Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Uranus, Neptune, Pluto - Exalted in...

I've been studying the subject of planetary strength and debility for as long as I can remember. 
Having an six out of the ten planets in my chart in either dignity or debility has always evoked questions about what's the best possible placement for a planet? 
There's quite a dilemma on and offline about which sign is the place of exaltation of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. 
I generally incline towards a more or less even distribution of exaltation signs so that if Aries already exalts the Sun it shouldn't exalt Uranus. 
Otherwise a Zodiac sign should be somehow connected to the nature of the planet it exalts. So if Cancer is the natural sign of exaltation of Jupiter that's because cancer is warm, moist, spiritual, needs to belong and so forth. 
There’s an additional view to exaltations. In Traditional Astrology a sign exalting a planet is like a person holding another person in high esteem, even judging him as more than his worth. Somewhat like an overpriced stock in a bubble inflated stock market before it crushes and takes the economy down with it.
In such manner hard working Capricorns overestimate the power of a soldier or an assertive - action oriented man to reach a goal faster and without the hard work (Capricorn exalting Mars). Or take Taurus which provides for other people in material areas but finds it difficult to provide emotionally or, god forbid, to express love (Taurus exalting the Moon). Examples abound but I’ll only mention Pisces exalting Venus in the sense that the fish, being out of this life and fantasy driven in their pursuit of harmony and pleasure, has a lot to learn from Venus’ straightforward ways to be likeable and effective in getting what they want, and all this inside this world not relying on some utopian vision.   
Uranus whose natural ruler is Aquarius is widely considered to have its exaltation in the sign of Scorpio. 
One might think: "Now what a sky god, a titan has to look for in the underworld?" but then you remember that Hades is such an aloof character, alienated from everyone else in his kingdom in Tartarus.
Scorpios revel in the unknown by experimenting and most experiments deal with evolution of the self. Thus you find Uranus in the lowest of places, probing the depths.   
Also, Scorpios are fiercely independent and will not tolerate being dominated by another individual. All in all it fits although one can argue that Aries (Mar's diurnal domocile) fits just as well but it has another planet as its exaltation, the sun which is Uranus’ opposite.   
Uranus’ keywords are proof by themselves for a mars ruled sign; pioneering, unconventional, independent, individualism. Even the darker aspects: accident prone, violent et cetera et cetera.
Still I do believe that the majority got it right as there's a valid connection between Scorpio and Uranus.
Lastly, this will place Uranus’ fall in the stable, conservative Taurus. An antithesis for everything Uranus stands for.
About the traditional idea of exalting a planet; Scorpio’s highest manifestation is considered to be the eagle, which is much an Aquarian motif (with its angel symbolism). It relishes helping others while not caring to suffer the costs in self sacrifice, as Uranian as it gets.   
True to its nature Neptune remains elusive all the way through. I remember some astrologers claiming Cancer was its sign of exaltation. Let's put that claim to the test.
Surely cancer is hyper emotional and is on the lookout for a fairytale real life Cinderella story. But Cancer is not at the least confused (being a cardinal sign), has no theme of personal sacrifice and is otherwise concerned with what's inside his own shell; family matters, needs, desires and such. Cancer is also a sign of plenty situated smack on the summer solstice point so it's connected with personal success. 
All the above are things which fundamentally contradict Neptune's heart and (most importantly) soul. Thus I do not believe cancer is the sign of Neptune's exaltation.  
My very own candidate is non other than Aquarius. A conclusion, British Astrologer, Paul Wade has reached independent of my own considerations.   
Now that must come as a shock, Airy aloof Aquarius having Neptune exalted in its waters ('The Water Bearer' remember?). Well Aquarius may be unemotional to a fault but we must remember that Neptune is a generational planet making it unsuccessful in dealing with the personal level of experience ruled by the personal planets. Pisces’ emotions are a reflection of the wider universe around them, it is not a matter of personal whims and desires. Likewise Neptune in its positive, yang form (Aquarius) is concerned logically and ideally with the notion of unifying, helping, liberating, contributing and giving for the greater good, for humanity. Neptune is the denial of self in the process of empowering another and in much the same spirit Aquarius individuals worldwide are ready to make substantial sacrifices in order to bring a greater good. Plus they are weird and live in a world of their own making. 
Lastly, this will place Neptune’s fall in egoistical, self-aggrandizing Leo, which Neptune doesn’t get at all.
While in the traditional scheme, Aquarius probably exalts Neptune because Neptune doesn’t rely on concepts, words and ideas to achieve his humanitarian goals. It’s less intellectual and less self aware being a true humanitarian by the way of it. That is considering other people’s needs before considering yours.  

Last but not least comes our venerable grim reaper Pluto. I'm pretty sure that Virgo of all signs is Pluto's sign of exaltation. 
In November Mother Nature is dying in front of our eyes as Persephone is descending into Pluto's domain. Wait stop! Rewind… 
A little bit earlier in September we experience that first feeling of blues as the days are getting shorter and summer is crumbling down slowly, layer by layer. Pluto, of course, is the lord of change.
Scorpios 'sting' others while Virgo criticize or 'sting' themselves (look at the glyph). They are both analytical and morbidly realistic. Both are unwillingly attracted to taboo subjects (sex, drugs) and more importantly both Virgo and Scorpio have strong compulsion-obsession issues. Scorpio likes to be in control, Virgo relishes losing control. In the world of BDSM Scorpios are masters while Virgos are slaves, metaphorically speaking.
In a strange kind of way Virgo tends to act like Pluto's yin version. Both Virgo and Scorpio are yin (negative signs) but nevertheless in mars ruled Scorpio Pluto's influence is more virile. 
Last but not least both Virgo and Scorpio are symbols of medicine, whether surgery or the healing art Pluto needs to experience pain in order to heal.
Traditionally Virgo exalts Pluto because it finds more esoteric and efficient ways to knowledge instead of the date comparing, data collecting ways more familiar to Mercury. Practical knowledge, magic and knowledge through intense personal experience are all in the Pluto domain. The glyphs of Mercury and Pluto bear a resemblance as well.

