CURA : Home

Equipotence and Harmony of Structures
Astral Matrix I
by Patrice Guinard

1. Astrology and philosophies
2. The current practice of philosophy
3. Coherence of astrology
4. The Zodiac Pairs (Reversibility of the Zodiac)
5. The Planetary Pairs

Logical Foundations of Rulerships (Astral Matrix II)
Matrix Geometry (Astral Matrix III)

This text covers the chapters 46 to 49 of my PhD thesis (1993), largely reworked.


"Philosophy is the art (that does not want to be such) of arranging undefinable words in more or less enjoyable or exciting combinations. (...)
All is drawn well, is simplified, is put in order, - in the self-contained universe of verbal contemplations."
(Paul Valéry, Cahiers)

Astrology is not "a" philosophy. It is not a philosophy among others. It is beyond or on the side. It is opposed to philosophy, in the same way potentialisation is opposed to unification, disposition to order, monstration to demonstration, ceresity to uranity. Every astrologer tends to perceive his discipline through the planetary skylight of his birth : of Mercurian nature for Robert Cross Smith alias Raphael, Jupiterian according to Zadkiel, Neptunian for Dane Rudhyar, Uranian for André Barbault, Saturnian for Jean-Pierre Nicola, Plutonian for Daniel Verney, and so on. Lunar in ancient Mesopotamia, but Mercurian in the Hellenistic hermetic mindset. All have missed Ceres! Because astrology is driven by this tiny planet, that went unnoticed by most astrologers for two centuries. This shows the worth of their capacity to perceive and to experiment. Ceres is also marvellously suited to the statute of astrology in the city : tiny, almost inexistent.

Thus astrology is not a philosophical or metaphysical view among others. It proceeds differently. Philosophy organises entities from a given reference; astrology spreads them in correspondence with references put in place. Philosophy unifies entities through the concept; astrology distributes entities and concepts by defusing the pressure of pre-eminence. It induces a distribution of objects, of people, of functions, of values, together with a stratification of the fields of comprehension. The contents are not unified according to a specific perspective, but comprehended through the spreading of the perspectives themselves.

The frame is pre-built, and the elements are arranged comparatively. Each of them finds its legitimate place within the considered field of investigation. No primacy, no dominant concept. The multiple is not reducible but likely to be distributed and put in equipotent relation. Every reference is relativized, decentred; every knowledge resorbs in the parts of a pre-structured totality. It is "more true" in the sense that the thinking has passed the trial of spreading. Astral objectification coordinates interdependent categories and elaborates more or less complete models of structures already acquired or given; each entity fits into them according to its relative functions and properties. Every question is treated according to the perspective inherent to its nature. There is only one global disposition, an equalitarian synthesis of elements balanced by multivalent contributions. The astral matrix supports the flux of isolated representations and articulates and re-evaluates them simultaneously, such that each takes its rightful place within its own limits. Distributive astrology questions each entity on its right to appear, considering rival or associated entities, its "compossibles" as Leibniz defines them. Every punctual aporia resolves in the internal cohesion of the whole through concretion and interlocking of perspectives.

This way the astrological knowledge takes its place within knowledge - a place it must assign to itself, by lack of a knowledge which could transcend it. It stands at the completion of knowledge, as Pisces, domicile of Ceres, is the ultimate stage of the zodiac. Reflected by the ternary, fitting into the winter quart, the astro-psychic comprehension completes the physical explanation and the hermeneutic interpretation. And therefore the Matrix, which is neither Cristal nor Code (see my Manifesto part IV), constitutes one of the three structural supports for the practice of philosophy. Because the latter not only conceptualises from objects and signs, it must also operate on the possible.

How do you recognize a philosopher? First by his way of operating, which resembles that of Varuna, the linker god armed with nets, acting by capture (see Dumézil, et infra : "La mentalité européenne"). For example the Cartesian Cogito, exemplary knot, essential maze in modern philosophy : "While in this way I wanted to think that everything was false, the I that was thinking necessarily had to be something (...) I think therefore I am." (Discours de la méthode, book IV). Thinking is stated as a phenomenon; a subject is attributed to it; the existence of a consciousness is presumed "behind" that subject ; finally the I who thinks is assimilated to the I who formulates the Cogito. Besides, various oppositions and implications are simultaneously assumed (thinking/ existence, mental/physical, doubt/certainty, variability/invariability, passion/action, interiority / exteriority, plurality/unity, unconscious/conscious, and so forth); the deduction of these, represented by the ergo (therefore), is merely a mimicking, a "sensation-consciousness", a reflexive action of statement of will and power. For Descartes the ergo is ego : it is already ego, even before acting! The result is that consciousness is immediate, unequivocal, auto-reflective and transparent to itself.

