The Problem with Dignity
In traditional astrology, there are five types of essential dignities and two types of essential debilities. A planet’s sign is thought to confer onto that planet a dignity or debility according to what we generally refer to as rulership. But "rulership" should more appropriately be thought of as a designation of all of the ways in which planets manage certain locations of the Zodiacal band. By the term ‘rulership’ astrologers usually mean the domicile rulership, despite the fact that all of the different dignities are types of rulership. For example, there is also rulership by exaltation, by triplicity (or trigon), by terms (or bounds) and by face (or decan). Conversely, a planet may also become debilitated by entering into the sign of its detriment or fall, which are also two types of rulerships or lordships. These different dignity and debility designations refer to specific signs or portions of signs, that a particular planet controls.
When a different planet chances to occupy these locations they are cast into a unique relationship with the lord who controls sign or portion of sign. When the lord of a particular dignity chances to be in one of its own dignity positions, this is often considered a good thing and the planet is heralded as being "dignified". When the lord of a particular debility chances to be in one of its own positions, this is typically considered a bad thing and the planet is designated as ‘debilitated’. For example, Mars in Capricorn is considered to be exalted, which is believed to be "good". But Mars in Cancer is in the sign of its fall, which is believed to be "not good". Sometimes, because the terms "good" and "bad" do not resonate well to some astrologers, the dignity problem is expressed in terms of strength and the planets are said to be "stronger" or "weaker" in those sign placements and thought to be bolstered or impaired in their ability to produce their significations.
This, at least, is the conventional thinking. But aside from the "good" - "bad" or "strong" - "weak" axes, what are the unique relationships do the planets have with regard to these placements? In other words, what specific function does a planet have with regard to its domicile location? What specific function does a planet have with regard to its triplicity, fall, term detriment, etc. locations? If a planet IS in its own terms for example, how does it behave that is different from when it is in its own domicile location. Is it just weaker? Or does it control something else altogether that is distinct from its control over its domicile sign? If we are saying that a planet has a unique relationship to a particular Zodiacal sign, what is that unique relationship? The designations of "weak" and "strong" imply that the 7 known dignities and debilities are just varying degrees given on a scale of "strength". Therefore, the implication is that the 7 dignities do not have different functions, but are all notches on a scale measuring one single function: the planet's ability to deliver its significations.
You may have noticed that in today’s more sophisticated astrological programs, a codification system of these different placements appears in the form of a table wherein each planet is allocated a different score according to how many of its controlling places it occupies, with some dignities getting a greater score, while term and the two debilities get a lower or negative scores respectively. In the end, a final planetary score is given which purports to identity how “dignified” a planet is when all its dignities and debilities are added together. Although this scoring system has been attributed to Ptolemy, it does not appear anywhere in the Tetrabiblos and may have been a later innovation of the Arabic period.
The problem with the tabular scoring system is that it implies one dimension or function, when it considers all the dignities together by a single score. But if that function is strength or ability to deliver, than why does each dignity have distinct names and why does each dignity originate from disparate historical traditions? It appears that the dignity table may have been an attempt by Islamic astrologers to remedy the problem of what to do with contradictory delineations created by the loss of this original functionality. More problematic, is that the individual functionality of each dignity is obscured and perpetuated when they are quantified in this manner. At the very least, surely these scales are misleading because if we are speaking about different functions, than we may be combining apples with oranges and creating an overarching function (i.e. the ability to deliver) that does not in reality exist. This is born out when tested empirically in real charts. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer has a chart with no less than 4 planets in dignity, including Venus, planet of love and relationships, both of which he was incapable of generating into his life. according to conventional teaching, Dahmer should have had beneficial relationships and love with such a dignified Venus. Ted Turner, the media mogul and philanthropist, has 4 planets in detriment and fall, including Mercury, planet of negotiations and communications. According to convention, he should not have been able to deliver proper Mercury significations into his life. But he’s a man known for developing a successful communications empire in his life. So there appears to be no empirical correlation between how ‘dignified’ a planet is and how well it delivers its significations into the life.
The Ruler Controls the Sign
As I’ve discussed elsewhere, matter is located in the houses. And the signs that occupy those houses describe something about how that matter comes into being, or existence. In essential dignity and debility, a planet not only has rulership over a sign, but by extension it has a particular type of influence over the house matter that falls within that sign. In other words, it’s the sign that drives the planet to act, but it’s also the matter of the houses that is most directly impacted by the planet’s rulership over its own signs. That's why a planet doesn’t need to be physically located in that sign in order to have an effect on that house’s matter.