Uranus is exalted in Scorpio 
Neptune is exalted in Aquarius
Pluto is exalted in Virgo (or Leo, see below)


A final note on a prevailing view in the astrological community:  
Concerning Pluto's exaltation in Leo.
Leo is known to be bestial and feral according to traditional terms and is a sucker for wealth and success.
Intense and uncompromising Leo will do everything in its power to succeed. So far all goes well with Pluto's black and white world view, or plain ruthlessness. We must remember though that Pluto is driven by a desperate and often obsessive need for survival while Leo is driven by the need to perpetuate his ego, to prove his greatness to the world.
Leo's have a penchant for drama and magic tricks, that is all which is marvelous, shiny and captivates the crowd, I'll give em that.  
And now some differences: Leo craves applause while Pluto can just as easily shy away from people. Both are suckers for power but the way they execute it is different like day and night. Pluto is the master of darkness, taboo practices and the wavier of secrets, all of which are foreign to the Leonine character who basks in the light of his righteous pride. 
Leo has no motifs of death and rebirth, no motifs of change. It's rather the integrity of the ego. Leo is extreme in his own way but otherwise too addicted to all which is bright and shinny; good moods, good times, humor and fun to want to have anything to do with Pluto's murky waters. 
I do have to admit that by placing Pluto's exaltation in a positive - yang sign we create a rulership scheme which gives all the outer planets a positive sign as their sign of exaltation coupled with their dignified home sign in a negative yin sign. Some additional points in favor of this placement are:
Pluto needs to control things and Leo’s have a knack for organization. Pluto is into gathering knowledge for practical purposes, so it's not knowledge for knowledge's sake like the Mercury signs. This trait is shared by Leo's no nonsense approach when the lion isn't out to play.  
Pluto’s placement in Leo will place Pluto’s fall in Aquarius. Aquarian individuals are usually in favor of technology, progress and bearing things to light and truth, which is truly what Pluto has a hard time with.
Lastly Pluto’s exaltation in Leo creates a highly symmetrical zodiac where every sign has an exalted planet without exception (including north and south node for Sagittarius and Gemini respectively). This is an additional important point in this tangled fall and exaltation debate.   

Those are my thoughts on the subject.
Please agree, disagree and explain your own.
Let us clarify this subject once and for all !

~ Dima  

 The Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme 



  1. One factor is left out here and that is the 'planet' Chiron. If given rulership of Virgo, then Mercury is exalted there, and the 'double assignment' is gone. Leo? Neptune. Scorpio? Uranus (ruler Hades) Aquarius? Chiron. This leaves Hades with no exaltation, but Gemini and Sagittarius have the Lunar Nodes anyway. These also fit the meanings of the Minor Arcana of the Tarot. Degrees? Chosen by Sabian symbols. Neptune in Leo? 23. Uranus in Scorpio? 20. Chiron in Aquarius? 3.

  2. Good thought about Chiron and Virgo, but even if the double assignment is gone you still have to find a place for Mercury's exaltation and it dusrupts the symetrical exaltation scheme. I didn't want to change traditional astrology's original placements so I left Mercury in Virgo.
    Don't do Tarot and didn't have a chance to delve into Sabian Symbols yet. But of course - to each his own in astrology nowdays.

  3. Hi! I love your blog and all the astological info you share! I 100% agree that signs that already have exaltations should definitely not get another one! What kind of bias and discrimination is that?! Aries already has the Sun of all "planets" for its exaltation so why the heck do some biased astrologers want to have it exalted in Pluto too?! No way! Leo though is perfect as the exaltation of Pluto not only because of all the reasons you stated (the balance of the zodiac above all) but also because it corresponds perfectly with the old stories/myths of the Sun god/hero having to undergo a drastic change or even go to the underworld (die) to eventually become a better ruler for his people. And it fits perfectly with the whole yin/yang concept of the Sun (Leo's ruler) representing life/and light and Pluto (his exaltation) representing death and darkness. Such proof of this is already partially seen during solar eclipses! And lastly, if I'm not mistaken Pluto technically really is at its highest point at 17 degrees in Leo!

    But I strongly disagree with the above commentator Paul who thinks that Neptune of all planets should be Leo's exaltation....hehehe....NO. While I'm trying to respect other people's opinions, these opnions have to make sense and sometimes I find that people just assign Neptune to Leo just as to avoid giving him Pluto. The reasons for Neptune being considered as Leo's exaltation makes no sense. First of all, Neptune is far too watery, introverted and dreamy a planet to even consider going well with Leo who's the most fiery (the only sign ruled by the most masculine and fiery planet the Sun!), extroverted and usually materialistic. Some people try to justify it by claiming that Neptune bestows "creativity" well, sorry but the Sun is also one of the most creative "planets" and bestows enough creativity by itself on Leo. Sorry, but it doesn't match up.

    However, Neptune seems perfect for Aquarius who's an air sign but named the "Water-Bearer" and with Neptune, he can finally make use of both air and water elements! Aqaurius is also an "escapist" sign like Pisces although whereas Pisces is more sensitive and escapes towards his emotions, Aquarius escapes from his emotions! But both signs ar on the "highest" ends of the Zodiac wheel and as such usually have the best interests of mankind at heart, Aquarius being considered the "humanitarian" and Pisces being considered the "martyr." So Neptune seems to fit Aquarius best...definitely NOT Leo.

