Sign-rulership

[david starling]

In Modern Astrology, the Table of Dignities is not applicable. As the outer Planets were discovered, the higher-numbered Sign was taken from Saturn and given Uranian rulership; the higher-numbered Sign was taken from Jupiter and given to Neptune; and, the higher-numbered Sign was taken from Mars and given to Pluto. Only the 2 Planets inside of Earth's heliocentric orbit now rule 2 Signs each, since Mercury and Venus appear in 2 guises, a Morning version and an Evening one.
For a "Modern" Astrologer, it's no longer NECESSARY to use dual-rulership for Mars, Jupiter or Saturn. Many do: Mars®Aries/Scorpio, Jupiter®Sagittarius/Pisces, and Saturn®Capricorn/Aquarius. And many don't, preferring the one-on-one version: Mars®Aries, Jupiter®Sagittarius,Saturn®Capricorn, Urainus®Aquarius, Neptune®Pisces, and Pluto®Scorpio. Which isn't to say, for example, that Mars isn't "highly influential" in Scorpio--but Pluto is the Native-ruler. So, in this one-on-one Rulership situation: Pluto Rules Scorpio; and Mars does not. No equivocation NECESSARY. [IMO]
Nor is there any prohibition against equivocation. Freedom of choice is the hallmark of Modern Astrology.

 

[CapAquaPis]

There are rulers and co-rulers for each sign, the issue whether to grant the Sun and Moon only one sign, Mercury and Venus two, and the extent of how much a co-ruler is worth. Other issues is the newly discovered "planets": Eris, Sedna, Ceres, Chiron and Lilith, and where do they go in configured planetary rulerships.

The majority of astrologers reached and adopted this proposal:
Sun-Leo, Moon-Cancer, Mercury-Gemini and Virgo, Venus-Taurus and Libra, Mars-Aries and Scorpio, Jupiter-Sagittarius and Pisces, Saturn-Capricorn and Aquarius, Uranus-Aquarius and Capricorn, Neptune-Pisces and Sagittarius, and Pluto-Scorpio and Aries.

There's a prediction on who would win the 2016 US presidential election by analysis of ruler planets of Hillary Clinton (a Scorpio) and Donald Trump (a Gemini with a Mars Leo placement). To fully represent Scorpio, find where the planet Mars is (ascendant), which is square to the Sun in midheaven, of course Nov. 8th is a Scorpio date. And find where Mercury is (retrogrades can alter charts greatly), the ruler of Gemini. Pluto is the ruler planet of Scorpio for modern astrologers. We'll see how much Pluto will affect this...On the chart graph below, Pluto is between Mars and Mercury conjunct the Sun, while the Moon conjunct Mars. And Uranus is retrograde (Hillary's natal Uranus is retrograde) versus Trump's natal Neptune, which is also retrograde on Nov. 8th.

 

[david starling]

CapAquaPis, I'm heavily concentrated on Tropical Sign-rulership interactions, meaning I've given them a great deal of thought. But that doesn't mean my "well-considered" conclusions will necessarily work for you. Since I'm so focused on the Sign Aquarius: In Modern terms, I DO NOT label Saturn a "Ruler" OR a "Co-Ruler" of Aquarius. In this context, Saturn Rules Capricorn only. When I switch over to Tropical-Traditional, which is new to me, I have to make a tremendous distinction between Night-ruling Saturn and Day-ruling Saturn, even to the point of changing the archetype for the Day-rulership of the "Ringed-Planet" to Rhea (wife of Cronus, the Greek version of Saturn) the mother of the Olympian gods. Since I place great value on what the Archetypes can reveal about the nature of a Planet's Astrological influence, that's saying a lot: These two versions are as different as night and day. In my Modern view, the Archetypal Rulership of Aquarius is the feminine version of Uranus, Urania, and is sole Ruler of Tropical Aquarius. And Saturn, Ruling Capricorn only, has a blend of both potentially good and bad characteristics without requiring that clear demarcation between Traditionalism's Day and Night Rulership-versions. In the Modern context, Saturn is quite alien to the Tropical Sign Aquarius [IMO] and is definitely NOT what I would term its "Co-Ruler".




