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:
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hellenistic Astrology 2: Primary Chart Rulers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 445
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:


How often do members of this forum make disparaging remarks about modern astrology without appreciating (or caring) how offensive those comments can be to the astrologers who follow those techniques? (Iím talking about the Skyscript forum generally, BTW, not the traditional section in particular).

There is an ongoing tightrope in this forum between avoiding offensive posts, and discouraging passionate and earnest debate about controversial Ė but sometimes important Ė concerns.


I can think of a name in particular Confused , fortunately not anyone in this thread.

Quote:

... something I canít quite put my finger on, that reassures me that Iím not alone in feeling suffocated by some aspects of the modern analysis of Hellenistic technique. This is not something that I experience when I read the actual texts or primary sources, and it does not detract from my own genuine interest in ancient and classical astrology.


There probably are issues to how the Project Hindsight people are interpreting the material, but I don't think we are going to be able to give it a fair listening until they manage to bring it all out, the translations and commentaries, etc.

Reading the source material usually gives me brain bleed. Sick But I guess that comes from being in a culture where reading is a penance and not a joy.
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3201
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think that may have been Kirk's point too, although he expressed it differently. His comments were perhaps disrespectful of the Hellenistic approach to astrology, but not necessarily of the work of Astrojin.


This is a distinction without a difference. Astrojin put a good deal of time and made a significant effort to place valid information about Hellenistic astrology on the thread. The implication of Kirk's post is that the subject is hopeless so the work is hopeless. That's personal. If a reader doesn't care for Greek astrology, move on. We would not be so understanding of a skeptic who came here, and used the same words about all astrology. We would correctly ask what he or she was doing here.

There are all sorts of viewpoints on Skyscript on a variety of topics and there is the unlimited opportunity to start our own topic, if none of the above suit us. If Kirk's post has any merit, it belongs on it's own thread where it can be discussed in its own context, and it can stand or fall on its own merits. Using it in astrojin's thread was out of line.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rodd



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 31
Location: Brasil

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject


Quote:
Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject


Quote:
Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject


And finally

Quote:
Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject.



Let the "geniuses" with their nonsense astrology. i am tired of that...
_________________
Rodolfo Veronese, CMA.
http://www.astrosphera.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 447

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you all for your support!

I shall ignore all the negative remarks and just keep posting.

Next post is on the "Hellenistic" meanings of the planets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Igor



Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:08 am    Post subject: Re: Hellenistic Astrology 2: Primary Chart Rulers Reply with quote

Thank you a lot, Astrojin!

I just would like to make a few corrections to your example of Hitler's chart:

astrojin wrote:

Chart of Hitler [Diurnal chart, Sun in Tau in 8th house, Moon in Cap in 3rd house, Asc in Lib].

Moon is actually in the 4th house (whole-sign system).

astrojin wrote:

Kurios

Candidates:
1. No planets in the bounds of the ascending degree.
2. Asc is in Libra, domicile lord of ascendant is Venus
3. Moon is in Capricorn, domicile lord is Saturn
4. MC in Sagittarius, domicile lord is Jupiter


Item 4. I heard Schmidt's lecture (Baltimore, NCGR 2007), and he explained that at step 4 we should consider the domicile lord of the 10th sign from Ascendent, which is not necessarily the domicile lord of MC in the whole-sign system. And this is true for this case, in Hitler's chart: the domicile lord of 10th house is Moon. That is, of coure, unless Schmidt changed his mind since last year :) At least Hindsight software (Delphi Oracle) still calculates item 4 by this method.

I just recommended your instructions to one friend of mine, and while checking the example with Hitler's chart, he brought my attention to these small mistypes. Overall, though, I believe your work has been incredibly useful to my friend and those who are interested in Hellinistic astrology. Thank you very much!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 447

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To Igor for the repsonses!

Your quote:
Quote:
Moon is actually in the 4th house (whole-sign system).


Yes, you are correct! I plotted the chart in Prophyry and didn't count the whole signs correctly!

Your quote:
Quote:
we should consider the domicile lord of the 10th sign from Ascendent, which is not necessarily the domicile lord of MC in the whole-sign system


Yes, it is the tenth sign from the ascendant and not MC calculated as via the modern way... but I suggest looking both ways [just in case]. I rarely use Kurios in my own practice so I can't really comment on the difference between tenth sign and MC sign in practice... though I suspect it should give a significant difference. For example, in determining the profession signifier (more medieval than hellenistic), I look to both tenth sign and MC but thank you for pointing out the differences. I like to be pointed out
when I am at variance with the authorities...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gem



Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 953

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Astrojin
Re: Fortuna
Do you use reversed or unreversed formula?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 447

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Gem,

If reversed Fortuna is the one where different formulae are used for different chart sect (day/night), then yes - I am using the reversed Fortuna.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I apologize to Astrojin for the way I went about my post. Once I started writing I left Astrojin far behind in my mind and could only see the uncomfortable matching of ancient astrology and modern minds. I was not addressing or thinking of any particular individual. Unfortunately, I was not only interrupting a thread, but I gave the impression that I was criticizing one particular individual -- a person who has given so much and whose posts are one of the reasons I've been a regular here. Astrojin gives freely, and such people especially deserve our respect. I believe the ideas I was trying to express are worthy; the way I went about it by hijacking Astrojin's thread was unworthy in the extreme. I am sorry for having acted with such rudeness and disrespect.

I'm afraid I've interrupted the thread again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 447

Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To Kirk,

Thank you for interupting. I am pretty sure you have more to contribute. Please contribute more! I also apologize for being too sensitive!

PS: I didn't write my own opinions about hellenistic astrology in those threads simply because I didn't want to mix personal opinions into my dissemination of information on techniques used by modern hellenistic astrology. You'll find that I myself do not agree with a number of the so called hellenistic astrology premises (or interpretations of hellenistic texts by the few who monopolizes it). I hope that those who have studied hellenistic materials (I certainly have not studied all of them) would come forward to comment and give their "versions" of hellenistic astrology as they understood it.

So sasha_i, you should (no, you must) contribute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rodd



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 31
Location: Brasil

Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I didn't write my own opinions about hellenistic astrology in those threads simply because I didn't want to mix personal opinions into my dissemination of information on techniques used by modern hellenistic astrology


I am not an Helenistic's follower, instead I have the same opinion as Astrojin's. My wish is only to know what has been produced in the Hellenistic Track - to test in my practice!
_________________
Rodolfo Veronese, CMA.
http://www.astrosphera.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 659
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:35 am    Post subject: Re: Hellenistic Astrology 2: Primary Chart Rulers Reply with quote

Igor wrote:
Item 4. I heard Schmidt's lecture (Baltimore, NCGR 2007), and he explained that at step 4 we should consider the domicile lord of the 10th sign from Ascendent, which is not necessarily the domicile lord of MC in the whole-sign system. And this is true for this case, in Hitler's chart: the domicile lord of 10th house is Moon. That is, of coure, unless Schmidt changed his mind since last year Smile At least Hindsight software (Delphi Oracle) still calculates item 4 by this method.


Yes, that is right. There are a couple of things I'd like to add here... If a planet is in the same boundaries as the ascending degree, then the domicile lord is not considered. Bob Schmidt says that this is because there can be only one first officer. What does one do when there is more than 1 planet in the bounds of the ascending degree? Don't know, but I'd assume the one closest to the ascendant is the one that has his hands on the helm (the ascendant was called the helm - "oiax" in Greek).

Also if there is a planet that has authority over many of these places (say Venus is domicile lord of fortune and the ascendant, then that officer is said to have more experience and is more fit to take on the captains chair. According to Rhetorius this is one of the most difficult judgments to make, but one is supposed to find that planet that is "more in a rising condition" and "the one that lies prior". Schmidt says that the 7 planets compete for the position of Kurios, so if during the role call, any planet is found to be walking backwards (retrograde) it is very likely rejected as a fit officer. He also says that there is a composite concept from the PNA where the planet needs to be able to "get up" which means that it should ideally be direct and visible (not under the Sun's beams) in order to be considered a candidate.

The point of determining the Kurios is to see what planet is responsible for carrying out the orders of the oikodespotes. If these 2 planets are of the same sect (political party as Schmidt would say) and are in agreement and especially if they are the same planet, then that ship has the potential to go far in life. But if they are at odds, then there is mutiny and chaos.

This determination though is meant to come later. First you find the destination of the boat (political officer) aka "oikodespotes" which is the domicile lord of the one that "summons the wind" (for the boat so that it has the power to reach its destination). [1]

I wrote Delphic Oracle based upon Schmidt's ideas, but I have always had my own company separate and distinct from Project Hindsight (Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC).

1. Schmidt says that the sect light "summons the wind" and the trigon lords of the sect light (aka "sail masters") "manage the wind".
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Igor



Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Hellenistic Astrology 2: Primary Chart Rulers Reply with quote

Thank you!

zoidsoft wrote:
He also says that there is a composite concept from the PNA where the planet needs to be able to "get up" which means that it should ideally be direct and visible (not under the Sun's beams) in order to be considered a candidate.


Just want to ask one thing more to be sure. Does being visible mean not to be under the Sun's beams only or the planet should be above the horizon as well?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 659
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Hellenistic Astrology 2: Primary Chart Rulers Reply with quote

Igor wrote:
Thank you!

zoidsoft wrote:
He also says that there is a composite concept from the PNA where the planet needs to be able to "get up" which means that it should ideally be direct and visible (not under the Sun's beams) in order to be considered a candidate.


Just want to ask one thing more to be sure. Does being visible mean not to be under the Sun's beams only or the planet should be above the horizon as well?


That's a good point. It doesn't need to be above the horizon, just far enough away from the Sun to be visible. I seem to recall that Ptolemy thought only planets above the horizon could have any effect, but I don't remember the passage. Astrologers don't go by this though. Ptolemy wasn't an astrologer, but a philosopher who constructed a theory of how the world worked.

Robert Schmidt says that the PNA table at the level of fitness of a planet is built upon a composite concept of "permission and control" because of the word "kentron" which in the Greek lexicon indicates a pivot upon which something revolves around such as a hinge. He says that a door hinge does 2 things: it permits motion, but at the same time controls it. So he believes that the fitness of a planet depends upon whether it has permission to do something and whether its action is controlled.

At the planetary level, a planet is permitted action when it is visible, but it is in control when it is direct in motion. When retrograde a planet tends to stumble and not have control. So for optimal fitness a planet should be both direct and visible.

At the terrestrial level (the houses) a planet is fit if it is angular or succeedent. Again the greek word for angle is "kentron" so this angle is again a hinge that both permits action and controls it. The succeedent signs are called "epi-kentron" or "epinaphora" and are like the epicycle upon a deferent in medieval astrology that initially deflect the action away from the native but bring it back under control through the diurnal motion to the angle. But the cadent places are called "apoklima" which in the hinge motion deflect away and hinder. Schmidt says that this is one of the reasons why it is good to have a malefic in a cadent sign, because the actions of the malefic are deflected away from the native.

Schmidt says that at the zodiacal level there is again fitness that is an analog of "permission and control". When a planet is in one of it's own places, it has it's own resources and obviously has no need to ask permission, so it can use it's own resources to effect what it wants to. As an analog of the succeedent signs, at the zodiacal level, there is the concept of "being in the place of a sect mate", which is an intermediate level of fitness where the planet does not have its own resources available but has permission to use the significations of the sect mate, but a planet in an alien place "peregrine" can only affect the things of the domicile, it can't use them to effect it's own agenda because it doesn't have permission. Now the control factor he says is through the terms (Schmidt calls them bounds, confines, limits) of the sign, because he says that the resources of the sign belong to the domicile, but how they are used have to do with the terms/bounds under which planet it is in. So optimally, a planet should be in its own domicile or exaltation, but be in the terms of a planet friendly to its cause so that it is controlled in a favorable way.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 447

Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Zoidsoft,

Thank you for making that clearer.

Quote:
I seem to recall that Ptolemy thought only planets above the horizon could have any effect, but I don't remember the passage.


Yeah... I think I recall somebody who said that in ancient times (when the stars lie on the sky and not in front of the desktop!), the effects of a planet are made "visible" if the planet itself is "visible". If I am permitted to extrapolate and summarize on what others (including) have said, visibility (like PNA or Preliminary Natal Analysis) are also divided into 3 levels:

1) Visibility relative to the horizon i.e. whether a star/planet can be seen on the night sky. Here, I think the ancients could not have taken only at the exact time of birth as all stars and planets are not visible in the day sky (except Sun - well, sometimes the moon). Hence, if you are born at night (where all planets except sun have the possibilty of being visible), the planets that are visible have more impact on you. If you are born during the day then you look to the visibility of the stars/planets the night before (as most ancient cultures started the day at sunset).

2) Visibility relative to the sun i.e. any planets that are not under the sun's beams are considered visible. However, if you adhere to the first consideration of visibility, then this is redundant.

3) Visibility relative to zodiacal position i.e. planets in its own domicile, exaltation or terms (bounds) are made more conspicuous. Planets in peregrine are made less conspicuous. Planets in fall are made invisible because they are in a pit (depression).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
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