skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Joys/accidental dignity
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kurgal



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:21 am    Post subject: Joys/accidental dignity Reply with quote

Why don't the planetary joys confer any accidental dignity?

I find it a bit odd that planets don't score any extra points for being in the house of their "joy." (Using Lilly's table).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
horarcek



Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 148
Location: Slovenia

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello to all - this is my first post.
My knowledge of English is limited so I will always be short.

In Frawley`s Real Astrology I found joy rated 2 points as a accidental dignity.
I dont know where he got it from but they are there.
_________________
Reges Subjucent Legibus Stellarum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 396
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the important thing is whether or not the joys are relevant to what you're trying to do...

Generally, I don't think a scoring system is neccessarily helpful, as dignity can be quite a subtle thing. It depends on what dignities you're looking for.

Even if you don't actively use the joys as part of a dignity scoring system, they're an interesting area of astrology to look into. I find the ideas behind the joys gave me additional insight into the qualities and natures of the planets, but I must admit I've never actually used them in judgement, either in horary or natal work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pete



Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 301
Location: Kinnelon, New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kurgal,
like you I've always thought that the planetary Joys ought to confer a certain accidental dignity so I use it and score it 2 points. By the same token, if a planet is in a house opposite to it's Joy, (what I have christened it's "Sorrow"), I deduct 2 points.
==
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kurgal



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pete wrote:
Hi Kurgal,
like you I've always thought that the planetary Joys ought to confer a certain accidental dignity so I use it and score it 2 points. By the same token, if a planet is in a house opposite to it's Joy, (what I have christened it's "Sorrow"), I deduct 2 points.
==
Pete


Hey, I like that idea!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm with Karen. Simply assigning an arbitrary score to a placement such as the Joys sort of takes it out of context, and doesn't really do anything to help you see the subtle action of what that particular placement is doing. Why assign a score to it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gem



Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 954

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi
Talking of scoring, I've always wondred why peregrine planets were more debilitated than planets in Fall because peregrine planets have no power or influence(according to Lilly, peregrine planets get -5 whereas planets in Fall get -4). Did Lilly base his scoring points from his own experience or were there other predecesors who had different scoring systems?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 465

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to reply out of date. Just joinded yesterday!

My thoughts about scoring...

I am very doubtful about the scoring system Lilly outlined in his CA (or other astrologers for that matter). Not that I am against all scoring systems, they do work in ceratin ways...

What I have qualms with is the mixing of essential and accidental dignities in giving points.

In my understanding, essential dignities are natural state of the planets in the signs (where they are happy or unhappy in), hence giving qualitative characteristics to the planets. In turn, signs are ruled wholly (rulership/lordship) or partially by the planets in greater or lesser degrees (Exalted ruler, trip rulers, term rulers and face rulers). Conversely, the planets would be unhappy in greater or lesser degrees when they are in signs opposite their rulership or exaltation (detriment and fall).

Accidental dignities are what give quantitative power to the planet and where the planets' influence would be manifested e.g. angular planets are 100% powerful, succedent planets half and cadent just a quarter (or simply weak quantitatively).

Examples:-

Jupiter = greater benefic. It promises good to the native.
Sagittarius = the sign that Jupiter rules, hence Jupiter would be totally comfortable here.

If Jupiter in Sag is situated in the 10th house (angular), it's going to be very strong (accidentally) and very good (essentially) making the native succesful in his/her career endeavours ceteris paribus. If it's in the 12th house, Jupiter in Sag is still good (essentially) but weak (accidentally), hence Jupiter still produce good things (in matters of 12th and houses it rules) but not much because the quantitative power is weak.

If Jupiter is in Gemini in the 10th, it's going to manifest in non-mainstream way but still powerful quantitatively (a succesful non-mainstream career). If Jupiter in Gemini is in the 12th, it's going to be manifested in non-mainstream way but in areas that are not going to give benefit or power to the native...

The situation is reverse for malefics. Malefics naturally give problems but malefics in their own rulership in the angles are happy and powerful hence they give less problems or they give benefit after certain toil and hardship. Malefics in detriment or fall (unhappy) and angular (powerful) are what really give challenging life to the natives unless of course the native choose to put their energy in non-mainstream ways - still difficult because of the nature of malefics. Malefics in rulership (happy) but cadent (weak), would still give some benefits but its going to be very difficult as they are weak. Of course malefics in detriment or fall (unhappy) and cadent (weak) are those malefics trying to give problems to the native but being quitely placed in the areas not so significant to the native.

Now back to the qualms. Perhaps it is better that we give separate points to essential and accidental dignities. Hence, we would have two numbers, one associated with how good/beneficial/happy a planet is (its essential dignity points) and how powerful/weak planet is (its accidental dignity points).

In fact, this is what the Arabs did with Compound Almuten, they score the essential dignities (only essential dignities) of many places to find which planet is the overall ruler, just like what Lilly did for his almutens of houses.

Sorry for being so long winded...

(P/S: Are there any Muslim astrologers here?)[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 465

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry for the spelling and grammatical errors in the previous reply.