Aquarius, and, relative to Aquarius, Saturn is "none of the above". Urania (the PlanetUranus)

 

[david starling]

ALL the Planets have potentially both "good" and "bad" effects, not just Saturn. [IMO]

 

[david starling]

Is "primary dispositor" the equivalent of the Modern term "co-ruler"?
It would appear so. A valiant effort on Dr. Farr's part to keep Modern in synch with Traditional! I can but wish he was still a posting member of the Community. But, Pluto exalted in Capricorn? That's pretty radical. And Scorpio becomes more Earth/Fire than Water, if it remains a Water-sign at all. I notice he said "without further discussion", meaning he didn't care to defend or promote it--just offer it as a Well-Considered suggestion.

 

[waybread]

David, thankfully increasing numbers of western astrologers consider themselves to be hybrid modern and traditional.

I do a bit of hybrid myself, in that I tend to be more traditional in horary astrology and more modern in natal chart interpretation.

To me, Pluto, Neptune, and Uranus are the modern rulers of Scorpio, Pisces, and Aquarius, respectively. These planets work really well as sign rulers in natal chart interpretation. They also are really important when looking at transits to natal planets.

But this does not mean that Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn have no meaning as traditional rulers of Scorpio, Pisces, and Aquarius, respectively. They do have meaning. I work with both sets of rulers in natal chart interpretation. Normally I don't see a conflict with this. After all, children ideally are given two parents.

In dealing with a human life in natal astrology, I don't see planets as in exaltation, fall or detriment. I see different planets working differently in different signs. Domiciles are important however, if you work with house cusp rulers (lords,) as I do. You can see how a planet having authority over a sign makes it an actor in a natal horoscope.

I also work with asteroids and dwarf planets on occasion, but we cannot simply assign them rulership of a sign based upon general notions of affinity. The reason is because a sign ruler has work to do as a house cusp lord. You can't simply argue for Ceres (for example) as ruler of Virgo (her ancient affiliation) without doing the considerable research of seeing how or if Ceres functions as a house cusp lord.

One mistake made by today's trads is in thinking that there are no rules in modern astrology. Of course there are rules, many of them taken from traditional astrology. I would guess about 1/3 at a minimum. But some of the rules are either different-- or simply have a shift of emphasis. For example, in natal chart interpretation, I think aspects are probably the most important part of the horoscope, and that quintiles are extremely important.

Horary plays by different rules and has a dynamic quality to it that modern natal chart interpretation does not. When I decided to learn horary, I focussed on the traditional sources that were more streamlined. Somewhat hybrid, if you like.

 

[david starling]

At this point I feel like tossing the traditional rulers of Aquarius, Pisces, and Scorpio make Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars quite flat characters. I would say that Saturn is not alien to Aquarius at all, but rather we're just flattening Saturn's character and Aquarius's character and I think when we do that we're doing them a disservice.

It would make me more inclined to think that if we're going to use Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto, if they might be domiciled in two signs, too, as the traditional planets (not luminaries) are.

Why have 2 Planets mucking around as Rulers of one Sign? Especially the most contractive and structured facing off against the most expansive and least structured? The dual-Rulership concept is extremely anti-Traditional. Traditionally, it's either one-on-one (Moon, Sun), or one Planet ruling 2 signs--not the other way around. And, if one-on-one Rulership makes Jack a dull boy, the Moon and Sun would be "flat" also.
For me, it's important to maintain as much of the Tradition as possible while expanding the Rulership group.

 

[graay ghost]

Why have 2 Planets mucking around as Rulers of one Sign?

I think we need a better reason why not. I'm more inclined to toss the outers than make traditional planets give up their traditional domiciles.

Especially the most contractive and structured facing off against the most expansive and least structured?

This bothers me. Have you ever studied math? Science?

The dual-Rulership concept is extremely anti-Traditional. Traditionally, it's either one-on-one (Moon, Sun), or one Planet ruling 2 signs--not the other way around. And, if one-on-one Rulership makes Jack a dull boy, the Moon and Sun would be "flat" also.
For me, it's important to maintain as much of the Tradition as possible while expanding the Rulership group.

Someone mentioned the idea of Sun/Cancer and Moon/Leo being corulerships, which intrigues me. Otherwise, I don't know. Luminaries are odd ducks.

