Just saying

[Munch]

Pluto does not equal Scorpio and vice versa.

Uranus does not equal Aquarius.

Neptune does not equal Pisces.

I see this all of the time and just wanted to point it out. They are not the same thing. They may have an affinity for each other and some would even say the outer planets rule the above mentioned signs but that doesn't make them one and the same.

I don't really know why I felt compelled to post this, except that hopefully people remember. It does have a bearing on ones ability to properly delineate a chart.

[moved to Traditional Astrology since Modern Astrologers might differ with this interpretation - Moderator]

 

[Frank]

Absolutely. I've been saying this for years and I take it a step farther:

Planets do not equal signs do not equal houses.

 

[Munch]

Good follow up point Frank. It gets way too easy to just make a quick judgement based on generalities. All too often this results in incomplete readings where the subtle details that fine tune behavioral tendencies (for instance) get shuffled under the rug and missed all together.

This is actually why I stick to the original Rulers but that's another post.

 

[Ixaee]

I believe many of us (myself included) only speak of them together generally...

I know the difference between planets and signs. However, speaking about general attributes, I do sometimes group them together to imply similarities. Nothing more.

 

[Munch]

I suppose that this post is more for those that are just starting out.

If I was new and saw all of the generalizatins pandered about, I'd draw the conclusions that it all equates to the same thing, but I get ya.

 

[dr. farr]

I agree, and since we are talking about = (not merely affinitive) I'll add the following:
(here = means "the same as")
Sun does not = Leo
Mars does not = Aries or Scoprio
Moon does not = Cancer
Mercury does not = Gemini or Virgo
Venus does not = Taurus or Libra
Jupiter does not = Sagittarius or Pisces
Saturn does not = Capricorn or Aquarius

That each planet is domicile/lord/dispositor/ruler/affinitive to each respective sign, yes, absolutely so; but one does NOT equal the other, ie, they are not the same thing!

 

[JUPITERASC]

I agree, and since we are talking about = (not merely affinitive) I'll add the following:
(here = means "the same as")
Sun does not = Leo
Mars does not = Aries or Scoprio
Moon does not = Cancer
Mercury does not = Gemini or Virgo

Venus does not = Taurus or Libra
Jupiter does not = Sagittarius or Pisces
Saturn does not = Capricorn or Aquarius

That each planet is domicile/lord/dispositor/ruler/affinitive to each respective sign, yes, absolutely so; but one does NOT equal the other, ie, they are not the same thing!

.

 

[Opal]

I’m a modernist.

But agree that, each planet is unto its own.

Each zodiacal sign is unto its own.

Each fixed star or asteroid or other entity, is unto its own.

 

[FraterAC]

Zipporah Dobyns practiced and taught a take on astrology she called something like the 12-character alphabet. In it, Aries=1st House=Mars, Taurus=2nd house=Venus, Gemini=3rd house=Mercury, etc, and vice versa. Sign, house, and planet were considered pretty much completely interchangeable in delineation.
I challenged this in a workshop she was giving, many years ago, and she pretty much squashed me. Somewhat uncomfortable.
The concept may have some utility, but I still do not believe Sign, house and planet are equivalent. If one reduces their characteristics to keywords, they look similar.
IMO we do not want to perform dimension reduction (as defined in modern physics) with these elements, but dimension expansion.

 

[katydid]

Zipporah Dobyns practiced and taught a take on astrology she called something like the 12-character alphabet. In it, Aries=1st House=Mars, Taurus=2nd house=Venus, Gemini=3rd house=Mercury, etc, and vice versa. Sign, house, and planet were considered pretty much completely interchangeable in delineation.
I challenged this in a workshop she was giving, many years ago, and she pretty much squashed me. Somewhat uncomfortable.
The concept may have some utility, but I still do not believe Sign, house and planet are equivalent. If one reduces their characteristics to keywords, they look similar.
IMO we do not want to perform dimension reduction (as defined in modern physics) with these elements, but dimension expansion.

I think I was in that same lecture by Zipporah at a conference, probably about 40 years ago. lol

My long time teacher was Marion March, and she taught that in a similar way, but of course never said they were the same thing.

Planets are different from signs which are different from houses. What is the old analogy---the planets are the actors, the signs are their costumes/props and the houses are the various stages thy perform on? Or something like that.

What I took from Dobyns and March, when they spoke about that 12 character 'alphabet' was something very helpful in chart delineation, IMO.

Marion always taught that unless you see a pattern of something, with at least three clues, then it is not as important in a chart. So if you are going to say that the native has an impulsive or assertive behaviour, then there should be at least three indications of that in the chart.

