Several things for comment, just taking them in the order they appear...
Arena wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:53 am
Sometimes the house dispositorship can actually make sense and sometimes it doesn't.
LOL, that's a decent description of "not reliable"
Randomly, anything we decide to use (even if it has no value at all) will seem to work sometimes, and seem not to work sometimes. (That's why anecdotal, case-by-case evidence is usually only useful to catch our attention, and of no value in confirming whether something is real and actual.)
I guess it can depend on how you want to use it, how you apply it and what examples you have (convincing or not).
I have no trouble with them (or anything else, for that matter) being part of a
mantic (divinatory) approach to astrology - or, in that case, it would be called
astromancy. You can use a horoscope illustration the same way that you would use Tarot cards, and nothing makes that approach zing like house dispositorships! But it's not astrology.
You may think of dispositorship differently than other people, but I can see that you are actually using planetary/sign dispositorship for the lumiaries like you believe they are the ultimate truth, proving the sidereal zodiac.
First, just to keep communication on track: I'm careful to distinguish between
sign rulers and
house dispositors. I get the point you're making, but the functions are quite different, and the use of different words keeps this clear (even if "ruler" is a bit romantic of a term; "sign cognate," for example would be more accurate).
And I don't consider that the "ultimate truth" or proof. That "ultimate" would be the numerous large statistical studies scanning possible zodiac boundaries that show that (1) there is indeed a zodiac of 12 30° zones and (2) it's boundaries are at 25° of the Tropical signs at present, 24° most of a century ago, 23° most of a century before that, etc.; plus the Sidereal ingress / mundane work that shows that the exact boundaries can be repeatedly verified within, at worst, a few seconds of arc.
But in terms of
meanings rather than structures - vocabulary rather than syntax - yes, the sign rulerships and exaltations are the best single source of describing the natures of the individual zones.
When you say that the Sun will express itself differently when in Aries than when in Libra, you are actually using dispositorship in a way because you are in a way saying that an Aries Sun expresses itself a bith Martian (dispositorship) and then when in Libra it would express itself a bit Venusian (dispositorship).
I agree to the extent you mean what I just said above, but the word is wrong.
You are probably using
disposition in the modern sense of "the style or characteristic of a thing." In astrology, though, it has an archaic English meaning that means more "to place, deploy, put it in its right functional context," as in disposing troops to a battlefield. This is what is meant by the primary function of "house rulers" (rightly "house dispositors"), the idea (for example) that if the ruler of the sign on the 11th cusp is in the 9th house then those things represented by the 11th house unfolds in terms of the context (or some other vaguer association) of the 11th house,
e.g., that friends are mostly important to you for the purpose of sharing long-distance travel; or the ruler of your 2nd house is in the 12th, meaning (for example) that you keep your money covertly, hidden away; or the reverse, that the ruler of the sign on the 12th house is in the 2nd, meaning (just to give one example) that your secrets and covertness are all caught up in your idea of possession; or, for that matter, that the ruler of the sign on the 3rd cusp is in the 4th house, meaning that your brothers and sisters live in your house
This is a fun game, but nothing more. I'm certainly no stranger to it - I was a Tropicalist before I was a Siderealist, and this kind of routlette was routine. My favorite example is the first time I dug into Richard Nixon's chart (probably my favorite because I was correct - for no good reason other than intuition). In his Tropical-Placidus chart, I noted that the ruler of his 8th house was Mars, and it conjoined his 1st/10th house ruler Mercury + 4th house ruler Jupiter
in his 4th house (the end of the matter) - "everybody knows" that 8th and 4th house connection usually end up being about death - opposite Pluto in the 10th house of the presidency in Gemini. So this was saying that he would die as president in his
second term. But since "everybody knew" that presidents only die on a 20-year Jupiter-Saturn cycle that wasn't going to come due until 1980, he obviously wasn't going to die as president, so, instead, he would have
something very much like dying happen, with similar impact, in his 2nd term as president.
