|
Post by lumina on Dec 23, 2020 10:11:06 GMT
To me it`s mostly a combination of all of these. But lately I find I am especially inclined to put more weight to the aspects, for different reasons,t wo being that a) aspects stay relatively stable throughout the charts (even if you change the point of reference, like Draconic, sidereal chart etc. - at least within those charts, overlays betweewn tropical and Draconic for example will give different results of course, which is also a great tool to interprete, but I disgress).
and b) astrology was basically born from the observation of the sky, and what we see, and what is evident during astronomical events like eclipses etc, are certain aspect-configurations between planets.
Signs and houses, are delivering the background, the backdrop against which or the glasses through which we perceive those celestial events/ aspects. In so far they are of course important, as my glasses might show me a different perspective than yours.
So I guess I am back to what I originally said. I see it as a combination. But it is the aspects that show us the "action", the "What is happening" (or if something is happening even). Just with houses and signs, we could also do some asessment of a personality profile, but it would remain static, and that does not align with my experience of how people are. While there is a certain "solid personality core", our life is determined by changes and especially by interconnecting with our environment (that is where the aspects come into play, and frankly, the progressions and transits).
|
|
|
Post by lumina on Dec 23, 2020 10:15:56 GMT
As I once read in one of my very first astrology books....
WHO (planets) is doing WHAT (aspects) HOW (signs) and WHERE (houses).
And the outer planets MODIFY the expression of the inner planets, often operating as adjectives (which is why Neptune, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus conjunct a personal planet often take on characteristics of the signs (Pisces, Scorpio, Sag, Cap, Aqua) - it probably works for inner planets too, the slower one modifying the faster one, but the more we get to the inner core, the more equally the qualitative expression seems to be contributed.
It is probably not so black and white, but for a first approach, it is a good enough guide line (even though not a rule that one has to strictly adhere to).
And of course there are different schools of thoughs, I know several astrological schools, that will place most importance on houses and their rulers, and then others who will completely do away with the houses.
So there is not a one fits all approach to this I think.
|
|
sroo
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by sroo on May 29, 2021 0:22:10 GMT
I find I am especially inclined to put more weight to the aspects, for different reasons,t wo being that a) aspects stay relatively stable throughout the charts (even if you change the point of reference, like Draconic, sidereal chart etc. luminaI'm becoming more interested in the aspects too. For me it's due to that mostly, in popular astrology, there is a lot of dressing up the planets in robes of the signs. There seems to be a lot lost in how different a Venus cancer is as opposed to a sun cancer. Even many books don't distinguish from the different planetal archetypes. Another thing I noticed is also that it differs what part of the chart we embody, while others remain projected of unconscious.
|
|