31
My suggestion is simply that people are not helpless in how they understand a planet's inherent nature or its condition in their chart.

So, for example, if someone sees a Saturn time lord period on the horizon and fears Saturn universally and personally as a big train wreck, s/he can take some pro-active steps to deal with a bigger influence from Saturn in her life. A major way would be exploring the meaning of Saturn in more depth. What is this planet here to teach us? How well have I incorporated its lessons of frugality, patience, and hard work into my life up to now?"
Sounds very modern to me :) but I'm sure you're right.
For me there are three fields of expertise in astrology: #1 knowledge of the astrological archetypes (this is Astrology as worldview); #2 horoscopy, which is the translation of the worldview into specifics for an individual; #3 consultationskills.

Your solution fits with expertise #3 and refers back to #1. We can inform clients - and ourselves - about what the general advice is for any of the 7 planets. How to deal with them. But this is very general and a-specific.
You need expertise #2 to be sure in what field of the natives life a planet is operating (or wreaking havoc).
Then you can give advice as to how to deal with particular topics, as per the houses I guess (what do you do when your money runs out, how do you deal with a heavy dose of puberty in a child, that sort of thing).
Hermes

32
Hermes wrote: Sounds very modern to me :) but I'm sure you're right.
For me there are three fields of expertise in astrology: #1 knowledge of the astrological archetypes (this is Astrology as worldview); #2 horoscopy, which is the translation of the worldview into specifics for an individual; #3 consultationskills.

Your solution fits with expertise #3 and refers back to #1. We can inform clients - and ourselves - about what the general advice is for any of the 7 planets. How to deal with them. But this is very general and a-specific.
You need expertise #2 to be sure in what field of the natives life a planet is operating (or wreaking havoc).
Then you can give advice as to how to deal with particular topics, as per the houses I guess (what do you do when your money runs out, how do you deal with a heavy dose of puberty in a child, that sort of thing).
Well, I come from a modern perspective.

I haven't read a lot of traditional astrology, but it seems clear that some of the oldsters would accept a proactive approach. William Lilly, for example, would cast a horary chart that looked like really bad news for the client, but then he would suggest how s/he might mitigate the situation. Even Ptolemy said that astrology is never completely fatalistic, because if it were so, the practice of medicine, with the doctor's interventions, would be pointless. Manilius was quite the fatalist, but as a stoic he thought the point of astrology was to mentally prepare oneself for the stars' decrees.

33
Well, I come from a modern perspective.

I haven't read a lot of traditional astrology, but it seems clear that some of the oldsters would accept a proactive approach. William Lilly, for example, would cast a horary chart that looked like really bad news for the client, but then he would suggest how s/he might mitigate the situation. Even Ptolemy said that astrology is never completely fatalistic, because if it were so, the practice of medicine, with the doctor's interventions, would be pointless.
I quite agree
Manilius was quite the fatalist, but as a stoic he thought the point of astrology was to mentally prepare oneself for the stars' decrees.
There's something to that as well.
But I guess it then boils down to: what type of fate or specific decrees (as per a chart) CAN be influenced, and what is non negotiable, and needs some sort of resignation to deal with it?
Hermes

34
Hermes wrote:Not completely sure.
I have found however with the Zodiacal releasing method, that sometimes things happen a few months before an important change of (zodiacal)period.
The new period can be said to represent the times spent dealing with what happened, be it good or bad.

Profections seem to be more to the point as they deal with yearly and monthly stretches of time.
Searching around about Zodiacal releasing and exactness, I found something on Curtis' website: http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... hesis.html . The essence is that the Greeks didn't pursue exactness as modern astrologers do. While this view is interesting I'm not sure if this was always the case. Ptolemy proposed the use of primary directions using spherical trigonometry, while his predecessors/contemporaries used the (alleged) rising times of whole signs. Later astrologers refined the technique with the Naibod key, relating it to the length of the solar year. So I don't think exactness is an entirely modern concept.

