ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES PART
5
Both ancient and contemporary astrologers have attempted to
define any symmetry of reasoning within the core structure of the exaltation
system, on technical, symbolic and philosophical levels.
Most of the exaltation signs of
the planets form a positive geometric relationship[23] upon the wheel to one of the signs that the planet in
question holds original domicile dignity with (and also usually that of
joy[24]) thus;
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Saturn in Libra Exaltation
– trine Aquarius dignity/joy
of Saturn
Jupiter in Cancer
Exaltation – trine Pisces dignity of
Jupiter ( joy of Jupiter is
Sagittarius)
Mars in Capricorn
Exaltation – sextile Scorpio dignity/joy of
Mars
Venus in Pisces
Exaltation – sextile Taurus dignity/joy of
Venus
Sun in Aries
Exaltation – trine Leo dignity/joy of
Sun
Moon in Taurus
Exaltation – sextile Cancer dignity/joy of
Moon
Mercury in Virgo
Exaltation – already in own sign of
dignity/joy.
________________________________________________________________________________________
In the overview, any the promise of the above
pattern is seen to falter at Jupiter and (appropriately) appears to become
confounded when applied to Mercury. As well, the exaltations of Saturn, Jupiter,
Mars and Venus are seen to be in a conflicting relationship to the other signs
of their dual domicile dignities[25].
These signs, although of the dual domicile dignity,
are generally not also those of the joy of their respective planetary lords.
The further
this line of analysis continues (particularly in looking to Mercury and the two
lights) the more the apparent logic of pattern appears to degenerate into
further confusion.
Nevertheless, by
the holistic geometry of the circle and such like, the point that some
‘abrasive’ symbolic relationship that is seen to exist, towards other domicile
signs, must in itself have its own validity. Such a complementary pattern, simply suggests
the honouring of the totality of the zodiacal wheels inherent alchemical
apparatus and the philosophic nature of duality. In that there are, thus indicated, also the
existence of some balancing and very vigorous processes and this does not negate
the nature and power of the exaltation system.
To state it simply, when enlisting a general
awareness of duality, for all the apparent lack of consistency here, there is
still the suggestion of a fair amount of harmony of principle. The quest then
becomes to seek the seeds of that harmony, a challenge that so far, seems to
have contributed to many misunderstandings.
So, it is observed that this curious emergence of pattern
may seem to warrant the stimulation and the validation of a certain degree of
pondering and more sophisticated research. Perhaps the shadows of clues, to a deeper
philosophical understanding of the greater holism of the patterning, are
echoing. As
one thing is certain regarding the dignity of exaltation, is that it has come to
us from very ancient times, therefore through periods of ancient gnosis and may
be potentially related to some form of a bedrock astrological principle.
It is interesting in itself
that the basic classification of exaltation had maintained throughout
astro-history, to be still of some form of a presence today. This has been seen
largely void of any of the heritage of its known lore, or a clear underpinning
of philosophical regard. Also, the surfeit of the tenets of
‘modern’ astrology has now become embodied as a veneer upon the exaltation
principle and the nature of dignity in general.
As seen, a loss of understanding can lead to a form
of the loosening, of the esoteric infrastructure, of astrological symbolism and
therefore leads to a squandering of symbolic principles. Thus to state it
once more, inferred is an accompanying line of philosophy/symbology, that is
still to be further brought to light[26].
Exploring the
definition of exaltation and how it may have a slight difference in its tone, to
that of domicile dignity.
The ancient astrologers literally described an exalted
planet as of the rank of an ‘exalted guest’, thus there is a sense of nobility
and dignity still being ‘served’. However, one is ‘visiting’ an environment
that is not entirely ones own, as is more well-reflected by the greater dignity
of domicile position.
Although a planet may
be essentially very comfortable, as when in exaltation, but nonetheless the sign
concerned actually still ‘belongs’ to another domicile lord. For instance, to
compare the perception that the Sun, which is of a supreme symbolic power in its
own sign of Leo, as this position is at once, the domicile and joy of this
body. Thus in
comparison, a Sun when it is in Aries, is seen as in exaltation but nevertheless
is answering to the lordship of Mars and not that of itself, as it would if at
home.
Within such identified
condition of exalted dignity, the Sun is said to be possibly ‘elevated’ and
potentially capable of becoming ‘refined’, even more so, then when in
domicile. Yet,
there is still a greater degree of adaptation, or a difference in the
alchemising, than when being in domicile, thus exaltation is seen as a secondary
essential dignity.
