View Full Version : Astrology Tarot Spread
I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, if it isnt can you move it moderators please:-)
I am learning astrology after spending a few years learning tarot, i have tried an astrology spread, but i find it hard to bring the information together, i cant seem to bridge the gap between tarot and astrology (i do use astrology when reading tarot cards, but just not in an astorlogy spread).
for instance i got the empress in the 5th house which as the house of fun i understood,as my 5th house is ruled by cancer. But then i also got the fool in the 3rd house which i couldnt understand at all
has anyone got tips on using this type of spread?
214red, if you go to my blog, http://ninethhouse.wordpress.com/ you'll find a full horoscope spread illustrate and read the way an astrologer would read such a spread, complete with trines, conjunctions, oppositions and squares. Dave
214red, if you go to my blog, http://ninethhouse.wordpress.com/ you'll find a full horoscope spread illustrate and read the way an astrologer would read such a spread, complete with trines, conjunctions, oppositions and squares. Dave
did you link the house the card was in to the house itself as i cant see it in your reading, as i was linking the tarot card to both the house and the planet it rules in my chart. i wanted to know what state i was in compared to how i should be.
Quote: did you link the house the card was in to the house itself as i cant see it in your reading, as i was linking the tarot card to both the house and the planet it rules in my chart.
Answer, this is a tarot spread, not a chart. I never intended, in my use of this spread, to link a specific house to a ruler ---- houses don't have rulers, but signs do.
The spread is about the cards, about the "house" positions they are in, and about the aspect-relationships that we assign to the cards/houses relative to their house-positions. I don't like to use astro-babble or tarot-babble so the specific references to houses and their meanings are not made overly obvious by being directly spelled out. Everyone will modify the house meanings somewhat to fit the question, so I've gone light on giving specific house meanings.
If you have specific questions you can post them here or on the blog and we can discuss them. If you have a question that touches on a comprehensive issue which might be suitable for such a reading, you can place it on the blog and I'll do the reading there. That way we will both learn something and will also be able to share it with others. Posting larger graphics isn't possible here on AT, the blog is better for that. Dave
i did look more thoroughly through your site, it was rellay helpful! thanks for posting the link
houses don't have rulers, but signs do.
Do you mean in your readings spread that the houses don't have rulers. Maybe I've misunderstood you. I was taught that houses do have planetary rulers.
The astrological systems that I have studied have never assigned rulers to houses. "Rulers" are associated with signs. A sign may be on a house cusp and that sign ruler may be part of one's interpretive process--but that doesn't mean that that house has a planetary ruler. There is a difference.
HOUSES are mathematically defined segments of the 360 degree chart circle which are (in most systems) un-equal in arc-size except for the opposite house. Houses are related to the functional areas of our life: How we experience daily events, what we desire and value, how we communicate, how we live and protect ourselves, our loves, our work and service, etc.
SIGNS are both a measuring convenience for placing planets and determining aspects between them, and a interpretive model that supposedly modifies and imbues planets with emotional and attitudinal qualities: anger-rashness-haste, seeking comfort and pleasure, expressing oneself, surrounding oneself with security, parading one's pride and image before others, etc.
Statistical studies and historical research have both found and applied certain qualities to signs based on the planet's apparent strengths and weaknesses in those signs.
** HISTORY has given us ancient exhalations of planets in specific signs and degrees of those signs which many astrologers use today --- even though those star positions were cast in the Sidereal Zodiac and have no relation to the same positions in the Tropical Zodiac which almost everyone uses.
** HISTORICAL PRACTICE of the Greeks (who really screwed astrology all up) and of more recent (last several centuries) times has given us dignities, falls, debilitations, etc. to go along with everything else. Many use these tools and practices that have come down to us.
** STATISTICAL STUDIES have shown that certain astrological bodies are more prevalent in some signs than others for those whose lives are linked to certain careers or endeavors. While these are highly interesting, they also are sometimes in great conflict with other similar studies as well as being hard to use in interpreting an individual chart. How satisfied would a client be if informed that they had a 17.82 percent chance of finding a job in a medical career, a 11.209 percent chance of working in publishing, but only a 3.667 chance of being a fireman? Not my kind of astrology.
So, what is the real basis for assigning a planet to a given sign if there is both statistical reasons against it and no interpretive value to be derived from it? As far as I can see, this is my opinion, all that is accomplished is that we get trapped into "astro-babble" and self-confusion.
