Astrology, whether traditional or modern, does seem based on a "deposit of faith." I use the comparison with the Catholic church deliberately. The knowledge isn't so much there to be questioned as memorized.

Surely all of us should learn to read horoscopes without houses, because so often you cannot get a correct birth time for someone. Then if you use a noon default birth time (minus houses) we still have to recognize that the moon could move back or forth 6 degrees; which could put in an adjacent sign on a date the moon changed signs.

In a house-free chart, signs and aspects take on more importance. Arabian parts go away.

In terms of planets' essential natures apart from signs, a traditional astrologer might delineate them as hot, cold, wet, or dry. Hot is active and masculine, cold is more static and feminine. Moist is more fruitful and adaptable; dry is more rigid and masculine. These carry over into signs, but with differing combinations. Water signs are cold and wet, yet Scorpio is ruled by Mars (hot and dry.) Earth signs are cold and dry, yet Taurus is ruled by Venus (moderately hot and moist.) http://www.astrologycom.com/qual.html

Therese, I was fascinated by your account of Neptune in sidereal/tropical areas of overlap in Pisces/Aries. Do you suppose that the fixed stars come into play? These are essentially in sidereal constellations, even when overlain by a tropical zodiac and sign system.

I hope you will contribute further to the "sun" thread on this board.

Waybread wrote:

Therese, I was fascinated by your account of Neptune in sidereal/tropical areas of overlap in Pisces/Aries. Do you suppose that the fixed stars come into play? These are essentially in sidereal constellations, even when overlain by a tropical zodiac and sign system.

I hope you will contribute further to the "sun" thread on this board.

Waybread, I'm so happy you were able to understand what I was saying. Too often mention "sidereal," and suddenly a topic becomes very quiet. I've spent years studying the influence of mythology on the signs, which also explains why sidereal Aquarius is like tropical Pisces and sidereal Aries is like tropical Taurus. Well, all the signs are influenced in this way actually. Partly the mythology of the ruler, an associated god (as Neptune for Pisces) and the sign's exalted planet (god) as well.

Fixed stars: This is a study I'm spending time on. Of couse the individual stars have their influence no matter what zodiac they happen to be in. It seems (at this time...) that one or more constellations may help to make up a sign's meaning, but I don't have enough solid information right now to say very much.

I'll have to check out the Sun thread.

Hi Therese, Unfortunately, if we mention "mythology" some people's eyes are likely to glaze over, as well. Either that, or they think the modern psychological astrology's versions of Mythology Lite are intended. I find their readings of mythology too often to be over-simplified and derivative. It is as though the whole field of classical studies never existed.

To return to the OP, this is also one reason why I wouldn't confuse planets and signs. Planetary meanings in Mesopotamia pre-dated the condification of the 12 30-degree zodiacal signs. With some modification to allow for ethnic differences, these core meanings of gods/planets diffused into Greece and then Rome prior to the spread of astrology into ancient Greece. We see other parallels in the Levant and in Egypt, also. Mythological associations of signs evolved similarly, but the myths were different than the core narratives and meanings attributed to the planets/gods.

We could debate separately how much mythology contributed to astrological understandings, but I think it was a lot. Just not the sort common in modern astrology that rescripted the narratives for modern sensibilities. Your post was refreshingly free of that problem.

james_m wrote: what i am curious to know is how others see the basis for the energy of a planet and whether they see any separation between the nature of a planet, verses it's expression in a particular sign or house. i realize this is tricky to impossible to break apart, but i am curious either way..

I agree with Mark that we can separate the planet from the sign, I appreciate in a later post you clarify your intention better but I just wanted to reiterate that really there is no major problem in separating the planet from the sign - as waybread points out, many modern astrologers do it also, though equally many of course conflate the two in the astrological alphabet.

My way of delineating a chart is not too dissimilar from Waybread though I tend to be much more along the lines of a traditional astrologer when it comes to examining particular topics or forecasting. For me I see the planets as representing (in natal astrology) functions or expressions.
Venus is the function/urge/expression of how we arouse and please, and are aroused and pleased ourselves. It is also descriptive of the arenas of experience as described by the house cusps that it rules. How this function/urge is expressed and experienced is described by the sign, and modified by its interactions with other planets by way of aspect. How prominent in terms of outward expression or manifestation is seen by angularity or cardinality etc. with angular the most prominent or the most in the driving seat, with cadent planets being more like sitting in the back seat, perhaps whispering directions in the driver's ear, or operating more on the mental, the less manifest, and the less obvious spheres of life.

