Mark wrote:

that's I understand the traditional method too

Shouldn't that be discussing traditional methods? The implication seems to be there is only one approach throughout the tradition. Is that really sustainable? For example, the use of so called 'profections' is clearly totally different in hellenistic and renaissance astrology.

Well obviously different authors can have their own way to follow these points. And as we discussed in a previous thread profections in Hellenistic astrology were based on whole sign system.

Still the method of prediction is based on the hierarchy Petr mentioned: chronocrators, directions, profections ( yearly, monthly and daily and solar returns and transits.

What is untrue to tradition is casting a profection without having before considered directions, or without the solar return.

Or transits on the radix....

I believe Petr (and me) were talking about this.

margherita

Hi all

So, doesn't all this imply that there first should be a method for determining planetary periods assigned to specific topics? Like the use of primary directions/progressions as used for indicating what planet takes over the times? Like the old way of using circumambulations/primaries?

For then, when you do the primaries for the 7 hylegial places, you could theoretically get up to 7 possible candidates who are the timelords for these 7 different topics.
You also could - and probably would - get one planet as a timelord for several of these topics. Which is - by the way - a very interesting way of investigating how one planet represents and indicates 'things' as per the topic it represents at the moment.

Then - after establishing this general timelord - other methods are used to specify the times, and/or the events taking place in that period. In primaries this sublord is the planet actually being aspected by the primary significator (or is it promissor?) - if memory serves correctly.

I don't - fully - agree with Margherita on profections.

Profections cannot say anything if we don't use solar returns

I've heard and seen Robert Zoller do really accurate predictions with profections based on the natal chart alone, without referring to the Solar return.

The strength of a lot of these time-lord procedures (including Zodiacal Releasing) is that they rely solely on the natal chart.

It (also) implies a new - hellenistic? - way of re-thinking the time-issue. What is time? What is time philosophically and astrologically?

To me there is a massive theoretical difference between things indicated by planets 'bumping into eachother' (factor A reaches factor B by aspect, which seems event-oriented) and planets 'handing over the times' to each other (which seems more proces-like).

Hello Hermes

Hermes wrote:Hi all

I don't - fully - agree with Margherita on profections.

Profections cannot say anything if we don't use solar returns

I've heard and seen Robert Zoller do really accurate predictions with profections based on the natal chart alone, without referring to the Solar return.

I have no doubt about Zoller's skill. I did not mean we cannot predict without solar return.

I just wanted to say that profections and solar returns should be compared, we should not cast one without the other.

margherita

Martin Gansten wrote:But this is not how Ptolemy says to use directions. Rather, you have one set of periods for each significator (the significator being selected depending on what area of life you are investigating). So on average, a period will be around 6? years.

Yes this is actually more correct, I was a bit sloppy yesterday. It means it's possible that there are 5 periods active at the same time. Would Ptolemy have meant that different planets can cancel eachother out or that they are active according to their character but on different fields like, profession, health etc.?

Zarathu wrote:In my opinion, you need some way to determine what to use our of the myriad of measurements, point, sensitive points, Trans-neptunians, asteroids, etc, ad infinitum.

the Cosmodyne or Astrodyne system

It's very true that modern astrologers have their methods of hierarchy too. I wonder how the Cosmodyne/Astrodyne system looks like. Can you give more explanation or a link?

I believe that every era has their proliferation of postition points and techniques. An all too extensive use of Arabic parts a millennium ago would be the same as using many asteroids in this century. I think that throughout all ages there have been astrologers who used too many and making their astrology possible to explain everything.

I think the main difficulty is, after having chosen a hierarchy or other set of criteria, to resist the temptation to abandon the criteria when it turns out that in hindsight the criteria would be contradictionary with the event.

As a clarification for what I mean, here an example. As it's just an illustration I don't mean to say that the following used techniques are the main approach while others would point out its in- or overcompleteness because of the absence of returns or profections or inclusion of modern planets etc. Imagine that a direction indicates a difficult period of Saturn, the progression a dominating difficult Mars. (And if you want, profections and modern planets promise hard times too in the example.) On the other side there's this pleasant Jupiter transit over Venus. With the hierarchy of techniques approach, one previously might conclude that the transit virtually will have no effect. However if it turns out that the native is sayt unemployed yet does have a good time, for example meeting a woman who later will be his wife, what to do then? It's tempting yet not consequent to ignore the higher ranked techniques wich indicate hard times in order to focus entirely on the transit and all in hindsight. How to deal with this?