I personally avoid this by using planets and houses --- these combination permit a clear and direct statement to be made. Dave
You don't buy into the notion that the natural ruler of the 4th house is the Moon, for example? The Moon is associated with mother, family, home, memories, etc., events/situations which we would look at the 4th house to get try to understand.
You would look only at the sign on the cusp? Or you would only look at what shape the Moon is in?
Do you use equal house systems?
Could you tell me how you would go about interpreting the mother in someone's chart?
The Moon is associated with feelings, responses, primary needs, older memories, change, cyclic flows, the reflection of other things (the response mechanism, reaction), and indirectly of fears, hidden urges, retreat. These things are not associated with fourth house meanings.
The fourth house is one end of the chart's vertical axis and can represent starts and endings, the family situation, the parental axis, the home. The other end of this axis, the MC, represents one's stated goals, image, reputation in the outer world.
The Moon meanings given and the house values given seem to be quite separate from each other. I have observed that both early-studies students and even some published authors intermix the two sets of meanings without discrimination. I come from a collective school represented by Jeff Mayo, Margaret Hone, Noel Tyl, Robert Pelletier, Dane Rudhyar, Marc Robertson and many others who have always been quite careful about the distinctions between the different interpretive models. Perhaps there are other schools of astrological thought that I have not been exposed to that are more prone to mixing and matching. We all have to choose what we use and how we use it. The only concerns, as I see it, are the trio of concerns of 1) serving our clients well, 2) being careful about what we teach others, and 3) always seeking to improve our understanding and practice of astrology. Dave
There are as many problems with houses as there are with signs. The key, and obvious one is that there is no agreed method of calculation - all use 30 degree arcs for each house, which in a real sense makes all houses equal. The problems are that there's no agreed definition of 'arc' here, whether it's time or space are two obvious differences. Also 'equal' at what 'place'? Houses are two dimensional representations of 3 dimensional space and latitude affects the 'projection' of house cusps.
I'm one of those who is fairly blase about the 'mess' of house definitions, I tend to use either Regiomontanus or Placidus, not because I believe these have any mathematical superiority but because I like them LOL.
Do planets rule houses? Accidentally yes they do. But it is only 'accidentally' that is related to the specific chart you are looking at. Saturn may 'rule' my Seventh,as I have Aquarius on the descendant, but that does not mean that Saturn has any particular essential links to partnership, matrimony, etc. It's a significator of those in my chart but we need to distinguish between signification and essential nature. So 'ruler' here is a shortened form of 'ruler of the sign on the Seventh cusp'.
Astrology also has built up a whole series of natural correspondences. Now there have been many attempts to try and reform or clear these out. Trouble is they are still with us and are so imbued into the subject that I think that's something of a losing battle. But again there's a need to distinguish between the 'sympathetic' side and the essential side. Cancer may naturally be associated with the fourth house but that's a very general association and we shouldn't run away with the view that a specific fourth house is 'Cancerian' in nature. So in a sense the Moon has some links with the fourth but those links are at a very general level and unless your fourth actually is Cancer then it's best to forget about them.
Dave neatly sidestepped the question about where he would look to describe the Mother, (or for information and issues relating to the Mother). Now Dave's list of lunar associations is psychological, that doesn't invalidate it at all but it is not comprehensive. I'd certainly look at the condition of the Moon when trying to describe the Mother. The Moon is the premier female significator in any chart, be that wife, mother, girl friend (there are those who would go so far as to say that the Moon is the prime significator of a chart full stop).
So the Moon needs to be considered for the Mother. Dave points out that the fourth relates to the parents (among other things) and if we need to separate the parents and consider one, tradition has the father taking the fourth and the mother taking the tenth (as the father's partner). So I'd also look at the ruler of the tenth (in the above sense), even if this were Saturn. Indeed some psychologists might have a field day with that one, with mothers trying to play the role of fathers and being principle breadwinners or carrying the social status of the family. I'd also look at planets in the tenth - If I were a disciple of Morin, I'd even say that planets in the tenth carried more weight than Lord 10, if he or she were an absentee landlord (i.e. not in the tenth).
My point on the above is to really stress that there is not just one significator of the mother, there may be two or three and all would need to be considered.