Traditionally, we have been taught dignity backwards. We're taught that it's the sign that affects how the planet will behave when the planet is located in one of its signs. [This comes from the idea that signs acts like adjectives. This is not incorrect, but the adjective is qualifying to the house, not the planet!] So for example, Venus it’s thought, would be exalted only when it's physically located in Pisces. But this is incorrect. The planet is the lord, the sign is the area over which that lord rules, not the other way around. So Venus is not exalted by being IN Pisces; instead Venus exalts the region occupied by Pisces, and by extension any matter that lies within the house over which Pisces extends. Therefore, if Pisces occupies the 4th house and part of the 5th, then Venus will tend to exalt the 4-5th house matters as a consequence of its action — regardless of whether it's placed in Pisces or not.
Let’s be concrete with a delineation: Let’s say that we're speaking about Pisces on the 4 house cusp, and Venus is physically located in the 8th house. One way in which Venus can act in the 8th, is by acquiring a loan from a bank to buy a house. By acquiring this loan, VE thus, causes that property to become raised up in importance or exalted in that person’s life, because it'll now become that person’s own property. It’ll do that, even though it isn’t IN Pisces at all! The point to take away is that in dignity function, it's the planet that controls the sign, not the sign that controls the planet. That means that the planet doesn't need to be in any of its own dignities in order to have an impact on those places. It can be placed in a sign with no dignity, but it'll still have an impact upon any of the places over which it has rulerships. This concept is very useful in various ways and in different types of charts.
We're speaking here specifically about a planet’s dignity or debility relationship and dominance over its ruling signs. The sign can also influence a planet, but it can never make the planet ‘weaker or stronger’ by being the sign of its detriments or domiciles. Planets are pure archetypes, they can never be anything other than pure, even when they're in their detriment or fall signs. What can happen when a planet is IN a sign of its detriment, is that they will be motivated by needs that may be contrary to their ability to act. So they will need to work more closely with the domicile lord of that sign. But that does not mean that their essential nature is weakened by that other planet. [What ‘weakens’ a planet is its synodic relationship with the Sun. But that is a topic for another discussion.]
The Big Four
1. Domicile
The first and most important dignity is by domicile. With the exception of the Sun and Moon, each of whom only rule over one domicile sign, the other planets each rule over two domicile signs, a masculine and a feminine one. If you look at a dignity table you can see the corresponding domiciles of each planet. The function of this dignity is to have a generative influence over its places and to fulfill the sign’s need. So for example, if the Sun has domicile rulership over the 7th sign of the chart, and therefore rules that house by domicile (in other words, Leo is on the 7th house cusp), then the Sun will be responsible for generating relationships into the life of the native, since the 7th is the house of partnership and relationships. The sign is basically telling you how those relationships are coming into existence and which planet is responsible for that job: this will be the sign’s domicile lord. If the Sun happens to be located in the 9th house, the formation or generation of relationships will be the result of the person’s decisions about college or life abroad or about his spirituality. In other words, he might find a partner after deciding to go to a certain college or by deciding to travel abroad.
Domicile then, establishes a specific type of connection between the house of the planet’s domicile sign and the house in which it's placed. There is a sequence in the dynamics: first the planet acts over the house where it's placed; and through that action, it generates or brings into being the matters of the house over which it has domicile rulership. Creating or generating a thing doesn't mean that the thing doesn't already exist in the world somewhere. It simply means that the thing may not yet exist in the life of the native. So, a foreign man may already be alive, but he may not yet exist as a partner for the native in the above example. In a natal chart, the life of the native is the context that frames all chart houses and therefore the so-called “existence” of anything that comes from those environments.
When a planet IS also placed in one of the signs that it rules by domicile, it's in its own house. When this happens, it doesn't need to depend upon another lord to generate those matters. Because of this, it's more autonomous. That doesn't mean that it's stronger; it just means that it's more self-sufficient and self-motivated. It doesn't have to be motivated by a need that it can't itself fulfill. For this reason, it can be more effective at what it does, whether that is to do something positive or to do something negative.