As the discussion springs up, representative peaks and crests intensify, forming a subjective hierarchy of ideas, through which the "master" subjugates the captive. The "is" copula has the power to set, to immobilise, to reassemble, to define. The language is rebuilt and the discussion is polarised by the advent, the primacy and the obviousness of dominant concepts, of hypostases, of "king-words", whose presence is co-extensive with the affirmation of the subject who is philosophizing. The force of a concept, its hardness, the permanence of its impact, consist in the mastery of a plurality of semantic contexts. The stable seems unchanging. A concept keeps its "meaning" while its operating field varies. It digs intensification zones within each invested field.

Philosophy is the place where the most dissimilar realities become comparable, the field of conversion of the unknowable into known, disregarding the concrete and factual. Uranian function! Things are put in unison by the mediation of the conscious subject, who has experimented these realities, who has been through these hardships, and has become capable of rendering their similarities and their differences. Any philosophical awareness requires the delimitation of a particular perspective faced with the multiplicity of appearances, by synthetic unification of diversity, hierarchisation of singularities, and subordination of entities to the imperatives of concepts. Derrida alludes to the "metaphysics of presence", this illusory construction of a centre which overlooks the philosophical arrangements (in L'écriture et la différence, p.412).

A philosopher is an eye located somewhere, preferably on a height. An eagle's eye. A philosophy is often merely the organic deployment of a dominant idea, of a unique speculative vision (Schopenhauer). Energy implodes in its centre, in its focal exaltation point. Every "great' philosophy is susceptible of transforming the cognitive comprehension and to model the consciousness into a specific form. This way it satisfies uranian unification as Taurus assimilation (see note 1 and below, the astrological Dignities) and it appears as a "bomb" in the universe of mental representations. The stability of ego, the supremacy of synthetic force, the imperative of will and the implication of awareness support the organisation of a particular view with the purpose of containing all manifestation. The philosopher reigns in the world of the spirit by the power contained in his acts of awareness.

Note 1 : Six out of the 26 modern philosophers taught in the French final college year in the list of 1973 are Taurus, and 9 out of the 42 philosophers of the current list (Machiavel, Hume, Kant, Stuart Mill, Kierkegaard, Marx, Freud, Russell, Wittgenstein), i.e. 22% and more than 2.5 times the average. No Scorpio, sign opposite to Taurus through the centre, and only one Aquarius, its complementary sign through the axis (see below). And this list of 42 is French, thus partial and biased, and would probably need some clean up: reduced to 36, i.e. keeping 13 of the 19 French philosophers (for only 12 German and Austrian), the percentage of Taurus philosophers climbs to 25% (one fourth).


"Philosophy is in danger of becoming a kind of "philosop'art" and of engaging in the esthetic prostitution of problems, of methods and of the vocabulary of its precursors."
(Claude Lévi-Strauss, L'homme nu, Plon, 1971, p.572).

Here we are! Because reality is less important to it than practicing interrogation, which defines the questions considered essential. The analytical attention and cognitive imperative are masks and pretexts for imposing directives. The speculative aim precedes the research of means to achieve it, and these means are a posteriori organised as a method. The certainty of a natural efficiency of thought and of the capacity to grasp reality in all its complexity conveys all the prejudice of the field, because consciousness is already demarcated by the field. More than morals, the evidence of "natural light" and of "common sense" is its real Circe. The modern or post-modern philosopher (if there are any left), ends up taking care of the questions which are dictated by the environment, by his colleagues, by the revision of the classics, by a hoarded academic knowledge. In the worst case he becomes a sociologer or a manager engaged in the small dramas of modernity, and a spendthrift of the worst literature.

Since Nietzsche unmasked the truth as a means for power, he has allowed himself to discourse independently of any cognitive concerns. The new rhetorician builds the epic farce of philosophical history and holds formal and dogmatic talks, vague and excessively technical and obscure in their formulation, practicing with brio the logomachy instituted as a method, and stonewalling of mental torpor as a discipline. To stylistic laxity and phraseological excesses he adds a conceptual terrorism the more coercive as his investigation field is narrow, or inversely extremely imprecise.

Exclusive dualism desperately attempts to evacuate what its unilateral vision could not validate. It actualises in a panoply of false denunciations, of small framed revolts, of consensual indignations, of sponsored contestations, of incentivised demystifications, of gratuitous and sterile criticism, of pitiful efforts to accede to the role of authorised manipulator and to free itself from its servitudes (and first in France from those which have marked it forever since its enrolment in the college course at the saturnine age), and of a mind closed to anything which does not serve its immediate interest, in short a "too human" (Nietzsche) in a -graded- semi-impotency.

The result is probably not a vision like with Spinoza, but the ancient obscuring of the Cave! "How would philosophy, which has become a bread-winning activity, not degenerate into sophistic?" (Schopenhauer, 1818). The absence of a qualitative difference between verbal and written matters shows a rhetorisation of thinking and an absence of depth in writing. What remains "in philosophy" are remunerated ideologists, journalistic reasoners, far and obscure disciples of the sophists Protagoras, Gorgias and Antiphon, intellectuals involved in the game of social excitability, deluded about their critical capability, submitted to cultural codes and obedience and reflecting in an echo, despots in schools and guard-dogs (Plato) of western idiosyncrasy in its competitive, utilitarian and unidimensional orientation. When the media offload their avatar philosophers onto the radio, the only ones allowed expressing themselves, there is only one conclusion about the future of thinking in France (and elsewhere): "it's over".


"From now on the philosopher will be the interpreter of intertwined subjectivities, the greatest philosopher will be the one
who concentrates the highest number of spontaneous philosophies which are foreign to him."
(Fernando Pessoa, Ultimatum)

In astrology, everything starts with structures. In other words the structural coherence pre-exists the variability of elements. The Rulers, ultimate piece ( but ontologically first) of the astrological construction, relate to the various modes of sympathy and antipathy, of affinities and divergences, between signs and planets. An astrological model finds its coherence through their justified arrangement.

I don't like this word, "maîtrises" (rulers); the English say "rulers", which is hardly better. One should talk about energetic intensification or amplification, because in astrology, if everything starts with structures, everything leads to energy and is summarised by energy. The planets, but also the Signs and the Houses, are energetic markers; the transits are energy deployment; the affinities between charts are energetic potentials and differentials.

For Ptolemy, late organiser of the practice of Greek astrologers but not the inventor of the system, the planets are distributed into Domiciles (or Thrones) around a double centre, Sun in Leo and Moon in Cancer (only certainty of the theory), as a function of their distance to the Sun and their sidereal revolution : Mercury in Gemini and Virgo, Venus in Taurus and Libra, Mars in Aries and Scorpio, Jupiter in Pisces and Sagittarius, Saturn in Aquarius and Capricorn. This way each of the five planets is distributed on both sides of an axis 0° Leo / 0° Aquarius. In addition they appear on the circle in an "aspect" with the Sun and the Moon corresponding to their presumed nature, beneficial or malefic, of the relevant aspects : Saturn (malefic) in opposition, Jupiter (beneficial) in trine, Mars (malefic) in square, Venus (beneficial) in sextile, and finally Mercury (neutral- in semi-sextile).

In reality the scheme is of Egyptian origin: the light of the Sun and the Moon is associated to the heat of the summer, and the scheme, late re-baptised "world chart" (thema mundi) is a marker of the beginning of the Egyptian year, with Sirius' heliacal rising, coinciding with that of the Cancer constellation (on this matter, see Bouché-Leclercq, 1899, p.185-190).

Bouché-Leclercq, L'astrologie grecque, 1899, p.187-188

Nevertheless the system remains incompatible, or even in contradiction, with the elemental theory and its qualities attributed to the zodiac signs: for instance the planets Mars and Jupiter find themselves associated with Water and Fire through Scorpio and Aries for one, through Pisces and Sagittarius for the other, and Mercury, Venus and Saturn at the same time to Air and to Earth, elements of opposite nature. To the Greek astrologers and their modern retarded disciples this contradiction does not make much difference. Bouché-Leclercq drew up an exhilarating report of the contradictions in his time. And long before him, the critics of astrology did not fail noticing their inconsequence: The mathematician and Jesuit Jacques de Billy (1602-1679) wonders with reason in his Tombeau de l'astrologie judiciaire (Paris, Michel Soly, 1657, p.60): "Why locate Jupiter, who is the first of the Gods in Pisces, which is the last of the signs in the firmament?"

To this distribution of the planets in Domiciles, the oikoi, the Greeks have inherited from Mesopotamian astrologers another model, so-called Exaltations model in the Hellenistic astrology : the Sun in Aries, the Moon in Taurus, Mercury in Virgo (again), Venus in Pisces, Maris in Capricorn (square to the Sun), Jupiter in Cancer, and Saturn in Libra (in opposition with the Sun). By bringing both systems together, and considering only the first distribution of the domiciled planets (from Virgo to Capricorn), the exalted Sun is found in trine with the domiciled Sun, the Moon in sextile to itself, Saturn in square, Venus and Jupiter in quincunx, and Mercure in conjunction.

Ptolemy has tried in vain to justify the distribution of the exaltations through specious physico-astronomical considerations :

"For Jupiter, since it emits boreal winds, which bring fecundity, and since in Cancer it approaches Bear, and since there it exercises its power, Cancer is its exaltation and Capricorn its depression. March, which is burning by nature and becomes even more so when it is in Capricorn because then he is the most South, is naturally in exaltation in Capricorn, opposed to Jupiter, and in depression in Cancer." (Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, I. 20, French transl. Nicolas Bourdin, revised, Paris, Culture Art Loisirs, 1974, p.60).

Dom Neroman generalised the distribution of planets in exaltation in the Zodiac by doubling the attribution of each planet on either side of an axis 0° Taurus / 0° Scorpio, with Mars and Leo in Square with the Moon, and Saturn and Scorpio in opposition to the Moon (in Grandeur et pitié de l'astrologie, Paris, François Sorlot, 1940, p.77).

The system of Exaltations comes from a given symbolic horoscope for the world creation in Mesopotamia (Ernst Zinner, Sternglaube und Sternforschung, Freiburg, Karl Alber, 1953 ; The stars above us, engl. tr. W. H. Johnston, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1957, p.56), which is absurd since Mercury's position at 150° from the Sun makes no sense astronomically. The Greek theory of exaltations (hypsomata) derives from this absurd scheme. For the Babylonians, bît nisirti meant un "secret place", not so much of great planetary power as for the Greeks, but the place where the prediction was most favourable (Francesca Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopes, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, 1998, p.49).

Nevertheless, the precision of the planetary positions given for this 'world's chart' indicates the possibility of an original historical chart, the positions of which may have been rectified or arranged later on : the Sun at 19° in Aries, the Moon at 3° in Taurus and Mercury at 15° in Virgo (inverted positions?), Venus at 27° in Pisces, Mars at 28° in Capricorn, Jupiter at 15° in Cancer, Saturn at 21° in Libra. Rochberg gives half a dozen horoscopes made in 3rd C BC mentioning the bît nisirti of a planet. For Cyril Fagan, the chart of Exaltations or of the World's Creation marks the heliacal setting of the planets at the inauguration of the temple of Nabû, the divine 'scribe-astrologer' in Kalhu (Nimrud) in the year 786 BC (in Zodiacs, old and new, Llewellyn Foundation for Astrological Research, 1950 ; London, Anscombe, 1951, p.21-23). But at the 1st Nisannu, on 4 April 786 BC, Mars is in conjunction with Jupiter at the beginning of Cancer. Another chart could approximately correspond to the indicated position (except for Mercury and the Moon): the chart of 6 April 964 BC around 11:00. The chart is remarkable due to the triple opposition of Mercury, of the Sun and of Venus to the Moon, to the Northern Moon Node and to Saturn respectively, and due to the square and trine of Saturn to Jupiter and to Mars. This date could have been chosen in retrospect to mark the installation of the Kaldu, i.e. the Chaldeans (the ancestors of the Babylonian astrologers) in Babylonia under the reign of Nabû-mukin-apli (978-943 BC).

Zinner, The stars above us, p.56 Calculation of Thema Mundi for 964 BC

With the discovery of new planets, starting with Uranus in 1781, the entire traditional theory of planetary Domiciles crumbles. The criterion of distance of the planets and of their sidereal revolutions, but also the mythological and analogical connection, have guided the modern attribution of Uranus to Aquarius and of Neptune, god of the Oceans, to Pisces. But with Pluto in Scorpio, one is further away from the Sun-Moon center at the end of Cancer / beginning of Leo. Due to this chaos, some astrologers neglect the rulers without realising that what is at stake is not only the analogies and affinities between signs and planets, but the unification of the entire astral corpus. How can one understand the synergies between Mars and Aries, the Sun and Leo, Saturn and Capricorn? Without the rulers, i.e. without the possibility of equipotence between the various astrological systems (zodiac Signs, Planets, Houses, and Cycles), no understanding or coherent discourse of astral matters is possible, only various unrelated codes, open to proliferation of far-fetched elements, arsenal of horoscope DIYers who call in black planets, fixed stars, comets, hypothetical forged planets, imaginary Greek or Arab parts and other fictitious points, hundreds of thousands of asteroids and planetoids, haphazardly chosen, which could number up to fifty thousand per zodiac degree. A great possibility to refine the interpretation!

The four astrological structures (Zodiac, Planets, Dominion, Cyclades) are alternative modes (respectively structural, energetic, spatial, temporal) of a same psychic-astral matrix, differentiated by observation and analysis. Each of these divides the psychic potentialities in its own frame : the Aries of the zodiac, the planet Mars, the House 3 daily Individuation and maybe also squaring, are the same operator, differentiated according to one of the four conditional milieu.


"According to representations which go back to prehistory, the year-god here appears as the axe, or the gad-axe, which cuts in two parts the circular sign of the year."
(Julius Evola, Révolte contre le monde moderne)

Traditionally the rulers are only about the relationship between planet and sign. The Domicile (or Throne) characterises a nature identity between the planet and the sign; its opposite, the Exile, an incompatibility or a repulsion, causing an effect deviation; the Exaltation, a thriving or facilitation; the Fall, an attenuation, a weakening or a paralysis. Nevertheless a planet in Domicile does not necessarily bring the expected benefits, and a planet in Exile may galvanise a configuration. In other words, the four types of Rulers are like the four main planetary aspects (conjunction, opposition, square, trine): there are not in themselves favourable or unfavourable, but they galvanise the configuration and bring an energetic surplus. In astrology the main thing, before any qualification or interpretation, is the energy potential.

Every zodiac sign admits four planetary directors, and there is no equivalence between a sign and a planet, but rather an isomorphy between that sign and a series of four operators. Likewise, there is an isomorphy between an astral House and a planetary doublet. Capricorn for example can be assimilated to the series Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Mercury, planets which are respectively in Domicile, Exile, Exaltation and Fall, and constituting that 'planetary form' of that sign. As exile is opposed to domicile, and chute to exaltation, and as planets themselves are opposed in pairs, one can apprehend the capricornian as an uranised saturnine, or the leonine as a jupiterised solarian.

Jean-Baptiste Morin had formulated this principle : "The signs of the Zodiac have a more extended meaning, and their activity involve more effects than those of the planets themselves, since the meanings of a Zodiac sign can first relate to the Planet which is its Ruler, then to the Planet which is exalted in it, and finally to the planet which is in trigonocracye in it." (in La théorie des déterminations astrologiques de Morin de Villefranche, Paris, Bodin, [1902] ; Paris, éditions Traditionnelles, 1981, p.33-34, trad.-adapt. par Henri Selva du livre XXI de l'Astrologia gallica, La Haye, Adriaan Vlacq, 1661). But let us leave the Trigonocracies, useless and superfluous, and finally a symptom of the failure of the classical system.

A reflexion on the notion of zodiacal, planetary, sectorial (Houses) and even aspects complementarity, lies at the foundation of comprehension of Rulers. The dyad is inherent to astrological structures. A set of oppositions lies at the heart of the astral corpus: so-called 'masculine' and 'feminine' signs (linked to excitation or inhibition processes according to their neuro-physiological effects), even or uneven signs, so-called 'warm', 'cold', 'dry' or 'humid' planets, qualities from which Ptolemais and Kepler trued to justify their nature, 'open' or 'closed', positive or negative sectors and houses, and even aspects judged according to their tense or relaxed character.

Masculine signs (EXCITATION) and Feminine signs (INHIBITION)
Masculine et Feminine Zodiacal Signs

The astrological zodiac of signs (not the zodiac of constellations which the astronomers like to shake up and to redefine as they dislike astrology), admits a central symmetry which opposes every sign with the sign opposed to it : Pisces to Virgo, Libra to Aries. In this way the followers of a pseudo-symbolic zodiac oppose signs with the same elemental quality : heat is common to Aries and Libra, and cold is common to Taurus and Scorpio. In the same way a split along the axis of the solstices (O° Cancer - 0° Capricorn) would illogically oppose between them dry signs (Taurus and Leo) and humid signs (Pisces and Libra). A real elemental or even elementary logic would require the opposition of the Elements, Earth and Air, Fire and Water. Only the axial symmetry through the equinoxes (0° Aries - 0° Libra) oppose between them signs with a really opposed nature : Aries to Pisces, Taurus to Aquarius, Gemini to Capricorn, Cancer to Sagittarius, Leo to Scorpio, Virgo to Libra.

Complementary zodiacal Signs
Complementary signs

Having said that, the theory of Elements and of elemental values, added late to the zodiac, has no legitimacy except in the conformist imagination of astrologers who content themselves with resucking what they read in their manuals, and the weak trine would not by itself justify the whole system. Scorpio is not an aquatic animal, Libra and Aquarius are not at all aerial, etc. And one should not call upon the supposed symbolic meaning of the system, especially not the people who have so little spiritual dimension and aspiration.


"Every advancement of thinking consists in creating classes which will allow putting the veritable problems." (Paul Valéry, Cahiers)

Traditionally the Sun is opposed to the Moon (the lights), Mars to Venus (masculine and feminine symbols) and Jupiter to Mercury, side-lining Mercury. This was before the discovery of the new planets and Uranus and Neptune in particular. The model has been potentially obsolete since 1781. With the introduction of new planets, Uranus and Neptune, but also Pluto, Ceres, and Chiron, the whole system must be put in question. I recently evoked the question of which planetary operators one should take into account : "Which objects of the nearby sky, within the limits of the solar system, are likely to durably inscribe their rhythm in the organism, so that a neuro-physiological impregnation can translate over time into a psychological habituation ? In other words, which planets have an effect on the nervous system ? Which celestial objects form the Planetary, not as much outside of us, but, as Paracelsus understood it, necessarily within us? The planets and planetoids discovered the last two centuries can be fitted into three groups : one group between Mars and Jupiter (the asteroidal belt, in yellow on the picture), a very heterogeneous one between Jupiter and Pluto (the Centaurus, in brown), and a third one after Neptune (the Kuiper belt). These three groups each have their head : Ceres for the asteroids, Chiron for the centaures, and Pluto-Charon for the so-called kuiperian objects." (see my appendix to the harmony of the solar system : Which cyclical operators in astrology?, CURA, 2010-2015).

12 planets

The organisation of planets in pairs results from their distance to the Sun (see below) and from what I called their 'ontological functioning' (see my Planetary Archetypology, in chapter 4 of The Planetaries). The diurnal planets (linked to excitation) are opposed to the nocturnal planets (linked to inhibition), and in pairs by their ontological function and the formula attached to it.

The SUN (identification) is opposed to PLUTO (over-differentiation). Conflict of frames of reference. The legal and the legitimate. Quid of the Being? Continuity or fragmentation. Identity or alterity.
MERCURY (dispersion) is opposed to URANUS (unification). Dynamics of abstraction and of representation. Unification of multiplicities or dispersion of values, concentration or dissemination; centrifugal or centripetal processes.
MARS (confrontation) is opposed to CERES (potentiation). Dynamics of existential establishment. Rupture or durability. What is or what should be. The actual or the potential.
JUPITER (simplification) is opposed to SATURN (complexification). Divergence related to the purpose of experience. Increase or decrease. Amplification or restriction. Enrichment or austerity.
NEPTUNE (association) is opposed to VENUS (dissociation). Divergence related to the experience of living. Intuitive or sentimental, harmonious or passionate approach. Detachment or attachment.
CHIRON (integration) is opposed to the MOON (undifferentiation). Dynamics of existential balance and of adaptation and contact modes : active or passive, combative or defensive, altruist or egoist, by the invisible or closely.

Anatomy of planetary Functions, PG 2015

The Sun is the absolute unity (and first the unity of the solar system), Pluto is absolute multiplicity and opening of the solar system to its galactic and stellar exteriority. Pluto is the representative element of the transneptunian multiplicity. It is the incarnate limit of its field and it seals the current Matrix model, as Saturn used to seal the Ancient septenary system. 'Tradition' continues, through resonance with the virtualities of that time and actualisation of new givens.

