Interpreting Natal Chart: What to give weight to?

Minderwiz

Marie-Bernard said:
Thanks for those book recs, kalliope! The one by Suskin looks particularly exciting. What is the difference between traditional and classical astrology?

I'm not sure there is a difference

'Traditional' or the 'Tradition' is the term most often used but it's not a requirement to use it

'Classical' is usually associated with the greco-roman world or the classical Greek world but strictly speaking 'Hellenistic Astrology' is the correct term for that period, when considering the development of the horoscopic chart. That's because most of the developments occured outside mainland Greece but were by Greek speaking authors.

The other key areas of the tradition are

Arabic Astrology, (itself a misnomer, as much of it came from Persia and some of the major writers were not Arabs); This developed from around the seventh or eighth centuries AD and lasted into the medieval period.

Medieval Astrology (the practice and expanding of Arabic ideas by European writers. This occured from the time of the crusades and the meeting of European and Arab cultures - so twelfth century onwards approximately.

Seventeenth Century Astrology, The usual writers here are the English Astrologers, such as Lilly, Partridge, and Gadbury and the French Astrologer Jean Baptiste Morin. Morin was a revisionist but the English authors tend to be a development of the medieval tradition. Their ideas and views tended to dominate what was left of Western Astrology through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries up to the revisions of Alan Leo at the turn of the twentieth century.

It's Leo's revisions that still underpin much of Western Astrology, especially the emphasis on character analysis and Sun Signs. Since the 1950s the psychological approach, drawing mainly in the ideas of Jung, have dominated. Donna Cunningham falls into that approach, as Kalliope indicated.

Marie-Bernard said:
Are there any "code words" I could look for when I'm book shopping so I can tell the difference between harnessing Saturn's challenging energy to facilitate personal growth and a book that has the answers to 'what does it do, how does it function?'

I wish I could give an easy answer to that one. The best strategy is to look at what approach the author uses. Those using a psychological approach would fall into your first category there. Event oriented Astrologers, who include but by no means exclusively those following a traditional approach tend to fall into the latter. But there's overlap.

In my previous practice of a psychological approach (which didn't last long) I tended to use Stephen Arroyo, Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas as my key sources. They are now dated in terms of that approach and some of the other key figures of that time, such as Rob Hand, have shifted position quite markedly to a traditional approach. Arroyo's Chart Interpretation Handbook is a reasonably thin book. As a beginner you should try and look at a wide range of approaches to start with before settling on one that you intend to follow.

Obviously if you think psychology is too muddy anyway, you wouldn't pursue that one. Alternatively If you intend to use Astrology as part of psychological counselling, then it becomes almost madatory to use that approach.

Minderwiz

MasterJm said:
I dont have Mars for ruler of Scorpio. Pluto is the ruler. For me it's very difficult to feel what is more important without to see the whole chart, but planets in signs and their angles are more important for me than planets placements in the houses. I dont pay too much attention to traditional falls, exils etc too. All these are details. Aspects and rulers aspects are very important. Sun, Moon, Ascendant's aspects are the most important. I pay attention to decans and grades too.

I agree with you on completely on the need for a chart to make an assessment of the relative importance of the planets in nativity. I don't agree with you that details aren't important. One of the problems of the modern approach is that it has no real way of assessing whether a planet will act favourably or unfavourably, It tends to be hit and miss.

I'd be interested in your rationale for why Pluto rules Scorpio and not Aries or Virgo. I suspect it comes down to affinity. That is you feel that Pluto has an affinity with Scorpio.

How do you deal with someone who says Ceres rules Taurus and Charon rules Scorpio? The obvious answer is to use that well known phrases 'It works for me' or 'In my opinion'. The best one that I've come across was a claim from a well known author that Pisces had become more Neptunian in the last century or so, leading to Neptune being the ruler of Pisces. In other words they redefined Pisces to make it fit Neptune (in their opinion -which they passed off as fact).

