Sign-rulership

[graay ghost]

Wasn't the word 'collective' once in fashion for the 'transpersonal' planets?

Was it? I'm not sure. That sounds like something that would have fallen out of vogue with communism, though.

I don't use 'outer' or 'transpersonal' or 'public' planets for certain things. In a way, they're like your hometown or the school you went to. Is that important to a person? Sure. Do they have an affect on people? Of course. But when you consider them major parts of the individual, overriding everything else, well, I don't consider that to be true most of the time, and if one does consider it true, that's probably not a good thing. So yes, when determining dominant planets or final dispositors and things like that, I don't count them. I do count them for transits and progressions and other techniques. I have a problem with overidentifying people with the forces that may have just been kicking them around all their lives.

 

[david starling]

[Quote: I was thinking more in terms of sub-conscious ruler.]

"Subliminal", maybe, which would make them effective, but shadowy, substitute-Rulers when the Native-ruler is in a weakened state.


[Quote: Wasn't the word 'collective' once in fashion for the 'transpersonal' planets?]

There is a generational effect, but when it comes to the Chart, it's still an Individualistic matter.

 

[Kitchy]

Starling gave a spot-on read of my brother's natal chart a couple/few months back.

 

[david starling]

Kitchy caused me to reevaluate Saturn's effect in a Chart. Not the I thought it was. I'd heard others saying something similar, but she KNEW it from the inside out.

 

[Kitchy]

You mean, someone actually listens to me about Saturn? (but, I know there are few others of us out there...)

Glad to be part of your conceptual shift.... Thanks!

Kitchy ~ Jup/Sat conjunct in Saturn

 

[Alkaid]

I think it may be an idea for moderns to keep the traditional rulers as co rulers, at least. Many still do.

The big issue I have with the modern replacements is that in traditional astrology Mars is actually at his strongest in scorpio. Where he's both a domicile ruler +5 and a tripliciity ruler +3, plus mars is in sect by sign ie he's nocturnal.

But nowadays Mars only belongs to Aries to some moderns, which is actually his worst placement among the 3 signs he has major dignity in. In Aries mars is too reckless, not adaptable, and runs out of steam too quick, whereas in Scorpio he is calculating, subtle and has nearly endless stamina. This is why in traditional astrology Mars was said to rejoice in Scorpio and not Aries. Even Capricorn Mars tens to function better than Aries mars.

Plus mars as a natural malefic is overly hot and dry, Aries fire exacerbates this. Which is why many traditionalists like Ptolemy and Lilly assign Mars as a triplicity ruler of water signs by day and night. Elementally the cold and wet nature of water balances the overly hot and dry nature of mars.

Saturn is another one who's better side has been overlooked lately. Saturn is overly cold and dry, so just assigning it to Capricorn only shows the planet's worst side among it's 3 majorly dignified placements. Traditionalists believe generally that Saturn functions better in air signs Libra and Aquarius due to the hot and moist element of air balancing Saturns extreme dryness and cold. Saturn was said to rejoice in Aquarius in traditional astrology, not Capricorn.

By balancing a malefics extreme nature, symbolized by their climates that are not conducive to life (too hot, too cold, too dry etc) a dignified malefic can become more benefic than it would be otherwise.

In order to understand these planets it's a good idea to keep those traditional rulerships and not disregard them. Add to them if you wish, but don't throw them away.

 

[david starling]

I agree, Alkaid, as close as possible to Astrology's Traditional roots, given the additional Rulers. But the branches aren't the roots, and there will be some differences, and many branches. For those, like myself, who feel compelled to develop a Modern Rulership paradigm: Don't expect much agreement (it's YOUR branch), and [IMO] this Modern Forum is the best place to explain it for those who are interested.
As far as Mars/Aries is concerned, I've had to coin some new terminology to explain Sign-Rulership interactions. "Native-rulership" means that a Vibration associated with a Ruler is producing a behavioral Program known as a Sign. So, I would expect a Fire-sign to have a hot, dry Ruler, or one involving the firery Sun--like produces like. Obedience to Native-rulership is another matter! It's a sort of parental arrangement, and Aries might prefer obeying a different Ruler. Lots of interactions in somewhat complicated ways. It occurs to me that "Ruler" by itself, is too ambiguous a term, because it implies a level of influence that may not be the case. But, I prefer to continue using it in a qualified manner.
I appreciate your input!

 

[waybread]

David, you completely lose me with your "vibrational" thesis.

In terms of the traditional rulers of the fire signs:

Aries: Mars is very hot and dry

Leo: the sun is hot and dry

Sagittarius: Jupiter is hot and moist.

See: http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/albiruniplanetsgeneral.html

 

[Frisiangal]

I think it may be an idea for moderns to keep the traditional rulers as co rulers, at least. Many still do.

The big issue I have with the modern replacements is that in traditional astrology Mars is actually at his strongest in scorpio. Where he's both a domicile ruler +5 and a tripliciity ruler +3, plus mars is in sect by sign ie he's nocturnal.

(I would refer you to the moderator's comments re: traditional versus modern, made on post #15.)