Therefore the
analogy that has been drawn of a planet ‘visiting’ another lord’s stronghold is
as an ‘honoured/exalted guest’. Thus, the question as to what state is the
lord of the exaltation sign is in, becomes another factor in further qualifying
the nature of the situation. Or, in continuing the metaphor, what kind of
‘host’ is contributing to the tone of the environment of this ideally exalted
stronghold?
Although exaltation is
a strong essential dignity, the potential for some instability to the planetary
archetype is more so than when in a sign of domicile. Hence the condition
of exaltation is seen as not necessarily the most solid, although it may be of a
great potential.
In the tradition of astrology, depending upon the entire picture, exalted
planets have been seen to reflect the mechanisms of marked rises and falls. However, in the
thinking of this heritage, it was said that with exaltation one is more likely
to redeem the fall.
The Latin ‘exaltare’, to ‘put up high’, underlies the word ‘exaltation’. In the dictionary
this word becomes concerned with concepts to do with praise, promotion,
intensification and rising. In addition, to be in exaltation is to be
within an experience of extremely heightened happiness. Another definition is
that of being an official term to signify an ‘exaltation of larks’. The ‘high spirits’
are therefore reflected so that they may be lent to a planetary symbolism by
exaltation.
This collection of
definition captures the essence of the term, which although heightened in tone,
also has a certain sense of pressure present. The exalted planet is not on its own throne
and is thus not in total control of its natural symbolic agendas. Hence, planetary
tone and strength may fluctuate more easily, when under this class of
dignity.
The zodiacal condition of
exaltation has been observed as ‘highly charged’ and in the ultimate, concerned
with ‘an extra-natural condition or spiritualisation of quality’[27]. At best an exalted planet may be
well-tempered, even solidly supported and serene of expression – or it can be
more prone to become unstable or extreme.
The essence of the character of exaltation has been
encapsulated here:
“. . . the exaltation of a planetary quality is a somewhat
different matter [in relation to other dignities], as it relates more to the
“super refinement” of a given quality to a degree rarely met with. This process is
essentially alchemical, although it does occur in Nature, accidentally, as it
were. And we
must remember that art is Nature prodded by the artist under knowledge. Nevertheless, there
is something unnatural about the exalted planets, for they indicate a degree of
refinement which begins to bring in qualities that are somewhat uncharacteristic
of the planetary quality under any other circumstances”[28].
So an exalted
astrological component is classically gifted with the potential for some form of
virtue and vision within its manifest/reflected experience. It appears that a
body in such zodiacal condition may not handle some forms of stress very well,
as when in domicile, being more prone to destabilise. Particularly in
exaltation a planetary archetype has to ‘stretch’ itself, in answering to
another lord’s voice.
This is a factor which
may be viewed as a part of its essential character, as a symbol within the
horoscope.
Nevertheless, in its essence, as with the previous dignity of domicile,
an exalted planet may come from a base of promising a lot of promise and reflect
the existence of some variety of potential support. Once more the
astrologer is called to see how and where this promise may find further
mitigation and expression.
______The Nature
of the Major Essential Debilities______
Detriment__________
In the case of a
planet posited in its opposite sign to that of domicile, the body is then said
to be ‘detrimented’. Thus a planet is within the boundaries of a
sign that is not seen as a zone of archetypal comfort to its nature; hence it
may be nominated as essentially debilitated.
In astrological tradition, a celestial component within its
sign of detriment is at the most furthest distance of separation upon the wheel,
in being in the sign opposite to that of its own domicile stronghold.
The planet, or light, is
thus far removed from its place of familiarity and is seen as vulnerable, thus
it may be called to work harder or have to adjust itself, in order to fulfil
that what it may pertain to. To reiterate this listing;
Sun domicile of
Leo thus Aquarius is the opposite sign of detriment.
Moon domicile of
Cancer thus Capricorn is the opposite sign of detriment.
Mercury domicile
of Gemini/Virgo thus Sagittarius/Pisces are the opposite signs of detriment.
Venus domicile of
Taurus/Libra thus Scorpio/Aries are the opposite signs of detriment.
Mars domicile of
Aries/Scorpio thus Libra/Taurus are the opposite signs of detriment.
Jupiter domicile
of Sagittarius/Pisces thus Gemini/Virgo are the opposite signs of detriment.