 

[waybread]

Why have 2 Planets mucking around as Rulers of one Sign? Especially the most contractive and structured facing off against the most expansive and least structured? The dual-Rulership concept is extremely anti-Traditional. Traditionally, it's either one-on-one (Moon, Sun), or one Planet ruling 2 signs--not the other way around. And, if one-on-one Rulership makes Jack a dull boy, the Moon and Sun would be "flat" also.
For me, it's important to maintain as much of the Tradition as possible while expanding the Rulership group.

David, I don't get this at all. In the matter of, say, Aquarius in a natal chart, sometimes Saturn works well. Sometimes Uranus works well. Sometimes they work well together. It has nothing to do with dullness or flatness.

How do you use modern planets in a natal chart interpretation? Would it help it we looked at a practice chart?

The trads or hybrid astrologers whom I know about, who work with modern outers, tend to use them as supplementary data points. I don't have a problem looking at dual rulerships any more than I have a problem with the notion of one child having two parents. Just spend time with the chart and see what each ruler is telling you.

 

[david starling]

graay ghost, excellent explanation! Have you ever delved into Alchemy?
I'm still sticking with sole Uranian Rulership of Aquarius, though, with Pluto as "Regulator" (similar to, but not in this case, "Co-Ruler"), and Merc. as "Motivator". It's part of a symmetrical pattern I had to work out to explain things for myself. I totally agree with you on the "inevitability", but I believe it's a delicate process occurring in our own psyches. A work in progress of the utmost importance. Thanks for your profound insight!

 

[david starling]

David, I don't get this at all. In the matter of, say, Aquarius in a natal chart, sometimes Saturn works well. Sometimes Uranus works well. Sometimes they work well together. It has nothing to do with dullness or flatness.

How do you use modern planets in a natal chart interpretation? Would it help it we looked at a practice chart?

The trads or hybrid astrologers whom I know about, who work with modern outers, tend to use them as supplementary data points. I don't have a problem looking at dual rulerships any more than I have a problem with the notion of one child having two parents. Just spend time with the chart and see what each ruler is telling you.

I use them as Planets that rule Signs, like the rest. I also recognize there are interrelationships between them based on patterning, and in that regard, I don't distinguish them as "Outers" at all--just three more Planets. Why it that distinction so important for a Modern version of Astrology?

 

[david starling]

The main problem I have with the outers is this: When people talk about Saturn (and to a lesser extent, Jupiter), they talk about it as something that happens to them, as something beyond their control. It's language that is starkly different than how one would talk about one's moon or Venus, for example. However, once we get to the outers, it goes back to "mine mine mine," as if they were personal planets again. Why would a planet further away from the Earth and the sun than Saturn be more personal than Saturn? It's totally bizarre.

I look at outers while reading birth charts and transits but when calculating anything, like dominant elements and dispositors, I throw them out. Aside from people acting weird with them (I'm pluto dominant! I'm plutonic! etc) I think they're just too slow-moving for stuff like that.

Modern Astrology is [IMO] open to new ideas and the reinterpretation of old ones. There should be no expectation that others will agree with any changes you make, or that you will agree with changes others make. This forum should be about sharing and learning, not arguing over who's right or wrong. But expressing disagreement and your reason(s) for that will help with the learning process, as long as it's not about imposing your opinions on others. That said, I use the idea that faster movement implies "more personal" and slower movement means "less personal"; keeping in mind that one can personally identify with a Ruler that has a relatively impersonal effect.

 

[waybread]

I use them as Planets that rule Signs, like the rest. I also recognize there are interrelationships between them based on patterning, and in that regard, I don't distinguish them as "Outers" at all--just three more Planets. Why it that distinction so important for a Modern version of Astrology?

The distinction is important if we contrast the "modern outers" with the so-called personal planets: sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars. Jupiter stays in a sign for roughly a year; and Saturn, for over 2 years, so we tend to share their signs with others of our age. At their simplest (and thus incomplete) levels, we might think of Jupiter as the principle of optimism and expansion; and Saturn, as the principle of constriction and pessimism.

The personal planets have to do with your most basic personal chemistry: your sense of self, emotional nature, thinking and speaking patterns, loves, and assertiveness. Everybody who isn't brain-damaged has these core dimensions to their personality.