So the native might have a 1st house stellium in a cardinal sign, and maybe one of the lights in Aries, and a strongly aspected Mars?

Thus if you see three or more strong examples of the '1st house/Mars/Aries' alphabet in a chart then you can be more certain of those attributes.

Again, a 1st house stellium is not the same as an Aries Moon or a T-square to Mars. But if you have all 3 of those significators then there may be some similarities in how they show up in the native's persona. IMO

 

[katydid]

.

I wonder if it means anything that :

Mercury and Jupiter's co-rulers are squaring each other
Venus and Mars co-rulers are quincunx each other
Saturn's are semi-sextile each other

=
= in-
= in-
=
=semi-

 

[FraterAC]

I think I was in that same lecture by Zipporah at a conference, probably about 40 years ago.

Well then you might remember what she blasted me about.
I look a little different, now, though.

 

[katydid]

Well then you might remember what she blasted me about.
I look a little different, now, though.

No, I really don't remember much of it anymore. It probably wasn't even the same workshop....she was pretty continuously traveling around doing them I believe.

What did she blast you about? Was it because you disagreed with her 12 alphabet premise? ...I do remember her blasting someone about sitting and eating sunflower seeds during her lecture though. lol...she said it was distracting. then she went off on a side tangent ...

Her son was doing one that weekend as well, IIRC, on the asteroids. I think it was the first time I learned much about them.

 

[JUPITERASC]

I wonder if it means anything that :
Mercury and Jupiter's co-rulers are squaring each other

Venus and Mars co-rulers are quincunx each other

Regarding TRADITIONAL ASTROLOGY:
they're IN AVERSION
and not aspecting
Aversion occurs when two signs are not related by aspect
so that planets in them cannot see each other
and
when a planet in a sign cannot see its own sign.
Aversion also helps explain the negative meanings
of four traditional houses: the twelfth, second, sixth & eighth.

Saturn's are semi-sextile each other

not TRADITIONAL ASTROLOGY

=
= in-
= in-
=
=

 

[JUPITERASC]

I think I was in that same lecture by Zipporah at a conference, probably about 40 years ago. lol My long time teacher was Marion March, and she taught that in a similar way, but of course never said they were the same thing. What I took from Dobyns and March, when they spoke about that 12 character 'alphabet' was something very helpful in chart delineation, IMO.

That's Modernistic astrology

Marion always taught that unless you see a pattern of something, with at least three clues, then it is not as important in a chart. So if you are going to say that the native has an impulsive or assertive behaviour, then there should be at least three indications of that in the chart. So the native might have a 1st house stellium in a cardinal sign, and maybe one of the lights in Aries, and a strongly aspected Mars?

That's Modernistic astrology
That's Not Traditional astrology
& you have mentioned without citing references
some solid notes from traditional sources are required
because
Modernistic discussion is inappropriate on
TRADITIONAL BOARD

Thus if you see three or more strong examples of the '1st house/Mars/Aries' alphabet in a chart then you can be more certain of those attributes. Again, a 1st house stellium is not the same as an Aries Moon or a T-square to Mars. But if you have all 3 of those significators then there may be some similarities in how they show up in the native's persona. IMO

That's Modernistic astrology

Zipporah Dobyns practiced and taught a take on astrology she called something like the 12-character alphabet. In it, Aries=1st House=Mars, Taurus=2nd house=Venus, Gemini=3rd house=Mercury, etc, and vice versa. Sign, house, and planet were considered pretty much completely interchangeable in delineation. I challenged this in a workshop she was giving, many years ago, and she pretty much squashed me. Somewhat uncomfortable.

That's not Traditional astrology

The concept may have some utility, but I still do not believe Sign, house and planet are equivalent. If one reduces their characteristics to keywords, they look similar. IMO we do not want to perform dimension reduction (as defined in modern physics) with these elements, but dimension expansion.

Discussion clearly NON-Traditional Modernistic astrological chat

***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

This is the Traditional Astrology forum. Out of all the different boards in this forum, this one is the home for traditional astrologers. It was created so that traditional astrologers can discuss traditional astrology with each other, without having to justify it to non-traditionalists or be...

www.astrologyweekly.com

.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Although I nor it supports the idea that for example Aries is not the same as Mars or the first house, this idea brings me back to when I was trying to figure out some of what Jeffrey Wolf. Green has written and taught on Evolutionary Astrology.

Clearly NON-Traditional Modernistic astrological chat

***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

This is the Traditional Astrology forum. Out of all the different boards in this forum, this one is the home for traditional astrologers. It was created so that traditional astrologers can discuss traditional astrology with each other, without having to justify it to non-traditionalists or be...

www.astrologyweekly.com

.