The more I read of Astrology the more I realise just how diverse it is and that there are a whole load of traditions and views. The idea that at some point Astrology lost it's direction and needs to be restored is also a fairly widespread one. Dave says as much with his comment on the Greeks. This suggests that there was a 'pure' form of Astrology, a sort of Astrological Garden of Eden, from which we have fallen into error. In the Renaissance the blame was attached to the Arabs, to the Hermetics, to the practice of Judicial Astrology, etc. The Astrologers that Dave mentioned also tried to reform it and put it back into working order. Ironically they too are now seen by some as the reason Astrology 'failed' and there is an attempt to restore 'Real Astrology'. I saw a comment the other day from Benadette Brady who said that in 10 years Traditional Astrology would have 'won'. It's a tongue in cheek comment but it shows that the reforms of one era can become the 'discredited' notions of another.
I n an analagous sense, Astrology is like Humpty Dumpty, it can't be put back together again but personally I think that is because it was never 'together' in the first place.
I generally like to keep my replies short here on AT, feeling that in the past the readers/participants on the Astrology Forum (generally) demonstrate by their views and questions an overload of information which they are seeking to sort out. My approach in these last few posts has been to stick with a few basics.
** The Greeks did represent a situation of mixing and matching a diverse and fragmented view of the astrology that came to them. A lack of the complete body of knowledge plus a great curiosity and intellectual community permitted them to move their body of knowledge in a new direction.
Minderwiz rightfully notes that astrology prior to then was not the astrology that we overall practice today. It was different, it served different purposes and it probably was incapable of serving today's complex cultural settings. We don't need to digress into lunar astrology and those cultural applications.
We do need to recognize that we have been given a twisted and knotted ball of yarn that has had many hands on it over the last two thousand years.
** Following the Renaissance Period many thoughtful people have contributed to the body of astrological practice and "knowledge." Much of their initial learning came from Arabian and Greek texts, Latin translations and earlier writings --- all of these written in differing centuries and representing different sources, as well as many re-writing and re-working earlier/other writings. The tangled ball of yarn became more so AT THE SAME TIME THAT SOME WERE ATTEMPTING TO SORT IT OUT AND APPLY RATIONAL AND RIGID APPROACHES SO AS TO 1) TEST IT AND REFINE IT AND 2) PROVIDE A BETTER BASE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR OTHERS.
As we moved into more modern times (marked by copious books and printed material) many specific schools of thought came into existence. Mystery schools (Theosophy, Rosicrucian, Church of Light) contributed their views.
Jones and Rudhyar contributed their deeper and more mainstream philosophies while Carter and Evangeline Adams captured the popular mind. The English astrologers continued their very serious and studious work to bring sanity and clarity to our field. The German school, popularized by the work of Ebertin, introduced bold and updated ideas on mid-points, shifting the views of some (like me) to the clarity of "planetary-focused astrology." Noel Tyl became the American spokesman for the "psychological approach" and influenced many (including me).
Cyril Fagan (Irish) and Donald Bradley (American) were among a group of researchers that contributed to re-discovering much of the pre-Greek astrology knowledge and its mathematical basis --- although they took the "mathematics" far beyond its prior usage by most astrologers. They postulated the Sidereal Zodiac and demonstrated its amazing properties that contributed to clearer and more accurate predictive approaches. This is not to say that other practices weren't capable of this level of work, but it did show that few were capable of using astrology to do what they could so easily and clearly do. Following them came the modern crew of researchers like Rob Hand, and several of the British astrologers who both uncovered ancient knowledge and introduced new concepts such as composite charts and harmonics, to name a few.
THE POINT BEHIND THIS is to state that we are both blessed and cursed by too much knowledge and information. Just as the astrologers of old such as Lilly and Morin, such as more modern astrologers as Adams and Carter, and more recent astrologers such as Hone, Campion, Harvey, Tyl, Hand, Pelletier, Robbertson, Rudhyar, Greene, Erlewin, Ebertin, etc. all tried to sort out their astrology by building their practice of it on a few solid basics -- WE ALSO HAVE TO FIND OUR CORE OF BASIC TRUTH.
We can't find our truth if we blandly and unthinkingly mix and match any old piece of information without applying discrimination. I hear list members talk of whether they should buy a book or not and I laugh. The last time I cleaned out my library I threw out over 300 astrology books that were no longer of value to me. I still have an extensive library that includes translations of Greek writers, Morin's books, Arabian writers. I have many of the more modern writers. I suppose I could delineate charts in the Hellenistic manner or the Psychological Tyl/Greene manner or the Ebertin or Uranian (they use hypothetical planets in addition to regular planets) manner or the strictly Sidereal manner. I do it my way. I am finding my truth.