Perhaps examples like this should be indicated as a 'love affair during wartime'. Or like Charlie Chaplin's 'Modern Times': a love affair against the background of the Great Depression and poverty. Maybe the transit could 'announce' or fall under the 'jurisdiction' of a future direction/progression etc which comes afterwards. This resembles somewhat to the bottom-up (as contrasted to the usual top-down) view which I discussed in my initial post of the thread.

Here I hope to clarify this with a graphic illustration. From left to right is the progress in time. 'N' is the natal chart which dominates throughout all life. The tops '^' of the next line are the directions, the first direction being a Saturn dominated direction, the next a Venus dominated direction. The line with the next '^' under it are the progressions, Mars in the first one, still under the Saturn direction and none under the next direction. The last line of '^' are the transits of Jupiter and later of Saturn. Below that line are the moments 'p' of prediction and of 'd' the discussion here in hindsight.

NNNNNNNNNNNNN
___^______^___
___S______V___
__^^^___^^^__
__Ma__________
^^^^^^^^^^^
_____J________S
p______d_______

With the knowledge at moment 'd' we might predict a marriage during the direction under Venus, something we might not have done at moment 'p'. And what to do with that Saturn transit at the end of the line? As I'm pretty modern, I don't think that Saturn is always 'evil'. Here it could indicate a long lasting relationship and the moment of deciding to marry. In this example it would mean that Saturn is under the jurisdiction of the direction dominated by Venus while Jupiter seems to have rebelled against the Saturn dominated direction. Unless the Saturn of that first period may have shown its good sides of steadiness. Flexibility is attractive on the one sied but makes concreteness difficult on the other side.

Eddy wrote:Yes this is actually more correct, I was a bit sloppy yesterday. It means it's possible that there are 5 periods active at the same time. Would Ptolemy have meant that different planets can cancel eachother out or that they are active according to their character but on different fields like, profession, health etc.?

As far as we can tell from his extremely brief text, the latter seems to be what Ptolemy meant. This is how he justifies the idea:

For thus it will come about that one beneficent or maleficent star will not be the ruler of all of them on the same occasion, for usually many contradictory events take place at the same time. One may, for example, lose a relative and receive an inheritance, or at once be prostrated by illness and gain some dignity and promotion, or in the midst of misfortune become the father of children, or have other experiences of this sort which are apt to occur. For it is not usual that alike in goodness or badness of body, one must by very necessity be either fortunate or, again, unfortunate in all these particulars. This, to be sure, might perhaps happen upon occasions that are completely blessed or completely unhappy, when the occourses of all the beneficent planets, or of all the maleficent planets, converge upon all or the majority of the prorogations. Rarely would this take place, however, because human nature is imperfectly adapted to either one of the extremes, but is inclined toward the balance of good and evil arising from their alternation.

Personally, I don't believe that things work quite as neatly as Ptolemy supposes (with the angles, luminaries and Lot of Fortune as the only possible significators); but it's a place to start.

Martin Gansten wrote:Personally, I don't believe that things work quite as neatly as Ptolemy supposes (with the angles, luminaries and Lot of Fortune as the only possible significators); but it's a place to start.

Ptolemy's approach seems like a attractive one to me, with more significators it's more difficult to discern between them. Here one can see the difference between the selecting and ranking? approach. At least I assume that you use some method Martin, to give more or less meaning to the different direction hits when many occur at the same time.

Eddy wrote:Ptolemy's approach seems like a attractive one to me, with more significators it's more difficult to discern between them. Here one can see the difference between the selecting and ranking? approach. At least I assume that you use some method Martin, to give more or less meaning to the different direction hits when many occur at the same time.

Absolutely; but in reality I think the importance of various chart factors depends to some extent on the individual radix. The ruler of the ascendant, or of the entire nativity (however that is defined), is more important in my book that any Lot.

Martin Gansten wrote:Absolutely; but in reality I think the importance of various chart factors depends to some extent on the individual radix.

Yes, I agree with that, the radix has priority, is highest in the hierarchy, and the chart factors subsequently affect the directions, transits etc.