Saturn domicile of
Capricorn/Aquarius thus Cancer/Leo are the opposite signs of detriment.
As can be seen in regard to
detriment, the logic of the domicile system is simply reversed, to the polarity
zodiacal sign upon the ecliptic. Thus to touch on a previous mentioned example,
the Moon when in its detriment of Capricorn, is posited within a symbolic field
of energy that is not at all essentially ‘lunar’ in its respective symbolic
tone.
Once more, this is
not necessarily ‘bad’ in itself, as at this point, it is more so that there is
simply less harmony of planet/sign resonance, whatever it may eventually express
as. To
continue the example, the sign of Capricorn is actually the cold, dry domicile
sign of the cold, dry lord Saturn. Obviously the essential lunar symbolism as
given by the Moon is called to adapt to expressing through a lens that is quite
removed from its moistness of nature.
Thus seems the
core essence of a body being detriment, that is, the respective archetypal
templates of the sign and planet reflect a dissonance, or clashing, which may
prove truly debilitating/destructive in the extreme.
Or conversely, to the other end of the scale, such positing
may promise extremely galvanising dynamics, potentially making for a highly
original, or individual form of expression (i.e.; non-archetypal). However, as with
essential dignity, what is ultimately defined will always be relative to the
core character and temperament as symbolised by the actual celestial body
concerned.
In the
astrological tradition, the planets of a basic ‘benefic’ nature were considered
to be generally lessened in their typical effectiveness.
Those planets that have
been classed as essentially ‘malefic’ were seen as more primed, when in a
position of debility, to become more challenging in their nature. It is as if a
detrimented (and fallen) celestial body by sign, is dealing with having to
‘work’, or ‘care’ for aspects of its possible expression and experience.
Certainly the planet or
light has to adapt and is in the stronghold belonging to a lord who is more
alien to its own knowing. For instance, in answering to Saturn, when in
the sign of Capricorn, the Moon is dealing with having to integrate another
planetary symbol that is very far removed from its own essence.
Interestingly,
when the term ‘detriment’ is further researched, it is seen to hail from the
Latin ‘deterare’, meaning ‘wear away’, out of
‘terare’, which
translates to ‘rub’ or ‘wear’. Thus as a potential foundation of thought as
to the nature of a planet detrimented, it is finding the sign that it is in
‘wearing’ upon its essential nature and agendas.
The process of wearing equals a sense of attrition
and things may therefore wear off, wear out, and wear down. To the planet so
posited, its essential nature experiences an alteration, or a corruption
(change) which may be felt at the core of its being. In the extreme,
there may be also be indicated some manner of ‘impairment’ and hence the
potential delineations of anomalies, aberrations and such like within the
symbolism.
Logically, the planetary archetype concerned may be weakened in its
essential nature and called to adjust itself quite radically.
Generally,
although very dependent upon the holism of the birth chart, the planet/light in
question may be indicated as lacking in support, such as would be relative to
its unmitigated nature. Thus, as with the further delineation of
planets whose condition is further qualified by essential dignity, once those in
detriment are identified, the greater story and symbolism within a horoscope
will allude to the more individual analysis. Therefore other astrological chart dimensions
will usually also adulterate and alchemise the planet’s further story, whatever
its base zodiacal condition.
One may say that it is simply that a planet in
detriment is ‘not feeling itself’ and this may always require a sense of
mindfulness, relaxation and care. As with its polarity of domicile dignity, a
detrimented body is not always to prove undermining, or difficult at all, but
dynamic and individual.
Fall__________
As with the
previous essential debility of detriment, the position of fall is defined by the
opposite sign to that of exaltation. Therefore the fallen zodiacal positions of
the planets and lights are as follows:
Sun exaltation of
Aries thus Libra is the opposite sign of fall.
Moon exaltation of
Taurus thus Scorpio is the opposite sign of fall.
Mercury exaltation
of Virgo thus Pisces is the opposite sign of fall.
Venus exaltation
of Pisces thus Virgo is the opposite sign of fall.
Mars exaltation of
Capricorn thus Cancer is the opposite sign of fall.
Jupiter exaltation
of Cancer thus Capricorn is the opposite sign of fall.
Saturn exaltation
of Libra thus Aries is the opposite sign of fall.