I've seen the same done for Scorpio (a feminine fixed water sign) and Pluto. If you redefine the sign to meet the characteristics of a planet then you can claim rulership on the grounds of affinity. Modern writers tend to use 'ruler' in the way that traditional writers did when referring to objects, for example flowers, herbs, precious stones; or for occupations, such as a miller, or for colours, There's nothing wrong in that, as long as you know what you are doing and why. The trouble is that if you look at those traditional rulerships of objects, occupations or colours, you find that there's no agreement on what the rulers are. That's because objects can have properties that seem to belong to two or more planets. Deciding on which you think is the strongest property, or the property that is important for your present consideration, will help to determine which planet you choose, But you will find others who disagree for genuinely good reasons.

The traditional rulerships and exaltations for signs have a clear and systematic rationale. That doesn't make that rationale 'right' objectively. It does mean that once you start dismantling it in part, the whole system fails. If Pluto rules Scorpio, why does Mercury rule Virgo? How can Venus rule Libra and Taurus, when one is a fixed Earth sign and the other is a cardinal Air sign? And how come Mercury and Venus get to rule two signs any way?

However, I think we're in danger of straying too far off the original question. Rulerships are something a student has to address at some point, preferably early on. But it needs to be done in a structured way.

MasterJm

Mars is the ruler in Esoteric Astrology. Mars and 6th ray. For example Bailey (Dwahl Kuhl) supports that point of view. For me, Pluto is the ruler of Scorpio, because of the "die and reborn" issue and many other Pluto's scopes, Death is the tarot card of Scorpio besides. Pluto and 1st ray is the esoteric ruler of Pisces for the advanced Pisces souls. Pisces and Scorpio signs are connected through death and transformation issue. Destruction and rebirth. And Cancer symbolizes the incarnation in Esoteric Astrology.The final solution is the destruction of sutrama (see the symbol of Pisces) through death )-(, but deep psyhological death and rebirth and of course the unique sexual consolidation takes place in Scorpio. Mars is just a ****er

Can't feel one with someone else or posessed by someone else. Is just a organ, the penis or a knife, not Death itself.

How do you deal with someone who says Ceres rules Taurus and Charon rules Scorpio?

Laughing.

Barleywine

Marie-Bernard said:
I'm just starting to learn about astrology and read "The Art of Chart Interpretation" by Tracy Marks, which should simplify things, but I'm still confused. In my own natal chart the moon is on the east side all alone and it has the most aspects with other planets *however* it's in Scorpio, so very weak. On the west side Mercury is in it's own sign - Gemini, and is also my final depositor *however* it's in combust with the Sun, also in Gemini, so very weak. My ascendant is in Scorpio and it's ruling planet, Mars, is right at the top of the chart on the MC. Do I count Mars as the most important? Or learn about this with someone else's natal chart that's easier to interpret?

I can see some interesting parallels between your natal chart and mine, so I might be able to offer some useful observations. My Moon is in the East as well, but in its detriment and not at all well-aspected except for a middling trine to the MC. By Placidus houses it's intercepted in the second, so kind of "down a well," so to speak, but by Whole Sign Houses it's in the third, and I can see that it colors my more "automatic," day-to-day responses to life's circumstances. I also have Scorpio rising and Mars is at the very top of the chart, close to the MC in Virgo. It happens to be peregrine, so kind of a "maverick," but it is a perfect reflection of my career as a technical writer and manager in a technological industry. My managerial role was "entrepreneurial" - creating, staffing, starting up and managing three new departments over 17 years - so Mars had a clear field of operation. After much consideration, I've found Mars to be the most potent planet in my chart as far as being persistently visible in my life. However, using the essential dignity "scorecard" of the tradition, Jupiter shows up as more dignified since it is rising in its own sign, although Mars is much more angular. I too have Marks' and Arroyo's books on chart interpretation. Another one - again in a "modern" vein - that I found useful early on was Roy Alexander's "Chart Synthesis." Lately, though, traditional methods of synthesis have all of my attention.

Minderwiz

MasterJm said:
Mars is the ruler in Esoteric Astrology. Mars and 6th ray. For example Bailey (Dwahl Kuhl) supports that point of view. For me, Pluto is the ruler of Scorpio, because of the "die and reborn" issue and many other Pluto's scopes, Death is the tarot card of Scorpio besides. Pluto and 1st ray is the esoteric ruler of Pisces for the advanced Pisces souls. Pisces and Scorpio signs are connected through death and transformation issue. Destruction and rebirth. And Cancer symbolizes the incarnation in Esoteric Astrology.The final solution is the destruction of sutrama (see the symbol of Pisces) through death )-(, but deep psyhological death and rebirth and of course the unique sexual consolidation takes place in Scorpio. Mars is just a ****er Can't feel one with someone else or posessed by someone else. Is just a organ, the penis or a knife, not Death itself.