As astrology, this is pure crap. My accuracy was a mix of luck, wishful thinking at age 18, and possibly a little intuition. Having imprecise, associative, symbol-rooted techniques does free up a different faculty of mind, just as in divinatory methods like Tarot; but it isn't astrology.
F.ex. in your own case Mercury is said to be the ruler of your lagna (ASC) and of your 10th house (job/how the world sees you). I see you as a very Mercurian person in your expression and approach and you are also a teacher, Mercury.
Yes, I can make the case for my own chart, especially with the "insider information" I have on being me
And of course I'm quite mercurial since I have a Virgo Sun anyway - it's the heart of who I am. When you look at ranges of charts, it isn't obviously true, and often isn't true at all, that the Ascendant ruler, its placements and other associations has any kind of primal place in the chart at all.
You might say it is because your Sun is in Virgo, but that might not be the core truth at all.
The difference is, we have very substantial statistics showing that Sidereal signs are real and the Sun in them is distinctly valid - its placement in one location being highly distinguishable from its placement in another one of these zones. And, where specific zones (signs) can be associated with specific character or occupational traits, the results are a strong fit for classical descriptions.
In other words, we have way more than enough to justify relying on this, whereas there is nothing even remotely comparable about even house
placements, let alone the secondary factors of the present discussion.
Now your Mercury is conjunct Saturn, so that means discipline and maybe being rigid. Saturn in your chart rules 5th and 6th houses. Vedic astrology says those are; 5th for education/children/entertainment and 6th for lawsuits/subordinates/illnesses. I am not sure how you would see your self expression as Mercury conjunct Saturn and I do not know if you had to deal with lots of illnesses/subortinates, but I can see very strong expression of law and education through what you do, you are a lawyer (deal with lawsuits) and you are also a teacher (deal with education).
I haven't had to deal with "lot of illnesses" - probably a typical number, much less than most people. (I gave a summary in a health thread recently.) BTW, if I were do use houses to discuss 6th house matters, one needn't go the route of dispositorships, there is a very simple statement that my Moon is in the 6th and (by house theory) places a particular emphasis there.
Now those two planets are placed in the 2nd house (I guess you can not avoid doing 2nd house law matters in your line of work, so that would mean having to deal with money and property and possibly also family/child matters) and in Libra (sign for law).
Not much, no. And just for clarity, I'm not a lawyer. I practiced workers' compensation law for a decade-plus, when it was still legal for non-bar members to practice it; and I work for one of the nation's largest law firms, but heading an IT department. It would be a fair statement, in all this, that I've made most of the money in my life in one or another situation connected with the practice of law (even though I worked at many other things and for more years of my life) and, were I to fully embrace house usage, the presence of Libra planets in the 2nd house would definitely hold my attention.
I can't take the time to go point by point through the rest, but my overall impression is: Wow, why would one want to go to such devious complexities to read a horoscope (let alone such
unsubstantiatable complexities) when astrology can be so much more forthright.
There is also, in all of this, a huge psychological and philosophical problem: This house-driven approach presumes that we are fragmented people who are quite different in one area of our lives than in another. The much more solid principle is in the phrase, "How you are in one part of your life is how you are in all parts of your life." Not necessarily the details, but who you are deeply and fundamentally. It isn't
just that I'm a Mercury-Saturn conjunction character in matters of 1st, 10th, 5th, and 2nd house matters, but, rather, than I'm a Mercury-Saturn conjunction character
period - in
all parts of my life. In those areas
and in personal relationships, and higher and lower thinking, and my home, and so on. But the same is also true for my Venus-Pluto, Venus-Jupiter-Uranus, Mars-Neptune, and other expressions. I am all of these things in all areas of my life.
People aren't department stores, with everything tucked in it's own little section. We're all bargain basements were everything is thrown in one big pile at the same time.
I do need to get back to writing that thread on structural elements of astrology. It needs to be written, it's probably the most important thing I could write, but I keep putting it off until I can do it right. The main theme of it is that syntax matters more than vocabulary.