skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The Hermetic Lots
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4986
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuzuru wrote:
Quote:
I strongly disagree. Parts, houses, signs, even planets, none of them have really a natural signification and are all constructs of men´s minds. Attempts by modern astrology (and this comes since morinus, or even ptolemy) to make astrology scientific or to fit some sort of "natural philosophy", always have striped astrology of important elements.


As my name was mentioned in Clelia's post I feel the need to clarify my point. I think my comments have been somewhat taken out of context. I wasn't dismissing the idea of lots at all. I would hardly have created this thread with that view. I was simply expressing some caution in using the Hermetic Lots at this point in my limited experience of working with lots. I have only recently started working with the Lot of Spirit so moving to a system based on these lots to derive another lot felt a step too far for me at this point! I already conceded that all astrology is symbolism and therefore a construct of the human mind. Over the years I have found my views changing on many areas.

However, I disagree with you that the term 'naturalistic' has to be perceived as a dirty word for traditional astrologers. I do not mean by this term embracing scientific minimalism al la Gaughelin or rejecting the tradition. I was simply expressing my feeling that if I had to create a hierarchy within astrology my personal starting point would be planets and stars. These are an observable physical reality although what they represent to us is undeniably subject to the constructs of human consciousness like everything in astrology. Rather than endorsing a scientific minimalism I see this as rather embracing a traditional notion of what unifies astrology in cross-cultural terms throughout history and location. Still, I suppose from a Platonic perspective astrology is all signs and symbols emanating from a higher level of truth which means that appeals to physical literalism are perhaps misplaced.

Yuzuru wrote:
Quote:
To Mark:
In an old ISAR conference, and in a number of the Apprentice, John Frawley proposes a method for delineating the seven hermetic parts, using the myths of the fixed stars.


Thanks Yuzuru. So there was a fixed star link after all!

Tom wrote:
Quote:
See The Astrologer's Apprentice No. 22 "On the Architecture of the Soul." I believe all issues are available as downloads in pdf format. Write here for details:


I will certainly consider following this up when I rejoin the land of the employed.

Steven wrote:
Quote:
I've spent the last 5 years putting together a massive book on the lots with charts and real life clients and delineations and how to delineate in nativities, mundane work and even some horary examples.


Great. I look forward to seeing this important work. Thumbs up

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello MarkC,

Is it OK if I discuss other Lots (not one of the Hermetic Lots)?

Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So there was a fixed star link after all!


Not with the parts. I think Yuzuru mixed up two of John's talks. Frawley uses mythology to understand the stars. He suggests we study the myth that is associated with the star or more specifically the myth associated with the constellation that holds the star in order to more fully understand the meaning of the star.

His use of the 7 lots based on Fortuna (The Hermetic Lots) requires an explanation that is too lengthy to go into here. Very, very briefly he treats these 7 lots as a sort of chart of the soul. They give insight into the core of our being. The example chart in the article is that of England's King Edward VIII, who, it can easily be imagined, did a great deal of soul searching before deciding to abdicate the throne in order to marry an American.

In the discussion of Edward's decision, the stars play a role and may play a role with the lots, but I don't believe this is something that is done with every chart or with these lots every time. It's been a while since I read the article so I claim the right of recision should someone prove me wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1393

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, I am right Lala Happy

Seriously, Frawley doesn´t talk a big deal about it, but, I have the CD from Pinkus (?) and he says "the more consultations I do, the more my astrological victims have their charts analysed by arabian parts and fixed stars(...)"

"the fixed stars that any of these things fall on (arabic parts)are key points to understanding"...

Then he gives the example of Bon Scott of AC/DC, and that his part of fortuna falls on the previous eclipse and in the star Al hena, an star in Castor, one of the twins.

So, unless I got it tottally wrong, I believe this is the process he would do for all the 7 parts...
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doesn't Frawley also try to say that the seven 'Hermetic' lots can be derived from the Bible and that they came from Hebrew astrologers or something? I was present for a lecture once a few years ago when he tried to assert something to that effect, although I don't know if he ever published anything on the matter.
_________________
My website:
http://www.chrisbrennanastrologer.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4986
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
Quote:
Frawley uses mythology to understand the stars. He suggests we study the myth that is associated with the star or more specifically the myth associated with the constellation that holds the star in order to more fully understand the meaning of the star.