But, I am very discriminating in what I use and how I mix it. I dont contaminate my practice of astrology by blurring methods and creating mashed-together meanings. I attempt to use differing methods while seeing them as separate but supportive elements. I cringe when I see others mash approaches and processes and methods toghether without knowing what they are doing or taking the time to learn their basics.
I once read a sentence of Dane Rudhyar that had 97 words in it. I understood it and agreed with it. The length of his thought did not confuse anyone, it refined it into a clear statement. Most of us lack that capability.
We need to always strive for self-clarity, for simplicity, for effectiveness. We need to, in my opinion, learn and appreciate the many schools of practice and history of our craft. Dave
As always your thoughts are well and cogently expressed, which is why I enjoy discussing issues with you, even if we disagree. In this case disagreement is not particularly strong, I think
As you say, it's very difficult on a forum such as this to develop an argument and support it with evidence, without becoming boring or simply switching the readers off. To summarise 3,000 years of Astrology in a few lines is not really possible, so I'll simply confine myself to comments on some themes.
Patrick Curry identifies three levels of Astrology. The 'higher' level is that of the theorist, the writer on the philosophy which underpins Astrological knowledge. The 'middle' level is that of the practicing Astrologer who earns their living from the art and the 'low' level is that of public perceptions of Astrology. These are not totally independent realms but what goes on in one may have limited affect in another.
The 'lower' level is the one that saw Astrology through at times when the 'higher' level struggled. Despite the revolution in thought which saw Astrology lose it's position as a University subject, saw it expelled from medicine, sales of almanacs actually increased and continued at high levels to the present day (when they have been replaced by Sun Sign columns). There's not much in the way of rationale here in the sense of a closely argued theoretical base. At any one time in history there is diversity between these three levels. Indeed there's reasonable evidence to suggest that the changes in our perception of the world at the higher level, as a result of ideas introduced by Copernicus and Newton, largely left the lower level unchanged.
At the higher level there always has been a rationale and the Greek system is perfectly rational, indeed it is probably the most rational system ever devised - as reason and logic are themselves tools of Greek philosophy. The thing that changed is the axioms on which the philosophy of Astrology is based. Shifts in our view of the way the universe works rather than a lack of reason account for changes in Astrological perceptions. The Greeks were perfectly aware that the Earth was spherical and even that it orbited the Sun, though at the 'higher' level and the latter being a minority view.
We should also recognise that for much of the last 1,500 years, Astrology in the West has had to co-exist and indeed subordinate itself to Christian dogma. Only at rare occasions has Astrology actually been a driving force and then mostly for the 'naturalistic' needs of predicting seasons, predicting weather and providing medical services. And of course you can certainly argue with a lot of justification that Astrology was in a similar situation before the Christian era. My point here is that it's the 'judicial' branch (if that's the correct term) which tends to attract the largest debate.
I'm not sure that Astrology can be tested and refined in the sense that a pure or better form can be found. The quest for 'evidence based' explanations can be traced back to Kepler and none of them have really done much to either grab the public imagination or to lead to a reconstitution of Astrology in the academic framework. Now I'd love to see that happen but I don't think it will. One of the reasons is that modern Science is just as much blinkered as medieval religious dogma. Modern Science will not accept that Astrology works, no matter how much evidence you amass because the axioms of Modern science and the world view of scientists says that Astrology can't work. It's as self evident to a modern Scientist that Astrology is 'superstitious rubbish' as it was self evident to a medieval churchman that angels existed.
I come back to my previous point. I don't think you can achieve a holistic theory of Astrology because the term encompasses such a massive diversity of views, and far from being a bad thing that might actually be good.
From the diversity though we do have to pick the methods that work for us and we do have to have an internal logic to our own system, not because some methods are better than others (though that may be so) but because without internal consistency we can't achieve very much.
BTW Dave, you've still not answered BigLuna's question about how you would delineate the mother in someone's chart LOL
Dave and Minderwiz,
Thank you for your very insightful and thorough responses to my question. I had no idea I was pulling such a sensitive trigger! :)
Minderwiz, you hit the mark for me when you said you were looking for your way, your truth. It's that individual and personal approch that makes one person connect with an astrologer who is skilled in predictive techniques and another person to find a connection with a psychological astrologer. We can't get into a battle of who's right and who's wrong in approach because we don't really know what makes astrology work...yet. That's why there's so many varying approaches. If we knew why it worked, there would only be one way.