Eddy, I am really impressed by your calculations!

I would like to focus on your comments that there is pretty much always an important transit or progression taking place, and that it can be difficult to make sense of all of our astro-impacts in any sensible way.

Maybe the resolution is more metaphysical than physical, however.

As in, what is the foundational meaning of, say, transiting Saturn square sun or progressed Mars square natal Mercury?

If we're on earth to learn various lessons through astrology, then a transit of Saturn to sun is an opportunity to ask how one can implement more of Saturn's positive meanings into one's sense of identity. Am I prepared for old age? How robust is my internal sense of self discipline and persevearance?

With a "hit" from Mars to Mercury, it's a good time to look at whether I know how to control my temper (Mars) when an argument (Mercury) starts brewing. Or maybe it would be a good time to join a martial arts (Mars) class (Mercury.)

Better yet, start the astro-regimen prior to the difficult transit, so that when it does hit, one's reinforcements are already in place.

It is a truism of modern astrology that if seemingly Big Transits pass by without much fooferaw, probably we have to some degree mastered the evolutionary goals that the planets represent. If we get T-boned by them, the discomfort is our wake-up call to incorporate more of the planets' positive meanings into our lives.

If we view transits and progressions as opportunities for growth, then we can look at them stoically.

And frankly, most transits are fine. Venus seems to confer a "have a nice day" smiley-button quality to her key times. Soak in the hot tub and eat more chocolate.

The idea that some tough aspect or other goes on a lot of the time seems consistent with a very realistic yet non-astrological view of life. $#*! happens. The question is whether we have developed a personality capable of taking it all in stride.

Hi all

Maybe the resolution is more metaphysical than physical, however.

Hmm, not quite sure about that.

One issue that is of critical importance here is the question what a specific planet is responsible for?
In most systems this is generally thought to be indicated by two things:
A) the universal significations of the planets
B) the local determination of the planets.

So the astrologer tries to figure out, what specific event is indicated whenever one sees 'Planet A bumping into Planet B'.
We all know how daunting this task is.

But the use of Timelords is quite different and has a logic that says that planets have different functions (different ministries to lead) that are handed over to them at different times.
So, suppose that Mars gets handed over the rulership of the natives physical condition, bodily stuff, etc. How? Well for instance because the Primary ascendant reaches the term of Mars.
This means that one of the primary accidental significations of Mars (ruling bodily topics as per the term of the primary ascendant).
When we then see Mars making an apperance in an angle via transit, this would imply something quite different as a possible result.

What I'm saying is, this (i.e. a timelord procedure) is a system working from the Bottom Up: you have a planet managing certain topics (for the time being, as a Timelord), that is the bottom line. And then you check the other things happening to this planet via other prognostic systems, or what the planet is doing itself.
But what you have is a bottomline relating to what this planet is about NOW (so not its universal determination - because that is used to delineate the general coloring of the topic now under rule of this planet - and neither its local topical determination).

All the other systems work Top down. 'Planet A bumps into Planet B', and then you have to figure out what this might possibly mean, and you ahve to work through infinite charts and devices to figure this out.

So Timelord procedures inform the astrologer from the start, what the responsibilities of a planet are exactly. All you have to do then, is figure out whether the effects of what this timelord are stable (its transit in an angle) or not, turning out for better or worse, etc. this you dio by means of the other systems.

Also keep in mind that any one planet can have several resposibilities during a certain period. Mars zould be timelord for three different topics during any one timeperiod.

For those of you more familiar with the time lord technique, what were the roles of Mercury and Mars at the time of Jobs' death? (This is a bit of a crossover from another thread on the Kepler key).

- Ed

Well, the calculations weren't that difficult, no spherical trigonometry.

waybread wrote:Maybe the resolution is more metaphysical than physical, however.

As in, what is the foundational meaning of, say, transiting Saturn square sun or progressed Mars square natal Mercury?

could be but here's still the need to discern between them otherwise there's the risk of interpreteting them all in the same way and therefore have an increase of possibilities.

Are the handing over moments of changes of timelords to be interpreted as strict moments, like 'since june 2008 in a Jupiter period')? Or is there some intermediate stage in which the former timelord still works or the next one already works when in the period ruled by the timelord before.