An off topic comment if I may.

I am looking forward to Frawley's book. It should be a significant improvement on existing modern literature on fixed stars from the point of view of delineating them. However, I am rather baffled by the fact that so many people seem to think the technique of relating the stars to constellation myths and stars specific location in a constellation is an original approach. Confused One traditional astrologer I discussed this with thought I was going all 'Liz Greene' on her. Very Happy

Actually, this approach is as old as the tradition. For example, in the in the classical period we have texts like the Catasterismi of Pseudo-Eratosthenes and the Astronomica of Hyginus which explicitly link the constellations to Greek myths. Both texts are thought to be complilations and abridgements of much older sources. Older texts like the Phaenomena of Aratus of Soli (3rd century BCE) link constellation myths, weather prediction and physical observation of stars rising and setting etc. Beyond this the idea of delineating stars according to their location in a constellation is very ancient. Especially with the alpha (lucida) stars. The other two streams of delineation from early astrology seem to be Babylonian notions of star colours linked to planets (found in the Tetrabiblos) and ancient star lore from weather prediction, navigation, agriculture etc. I dont know how many people have picked up the point that Deborah Houlding was already doing all this in her articles on the stars and constellation myths that appeared in The Tradition magazine from the mid 1990's. Shocked

These can now be accessed with several new articles on different constellations (36 out of Ptolemy's original list at present) here on skyscript:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/books.html#sc

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuzuru,

I don' think you have it wrong. I think we're talking about slightly different things. My point was that the meanings and use of the parts does not require the stars. I didn't mean to imply that one can never have anything to do with the other.


Quote:
"the more consultations I do, the more my astrological victims have their charts analysed by Arabian parts and fixed stars(...)"


Yes he said that but I took that to mean they are separate techniques. Like I said above I think we're on the same page here.

What follows is off topic, and I'm not interested in any kind of debate, so I offer what follows by way of explanation. Chris wrote:

Quote:
Doesn't Frawley also try to say that the seven 'Hermetic' lots can be derived from the Bible and that they came from Hebrew astrologers or something?


Not exactly, but I'd have to read the article again to be sure. He says these lots are derived from Fortuna. Grasping his intent with similar remarks is not something that comes from a linear approach to history. Not that the linear approach isn't important; it is just that this isn't what he's doing or saying. His main point, and I've never been real successful at getting this across, and that may be because I don't fully understand it myself, is that astrology that comes from the Greeks is pagan in origin and that astrology also has a monotheistic tradition that is different. Naturally that monotheistic tradition would be Hebrew in origin. Obviously this doesn't preclude using Greek techniques.

Now it is natural that, upon hearing this, historians would run out and look for physical evidence or documentation of this monotheistic tradition When they can't find it, they scratch their heads if they are polite, or say nasty things if they aren't. This is what I mean by the linear approach. We nod to the Babylonians start with the Greeks and draw our lines from point to point with branches here and there. Again I'm not disparaging this method of learning or understanding. It's not the only way to understand things, though.

All of us understand our experiences through the lens of our culture. The culture of paganism is not the same as a monotheistic culture, and therefore each inhabitant would see and understand astrology differently. We do this, somewhat unconsciously, when we refer to "Arab" astrology and "Western" astrology. We recognize there are differences. John is just looking at the difference between pagan and monotheistic astrology as being deeper than technique.

Frawley points out over and over in talks and printed works that the best places to learn astrology is from works like the Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, and other places that are not what most of us would consider astrology texts. He quickly adds that his own texts are indispensable, however. Wink

Astrology is all around us and part of our existence - at least that is the way it used to be seen prior to the Enlightenment. So Astrology is in the Bible and everywhere else. It is up to us to pick out those things and learn our astrology from them. This, of course, is not easy to do without the background of the Greeks et al, but I think his larger point has merit. He is not, in my mind, arguing that monotheistic astrology and pagan astrology originated and grew up separately, although he might be. Like I said I may not have fully grasped his intent. It's been years since I've seen him or attended a lecture. He moved to Poland a few years ago, and I live in the US.

