House rulership for security clearance?

[kalliope]

On a mailing list I'm on, someone posted an interesting question about house rulership for a geomancy chart. To which house would you assign a question about gaining government security clearance needed for one's job?

Houses offered as potentials:
-8th (hidden things?)
-12th (secrets of others)
-8th from the 10th (hidden things belonging to the government)
-10th (one's job)

Traditionally, is the 8th even really about hidden things in this sense? I looked through Deborah Houlding's The Houses: Temples of the Sky, and it didn't clarify the matter for me. If one considers a secret to be the "intellectual property" of another, would that be a 2nd house matter? One could then argue for the 8th (2nd from the 7th) or the 11th (2nd from the 10th). I wish the rulership book I ordered last week had arrived already!

This also makes me wonder about all sorts of related questions:
-What about secrets of your own that you'd like to keep?
-Undercover/spy work for one's own government or country?

We know that the 12th house is the house of secrets kept from us, or spies working against the country in question. But what about then these secrets or manipulations belong to the querent?

 

[dadsnook2000]

The only house . . .

The 2nd house. This is where you collect your treasures, where money and value flow in and flows out, where you acquire and keep things. As the 5th house of the 10th, it is where you are most creative in how to handle your image and manage your career. As the the 3rd of the 12th, it is where you learn of secrets and how to use them, think of them, learn from them. As the 8th of the 7th house, it where people invest and share their own selves with you, willing to be vulnerable. Dave

 

[Minderwiz]

I don't think you can come up with a single house here. Indeed most things can be assigned to more than one house depending on the usage or contetxt - and it is usage and context that brings us to a single house for a particular situation.

A moments reflection will show that this holds - take President Obama as an example. He's head of state so he's 10th House. But he's a husband so he's 7th House to his wife. He's also a person so he's his own first House. He's a father, so his children are his 5th House and he is their 4th House and so on....

Another example would be my car. Now it's mine, so it's second House as a possession but it's third house if I use it to go to Cornwall for my holiday and arguably 9th House if I use it to drive to the South of France (which I have done). If I get enjoyment out of driving (which I used to) it's fifth house, pleasure. And that Ferarri on Top Gear is my 11th house of hopes and aspirations).

So it's not enough to simply say, security clearance in itslef. If the question was something on the lines of getting security clearance for my new job, then it's to do with my job and that's tenth House. The security clearance is performed by a government agency and that's 11th house, so I'd be looking at both of those. Secrecy has nothing to do with the matter here, as I know that I'm getting the job,...if the agency approves me. I've been through that sort of procedure (sorry can't tell you more, otherwise I'd have to kill you) and there's definitely no secrecy involved, I knew, my employer knew and the agency doing the checking knew.

Would it ever involve the second? Yes it could do, if the question involved income or gain of some kind and I'd certainly use the second in a reading as an additional house, if the question was concerned with needing the income from the job which I'll only get if the security clearance comes through.

Government agencies, whether secret or not, are 11th House (on the same reasoning that a supporter in a duel, or legal case or other enterprise is a second house relationship) A government employee (assuming no more direct connection to the querent) is 6th House from the tenth, which is the second house of the radical chart. But as government agencies are charged with doing the checking, the individual employee is usually irrelevant to the question.

Change the question to a totally different context and the houses may shift accordingly - for example in an employer asking the question about a potential employee's clearance - as that would now involve the sixth house of employees.

If you are the president asking whether the man who betrayed our country's secrets have proper security clearance then the house's change again - have a think about that one

 

[kalliope]

Hmm. Lots to think about here. Thank you both for your thoughts on this one. It looks like we have a bit of disagreement between Dave and Minderwiz, here. Is this mostly about modern vs. traditional perspective on horary rulerships, would you say?

Minderwiz, I understand your point about the context of the question having priority and about people and things fitting into multiple categories, depending.

So, to make sure I'm following your reasoning (sorry for the annoyingly detailed thought-process questions!):

If the question were "will I obtain and keep the proper security clearance needed for a new project at work" because his company has a new government contract that will require such clearance, would you still look primarily at the 10th (relating to the job that he already has), and the 11th (2nd from 10th; granted by a government agency)?

querent=1st, quesited=10th, secondary quesited=11th; looking for chart perfection between the 1st and 10th/11th? In essence, showing that "My job and I will be going along swimmingly together (in whatever way we mean it), and also the government agency will respond favorably to me." Is that the right way to look at it?