The Personal planets also move very quickly, from the moon orbiting the earth monthly, to Mars orbiting the sun every two years. Translate them into a chart, and we see a lot of change in terms of where they are and how they relate to other planets.

Incidentally "inner" planets refer to those between the earth and the sun, or "inferior" planets. "Outer" or "superior" planets are technically beyond the earth's orbit.

Beyond these traditional planets, the modern planets are more generational in terms of how long they stay in a sign. Uranus=about 7, Neptune=14. Pluto's orbit is elliptical but it can stay in a sign for 20 years or so. Pluto can hover within a couple of degrees during an entire year. This is why they are sometimes called "generational" planets. Particularly with Neptune and Pluto, people share their signs with an entire generation.

While modern outer planets do affect people on a personal level as they interact with personal planets and angles; the modern outer planets operate at a more generational or historical level. The Enlightenment and air travel are Uranian. Neptune seems associated with the cinema and widespread use of recreational drugs. Pluto, to radioactive substances. Except for specific drugs in specific cultures, all of these are more distinctly modern phenomena.

 

[wilsontc]

Modern astrology ONLY, to all

All,

The Modern Astrology part of the forum is for Modern astrology ONLY. This is NOT the place to debate whether or not the outers should or shouldn't be used because of traditional astrological techniques. It is also NOT the place to bring up traditional astrology. If you want to create a "cross-over" posting about the differences between modern and traditional astrology, do it on the "Natal Astrology" Forum. I have deleted the traditional and off-topic responses to this Modern astrology forum posting.

Back on the Modern topic,

Tim

 

[graay ghost]

I'm confused as to what is considered "modern" versus "traditional". I thought the entire idea of astrology as more psychological/internal was modern, and would still be modern even if one chose to not use outer planets in that interpretation. Or is modern astrology only defined by the use of outer planets?

 

[Oddity]

Don't usually stick my head in here. Tim, move this if it's out of place.

Traditional astrology emphasises prediction, but you can create a decent psychological profile with it using the moon, Mercury, the lord of manners, etc. I think the assumption in trad astrology is that the querent already knows himself and what he's thinking, what he wants to discover is something he can't know, like what's going to happen.

That may be the difference in psychological focus between trad and modern. A lot of people go to a modern astrologer and say something like 'tell me about myself'. In trad, when we hear 'read my chart' we're hearing that someone wants to know the entirety of their life - and ask them to narrow it down a bit!

Also, concepts such as karma, past lives, and spiritual evolution have no place in the western tradition. Don't take that to mean that trad is unspiritual, it just doesn't look at things the way modern western does.

Most modern astrology sees the chart as representative of the person. In trad, the person is in the chart, but so is their life (there are lots of things external to you in your chart). Modern tends to see all planets as active at all times in keeping with the chart is the person idea, while in trad planets are only active if they're activated by profection or solar return or other predictive technique. A planet may only be active once in your life, maybe that's all it needs to fulfil the natal promise.

Modern doesn't contain most of the technique that trad does, a few specialist types like cosmobiology invented their own techniques, though.

And, yes, modern astrology counts outer planets and sometimes asteroids as worthy of delineation, whilst trad doesn't.

 

[waybread]

"Modern psychological astrology" was the big buzz in the 1970s and '80s-- although it began earlier, with the books of Dane Rudhyar. I think it's a misnomer, as few of the astrologers claiming this affiliation have had legitimate degrees in psychology-- as it is practiced in universities across the English-speaking world. [Liz Greene's Ph. D. in psychology was from a long-ago defunct Los Angeles diploma mill. She more recently (2010) obtained a Ph. D. from an accredited university (Bristol, in the UK) but it is in history, not psychology.]

There are a few credentialed psychologists who acquire a knowledge of astrology, but not many. (States, countries, or provinces regulate who qualifies as a licenced psychologist.)

Jungian psychology remains popular among some psychologists and astrologers, but you won't find it taught as a specialization in accredited comprehensive universities: only in specialized institutes with a decidedly more metaphysical flavour. http://www.jungnewyork.com/univ_jung.shtml Psychologists today often refer to their field as behavioural science, and it is a long way from metaphysics or philosophy.