Well Mars was ruler 2000 years before Bailey. I don't see Scorpio as in anyway concerned with transformation or death for that matter, though it has signification for waste products

Scorpio has connections with the sexual organs but not the act of sex, which is a Venus act. However at least you've thought about it

MasterJm said:
Laughing.

Me too

MasterJm

Minderwiz said:
sex, which is a Venus act. However at least you've thought about it

!!! ??? Nooooo, Venus+Mars together is sex. Otherwise you are bottom. Mars is the Phallus and will remain for ever. Scorpio isn't a phallic sign.

Well Mars was ruler 2000 years before Bailey

We are living in 2014.

Minderwiz

MasterJm said:
!!! ??? Nooooo, Venus+Mars together is sex. Otherwise you are bottom. Mars is the Phallus and will remain for ever. Scorpio isn't a phallic sign.

Why do you think it's called Venereal disease? It's contracted through doing Venus acts, not martial ones. Venus rules pleasure and pleasurable pursuits. It also rules children which are the product of a particular Venus activity.

There's a difference between sexual organs and sexual union.

I realise Modern Astrology sees Sex very much in the same way the medieval church did - an original sin and connected with death. Astrology used to see it as a pleasurable act for the begetting of children and an act of love and companionship.

MasterJm said:
We are living in 2014.

So Mars has ruled Scorpio for over 2014 years then

It's built into the horoscopic system

Barleywine

What convinced me that modern sign ruleships are "inelegant" at best (and clumsy at worst) is the havoc they wreak on the perfectly balanced sequence of rulerships in the "7-planet" system. From Cancer going clockwise you have Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. From Leo going counter-clockwise you have Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The symmetry is impeccable. I did think at first thet Saturn being kind of "smashed together" into two adjacent signs was awkward, but looking at Capricorn and Aquarius as a seamless progression in the areas of social striving and social connections helped me get over that one. I'm currently of the opinion that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have an occasionally revealing role in chart interpretation ("no, thank you" on the asteroids, however) but not as sign rulers, and I also don't see the need for any of the signs to have co-rulers. The rationale for the modern rulerships doesn't seem to hold much water, and the same goes for the exaltations. Everything in the traditional approach works beautifully without them. This coming from someone who had already invested 40 years in practicing modern astrological methods!

Minderwiz

Barleywine said:
I'm currently of the opinion that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have an occasionally revealing role in chart interpretation ("no, thank you" on the asteroids, however) but not as sign rulers, and I also don't see the need for any of the signs to have co-rulers. The rationale for the modern rulerships doesn't seem to hold much water, and the same goes for the exaltations. Everything in the traditional approach works beautifully without them. This coming from someone who had already invested 40 years in practicing modern astrological methods!

I, of course, agree with that

I don't think the lack of sign rulership needs to inhibit the use of the outers (though with a good dose of reason). The use of 'affinity rulerships' might be one area that could be expanded using the outers. However I think they are overstated.

Barleywine

Minderwiz said:
The use of 'affinity rulerships' might be one area that could be expanded using the outers. However I think they are overstated.

In his surprisingly lucid astrological treatise, "The General Principles of Astrology," Aleister Crowley weighed in against throwing over the traditional rulerships but wanted a way to integrate the outer planets into the scheme without upsetting the symmetry. He proposed the concept of "superior governors" in the sense that they operate on some kind of a "higher octave" principle. Other than the usual suspects (Uranus for Aquarius, Neptune for Pisces and Pluto for Scorpio) I'm not entirely clear on his basis for "what goes where," but I know each sign had such a "governor." Although he seems to have decried the Theosophists, this certainly smacks of their spiritual imprint. I don't have much patience with "spiritual astrology" (I never could get through Alice Bailey) but if I can run down his basis I'll give it the "giggle test" (i.e. if it doesn't make me giggle I'll perhaps think there's a chance - however remote - that he might be onto something).