In one of the first issues of The Astrologer's Apprentice, he discussed the temptation scene in Milton's Paradise Lost using astrology to explain the roles of the participants. This could be viewed as an indication that Milton knew astrology very well and expected his audience to know it, too, or that this is a fine example of learning astrology without an astrology text.

Coincidentally, last night I was rummaging through Morin and found this:


Quote:
"Furthermore, this doctrine is truer and more in accord with the dogmas of astrology, because in Genesis, Chapter 1, (in which the principal dogmas of astrology are contained in very few words) ..." -Book 13, Astrologia Gallica, J. Holden trans. AFA p 51


[Note: what Morin meant by "this doctrine" isn't relevant to this discussion]

Ironically Morin is not one of Frawley's favorite astrologers, but the two have more in common than John might realize or be willing to admit

This approach doesn't go over well with audiences who are looking for technique piled on technique. I've heard there have been grumblings about wanting astrology and not wanting to go to church. Sad, because I think such complainers are missing something important. I happen to love this sort of thing, even if I don't get the ideas across very well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4986
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
His main point, and I've never been real successful at getting this across, and that may be because I don't fully understand it myself, is that astrology that comes from the Greeks is pagan in origin and that astrology also has a monotheistic tradition that is different. Naturally that monotheistic tradition would be Hebrew in origin. Obviously this doesn't preclude using Greek techniques.

...He is not, in my mind, arguing that monotheistic astrology and pagan astrology originated and grew up separately, although he might be. Like I said I may not have fully grasped his intent. It's been years since I've seen him or attended a lecture. He moved to Poland a few years ago, and I live in the US.


...I've heard there have been grumblings about wanting astrology and not wanting to go to church. Sad, because I think such complainers are missing something important. I happen to love this sort of thing, even if I don't get the ideas across very well.

This piece from John Frawley may help clarify his views a bit better:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/Russianpreface.pdf

A couple of choice quotes from John Frawley's preface to his Russian translation of The Apprentice:

Nor is it true that anything written a long time ago is part of that tradition. The western tradition of astrology is a montheistic tradition. It is the astrology of the Jews, the Christians, and the Moslems. As such, it stands over and against any astrology rooted in relativism. Egyptian astrology; Hellenistic astrology; Vedic Astrology; the astrology generally practised today: these are not part of the western tradition of astrology , and because of the philosophies within which they are framed, have far more in common with each other than they do with that tradition.

John Frawley also states: :

...the words with which Ibn Ezra began his textbook are the most important words ever written in astrology: 'the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord'

There was already a thread where several of us gave quite robust feedback on John Frawley's take on astrological history. Perhaps its wiser to take that controversial issue up there or in a new thread rather than continuing it here.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4187&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:23 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A couple of choice quotes from John Frawley's preface to his Russian translation of The Apprentice:


I believe it is from the preface for The Real Astrology Applied, a collection of articles most of which were taken from the Apprentice Magazine.

I re-read it. Now I"m not so sure.


Last edited by Tom on Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A while back Astrojin wrote:

Quote:
Is it OK if I discuss other Lots (not one of the Hermetic Lots)?


Please do - I think that might lead us back on-topic Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi all,

sorry, I've written a rather long post so I'd rather cut it into three parts. But it really leads back to the original thread. Smile

I can really understand the ones who are a bit irritated by the lots. While the other astrological elements are able to be explained by disciplined astrological thinking, the lots, where some mathematical hocus-pocus is employed, are undeniably embarrassing. A rationalist may well refuse to use them; for traditionalists there is the task of exploration and explanation remaining to bother themselves.