    And with most astrologers having assigned Uranus as Scorpio's exaltation then all the signs would have ruling planets as well as exaltations! So I don't know why most astrologers haven't already fallen into this line of thinking since it best summarizes the very essense of astrology and the zodiac....BALANCE. It's a shame that the bias and prejudice of some astrologers have prevented them from seeing this truth. Pluto is exalted in Leo! Enough said. ;)

  4. Oh and I also forgot to mention....the above commentator Paul asked why Chiron wasn't given an exaltation. Well, Chiron is not considered one of the principal solar system planets. In fact, it's an asteroid. But it's not the only one. Other big asteroids include: Ceres, Vesta, Juno, and some others. So it's not like Chiron is the only one. And some astrologers also assign "exaltations" for these but it seems strange and detrimental since it again throws off the even and equal balance and the asteroids are not even "planets" so I don't buy into their exaltations.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Oh and although you (and quite a few others it seems) have some reservations about having Leo exalted in Pluto just because he usually seems so bright, sunny, warm and extroverted just remember...that as bright and warm as Leo can be, he can also be as equally cold and destructive. This article explains Leo's dark side best and even how many ancients commented on it and feared it.

    Read the fifth paragraph on how Leo "Leo as an adversary makes a bloody-minded opponent and the dominating qualities of this sign are such that they rarely feel appeased with victory unless it involves the total annihilation of the threat...(This sign) has one of the most fearsome reputations amongst the zodiac signs for exhibiting brutal or extreme behaviour. Ancient astrologers referred to Leo as 'bestial', meaning responsive to primordial instincts rather than higher reasoning; and 'feral' because it was considered capable of savage and ferociously destructive traits. This is the darker side of the Leo." http://www.skyscript.co.uk/leo

    So just like you partially admitted and like I said...Pluto is perfect as Leo's exaltation. :D

  7. Hey Marissa,
    Thank you for all your thoughtful comments.

    * some astrologers place pluto's exaltation in aries because according to their method pluto will be exalted in the 'mars' counterpart of it's sign of dignity. according to the same logic neptune is exalted in sag and uranus is capricorn - just one way of looking at things.
    * going into the underworld during the hero's journey - perfect
    * Paul Quay had a point about needing to find degrees of exaltation for the outer planets.
    * about leo as pluto's exaltation point - the feral is a good point i have to admit.

  8. Thanks so much for responding!

    Yeah...I guess to each their own opinion. But I can't help but feel as if some of these astrologers are more biased than they're supposed to be and not only does that line of exaltation throw off the vital balance of the entire system (basically the entire purpose of the zodiac) but that line of thinking for exaltations is way too biased. All the zodiac signs already have their exaltations in tradtional astrology except for Leo, Aquarius and Scorpio. So having astrologers give yet more exaltations for signs that already have it is really unprofessional. They seem to assign these things just because they like that sign and not because it's balanced or it fits the sign's personality. The whole point of "exaltation" was supposed to be that that's where that particular planet had the highest degree, right? I'm sorry...I hope I'm not sounding rude or insulting any of your collegues. It just saddens me that many "disagreements" are technically based on bias and that some psuedo-astrologers that dedicate their sites to bashing one sign like Aries (I've seen one like this) or especially Leo only to praise other signs like Scorpio or Capricorn are ruining the reputation of the field and even the reputation of the respectable and mostly unbiased astrologers. But sadly...this is what I've seen happen and it upsets me. It infuriates me that astrologers want to assign these to them just because they like those signs. I mean, there are some people that think Pluto is exalted in Gemini in one Serbian website! Or that Pluto is "the most powerful planet in the universe!" I mean, come on! It may not have had its importance diminished in astrology, but it's certainly been demoted to a dwarf planet and even in astrology, its influence is only generational like all the outer planets! If nonsense like these don't scream "bias" and "inaccuracy," I don't know what does. : /

    Anyway sorry for the rant.

    Thanks! At least that's how I interpreted Pluto being exalted in Leo.

    True....and I could've sworn that there was one if not two exaltation degrees for Leo that were its highest point (so far) and I guess two points would probably be due to Pluto's strange orbit? But alas, I searched the interent but still haven't found my old source. :(

    Thanks again! Yeah...it kinda goes back to the point I was making earlier. Many modern astrology sites make Leo to be like this harmless kitten who's all cuddles or merely "shines." And while stating Leo's kinder qualities is nice, making him sound to be some harmless, fluffy kitten when he was really an near invulnerable, powerful LION is really annoying. It's part of the modern bias I was talking about. The only way I even found out about Leo's "bestial" and "feral" qualities was in skyscript.uk. Yet all these modern astrologers constantly puff up Scorpio and even Aries sometimes to be "powerful," or "deadly" yet they've completely ignored or dismissed Leo's more forecful, aggressive and darker traits. So sad....I really hope modern respectable astrologers get their act together because I'm losing faith in the field due to all the inconsistency and bias. They should try to find a balanced, equal system where ALL the signs get their fair share of rulerships, exaltations, power and positive traits. I'm glad I found your blog because you're one of the few who is trying to set up a more balanced system! So thanks so much for being one of the few (that I've encountered anyway) to restore my faith in astrology!!! Kudos! :)

