Dispositors

1
I?m interested to hear people?s thoughts on dispositors in natal astrology. For example, a sun in Scorpio with Mars in Libra ? does this qualitatively change the expression of the Scorpio sun, or weaken it, or both? What is people?s experience of the magnitude of this effect, in natal work? Is it something that is so strong that it cannot be ignored, or is it more minor? It seems that, at least in natal astrology, long chains of disposition can reduce precision to the point that almost any conclusion can be reached, or finding explained.

2
With depositors, you can do a tour of your entire chart, and eventually end up with a final depositor, two planets in mutual reception, or sometimes a small feedback loop. Then you might get planets with separate relationships. A final depositor, if you have one, should be stronger than the initial depositor of a planet.

So you might determine that Mars in Libra hands off to Venus, &c. and see where this leads you. Presumably your Venus is in either Libra (final depositor), Scorpio, or Sagittarius (deposited by Jupiter), then you can work through the chart.

While Mars in Libra is in its detriment, I don't think this should affect your sun. I often look at house cusp rulers, and their influence goes more by house and aspects. So, for example, with any house system other than the whole sign system, you might get Virgo or Libra on the Mars house cusp. Depending upon which it is, I would look to Mercury or Venus to tell me more about how your Mars house is functioning.

3
I pay more attention to a dispositor in cases where a planet is peregrine. So a peregrine planet disposed of by a well dignified planet may be better behaved than one who is disposed of by a debilitated planet.

4
The dispositor is a consideration I always take into account. I find that it becomes more important the worse in terms of dignity a planet is.

Simply put, if a planet is peregrine, has only face dignity, is in fall or detriment, I tend to regard the dispositor as the final "hope" for that planet. A dispositor in good shape, the planet delivers good results, a dispositor in bad shape, bad. I mean this in regards to the quality of the event, not prevalence.

Another thing I must say, you do not want a malefic ruling a evil house and also inside a evil house as the final dispositor of a chart.

Finally, I do not consider a planet able to dispose without a ptolemaic aspect. In this case, it is aversion, and it points that the planet has to seek help from another dispositor, in the logical order, the exalted lord, then the triplicity lord, and so on. A planet not aspecting any of his dispositors is helpless to deliver good results, unless it has itself some dignity to draw from.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

5
Hi Paolo,

Re this comment:
I do not consider a planet able to dispose without a ptolemaic aspect. In this case, it is aversion, and it points that the planet has to seek help from another dispositor, in the logical order, the exalted lord, then the triplicity lord, and so on. A planet not aspecting any of his dispositors is helpless to deliver good results, unless it has itself some dignity to draw from.
Recently an astrologer friend was telling me about her technique and expressing a similar view, but I'm not sure if it's quite the same as what you are saying here. If I remember correctly her point was that if the ruler of a sign was not in a Ptolemaic aspect with its own sign, it had no way to offer assistance to the planets within that sign, and consequently any planet in the sign suffered by being 'unattended' - she didn't use those words but it's a while ago so I'm trying to capture the gist of it. I would say that if a planet is well placed accidentally it doesn't need to rely on assistance from the dispositor; her view was different and suggested that without the dispositor being able to 'see' its own sign all planets within that sign were afflicted and not able to express themselves effectively. Just of interest, what's your view on that?

6
Hi Deb, nice talking to you!
Deb wrote:Just of interest, what's your view on that?
I think I and your friend have about the same basic view.

So, I find that a dignified planet is resourceful, so he can offer good advice and effective help to anyone that steps into his domains.

On the contrary, a planet ill dignified will not help, it will steer the received planet in a direction that is problematic, through poor foresight or even sheer malice. That will be so, unless the planet receiving this so called "help" is himself able, then, instead of being lead down, he will rise up to a challenge, and the most angular planet's effect will likely prevail (i.e, we could imagine a Sun in Aries in the 1st trumping a Mars in Cancer in the 4th).

On the other hand, if a host is not present (not in the house) by virtue of it's light, meaning, shedding light with a sextile, trine, square, opposition or corporeal presence, it can not steer, advise, direct or offer resources, hence, the planet inside that sign is all by himself. Obviously, for a planet to be completely by himself, he would have to "not see" or "not be received" by any of his dispositors, from the domicile ruler to the face ruler, which is quite a rare occurrence.

Now, I find that an angular planet is pretty much able to express himself, if by expressing himself you mean, to bring fore to the world the matter it represents by any of his house rulerships. But this expression will not be good (to the individual himself) if the planet is debilitated and can not see his dispositors. Depending of what this debilitated planet represents in the chart, it may even be a tragic expression.