Oddity wrote:

Also, concepts such as karma, past lives, and spiritual evolution have no place in the western tradition. Don't take that to mean that trad is unspiritual, it just doesn't look at things the way modern western does.

There are modern astrologers who specialize in these areas. They wouldn't define the field as a whole. In reading a lot of nativities for people here and at Astrodienst, I think it is rare to find someone who wants to learn about her spiritual evolution. "Karma" has become another buzz word, unfortunately, with people wondering whether their streak of rotten luck is due to past lives bad karma, or whether a relationship with someone is karmic.

I tend to take a much more matter-of-fact approach, and do not look at people's "karma."

I think it's fair to say that modern astrologers focus more on natal chart interpretation, and trads more on predictive tools such as horary astrology. But this is more a matter of emphasis.

As my time permits, I try to understand Hellenistic astrology. These "trads" focused extensively on character in natal chart interpretation. Traditional astrology today has a long history of studying a nativity for temperament, which has a lot to do with the proportion and strength of the four elements I the chart. Temperament isn't psychology, but it does get at personality factors.

 

[david starling]

I'm a firm believer in well-defined terms. There wouldn't be Modern without Traditional, but many of the Traditional terms no longer apply, or just aren't being used by many Modern Astrologers. Or, if they are are being used, the meaning has been altered. The Modern designation "co-ruler" isn't Traditional, but there is something like it which changes based on Essential Dignities. Saturn, for example, being "Exalted" in Libra, can potentially take over main Rulership of that Sign, making Venus, which is "Domiciled" in Libra, essentially Saturn's co-ruler of that Sign. In Modern Astrology the "Rulership" remains in place regardless of other factors. Rulership of Libra is always accorded to Venus, as is that of Taurus. "Outer Planets" (which, as waybread points out, are those with Heliocentric orbits farther from the Sun than Earth's), are always accorded Rulership of their respective Signs, and ONLY 3 of them, those outside of Saturn's orbit, are paired with Co-Rulers for the Signs they always Rule, and always the same Co-Rulers regardless of other factors. Since I need better patterns for my version of Modern Astrology, this arrangement doesn't work for me. Something new needs to be added (actually, several new things) for a Modern Pattern I can use with confidence. I hesitate to share what I've added and changed. While it's very much in keeping with "standard" Modern viewpoints, it's also radically different in other ways. If I do explain it, NO AGREEMENT EXPECTED OR NECESSARY. Just sharing.

 

[Flapjacks]

What do you think of the term "higher octave" that is commonly used in conjunction with the relationship between outer and personal planets for modern astrology?

The association seems arbitrary structurally except for Mars, which is associated with Pluto through traditional dual-rulership of Scorpio. Yet Mercury and Venus still have dual-rulership in modern astrology and they are given this "higher octave" association with Uranus and Neptune. I can't fathom how Venus is actually related to Neptune. Mercury makes more sense with Uranus purely by their elemental association.

How does that fit in?

 

[david starling]

What do you think of the term "higher octave" that is commonly used in conjunction with the relationship between outer and personal planets for modern astrology?

The association seems arbitrary structurally except for Mars, which is associated with Pluto through traditional dual-rulership of Scorpio. Yet Mercury and Venus still have dual-rulership in modern astrology and they are given this "higher octave" association with Uranus and Neptune. I can't fathom how Venus is actually related to Neptune. Mercury makes more sense with Uranus purely by their elemental association.

How does that fit in?

I don't use the octaves. I had to coin some terms: Domiciled (which I hadn't heard of until I joined the Community) is "Native Ruler"; "Regulator" is close to the meaning of "Co-Ruler"; and, "Motivator", which involves a stimulating, catalytic effect. And, there's a "Service-arrangement" between the Motivator and Regulator of each Sign, in Seasonal order. It's a static pattern, which proceeds in Direct Motion around the Tropical Zodiac. In this configuration, Mercury is catalytic to Aquarius and Motivational to that Sign's Native-ruler, Urainus. Venus is catalytic to Gemini and Motivational to its Native-ruler Mercury, and is in Service to Gemini's Regulator, Neptune. Other Service examples: Mercury in Service to Pluto, Pluto in Service to Mars, and Mars in Service to Jupiter.