In your astrological delineations do you regard Signs as:

Important, primary considerations in chart delineation
Total votes: 5 (50%)
Secondary (or minor) considerations in chart delineation
Total votes: 5 (50%)
Total votes: 10

2
I have to agree with Steven. The planets are our primary actors, but how would you judge dignity, etc. without signs?

We need the signs. If you mean in the modern sun-sign sense, I don't take it that much into consideration by itself (Sun in Leo on the MC would definitely grab my attention as a major player, and things like that, of course). But it was only about a hundred years ago that people stopped being described as saturnine, jovial, etc. types, and started being described as a Cancer or Aquarius and so forth.

Descriptively, I find more value in planetary types, and of course, temperaments, than I do in sun signs. The reason that jovial type might be jovial is because they have Jupiter rising in Sag. It's pretty unlikely that it's solely (or at all) because they have the sun in Sagittarius or Pisces - especially if it's in 6 or 8, or somewhere else where it's not going to be prominent.

We really can't do without the signs, though - at least not unless you're into cosmobiology, or the like, but most of us here follow some form of traditional astrology. Would anyone want to discount the difference, say, between Mars in Aries and Mars in Cancer? I wouldn't.

I wouldn't want to discount the angles, or the houses, or even the aspects, either, though aspects are probably the last on my list - but they can still make a big difference. And we can go on to add things like fixed stars and lots - astrology is all of a piece in one way.

But even someone as modern as Charles Carter (though I will say that Carter's techniques were far more precise and researched than most of what passes for modern astrology now) said that if he had a choice to know which sign or which planet was rising in a person's chart - he'd rather know the planet.

Anyone disagree?

3
That's the thing. Modern astrology has taken signs way into the other extreme. I know most professional modern astrologers are more nuanced than that, but once you start getting into amateur astrology, signs take over and planets move into the background. I'm sure the reason for this is that anyone with a 3rd grade education can find their Sun sign, but anything above that requires a chart to drawn up, and most people can't read a chart.

Like Steven says, it's not what is more important, it's about striking a balance.

4
That's the thing. Modern astrology has taken signs way into the other extreme.


Clearly planets are the primary players in any delineation. Signs are one of many factors that mitigate the influence of planets such as aspects, houses, sect, synodic phase etc. It is certainly possible to contemplate an astrology with planets and no signs but not vice versa. However, in terms of traditional astrology it is really impossible to dissect the signs/dignities from an astrological delineation so I do find this question rather artificial.

What intrigues me more is the odd exception in the tradition (such as Valens or Ibn Ezra) where the signs seem to be described in some detail and acscribed psychological characteristics on their own.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

5
MarkC wrote: What intrigues me more is the odd exception in the tradition (such as Valens or Ibn Ezra) where the signs seem to be described in some detail and acscribed psychological characteristics on their own.
It's a consideration and not a stand-alone technique. At least that's how I look at it.

6
It's a consideration and not a stand-alone technique. At least that's how I look at it.
I am sure your right about that. However, that is not my point. I am just emphasizing that these two astrologers go into some detail into the delineation of signs beyond the standard list of qualities. I have seen people stating on Skyscript that traditional authorities never do that. Still, its undeniable it is a very long way from modern sign based astrology.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

7
MarkC wrote: However, in terms of traditional astrology it is really impossible to dissect the signs/dignities from an astrological delineation so I do find this question rather artificial.
At least one authority would not agree with your opionion that this question were rather artificial, Mark: Johannes Kepler, in his DE FUNDAMENTIS ASTROLOGIAE CERTIORIBUS, Thesis XLIX (German translation: Von den gesicherten Grundlagen der Astrologie, S. 46; English translation ???), is very critical as to the assignment of the signs as domiciles of the planets for example, or as their own dominions.

But personally I agree with you and cannot imagine to look at a chart without considering the signs they being fundamental for all essential dignities and debilities of the planets.

8
At least one authority would not agree with your opionion that this question were rather artificial, Mark: Johannes Kepler, in his DE FUNDAMENTIS ASTROLOGIAE CERTIORIBUS.
With respect I think you have taken my comment out of context. I was commenting on this in relation to traditional astrology. Was Kepler really a traditional astrologer? I would say most definitely not! He ultimately rejected just about all traditional astrological conventions such as signs, dignities, houses, and aspect theory. That is not to deny Kepler was a genius or an important figure in the history of astrology. His approach to aspects was eventually very influential and contributed to the ultimate replacement of moeity-orb theory. Even Lilly discusses Kepler's Quintiles etc in Christian Astrology.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

9
In my poll question I have not asked about relative importance between signs and planets (or between signs and other chart elements) I have merely asked how important do you consider signs in delineation-how much weight or significance do you attribute to their testimony-a lot or a little? It's the same as with my question about how you regard the importance of stars: not whether you regard them as are more or less important than other chart elements, but rather how importantly you regard their testimony- how much weight do you accord their testimony, a lot, a little, or not at all.

10
Mark, we agree, I think, that Kepler as an astrologer is based on tradition (see his judgments of Wallenstein's chart for example), even thouth his view is surely 'a little' beyond that what we call tradition.

And here is the dilemma of your poll-question, dr. farr! Even if a sign itself and per se had no great value in delineation for some of us, yet it is the deflector for the determination of the rulership of the houses and the planet's essential dignities and debilities - and thus the signs are indispensable in classical astrology and delineation as nearly all writers in this thread have stated as yet.

PS: Mark, can you give a quote of the "moiety-orb-theory" or call an ancient author, please? As yet for me the moieties of orbs are only the halves of the orbs of two applying or separating planets as Lilly or Dariot state. Or is the moiety-orb-theory only a modern 'problem'?
I hope you, dr. farr, will accept this out of poll question please?
Last edited by johannes susato on Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

12
Thank you very much for the link, Olivia! :D
[I had hoped to find some more of the "theory" of the moieties. It seems there is none and "half orbs" were an "invention" of contemporary autohors unwilling perhaps to read what is written (and meant as Steven says) by the ancients].