The falsity of rulerships by Daniel Gordon
What planets rule which zodiac signs in astrology seems to be a settled matter. However, I think which zodiac sign rules what in the mundane world is quite unsettled and other areas of astrology also suffer from multiple undefined rulerships. The problem threatens to undermine the basis of astrology, and gives reason for others to call astrology foolishness. False predictions cause loss of credibility. Astrology is based on elements and qualities.
For example, in Roman times cattle were considered livestock under the rulership of Capricorn, because they were dynamic bodies with skin and bones, and Capricorn is dynamic earth by quality and element. In Rex Bill’s “Rulership Book“cattle are Taurus & Saturn. Munkasey’s “Astrological Thesaurus”, cattle are a 12th House keyword, but cow is a 4th House keyword.
When I research historical conditions and find little or no correlation to these rulerships or keywords with the mundane events or conditions, I question the authority of the books as well as my own research and experience. Then I look to see at least two historical reasons and a repeated pattern why something would be included in a rulership measured by quality and element. My astrological forecasts are irrelevant if I use the wrong keywords.
The long history of astrology has provided many systems of rulerships and keywords, but general opinion is no proof of truth. In the past, Astrology has been based on hearsay, rumours, traditions, suppositions, perceptions, scripture, inferences, appearances, pre-conceived notions, and sayings of great teachers, but that does not make it right. Also, the lack of consistent keywords and rulerships interferes with meaningful communication among astrologers.