16
Yes, Chris is a member and comments in the traditional forum sometimes especially. Besides the good comments already made in that thread, on a purely logical level there are times a chart is not interpretable based on the time/date asked being incorrect. We obviously cannot say every chart is interpretable for that reason. I have seen this happen many times throughout the years in forums. Someone can argue that they know the correct information several days later, but are they sure about that?

17
Jupiterrising wrote: I could not go through the other two links because I don't understand that language.
So what do you do with charts that are not radical? Do you not read them at all? I think it must be Frawley or some other astrologer who said that all charts can be read. All of them give the answer, I think. But I am not sure.
Here are the strictures on judgment rendered in less obscure language
1. https://parsifalswheeldivination.com/20 ... -judgment/ (This source begins by quoting Lilly. The explanation is about halfway down the page)

2. http://www.medievalastrologyguide.com/radicality.html
A more extensive discussion.

3. http://www.horary.com/sward/Consids.html
This is an analysis of William Lilly's own methods.

***

Consider one of the stricture on judgment: The first three or the last three degrees of a sign on the ascendant,. This does not prevent one from reading the chart of course, just that the results must be taken with a pinch of salt.

In turn, There are also a large pile of exceptions to this 'late degrees rule' , where the chart may be safely read. (EG Lord of ascendant and planetary hour are the same, person's age and degree on ascendant same etc. The links above give in-depth explanations)

In my opinion, all these strictures boil down to one thing : The relationship of the question to the event in question. The podcast i linked to previously gives an example.

Suppose your servant ran away. It is perfectly natural to cast the chart for the moment the servant fled, (An event chart)
But what happens if you did not see the servant flee? Then you have to settle to the next best option -- the moment you discovered the servant was missing. From there it is not a very great leap to asking general questions such as "Will my servant run away" or "When will my servant come back" etc.

However, for every step, your chart will be more and more removed from the actual event in question. So as a substitute, you must see if there are signs there is a resonance, some relation to the event in question. This is after all the meaning of the word 'radical'-- the chart is rooted in the question.

Indeed, William Lilly gives one overlooked exception to the 'late degrees rule' -- event charts.
"If 27, 28, 29 degrees ascend of any any sign, it is no way safe to give judgment except [...] the figure be set upon a time certain, viz. a man went away or fled at such time precise because it is no propounded question" [my emphasis].

***
Some people interpret the strictures themselves. Here is an example.

If the first three degrees rise, it is too early to say anything about the question. If the last three degrees rise, it is too late to say anything, as the situation cannot be changed.
Another such stricture is Saturn being in/ afflicting the 7th house. This is taken to mean there is some error in the calculation, or flaw on the astrologer's part.

***
Jupiterrising wrote:I also didn't know that there is a horary podcast. Will listen to it later. Which other horary podcasts do you recommend?
I have yet to come to podcasts on horary astrology alone. However this podcast series is one of the best on astrology as a subject. It covers a wide range of subjects in a clear and serious fashion.

18
Edward - Thanks for linking some info on the Considerations. I apologize that I missed that question earlier and took for granted that they were understood. I was on a short break at work. There are also a lot of threads in here where people discussed the Considerations in detail and what other astrologers thought of them, if you do some searching in here. Here is one on hour agreement, for example, where Andrew Brevan posted one of his theories on rootedness of charts:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c7c835b782

Unfortunately, a lot of times these threads are harder to find because people are not always great at giving a good subject header to a topic, or they end up in the wrong forum, such as the one above where it went to Sports and Speculation.

Edward, you seem helpful in here and if you are interested in being moderator, feel free to email Paul about it. I am maybe going to be starting a second job soon and don't really have a ton of time to help with posts with my current heavy hours as is. Cheers!

19
Tanit3333 wrote:Yes, Chris is a member and comments in the traditional forum sometimes especially. Besides the good comments already made in that thread, on a purely logical level there are times a chart is not interpretable based on the time/date asked being incorrect. We obviously cannot say every chart is interpretable for that reason. I have seen this happen many times throughout the years in forums. Someone can argue that they know the correct information several days later, but are they sure about that?
This happens only if the querent is also the astrologer I guess. Like in forums where the querent's are drawing charts for the time they ask the question.

21
This happens only if the querent is also the astrologer I guess. Like in forums where the querent's are drawing charts for the time they ask the question.
The Considerations themselves make no distinction though, especially something such as hour agreement or a VOC Moon, which isn't a specific alert against the ability of the astrologer but of the chart itself. Usually the Considerations are just viewed as a warning to proceed with caution, if at all, but if the astrologer is afflicted or will not get credit by the question, or if the querent shows they will not listen either way, there is little sense in answering. For a very early degree rising, you have to ask yourself how accurate the chart is going to be when the outcome is potentially too nascent to interpret properly. If you are not a professional astrologer or reading charts for others, then you do not have to worry about things like your reputation or causing harm to others due to a bad reading, but you could potentially cause harm to yourself. This might especially be true in cases where Saturn is in the house of the astrologer, for example, since Saturn is often a warning about judgment or that there is something wrong with the chart or it will be misinterpreted because Saturn lords self undoings and errors. I had a reading from another astrologer where Saturn was retro in the house of the querent and it was a warning against my own behavior and had I been someone to throw caution to the wind like a lot of people do, I probably would have suffered for it. The astrologer rightly highlighted it.

Many studies already show this in some sense, but I don't actually find that most people listen to advice in general, which is one of the reasons I am not a professional astrologer. This is why many people use Google rather than see a doctor or listen to what their doctor already told them, for example. They usually ask a question in order to see if the chart agrees with them or they interpret what you say differently than what you said to align with what they want. In cases where I warned people about something, they often did not listen and went ahead and did it anyway or believed whatever they wanted, regardless of Considerations being an issue. Most people are not very objective, in my experience, which is probably for the best in the end because they should use their personal freedom and make their own decisions and mistakes to learn from them. In cases where I really thought a behavioral change was needed, astrology would probably never help with that (such as a friend of a sibling in an abusive relationship, eventually even physically, yet asking when they would marry). This is a topic for the philosophical section though, I guess, and just my personal experience (which could be due to the specific people who have sought readings from me).

22
Do you use Sun and Venus as co significators? I use them sometimes.

If you used it, would you interpret it like this?

Example:
Gemini rising, Sagittarius on the descendant.
Mercury querent (woman) and Jupiter quesited (man)
Sun co significator of man, Venus co sig of woman.

Sun in virgo, would you say Sun is interested in the querent?
Mercury main significator is the woman is combust Sun-that shows the
womans interest in the man?

23
Do you use Sun and Venus as co significators? I use them sometimes.
I do not use them as co-significators, which would imply that Venus could lead to perfection when in aspect with quesited, or Sun with querent. I look at them as secondary clues in a chart in reference to one another only. Here is an old thread where Deb Houlding explains their usage in horary:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5023

The old tiny pic images are now replaced with an obnoxious image. *cringe*

24
Thanks Tanit. I have checked that link, Deb said she only wrote half of the article in her post. From that post it seems that she only uses Sun and Venus interaction with each other and not with the main significators.

Maybe in the rest of the article which she did not post, she used them the way I did in my above post? Sun in the rulership sign of the main significator of the querent Mercury=interest by the quesited in querent. You think she'd do that?

I don't always use Sun and Venus in charts but sometimes I do. Like in this case, the main significators Mercury and Jupiter are in each others detriment and the only aspect between them was a square in the past.
They are a couple, this chart doesn't describe their relationship.

But if I used Sun as co significator then Mercury and Sun are together which is descriptive of their relationship. That's my reasoning for using Sun and Venus in this chart.

25
Maybe in the rest of the article which she did not post, she used them the way I did in my above post? Sun in the rulership sign of the main significator of the querent Mercury=interest by the quesited in querent. You think she'd do that?
I read the article many years ago and, no, she did not use them that way. You look only at the relationship between the Sun and Venus. Some people do use them as co sigs - whatever works for you. I personally have not used them that way and do not find it to be accurate to try to use them that way. It really isn't meant to be a focal point of a chart and should help support other information of who is the fonder or if both are fond. Who is chasing whom, etc. Is the relationship traditional for gender roles. That kind of thing. For example, a fire Venus oriental would suggest an aggressive female (or at least unconventional or possibly very sexual), whereas a water Venus occidental is more traditional for a female gender role.

26
Ok. So both of you don't use it generally. How will you interpret a chart in cases like this?
Jupiter and Mercury in each others detriment. You take it as the querent and quesited have no interest in each other?
Depending on which sign the Moon is, Moon could be translating the light. But I want to know about receptions. And also what if Moon or any other planet is not connecting them in any way by either translation or collection of light.

You said some people do use it as co significators. You mean like co significator applying to main significator=perfection. Right? In such cases is Sun/Venus the man/woman sexual side or just co significator?

Thanks.

27
I don't use them as co-sigs but I still look at the relationship between Sun and Venus descriptively if I read a romance chart for someone.

Is there a chart or is this hypothetical? I am sorry, I don't have time (I am on a break at work) to look through the thread in detail and don't see any charts posted. You would look first at the type of aspect between significators and the Moon and quesited. When someone approaches from their own dignity but without any dignity for another party it suggests approaching the matter with self interest in mind but the planet itself will generally behave well (of the nature of that planet anyway) because it is essentially dignified. I would not assume dislike based on lack of reception. Aspect is what describes like or dislike best, according to Deb. Reception and essential dignity describe the quality of the aspect and whether it is good or not and what both parties bring to the aspect. A square with reception overcomes the difficulty of the square based on the quality of the aspect being better.

Two essentially dignified planets probably don't really need reception except in difficult aspects because essential dignity often shows interest in the matter itself and essential dignity shows strength in the aspect. Traditional authors will often say "dignified or received" regarding a good influence, meaning the planet is positive when dignified or is received by a dignified planet. Reception helps but is more so necessary when there is difficulty, such as a square aspect. I would be more worried of a planet lacking essential dignity than one that has it but approaches from the other's detriment. Your question sounds like a hard aspect though, which I think is probably more important than lack of reception, or reception in this case would be necessary for perfection.

Authors like Frawley certainly focus on reception for like versus dislike but that is a modern usage and something someone can apply but may or may not be reliable. There are a lot of threads on reception.