Fall is the other major essential
debility and although of challenge to a planetary archetype, is traditionally
considered not as strong as the category of detriment. Having stated this,
the general thoughts, meanings and mechanisms, as addressed with the previous of
detriment, are essentially the same. Once more a celestial body is seen to be in a
zodiacal position not naturally familiar, or supportively relative, to its own
archetypal nature.
To touch upon the
deeper nature of the classification of fall, ancient thought saw it as a planets
archetypal expression and agendas becoming ‘imprisoned’ within the thematic of
the sign concerned (and its lord). There is a concept of being ‘buried’, or ‘put
below’, as the sign of fall is the opposite to the sign that promises the
symbolism of exalted heights. Another traditional attitude saw the situation
of fall as a reduction in potency and strength, yet also with ‘hopes of
recovery’. Once
again, the birth charts entirety and the position/condition of the lord of the
sign of the fall will become the further and important contributions to the
symbolism.
Some other definitions or approaches to the idea of the
term fall.
Suggested are mechanisms of
averting, dropping, lowering and in the extreme, the metaphor of ‘free-fall’, as
a fall is in essence, a fast, sudden drop. Could it be that the sign of fall cannot
‘hold’, with ease, the nature of the planet concerned?
To fall is also to become
less, reduced in value and may refer in particular to, a ‘lowering of
volume’. Thus
a sign of fall may be viewed as lowering the ‘volume’ of the essential
archetypal symbolism of the celestial body in question. In the dictionary,
‘fall’ is also said to refer to the ‘entering into an unspecified state’.
All of the aforementioned
thought and symbolism seems to give reflection to the different mechanisms and
tones within the astrological debility of fall. Here are the general nature of the dynamics
that may occur between the archetype of a planet and a sign, in the context of
debility.
Thank you for reading
about Essential Dignity!
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
Donna OConnor - is writer and facilitator of
The
Mercurius Tutorials, a series of classes in
Astrology, ranging from foundational to advanced levels. Donna is recognised as
an Accredited Astrological Teacher with the Federation of Australian
Astrologers, tutoring many people over the years, including some award-winning
students. She also holds a Diploma Honours with the Astrological Guild of
Educators International, for a thesis on the Ancient
Doctrine of Planetary Sect in Astrological History.
Donna writes and lectures, for both
the professional astrological community and those who are interested in any
aspect of the Art. She is also an astrological consultant and offers specialist
service to those creating any work or articles involving the subject.
Donna can be reached at doc@themercuriustutorials.com or
elephant@earthlyreturns.com
FOOTNOTES
[1] Essential dignity
and debility stems from very ancient times of astrological tradition – it thus
refers to and works as an holistic system, in regard to the ‘ancient’ planets
(that is the ’personal’ and ‘social ones,
Sun/Moon/Mercury/Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn), and does not concern the ‘modern’,
transpersonal bodies (Uranus/Neptune/Pluto). The outer planets appear to have a different
function of symbolic resonance in their own right.
[2] An astrological
body may also become ‘accidentally dignified’, as compared to being ‘essentially
dignified’.
Essential dignity concerns the relationships of signs and planets and is
intrinsic to these components of the system. Accidental dignity is transferred by other
chart conditions, which are to be addressed at a more advanced point of
study.
[3] Loosely called
‘rulership’.
[4] From the
foundation of Project Hindsight in 1994 and of ARHAT (Archive for the Retrieval
of Historical Astrological Texts), a variety of astrological scholars have
undertaken the retranslating, translating and observing of the knowledge of
ancient and medieval authors. Much depth of awareness and revisioning of
the nature of the components of astrology is promised, given the early findings
so far – astrology is on the potential edge of a possible ‘post-modern’ phase,
whose hallmark may involve the revising of the modern misunderstanding of facets
of astrology and a clarity of potential, in regards to the ancient and
fundamental, becoming integrated into the astrology of the modern psychological
age – however, it seems only the earliest of ‘days’, as yet. Nevertheless, the
traditional and ancient astrological knowledge is demanding of respect and becoming further
disseminated.
Recommended is the work of Robert Hand, Robert Zoller, Joseph Crane, John
Frawley, Lee Lehman.
[5] There was an
ancient concept, where a planet and a sign were seen as a ‘husband and wife’ –
meaning that one alone, nor the other, could truly ‘create’, or give
manifestation by itself (or ‘have children’, according to the analogy). That is, a planet
and a sign require each other to begin any form of personalised statement in a
birth chart and to become more symbolically representational.
