Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
Aug 19, 2019, 03:01 PM
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Houses and signs - any differences?  (Read 235 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
KJL
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« on: Jul 22, 2019, 02:23 AM »

I understand that in the EA paradigm there is no difference between the MEANING of a sign and house placement, say, having Jupiter in the sixth house or in Virgo. Yet in practice JWG does seem to treat signs and houses differently on occasion, though the implications of this are not entirely clear to me.

A few examples:

I asked before about the difference between Pluto's house position and its sign position, and I understand now that the house position takes preeminence because of the generational quality of Pluto in signs. I take it that as a general rule, the quicker the planet (or node), the more significant the sign placement.

Then there is the question of elements. My impression, based on the DVD course, is that JWG only looks at planets in signs for determining the elemental composition of the individual, not planets in houses. Is this correct?

In Pluto Volume II JWG discusses Mars and Venus through the signs whereas in Volume I he discusses Pluto through the signs and houses. My impression here is that he lends greater weight to the signs than the houses, perhaps in accordance with such a rule: "the quicker the planet the more significant the sign", to the point where, seemingly, the sign placement is considered even more important than the house placement. Or is there any difference in quality here, seeing as the houses are not part of the presentation?

Best,
Kim
Logged
Rad
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28235


« Reply #1 on: Jul 22, 2019, 04:48 AM »

"I asked before about the difference between Pluto's house position and its sign position, and I understand now that the house position takes preeminence because of the generational quality of Pluto in signs. I take it that as a general rule, the quicker the planet (or node), the more significant the sign placement.

Then there is the question of elements. My impression, based on the DVD course, is that JWG only looks at planets in signs for determining the elemental composition of the individual, not planets in houses. Is this correct?"


*********

None of this is correct or what EA teaches. Very simply,the houses come first because the correlate all the archetypes within consciousness of the Soul. Thus, how the consciousness of the Soul is orientated to phenomenal reality in any given life. The planets in the houses correlates to the psychology and dynamics within the consciousness of the Soul. This is what EA has always taught.

****************

"In Pluto Volume II JWG discusses Mars and Venus through the signs whereas in Volume I he discusses Pluto through the signs and houses. My impression here is that he lends greater weight to the signs than the houses, perhaps in accordance with such a rule: "the quicker the planet the more significant the sign", to the point where, seemingly, the sign placement is considered even more important than the house placement. Or is there any difference in quality here, seeing as the houses are not part of the presentation?"

************

No. He always taught that the archetypes of the signs and houses are the same despite when he wrote the Mars and Venus through the signs in the Pluto 2 book.

God Bless, Rad
Logged
KJL
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #2 on: Jul 23, 2019, 03:56 AM »

Quote
Very simply,the houses come first because the correlate all the archetypes within consciousness of the Soul. Thus, how the consciousness of the Soul is orientated to phenomenal reality in any given life. The planets in the houses correlates to the psychology and dynamics within the consciousness of the Soul. This is what EA has always taught.

Okay, but do the signs NOT correlate to the consciousness of the soul in the same manner then? Do they correlate more do collective consciousness or what?

At some point in the DVD material (I cannot find it now, neither in the transcript) I'm quite sure JWG talked about an example of a chart where only two elements were present, and it seemed to me that he was only taking into account sign placements. I might have been mistaken... In that case, would a Sun in Aries, fourth house be interpreted as simultaneously adding fire and water to that individual's elemental composition? Would signs and houses have equal weight in contributing to that composition?

Best,
Kim
Logged
Rad
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28235


« Reply #3 on: Jul 23, 2019, 04:53 AM »

Okay, but do the signs NOT correlate to the consciousness of the soul in the same manner then? Do they correlate more do collective consciousness or what?

**********

The Zodiac correlates with the structural nature of consciousness in total. The signs on the houses correlates to how that consciousness is orientated to the phenomenal reality. The signs of themselves correlate to the archetypes inherent to them: each sign. Thus, these archetypes apply to all humans: the collective consciousness that we all share.

************

At some point in the DVD material (I cannot find it now, neither in the transcript) I'm quite sure JWG talked about an example of a chart where only two elements were present, and it seemed to me that he was only taking into account sign placements. I might have been mistaken... In that case, would a Sun in Aries, fourth house be interpreted as simultaneously adding fire and water to that individual's elemental composition? Would signs and houses have equal weight in contributing to that composition?

************

The traditional way of doing this using the planets in the signs to determine the amount, or lack of, the elements for an individual: i.e. Mars in Cancer would equal the water element. On the other hand that Mars in Cancer can be in a natural Fire House. An astrologer should of course take both into consideration. So, yes, in this way the houses and signs would then have equal weight.

God Bless, Rad
Logged
KJL
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #4 on: Aug 08, 2019, 06:54 AM »

Thanks for the clarification. Still, let me take one example that I can think of where Wolf seems to differentiate between houses and signs. I quote:

Quote
Mars in Aries

This will correlate to a Soul that desires to break free from all kinds of past patterns, and to begin the evolution of all kinds of new patterns. These new patterns will specifically evolve through the house that Mars is in, the house that the sign Aries is in, the planets that Mars aspects, and the houses that these planets are in.
Pluto Volume II, p. 225

In this case, it seems that the sign comes first, and that the house (among other things) is understood relative to the sign. Yet in the EA Glossary I read that in EA, the house always comes first.
Logged
Rad
Admin
Most Active Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28235


« Reply #5 on: Aug 08, 2019, 07:30 AM »

The house always comes first, and the sign on whatever house conditions it. It is that simple.

God Bless, Rad
« Last Edit: Aug 08, 2019, 07:41 AM by Rad » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Video