There's a book which takes one chart and has twelve (I think) different astrologers interpret it. I loaned the book, and I can't remember the title or the editor for the life of me. I'm searching for the title and will let you know. Anyway, each astrologer has insights that others don't. Some use classical astrology, some phsychological. One uses asteroids. Another uses something else. Each astrologer explains how they set up the chart, the house system they used. The client has comments on each interpretation. It's a fascinating book and definitely worth a read.
Each culture has its ways. We shouldn't throw out Chinese or Vedic astrology, should we? Chinese astrology uses 5 elements instead of 4, and it works for them. Every approach brings something of value. Vedic astrology is sidereal and it works for them.
The thing is when we're looking at a chart, we're interpreting symbols, a great painting of a life. It can be a scientific or artistic approach or a blend of both.
Hearing your differing views on how to interpret the planets, signs, aspects, and houses broadens my understanding, and I have great appreciation for your gifts. I don't look at the 10th for the Mother. I use the 4th. The Moon's sign and house will usually give me a great deal of information about not only the client, but the client's mother as well as their home life. I say usually because it just doesn't work all the time. But I'll explore the 10th in the future, because of what you've told me.
You are both so knowledgeable and gracious in sharing your knowledge with those of us who are struggling with a concept or technique. Thank you for all you do.
While the Sun and Mars are masculine and the Moon and Venus are feminine, none can always be said to represent the father or the mother in a specific chart. And, we cannot properly discuss the issue without also discussing the role of the MC-IC axis (and not always the 10th and 4th houses associated with them) in a specific chart.
We might start our discussion/answer by using a generalized 1-to-10 scale:
** SUN represents all/most males; 9 or 10.
** SUN represents the father; 7 to 10.
** MARS represents the father; 0 to 3.
** MARS represents most/some males; 2 to 5.
** SATURN represents the father; 4 to 7.
** MOON represents all/most females; 9 or 10.
** MOON represents the mother; 7 to 10.
** VENUS represents the mother; 0 to 3
** VENUS represents most/some females; 3 to 6.
Is this table/statement accurate? Who can say. Is it useful to early-studies astrologers? Somewhat.
Let us look at the MC end of the vertical axis. It represents our goals, our self-imagined image and perhaps our public image. It points to the general direction of our life's purpose in the commercial world. The social world might be better viewed through the Descendant angle, in my opinion. One might say that this symbolism best represents the father who tends to be active in the outer world. Others would say that when we are younger, this MC point is represented by the Mother who plays the primary guidance to our growth and development.
** Could the MC play a different role in our charts depending upon our age and our family circumstances?
We can also view the IC end of the vertical axis. It represents our foundation, the start and end of phases-cycles-events-growth periods. It represents the views and flexibility/doggedness we exhibit in dealing with change, upsets, starts, ends, impacts of the outer world on our inner world. How we view, assimilate, prepare, and respond to these portions of our lives probably depends largely upon how our parents or mother helped us develop, and how we viewed them in their parental roles and in their adult/outer-world roles.
** Could either or both parents play different or similar roles in our chart?
Let us look at signs that are on the cusp or which cover all or most of the 4th and 10th house sectors, irregardless of the house system we might use.
Pisces on the 10th cusp, Saturn in the 10th. Many astrologers would most immediately picture a wishy-washy personality or one who was not very well understood, and who was a strict disciplinarian --- all in the view of the chart owner, not necessarily in the actual person this house/sign might tend to represent. Would this best be a mother or a father?
** In moderate latitudes, this placement might be associated with a Gemini Ascendant. How would a curious, talkative, active child relate to such a parent, father or mother? Would that change how they "saw" the Pisces MC and Saturn in the 10th?
** In higher latitudes, this placement might be associated with a Cancer Ascendant. How would a sensitive, changeable, moody child react to, or view such a parent?
Aries on the 4th cusp, Moon in the 4th. Many astrologers would immediately see this parent, either Father or Mother, as demanding as much attention as they gave, or building the child in their own likeness, or as providing an unstable early environment for the child.
** In moderate latitudes, this might place Capricorn on the Ascendant. How would such a child's more practical and self-driven character be shaped by volatility and changeableness on the part of the parent?
** In higher latitudes, this might place Sag on the Ascendant. Would the child grow to take advantage of change when that "change" favored his needs. Would he divert such change through the use of leaving to play with friends or stay overnight at a cousin's house?
How might the question be answered?
** In simplistic terms, for new-studies students, I might say that the Sun is the father in a child's chart, the Moon is the Mother in a child's chart, and that the MC-IC axis (along with its signs and planetary inhabitants) portrays the household and supportive environment.