[6] The astrological
commentary of the ancient Claudius Ptolemy was strongly embraced in the revival
of astrological knowledge in the West, particularly by the English school of
astrology, from the 1600’s on. Hence the nomination, at times, of things
being ‘Ptolemaic’, e.g.’ ‘Ptolemaic dignities’, ‘planets’, ‘aspects’, ‘terms’,
etc. This is
an informal and general term of reference, as this author is mainly known as an
observer, recorder and commentator on the subject, passing on, modifying a
little at times, the ancient heritage that was already in form. Therefore he is not
the originator of these models, as some have thought.
[7] Similarity, as
compared to familiarity, are not the same when it comes to the concept of
dignity. The
root of the word ‘familiar’, is Latin ‘famulus’, or ‘servant’. The term ‘familiar’ thus also relates to that
of the magicians, or witches, ‘familiar’, or ‘most intimate server’. Thus inferred is
the concept of a sign and planet ‘serving’ each other, due to having
familiarity, rather then similarity. To offer an analogy, if I am walking down the
street, in need of borrowing some money for a coffee, I am more likely to
receive support from those that I am ‘familiar’ with (not only by blood), then
those that I am ‘similar’ to and will have an even more challenging time,
finding the unconditional support from those alien to me. In other words,
with those to which I am familiar, I may be said to ‘have dignity’ with and they
may ‘serve’ me, as there is a resonance of knowing, or a certain
‘receptiveness’, which may allow for an ease of the exchange of things or vice
versa.
[8] Plus also the
subsequent ‘letter’, or ‘number’ systems, as extensions.
[9] i.e.; Mars is the
traditional astrological lord of two signs, of the twelve in the zodiac, Aries
and Scorpio.
Thus it will hold ‘dignity’ wherever these signs may be posited in the
birth chart; however it cannot hold any dignity with the first house, unless
either of these two signs is present upon its cusp. The point is that a
planet has a natural (‘essential’) lordship with a sign, not a house, and the
house cusp may relate to a planet only via the sign it is dealing with. To reiterate in
this essential context, as individual astrological components, it is signs, not
the houses that have a natural, essential relationship to the planets, in this
context.
Certainly it is seen that other contexts, in particular that of
‘accidental’ dignity, which may further fortify a planet and this is a different
and additional approach, as compared to that of essential dignity. Therefore a planet
can never be the ‘natural ruler’ of any house, but only of the sign residing
upon its cusp.
Therefore, in relating the 12 signs as generally equivalent in meaning as the 12 houses, as has happened in modern
astrology, the mistake then arises in thus declaring that a planet may be a
‘natural ruler’, of a house, due to the sign it is ‘naturally associated’
with.
Therefore the point is, in this chosen example, that the planet Mars
cannot be the so-called ‘natural’ lord of the first house, or any house, unless
either of its own two domicile signs, of Aries or Scorpio, are present upon its
cusp.
[10] This is a
reference to the modern astrological ‘number/letter’ system, which is a further
extension of this modern/sameness approach and apparently is to add to the
‘convenience’ of understanding this version of ‘natural’ rulership.
[11] That is Uranus
1781, Neptune 1846, Pluto 1930.
[12] Conversely and
ironically, in attempting to ‘shove’ Uranus, Neptune and Pluto into this
original harmony, seems as reflective of mythic Ouranous/Uranus stuffing his own
new children into the belly of the ‘mother’, in this case the bedrock system of
essential dignity and debility. It seems more suitable for these ‘gods of
change’ to emerge from an entrapment within such a model.
[13] Just as with the
likes of the universal laws of quantum phenomena that are underlying the
physical world, it is also said that there are metaphysical universal laws that
things may be governed by. Generally, by both of these camps, it is
stated that it is the acknowledgement of universal law that may allow for any
form of prediction, be it scientific or mystical. Thus the law of duality, when compromised or
ignored in a metaphysical system (astrology), reflects an important lack in the
larger awareness of the symbolism of the greater, more subtle, ‘nature of
things’ and therefore the nature of the practice. Even modern meteorologists and other
scientists, make this statement today, regarding the approach to their concrete
understanding and thus weather-forecasting, as astrology, is said to be, by its
own practitioners, ‘as much an art as it is a science’.
[14] c.1780’s - Raphael.