The purpose of the other tools are easy to be grasped. The role of the stars is to send messages as they express their personality, their feelings about their own state, and their attitude to other stars (if they mind, only in the case of wandering ones) - something which is translated to earthly matters. Alternatively, they convey some kind of command or exercise power on the Earth. The zodiac, however, is a board they occupy, which can be segmented to images and portions, all of which provide different enviroment, mood, interest or uninterest for the stars. In the same time, the images of the zodiac serve as places, that is, areas of life, depending on which images is divided to bright and dark parts by the horizon, while rising. The double function of these zodiacal sections is not self-contradictory: whereas as images they show likeness, as places they refer to function. In fact, this is not even a double function: it's a quadruple function for they serve as domiciles and exaltations for the wandering stars, thus they are areas where various forms of power may be exercised. (Some of you might not agree with some or more of these statements but it's only intended to be an comparative illustration.)

To turn back to the lots, a main question is why we must use them. There is a lot (or rather, there are lots) of marriage; but there is a place for marriage (the sinking one), and also we can find a star (Venus) that is associated with affairs involving emotions. Yeah, there are lots bearing curious names like courage or victory but there is no clear hint why we should rely on them and not on places and stars, as usual.

Perhaps we can approach this problem from a philosophical perspective. Well known is the fact that althought there are hundreds of lots from all eras, the two most widely used lots are that of Fortune and of Spirit. Now, fortune (tuchē) and, at a lesser extent, spirit (daimōn) are something that are extensively discussed in Greek philosophical literature. The word tuchē means an act of a power superior to men, it may be restricting or allowing, and it also signifies the result, no matter it's good or ill. In the same time, daimōn is such a superior power or the power itself they exercise. Now, I don't really want to pursue the development of tuchē through Greek philosophy, I just want to point out that this two ideas often appear in Platonizing context. For example, the Platonist philosopher, Plutarch asserts earthly souls are made of destiny (heimarmenē) - which compels -, of tuchē - which gives chance -, and of "that depends on us" eph' hēmin. In this model, the act of the divine power is allowing: gives something we can either make use of or leave neglected. This is the same that the Latin equivalent, fortuna expresses: a certain condition that can be utilized by free choice. And it's what comes from a daimōn. To illustrate how these may meet, let me quote Plato:

Plato in Republic wrote:
But when, to conclude, all the souls had chosen their lives in the order of their lots, they were marshalled and went before Lachesis. And she sent with each, as the guardian of his life and the fulfiller of his choice, the genius (daimōn) that he had chosen, and this divinity led the soul first to Clotho, under her hand and her turning of the spindle to ratify the destiny of his lot and choice; and after contact with her the genius again led the soul to the spinning of Atropos to make the web of its destiny irreversible, and then without a backward look it passed beneath the throne of Necessity.


Therefore, according to Plato, a soul chooses a life, and the first of the Fates, Lachesis gives them a daimōn who is going to be responsible for executing such a life. Note that necessity (anagkē), which is a name of another lot closely connected to both tuchē and daimōn, also appears in the text: together with erōs, which is again something all around in Platonic texts, they form the four basic lots.

Following Platonist concepts, we can summarize that in astrological context tuchē is something which can be utilized but it isn't compulsory, with daimōn being the source of tuchē. I don't think it's a perfect example but this is somewhat similar to the relationship of talent and situations provided by talent. In this way, wandering stars are the agents of the destiny while lots like tuchē and daimōn are connected to chance somehow. I think the keyword "lot" can give us a clue.

The Greek equivalent, klēros means 'lot' indeed but no early Latin translation is known. The two expressions sometimes used by Firmicus are pars and locus but they refer to portions and places, respectively. But it also means allotment, like allotment of chance. Falling somewhere in the zodiac, we can discern regarding various allotted matters what they are like (their image), who they are ruled by (their domicile and exaltation), and which area of life they appear upon (their place). That may be the reason why Valens associates the tuchē lot with bodily talents like handicrafts and the daimōn lot with mental talents like trade. So the rationale of the lots can be explained: in the case of private relationships, there is a star generally governing emotial questions, there is an area which specially belongs to marriage and that sort of thing, and there are some other elements which give a personal chance to affairs regarding marriage and related cases. For example, the marital lot gives hint for the time and quality of the marriage but not cogently, and the separate marriage lots for men and women shows sexuality and whether it's lawful. But to put it in the simplest manner: while stars send messages about which cannot be changed, lots give us a chance to fulfil our destiny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(This is the second part.)

