I thought that might be your response,

Damn! I hate being predictable.

but I think it is a bit of hair splitting. Yes, Lilly was personally involved, but we certainly don't think Lilly would hear much of anything on the news, and he was involved by accident. The thief didn't set out to steal Lilly's fish. He just stole some fish that happened to be Lilly's, and for all we know he didn't limit himself to Lilly's treasure either.

Being involved by 'accident' doesn't make him any less involved. How do you know that he didn?t set out to steal Lilly?s fish? And how does this matter? He did steal Lilly?s fish, making Lilly directly involved. This is entirely different from hearing about an incident which doesn?t even involve us indirectly, let alone directly.

Lilly cast other charts for things he was not personally involved in, such as war charts and will the Presbetry Stand. OK maybe he would have been affected as would every other Englishman of the era, but then I would say he was not intimately involved. So I think the lack of personal or intimate involvement in and of itself does not disqualify.

Lilly was intimately involved in the Civil War. He not only cast charts of his own but cast a number of charts at the personal request of military people. He took sides and was in no way an innocent bystander.

We also ask horary charts about political elections and other mundane outcomes.

But we shouldn?t. These types of horary charts certainly don?t meet the criteria of Bonatus. We shouldn?t cast horary charts out of idle curiosity or for things in which we have no involvement. We should be using event charts if we want to know the outcome of things of this nature. With using event charts we have one election - one chart. With horary we have the potential of one election ? several (hundred) charts. I am inclined to agree with Kirk that we cast horary charts far too easily and without the consideration it deserves.

The real question is closer to: Does the chart describe the situation?" Mark's chart seemed to do just that. The truth isn't limited to one cosmic moment. After all the saying is: As above so below; not, as above so below every now and again .

So you keep saying. But this phrase misrepresents what horary astrology is all about. This suggests that you can ask the same horary question a number of times and it will always give you the same answer. This is not right. It also suggests that you can ask a question without due consideration and that you will always get the right answer. This is also not right. Sometimes the answer is not available. This does not mean that the cosmos sometimes doesn?t work but that it doesn?t always choose to reveal the answer. Dennis Elwell commented that we are used to expecting a human answer to a human question when, sometimes, the heavens give a cosmic answer that we are not always able to understand until later. Albertus Magnus said that this was a sign of God choosing to exercise his free will not to reveal the answer to all questions.

The full hermetic phrase is ?as above so below and as below so above.? Unfortunately, almost everyone ignores the second part of the phrase and therefore the significance of the whole meaning. Horary is not passive. It is a two way thing. The act of asking the question makes us a participant in the cosmic moment. This changes every time someone else asks the same question and therefore creating a different chart for the same question. They cannot all describe the situation accurately. In an event chart, the cosmic moment is created between the cosmos and the event itself. This will not change and therefore the answer will be there in the chart for all to see.

Can?t we think for ourselves?

A eupemism for "I don't want to have to deal with anything other than what I think." The best route to sound knowledge and practice is to get outside the prejudicial limitations of our own heads, and learn what came before otherwise we're continually reinventing the wheel like the fumblings of modern astrology.

Tom

I thought Mark?s chart analysis was good and although I don?t like third party horaries generally I have done them from time to time when I?ve felt particularly concerned and moved by something. I think such charts are readable, but they are frustrating if you can?t actively use the information.

If you apply Lilly?s techniques on discovering whether a news report is reliable using Mark?s chart, you get indications of unreliability. The debilitated Moon applies only to a detrimented Mercury conjunct Pluto and the angles are moveable and mutable. The 3rd cusp is at 0 degrees, showing a report that was issued too early.

Kirk says ?why Lilly?? ? well, ?why not?? Lilly gave us more demonstration of horary in practice than anyone else and he gave us more definition of its principles and technique than anyone else before or since. He respected its philosophy, explained its traditional teachings, and told us where his experience formed new insights. He had a masterful understanding of the philosophy of his art, but it?s wrong to think that he wasn?t creative with it because he was very creative and innovative with it. Lilly teaches that there are rules ?except for exceptions? because the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. Understanding Lilly?s work doesn?t create a conflict with the teachings of other traditional authors (such as Bonatus) it furthers an understanding of it. Horary is a craft and it involves walking a tightrope between appreciating traditional knowledge and being creative and innovative with that knowledge under each unique application of it.

There are some people - very few - who may be attuned to the collective atmosphere. They are intuitive, psychic. They could be the right ones to use horary for such purposes. They may be in the middle of a busy day at work and the thought hits them to use horary. They note the time and draw up the chart when they have the chance. They are rare birds. The trap lies in considering ourselves to be one of them.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, the formation of a valid horary always involves an intuitive/emotive instinct. There are very few people who are actively attuned to the collective atmosphere most of the time, but we are all attuned to it at some level, and capable of close attunment at certain times. An astrologer may have far more insight using the chart for their moment of close connection - Mark did say that he felt moved by the pain of this event and that it was a unique experience because he has never done this sort of thing before. I?m sure there was more sincerity in his question than the idea of playing with it between trips to the pub. It?s true the event may not need us, but astrologers develop a lot of skills as independent observers. We may not be needed in the analysis of an event chart either, so is it horary you are blasting, or the idea of doing an astrological analysis on any world event where there is no direct or personal involvement?

I certainly don't doubt Mark's sincerity in asking this question at all. And I can understand that he asked out of a genuine concern for the miners. There have been times when I have wanted to do the same thing, particularly with people who have gone missing. But my issue isn't with with the moral aspects of whether he should or shouldn't ask this sort of question. He has every right to ask any question he wants. My concern is more of a philosophical one that can probably never be answered. I certainly do not have the answer and am just debating on what I think. I'm not so much seeing it on an individual level as more of a collective level. If Mark was the only person who asked this question then I could possibly see it as a valid horary. But chances are that several people asked the same question at different times. Collectively, I do not see the validity in that, particularly as there is a valid event chart already in existence. If we have 20 different charts for the same thing can they all be right? Perhaps they can be. I suppose if horary works the way we expect it to work then they should all give the same answer. But this doesn't happen. A few years ago during the lead up to an Australian election there were several horaries posted over the course of a couple of months on another forum asking who will win. They were all quite different and some saw the governing party retaining power while others showed the opposition winning. I decided that either horary is a load of rubbish and doesn't work or that doing these charts is not really valid. This is why I will always go for an event chart.

But even though this accident is a serious matter and of great concern, and even though the question was asked in all sincerity, isn't this a case of wanting to know something that will be revealed soon enough? And I really don't mean in a flippantly curious way. Most of us were concerned to know the outcome. But we cannot affect the outcome of this situation, we are not asking for personal guidance, there is nothing we can do. The purpose of asking questions like this is that we want to know what is going to happen. How is this different from being stressed about the job interview you just went for so asking a question about whether you get the job even though you know they will call you in a couple of hours? The client may well be asking out of genuine concern but also impatience to know the outcome. She could no longer affect the outcome. Is it really that different from the types of questions best avoided in the examples given in 'Questioning our Horaries'? These examples may seem trivial compared to a horrible accident but the principle is similar. My understanding is that horary is primarily used as a tool for guidance that allows us to move forward. It helps us to make important decisions or to understand our situation. It is a wonderful tool that allows us to reflect and guide us. What is the point of a horary that allows no chance for any of this when an event chart will give us the answer we are looking for?

MarkF,

perhaps you - Pisces - can get more in tune with the Universe than some others .

Pocahontas .

Like Sue, Lee Lehman also says that when choosing between an event chart and a horary chart for that event, go with the event chart.

But my question is, what can we expect the event chart to tell us?

For example, let's say we set an event chart for meeting someone for the first time. Can we expect the event chart to tell us if that person will be our good friend, a potential mate, an enemy or business partner? (Or maybe that the person will ultimately play no profound role in our lives at all?)

I would think the event chart is limited to the event itself. (Although I understand if we're talking about a marriage chart, the chart set for the time a man and woman say "I do" then that chart contains the ultimate outcome of the entire marriage.)

So are all event charts this predictive?

Later on today when I have more time, I am going to respond back to all the above.

Basically I really do agree with Sue's main point about the role of horary and when we should do a chart. I have always objected to the idea of doing a horary for a political election becasue there would be hundreds or thousands of people doing such a chart and like she said, they all can't be right. I remember objecting to someone using a horary to see if UFO's were real for the same reasons. But somewhere I seem to have modified my thinking but I want to get it clear in my head before I write more. I did this chart here without thinking about these issues and now I am.

Thanks all.

I ought to wait and let you respond Mark, but I?m jumping in whilst I have some spare time. This is an interesting issue, I understand the arguments being made and mainly I agree. I don?t generally like 3rd party horaries, especially those asked out of fleeting curiosity or misplaced sympathy which is what Kirk was getting at, but famous astrologers of the past have certainly used horary to explore matters where the querent had no direct involvement in the matter asked about. I am thinking of people like Nostradamus, or Lilly with his ?what manner of death Canterbury should die?? type charts.

One chart I set great store by in 1990 concerned the prospect of Britain going to war with Iraq. I submitted it as a ?prediction? to gain my QHP qualification. I felt connected to the question, it was judged well and was very reflective of events as they later unfolded. But this question was rejected on the grounds that a similar question had already been asked by another astrologer who judged there would be no war. I passed on my second submission of a personal horary ? I think it concerned a property issue. I didn?t feel it was anywhere near as insightful or meaningful as the war chart that was rejected out of hand. If I had been asked, I wouldn?t have cared how many other astrologers were asking similar questions, or whether there were more relevant event charts; that was the chart that spoke to me and the only one from which I felt enough confidence and commitment to want to form a judgement.

But I can also think of times when I?ve been asked to give a ?second opinion? on horaries put forward by other astrologers with questions concerning events on the news, and I have always thought of this as very inappropriate. If the astrologer has a reason or a motivation to ask the question, they should also understand that the horary is generated through them and they can?t offload it onto other astrologers as if they have created a moment of independent and universal significance.

Is it really that different from the types of questions best avoided in the examples given in 'Questioning our Horaries'? These examples may seem trivial compared to a horrible accident but the principle is similar.

Ptolemy suggested that the purpose of prediction was to prepare the soul for acquaintance with its destiny. Taken to the extreme, it could be argued that every example I gave in my article was actually a valid opportunity for horary guidance if the querent?s soul was disturbed enough about it. The relevant fact is that the questions did not gain my sympathy so I was unable to commit to them. The article aimed to remind horary astrologers that the astrologer?s role is central; that they don?t have to answer every question put to them, and that where they do they take on a responsibility for what they are doing. There aren?t really any hard or fast rules, except that you always have to be conscious about what you are doing with horary and your own conscience has to be a willing participant. Also, ?first do no harm? is a principle we need to bear in mind.

My understanding is that horary is primarily used as a tool for guidance that allows us to move forward. It helps us to make important decisions or to understand our situation. It is a wonderful tool that allows us to reflect and guide us. What is the point of a horary that allows no chance for any of this when an event chart will give us the answer we are looking for?

That is a good definition of horary but surely it applies to all aspects of judicial astrology, not just horary. In most cases I agree it is better to use the event chart for analysis, but don?t you think it is interesting that no one raises the moral or ethical implications of analysing event charts about issues that don?t personally concern them? This happens all the time. It seems to me that it is either appropriate to offer personal observations on a mundane situation using astrology, or it?s not. The event chart is of more general interest of course, but I wouldn?t like to see horary excluded as offering an astrologer the potential to explore perspectives on a mundane event. At least not on the grounds that the astrologer doesn?t have the right to make a symbolic exploration of things that go on in the world around them. That is, at least not whilst books of event-chart analysis such as ?Civilization under Attack? escape question

Deb said:

One chart I set great store by in 1990 concerned the prospect of Britain going to war with Iraq. I submitted it as a ?prediction? to gain my QHP qualification. I felt connected to the question, it was judged well and was very reflective of events as they later unfolded. But this question was rejected on the grounds that a similar question had already been asked by another astrologer who judged there would be no war. I passed on my second submission of a personal horary ? I think it concerned a property issue. I didn?t feel it was anywhere near as insightful or meaningful as the war chart that was rejected out of hand. If I had been asked, I wouldn?t have cared how many other astrologers were asking similar questions, or whether there were more relevant event charts; that was the chart that spoke to me and the only one from which I felt enough confidence and commitment to want to form a judgement.

I don?t see this as along the same lines as asking about the trapped coal miners or who will win the election, both of which have event charts attached. You were asking about something that may or may not eventuate. The only way you could evaluate this situation that you were genuinely concerned about was through horary. Okay, so you couldn?t affect the outcome and maybe others had already asked the question. I am not arguing that we should never use horary for these sorts of situations but that if there is already a valid event chart, we should go with that. In your case, there was no valid event chart and you were genuinely concerned as most people were at that point, and, as it turned out, rightly so. I don't see anything wrong with using horary under these circumstances.

Sue said:

My understanding is that horary is primarily used as a tool for guidance that allows us to move forward. It helps us to make important decisions or to understand our situation. It is a wonderful tool that allows us to reflect and guide us. What is the point of a horary that allows no chance for any of this when an event chart will give us the answer we are looking for?

Deb said:

That is a good definition of horary but surely it applies to all aspects of judicial astrology, not just horary. In most cases I agree it is better to use the event chart for analysis, but don?t you think it is interesting that no one raises the moral or ethical implications of analysing event charts about issues that don?t personally concern them? This happens all the time. It seems to me that it is either appropriate to offer personal observations on a mundane situation using astrology, or it?s not. The event chart is of more general interest of course, but I wouldn?t like to see horary excluded as offering an astrologer the potential to explore perspectives on a mundane event. At least not on the grounds that the astrologer doesn?t have the right to make a symbolic exploration of things that go on in the world around them. That is, at least not whilst books of event-chart analysis such as ?Civilization under Attack? escape question.

Yes, this is a valid point. Of course each form of astrology deserves due respect and consideration. But I haven?t actually raised any moral or ethical objections about doing horaries about events. I don?t really have any. It is more of an objection about the practical appropriateness of it. I don't think there are moral and ethical concerns about asking a horary about events that don't concern us. These events concern us all on some level. I was thinking more on a practical level of how much a person can be tied as an individual to these charts. And don?t even start me on that book. How much genuine reflection could there have been when the book was in the shops practically before the towers came down? I see this as nothing more than an exercise in who can give the cleverest interpretation of what happened.

I see mundane astrology as so much more than general interest. My objection about horaries on events has nothing to do with whether it is morally appropriate or not but rather whether this is the best method. I see nothing wrong with using astrology in an attempt to make a symbolic exploration of the events around us. This is perhaps the most useful things about astrology ? that it allows us to understand the world we live in. It is just that I do not see an individual horary as the best way to understand events of this nature.

The reason I am so interested in mundane astrology is that I like to explore the potential of being able to use mundane astrology in a way that contributes to the future in the same way that horary does. I do not really believe that event charts should be used in isolation. Surely a study of earthquake charts or train crash charts, for example, can reveal a pattern that may be useful in the prediction of these events. I believe that event charts have a similar definition to the one I gave above for horary. That is, it is a tool that allows us to reflect and guide us, giving us the potential to make changes. However, they are still used for different purposes and require different considerations. This generally requires that we look at the event chart as part of a collective. Fortunately, there are not too many mining accidents, but there was one in Australia only a day after the one in the US. The Australian miners escaped unharmed a few hours later. So what is it about the two charts (both of which had Mars on the 4th house cusp), where two different results were achieved? Or what is it about the two charts that were similar and may be seen in the charts of past mining accidents? The fascinating work by Richard Nolle is an example of the great potential of understanding past event charts so that they may be useful for the future. Wouldn?t it be wonderful if mundane astrology was more than an academic exercise and could be used to save lives? The biggest barrier though is to get non astrologers to take notice, as Dennis Elwell found out when he contacted the shipping companies regarding a potential shipping accident or Lilly discovered when he predicted the Great Fire of London.

now two more trapped by a fire, wondering if that shows in your initial horary somewheres. to me this feels like a continuance of the same disaster.

Granny

I'm not sure that it can be seen as a continuation of the same disaster but perhaps the same astrological conditions that brought the initial disaster. Since the West Virginia accident a couple of weeks ago, I have read of four other mining accidents. One happened in Australia at the same time as the West Virginia accident. There was another a week or so later. I can't remember exactly where it was but I think it might have been the Ukraine. And just today there is a report of two miners killed and seventy trapped in a mine in Chile.

This is what I mean by looking at mundane event charts in a collection. These things always appear to happen in groupings. This suggests that there are certain astrological conditions around these times that are present when these accidents happen that are not present at other times. In my ideal world, there would be research money available to look at these things that would be able to predict these conditions beforehand thereby giving warning of the potential for more danger at that time.