  9. I disagree that Neptune is exalted in Aquarius. Neptune is the planet of universal love, spirituality, connection, sanctuary, illusion, transcendence, idealism, and compassion. Aquarius is the sign disconnection, humanitarianism, aloofness, originality, rebellion, and logic. While Aquarius is very ideal, they are highly emotionally and spiritually disconnected. They see the world through logical lens; obviously a quality that could hinder emotional and spiritual understanding. This also hinders Aquarius' compassionate qualities. Neptune seeks to dissolve all boundaries....and while Aquarius also has intention on freedom, it is ruled by Saturn and therefore has strong emotional and spiritual limits, leaving Neptune in a poor situation. It should be no surprise why Neptune is exalted in Leo. Last time Neptune was in Leo it was a time of strong idealism and imagination was creatively expressed through artistic performance. What must be considered is the sign of exaltation is not exactly like the planet (unlike it would be if it was in domicile). The exaltation means the planet best expresses itself in this sign. In Leo, Neptune has a lot of room to be creative and find sanctuary through children and amusements. Neptune expresses itself more generously and warmly in this sign, and yet without being taken advantage of. And even better, unlike most signs, it does not become confused as to who it is, what it wants, or where its going, contrary to how it fares in other signs. Cancer is also a good match for Neptune's exaltation. In this sign, Neptune finds the greatest sanctuary of all; a sense of home, family, and belonging. Cancer also has a compassion that matches the waters of Neptune. In this sign, the universe is family; the family is the universe. Last time Neptune was in Cancer, stories like Peter Pan and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz encouraged ideals of home, but also glamorized a high sense of imagination beyond our reality. Also, around this time, moving pictures were developed as a means of creative expression giving us an even greater escape from the world outside of the movie screen. Naturally, as Neptune could be exalted in Cancer, it could also be falling in Capricorn. Capricorn is filled with rigid limitations and reality...something that Neptune would definitely find a hard time with.
    As far as Pluto goes, I think Pluto fits with Leo. Pluto is the planet of power, empowerment, transformation, the hidden, and destruction. While Pluto is a dark and hidden planet, its objective? To bring things hidden into the light. Healing is one way that Pluto accomplishes this. But when we compare the powers of Virgo to the powers of Leo, Leo has the energy, the will power, and the light that can and does shine light on issues. It gains a sense of self empowerment through creative means. And it respects power. Aquarius is opposite. With Pluto in Aquarius it could get caught up in rebelling just for the sake of rebelling, doing more damage than good. While it is definitely capable of great change on the outside, its fails to do deep changes within. Aquarius avoids the underlying feelings inside of itself, and thus fails to heal psychological wounds in itself and others. Pluto wants to work within. Aquarius does the complete opposite. Aquarius also has disrespect for power and authority. Last time Pluto was in Aquarius, The french revolution took place over the original Monarch under King Louis; half of France was destroyed and a ruthless dictator took control known as Emperor Napoleon. Aquarius often seeks to rebel all the time because it lacks power within. Its not focused nor steady enough to make inner changes, making it lack the will power to sustain Pluto's need for power and deep transformation. This is just my opinion according to the knowledge I have.

    1. Another thing about Aquarius is that while it wants power, it also seeks to free itself from power. So again, it lacks staying power. The need for freedom interferes with the need for power and psychological healing.

    2. I understand and respect your opinion, but I still disagree. I think the "Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme" works best and is the fairest of all the system while taking into account the more newly discovered planets and asteroids. Anythig else than this would just threaten and disrupt the balance of power for the zodiac by giving some signs more exalations when other signs have none. Thus, Leo shouldn't have BOTH Neptune and Pluto as his exaltation. Then, both would also be in fall for Aquarius.

      Yes, Neptune is the planet of universal love, idealism, emotions, etc. But even then these still sound more like attributes for Aquarius than for Leo. Aquarius might be known as the emotionless and logical air sign, but he is still the WATER-Bearer. But rather than hold in his water (emotions), he pours it out for others. Some classical Greco-Roman astrologers even noted how one of Pisces' fish seemed to be drinking from or swimming in the water that Aquarius poured out! This means that even they noted how Aquarius fed his knowledge to and nurtured Pisces thus establishing a bond between the two and they are also neighbors on the zodiac wheel. Both Aquarius and Pisces have this "escapist" tendency but whereas Pisces escapes TO his emotions, Aqaurius escapes AWAY from them but the way he does this is not to ignore them completely but rather to use them for the benefit of others. On the other hand, Leo definitely has capabilties towards compassion for others and is noted to be the most generous sign, he is still highly influenced by his ego. Leo might be a generous and kind king when in a good mood, but is still a KING and everyone else are his subjects. However, Aquarius like Pisces is an idealist too just in a different way and sees everyone as his EQUALS. As you've noted, Cancer is the sign of family but Aquarius is the sign of friendship. He sees all humanity as his friends. And while Leo might be easily flattered or swayed by money and power due to his emotions, Aquarius is not. By responding to the needs of mankind in a more detached way, he can serve them better. He uses Neptune's water for the benefit of others and so to others it seems as though he is incapable of feeling emotions. Aquarius' tendency to rebel also works in his favor for a more idealist world order where everyone has equal value and equal opinions. His personality and vlaues might seem vastly different from Pisces', but they still seem to be two sides of the same coin. Aquarius does work towards the betterment of mankind. He is deep down an idealist, an escapist, and humanitarian. But his methods and approaches are different to Pisces' but they work toward the same end.

    3. Like I mentioned before, modern astrologers have greatly changed Leo's original characteristics and meaning from ancient and classical times. Leo might have great capacity for compassion, but he is still mostly concerned with the ego and he would still prefer to reign as king rather than among equals. Leo rules over the hottest and stormiest part of summer and as such most classical astrologers warned against sea and water travel (Neptune is a water planet) during that time. Ancient astrologers also saw Leo as one of the most potentially violent and tempermental of all the signs. He was given the characteristics of "bestial" (aggressive and impulsive) and the only one to have been fully characterized as "feral" (only half of Sagittarius also had this label) meaning that he was prone to savage and highly volatile behavior. His most common origin as the near-indestructible but highly destructive Nemean Lion also is at odds with everything that Neptune represnts. A king with a temper is not really the best fit for a planet of universal love, idealism, compassion, and emotions. Whenever Leo unleashes his emotions, it's sadly usually the most negative types beccause he lacks the ability to control them. The times that Aquarius unleashes his emotions, however, it's almost always in the best interests of humanity. Unlike Leo who was bestial and feral, the ancients characterized Aqaurius as "human" in not only was he represented by a human, but it also meant that he had the ability to fully communicate and was tactful and graceful with others. Thus, although on the surface, Aquarius might seem detached and aloof, it's only because he uses his emotions in the service of others rather than for himself and it's the best quality in a leader or humanitarian to not let one's emotions consume them. It will prevent making Aquarius suceptible to flattery or the sway of power like Leo often is.