[15] Plus, it must
also be noted that some prefer to subscribe Pluto, as lord, to Aries, the other
Mars–ruled sign.
[16] Particularly
through the general ‘modern’ period of astrology (18th-20th centuries),
which appears to have become largely Theosophical in influence, especially in
terms of the systems addressed by Western metaphysics, such as astrology.
[17] See previous
footnote #6.
[18] In addition, the
points of the Moons nodes are considered as exalted in the axis of
Gemini/Sagittarius.
Some consider this exaltation negligible, particularly as the nodes are
not celestial bodies.
[19] In fact Saturn
‘rules’, or to be technical, is the domicile lord of Capricorn – many terms have
been used to describe the relationship thus for instance, here Saturn would be
said to have ‘rulership’, ‘dispose’, or be the ‘domicile lord’ of, or ‘have
dignity’, of the Moon in the sign of Capricorn.
[20] As exaltation is
the secondary major dignity, it must be observed that in the tradition of
astrology, another body, point or house cusp in a chart may also have an
‘exalted lord’ (or ‘exalted ruler’) – for instance the sign that is the
exaltation of the Moon is that of Taurus, thus anything in a horoscope dealing
with the sign of Taurus, may also be dealing with the Moon as this signs other
lord of strength.
[21] Domicile
rulerships are listed on p.3 of these notes.
[22] Hopefully, as not
to encourage confusions, but to be thorough with the information; reflective of the
reference to domus/domicile/home, it is of interest to note that in ancient
astrology, the domicile signs of the planets were also called their ‘houses’ –
in turn, houses, as the divisions of the chart, have also been called
‘places’.
Thus, for example, in this context Aries is the diurnal ‘house’ of Mars,
in complement Scorpio is the nocturnal ‘house’ of Mars, Cancer is the ‘house’ of
the Moon and so on.
Thus, rather than the Sun being in its own sign of Leo, it would have
been said that the Sun was ‘in the house of Leo’, or to be correct, ‘in the
house of the Sun’, in this case its own sign. To give another example, Venus in Aries,
would have been called ‘Venus in the day house of Mars’ (as Mars is the domicile
lord of Aries – the sign of its ‘yang’, or diurnal face). This originates in
antiquity and has nothing at all to do with the modern ‘natural house’/’natural
ruler’ similarity system. As this reference, of a sign as a
‘house’ of a planet, does not concern any transfer of symbology, in terms of
making the ‘natural’ order of the signs to colour the meanings of the divisions
of the houses.
[23] That is, trine or
sextile
[24] To explain the
traditional concept of a planet having its ‘joy’: in the ancient heritage of astrology a planet
was said to find ‘joy’ in one of the two signs that is the lord of. Excepting the Sun
and Moon, as the archetypal ‘lights’, find a direct joy in their solo signs of
domicile dignity (as does Mercury, in its own fashion). Being in a sign of
joy is actually a further and ‘accidental’ form of dignity, adding to the power
of the domicile.
Joy is qualified, in this case of the signs, by the further enhancing of
a planet due to a zodiacal sign’s diurnal or nocturnal references. For example Venus
finds her joy in the domicile of Taurus, as this is a feminine (nocturnal) sign
and of an even greater harmony to this essentially feminine planet, then its
dual domicile of Libra, which is a ‘yang’ masculine sign in its essence and the
more sanguine face of Venus. It must also be mentioned that in the ancient
approach, a planet also finds its joy in a certain house, and there are two
systems to this basic effect – this is another long forgotten category of
accidental dignity which appears worthy of resurrection and observation, is an
entirely separate model of joy, from the reference to the zodiac that is being
dealt with here.
[25] (that is square
and quincunx Capricorn, Sagittarius, Aries, and Libra respectively)
[26] The work of
astrologer and scholar Robert Zoller must be called to mention here –the
esoteric nature of exaltation is discussed in his work, The Arabic Parts in
Astrology, The lost keys to prediction, pp. 62-29. This fine thinker
explores the doctrine of sacred number and how it may philosophically and
symbolically relate to the nature of astrological exaltation. Thus offered is a
salient hypothesis as to the nature of this essential dignity.
[27] Robert Zoller, The Arabic Parts in
Astrology, pp. 62-69.
Organic Divination for the
Urban Jungle
Thank you for visiting Earth Elephant
Astrology
Contact:
elephant@earthlyreturns.com
Copyright:Earth Elephant Astrology
2006-2008