Dumbarse question
Okay, my turn to ask basic questions: (I know I could go to the astro forum, but I prefer the feedback from here)
I used your chart yesterday to show a point to someone ( an 'astrologer') who is working out some type of seasonal calendar that wants to include decans and tarot cards. She wants the planet that 'rules' each decan to be shown.
Me: "Errrmmm ... I am not sure a planet rules a decan, a planet can be associated with or annote a decan." I explained the 'Chaldean' (as they call it) / G.D. system and the different 'astrological' system but she didn't want to do that .
She wants to make the first decan of a sign to go with the ruling planet, the next decan the exalted and the last the detriment (I suggested the first should be exalted {as it is 'rising' or being 'lifted up'}, and the second ... in the middle position 'up top', sitting on the throne; the ruling and , {after some debate, in which I conceded} the last decan the decline and detriment.
"But it still wont work" I told her, "there aren't enough planets to go, around. "
look "What do you mean?"
"All the signs have a ruling planet but not all the signs have an exalted planet."
"Yes they do!"
... here we go! So I showed her your chart (because it was the most handy one at the time, as I was also on tarotforum while talking to her)
She looks at it strange and goes "That's not right". I said although someone just made it, they didn't make it up, its pretty standard astrology.
"Why doesn't each sign have an exalted planet?"
"You're asking me and you are the astrologer! I don't know, its something I have pondered but never really got around to checking out."
She went off confused and said she would look it up (she probably wont and her project probably wont get off the ground - speaking from experience
).
But now I am curious.
Why doesn't each sign have an exalted planet?
(and if the moderator is reading this - who I believe is currently busy studying astrology - would like to comment, great ... I haven't heard his gnosis for a while )