      Thus, according to the "Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme" or maybe even another sheme that gives equal exaltations and domicile planets to each sign, every sign should have its own exaltation. And if Leo can't have both Neptune and Pluto, it seems that if we consider his older, more accurate characterizations; Pluto fits Leo best and Neptune does fit Aquarius in many ways.

      Also, like Leo, Aquarius is a fixed sign and thus does have a lot of staying power but unlike Leo is not on a constant search for power and actually doesn't really need to have it. Whereas Leo must be in a position of power or leadership role most times, Aquarius is fine working behind the scenes and often does, especially in humanitarian causes.

    4. The sign of Leo is representative of the animal of Lion itself and what the sign of Leo often represented in Ancient Greece and Rome. Leo has always been a sign even in ancient Greece that represented royalty. In those days a kingly quality was generosity. And this is why Leo has been affiliated with such generosity. Aside from this, sol ( one of the ones who was the original representation of the sun in roman mythology) was considered very generous and a force for healing. This is the complete opposite of what Aquarius' ruler Saturn was like and even Uranus, its new ruler. While, Aquarius is a water bearer, this is a term to define the clouds which the ancients called the Great Water Bearers. Aquarius is in fact an air sign, more representative of storms, thunder, and lightning rather than actual water. The fact that Aquarius contains its feelings rather than actually feel them is exactly why Neptune cannot function freely in this detached sign. I don't know if you have a particular bias toward Aquarius, however it would not be the first sign to have a planetary debility behind it. While Mars is in detriment in the sign of Taurus, because Pluto is also the ruler of Scorpio, Pluto is also in detriment in Taurus. You see, it comes down to the natures of the planets and whether they will express themselves more openly or with more limitations; even if its not fair to us...we sometimes have to see the planets for what they represent and objectively see how it fits for the planet without completely changing its nature. If Aquarius makes Neptune more "logical" than compassionate by holding its emotions back, then it really isn't benefiting Neptune. Instead, its holding Neptune's dreams and emotional connections in a box rather than channeling it to be more positive and uplifting. The cold sign of Aquarius and Capricorn are too logical and realistic for Neptune to feel even remotely comfortable.

    5. Neptune escapes in EVERY sign that it is in, but it does this in less positive way in the sign of Aquarius and Capricorn. It escapes by limiting its emotions and setting boundaries, which is the opposite of Neptune's objectives. Leo and Cancer can channel the dream world and the emotions without being cold towards them, making Neptune feel more comfortable and the expression more positive. Neptune is in detriment in the logical and critical sign of Virgo, which also has very "humane" characteristics, just like Aquarius. As you can see Neptune is not comfortable at all in the realm of human logic. And while Neptune in Aquarius does help humanity and has ideals, they are missing the deeper spiritual and emotional connections that Neptune has to teach generations. And again Aquarius TRADITIONAL rulership is Saturn, the planet of boundaries, limitations, set backs, order, law, etc. Does this even seem like a planet that would easily work well with a planet that seeks to dissolve those limitations in order to teach us to let go and connect with the spiritual universe? Saturn is far too rigid and realistic for this spiritual connection to be recognized. And both Aquarius and Capricorn embody these qualities. Its not as if I think Neptune is in DETRIMENT in Aquarius (where the energy is blocked). I just think Neptune is in a debilitating situation where as it has good intentions, but because of the sign's inherit lack of similar qualities, Neptune struggles to achieve what it really wants: inner peace, sanctuary, and spiritual, emotional, and universal love. While they want to share their feelings with the world, they must learn to connect with those closest to them first in order to spread their feelings further. This is why the watery planets such as the moon and Pluto do not enjoy the comforts of Saturn based signs like Aquarius and Capricorn. Neptune is also a watery planet, so if those planets struggle with this coldness, Neptune will as well. While Leo has an ego, it benefits Neptune because Neptune often forgets who it is in the midst of its dreams usually. But Leo gives it balance; it has a sense of itself without blocking Neptune from dreaming and connecting to its spiritual and emotional self. To add, it gains confidence, warmth, and the ability to shine. Of course, I think Cancer is an even BETTER candidate as I stated before. Cancer has WAY more to offer Neptune than even Leo. And Capricorn feels way more debilitating than Aquarius does. To each its own I guess.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. I guess we would just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Yes, Leo is the sign of royalty and more recently of generosity which originally came about not so much because of its characteristic of good royalty but because of the abundance of summer and the fertility of the earth. Aquarius is definitely a logical air sign but as the WATER-bearer gives the product of his emotions towards others and uses it for the benefit of others. And it's not so much the myth that Aquarius does not feel emotion (everyone feels emotions!) but that it SEEMS as if he doesn't because unlike most signs, he uses it for the benfit of others rather than selfishly. He is still the sign of friendships, humanitarianism, and idealism. All things that Neptune cultivates.

      Um...I don't have a bias toward Aquarius. I'm actually a Western Leo who wants the zodiac system to be fair for ALL signs and not just the ones we like. And it's exactly that very flawed and uneven system of domiciles and exaltations that causes disturbances in what was supposed to be the epitome of balance. Either we keep the traditional rulerships the way they were or tweak it so that every sign has the same amount of domiciles and exaltations. Traditionally, Mars was Scoripio's ruler and Pluto wasn't discovered yet so traditionally, Pluto had no domicile. Or to tweak now, Scorpio should only have either Mars or Pluto as its domicile but not both since it throws off the entire system off balance. With as unbalanced as modern astrologers try to make it, no wonder people outside the field don't take this seriously.

