How interesting! Thanks for sharing that information.

I've also come across a website recently of another astrologer who says she uses the modern planets as significators sometimes with great success.

I guess the proof lies in the pudding or something like that.

Thank you again.

Is this a confusion of people vs function?

The 7th is usually viewed as people i.e. spouse, lover, partner (personal or business), open enemies and thieves.

The 5th is usually viewed as function, what you do with people or things, i.e. creation (art, music, children, novel etc.), entertainment, children. Sex usually falls into one of these categories.

Sex (5th) or friendship (11th) or business (10th) is what you do (5th) with a person from the 7th.

At least that is the way I have come to understand it. This seems to be confirmed by:

Deb: Most of the widely recognised sources state that the ?other person? involved in a one-to-one relationship would be judged from the 7th house, regardless of whether the question is one of marriage or just getting a first date. Lilly?s opinion was that the 7th house is used to judge ?all manner of love questions ? whether man or woman, wives, sweethearts ??

and

Sue: The third house will always be transport whether we are talking about horse drawn carriages or cars. In the same way, the 7th house will always be used to denote the other person asked about including a romantic interest or a business partnership. We don?t use the 7th house for business partnerships that are life long and then use the 5th house for business partnerships that last a couple of years.

Hi Sungem,

I think you are right. This is a very big part of it. People read that the 5th house is the house of love affairs, pleasure, sex, etc. and then it becomes only a short step to taking the 5th as the other person in the love affair, sex, etc. Lilly very clearly states that the other person is always signified by the 7th house ruler.

As for using outer planets as significators, Lee Lehman has something interesting to say along those lines. In a talk she gave quite some time ago, she said that she wanted to test the theory that Uranus is supposedly the higher octave of Mercury (which I guess is why modern astrologers give signification of astrologers to Uranus), Neptune is supposedly the higher octave of Venus and Pluto the higher octave of Mars. To test this theory, she pulled many of the keywords from each planet and tried to match them up, i.e. Mercury with Uranus etc. What she found was that instead of the outer planets having words that were similar in description to their inner planets, each of the outer planets had keywords most closely resembling Saturn. Her conclusion was that all modern astrology had done was to add three more malefics, making modern astrology far more malefic that they accuse traditional astrology of being.

While I do not discount the value of outer planets entirely, they are of no value as significators as they do not rule any sign.

Sue: What she found was that instead of the outer planets having words that were similar in description to their inner planets, each of the outer planets had keywords most closely resembling Saturn.

It would of course, make things a lot simpler if we could just pair them up as "higher octaves" to the traditional rulers. When we had a complete set, we could then leave them out of the "normal" working chart, but then if so desired, could set another chart using only the "higher octave" planets! Sort of like an applied chart. Unfortunately, there does seem to be some dissention on the pairing.

Her conclusion was that all modern astrology had done was to add three more malefics, making modern astrology far more malefic that they accuse traditional astrology of being.

Hmmm...maybe they are a reflection of the modern age after all

While I do not discount the value of outer planets entirely, they are of no value as significators as they do not rule any sign.

I agree that they can often add to some interpretations and when pertinent, it is surprising how the chart itself seems to point up the relevant outers.

Interesting about the outer planets. But I was taught that the outer planets ruled the Signs of Aquarius, Scorpio and Pisces (Uranus, Pluto and Neptune) and could be used to signify certain things. For example, Aquarius would rule the airlines.

Barbara Watters gives some good examples of the rulerships of outerplanets in her book, "Horary Astrology and the Judgment of Events."

However, I see that astrologer Diane Stone says that she has at times used the outer planets to signify people with success.

Yes, I was taught this too many years ago. However, again, it is a modern interpolation that has no basis in the traditions of astrology. Most modern astrologers agree that the outer three planets are 'generational' planets. They talk about the Pluto in Scorpio generation, for example. Even most of the software programs that have interpretation sections will state that these planets are generational and are not interpreted on an individual basis. So how can they then use an outer planet to signify an individual in a horary chart?

And, of course, the whole structure of rulership falls apart if you try to add the outer planets. Having done my early astrological training with modern astrologers, the first time I completely understood the concept of rulerships so that it made perfect sense to me is when Deb explained it in a workshop I did a few years ago. It is so clear to me why the outer planets cannot be used as rulers that I can no longer even think of it in any other way.

The two links below are well worth reading.


http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary1b.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

Voyagergirl: But I was taught that the outer planets ruled the Signs of Aquarius, Scorpio and Pisces (Uranus, Pluto and Neptune)

Proabably 95% of the astrologers in this forum came to traditional (and medieval) astrology, having first learned it via the modern methods which assign these rulerships. However, once immersed (and accepting) of the basis behind using only the traditional rulers, it is hard to utilize the "generational" planets in similarly meaningful ways. Thus you will find most adherents to traditional astrology marginalize or discard the outer planets, as Sue points out above:

So how can they then use an outer planet to signify an individual in a horary chart?

It just occurred to me - you are aware that Skyscript is a site/forum which treats astrology quite differently from the average site/forum? Here the words traditional and modern relate to quite different astrological concepts, i.e. the traditional ruler of Pisces is Jupiter, instead of what you may be used to thinking - the traditional ( read modern) ruler is Neptune.

It might help you understand why you are never going to convince us otherwise. and why, as I pointed out to a friend a few days ago, it simply isn't possible to do horaries using "modern astrology". You may be faced with the same decision I was. When I discovered an interest in horary, I suddenly found I also had to back up and relearn astrology in a different format.

Sorry if all this seems like teaching "grandmother to suck eggs"

PS - There has never been anything "average" about Skyscript

voyagergirl

Well, Deb, I don't what to tell you except that Lee uses the 5th house for lovers and non-cohabiting couples, and the 7th for questions regarding marriage and live-in lovers.

Just an FYI voyagergirl.
Several years ago, before I joined this forum, I made the "mistake" of asking Lee a horary. I call it a mistake because I wasn't satisfied with the services that were rendered to me. I asked her the question "Will I and my ex get back together?"; she looked at my horary and responded "It's over" and I was out fifty bucks, and that was the end of that; no further discussion.
But the point I'm making here is that I could have sworn she used the 7th for my ex (he wasn't a live-in or husband). I actually posted that horary to this forum, because another astrologer contradicted her judgement, and I wanted to know who was right. I tried to find that thread but I couldn't.
So I'm not sure she practices what she teaches. I wish I could find that thread, I think it was posted some time in 2002.