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:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Moon phases and temperament
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stone



Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: Moon phases and temperament Reply with quote

I'd like to ask, what moon phase to what of the four temperaments correspond. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:40 pm    Post subject: Qualities of Moon phases Reply with quote

From conjunction to 1st square she is moist and warm but mostly moist. Next from square to opposition increasing moisture and heat.Opp to 2nd sq increasing moist and heat but mostly heat.Lastly moderately dry and very cold.
from Ghayat al-Hakim

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ficina
Member


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 1807
Location: Kent, England

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Lilly:

New to 1st quarter - hot & moist (sanguine)
1st quarter to full - hot & dry (choleric)
Full to last quarter - cold & dry (melancholic)
Last quarter to new - cold & moist (phlegmatic)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

New Moon to First Quarter: cold and wet (Ptolemy), hot and wet (Lilly)
First Quarter to Full Moon: hot and wet (Ptolemy), hot and dry (Lilly)
Full Moon to Last Quarter: hot and dry (Ptolemy), cold and dry (Lilly)
Last Quarter to New Moon: cold and dry (Ptolemy), cold and wet (Lilly)

See:

http://www.astrologyinstitute.com/Articles/cycles.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ficina
Member


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 1807
Location: Kent, England

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting article, Andrew, though I'm not sure that I agree with Crane's argument for starting at the winter solstice, as per Ptolemy, rather than the spring equinox.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stone



Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks you for your replies.
For now I prefer Ptolemy's method as it seems more logical to me: the new moon whose surface is under no sun beams is cold and wet, first quarter is still wet, but hotter, then the moon goes dry at the full moon phase when it is still hot, then it starts to become colder.

If I recall correctly, I read Lilly himself is not certain of his method. Do you have any observations which one is closer to the truth - Lilly's or Ptolemy's, and which one do you prefer?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ptolemy's reasons for the elemental makeup of the planets is muddled (See Tetrabiblos I chapter 4 in Robbins). He claims the effect of the Sun is heating and to a certain degree drying. Then he says the Moon humidifies because it is close to the earth, but when the Moon and the Sun are conjunct the effect is cold and moist as though the power of the Moon overtakes the power of the Sun. Then the further the Moon is removed from the Sun the warmer it gets. This makes little sense to me. I'd stick with Lilly.

Tom

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



Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe Ptolemy has in mind only the visible side of the moon?
On the other hand, I see the change of distance between Sun and Moon (as the Moon rotates around the Earth) as too small to be sensible difference between hot and cold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, to quote Dorian Greenbaum (Temperament, p. 81):

Quote:
While Ptolemy talks about increasing wetness between New Moon and First Quarter, he specifically does not say that the New Moon is wet; it is at the Emergence phase that wet begins to increase. Therefore, as Robert Hand points out in his note in the Schmidt translation of the Tetrabiblos, the New Moon must be cold, not wet.


As Hand states in his note to the Tetrabiblos, Book I, p. 19:

Quote:
We have here not four boxes containing qualities but four phases in the continuous ebb and flow of the four qualities.


Does the power of the Moon overtakes the power of the Sun? Sir Harold Spencer Jones writes in General Astronomy, p. 111:

Quote:
When the Moon overtakes the Sun it is said to be in conjunction. This occurs when the longitudes of the Sun and Moon are equal.


K. S. Charak in Elements of Vedic Astrology writes much the same.

See for example:

http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Astronomy/Rahu.html

Ptolemy may have had eclipses on his mind.

But I too would stick with Lilly. As well as with Al Biruni, Ibn Ezra, Bonatti, Dariot, and Schoener.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Stone



Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is the Greenbaum's method I used to determine the temperament of a person I know. Her temperament is Melancholic and psychological tests confirm this. (As we know, in reality there are no pure temperaments - a person has one primary temperament mixed with the others in different correlation.)
With Greenbaum's method, she gets 0 points Choleric, 5 points Sanguine, 3 points Melancholic and 2 points Phlegmatic. Which isn't the truth. Also, she has more choleric than sanguine qualities. Greenbaum's method doesn't work with my friend. On the other hand, it works fine with me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Greenbaum's method doesn't work with my friend. On the other hand, it works fine with me.


I think her method is an inspired attempt at simplification and systematization. I see it as a work-in-progress rather than a definitive and final view.

I also think that temperament is confused with manners. Temperament is character, sufficient unto itself, but manners is personality; it is essentially expressed in relation to other people. Character is who you are, personality is how you behave, and what others see (or think they see) of you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Stone



Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew wrote:
I also think that temperament is confused with manners. Temperament is character, sufficient unto itself, but manners is personality; it is essentially expressed in relation to other people. Character is who you are, personality is how you behave, and what others see (or think they see) of you.


Agree. That's why, if one is going to compare real vs. predicted temperament, one needs to use a psychological test; personal observations are not enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I also think that temperament is confused with manners. Temperament is character, sufficient unto itself, but manners is personality;


Exactly and this is a common mistake. A couple examples. The volatile John McEnroe is sanguine, the explosive warrior George S. Patton is sanguine/melancholic. Some people exhibit their temperament and others do not.

No one claims 100% reliability with any temperament method. Sometimes it just doesn't work, but we also need to keep in mind that temperament is a very broad brush. Phlegmatics have flashes of hot temper now and again, and cholerics can have a soft side. A sanguine melancholic like Patton is clearly not sanguine or melancholic all of the time. And Dorian also points out that age matters. We all lose some choler as we age.


Quote:
With Greenbaum's method, she gets 0 points Choleric, 5 points Sanguine, 3 points Melancholic and 2 points Phlegmatic.


What is missing is also interesting. How does the native, in this case, compensate for the lack of choler in her life? An astrological analysis would take that into consideration as well as any point system.

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


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read Greenbaum's book so I understand the traditional approach to the Moon quarters in natal analysis.

Nevertheless, I am still wondering how to reconcile this with combustion? It seems in regards natal analysis the waxing quarters are heating and the waning quarters are cooling. This is based on the increasing/decreasing light of the Moon. However, in the concept of combustion we talk about all planets (including the Moon) being burned up by the heat of the Sun. On that basis why is not the waning phase heating the waxing phase cooling? If the Moon is essentially cool and wet surely it is better able to manifest this nature the further it is from the Sun?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sasha_i



Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 288
Location: Bucuresti

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Nevertheless, I am still wondering how to reconcile this with combustion? It seems in regards natal analysis the waxing quarters are heating and the waning quarters are cooling. This is based on the increasing/decreasing light of the Moon. However, in the concept of combustion we talk about all planets (including the Moon) being burned up by the heat of the Sun. On that basis why is not the waning phase heating the waxing phase cooling?



Iíll try an explanation for this. Hope it will be at least pertinent.

The light comes manly from Sun, and when acts in the material world generates the elements. The quantity of light is maximum in fire, then comes air, little in water (thatís way we generally are surprised in a benefic sense when the water of a lake is clear), the least permeable being earth. The elements by their material nature are deprived from heat of the light which comes only from the celestial sphere: first from the Sun, second from the Moon, and then from the rest of the planets.
Now from their movement and configurations, planets determine different variations of the qualities (this elements suggest me that we can talk about elements only in the sublunary sphere. To talk about the quality of a planet in my opinion is confusing, and according to the theory of elements wrong. Anyway this is another discussion).
Taking our case, when Moon is waning she is deprived little by little from the light of the Sun, so she gets cooler.
This is the first part.
The second one concerns another aspect of the relation between planets and Sun. When combust, the planets loose (maybe itís not quite the right word) not only the capacity to transmit on its own the light received from Sun but loose also some of its power (so a modification in the virtue but also in power). So, Sun burns the planet in the sense that blocks and controls the virtue and power of that planet (in this context in my opinion is hard to tell that Sun should heat the Moon when combust, and that the virtue of Moon should be influenced in the sense of an increasing of heat. This is not correct in the logic of the system, in my opinion, because the Moon is also deprived from the ability to control its virtue, is in some way at the mercy of Sun). The process was described by some ancient authors like a process of purification.
I hope I was at least intelligible.
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 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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