16
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? (I?m 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 ? but sometimes important ? concerns.
I can think of a name in particular :???: , fortunately not anyone in this thread.
... something I can?t quite put my finger on, that reassures me that I?m 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. :-sk But I guess that comes from being in a culture where reading is a penance and not a joy.
Gabe

17
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

18
Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject
Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject
Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject
And finally
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

Re: Hellenistic Astrology 2: Primary Chart Rulers

20
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!

21
To Igor for the repsonses!

Your 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:
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...

24
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.

25
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.

26
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

Re: Hellenistic Astrology 2: Primary Chart Rulers

27
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 :) 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