2. Detriment:
The first debility function is the opposite of the domicile dignity. This is the debility by detriment. And its function is also the opposite of the domicile function. So while the domicile lord’s task is to generate matters into existence, the detriment lord’s task is to make matters “cease to be” from the native’s life. That is, the function or purpose of the detriment lord seems to be to remove, decrease, or take away the matters of the house over which it has detriment rulership.
Getting rid of something may sound unpleasant, but what if it involves getting rid of something like crutches because someone has started walking unassisted? And conversely, generating something may seem better, but not if you generate something like an illness. In other words, dignity and debility have more to do with how matter must exchange, than with how good of bad are the outcomes of those exchanges. This is very important to understand because we see the idea of dignity and debility still being taught as an affliction or bonification, even when the experiences from people’s lives constantly contradict these chart teachings. It also illustrates why scoring systems such as those already talked about earlier can be very misleading and why LINCOS doesn't teach them.
This doesn't mean that challenges are not present in the life or seen in the chart. There ARE ways to tell in a chart when something might happen with problems and possible difficulties. But this depends more upon accidental variables, not on essential condition.
Let’s take a chart example of how a planet might impact its place of detriment. In the chart of the famous Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mercury is in the sign of its detriment, which is Pisces. We can already see a problem with the traditional teaching of detriment because it would have us believe that this is a ‘weak Mercury’ since it's placed in the sign of its detriment. (I chose this chart for this very reason.) For those who are unfamiliar with Marquez, he was one of the world’s most preeminent literary figures, who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1982. This is NOT a man who has weak communication skills, as might be taught by this position. To explain this inconsistency with convention away in a different manner, one might argue — and I would certainly be easily swayed with this argument — that literary writing (as was indicated by the Gauquelin astrological studies on profession), is actually under the rulership of the Moon, not Mercury. Mercury’s connection to writing has more to do with non-fictional journalistic or scribal written accounts. I would agree with this point. But even if we interpret Mercury as more of a type of journalistic form of communication, rather than the literary award that he won, Marquez’ life also contradicts a weak Mercury because he started his career as a successful professional journalist writing for various newspapers in Colombia. Furthermore, his literary career was heavily shaped by an appreciation of realism in his writing. Additionally, dogmatic traditionalists might also have you believe that this Mercury is weak because it's retrograde, which they would also see as another indicator of ‘weakness’. But again, this would be an imprecise and misleading interpretation of retrogradation. (I address the retrogradation function in other materials). The point I make here is that this is NOT a weak or unfortunate Mercury, because nothing in this man’s life would argue for such an interpretation. So we must NOT ignore reality when it contradicts long-held astrological theory or convention. We must investigate further to a definition that can account for all cases of this dignity.
1. Exaltation
The next dignity is the rulership by exaltation. The verb to exalt literally means to raise up or elevate in some manner. This can be to elevate in status, rank, value, or simply to elevate in importance. All types of elevations are possible.
Not all signs have planets that exalt them. But let’s take a real world example and see how one might operate. The chart on the left is that of the current King Charles of England. He has the Moon in Taurus, which is his 10th house sign. That means that the Moon rules his 10th house through exaltation, since the Moon rules over Taurus by exaltation. We can simply say: the Moon exalts the 10th. [Note word “rulership” applies to all types of dignities/debilities not just domicile.] Getting back to King Charles’ Moon: Because the Moon is itself placed in Taurus, it also means that this Moon is in its own place of exaltation, just like Moon in Cancer would be in its own place of domicile. This now means that the Moon, which is the archetypal significator of the mother, is itself elevated in a public place. We can certainly see that King Charles’ mother, the previous Queen Elizabeth of England, was an elevated public figure herself. But even if the Moon were NOT in its own sign of exaltation, it would still be able to elevate the 10th house of King Charles’ chart because it has that elevating power over any Taurus house. In that case we’d read the exaltation power of the Moon as: “a motherly figure or his own mother, has the power to elevate Charles’ status in life”. And if we added the Moon’s placement itself in Taurus, we could add, “…through her own publicly elevated position.” So Moon in Taurus not only elevates the Taurus house, but is itself elevated in this case.
Notice also that, because we’ve been using an Equal house system and in Equal houses, the Moon is inside of the 9th place, but in the 10th house sign, we can in addition say that it has a 9-10 combination house placement. Thus, we can be more specific about the object of the Moon’s actions and say that “the mother’s acceptance (acceptance is one of the lunar verbs we work with) …of a legal public status (legal because it’s in the 9th place AND public status because it’s in the 10th house sign), …has the power to elevate his own public status or occupation (that is his 10th house).”
