31
I'm all for keeping things simple too. The triplicity thread makes fascinating reading but the most relevant issue here is which planet or planets rule the water triplicity and are we all singing from the same hymn sheet when we are assessing radicality? Mark's listing of the different versions is very useful in this respect. So Gem, I don't think your post was irrelevant at all :)

Lilly - Mars/Mars
Dorotheus - Venus/Mars
Ptolemy - Venus/Moon

I've always used Lilly's version, but it might be interesting to test out the alternative versions as and when this situation crops up in our football charts.

32
Thanks so much for the pdf document, Deb, but I now have a question. We have a chart over on the CL thread with hour ruler Moon and Asc Libra. Now I've always understood that the hour ruler has to be of the same nature as the Asc sign, not the Asc ruler, for radicality.

In your Hour Agreement paper you state:

"Hour-ruler and asc-ruler agree in complexion (humour):
That is, Mars agrees with Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, because they are all hot and dry (as before)."

Your heading refers to Asc ruler but your example refers to Asc sign :?

I guess we could say that it can work either way. So although Moon is of a different nature to Libra (Asc sign), the chart is radical because Moon is of the same nature as Venus (Asc ruler) - cold and moist.

I'd be interested to hear your or others' views on the matter. Thanks :)

33
I always have Culpepers' table of friendships and emnities among the planets in the back of my mind when it comes to the question of whether a chart is radical due to compliance between the powers of the lord of the hour and the ascendant. This is offered as an alternative explaination of the working of aspects cast through signs of long and short ascension. chapter 3 'Astrologicla judgement of diseases'.
http://www.astronor.com

34
Ficina wrote:
In your Hour Agreement paper you state:

"Hour-ruler and asc-ruler agree in complexion (humour):
That is, Mars agrees with Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, because they are all hot and dry (as before)."

Your heading refers to Asc ruler but your example refers to Asc sign
A slip of the pen Ficina. The heading should have said "Hour ruler and ascendant agree in complexion". Thanks for pointing that out - I've corrected it now.

35
I questioned the validity of the Water tripricity being given to Mars in my now deleted post becuase my understainding was that he was given it to modify his excessive heat. And then I wondered how in reality, Watery Mars in Pisces and particularly in Cancer where he is Fall, could perform effetively, and express his natural agression and assertiveness, especially in football charts.
Then I realised that as I don't use Essential Dignities in reading football charts, this was irrelevant. What matters in tripricity is that the planets are in a harmonial trine relationship. When we read complex human natures in nativities and delicate situations in Horaries, considering these finer points and exploring different systems as raised in the link given by Ficina do make sense. But I'm all for simplicity too as far as football event charts are concerned; it only lasts for 90+ mins and I agree with JF when he says that E Dignities do not matter while Accidental Dignites do in football charts. Footballers don't play better when their sig is represented by the Sun in Leo than when it's in Aquarius; nor do they, when their sig Venus is in Pisces than say it's in Scorpio.
So I wonder about sticking strictly to a system when judging whether a football event chart is radical or not. I remember I did when I had Libra AC and the LOH as Mercury in a diurnal chart. Mercury is a trip ruler by night only but there's still harmony between them(even during the day).
The question of radicality in football charts is still very new to me and I certainly need to do a lot of experimenting and observation.

36
Gem said:
The question of radicality in football charts is still very new to me and I certainly need to do a lot of experimenting and observation.
I am thrilled that we have added this to our observations and it feels quite pioneering. We are asking a lot of interesting questions. It is exciting to see whether we in fact uncover qualitive differences. In my opinion the question of radicality has been a much ignored topic and it is possible to make discoveries that also may point the way or set standards for other fields of astrology.

Stick with it! It's a gift! :)
http://www.astronor.com

37
Gem said: I appreciate different approaches and do want to understand why you and Andrew think that
Quote:
radicality works for the favourite, who is not necessarily the ascendant!

Any help'll be greatly appreciated

Ficinia aks:
Andrew, any chance you could give your own explanation of this? Since my view is based on what you've always said, i.e. radicality supports the fave, non-radicality moves the result away from the faves, I'd be interested to hear your take on it. No obligation of course
Yes, I'll try...
From www.astronor.com/hours.htm
Aph. 12: Nothing can be performed without the assistance of the lord of the hour. If there is no relation between the lord of the hour and the sign ascending or its lord, the chart shows something out of tune and not working properly. It is like striking a dumb note on the celestial instrument. The querent may not have had a serious intention of proposing the question. According to the ancient stricture, the astrologer is more liable to plunge himself into difficulties and should examine whether the querent has the correct reasons for asking the question. An irregularity is in existence and the rules are not being followed. There could be a disturbing circumstance and the matter leads to unhappiness or unacceptance.
The non-radical chart is for the honky-tonk team, Ficina. Sure, you could still get away with playing the piano, but it would take an underdog to appreciate it.
http://www.astronor.com

38
This is what I wrote in another thread:
Radicality and AC are closely tied. Any election, event chart, AC is given to those who initiate action. If I start something when the time is not right(LOH and LOA not in agreement) then the project/enterprise or whatever I initiated won't be likely to go to my liking. In football event charts we haven't given AC to teams who kick off but if the AC is represented by underdogs and the chart is not radical, then the result isn't favourable for the AC. This is how I see it and I appreciate people seeing this differently
Ficina's way of looking at it:
If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins. Obviously other testimonies (if any) then have to be considered. If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win. It may be a draw or underdogs win
My replies:
Most of the time though, we can't expect anything. What about the time when either side is not clear favourite?

Quote:
If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins.... If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win.

This is all viewed from faves' perspectives ( chart being identified with faves). It makes sense only if the AC is given to faves.
I quoted above so that we can continue the discussion here because I agree with Ficina when she said:
I think this radicality idea is still in the experimental stages.

39
I agree with Ficina when she said:
Quote:
I think this radicality idea is still in the experimental stages.

:D Sure! All my best thinking was done over 20 years ago and everything I have done in the mean time could be wrong. Whatever I have got on the website is only 13 years old and I don't mind waiting another 20 years to see if any of it makes any sense.

It's alright, Gem! I'm only pulling your leg! :)
http://www.astronor.com

40
Andrew
I quoted Ficina's comment because that exactly expressed where I'm at right now regarding using radicality in football charts: an experimental stage.
From the way you read charts, it's obvious that you're really versed in using it; it's part of your style, well-integrated :)

41
I'd be very interested to know what the stats look like so far. You've been using radicality in your analysis of these charts for much longer than the rest of us, Andrew. What do your records show?

Your basic premise is radicality supports the faves, non-radicality doesn't. Obviously other factors then have to be taken into consideration, but I'm just wondering whether the numbers show that radical = faves win, non-radical = faves don't win.

42
Andrew
I'd be interested to read your reply to Ficina too.

I read your reply to my question over and over but it's still too cryptic for me:
The non-radical chart is for the honky-tonk team, Ficina. Sure, you could still get away with playing the piano, but it would take an underdog to appreciate it.
One thing I have problem understanding is that why radicality is particulary associated with faves only, who are not 'necessarily AC'. What about the chart with underdogs on the AC with a radical chart?