By removing the signs and houses we can still examine the basic functions of the planets and how they interact with one another, but we lose the context in which they express and how forceful they are in their operation.

If I was to be simple, I would say that Mars is the urge to assert ourselves, or is the principle and function of assertion in general. How easily or most according to its nature it can act, though, will be seen by the sign which modifies its expression, the planet which is its host in that sign, and the intercommunication it is involved with by aspect to other planets. In natal astrology I use the traditional dignities in this way - seeing how 'true to the planet' it is able to operate. A planet in detriment or fall struggles to do that planet in its typical way, and so its operation becomes more outside the box, which is both stressful as well as potentially creative. Depending on the planet, it may also describe areas with which we struggle to maintain.

So whilst we can separate the planets from the signs, for me, in doing so we lose a great deal of context.

To follow from Paul's post.... while a modern astrologer probably wouldn't look at a planet-in-sign in terms of (oops-- pun) its smaller sign divisions, I find it very helpful to consider signs in terms of their element, and sometimes quality. I got this from Stephen Arroyo's book on the four elements years ago. He asks, "What is very real to a person?"

A planet in an air sign acts mentally, even intellectually.
In a fire sign, with action and initiative.
In earth, practically and materially.
In water, emotionally.

In a fixed sign, with determination, persistence, or stubbornness.
In a cardinal sign, with leadership (for good or ill.)
In a mutable sign, with adaptability, flexibility.

So you see why we Aquarians stick to our guns (fixed) when our beliefs (air) are challenged, and why we habitually (fixed) live in the wonderful world of ideas (air). To a Virgo, however, this approach is impractical (earth) and inflexible (mutable.) Virgo becomes the applied, material face of Mercury, sharing its versatility.

So a planet in a sign has a further double meaning unless it is in the sign it rules. Because you will have the planet's own meaning, plus the meaning of the sign or house cusp ruler.

Mars (aggression, assertiveness) may or may not work well in Venus-ruled Libra, the traditional sign of its detriment. For sure, a successful navigation of Mars and Libra requires a serious "balancing act" between two different principles. Successfully, we could envision a champion (Mars) of the arts (Venus) or a soldier (Mars) in a UN peace-keeping (Venus) mission. Similarly, Venus in Mars-ruled Aries may be the lady (Venus) who wants to jump out of airplanes and rapel off cliffs (Mars,) or the one who takes the initiative and invites the man out for a date (Mars) and then proposes marriage to him (Venus.)

There's more to get to, but the above is a reasonable way to sort out the jumble.

nixx - yes. that is sort of what i am suggesting. these systems get built up that we end up taking for granted. there are a lot of them - houses, signs, aspects, planetary phase and etc. etc. all of them seem to help in some way to form a viewpoint on a particular planet, but they ultimately take us away from understanding how a particular planet might actually be expressing itself depending on our bias.. a typical astrologer will try to incorporate all of these different systems of understanding the planet which is why we get a lot of diversity in regards how a planet works. of course i am including the sun and moon in my use of the word planet here.

As well as different Astrologers/Schools emphasising signs more than planets or aspects or quadrants or nodes, or whatever, (such a spectrum nowadays) or vice versa, there is also the issue of divergent and alternative meanings. We saw this recently here on the Uranus thread where for example, Therese brought in the ?Caycean? dynamics for the outer planets, seemingly very different to the Psychological ones, and perhaps those others here employ for these 3 planets.

as for cobains moon, it would be seen as quite important - the light of the nocturnal sect - something that some astrologers may or may not even consider. it would be considered favourable from the pov of planetary phase - waxing trine from the sun. it's last aspect would have been this trine to the sun and it's next would be a conjunction to the jupiter - that would be considered all favourable as well.. still, what does that tell us about the moon without use of the sign cancer, or the house position - 10th or 11th depending on your persuasion? or - lets put it in sidereal to get a different spin if you want to attach a sign position to it.. you see, i am thinking their is something to the moons inherent meaning that transcends the sign position. perhaps i am guilty of falling back on other options to get at my understanding of it - planetary phase and etc. etc. in this chart i would say the mercury/pluto opposition has more power to act and ultimately calls the shots in the chart, as opposed to the moon.. that is probably heresy to some in the trad astro community, but it is how i see this chart.. how much of my viewpoint is based on knowing some of his life and how it unfolded? probably a lot.. talk later

So attempting to cut to the chase here, if it is, if I was to say Cobain?s Moon hinted at a deep instinctual bond with the biological mother and / or mother figure(s) in his life is this because it is in Cancer or because it is in the 10th, or both or neither, or is the premise a foolish one?