      Like I said before, Aquarius isn't so much unemotional as it is seemed to be by others. Completely detached people don't work for the benefit of humankind. Rather it uses them more objectively, but still towards the common folk and for idealist purposes. Capricorn and Aquarius might have TRADITIONALLY been ruled by the same planet, but they used Saturn's influences in different ways. If anything, Capricorn was the far more materialistic and practical whereas Aquarius used Saturn's logical and stern influences to exert self-control over his emotions and not let them consume him. Perhaps it seems at odds with the emotionally charged and watery Neptune, but Saturn's need for control, structure and authority also seems at odds with Aquarius' need for freedom and rebellion...and Saturn was its traditional ruler. So the exaltation planets can be interpreted differently. And just like Mercury's approximation to the Sun influences it, Neptune and Saturns proximity to each other also allow them to both, however slightly, influence the other. Aquarius might be logical, but it is also idealist and humanitarian. Neptune is also the " planet of abstract thought" which also fits Aquarius. Plus, it allows him to show his creativity in an inventive way whereas the Sun bestows enough creativity on Leo to benefit for any creativity that Neptune could give. Neptune is too watery, emotional, universal, abstract and idealist a planet for Leo who's much more ferocious, egotistical, fiery, and totalitarian for Neptune.

    9. I also disagree that Leo can channel energy spiritually like Cancer or Pisces can. Those are water signs and the signs of emotion. Water signs seem to be more at odds with fire signs than air signs. I'm really not sure why modern astrologers keep seeing Leo as "spiritual" when there was really no indication of those characteristics in ancient times. Neptune might be in detriment in Virgo but Virgo is not Aquarius. Virgo is an earth sign and while it too is logical as an earth sign, it goes about it more in the earth-like practical, materialistic, neat and orderly way. Aqaurius is more free-spirited, creative, humanitarian and almost idealist. Yes, Saturn was his traditional ruler, but you forget to mention his modern ruler, Uranus who's the planet of rebellion but also inventiveness, creativity, freedom and humanitariansm...all things that Neptune also sympathetizes with. And those three Neptune, Saturn, and Uruanus follow each other and thus, however subtly influence each other on a constant basis. And remember...Pisces' had a traditional ruler once too who was a sign of knowledge: JUPITER. Jupiter might not be the type of cut-and-dry logic that Saturn is, but it is still a thrist and search for knowledge that today is compatible with Neptune's influence and similar to Saturn in the sense that both deal with thought.

      Leo doesn't seem to be a good fit at all for Neptune since it is too watery, idealist, humanitarian and universal a planet. Leo is fiery, realistic, self-absorbed and must usually be in a position of power to understand Neptune's humanitarian ways. And while Neptune does make escapists out of all signs, some signs are naturally more escapist than others. Pisces and Aquarius are two such signs. Sagittarius would probably be another one. However, as a force for ego, Leo would be hurt to be forced to be humanitarian or to escape into a realm of thoughts and emotions.

      True, Cancer would be the best fit and I definitely see your point there, but to make that work, Cancer would have to give up exalting Jupiter. How funny that in esoteric astrology, Cancer and Aquarius already made the switch and the esoterics say that Neptune rules Cancer and Jupiter rules Aqaurius which is how is should be in the exaltation sense of exoteric astrology. I think that wuld make the best sense...to have Jupiter be exalted in Aqaurius and Neptune in Cancer, that way both have equal exaltations that fully represent the planets and signs.

    10. Well...although Aqaurius and Pisces follow each other on the zodiac wheel, I don't think it really works that way in regards to the constellations. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I meant to say that the classical Greco-Roman astrologers saw one of Pisces' fish (Piscis Austrinus) as a constellation drink from/swim in the water that Aquarius was pouring out and was known as the River Eridanus. But I do agree that in the wheel each sign takes a little from the sign before and gives a little to the sign after. But yeah....that wasn't what I meant. I was speaking in astronomical terms.

      You're right by saying that the planets greatly affect the sign they're in and thus it isn't a pure sign anymore, but since the ego is so much a part of what Leo is, it would seem that Leo is hurt more by Neptune than is benefited from it. At least in Aquarius who although very logical is also a humanitarian and a rebel/free-spirit and so is less hurt. And since Leo and Aquarius are opposites, when a planet seems more beneficial for one (Aquarius) this of course means that it's less beneficial to the other (Leo).

      Yes lions can be compassionate...but only towards their family or their pride. Not to all lions in general, not to prey, not to potential predators or rivals. I watched a couple episodes on Animal Planet and although I was warmed by how much they can show compassion towards those they love, I was also amazed by how devious and ruthless they can be to rival predators such as hyneas. In one episode, the Alpha Lion intentionally sought out and killed the hyena matriarch because he knew it would chaos for the entire hyena society! Now while I understand we're talking in purely animal terms, that's not really something a creature of universal love does. Lions are compassionate to a rare few...not to their fellow lions in general and sadly for males, not even to their children. While Cancer is the sign of family, Aqauraius is the sign of friendships. Although less intimate than family, friendships are more casual and still rewarding. Aquarius is also much more humanitarian which translates to compassion for all mankind, not just the rare few.

      But I do definitely agree that Neptune would benefit best in Cancer. Not quite as well in Aquarius and certainly not in Leo who still has the ego for most of his identity. Leo is definitely much more than JUST his pride and ego, but those are still part of who he is. And as the potentially most tempermental, egotistical and fiery, Neptune seems to idealist, watery and dreamy for him.

