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:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
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

Lots combust?
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
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivia wrote:
And putting all that into the context of a chart that belongs to a living, breathing person is the challenge of it all.


Valens texts are sparse on delineation but long on technique: they would do a lot of work just to say a few things with relative certainty.

If Venus and the lot are in the 12th (for example) then, the issue of marriage is already negatively affected due to cadency and the chart is not chrematistikos (telling / busy) for the determination of marriage which I would take to mean that marriage is not amongst the portions handed out by fate so to speak. Take chrematistikos to mean that the planets are not speaking it, therefore it doesn't happen because there was no incantation. The other major factor to consider here is since Venus and the lot are hidden in the glare of the Sun, none of the other planets can make any statements about what is going on (they could not witness it) and therefore when the question comes before the courtroom of the cosmic soul, all one hears is silence, unless Venus can somehow do it on her own through awareness of the presence of that daimon near her.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:

I honestly don't think anyone has a comfortable working relationship with combustion. I think they are glossing over the inconsistencies and contradictions...


If you believe what Schmidt said, then the material has since disappeared and been misunderstood since the founding. Definition 15 of Antiochus is the most important definition:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5787&start=15

If you get blinded by the glare, head for Exit 30...

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/sitemap.html
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
librafeng2010



Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 9
Location: china

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
I think people are conflating 2 different issues here. There is the issue of a planet being combust which is burning and then there is the issue of visibility which also has to do with how close it is to the Sun.

In most medieval texts there is a difference in range between being under the beams or "invisible" (usually 15) and being burned (usually 8 ) and this might have something to do with the difference. Theoretically a planet is doing several things and chief among them are providing testimony and witnessing. A lot is not quite an entity (like a theos), it is a bit like a disembodied spirit that was never a person. It doesn't have self awareness but it does have being. Planets are thought to have self awareness and therefore they can provide testimony and through sight they are able to witness. Lots do not have the power of sight so lots do not witness for other lots nor can they be a representative of a given house or an ambassador to others because they don't have self awareness. Lots are disembodied powers of the planets that have fallen to earth and their being is thought to be seen by other self aware entities so that they can be made manifest through incantation. However, a planet or a lot can be affected by visibility conditions and just as Olivia might be sitting towards the west at sunset in the glare, both planets and lots can become invisible. The lot is in the glare and Venus is not burned (because of the covered chariot concept), but Venus is also in the glare. This affects their ability to be seen and therefore it breaks down the testimony / witnessing that make things happen. Remember that these concepts were thought of during a time when magical incantation was enough to make something happen; speak it and it becomes so. In Genesis, it says that God told man to name all of the other animals in the field so that he could have dominion over them. This is part of the magical incantation idea and it is also why in Jewish tradition God's name is never spoken and the vowels are left out of YHVH, lest man to have dominion over God.

Venus can not see the lot through the glare but technically would not need to because a co-presence is not an "aspect" where the power of sight is involved. In other words your eyes can't pop out of your head so you can see yourself (you'd need a mirror), but planets in the same sign can "feel" each other. Venus would not need to provide testimony because being in her own places, she can effect from her own significations, but she still needs to know that its present in order to affect from her own significations. Some of this comes from Schmidt's ways of thinking about this subject, but he never put it together in quite this way.


Thank you Mr zoidsoft for your posts,very illuminating!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3903
Location: England

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kirk wrote:
I honestly don't think anyone has a comfortable working relationship with combustion. I think they are glossing over the inconsistencies and contradictions.


I have pretty much ceased contributing to the combustion threads because I've made my points clear enough so many times in the past - but I can only say (in honesty) that I feel very comfortable about the notion of combustion. In fact it is pivotal to my understanding of astrology - and my argument is that the synodic cycles and phases, and these kinds of planetary interactions generate a great deal of ancient, traditional and modern astrological principles.

But students often experience confusion over combustion because they don’t properly understand the deeper philosophy behind it. And they think that a combust planet has to be powerless when it is more about reduction of expressed influence. Curtis has made some good points lately, and I wish he would take more credit for the way that his own mind is articulating these ancient and fairly universal ideas so elegantly.

It’s not about the Sun receiving messages back and ‘getting news’; it’s about the Sun illuminating the whole scheme, and its creativity being required to activate the other planetary virtues. I don’t think it is possible to ‘half-explain’ this, so I try to get over to students from the start that they shouldn’t think about there being 7 traditional planets which are all equal in contribution and importance. Astrology begins with the Sun, and astrology has always been ‘heliocentric’ in referring to the Sun as the heart, focus or centre of the scheme, (occupying the central sphere, and acting like a king and leader to the other planets). The Moon is the distributor, and the two luminaries act as controlling agents on the other planets.

I think that is true in any form of astrology but I don’t want to try to half-explain something here – just pointing out that Kirk’s comment is probably a testimony to his own discomfort about this issue, but I know many astrologers who feel differently.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But this is on offer right here at Skyscript:

"The conjunction of the Sun and Saturn produces self-control and reserve, irrespective of other indications in your chart. The characteristics of the Sun are restrained, becoming less enthusiastic, more cautious."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sunaspects.html#sucsa

How can this be if the Sun is so strong? That's all I'm asking. And no one is telling me why. I see more and more that no one is able to tell me why.

In the quoted example from this site it sounds like Saturn is telling the Sun something and the Sun is taking it to heart. The Sun can be influenced and subdued. But we already knew that because that Sun has its signs of fall and detriment and the Sun has to sink beneath the earth for a few hours each day. So let's realistically apply that to the Sun's relationship to the planets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
But this is on offer right here at Skyscript:

"The conjunction of the Sun and Saturn produces self-control and reserve, irrespective of other indications in your chart. The characteristics of the Sun are restrained, becoming less enthusiastic, more cautious."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sunaspects.html#sucsa

How can this be if the Sun is so strong? That's all I'm asking. And no one is telling me why. I see more and more that no one is able to tell me why.

In the quoted example from this site it sounds like Saturn is telling the Sun something and the Sun is taking it to heart. The Sun can be influenced and subdued. But we already knew that because that Sun has its signs of fall and detriment and the Sun has to sink beneath the earth for a few hours each day. So let's realistically apply that to the Sun's relationship to the planets.


I would take this to be closer to the truth if the Sun were conjunct Saturn in Libra, Capricorn or Aquarius, but not Aries, Cancer or Leo where the light is stronger than the darkness.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3903
Location: England

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How can this be if the Sun is so strong? That's all I'm asking. And no one is telling me why. I see more and more that no one is able to tell me why.


Why wouldn't the Sun receive an influence from Saturn, or any other planet, in its union? If the ocean reclaims land doesn't the ocean absorb and diffuse the elements of that land? But the Saturn influence is brought into the expression of the Sun; for example we wouldn't say 'your Saturnine qualities are your points of self-expressive brilliance' as we might if Saturn were strong and dignified and receiving the trine of the Sun.

I didn't read the link you gave by the way. It's not my work and I don't claim to agree with all the published views on this site (I'm happy enough to find a few I agree with sometimes Smile ).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would take this to be closer to the truth if the Sun were conjunct Saturn in Libra, Capricorn or Aquarius, but not Aries, Cancer or Leo where the light is stronger than the darkness.


Yes, that makes sense! Especially in a diurnal chart where the Sun gets an extra boost. Cancer is surprising since it's a cold, wet, nocturnal sign where the Sun is peregrine. The Sun in Cancer is far north of the equator up north, but that doesn't work for the folks down south of the equator, so it tends to be hemisphere specific. I need to think about that one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:

Quote:
Why wouldn't the Sun receive an influence from Saturn, or any other planet, in its union?


I don't know see how this fits in with this statement from your previous post:

Quote:
It’s not about the Sun receiving messages back and ‘getting news’; it’s about the Sun illuminating the whole scheme, and its creativity being required to activate the other planetary virtues.


It appears to be not simply a question of whether the Sun is all-powerful, but whether it can or can not 'receive'. I'm sorry, but I detect some uncertainty on your part. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But I may be wrong. I will think about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember one person with the Sun in early Virgo and Saturn in Late Leo under the beams, Saturn conjunct Leo ascendant to the degree. It makes for chameleons because one of Saturn's significations is "feigned appearance" (appearing to be something you're not). Even though it is not visible (sort of like feigned appearance) it is in a phasis state because it will have a heliacal rising within 7 days. If a planet is close to that 15 degree range of the Sun's position where it is about to go from visible to invisible or about to make first appearance, this is a phasis "an appearance that speaks" as Schmidt would say. A planet can be more powerful in this state because it grabs attention. It does so because a first appearance grabs attention (stronger - like when a student late for class enters the classroom and everybody turns to see the interruption) or when going into the beams (weaker), it is furiously active before death.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But you're taking us in a different direction! We're leaving combustion. Some may applaud the move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
The Sun in Cancer is far north of the equator up north, but that doesn't work for the folks down south of the equator, so it tends to be hemisphere specific. I need to think about that one.


Remember it's not just about the Sun, it has to do with Saturn's strength as well. Saturn is in fall in Aries, in detriment in Leo and Cancer, but Saturn is in it's covered chariot in Libra, Capricorn or Aquarius where it is protected from sunburn, so it can effect from its own significations, restraint being one of them. This is why I said to look to see if Saturn was in its own bounds earlier.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh right (he slaps his head). Saturn in detriment in Cancer. I didn't even think of that. I was only thinking of the Sun. Thank you. Smile

I'm signing off now for a while.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3903
Location: England

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kirk, if you are not still head-slapping, this may or may not help before I sign off too (from this thread, for all time …). The Sun generates and illuminates, but it also receives back. In medieval philosophy on the distribution and descent of celestial light, for example, celestial virtue is considered to be generated by the Sun and then expressed outwards to the planets, each of which has its own essential quality (largely deriving from its relationship to the Sun within the cosmic scheme as it centres upon the earth). So the celestial light that emanates from the Sun is characterised differently as it filters into the celestial influence of each planet. (Celestial light, BTW, is considered to be spiritually imbued and so penetrates into the planet and its body (orb), which is distinct from physical sunlight, which simply bounces off the surface).
This then creates the planetary virtues/influences which intermingle with each other and are brought to each by the focussing power of the Moon. This accepts that synodic conjunctions acts like creative cosmic recharges for planetary energies, and that the Sun acts in a centrally creative role. However, the Sun is still within the cosmic scheme and so not oblivious to the influences that are brought back to it. It’s all about the recycling and dispersion of energy, and it stands up within its own philosophical outlook because this derives from ancient astronomy and became the scientific worldview of medieval natural philosophers. It still holds up if you envisage the scheme from their outlook and world view, but there is obviously much more to this that I can begin to express here, which makes me reluctant to try to defend it outside of its own internal logic. But I do think this is something that astrologers have to get more informed about in order to understand the logic that is built into many other, dependent astrological schemes – the effects of combustion being only one small part of this.


By the way, this is only a minor point of disagreement that I have with Curtis but I don't personally subscribe to the notion of planets being protected from combustion or synodic effects within their own 'covered chariots'. A few ancient astrologers spoke about this prospect but many others didn't and it was clearly controversial. The sign rulerships and detriments, exaltations and falls, etc, are developed upon the principles of the synodic cycles, and the synodic cycles of the planets were the first point of astrology, established prior to the 12 sign zodiac. I just thought I would put this on record as I don't intend to contradict those who do accept and use this principle.
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