King Charles has Leo rising, as does everyone with Taurus on the 10th (when using whole-sign or Equal houses). So while everyone with this rising sign layout will have their public status or occupational status elevated by a lunar action, not everyone will have the Moon in its own place of elevation at an angle. Obviously the lunar action does not have to be performed by an archetypal or literal mother, such as a nation’s Queen. A lunar action can be performed by any person who behaves in a receptive, protective or caring manner.
1. Fall
The last debility we need to discuss is by Fall. This debility has the opposite function to that of exaltation, which is to say, that the debility lord depresses or brings down the matters of the house over which it has rulership by fall. Just as in the case of detriment, this debility is also neutral and doesn't make the planet that controls the fall any worse than any other planet. What it does do is to make something lower in stature or importance; something is brought down or made lower in some way. This can be a positive or a negative outcome, but that judgment doesn't depend on any essential dignity indicator. (Again,, the variables that do indicate challenges are accidental ones.)
This next chart is John Lennon’s. If you recall from prior examinations of this chart using Equal houses, we noted that Lennon has the Sun in Libra in the 6th house, but in the 7th sign. We said that the Sun represented Lennon’s choices, particularly regarding significant partnerships. The Sun rules or has rulership over the fall of Libra and in this chart happens to be located in the sign of its fall. That means that the Sun has the power not only to “bring down” or downgrade his partnerships, but also because the Sun is in Libra and the 7th itself, it's through his decision and judgement about those partners that he downgrades them. Had the Sun been in the 3rd place for example, it would have been a decision about his knowledge or songs, that would have downgraded his partnerships. But here, it’s actually what he feels about the collaboration or partnership that creates the fall.
We know that Lennon decided to leave his first wife Cynthia and also to leave his writing partnership with Paul McCartney. Now the Sun is also domicile ruler of the 5th, which helps to identify who is acting (through our subject rule). So it's his need for creative identity and as a father, that drive him to make these two partnership decisions.
We can also look at the Sun as the archetypal father, that is, as Lennon’s internalized version of what a father is. It's not uncommon for those who have Sun in Libra (and therefore Sun in its own sign of fall) to -- at some time in the life -- experience a situation in which their image of a father or a father-figure is downgraded from a place of higher elevation or significance in their lives. Sometimes this downgrade is experienced as a disappointment with regard to the native’s relationship with a paternal figure. Other times, it's a downgrade granted by a life circumstance.
In Lennon’s case, he experienced a disillusionment of the image he had of his father after many years of idealizing him. Lennon’s father was a merchant seaman who left the family when Lennon was only 5 years old. Lennon idealized him and his life at sea. After many years of being absent form his life, his father came back after he was already rich and famous to ask him for money. This was the moment in which Lennon says in his biography that his father lost all meaning for him. In Lennon’s case, it was a difficult situation because the Sun is afflicted by the south node opposition (which is not shown) and its disposition to Pluto in the house of the father. But in other charts, the Sun ruling over its house of fall can bring positive outcomes, if the thing being downgraded is a problematic one that one wants to lower in significance. Again, fall in-and-of-itself is a neutral dignity. It's only an affliction to the planet that can make it less positive.
Let’s now imagine how a positive outcome could occur from a fall lord. Let’s say that you're buying a home and you cast a horary chart asking about the outcome of the negotiations with a potential seller of that house. If Pisces is on the cusp of the 7th, making the significator of the seller be Jupiter, and Capricorn is on the cusp of the 5th, signifying the value of the property, then the seller may be inclined to bringing down the price of that house in the ensuing negotiations. The other rules of horary would have to be looked at to see if that situation might have the likelihood of coming to pass. But the power of that fall could be beneficial to the querent of such a question. This is because Jupiter controls the fall or downgrade of Capricorn. If, on the other hand, Jupiter itself were in Capricorn, the seller might drop the price, but in the process he would himself be brought down by that transaction. In other words, he’d be placing himself at a loss with that deal. The rules of essential dignity or debility work the same no matter what type of chart you're working with. it's only the context of the chart that changes.
So those are the big 4. Stay tuned for the next post on the functions of Triplicity, Term and Face...
Comments