Another View of the Planets

A few months ago, I attempted to make sense of the planets by choosing opposing pairs and contrasting them. I think this is a valid approach, but one monkey wrench is in deciding which planets form pairs!

I selected Sun/Moon, Jupiter/Saturn, and Mars/Venus—leaving Mercury alone—as this seemed most natural to me. But in studying Hellenistic astrology, I find that Schmidt and Brennan select differently, and just as naturally!

They retain the Mars/Venus pair in the same way I have, but say that Sun (giving) and Moon (receiving) together oppose Saturn (rejection). (I think this is elegant in a few ways: the Sun and Moon collectively denote "light", while cold Saturn denotes "darkness." Similarly, the Sun and Moon are opposites of a sort, but are complimentary and friendly, while both stand opposed to Saturn: giving and rejection are just as opposed to each other as receiving and rejection are, each in their own ways!) They also say that Mercury (disputing) opposes Jupiter (affirming), though they note that Mercury especially is so multifaceted that it is difficult to pin down to a single concept.

Two possibilities occur to me about all this:

1. The planets are so expansive and archetypal that perhaps it is not possible to apprehend them in any single manner. One must always be mentally limber, and jump from model to model as the situation dictates.
2. My model seems to more naturally fit the house system (where the pairs I listed are found explicitly), while Schmidt and Brennan's model seems to more naturally fit the zodiac (where the pairs they list are found explicitly). Given that the zodiac is Mesopotamian, and the houses are Egyptian, I wonder if we're dealing with two different systems of thought entirely.