Independently from the question how lots should be assumed and incorporated in our practice, there comes the annoying fact of uncertainty of their calculation. I don't really refer to the old argument whether we should change the night formula or not; instead, I'd like to point out that the calculation method was obscure even at the time of the beginnings. At least, Valens is disturbed by the allusions of Nechepso who seems to employ different calculation for daytime and night nativities but then he became helpless having read some enigmatic remarks about the Moon being sometimes under the horizon at night. Nevertheless, his charts are made in the usual way. This uncertainty is manifested in another form in Serapio excerpted by Rhetorius.

But there is another uncertainty. While we customarily count the lot of fortune with measuring the distance between the luminaries and then projecting this from the hour-marker, all expressed in portions, no early text tells us what we should count: we could as well count the images. And I strongly suspect the latter method is originally intended. This would explain a number of peculiarities:

1. Authors sometimes refer to situations when a lot is together with another lot. Now, what is "being together"? If we count the lots by portions, some of them will occupy common images but what if they have a nice distance between each other? Are they together? If we count them by images, it'll be clear when we face with coincidence.

2. Another widely applied term is "seeing" in the case of a lot and a wandering star, especially its domicile master. We know that no matter which portion they occupy, the star will see the lot if configured. It's very similar to the relationship of places and stars where the places are equal with a whole image. Then, I guess, counting the lots by images would keep the logic in this case, too.

3. There are lots in Dorotheus which are derived from a wandering star and a place. It'd be relieving to know that we must count with a house cusp, but there's no reference for any cusps, even more, there arent't any cusps in the whole Hellenistic material. (I've already written about the will-o-wisp of the cusps somewhere else: to sum up, the word "cusp" seem to be a synonym for Arabic "houses" and when the Arabic quadrant houses were introduced to Europe, this term started to be applied for the beginning of these houses.) Dykes also observed this problem and suggested applying the first portion of a place. I feel it's much more reasonable to eliminate the problem of portions altogether.

4. When listing lots, Firmicus constantly refers them as locus fortunae etc. As locus is a literal translation for a place, not for a portion. It's true, however, that he discusses the manner of calculation both by image and by portion. I'll return to it below.

5. In Valens, there is an alternative topical system, derived from the lot of fortune. Now, the usual topical system starts with the hour-marker and it's really not its portion which is important. More often the whole first place is called hour-marker, as this is the one divided by the horizon, thusly associated with birth. Anyway, if you look at the example charts of the early authors, relevant items are given by images, not by portions. Of course, it may be attributed to astronomical underdevelopment but don't forget that even prognostical tools like giving and receiving (profection) are based on quantum-like jumps, in the example by images. There exists a method for profection from the four basic lots, though.

6. Describing the lot of exaltation, Valens instruct us to count from the in-sect luminary to its exaltation. As no exaltation portion is given by him, it would be hardly possibly to count portionally; of course, we may use the first portion of the relevant image, as in no. 4.

Accepting this theory, we could eliminate the sorcery of maths and find a way to reconcile the notion of lots with astrological logic and common sense. (By the way, I recommend you to look at the early example charts: you'll find the lots always counted in this manner; sometimes there would be a very narrow time frame if we intend to count by portions. I hope I haven't overlooked any. Smile) As the function of the hour-marker is almost nothing more than to mark which image-domicile-exaltation is going to be the first universal topical place, the lots don't have to remain an annoying mathematical fiction but they can be simply something else which marks an image-domicile-exaltation-place. If, for example, the out-of-sect luminary occupies the fourth place from the in-sect luminary, it's just a sign for that the fourth place from the hour-marker should be marked somehow. Not because there falls anything; only because the relationship of the luminaries put an emphasis somewhere in the chart. It's the chart, I emphasize, not in the constellation (as the constellation is the celestial picture while the chart is on the paper).

There are some other results coming from this scheme. If we count by images, the lots of fortune and spirit will be in the same image, or configured by a hexagonal, trigonal or diametrical figure, that is, aversion won't occur. Utilizing the common formula for love and necessity (not that of Paulus and Olympiodorus), will also be in the same image or configured by a trigon. So accepting these, I think we could even strengthen the inherent logic of our charts and also our astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(This is the third part.)

Some authors like Ptolemy, Firmicus, Paulus, Olympiodorus and Rhetorius don't fit into this scheme. But the reason is, I argue, that all of these later astrologers rely on Ptolemy, albeit not wholly: even Hephaestio is hesitant to employ Ptolemy's unitary formula which is completely understandable as on the ground of Ptolemy's principles each lot save that of fortune should be dismissed.

As I see, Ptolemy is in pains when it comes to physically non-existent elements like places and lots. As it has been observed by many, he practically doesn't make use of the places, apart from the midheaven and, in the case of children, the Good Spirit and Good Fortune. Hephaestio mentions that Ptolemy drew on Petosiris for this latter topic and Valens confirms it was dealt by Petosiris indeed. I assume this as a shortcoming in Ptolemy's rationalizing process.

The notion of lots may have caused him even a less comfortable pain in the neck. That's why he seem to choose a sophisticated way to save the lot of fortune for the cost of sacrification the others. It becomes a lunar hour-marker which has the same relationship with the moon as the original hour-marker has with the sun. There only remains a solitary formula but Ptolemy, as usual, is not wholly clear on his intentions: describing the relationship, he uses the word "proportion" (logos) and "figuration" (schēmatismos). Most of astrologers take this as measuring ecliptical distance but there were others like Negusianzo and Placido who used ascensions (direct and oblique) instead. Their formula was upgraded later by Brunacci and Onorati.

Thus, in Ptolemy's model the lunar hour-marker is an astronomical construction which is far away from the original intention of the lot of fortune. Nevertheless, Ptolemy uses it in a similar but much more restricted manner. His rigorous astronomical principles allowed later astrologers to pick up some of his ideas, among which there was a mathematical computation of the lot of fortune. The easiest way to reconciliate his ideas with the traditional teachings was to adopt his maths while still retain the changing of the formula.

Also, I hypothesize that the idea of Hermetic lots, that is, the lots belonging to wandering stars, as it's read in Paulus, is again influenced by Ptolemy: if there exist a lot exclusively belonging to the Moon, why others couldn't be invented? The name of the lot of love, which is based on the fortune and spirit in various sources, bears a call for refurbishment with the use of Venus. The only problem that the employment of this logic resulted in reformulation of the lot of necessity with Mercury which looks quite strange from the perspective of traditional descriptions given for Mercury. And if it was Paulus who applied the traditional daytime-night swapping for these points originally not intended to change, we can see why this "Hermetic" lots break the head of many. Anyway, it's just an audacious idea from me, nothing that could be proven.

Thanks for your patience.

Levente
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Levente,

You know, you need to write some books at some point Very Happy

I'm more of the opinion that Paulus got the Lots from somewhere, but never much used them if at all, and his commentator even less. Yours is an interesting idea, however.

As for Frawley, I'd be repeating myself if I said his opinion is preposterous.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

A few very important questions concerning Lots:

1. (Not so important): Who created them? They may be listed in the Panaretus associated to Hermes but listed and created are 2 very different things. Perhaps we could gain something pragmatic by knowing the original creators of these Lots for the lots were created. They could not have been "observed".

2. (More important): Why were they created? What is the theoretical and practical motivation for creating these Lots (i.e. why have them in the first place?). We probably only have partial answers to this but if we discover the practical reasons for creating these Lots, we could be better practical traditional astrologers (theoretically!).

3. What is the logic behind the construction of these Lots? Why 2 planets? Even more important (at least to me), why do we reverse the formulae of some Lots and not others? Abu Ma'shar and Bonatti gave some of their ideas to this question but my conjecture is that they were also conjecturing! If we could divine the pattern behind the constructions of these Lots, we could even create our own (well not that we would want to do this, there are already too many existing Lots which Albiruni also complained).

Perhaps members who more into astro-historical savvy can enlighten us. Perhaps even some could give conjectures to the above?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated