Freya wrote:I have seen some (tropical) astrologers divide the natal chart in half with a vertical line (from noon to midnight), and giving a particular interpretation if the person has more planets on the Eastern half or the Western half. Is this something that is worth doing?
Also, I have seen astrologers interpret differently a chart that has more planets above the horizon from one that shows planets below the horizon. DOes this give valid results?
Q&A and discussion on Houses including house models and domification systems.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
Aug 09, 2013
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC
Jim Eshelman wrote:First off, there is no statistical substantiation of the technique, so it's not in my standard repertoire; however, based on anecdotal evidence, I have an opinion or two.Freya wrote:I have seen some (tropical) astrologers divide the natal chart in half with a vertical line (from noon to midnight), and giving a particular interpretation if the person has more planets on the Eastern half or the Western half. Is this something that is worth doing?
At best, this is a weak matter. It may be nothing at all but, in any case, it's a weak factor, easily overridden and probably not worth any attention.
It was popular in the Jones-Rudhyar schools, working from the theory that one should statrt with the most general, all-encompassing chart factors and then move to specificity, being willing (at each step) to contradict and overrule previous opinions as more specific information is incorporated. I think that general approach is a waste of time and prone to confusion. Instead, I teach that one should focus on those few strongest factors that under no circumstances are going to be overruled (discussed in various places around this forum).
Another problem with hemisphere work is that various authors have given substantially opposite interpretations. (That alone should tell you something about the value of the technique LOL!) If you want to experiment with it, here are the distinctions I would suggest (based on my house model). These are process-oriented, "humanistic" interpretations, rather than the historically static ones. Remember, these are theories!
1. Planets above the horizon are in the process of moving from selfhood toward others-orientation. They may flow with othersness, resist it, whatever; the main point is that they are in a process of moving from self-orientation to others-orientation.
2. Planets below the horizon: Ditto, except moving from psychological investment in others, to psychological investment in self.
3. Eastern half: Ditto, but moving from internal, private, etc. to exteriorize in the world.
4. Western half: Ditto, but moving from exterior to interior.
These are life-path issues, courses or character arcs, not static interpretations.
I would not interpret individual planets this way, but might experiment with planetary majorities, as a kind of dharma reading.
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests