Hello Jo?o

Also, that there is more factors to consider regarding "strength" than sect and orientality alone.

But aren't there also more fundamental questions like whether solar phase is about ''strength'' at all?

For those interested there is actually a thread for those that want to explore your free software: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8668

Mark

Mark,

As I said, my purpose was not to derail this thread, but just to provide another perspective, and I used my software and its results to demonstrate it..

Jo?o Ventura

Mark wrote:I think several of us here are rather sceptical about the merits of such a rigid, systematizing approach.

By the way, this would make a rather interesting topic..

As I said, my purpose was not to derail this thread, just to provide another perspective.

Fair enough. I have put in the link to your thread on your free software in my last post.

Mark

Here in Italy, we put too much emphasis about the so-called accidental dignity, so much that we say that a planet conjunct to an angle (especially ascendant and medium coeli) is absolutely doubtless the dominant.
But is it dominant a principle only because it is more in sight and attracts more attention?
I don't believe it. I think it is the classical mistake to put too much emphasis on what is more apparent than the substance behind.

francescomanfredi wrote: we say that a planet conjunct to an angle (especially ascendant and medium coeli) is absolutely doubtless the dominant.
But is it dominant a principle only because it is more in sight and attracts more attention?
I don't believe it. I think it is the classical mistake to put too much emphasis on what is more apparent than the substance behind.

I have yet to read all of the Regulus article linked by Mark but if you saw a planet on the MC it would be important at least and if not any other angle. Not that simple of course but it is called the Victor for a reason

Astrology reveals the substance behind appearances or in my opinion anyway

I have yet to read all of the Regulus article linked by Mark but if you saw a planet on the Asc in its domicile then it would be important at least
Astrology reveals the substance behind appearances or in my opinion anyway[/quote]

I have not said that it is meaningless: but many classical astrologers (Carter included) say that if a planet is conjunct to angles, means that it is very evident, but the chart must be considered in its integrity. It is not assured that the planet conjunct the angle should be the purest dominant.
Here in Italy, we declare too blindly that when a planet is conjunct ascendant, everything is subdued to that planet. And another thing we say here, is that when a planet conjuncts mc, is the same as conjuncting the ascendant: I don't think so. We too superficially displease even the night-day chart thing (we don't use it): instead that to me seem an important point. So, by that chart, we can say that Mercury and Mars seem particularly influent: but the fact that Mercury should be considered more important in this chart (only because more eminent), seems to me arguable point. And another thing: even if we always say that "the chart is important on the whole", by overestimating the accidental dignity, we lose important and more in-depth points.

Hi Francesco,

I think you should start a new thread for the "Accidental vs Essential dignities", since this one is specifically about Orientality. However, as it happens when people are really interested in these topics, threads derail naturally into other subjects, so I'm still going to reply in this thread.

In "On the Heavenly Spheres", a book which I highly recommend, the authors mention that the Essential dignities measure the quality of expression while the Accidental dignities measure the quantity of expression. So, while the essential dignities concern the essence of a planet, the accidental dignities reinforce or prevent that expression.

With that said, I do follow a systematic approach for my interpretation. For instance, I wouldn't interpret Mars or Mercury alone, but I would consider them mostly while interpreting the life areas for the houses (in the signs) they rule, or if they are in one of the houses for which I am doing an interpretation.

So, that would bring Mercury as important when I would be delineating the first house. Why? Because Mercury is there, and is conjunct the Asc, a pretty visible position. So, after interpreting the sign of the Asc, and where the Asc ruler is (which would give me that the native expresses himself in subjects related to money or other possession [Jupiter in the 2nd]), I would then pick up Mercury and interpret how important it is to the native himself (considering the obvious debility of quality, and the positive factors of "quantity"), but only after I interpreted the sign of the Asc, and where its ruler is.

Mars would come eventually on the interpretation of the 1st house ("intercepted" sign), the 8th (ruler of Scorpio), or if I interpreted the 11th house.

I believe that a systematized, hierarchical, approach is really important, instead of considering everything equally important.. The bottom line of my message is that it doesn't matter which planet is "more important". In this chart, for instance, Mercury is relevant when you are doing the interpretation of the 1st house, but not relevant when you are interpreting the 11th house..


Jo?o Ventura

You are right, let's talk about the oriental-occidental. I will open another topic for this thing.
Speaking of orientality and occidentality, I read that ancient authors say even: <Mars>
<When>
So you know, the astrologers tell us that even the implicit quality of the planet is modified by the occidental-oriental thing.
So in this chart, Mars would get hot too, and not only of exceeding dryness.
What I note, in the reports of the chart, is that the sign interpretation of the planets lacks. Probably, the sign-position is very influenced by all the other factors, so can't be spoken upon alone.
I really don't know if it is better a numerical hierarchy as you say or a mental synthesis as Mark say. But I feel as both of you are right in some manner.
This topic is interesting in both views.

However, here it is the link to the topic about dignities http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 4755#94755

Jo?o wrote:

I think you should start a new thread for the "Accidental vs Essential dignities", since this one is specifically about Orientality. However, as it happens when people are really interested in these topics, threads derail naturally into other subjects, so I'm still going to reply in this thread.

I am very aware myself of the seduction of wandering off topic and yes it can be very interesting! However, if I attempt a further reply to you the focus of this thread will be lost even further. I suggest you follow up your own idea and open up a fresh topic on 'Accidental vs Essential Dignity Scoring''. Its beginning to sidetrack this thread too much.

I would like everyone posting here to now to get back back to the specific topic which is occidental and oriental.

Thanks

Mark

francescomanfredi wrote:The scheme is quite good. The only thing I think is quite exaggerated, is to tell that a peregrine planet should get -5.
Sounds like being peregrine is worst than being in fall or exile.
It is my only doubt.

You are not the only one. I am sure others have said this too

francescomanfredi wrote:I have yet to read all of the Regulus article linked by Mark but if you saw a planet on the Asc in its domicile then it would be important at least
Astrology reveals the substance behind appearances or in my opinion anyway

I have not said that it is meaningless: but many classical astrologers (Carter included) say that if a planet is conjunct to angles, means that it is very evident, but the chart must be considered in its integrity. It is not assured that the planet conjunct the angle should be the purest dominant.

I have edited the previous post. Forgive the pedantry but classical means to me Ancient Greece and Rome not Carter
Regards
Matthew