      How about this? In a perfect world, Pluto would exalt Leo, Neptune would exalt Cancer and Jupiter would exalt Aquarius who I think fits even better than Neptune. We could agree on that, right? ;) But thanks again for this conversation! I learn a lot from you and I don't mind finding someone who disagrees with me as long as we're both respectful. I really enjoy hearing other people's POVs. :)

    11. Hmm...You might be on to something about Jupiter exalting Aquarius. :) Jupiter in Aquarius would grow through knowledge and humanitarian pursuits, which is totally up Jupiter's alley. Jupiter also would be able to express its need to understand the world more openly as well. The only issue would be the Saturn part of Aquarius that would limit the abundance of 'benefits' that Jupiter wants to experience. Saturn and Jupiter are planets that are astrologically different. Saturn is very limiting and rigid. Jupiter is the opposite of limiting. It is about broadening those limits. Saturn causes Aquarius to always have delays in success, and in traditional astrology this was what caused success to come at odd and spontaneous times. (before the discovery of Uranus). And Jupiter still struggles with logic (hence why Jupiter is in detriment in both Gemini and Virgo); it would rather be philosophical. There are some modern astrologers who believe that Mercury exalts Aquarius. There are still astrologers who believe it makes no sense that mercury is exalted and in domicile in Virgo. Aquarius' water does not necessarily represent emotion in astrology. It represents knowledge. Aquarius pours out its knowledge for the world, not its emotions. Not to say they do not have emotions. I never said they don't have emotions. They just block their emotions in order to maintain control, and this could make it a debilitating experience for Neptune. If Neptune was in Leo, there wouldn't be much limitation there. Neptune would be free to roam in this sign. Leo's ego does not limit Neptune's experience; in fact it encourages it. Its necessarily LIKE Neptune (which would be more like Neptune in Pisces, the domicile), but its not debilitating or in other words its not holding Neptune back, like a falling position would. That is what an exaltation means in astrology; that the planet has the ability to express itself to its maximum potential. I'm not necessarily talking about how different Neptune is to Aquarius, but rather how comfortable and how free Neptune feels being 'itself' in this sign. Will there be limits to what the planet is or what it represents or what it can do? Does this sign give people the best idea of what Neptune is trying to achieve? For example, when Mars enters Capricorn, while they are not necessarily alike, Mars can be as focused, as ruthless, as ambitious, and as passionate as it wants without nothing holding it back from its goal, to be successful and useful in the world. When sun is in Aries, the sun can express itself to its maximum potential in Aries, being as youthful and shiny as it wants. The planet does more in its exalted state than it does in its own dominion (domicile is where it is most comfortable, but not at its peak). In Aquarius, Neptune cannot express itself as freely because of Aquarius' mind-over-emotion attitude. It can be ideal and compassionate in Aquarius sometimes, but not without holding in its emotions and not without logic. This makes Neptune feel more disconnected than it would in its OWN sign of Pisces (which is its standard placement). So its not of benefit to Neptune. In Leo, Neptune can express its ideal qualities, its creativity, its compassion, its dreams, and its emotions as freely as it wants to its maximum potential. What is Leo holding back from Neptune?

    12. I don't think we should have to supplement one exaltation for another. I believe it is possible for a planet to be exalted in two signs. Just like there are planets in domicle in two signs. If we see that the planet has much room to express itself in a particular sign, then, no matter how many exaltations or domiciles it has in signs, that is the best expression for that planet. If a person is good at both math and reading, than you're good at both. If the planet does well in more than one placement, than it does.
      Thank you too for conversation! I love to debate. lol You make some really good points, too! I agree that astrological classifications do need a change, especially because the discoveries of the new planets has widened our view of the galaxy. There needs to be like a new century book or something. XD

    13. That was very nicely described about Jupiter in relation to Aquarius. Yeah...I guess it just depends on our interpretations of the zodiac's symbols and their characteristics. Aquarius' water can represent both emotions and knowledge. It is usually said to represent knowledge but since the water element is symbolic for emotions as well, it can also be said that it represents its own emotions that it uses on behalf of others. But I see your point. Saturn's own influences on Aquarius didn't necessarily limit Aquarius both rather allowed Aquarius the self-restraint needed to deal with others. Remember, Saturn might be Aqaurius' old ruler but Aquarius was still a rebel, a free-spirit, inventive and revolutionary. Things that also seemed at odds with Saturn but better fit Uranus and somewhat fits Neptune. Leo can be a kind, noble and compassionate sign, but as Aquarius' opposite, universal humanitariansm and love and idealism aren't his thing.

      Hmmm...I disagree there too. I think in the end, domiciles are still greater than exaltations and represent both the planets and signs relationship to each other best. One astrologer tried to explain it best in this way, "Domicile is the home and exaltation represents the signs at work. A sign in domicile is like someone at home whereas a sign in exaltation is like the guest of honor."

      Leo is just not as dreamy, escapist, idealist, compassionate, or universal a sign to contribute much to Neptune. As every time Leo does unleash its emotions, it's usually more negative than positive. Leo is too fiery, pragmatic, egotistical, and authorative for Neptune. Leo and Pisces aren't much alike. Neptune seems to have more in common with Aquarius. But it's totally cool if you disagree!

    14. Hmm...I kind of do. The whole purpose of the zodiac is to maintain the best amount of balance possible. We can't do that if some signs have two domiciles and two exaltations and other signs have no exaltations. It was somewhat understandable in the past because many heavenly bodies weren't discovered yet, but even then they tried to make the system as fair and balanced as possible with only Leo (as the Sun's domicile), his opposite Aqaurius and the usually negative Scorpio (at the time) not having exaltations. But now that we know of more planets and more heavenly bodies such as asteroids, we should do our best to make sure the system stays fair and balanced for all signs. It's not so much the fact that a planet does better in a certain sign, but rather people's interpretation of that. Many people think Pluto in Leo caused too much havoc to be exalted in it, but others think that because the atomic bomb was discovered at the time and Pluto rules atomic power, that it proved that Pluto should exalt Leo. In the end, balance and fairness should prevail over people's desire to make their sign "look good" or be "more powerful" than other signs by giving them multipile domiciles and exltations. If the universe is indeed naturally balanced and fair, then it already gave the signs the same amount of gifts as it did to the rest of the other signs and it's simply our purpose to find which ones. Having some signs seem "better" than others would defeat the entire purpose of the zodiac. It's not quite the same as having some people be good at both reading and math, since all the signs of the zodiac have various skills and gifts too and no one sign has more gifts than any other except for the interpretations of people. That doesn't mean that's how they are inherently. We should always try to maintain the balance for the signs.

      Yes! Me too! I definitely agree on that. Thanks so much! You've been so thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful and I really appreciate that! Out of curiosity, what's your sign? This has been great!

    15. Which sign? lol My sun sign is in Taurus, my moon sign is in Scorpio, mercury in Taurus, I'm Scorpio rising/ascendant. There's more but...y'know, its a long list XD I'm apart of the Pluto in Scorpio generation. (showing my age).
      I think I should clarify what I said about when I see the planet expresses freely in its exalted state. In Domicile its more natural or standard, but not as exaggerated nor as prominent as it would be in exalted state. Before there were rulership planets in astrology, there was only exaltations. In more modern astrology, the exaltations were considered the "next best thing" to Domiciles. The only difference between them is a planet in domicile is dignified by similarities. The Sun is very much like the sign of Leo and so is very comfortable with its need to shine. In the exaltated form, the planet's qualities are even more expressed (not necessarily as comfortable, more-so exaggerated). For example, Venus in Pisces makes the native even more romantic and loving than it would be in its own domain, Taurus and Libra. Venus in Pisces is even more soft and feminine than if Venus were in its own domain. And so that's what I mean by the qualities expressed are more highlighted than in its domicile. The planet in exaltation is like a planet on vacation or a planet on a playground: they aren't necessarily at home, but still they have more freedom than in all the other signs. Again, planets in exaltation do not (and really aren't) exactly LIKE the signs. Leo may not be exactly like Neptune...after all Neptune is not in domicile in Leo. But it can be exalted in Leo, not because Leo is completely like Neptune, but rather when Neptune is IN this sign NEPTUNE is not limited by Leo's qualities. In fact, the ego gives Neptune a boost. Neptune is more generous and more glamorous in this sign than its own domain. It is also more imaginative and creative in this sign than it is in its own domain. It has a bigger heart in Leo than it does in its own domain. In Aquarius, it is compassionate, but on an intellectual level. Aquarius limits Neptune's emotional qualities by withholding its emotional connections from people, and instead connecting with people with like minds rather than emotions. Aquarius also holds back the spiritual aspect of Neptune with its logic. When Neptune last entered Aquarius, it was the time when people were becoming less spiritually inclined and more worldly oriented. A large number of atheists were on the rise, promoting science over a spiritual creator. Aquarius creates a science vs spirit atmosphere that does the opposite of what Neptune rewards. While believing in science is not a bad thing, science does hinder our belief in something other than the logical and physical world. Aquarius' ideals are rooted in logic, and this is what Neptune has shown to struggle with in the past. Aquarius intends to help others, but it fails to provide that deeper emotional sense of hope that comes from 'just believing without needing the facts". Leo may not have high ideals in life, but it is capable of seeing that anything is possible even outside of the logical field and that's really what Neptune's objectives are.

    16. As far as not having two exaltations, I understand. lol Some people do want a more spread out system. Me personally, I look at the planets as each their own entity with their own representations. And if by observation I see a limitation/powerful expressions in a sign, I will consider it. As far as Aquarius being a rebel, Jupiter is not as concerned about being a rebel. (Jupiter is a planet that represents moral laws and ethics, after all). Its a planet that represents benefits, luck, philosophy, travel, faith, etc. Even though Jupiter can give us freedom, it wants to give us benefits without delay. Aquarius does not get benefits right away simply because it comes unexpectedly, thanks to Uranus and saturn. I have Uranus and Saturn in my 2nd house. They always causes delay for me monetarily which is hardly to my benefit. lol Whereas Jupiter blesses people with benefits. That's what I meant by Jupiter does not work well with the Saturn and Uranian qualities that Aquarius emobody.

    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. To be honest, in my opinion, air and earth signs should be not be considered for the planet of Neptune as an exaltation. lol Both of those signs are too logical, mental, and realistic. Fire and Water signs do best with Neptune because Neptune is very spiritual. The last time Neptune first entered in Leo was the roaring 20s, when there was a boom of creative expression and art. The movies began providing a sense of escape from reality like no other amusement before it. The generation of people that has this natal position in their chart carried on their sense of optimism on through the great depression when people relied more on charity than any other generation and there was a strong sense of ethical generosity. This optimism, that hard times would turn up for the better, helped them endure the Great Depression and eventually World War 2. There was strong idealism and puritanism among this generation; everyone admired the movie stars and idealized the glamorous life that was so unique for that time. Neptune represents film and acting...Leo represents acting and center stage. The lion itself is said to be one of the greatest manipulators. They are good at entertaining people because they understand what moves others. Just by examination of the two generations (Neptune in Leo vs Neptune in Aquarius). And again, signs of domicile do not have to be like signs of exaltation. Jupiter is exalted traditionally in Cancer, even though it is nothing like Jupiter's ruler Sagittarius. Mars is exalted in Capricorn, even though it is hardly like the sign of Aries. Its not about whether they are alike when it comes to exaltations, but whether the planet has freedom of expression enough represent itself in the closest way. Leo on its own may not be like Neptune. But when Neptune is IN Leo, Neptune expresses itself much more than it does in Aquarius, without much hinderence. Therefore, NEPTUNE is exalted. Not Leo, nor Aquarius. That's important when determining what position a planet is exalted in.
      Sorry for all the deletes...my computer struggles to show the comments I've made...lol

    3. If we're going to best make astrology fair, it would be better to exclude the idea of exaltations and domiciles altogether. The concept that something is better than another came with that ranking system and it has nothing to do with liking a sign personally. It has to do with examining the planetary qualities and seeing how clearly the planets represented themselves in each sign. We can't just place a planet with a sign just because no planet exalts in that sign. Astrology is not really even about the signs. Astrology is the study of the planets. So whether each sign has a planet exalted in it is not as important as how the planet will express itself and where we will see the greatest (or most debilitating) expression of the planet throughout life.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.