Or we can consider what seems to be a fact about Cobain?s life, namely this chronic stomach condition of his, what on the chart talks about this, if anything?

Nixx wrote:
So attempting to cut to the chase here, if it is, if I was to say Cobain?s Moon hinted at a deep instinctual bond with the biological mother and / or mother figure(s) in his life is this because it is in Cancer or because it is in the 10th, or both or neither, or is the premise a foolish one?

Or we can consider what seems to be a fact about Cobain?s life, namely this chronic stomach condition of his, what on the chart talks about this, if anything?

nixx - i think this is a very common question that all astrologers answer in their own way.. i think it is also common for astrologers that once they have answered this in their own way, they continue to shut the door on how they might have answered it differently, or that perhaps they might not have gotten the correct answer based on their particular choice of astro theory and instead think they actually know something.

but to answer your question in my own way, the moon as most elevated planet in the chart would suggest what you say in your first paragraph.. i suppose that is a bit like the 'moon in the 10th' concept, but a bit different.. being the most elevated planet in the chart takes on a certain eminence in itself as i see it. in my previous post to you i neglected to mention how i think the moon in cobains chart who cast a more feminine and subjective orientation towards life too.. none of this has to do with what sign, or house it is in, so much as it's prominence in the chart as much elevated planet.. the chronic stomach condition could be read a number of ways too. the first one i wonder about is moon at the exact mars/chiron midpoint, but i am not digging too hard here.

waybread wrote:
The planets' characteristics (with some subsequent modifications) got assigned by the Babylonians prior to the development of our 12 zodiacal signs. The planet Mars was associated with the war god (Nergal, Ares) for a few thousand years, which is why it rules soldiers.

waybread - this is more along the line i was aiming for.. now that we have added all the other popular means of reading a chart, we have gotten further away from the essential meaning that some might say is the essence of the planet. instead we water it down with what sign, house, element and etc. etc. it is broken down into..

i thank everyone for there comments here.. i appreciate this is an opportunity to clarify the different ways of doing astrology and the approach that you personally take when using planets - which is of course the focal point that brings all the other astrology together. i like what paul and waybread have said on how this all comes together, but i was hoping to see if there is something else out their beyond ( and i mean this in the most polite way i can say it ) a rehash of everything i have already read for the past 20-30 years in astro literature.. to be fair, it doesn't hurt to revisit how the basic elements of astrology go together and reconsider how they can be built up on one another.. it is fair to take a pot shot at modern astrology which equates mars, the first house and the first sign as along the lines of a big mush of all the sameness too.. of course they are not, but a person new to astrology can't help notice all the overlap that goes on within the astro elements too.. one can easily find themselves circling around to the same basic meaning a few different ways..

i suppose i was motivated by the deep attachment everyone seemed to have towards uranus and a particular sign! i thought it would be nice if one could consider the planet without the need to give it a sign. when i think of it, the rationale for giving one planet to two signs doesn't really add up for me that well. i know the theory- nocturnal and diurnal signs, but i still don't know that it is all that solid. it reminds me a bit like putting square pegs in round holes. it is why i am more inclined to want to consider a planet from a different angle then the sign it is in.. of course the tropical/sidereal issue can rear it's head and be cause for more concern for anyone who is attached to this particular method of attaching a planet to a sign as well.. what about the idea of removing or living without the idea of 'this planet is most connected to this sign' ideology that forms so much of astrological theory? that is my best attempt at getting at an idea here.

Nixx wrote:

Therese brought in the ?Caycean? dynamics for the outer planets, seemingly very different to the Psychological ones, and perhaps those others here employ for these 3 planets.

Certainly the examples I gave above for Neptune either conjunct or trine the ascendant support what Cayce said in trance about Neptune. By the way, during one trance discourse on astrology, a person asked Cayce "who is giving this information?" Cayce replied "a student of Zoroaster!"

The examples I gave reflect astrological or occult interests, activities or professional occupations. But isn't there some psychology behind those choices? What causes one person to be fascinated with the occult or astrology and another person to be more interested in law or business?? As for the Neptune link to psychology (mentioned by Cayce), the professional symbol for psychology is Neptune's trident.

james_m wrote:
nixx - i think this is a very common question that all astrologers answer in their own way.. i think it is also common for astrologers that once they have answered this in their own way, they continue to shut the door on how they might have answered it differently, or that perhaps they might not have gotten the correct answer based on their particular choice of astro theory and instead think they actually know something.

but to answer your question in my own way, the moon as most elevated planet in the chart would suggest what you say in your first paragraph.. i suppose that is a bit like the 'moon in the 10th' concept, but a bit different.. being the most elevated planet in the chart takes on a certain eminence in itself as i see it. in my previous post to you i neglected to mention how i think the moon in cobains chart who cast a more feminine and subjective orientation towards life too.. none of this has to do with what sign, or house it is in, so much as it's prominence in the chart as much elevated planet.. the chronic stomach condition could be read a number of ways too. the first one i wonder about is moon at the exact mars/chiron midpoint, but i am not digging too hard here.

