Ruby Jewel
deleted.
I see the discrepancy now. A sign is 30 degrees, 10 degrees of which begin in the preceding house on the 20th day....which gives a total of 30 degrees for a sign and 30 degrees for the house alright. But, the dates they use do not coincide with the degrees of the house or sign. They are saying that November 13-22 are Sagittarius, when in fact, those dates are the last 10 degrees/days of Scorpio. They say the last 10 degrees of Scorpio are Sagittarius. I've never looked at the dates or the degres before because I know them by heart from astrology....this doesn't fit with astrology in terms of degrees and dates....but the houses and the decans fit if you divide the houses and the degrees the way they are in an astrology chart: 30 degrees for a house, a sign, and days of the month/sign. I know this will make us both nuts...just ignore it....which is what I intend to do....ignore their dates and degrees And continue using the correct astrology and houses chart, which would put your rising sign as King of Cups. You can ignore that too if you like (laugh).....sorry I got involved here. But I did learn something of interest.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. I satisfied myself with what's going on in the GD system a long time ago through many other books besides Crowley's, but I'm not really prepared to discuss it (mainly because I no longer remember exactly what I learned and am too lazy to go back and dig it up!) The 1/3-2/3 offset of the courts to the decans has a plausible basis for it. Just don't ask me to explain it. I'm sure some of the others here who are up on it can do so. In the meantime, these charts that Richard created a while ago show it better than I could explain it. (Note that the abbreviations are confusing; Kt/Knight in Thoth = King in RWS, K/King in GD = Prince/Knight in Thoth/RWS.) I believe Zephyros also posted a teaching thread on this a while ago.
Here are two pages from Jim Eshelman's Liber Theta (which you can get as a free dowmload from the College of Thelema) that does a fair job of explaining the cross-linking of the court cards to the signs. (Once again, in talking about "Knights" and "Princes," he's describing the Thoth Knights, which equate to RWS Kings, and the Thoth Princes that correspond to the RWS Knights.)
So, you are saying that he switched the roles of the Knights instead of the names? and the Knights now act like Kings instead of Knights....and the Kings take on the role of the Knights?....I can see calling a King a Prince because the Prince would naturally become the King. But the Knight does not change for me...he comes from the lower classes and rises to the top of the game....but he does not become the King as a natural progression....as does the Prince. So, changing the name works for me, but switching the role of the King to the Knight does not, particularly because the mutable/fixed energies did not change.Here are two pages from Jim Eshelman's Liber Theta (which you can get as a free dowmload from the College of Thelema) that does a fair job of explaining the cross-linking of the court cards to the signs. (Once again, in talking about "Knights" and "Princes," he's describing the Thoth Knights, which equate to RWS Kings, and the Thoth Princes that correspond to the RWS Knights.)
Here are two pages from Jim Eshelman's Liber Theta (which you can get as a free dowmload from the College of Thelema) that does a fair job of explaining the cross-linking of the court cards to the signs. (Once again, in talking about "Knights" and "Princes," he's describing the Thoth Knights, which equate to RWS Kings, and the Thoth Princes that correspond to the RWS Knights.)
So, you are saying that he switched the roles of the Knights instead of the names? and the Knights now act like Kings instead of Knights....and the Kings take on the role of the Knights?....I can see calling a King a Prince because the Prince would naturally become the King. But the Knight does not change for me...he comes from the lower classes and rises to the top of the game....but he does not become the King as a natural progression....as does the Prince. So, changing the name works for me, but switching the role of the King to the Knight does not, particularly because the mutable/fixed energies did not change.
So, from what I gather from this link is that everybody stays in the same place between fixed, mutable, and cardinal houses, but the missing "guna" of the three Gunas gets added to the personality which will give a balanced personality? So, then Queen of Wands which begins in the first decan of 12th house Pisces, she would also take on a fixed guna of Taurus because the King/Prince of Pentacles has the first decan in the first house of Aries. And all this connectedness links the entire zodiac together....everybody partaking of all three gunas. But this was already obvious because the first decan of Taurus comes under the Queen of Wands. What I don't understand is why the Queen takes on a predominantly fixed nature when she is predominantly a cardinal house.
I treat this primarily as a symbolic model aimed at bringing the "qualities" of the planetary decans into the tarot; I don't pay any attention to the calendar dates and just think of it as the "natural" zodiac starting with 0 degrees of Aries on the 1st House cusp. It's more a philosophical concept than an empirical one. I think Eshelman has it right in suggesting meditation rather than analysis as the best way to approach it. In practice, technical astrology has nothing much to do with tarot; it's "pasted on" as you mentioned in the other thread, but it does have uses in card interpretation.
The "shadow" decans are always behind the main pair in the zodiac, so the Queen of Wands has two Fire decans in Aries and one Water decan in Pisces; she doesn't reach Taurus, so she is predominantly Water of Fire, with an underlayment of Water of Water. Thus, she is mainly Cardinal with a hint of Mutability. Following her, the Prince of Disks represents mostly Air of Earth (two Taurus decans), with an underlayment of Air of Fire; so he is mainly Fixed with a hint of Cardinality. Regarding the Princesses, they are a backdrop, along with the Aces, for an entire quadrant of signs, centered on the Fixed sign in each set, and represent "Earth" of each sign in the quadrant. All of this makes for complex "personalities" for the court cards that come closer to mirroring human nature.
It seems to me that Eshelman was getting a bit scrambled with mixing the astrological modes with the Gunas, but I don't really understand them very well. He had me scratching my head with some of his statements.
To bring this back on topic, my Ascendant of 25 degrees of Scorpio falls in the third decan of that sign in the "natural" zodiac, which is picked up by the fiery Knight/King of Wands as its "shadow" Water decan. What I find interesting is that the planetary decan is Venus in Scorpio, represented by the 7 of Cups, but from a personality standpoint that Knight of Wands doesn't lie very far beneath the mild-mannered surface.