Wet/Dry (reply to Sari)

[Guest guest]

Hi Sari,

 

It's taken me a while to get back to you. I discovered if an astrologer

wants to get really confused, begin to investigate Aristotle and the Stoics

on the elements and qualities. I found the most comprehensive description

for astrologers (This isn't to say it's not confusing!) in Lee Lehman's

CLASSICAL ASTROLOGY FOR MODERN LIVING. So, sorting it all out I'll try to

reply to your post.

 

At 04:57 PM 6/29/05 +0300, Sari wrote:

>I looked for [Rob Hand's article], but all I found was an interview from

1997. It's not

>the same. I can borrow the magazine again and scan and send the

>interview to you privately if you like, but that may take a few weeks.

 

I discovered that Lee Lehman used Rob Hand as a source for some of her

comments, so her book is sufficient for the time being. Thanks for the

offer! If you do happen to temporarily borrow the magazine, please let me

know.

 

>Ptolemy says that the Moon and Venus (= " the star of Aphrodite " )

>are feminine because of having their excess in the wet; and the Sun

>Saturn, Jupiter and Mars are traditionally (says Ptolemy) masculine.

>Putting Jupiter here sounds a bit illogical, because Jupiter is

>traditionally considered wet by nature.

 

Yes, placing planets in the masculine/feminine category doesn't really work

in relation to wet/dry definitions.

 

>Then there's a note by Schmidt saying that Ptolemy never refers to

>elements of fire, earth, water and air when he talks about qualities of

>hot, cold, dry, wet - connecting qualitities to the astrological

>elements is a later invention. Schmidt writes: " Unfortunatly, later

>astrologers consistently converted Ptolemy's 'wet' to 'water', 'cold' to

>'earth', 'hot' to 'fire' and 'dry' to 'air'. The problem is that

>according to Aristotelian philosophy Water = Cold and Wet, Earth = Cold

>and Dry, Fire = Hot and Dry and Air = Hot and Wet. Or if one uses the

>Stoic system of elements, one gets Water = Wet, Earth = Dry, Fire = Hot

>and Air = Cold. What astrologers did was correct according to neither

>system of elements. "

 

This is really important because it means that the tropical triplicities

are mis-labled, and their natures are misunderstood. After much thought it

seems to me that what can work well (at least in the sidereal zodiac) is

the Stoic categories. According to Aristotle Cold and Hot are 'active.'

This can basically mean self-motivating in taking the initiative, which is

how the sidereal Aries and Gemini trigons operate. (Masculine and

autonomous, acting from inner motivation) This works out with the

exaltations in relation to the quality of the planets. So we get:

 

Aries, Leo, Sagittaius = Hot (Sun-hot: exalted in Mars ruled Aries)

Libra, Aqu, Gemini = Cold (Saturn-cold: exalted in Libra)

 

Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces = Wet (Jupiter-wet: exalted in Cancer)

Capri, Taurus, Virgo = Dry (Mercury-dry: exalted in Virgo)

 

Aristotle's definitions of Wet-Dry:

--

DRY = algebraic, object oriented, solid, rigid, clear; enhances

distinctions (mental, 'of the mind') Rational

 

WET = spatial, geometric, liquid, assumes the shape of container, fluid,

formless, ambiguous, blurs distinctions (really it can mean 'of the

feelings') Irrational

 

>In another note Rob Hand writes: " The text does appear to be saying that

>Hot = Masculine, Wet = Feminine, Dry = Masculine and Cold = Feminine. If

>Ptolemy is completey in accord with standard Aristotelianism in which

>Hot and Cold arer both active whereas Wet and Dry are both passive, then

>Ptolemy here classifies Hot = Active & Masculine, Cold = Active &

>Feminine, Wet = Passive & Feminine and Dry = Passive and Masculine. If

>this analysis is correct it has all manner of interesting symbolic

>consequences for astrology. "

 

This works out if we understand 'masculine' as rational (mind oriented) and

'feminine' as irrational (of the feelngs-emotions). Then we can keep the

standard male/female categories of the signs. So we get:

 

Aries, Leo, Sag: HOT: active and masculine (self-motivating, of the mind)

Libra, Aqu, Gem: COLD: active and feminine (self-motivating, of the feelings)

 

Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn: DRY: passive and masculine (receptive-of the mind)

Scorpio, Pisces, Cancer: WET: passive and feminine (receptive-of the

feelings)

 

Observing the nature of the signs, this can work *ONLY* in the sidereal

zodiac!

Then re-read my article on the elements (I will have to re-write parts of

the article to include the Greek perspective on the elements.)

http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

>...But what this Aristotelian system really is about is cycles. Cold is the

>starting point, then it becomes increasingly wet until the first quarter

>point is wet. Then it becomes increasingly hot until the culmination

>point opposing the starting point is hot. And then it becomes

>increasingly dry, and then increasingly cold. So the nature of these

>four quarters is combination of two qualities, as follows:

>I quarter: cold, increasingly wet

>II quarter: wet, increasingly hot

>III quarter: hot, increasingly dry

>IV quarter: dry, increasingly cold

(etc...)

 

I thought about this cyclic approach to the zodiac, but I can't make it

work for myself, Sari. I can only fit the categories above into my

understanding of the zodiac. The entire idea of seasons and cycles is

Tropical, and I'm more comfortable with the old Mesopotamian trigons or

triplicities--placing emphais on each triangle of signs in the zodiac as

distinct from the other trigons. These were originally associated with the

four winds, but were then shifted over to Aristotle's elements. These

trigons were far more important to ancient astrology than the squares that

we place emphasis on today.

 

Studying up on Aristotle's elements and the Stoic approach was a real

mental workout. But it does help to validate the sidereal zodiac.

 

Therese