 

[JUPITERASC]

I don't really know why I felt compelled to post this, except that hopefully people remember. It does have a bearing on ones ability to properly delineate a chart.

good point

[moved to Traditional Astrology since Modern Astrologers might differ with this interpretation - Moderator]

HOWEVER
currently is off-topic TRADITIONALLY

.

 

[Mona Ki]

Zipporah Dobyns practiced and taught a take on astrology she called something like the 12-character alphabet. In it, Aries=1st House=Mars, Taurus=2nd house=Venus, Gemini=3rd house=Mercury, etc, and vice versa. Sign, house, and planet were considered pretty much completely interchangeable in delineation.
I challenged this in a workshop she was giving, many years ago, and she pretty much squashed me. Somewhat uncomfortable.
The concept may have some utility, but I still do not believe Sign, house and planet are equivalent. If one reduces their characteristics to keywords, they look similar.
IMO we do not want to perform dimension reduction (as defined in modern physics) with these elements, but dimension expansion.

Based on history, it is not even possible that sign, houses and planets are equivalent. The meaning of the signs were derived from the planets. The meaning of the houses were primarily derived from 3 things: 1) angularity, 2) configuration to the rising sign, 3) the joys of the planets. From what I recall, the meanings of houses and planets developed at different times and in different places.

There aren't even the so-called natural houses. So the Moon in the 1st house doesn't equal a Moon in Aries.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Based on history, it is not even possible that sign, houses and planets are equivalent. The meaning of the signs were derived from the planets. The meaning of the houses were primarily derived from 3 things: 1) angularity, 2) configuration to the rising sign, 3) the joys of the planets. From what I recall, the meanings of houses and planets developed at different times and in different places. There aren't even the so-called natural houses. So the Moon in the 1st house doesn't equal a Moon in Aries.

Check out “HISTORY OF THE ZODIAC”
- an in-depth exploration of the origins of the Babylonian Zodiac
and its location in the ecliptic -
which reveals that
the division of the ecliptic into tropical astrological signs
was originally a derivation of
Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.)
"...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months
commencing with the vernal equinox
in which each solar aka tropical month
is named after one of each of the twelve signs..."
Dr. Robert Powell
TROPICAL ZODIAC is SEASONAL CALENDAR
the key point being that the signs of the original sidereal zodiac
each thirty degrees long
coincide closely with the twelve astronomical constellations of the same name

The SIGNS of the ASTROLOGICAL TROPICAL ZODIAC
are defined in relation to the vernal point
and so now have no direct relationship to the corresponding
zodiacal constellationsxhaving drifted westwards

the Vernal Point is currently visible at Sidereal Pisces
NOT Tropical Aries
owing to the precession of the equinoxes

People thought that the planets were stars as well
just that unlike the '..fixed stars..' they '..wandered..' slightly,
so the planets were known as '..the wandering stars..'

The planets got their name from the Greek word planetes
meaning wanderer/subject of error
and behaved in ways that were difficult to explain.
Sometimes, these wanderers showed retrograde motion
they seemed to stop and move in a reverse direction
when viewed against the background of the distant constellations
or
aka fixed stars, which did not move relative to one another.

"..There are two zodiacs. The Sidereal zodiac is a physical reality
depicting commonly acknowledged pictures
made up of groups of stars used by astronomers and astrologers.

The Tropical zodiac is a mathematical construct used by astrologers only.
- is detached from the '..Images..'
or
aka constellations and detached from precession also.
Therefore often a person's tropical sun sign
is different from their Sidereal sun sign.

Thousands of years ago when the ancients looked up to the skies
they noticed tiny points of light that seemed not to move
and they called these stars.
The ancients noticed other bright objects in the night sky
that they assumed were stars but they were puzzled
because - in comparison - these other bright objects
'..wandered around the sky..': so
they called the bright points of light that seemed not to move
'..the fixed stars..'
and they called the bright objects that - in comparison
- '..wandered about..' the '..wandering stars..'
An ancient Greek word for wanderer is '..planetes..'
so
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn
became known as '..the wandering stars..' or '..planetes..' aka '..planets..'

.

 

[FraterAC]

What did she blast you about?

No, I wasn't eating sunflower seeds.
I'd been reading Lilly's Introduction to Astrology (horary astrology) and was trying to make sense of dignities and how he was using them. This was several years before the start of Project Hindsight, or any real interest in what's now called Traditional astrology. I mentioned something about dignities.
She said something like, you're challenging what I'm doing, but you're hung up on something as nonsensical as dignities?
Burn.