The SUN symbolises the representation of appearances, the appearance of appearance, the fleeting surface impression, the comedy of masks, the reflection, the endlessness of image, the transparency of being, the absolute centre. PLUTO symbolises the emanation of the essence, the intricacy of points of reference, the negation of appearance, the abyss, the defiant detachment, the depth of being, the absolute decentring, the multiplicity of foci. Pluto denies unity, the Sun perpetuates and eternises it.

According to Nietzsche, the Greek tragedy was born at the (eschylian) moment when the unlimited depth of the world, which is chaos, unintentional emergence and annihilation (Dionysos), is covered with the serene smile of plastic beauty (Apollo): "the whole development of art is linked to the duality of the apollonian and of the Dionysian" (in La Naissance de la tragédie et Fragments posthumes [The Birth of Tragedy] : Automne 1869-Printemps 1872, éd. G. Colli & M. Montinari, Gallimard, 1977, p.41). Tragedy results from uniting apollonian dream, harmony, measure, serenity, and balance, with Dionysian inebriation, delirium, excess, enthusiasm and metamorphosis. In Nietzsche's birth chart, born in Röcken South-East of Leipzig on 15th October 1844, the apollonian Sun, at 22° of Libra, is opposed to Dionysian Pluto at 23° of Aries. Between November 1870 and May 1871, the time when he wrote The Birth of Tragedy, Neptune transits his native Pluto in Aries and retrograde Uranus in Cancer (from 26° to 22°30), in double square of his native opposition.

Through the mythical apollonian figure, Nietzsche describes solar idiosyncrasy : "He who according to his name is the 'brilliant', the divinity of light, also reigns on the beautiful appearance of the inner world of imagination." (NT in OPC 1.1 p.43) ; "Apollo's look must be 'solar', according to his origin " (NT in OPC 1.1 p.44) ; "in him the unshaken trust in this principium individuationis and the calm base of the captive find their most sublime expression" (NT in OPC 1.1 p.44) ; "the dream shall finally be worth in our eyes as the appearance of appearance" (NT in OPC 1.1 p.53) - I underline the same formula used by the astrologer to define the solar function! Modelled on Apollo, the solar person does not feel any need to justify himself : he is already formed, complete, perfect. Artist by birth, he controls his environment and acts with endless faith in himself and in his right.

And Pluto is drawn with Dionysis' traits : "These Dionysian emotions which, as they gain intensity, abolish subjectivity until the total selfforgetfulness" (NT in OPC 1.1 p.44) ; "Man is no longer an artist, he has become a work of art" (NT in OPC 1.1 p.45) ; "the millions of beings bow down quivering in the dust" (NT in OPC 1.1 p.45) ; "Now the slave is a free man, now all the hostile and rigid barriers which necessity, arbitrary or 'insolent fashion' have put between men are broken. (...) not only does everyone feel united, reconciled, confounded with his neighbour, but he makes one with all" (NT in OPC 1.1 p.45).

Nietzsche evokes the dancers of Saint John and Saint Guy, the noisy processions of satyrs and maenads - frenzy of sex and death. According to Heraclites, Dionysus is Hades. He does not represent a man but a swarm, a multiplicity without order or prevalence. His kingdom is for all and in everyone : insubordination of the rebel towards the king, lost cause of the pariah facing the citizen, wildness of the beast facing the man. Nothing resembles anything. No conception, no mediation, no comparison, no evaluation, no reason, but ecstatic states; paroxysmal coming out of oneself, surge of electrified crowds at the heart of cosmic agitation.

The transit of slow planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) operate profound and lasting transformations of consciousness. In 1871, Nietzsche "feels" his native Sun / Pluto opposition which takes the form of balance (Libra) between Apollo and Dionysus. The psychic realm rules the psycho-mental and the imaginary. Many antinomies of thinking could be examined in this way according to the model of planetary pairs.

The planetary pairs, in addition to their intuitive justification coming from qualitative and matrix perception of the astrologer, stem from the order of succession of the planets according to their distance from the Sun, as follows:

Planetary Pairs according to their remoteness to the Sun

Astral Matrix I : Equipotence and Harmony of Structures
Translation of 'Équipotence et harmonie des structures'
French version :
All rights reserved © 2017 Patrice Guinard
Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Astrologie
Web site Designer & Editor: Patrice Guinard
© 1999-2017 Dr. Patrice Guinard