I've been reading dadsnook's explanation of Planets in Containment as an interpretation methodology on this thread
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=17544
I like the idea, but if you ignore houses, surely all people born on the same day (and perhaps a couple of days on either side) will have mostly the same planetary triple sequences, even including Sun, Moon etc.
A triple-sequence of planets changes only when one of those planets "overtakes" the other.
So unless we want to say that interpretation will be mostly identical for all these people, how does this method distinguish between people born close by in space or time? Of course the positions of ASC-DESC-MC-IC change. Is that enough to distinguish two distinct people using this methodology?
Thanks in advance
Dave's on holiday at the moment; so I'll make a couple of observations from my point of view and leave it to Dave to develop when he returns.
Firstly: and most importantly; remember that this techique (or at least the original version) wasn't intended to replace the angles or even the houses. It's intended to modify the planet in question. Dave was showing that you can get a lot out of the technique in itself; though I think he was pushing the boundaries and intentionally being challenging by saying that aspects didn't matter.
Secondly:We are really talking about the modification of our interpretation of one or possibly a couple of planets in the chart. Many people may indeed have the same feature but to answer your question directly, houses do matter
if you are carrying out a natal analysis. There may, however, be circumstances in which houses as such don't matter; that is where you are not considering the topical areas of life, but life itself - such as primary directions or the length of life (something that is a no-no for modern Astrologers).
Let's keep it as simple as possible and deal with a natal chart but look at how the technique might affect firstly the planet and secondly the interpretation.
I'm going to keep myself to the original version, when Dave returns from his holidays, he can take up the story with a modern usage. Containment of beseigement is not a new techique. It did get a boost with the publication of the work mentioned in the thread you quote, but its use can be dated back around 2,000 years. Hellenistic Astrologers used it. However they used it in a more clearly defined sense that the modern users do.
Unlike the modern approach they were really concerned with the issue of whether the containment acted to restrict the planet's role or to weaken it, on the one hand, or boost it on the other. Unlike the modern version, containment could not only be bodily (as Dave mentions) or it could be by ray (aspect) and that can't be analysed without knowing the planet's zodiacal position. Incidentally they also allowed a situation where one planet did the containing. Thus take the Moon in Aquarius and Mars in Cancer. assuming no planets in either Pisces or Capricorn, Mars contains the Moon by its trine to Pisces and its opposition to Capricorn. This was a use of Sign based aspects.
Returning to the use of containment by two planets, which Dave was concerned with: The Hellenistic approach was to look at which two planets were don't the containment. Two cases in particular were seen as being important. The first where the two planets concerned were Mars and Saturn and this would be seen as weakening the contained planet. They kept containment or more accurately
enclosure to two clear cases. The first is bodily containment and they kept this to conjunctions. This would work simply if all three planets were in the same sign and there was no intervening planet. However the situation was more debilitating if the three were spread over around 15 degrees and very debilitating if the spread was around six degrees.
The second situation was one where the enclosed planet was boosted by enclosure by the two benefics, Jupiter and Venus. The same conditions in terms of position applied.
They also allowed this containment to occur through aspects (any one) with the aspects falling within seven degrees of the contained planet and especially strong if it fell within three degrees.
The interpretation depends not only on the strength of containment, either for good or ill, but also on the house that the contained planet rules and the house that it occupies. Thus the Ascendant of the native becomes very important for localising the effect. Without houses you can't localise and that means that you can't give more than a basic statement that a planet is stronger or weaker than it would otherwise be but nothing about how that change in its condition will manifest.
I have strong doubts about ignoring zodiacal placement (or simple 360 degree placement) and dealing only with order. And I certainly don't see the technique as particularly useful if we don't know house placements and indeed house rulers.