Without going into the merits that 'traditional 'astrology applies to sign rulerships, I was astrologically brought up with the 'modern' working thought that Mars was more related to Scorpio during youth - pre maturity when it's all about the power force of ego and hormones. Pluto took over rulership once the force and power of depth of emotions became more significant.
I believe there to be a lot of truth in the difference. When is Mars ever able
to consider the importance of others and how they work before and beyond its own?

But nowadays Mars only belongs to Aries to some moderns, which is actually his worst placement among the 3 signs he has major dignity in. In Aries mars is too reckless, not adaptable, and runs out of steam too quick, whereas in Scorpio he is calculating, subtle and has nearly endless
stamina

Not thinking in terms of traditional rulerships, 'too reckless and not adaptable' would seem to apply more to Sagittarius. Mars of Aries does not run out of steam. It creates the fire that energises spirit, yet lacks the patience to carry on regardless. It's in Scorpio that its fire is doused with
water. What does fire and water create? S-t-e-a-m!

Even Capricorn Mars tens to function better than Aries mars.

It doesn't function better; it functions differently. Mars in Aries is the planner with the ideas; Mars in Capricorn is the constructor with the bricks and mortar.

Saturn is another one who's better side has been overlooked lately. Saturn is overly cold and dry, so just assigning it to Capricorn only shows the planet's worst side among it's 3 majorly dignified placements. Traditionalists believe generally that Saturn functions better in air signs Libra and Aquarius due to the hot and moist element of air balancing Saturns extreme dryness and cold. Saturn was said to rejoice in Aquarius in traditional astrology, not Capricorn.

I'm glad you confirmed that it is a belief and not a rule.

By balancing a malefics extreme nature, ..................

Which is not a term(no pun intended) used in 'modern' astrology application.

In order to understand these planets it's a good idea to keep those traditional rulerships and not disregard them.

I admit that, personally, I consider traditional rulerships more than I used to, yet this is in relationship to the importance and strength of Sun and Moon aspects in a chart.

 

[david starling]

It's all "theoretical". Some theories resonate for some, but not others. I'm using "Vibration" as it relates to String Theory. For me, the physical characteristics of the Rulers that matter are those easily seen, and are clues to go on, not certainties. Patterns are very important to me, fine-tuned by clues. For example, the heliocentric pattern applied as a cipher for the geocentric Zodiacal system can point to the Equinoctial Rulers, Venus and Mars, as equivalent and opposite, with orbits relative to the Earth's as the Reference orbit. The reddish Color of Mars then "suggests" that Mars rules the Fire-sign of the two Equinoctial Signs, where the choices are Fire or Air. The brightness of Venus due to its atmosphere suggests Air. The Moon and Saturn are as close to and farthest from Earth's orbit, but "farthest" is geocentric because "Solstitial" includes a limiting factor--the amount of tilt of axis to orbit limits the farthest distance between Tropics. Naked-eye vision geocentrically is my "limiting" reason for choosing Saturn as the "farthest" Solstitial Ruler. The Tropic of Cancer is the "close" Tropic in the Northern Hemisphere, where Astrology as I know it developed, and the Tropic of Capricorn is the farther of the two. The fact that the Moon affects the tides could go either way, since Capricorn is the materialistic Water-sign, the Sea Goat, or Goat-fish. The Moon's apparent effect on emotions, especially when Full, adds to the suggestion that it's the Cancerian Ruler, since that Solstitial-Sign is so much about emotion. Traditional affirmation of these theoretical choices for Cardinal Rulers is extremely important to me as well, because it's the first points of the Cardinal-signs that we're using to locate, set, position the Tropical Zodiac. Intuition is also involved, which is where Subjectivity should [IMO] be taken into account--lots of potential Modern "branches", while still respecting the Traditional "

 

[waybread]

David, at some point astrology isn't theoretical. It either works in chart interpretation or it doesn't.

If you get good practical results in reading charts for people with your system, that's super. Maybe you'd like to post or link an example. (Of course, nobody is required to read charts on this forum, but it would reinforce the value of your theories.)

 

[david starling]

David, at some point astrology isn't theoretical. It either works in chart interpretation or it doesn't.]

The posting of Charts to "prove" good results would only amount to anecdotal "evidence". I generally get what I and the person I'm reading for consider excellent results, and I always examine theory relative to feedback. We could all select instances of excellent feedback results, while excusing those which are lack-luster. If an interpretation was clearly wrong, I have had to question my theoretical assumptions, and I'm always ready to do so if an apparently incorrect Chart-interpretation requires it. The current configuration I'm using is working quite well for ME--so far, so good. And, information shared in this Community has been of great assistance in enabling me to add to the accuracy of my interpretations. But if you assert that ANYTHING Astrological either "works" or not, in the Objective sense, you're making a claim that it's verifiable using the scientific method, and that you can prove Astrology "works" according to Modern Science. I don't think you actually mean that, but it's what your comments seem to imply.
I, personally, needed theoretical patterns to steer me to the one-on-one "Native-rulership" assignments I'm using, along with all of the Sign-ruler relationships that amount to a Modern version of Traditional "Dignities". These have been "working for me" in Chart-reading, but I'm just sharing my subjective opinions and attempting to explain how I arrived at them.

 

[david starling]

I'm going to start a new Thread, just to make it clear that the views and ideas aren't intended to supercede anyone else's. Just sharing, and appreciating any constructive input.