a writers, musicians, film makers, astrologers and other occupations as well. Too many to list on a forum, but plenty to establish some empirical evidence for how Neptune's energy can manifest.

what i am curious to know is how others see the basis for the energy of a planet and whether they see any separation between the nature of a planet, verses it's expression in a particular sign or house. i realize this is tricky to impossible to break apart, but i am curious either way.

Is your suggestion here that the meanings of planets, signs and houses is fused, modified or was 'corrupt' early doors in the minds of Astrologers. So if someone was asked to think about the Moon in this chart - http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cobain,_Kurt - (in the 10th, Cancer), notions are blurred.

nb - I understand not all Astrologers focus on the persons 'mothering' when a planet is in the 10th.

I was particularly interested in Mark's remark :

Without houses we surely have no way of particularising a chart.

I've been finding the 12 houses as topics rather unsatisfactory, and am drawn to the 8-fold division on which there has been some discussion on the forum (Philosophy forum), but haven't had the patience to really look into it in the absence of software to help casting the charts.
But I was recently wondering whether the ascendant plus the 7 Hermetic lots could serve as a substitute for houses as topics, i.e. noting the aspects and influences on the lot of Necessity as informing us about affairs of a Mercurial nature, etc. This would mean that each planet's domain has its own point in the chart calculated from the ascendant (which would represent the person as a whole, in natal astrology). (The Sun and Moon being Spirit and Fortune). Houses could then be used in a purely non-topical sense: weak/strong, good/bad, etc.
I don't know whether this is done at all by those versed in Hellenistic astrology, which I'm only just starting to explore!
I already wouldn't use the signs except for rulerships: e.g. Ascendant if in Gemini would be ruled and thus coloured by Mercury, which might be in fall in Pisces and thus ruled by Jupiter, etc. This is quite close to common practice in Indian astrology.
Graham

Graham F wrote:I was particularly interested in Mark's remark :

Without houses we surely have no way of particularising a chart.

I've been finding the 12 houses as topics rather unsatisfactory, and am drawn to the 8-fold division on which there has been some discussion on the forum (Philosophy forum), but haven't had the patience to really look into it in the absence of software to help casting the charts.
But I was recently wondering whether the ascendant plus the 7 Hermetic lots could serve as a substitute for houses as topics, i.e. noting the aspects and influences on the lot of Necessity as informing us about affairs of a Mercurial nature, etc. This would mean that each planet's domain has its own point in the chart calculated from the ascendant (which would represent the person as a whole, in natal astrology). (The Sun and Moon being Spirit and Fortune). Houses could then be used in a purely non-topical sense: weak/strong, good/bad, etc.
I don't know whether this is done at all by those versed in Hellenistic astrology, which I'm only just starting to explore!
I already wouldn't use the signs except for rulerships: e.g. Ascendant if in Gemini would be ruled and thus coloured by Mercury, which might be in fall in Pisces and thus ruled by Jupiter, etc. This is quite close to common practice in Indian astrology.
Graham

I agree with your sentiments, Graham. I still use house positions as a viable source of topical expression (a bonified Sun in the 10th being activated bringing honours and so on) but to use the 2nd house's ruler to signify the native's money, the 5th for children etc. is not working out for me. Right now, I use the natural significators and the relevant Lot and its lord, along with general techniques given such as the Spearbearers and the triplicity lords of the Sect Light.

i don't have time to properly respond to everyone's post here, but hopefully i can squeeze some time in over the next few days..my apologies for this. i will just quickly comment on nixx's question here.

Nixx wrote:

what i am curious to know is how others see the basis for the energy of a planet and whether they see any separation between the nature of a planet, verses it's expression in a particular sign or house. i realize this is tricky to impossible to break apart, but i am curious either way.

Is your suggestion here that the meanings of planets, signs and houses is fused, modified or was 'corrupt' early doors in the minds of Astrologers. So if someone was asked to think about the Moon in this chart - http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cobain,_Kurt - (in the 10th, Cancer), notions are blurred.

nb - I understand not all Astrologers focus on the persons 'mothering' when a planet is in the 10th.

nixx - yes. that is sort of what i am suggesting. these systems get built up that we end up taking for granted. there are a lot of them - houses, signs, aspects, planetary phase and etc. etc. all of them seem to help in some way to form a viewpoint on a particular planet, but they ultimately take us away from understanding how a particular planet might actually be expressing itself depending on our bias.. a typical astrologer will try to incorporate all of these different systems of understanding the planet which is why we get a lot of diversity in regards how a planet works. of course i am including the sun and moon in my use of the word planet here.

as for cobains moon, it would be seen as quite important - the light of the nocturnal sect - something that some astrologers may or may not even consider. it would be considered favourable from the pov of planetary phase - waxing trine from the sun. it's last aspect would have been this trine to the sun and it's next would be a conjunction to the jupiter - that would be considered all favourable as well.. still, what does that tell us about the moon without use of the sign cancer, or the house position - 10th or 11th depending on your persuasion? or - lets put it in sidereal to get a different spin if you want to attach a sign position to it.. you see, i am thinking their is something to the moons inherent meaning that transcends the sign position. perhaps i am guilty of falling back on other options to get at my understanding of it - planetary phase and etc. etc. in this chart i would say the mercury/pluto opposition has more power to act and ultimately calls the shots in the chart, as opposed to the moon.. that is probably heresy to some in the trad astro community, but it is how i see this chart.. how much of my viewpoint is based on knowing some of his life and how it unfolded? probably a lot.. talk later - thanks - james