I think it's not only about exactness, but also a slow change of symbolism. Like the change from the 'ideal year' of 360 days as the basis for directions to the more exact year of 365.25 days as the basis for directions and later for secondary progressions. It?s rather a scientification of the technique. Also with the Naibod key one can apply the concept that a ?hit? doesn?t need to give results on the exact date. The question is, how 'inexact' can we work without getting sloppy or vague with non-falsifiable dates? On the one hand, an all too exact approach will lead to disappointments when 'nothing happens? on an exact date (of say a direction), but on the other hand a too loose approach will make techniques for rectification questionable and techniques in general.

I think the invention of minor progressions (by Placidus?) can somewhat be seen as a ?scientification? of the profections which are more 'schematical? because of the exact division by 12 instead of 365.25/29.53.

Something else in relation to all the direction/progression techniques is the fact that not only there?s a risk that we may use too many techniques but also that we find periods of similar speed. The primary directed MC for example has a similar speed as the secondary progressed Sun. The primary directed planets too. A very crude simplified variant of this technique may be the use of solar arcs which moves the planets at the same speed as the Sun. There even seem to be MC-arcs and Ascendant-arcs methods. The progressed Moon moves a bit faster than transiting Saturn. In the minor progressions (and profections) we roughly have the Sun moving at the same speed as transiting Jupiter. Also in minor progressions, the Moon moves in its cycle during one transit of a solar year. Saturn moves in its cycle during roughly 360 years, resembling the primary directions and the solar arcs. With tertiary progressions, the Sun now moves at average similar speed as transiting Saturn and Jupiter in some 360 years.

So with all these techniques we have cycles resembling other cycles and therefore many periods coinciding, with the risk involved that these enforce our conviction that these coinciding moments are very special, while it?s just a consequence of the use of the techniques.

Another peculiar consequence of these coinciding cycles are very clearly illustrated in solar arcs and in primary directions in which every planet is involved. Namely at ages ca. of 60 and 90 every planet will be in sextile respectively square aspect with its natal position. I once read that planets shouldn?t be progressed/directed to aspects of their own places but only to aspects of other planets. This doesn?t seem logical to me and seems rather an avoidance of a problem.

When the Meridian method of in mundo primary directions is used with every planet, the same occurs as in the solar arcs; planets aspect natal planets at, around age 60 and 90. Involving proper motion doesn?t change much and only for the Moon the difference will be 3 years. Now this may be a reason not to use the Meridian system for directions but quadrant systems because they have planets moving at different speed. While this is correct for the temperate zone at average latitudes of 30?-60? North and south on Earth, this is not correct for directions in the tropics near the Equator. Exactly on the Equator, the in mundo quadrant systems based upon Placidus, Campanus and Regiomontanus coincide exactly with the Meridian system. Therefore, for in charts of people at the Equator, these systems too will have the same problems as the Meridian system. So there are not only polar problems in astrology but also tropical problems. There are many people living on the Equator so if the method of using all planets in the quadrant systems is valid, then all may experience special events at around age 60 and 90. Reducing this to average issues of little personal meaning at those ages is not a solution. It namely would imply that the directions in general have little personal meaning. When the directions in zodiaco are used the differences are a bit more spread out, because of the tilt of the equator in respect to the ecliptic. In practice this will mean that for the sextiles the ages vary around 56-64 and for the squares they vary around 85-95 years. With the proper motions of the planets involved some 3 years difference of the Moon.

Although this may sound disturbing or hair splitting, and few people may have seen all this in practice, the fact is that these things occur in horoscopes of many millions of people. Therefore this should be taken into consideration in our use of techniques. This is one of the reasons I prefer to use only the angles in primary directions and only the Sun (and perhaps the Moon) in secondary progressions. And even the fact that the Sun and MC have a similar speed in both techniques (and the Moon to transiting Saturn) is a thing that I find annoying. I submit myself too to considering these apparently theoretical problems. Perhaps with traditional methods with the concept of 'periods' standing even above the primary directions these problems may be mitigated because not every planet will be even strong at those ages, depending on the time-lord. Unfortunately I can't do this because I rather follow Kepler's views.