To use one of your other examples, if I were his employer, and wanted to know if my employee would gain the proper clearance, it would be a 6th house matter since he's my employee. I'm a bit confused as to where we place querent vs quesited in a question like that, though. Are we just looking for positive contacts between the 1st (querent employer) and 6th (quesited employee), and if there is chart perfection we assume the employee gets the clearance since that would be the positive outcome for the employer? Or would you look at the 6th and 11th to symbolize the employee and how the government agency looks upon him?

Arguments against the other houses for these questions:

• Basically, we don't consider the content of the thing he's seeking, so secrecy is irrelevant and forget worrying about the 8th or the 12th.
• The fact that he's seeking to gain something (clearance) for his job isn't even the issue either, so we don't look at the 2nd, contrary to Dave's perspective.

Am I understanding correctly?

 

[kalliope]

I'm realizing that some of these questions would be more appropriate for the Horary DIY thread, sorry!

 

[Minderwiz]

It looks like we have a bit of disagreement between Dave and Minderwiz, here. Is this mostly about modern vs. traditional perspective on horary rulerships, would you say?

I think that what you see is the difference between a natal/general Astrologer and a horary Astrologer Dave gave a general statement, I gave an 'it depends....' statement. There's not necessarily disagreement here though it might seem so at first sight. If someone asked a horary question 'Will my getting security clearance lead to more money in my pay packet?' Then I'd have gone for the second house as the prime house for the issue.

What matters is what the querent's main concern is and that can vary from person to person and even time to time for the same person. Now that's a horary answer, not a natal answer. But then, would such an issue come up in such detail in a natal reading?

Also you specifically used the phrase 'which house would a question....be assigned'

If the question were "will I obtain and keep the proper security clearance needed for a new project at work" because his company has a new government contract that will require such clearance, would you still look primarily at the 10th (relating to the job that he already has), ......

Yes but in a different way from the first version. When I answer a horary question involving some change, I assume that the default answer will be no change, unless I can see clear evidence of change shown in the chart. In the case you quote above, the querent is not seeking a job, they already have one. So the default answer would be that they will get security clearance so that they can continue to work for their employer on the new project.

I would be looking for clear evidence to the contrary before I would answer any other way. So I wouldn't be looking for any aspect between Lord 1 and Lord 10 (or other evidence of getting the job). I might take Lord 10 in seriously weak state and afflicted by malefics or Lord 11 opposing Lord 10 as evidence that all will not go well. I would want at least three strong indicators though, one is not enough.

Note that in the first version where the querent is applying for the job, the default is he will remain as he/she is - no job.

To use one of your other examples, if I were his employer, and wanted to know if my employee would gain the proper clearance, it would be a 6th house matter since he's my employee. I'm a bit confused as to where we place querent vs quesited in a question like that, though. Are we just looking for positive contacts between the 1st (querent employer) and 6th (quesited employee), and if there is chart perfection we assume the employee gets the clearance since that would be the positive outcome for the employer? Or would you look at the 6th and 11th to symbolize the employee and how the government agency looks upon him?

The first would be the employer (who is asking the question) the sixth would be the employee (the questited) and the eleventh would be the government vetting agency.

The default answer is that I will be able to use the employee on the project - that's my decision (assuming the clearance) so I don't need to ask any other question than 'Will employee A be given security clearance to allow me to use them on the project?'

In this case only a clearly adverse relationship between Lord 11 and Lord 6 would suggest that they would not get the clearance. In this case the security clearance is the querent's main concern, as they have control over all the other factors. No square, or opposition (or contrantiscion) between the two and I'd say they would get clearance. Lord 6 in the Fall or Detriment of Lord 11 is an argument that the vetting agency are not happy with the employee but not enough to stop them getting the clearance. In Fall or Detriment and in square or opposition and it's very likely that the will not get the clearance.

Arguments against the other houses for these questions:

• Basically, we don't consider the content of the thing he's seeking, so secrecy is irrelevant and forget worrying about the 8th or the 12th.
• The fact that he's seeking to gain something (clearance) for his job isn't even the issue either, so we don't look at the 2nd, contrary to Dave's perspective.

Am I understanding correctly?

If you consider the logical possibilities of the outcomes they are:

A -The queremt does not get the clearance and does not get the job
B - The querent does not get the clearance but does get the job
C - The querent does get the clearance but does not get the job.
D - The querent does get the clearance and does get the job

Of the four, B whilst logically possible is very unlikely practically. A results in rejection. C also results in rejection as the employer decides to employ someone else who is better qualified and also has the clearance. Only D meets the querent's expectations and it is really only D that the querent is concerned about.

The point being that getting the security clearance is not what the client is primarily concerned about, even if they start off with that as the question. What they want is the job - outcome D. And it's that that you read for.

Now it might be objected that the querent's main concern is actually the money he/she will earn. If you add that in you have a whole further range of logically possible options ast to whether employment will lead to the expected earnings. However the golden rule of Horary is don't over-complicate the issue.

Unless it's clear from your discussion with the querent that it's the money that is the primary concern and they don't care about the job - any will do as long as they pay what's expected - you have to work on the basis that it's the job that is the primary concern.

But check this with the querent in your preliminary discussion. If it really is the money then Dave is right and it's a second house issue.

 

[Minderwiz]

I'm realizing that some of these questions would be more appropriate for the Horary DIY thread, sorry!

That's OK - just don't do it again

 

[Astraea]

To which house would you assign a question about gaining government security clearance needed for one's job?

I see this as a straightforward 11th-house matter, because a security clearance is a modern-day version of an honorific or boon (favor) from the king (government or company management), signified in horary by the 2nd house from the 10th (i.e. the 11th). The question is not actually about a job or something the querent already possesses, but whether or not special access will be granted to the querent by someone in authority; without this, presumably the job would be a non-starter.

The 2nd house wouldn't be a factor in the question unless the person already possessed the clearance (in the form of a badge, for example) and had lost it - the 2nd being the house of moveable possessions (i.e. that which one already possesses in tangible form). The question does not concern what has happened to the clearance, or where it is, but whether or not it will be granted in the first place.

In addition to house lords, for contributing information one might also assess the condition of the general significator of documentation (Mercury).

 

[Minderwiz]

One of the problems with this issue (and which actually makes it so interesting to discuss) is that the situation is hypothetical. In practice we'd discuss things through with the querent and base our final decision on which houses and significators to use when we fully understand the question and the context and situation.

In my previous posts I've assumed two possible situations:

A - the querent is applying for a job which entails security clearance. The main concern there I've taken as getting the job, with the clearance as incidental (though still important)

B - the querent has the job, in which case the clearance becomes the dominant issue, though failure to achieve it may have repercussions for the job.

I tried to allow for the logical possibilities in A, but what I didn't consider was the 'actual' process involved. Thinking about it from my own experience, the process would most likely be that the querent applies for the job and if successful at the interview gets the job subject to obtaining a satisfactory clearance. In such cases then we have a two stage process and therefore two distinct horary questions.

Firstly:

'Will I get the job?' - a straightforward 10th house question

Secondly (and asked only if the querent successfully gained the appointment)

'Will I get the security clearnace?' - in this case we are dealing with B, above and the prime concern is the eleventh house - Astraea has gone straight to the heart of the matter.

I would still assume the default is that the clearance will follow the appointment as near automatic, unless the querent admits to something in their past or that of a near relative which might jeopardise the situation (I remember a particular case of someone appointed to a senior public sector management post who was a cousin of a leading IRA figure, some years ago - though they got the appointment following special vetting).

I would therefore only answer'No' if the chart showed bad contacts between Lord 11 and Lord 10, or Lord 1 or Lords 1 or 10 seriously afflicted by malefics. I'm just wondering if that would also be the position taken by Astraea or whether she would use a weaker test?

 

[Barleywine]

Another thought I had was that security clearances are generally bestowed to protect the interests of the group (whether it be to support national security or to protect corporate trade secrets - essentially corporate intellectual property). This reinforces the 11th House and, in the second instance, the derivative house ("2nd-from-the-10th") connections. In my own case, I held a "Secret" clearance in the US military, which was a condition of assuming my role in maintaining combat-communications readiness in "Cold-War-Era" Germany. If I didn't merit the clearance, I wouldn't have been able to go to Vietnam (awww . . . ). Turns out I didn't go anyway. I was compelled into the position (drafted), which would seem to make it a 12th House "imprisonment" of sorts, and the clearance would have been related to hidden matters - "secrets" - (12th House from the 12th) that required vigilance in maintaining their concealment.

My horary is rusty (haven't done any in decades), but I recently came back to it through its parallel to astro-geomancy, and have been rummaging around in Anne Ungar and Lillian Huber's "Horary Reference Book".