Talk:Essential dignity

References needed

I was about to slap a deletion notice on this article as it has been unreferenced since 2005! Only Googling stopped me. When I Google for the subject I get plenty of hits. I have no way of knowing what counts as RS when it comes to astrology but something must do. Please can somebody dig up some RS references and check the accuracy of the article against them. As it stands the whole thing is an affront to the dignity of Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Detriment" vs. "Exile"

The term "detriment" has been in use for several thousand years to describe this class of dignity. I have never heard of the term "Exile," which is quaint, but not in general use. By the way, the difference between being in "fall" and in "detriment" is quite simply the difference between being in "domicile" and in "exaltation." Because Babylonian astrologers appear to have considered what we now call "exaltation" a more dignified state, but medieval astrologers look at it the other way around, there will probably be no answer to this. However, Indian astrologers have always considered "fall" (or "Neecha") to be highly malefic, but take no note whatsoever of the "detriment" condition. Since much of the earliest Hellenistic tradition is preserved in much of the Vedic tradition, this may be a clue to the fact that detriment only came along later. But we don't know. NaySay (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Essential dignity"

The concept of "essential dignity" goes back to Hellenistic astrology--although the table of rulerships and exaltations, and their opposites, detriment and fell, is the same whether from Ptolemy and Valens in the second century, Paulus Alexandrinus in the late Classical/Byzantine period, any of the Arabs (such as abu Mashar), Bonatti, all the way through William Lilly. (There are few differences elsewhere, and all of these derive from Ptolemy himself in that period.) It is a complete system cannot exist without the symmetry of rulerships inherent in that system. Therefore, if you have some modern view of this which you would like to add, kindly add this separately. This is a historical system. Any tinkering is a modern innovation and must be identified separately as such.

This also means that ideas such as Uranus ruling Aquarius--one of the few modern notions which actually has some wide acceptance--don't belong in the classical system and should be separately notated.

Few astrologers who use totally modern methods pay much attention to dignities at all, and this is much the more authentic modern view. NaySay (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly speculative material in modern dignities table

Some of the stuff added to the modern table is *highly* speculative. I suspect it comes from one idiosyncratic source. It's fine to use such techniques, but I think we need to remember that this is a page for people who don't know this material and I think it would be wrong to present anything but the most widely accepted astrological techniques. This is not a platform for pushing a particular astrological "cause." It's an encyclopedia article about what is out there and being used by mainstream astrologers. So whereas the rulerships and even the exaltations are just fine, describing widespread modern use, ANY use of Vesta or Ceres in this regard is very much an idiosyncrasy, and in my opinion, should not be used. At the very least, this sort of speculation must be clearly sourced. If you randomly put 100 astrologers in a room, I doubt there would be even 1 holding these opinions, and for every 1 there would be another 20 with a *different* speculative notion. We can explain that in a footnote or in a separate paragraph, but I don't think it belongs in a table. I have therefore requested citations for this material and hope to hear from the poster. NaySay (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Planetary joy"

When it comes to the column "planetary joy" in the new modern dignities table, I am afraid I feel it represents some sort of serious misunderstanding, and this column should be deleted.

First of all, the "joy" of the planets is not an essential dignity; it's an ACCIDENTAL dignity and should be covered in that topic. Accidental dignities are dignities which are determined by the longitudinal position of a planet *in a given chart.* It is not essential--that is, it does not inhere to the planet by nature. For that reason alone, an entry for "joys" in an essential dignity table makes no sense. For example, Venus "joys" in the fifth house of a chart; it does not "joy" in any particular sign. It is the ruler of Libra and of Taurus; it is exalted in Pisces. It is the triplicity ruler of earth and water signs in diurnal charts, and so forth. What sign it happens to "joy" in is only determined by the fifth sign of the particular chart in which it is located.

Then there are the odd attributions of planets to the joys. They are at the very best highly speculative; they are the product of one astrologer's notions somewhere and are without foundation in the literature.

All in all, I believe this column gives an inaccurate, misleading impression to the beginning reader of practices out there, and I would like to delete it. Please let me know if your thoughts if you disagree. NaySay (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Essential dignity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]