I would like to add another comment though. In giving points, it is customary to give positive points to something defined as positive and if this positive something is absent, we simply don't give any positive points.
Hence, we do not give negative points due to absence of something positive.

Similarly, we give negative points to something defined as negative and if this negative something is absent we don't give any negative points.
Hence, we do not give positive points due to absence of something negative.

Giving negative points due to the absence of something positive or giving positive points due to to the absence of something negative would punish or reward twice.

Example:-

Let's define conjuncting a fortunate star (e.g. Spica, Arcturus) is considered positive. Hence, a planet with this configuration is given a positive point (we still have to decide how many points!). We don't give negative points for the absence of such configuration.

Let's define being combust as a negative configuration. A combust planet is given a negative number (point), hence a planet not in combust should not be given a positive number just because it is not in combust. Hence, I have a very big problem when Lilly assigned 5 points for a planet that is free from combustion and sun's beam though I might agree with him giving -5 points for planet in combust.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello and welcome to the forum Astojin

Quote:
Accidental dignities are what give quantitative power to the planet and where the planets' influence would be manifested e.g. angular planets are 100% powerful, succedent planets half and cadent just a quarter (or simply weak quantitatively).


But what about the fact that the planetary joys are an accidental dignity, as are positive aspects or prominent fixed stars. Donít you think that the Ďqualitativeí nature of the planet is affected by such influences?

Quote:
I have a very big problem when Lilly assigned 5 points for a planet that is free from combustion and sun's beam though I might agree with him giving -5 points for planet in combust.


Iíve also considered this. But it wasnít just Lilly who did this; the tables of other astrologers are very similar. I donít have a problem with it because it means that overall 10 points of dignity are lost through combustion and that may well be the most appropriate Ďrough and readyí figure. I do agree that all these tables need a sense of caution, but believe they are good for beginners as they are a systematic reminder of the issues that need to be considered.

BTW, I have seen traditional tables that allocate points for planets in their house of joy, but right now I forget. Iíll come back to this when I remember or find the refs. I notice in my commentary on Lillyís table I wrote:

Quote:
Similar tables exist with various adaptations - some assign dignity for planets in their house of joy, and detract for planets in houses opposite their house of joy. Some give values for planets increasing in northern latitude and detract it for planets increasing in southern latitude. But overall it's important to understand that these tables exist as a guide to judgement, not a substitute for it. Ultimately common sense and a discretionary eye will replace the need to work with number-scores.


Double-Gem wrote:

Quote:
Talking of scoring, I've always wondred why peregrine planets were more debilitated than planets in Fall because peregrine planets have no power or influence(according to Lilly, peregrine planets get -5 whereas planets in Fall get -4). Did Lilly base his scoring points from his own experience or were there other predecesors who had different scoring systems?


Donít forget a planet loses 5 points for being out of all essential dignity, but it can lose another 5 for being in detriment. And of course Lilly didnít invent the table but reproduced either another astrologerís or that which he felt was most conventional. Hereís an interesting example of Galileo using a similar scoring method in his charts http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart2.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 465

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Deb,

I am not saying that I am not taking other considerations in dignities (conjunctions with fixed stars, planetary joys, etc.). I just don't feel comfortable mixing certain types of dignities with others and maybe my wording is inaccurate (quantitative vs. qualitative). When I studied almuten and the method of adding only essential dignities, I thought "this is logical" and when I saw the way Lilly puts his points AND adding them all up I thought "something is not right". I have no qualms on the points (except when he minus for absence of something positive or when he adds for absence of something negative) but the addition tingles all of my doubtful Virgoan Scientific mind.

I agree with you that we should exercise logic and common sense when using these points. We don't mix apples and oranges but we can get a sense of which is more important through the points. By looking at the points we can see clearly what Lilly thinks of the nature of dignities whether peregrine is more damaging than detriment or rulership is stronger than exaltation, etc. But adding the dignities...aaah

Perhaps my terms of quantitative and qualitative is misleading. Still I would prefer to segregate essential (plus some accidental) from accidental dignities. Perhaps we can put two columns for different dignities, that which is universal/zodiacal and that which is local/terrestrial.

Universal/Zodiacal dignities = dignities conferred to planets in signs of the zodiac or proximity to the sun/fixed stars, etc. where they are the same for different latitudes (i.e. houses not included). Any person born at the same "time" would have the same configurations even though born at different places. The configurations are therefore universal and not personal to the native.

Local/terrestrial dignities = dignities conferred to planets due to its positions in certain houses or ruling certain houses, etc. Place gives latitude which in turn gives Asc and house positions which make the universal (zodiacal) configurations personal or local to the native.

Universal configurations that contribute to universal dignities (either increase ort decrease dignities):-
1) Essential dignities (adding points for rulership, exaltation, trip rulerships, terms and faces or taking away of points when planets are in detriment or fall).

2) Aspects including reception (adding points if planets are in aspect to benefics and minusing points if planets are in aspect to malefics. Here, benefics and malefics include conjunctions to benefic/malefic stars).

3) Planets in Cazimi, combust or under sun's beams.

4) Other universal signatures.


Local/terrestrial configurations that contribute to local/terrestrial dignities:-
1) Planets in houses; angular, succeedent, cadent. Even in one mode we could have different points (angular houses 1, 4, 7, 10, the 10th is always considered stronger than the 4th).

2) Planets in houses averse to the ascendent (2nd, 12th, 8th and 6th)

3) Planets that rule certain good or bad houses

4) Planets in Joy

5) Planets aspecting the cross of matter (1st, 4th, 7th and 10th)

6) Planets receiving aspects from ascendant and planets that are rulers of certain houses.

7) Planetary hours. Yes, planetary hours can be considered personal because we need to know latitude for the determination of sun rise which makes it Local.

7) Other personal signatures



Why bother with these distinctions? Planet which is high in Local/terrestrial points would definitely make more impact to the native personally and planet which is high in universal/zodiacal points would have more impact universally (rather than just to the native).

Example:-

Jupiter in Pisces (in rulership) conjuncts Venus in Pisces (in exaltation) conjuncts a good fixed star (any good fixed stars in Pisces?) in trine aspect with expanding moon in Cancer (in rulership) is definitely a very good position but this is universal because anybody born at about the same time would have the same configuration.

If in addition, Jupiter is located in the 11th house, matters of 11th house (wishes, money from business, friends, etc.) becomes very much empowered empowered for the native and this is local. Locally Jupiter is empowered by being in the house of good fortune and its Joy.


Am i making any sense here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It makes a lot of sense and I like the way you have made a clear distinction between signatures that are universal and those that are personal. Although it's not quite the traditional essential - accidental differentiation, it is important, and one we need to be reminded of. I think this sort of treatment would make people more aware of how the planetary influences can be expected to act in specific charts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarkF



Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 523
Location: Outside Washington, DC

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iíve always treated the point scoring system as an art, and as a means to understand a chart, not an end in itself. Lillyís point scoring system is unfair and imperfect, as any point scoring system will be. I think the real value to it is that as we go through the list of what to look at, it may direct us to something that we miss. For example, I know when I go through the list, I often forget to look at the fixed stars unless I am reminded to by the checklist.

My biggest problem with the point scoring system is that it automatically seems to give points for mutual reception, even if the affected planets are in their detriments. Take for example, Mars in Taurus and Venus in Scorpio, as they were a while ago. My SolarFire kept telling me how great this was and gave them both a big olí plus five points for being in mutual reception. Iíd only give points away for mutual reception if the planets are in their own dignities as well, or at least not in their own detriments or falls, for example Venus in Aquarius and Saturn in Taurus. Itís not there is no interaction of influences between Mars in Taurus and Venus in Scorpio, itís just that itís a bad interaction. I think that is Tomís famous ďtwo drunks helping each other homeĒ situation.

My other problem with the point scoring is that it treats the Sun differently, The Sun canít get points for being Not Combust can it? It doesnít make sense. So when you come up with a final number, just remember that it isnít science, itís an art.
_________________
Mark F
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 465

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To Deb:-

Thank you for the reply. A question though. Is there any logic for the division of essential and accidental dignities? I mean, is there any clear traditional definition of what is essential and what is accidental?

My own understanding:-
1) Planetary position in zodiacal location = essential. 5 essential dignities and 2 essential debilities (3 if you count peregrine).

2) Anything else = accidental
a) Positions in houses:
i) Mode: angular, succedent, cadent.
ii) Planet in its own joy
b) Proximity with sun
i) Cazimi, combust, under sun's beam
c) Relative position with sun
i) Diurnal/nocturnal planets in diurrnal/nocturnal charts
ii) Planets in or out of sect. Planets in Hayz.
iii) Oriental/occidental
d) Apparent motion
i) Direct, stationary, retrograde
e) Apparent speed
ii) Swift, slow
f) Aspects with benefics/malefics, besiegement
g) Types of aspects: Ptolemaic aspects only!
h) Nature of aspects: dextrous, sinister, applying, separating
waxing, waning, in reception or not in reception
in proper face (Almugea), etc.
i) Altitudinal position, elevated/low in chart.
j) Latitudinal positions of planets: Northern latitude + increasing,
southern latitude + decreasing, etc.
k) Increasing and decreasing in numbers (with reference to the
epicycle).
j) Configuration with fixed stars, conjunction with benefic/malefic
stars, paran relationship with benefic/malefic stars, via combusta?
k) Solar critical degrees (within a degree of cusp of zodiacal signs),
lunar critical degrees (within a degree of cusp of lunar mansions).
l) Planetary hour (Bonatti and Lilly would have considered this in
determining radicality of horary chart).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarkF



Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 523
Location: Outside Washington, DC

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the difference between essential and accidental dignity is that essential dignity relates to the nature of how a planet expresses itself. Look at Lilly where he has two descriptions for a planet based on whether itís weak or strong. He refers to this as ďManners When Well PlacedĒ and ďManners, When Ill Placed Or Dignified.Ē

Accidental dignity seems to just relate to how strongly a planet shows itself in a chart.

I know thatís simple, but I think thatís it.
_________________
Mark F
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated