Klaus Signs Lisbon - Moon Void of Course ?

1
Dear Astrologers

First a quick note to introduce myself and say hello, my name is Anthony from England. I have only been studying Astrology formally for about a year but have been interested in all branches of the art for ages and it always gives me a "wow" and a "gosh" feeling.

I was 'playing' with an Astrology program and entered the details of the signing of the Lisbon Treaty by Vaclav Klaus, as reported by The Daily Telegraph in the UK.

http://tinyurl.com/yjb5d4v

http://i34.tinypic.com/ae5iiq.jpg

Now I do not profess to be an astrologer of much experience/knowledge/understanding but I did notice that various considerations pointed to it not being the best time for finalising the treaty, Mercury aspecting a malefic (Mars by square), Saturn conjunct Descendant (and in the 7th) and the Moon being VOC. Or rather Moon was VOC until I noticed that the program gave the ability to calculate VOC three different ways, Modern, Traditional or Lilly.

Since only Traditional gave the Moon as VOC I was wondering if people think the Moon was actually VOC and if it was, if it augers well for the new Europe?

Anthony

2
Hi Anthony,
This is just the sort of charts we are looking for and it is good to have it on record. The Moon does not appear to be VOC since it applies to Uranus and Neptune. However, you make a good point in the traditional context. Classics suggest that the Moon may be VOC yet still perform from the signs of the benefics. Maybe the benefic disposition offers a kind of security and matters leaning towards the better. 'Nothing to worry about'. Maybe someone else has some ideas on the significance of this agreement and measures that may follow. Is that the Moon on the antiscia of Mars I can see there? :'
http://www.astronor.com

3
The Moon does not appear to be VOC since it applies to Uranus and Neptune.
I've decided I can't sit quietly with this one. The historical and philosophical foundation of astrology is the visual impact of the sky and its relation to life on Earth. Since the VoC Moon is related to the transfer of light how could Uranus and Neptune be factors in determining VoC when they are invisible to us? Each visible fixed star of the night sky has more easily observable light than the outer planets. Their effect is visual and much more immediately present than the invisible outers, so in that sense the fixed stars would be better candidates for inclusion. Using especially the fixed stars located near the ecliptic makes more sense (sort of) than using hidden invisible bodies that have been scientifically classified as planets. The outer planets have been added to the traditional visible planets through a more removed and detached observation requiring necessary equipment. We don't see them, but the experts tell us they are there. Common, everyday, garden-variety humanity can look up at and point to the Sun, Moon and planets (the more gifted ones will find Mercury). Academically trained scientists discover the new planets and tell us where to find them. If we can escape the power over us produced by the respected word 'planet' (a nearly sacred word for astrologers) and look up at the parts of the sky where we are told the outer planets are located, our staring at empty spaces might clue us in on their inability to take part in the Moon's contacts on the same level as the visible planets and Sun.

4
I've decided I can't sit quietly with this one. The historical and philosophical foundation of astrology is the visual impact of the sky and its relation to life on Earth. Since the VoC Moon is related to the transfer of light how could Uranus and Neptune be factors in determining VoC when they are invisible to us?
This is because the outer planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have been given a role in the order of rulership of signs, Kirk. I do think, however, this is a good question.
http://www.astronor.com

5
This is because the outer planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have been given a role in the order of rulership of signs . . .
Hi Andrew,

You've surprised me. I assumed somewhere along the way that you acknowledged only the traditional planets as sign rulers in the scheme of essential dignities. Since you say that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto respectively rule Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio, I can try to imagine why you might think that they can contribute toward determining the VoC Moon. But I sure can't agree with it. It involves giving the Moon the complicated task of translating the light from planets that are both visible and invisible, and passing the apple and orange mixture on to us here below where the action is.

6
You've got me on that one, Kirk. 8)

Returning to the essense of Anthony's original post where the condition of the Moon is debated, does a VOC Moon indicate moving into foreign and unknown ground? In which case this has a slight outer-planetary twang about it in any case. Does the Moon serve it's purpose and perform from Taurus, the sign of Venus, and where it itself is exalted? Is the treaty subject to be traded or modified as the Moon is directed to the aspects of Uranus and Neptune, or is it replaced as the Moon is directed to Gemini.

Really, in what way this chart works is an interesting question.
Link: Treaty of Lisbon
http://www.astronor.com