next page

 

The lay-out of the traditional rulerships seems reasonable. It seems reasonable that the Sun rules the sign that it's in at the hottest time of the year; and to place the Moon next to the Sun, its polar counterpart, and in a water sign. It seems reasonable to follow that by placing the other planets according to the speed of their motion, in the signs adjacent.
( - although it does raise some concern about how this applies in the Southern Hemisphere, however - )

This produces a satisfyingly complete pattern with a line of reflection at the 5th house/11th house cusp.

It doesn't seem so reasonable to disrupt this pattern by replacing some of the traditional rulers with newly discovered outer planets.
If the outer planets are to be rulers, then it seems to me that they must be co-rulers.

I decided to see if the pattern of rulerships, of both the traditional and of the outer planets, might be found to be inherent in the lay-out of the Zodiac.

I could see in the Zodiac, pairs of planets; pairs of signs.
Taking out the triplicity or the quadruplicity gave me groups of four and three planets, and signs. Not really new information. This was something I could see already.

Is there good reason to accept that Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Chiron do indeed rule Aquarius, Pisces, Scorpio and Virgo respectively, and good reason to retain the traditional rulerships assigned to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn?

I have some hope that there is.

I base my hope on the belief that there are certain universal truths.
The symmetries of reflection, re-fraction and rotation.
The balance in the polarity of opposites.
The fractal nature of reality - that self similarity is apparent at different levels of organisation.
There may be more but these'll do for the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A question arose in my mind, at this point, regarding positive and negative signs.
The pairs of the traditional ruling planets have one of each.

 

 

I then thought to place the signs of the Zodiac on the faces of a dodecahedron, in this way adding a dimension rather than trying to subtract one.
I decided it was essential to retain, if possible, all the symmetries of the two dimensional Zodiac.
The circular sequence of signs.
The oppositions.
The triplicities and quadruplicities.

 

 

 

next page