Yes Astrologers attitudes can be as hard to shift. I took the view 30 odd years ago unless you were Vegan, voted Green, had less than 1.76 children, etc you were in the wrong job , and still pretty much think this, although I might not know it to be true.

Are you throwing me another curveball here in suggesting an elevated Moon could indicate a deep instinctual bond with the mother, if so why?

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Certainly the examples I gave above for Neptune either conjunct or trine the ascendant support what Cayce said in trance about Neptune. By the way, during one trance discourse on astrology, a person asked Cayce "who is giving this information?" Cayce replied "a student of Zoroaster!"

The examples I gave reflect astrological or occult interests, activities or professional occupations. But isn't there some psychology behind those choices? What causes one person to be fascinated with the occult or astrology and another person to be more interested in law or business?? As for the Neptune link to psychology (mentioned by Cayce), the professional symbol for psychology is Neptune's trident.

I can't see any evidence for something in your post, empirical or otherwise, I'm also not sure what your hypothesis is. Off the top of my head, Neptune in the 9th tends to be seen as a disposition towards 'blind faith' the wrong side of the Law at Waco sort of thing, do you agree?

It might be an idea to start a thread on Cayce one day and we can look at his chart, explore his regurgitations of Blavatsky or lack of and ponder on his role, if any, in the gassing of the Jews, Disabled et al by the Third Reich. Some background reading if this gets off the ground here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occult_Roots_of_Nazism

Neptune?s postulated linking to Psychology seems a little odd, but I'm not sure how you interpret Neptune more fully. In the Psychological schema Psychology is seen as an Air/Water interest as it is associated with a curiosity about the behaviour of Human Beings. If one were to sample a 100,000 Psychology Undergraduates the hypothesis might be they would have the Sun more often in Scorpio and Libra, so where Neptune comes in, other than the charts of musicians, you might have to enlighten me on.

Nixx wrote:
Yes Astrologers attitudes can be as hard to shift. I took the view 30 odd years ago unless you were Vegan, voted Green, had less than 1.76 children, etc you were in the wrong job , and still pretty much think this, although I might not know it to be true.

Are you throwing me another curveball here in suggesting an elevated Moon could indicate a deep instinctual bond with the mother, if so why?

i sorta fit the description in the first paragraph, lol! i guess i am 30 years late though. oh well.. as for astrologers attitudes being hard to shift - that is how i see it..

nixx - i suppose i am throwing a bit of a curve ball their with the elevated moon concept.. i do think it is a factor, although how to explain a deep instinctual bond with the mother has to be explained astrologically somehow.. interestingly my wife has a moon in cancer and she has no deep instinctual bond with her mom.. how much of this in cobains chart has to do with it being a night chart with an elevated moon? i have no idea, but like you, i am tossing ideas around to see if we can remove some of the layers to our approach to planets - naked planets if you will - dancing around in a particular way, but not boxed into the format we usually define them.

do planets operate outside or above the sign, or house position they hold? i would say that they do, although i am more attached to house position- not so much the 12 house system as an appreciation for the importance of the angles in astrology which is a much more obvious basis for all house systems... going back to cobains chart, assuming it is very close to accurate - the presence of pluto/mercury along the ascendant axis weighs more heavily then the moon in many respects.. of course we have to combine all this in some type of synthesis but i would be vying for planets on angles demonstrating the strength of their nature more strongly then signs.. i realize astrologers typically use all these elements to further a better understanding of the chart.. i would like to strip some of the extra layers away to see what it might look like, that's all..

i am tossing ideas around to see if we can remove some of the layers to our approach to planets - naked planets if you will - dancing around in a particular way, but not boxed into the format we usually define them.

do planets operate outside or above the sign, or house position they hold?

But of course, at least if you focus on aspects. I sort of took this for granted, having cut my astrological teeth on Robert Hand's Planets in Youth and Planets in Transit.

These are two large detailed cookbooks with delineations based almost entirely on planets in aspect with no necessary reference to houses and signs. These come in in separate sections, but the cookbook "recipes" are almost entirely planets in aspect.