I like them; they provide a level of context to the reading that I use as a supplementary basis to the card placements themselves. For instance, I find it useful to designate areas of the spread as being contextually favourable to one element over another. If an area is involved in psychological examination, then it is useful to examine the cards in relation to their ability to "get along with" Air.
But as for "antagonistic," my interpretation of dignities is that they are meant to be looked at in the sense of efficiency. Consider a Water.Fire.Water triplet. In my way of looking at it, the Fire card is not "at war" with the Water cards around it, but its primary meanings might be hampered or adjusted in a way that make it less fruitful. In the case of a negative card, this might actually end up being a good thing. If two positive Water cards are surrounding a negative Fire card, it could indicate that the individual is attempting to correct a situation rather than just letting it happen.
Or take another one without any ill-dignified cards. Air.Fire.Fire on a Fire context. If the temporal motion is outward (starting with Air), then this could be seen as the individual having recently had a imaginative idea or a notion which excited them into bursting forth with a great amount of zeal. Since there are two Fire cards moving into the future, this would show a certain degree of sustainment in that zeal. If the third card had been Earth, or another Air card---then the interpretation might be that the original idea had a flaw that they recognised in relation to reality; and in the case of Earth finality---a return to grounding; perhaps a lack of energy was encountered and they gave up, or realised the idea was stupid and set it aside. In the case of Air finality---went back to the blueprints to see what went wrong.
I think a great deal can be revealed simply by looking at elemental alignment. It is no replacement for a full examination of the card's meanings---but as a roadmap, or a pre-flight strategy it can turn a sequence on its head and illuminate a great deal of detail in the reading that might otherwise have been missed.
I agree that it is not for everyone (nothing really is), but I never did have a taste for reversals. The 50/50 combined with a simple on/off state never did excite me. With elemental dignities, there are dozens of potential states (Complemented one one side, ill-dignified on the other; double-complemented; neutral surrounded; triple-element amplification; et cetera). And yes, they aren't *always* useful. Sometimes I ignore them if they really add nothing. But I always find it hard to ignore when three Fire cards land in a Fire context, or triple-Fire in a Water context (trying to disengage from emotions with busy-work?) and so on.
I made the same mistake some of you have, when I first started using them. I was being much to harsh with opposing elements. Making them downright horrific whenever they were next to each other---and often times spoiling a perfect insightful reading with a bunch of false dichotomies and polar assumptions.
But I had a bit of an epiphany with them a while back when I was reading about Astrology, and how Earth signs and Air signs interact with each other. I realised that it isn't so much about antagonism and conflict, and more just about simply "speaking the same language" and so forth. Likewise, when you have a room full of Pisces all trying to do something highly technical, they might all be missing something that an Air sign in the room would immediately notice.
And that was the big realisation. You need all of the elements together to make a healthy mind; even the conflicting ones. These cards do work together towards whatever the actual cards are portraying---its mostly a distinction of how well they work together; what parts of the equation they might be missing; what parts they might be stagnate over due to blind spots; and so on.