** For more advanced students, I might say that the planetary inhabitants of the 4th and 10th houses tell us about the role of the parents, that any masculine planets might suggest where the father is in the chart and that any feminine planets might suggest how the mother functions in the chart. Their roles would be be shaped by the signs and the aspects to other planets from these 10th and 4th house planets.
** For myself, the process might be either simpler or more complex, and it would depend upon a grasp of the whole chart before I started to hone in on specific parent roles --- if those were relevant to the reading and questions posed by my study or by a client.
***** In a natal chart, I might (20% of the time) use signs and rulers, I might use just signs without rulers (40% or 50% of the time), and I would use planets in the 4th and 10th house (100% of the time) and aspects to them (100% of the time).
***** I would not slavishly apply either the Sun or the Moon to either parent unless I was looking at the youthful ages of a person, and then I might use the Sun and Moon as a trial-dialoging tool with the subject to elicit responses from them. Yes, that's right, I don't often do "blind" astrology if it is more helpful, time efficient, and accurate to include the querent in the process.
***** I would likely treat the planets in the chart differently depending upon the questions asked and the age-relatedness of the questions.
***** With adults, we need to look at other charts in addition to the natal chart. The natal chart is our seed chart, it is what we can grow into in terms of the structure it offers us. It is what we can grow out of, in some ways. What have the intervening years brought to us in development and in terms of other peoples (charts) influences and the transits to our chart(s)? We are not static. We change. How we view a parent represented by Saturn in Pisces in the 10th as a child and as a young adult and as an older adult are all different. How we view a mother represented by Moon in Aries in the 4th house at different phases of our life is also different.
If it suits anyone, go with the Sun and the 10th house as representing the father and the Moon and 4th house as representing the mother. Just be very prepared to change your views 1) with any specific chart, and 2) as you develop as an astrologer, and 3) when you try to explain yourself to others. As with many other aspects of astrology, there is seldom a cut-and-dried answer. Sorry about that. Dave
Dave and I have our occasional 'discourses' but believe me there is a lot of mutual respect and (dare I say it love). It's entirely friendly. So there's no sensitive trigger. One of the things I love about Dave is he gets me to think and try and put forward rational arguments and there's no one on this forum I respect more.
I think though, on this, my point is your point - there isn't a 'true' form of Astrology nor did the Arabs or the Greeks (who postulated precession some 1,800 years before Fagan) or the Psychologists corrupt a pure form, which if only we could recover would produce near perfection. And to be honest I don't think Dave claimed that one could., I think he was talking about personal 'truth' and consistency.
Dave's right about old techniques being grafted on to new approaches or vice versa. It's nothing new though. Lilly adopted Kepler's 'new' aspects and grafted them on to a fairly orthodox (for the day) application of Astrology. Kepler however devised them in an effort to free Astrology of the falstehoods (as he saw it) of judicial Astrology. Lilly , however, was one of the 'middling' Astrologers - he made his living from it. he wasn;t a developer of ideas or a professor of Mathematics, nor was he a court Astrologer, like Morin. He wasn't above writing almanacs for the masses either,but then Dane Rudhyaralso wrote Sun Sign columns too. Which shows Curry's division was never a clear cut one.
One of the beauties of Project Hindsight is the attempt to see how much of the classical corpus can be re-seteablished and to see what Greek and Roman Astrology was actually like, rather than the medieval view of it. Not because it was right or pure but because it gives us an idea how Astrology developed and how Astrological ideas change and who knows it might eventually convince Dave that the Greeks were (Astrologically speaking) at worst neutral and may even have made a positive contribution LOL.
Edited to add:
Thanks for the delineation of 'Mom'. Whilst I might not use the same psychological language I agree that we also need to have some idea of the character and age of Fred/Freda when delineating Mom, so it goes a little beyond the parent axis. No doubt a good psychologist would say that the chart shows us how Fred/Freda perceives Mom rather than presenting an objective portait (for which we would look at HER natal chart).
There's also the issue of how important is it that we delineat Mom. At a passing genereal level the Moonl/10th/planets approach is OK, if it is vitally important that we delineate Mom, then we might well look further.
Our approach is essentially the same. How did I get so confused? Thank you for taking the time to explain that so beautifully and lay it out so simply. Your male/female scale is excellent and I appreciate you including it. I think this was originally a question about house rulers. Funny how things evolve, and fun, too.
Our impressions of our parents can change with age and the course of life. A perfect addition to your examination process.
I love the discourses between you and Dave. They are always chock full of good stuff. Please don't ever stop.