At last, and this is where things gets real complicated: I tend to look at the chart shifting from a stand still to a dynamic development. What I mean is that a planet in aversion will move himself out of that situation eventually, by several symbolic manners. The longer is the time and the more ponderous the planet, the more likely he is to produce "real" change. An example would be, if you have the ruler of the 8th inside the 1st, at some point in life, it will be moved, say, by secondary progression, to the 2nd sign. In this case, it will not directly aspect the rising sign yet, but it can tend to the 8th house radical sign. When it moves to the 3rd sign, it will see the rising sign, but not the 8th again. But as it reaches the 4th, it will be able to see both 1st and 8th radical signs, and that is dangerous, because he speaks for the interest of the 8th house primarily. Even a transit of this planet through the 4th sign could represent some danger. Of course, before that planet reachs the 4th sign, there may be translation of light or any other kind of light transfer, and the effects of the 8th house may come foward anyway. But, as there are several hylegical points in a chart, if most or even one of them is steady, meaning, stronger by accidental position than any anaretta, the effects of this planet will not be conclusive untill a certain amount of time has passed, and the chart sort of "decays". I find that a great stand demands a great opposition to fall, and a weak stand may fall to the slimmest of oppositions.

Well, I think that's about it.
Last edited by PFN on Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

7
Thanks. I think that gives a very good response to Phil who opened this thread. I have seen historical and modern astrologers give different levels of emphasis to the power of dispositors, and I know that for some astrologers it is a very important consideration. Would love to have an example of your approach demonstrated in a practical example if you find yourself with time to spare for that.

BTW, I see you updated your photo. I need to do that too!

8
Yes thanks to all for the very informative responses. I've definitely gained a feeling for how this concept is being used. And of course now I have a few more things to read up on. Deb, I guess it's your right to update your pic if you must...sigh...

10
Deb wrote:Would love to have an example of your approach demonstrated in a practical example if you find yourself with time to spare for that.
I could give some examples of known personalities that I believe, fit what I've been saying:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Einstein,_Albert

Albert Einstein is the first example that pops to my mind. He has both Venus and Saturn in horrible condition essentially. Also, his Mercury is afflicted. Still, not only he has an angular Mars, but an exalted one, disposing these three planets, as well as his Sun, also disposed by triplicity, in Pisces.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Geo ... of_England

George VI is another good example. His Mercury is in detriment. But Jupiter and the Sun (triplicity ruler to Sagittarius) are both in good essential dignity. Although, Jupiter being retrograde, points to delays and back and forth expression.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Lavoisier,_Antoine

Lavoisier's chart is another example. His 7th house is ruled by Mars. Mars by itself is sort of "helpless", but Venus disposes it. Lavoisier's wife was not only beautiful, but actively helped him with his work.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Chaplin,_Charles

Charles Chaplin chart is interesting. Mars is in detriment, but a Venus in good essence disposes it. Saturn also is in detriment, but the Sun in Aries tends to it.

It's even more interesting when compared to Hitler's chart...

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Hitler,_Adolf

Venus can not tend to the rising sign in Hitler's chart, she is in aversion. So, it is Saturn's function, as exalted lord. The Sun is already peregrine here, so he does not offer much help to guide Saturn. Still, angularity brings the expression to the world anyways. Since Saturn is in the 10th, that's the work/image he left to posterity.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Mengele,_Josef

Another nazi. Mengele has all planets either peregrine or in detriment. His Mercury is of note. In detriment, does not get a very positive feedback from a peregrine Jupiter, ruler of 10th by division.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Churchill,_Winston

Churchill's chart. His Mercury, ruler of the AC (if the timing is correct) is peregrine and does not aspect most of it's rulers (only a cadent Moon). Also, is afflicted by Saturn to top it up. His bad health may be related to it.

Well, these are some examples that I remember right away. Also, I must say, there are some oddballs, that absolutely do not fit the "rules" I've put foward. One of such charts is this:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Ramirez,_Ricardo

Richard Ramirez' chart is one that to this day I can not find a satisfactory explanation to why his life resulted as it resulted. But this is not only a problem of disposition, in that everything in his chart does not fit his bio in my opinion. On that, all I can say is c'est la vie...
Paulo Felipe Noronha

11
Thanks Paolo - some interesting chart examples there. Only thing I would say is striking in Ramirez's chart is how the 1st and 8th rulers are in square and both in final degrees - I'll keep that one in mind because it might be a good chart to put forward for general discussion some time.
Churchill's Mercury is very interesting (I recognise the opposition to Pluto) - it seems to be responsible for so much of what was brilliant about him, but also represented his afflctions too. I don't think Churchill had poor health until he was old did he? When he was younger writing, reporting, speech, argument, decision-making and Mercurial activities were performing well.
I'm not sure what I think about this heavy reference to the dispositor - still thinking it through. My own approach is that the dispositor doesn't do so much unless it is aspecting, but the difference with this approach is that it brings a negative emphasis to a planet when it has no aspect to its dispositor. Still, your approach doesn't seem so strict, but makes allows for other factors so it seems to make sense as a general principle.

Thanks again
Deb

12
The charts mentioned above with the addition of Rommel's make a very strong case for the strength of final dispositor. In many of these cases it ends up being in own sign or exaltation and sometimes in mutual reception with the penultimate dispositor.

Another interesting bit is the Jupiter of Hitler, Mengel and Churchill - all have the affliction of South node.The WW II was about money and wealth fight religion was just an excuse.

PD
---------
Add:
There are two riders - final dispositors by definition would be strong unless combust and most famous natal charts from WW will have signifactions of both wars built in!! And that could explain the wealth/ colony issues.
These could well be unanswerable questions.