Faith and 'unfaithful'

32
Good morning,

If one read the definitions of 'faith' at Wiktionary, one finds no reference to sexual morals. In the definitions of 'faithful', monogamous conduct is the last of 5 definitions, in those of 'unfaithful', adultery likewise the last of five.

If mutual sincere intent is involved in pledges, their non-observance without duress is a breach of fidelity, vows of sexual behaviour within the framework of the given society being one amongst many examples.

Since the restricted meanings of 'unfaithfulness' and even more so of 'cheating' in this thread have usually presupposed (heterosexual?) monogamy (by the way there are at least two types: 1. lifetime sole sexual mate and 2. sequential exclusive sexual mates) of both sexes as the norm, may they be deemed suboptimal in the context of astrology?

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

33
Dear lihin,

I take it you find the delineation of "unfaithfulness" suboptimal because people can have different understandings of the word due to individual, cultural, whatever-al differences and imperatives?

If so, then perhaps you can suggest to the author to define unfaithfulness before asking for delineative techniques.

However, for those people who really are searching for techniques to determine whether a potential partner might be or might end up having sexual intercourse with another person whilst committed to a monogamous relationship, the answers to this question are indeed very optimal.


~Larxene<3~

Context

34
Good afternoon,

IF, in a specific astrological consultation setting, astrologer and client(s) agree with defining 'unfaithfulness' as any sexual relations by either males or females other than strict heterosexual monogamy (lifelong or sequential), why should one object?

Generalisation of such a definition is quite a different matter. Moreover, the underlying Hellenistic and / or Mediaeval astrological doctrines may well not be based on this definition. To apply it anyway may lead to material astrological misreadings.

Another significant part of the question would be whether adoption of such a definition might obscure the participants' views of assumptions and / or recognitions of major illusions about human behaviour, the delusions from which might be experienced quite painfully. Extreme 'virtue' can be vicious.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

35
Hello lihin,


"Moreover, the underlying Hellenistic and/or Mediaeval astrological doctrines may well not be based on this definition. To apply it anyway may lead to material astrological misreadings."

That is correct, which is why one needs to read the text on which the technique is based and furnish it with the correct context, which should be available in the original text. Indeed, cgreen did state that he read about Lilly's method and asked about what forumers read about unfaithfulness.


"Extreme 'virtue' can be vicious."

The problem is, what is moderate and what is extreme? What is extreme in one ethical system may not be extreme in another. And you and I probably know from experience that different people follow different systems, and to different degrees.


"...whether adoption of such a definition might obscure the participants' views of assumptions and/or recognitions of major illusions about human behaviour, the delusions from which might be experienced quite painfully."

However, it is not up to the astrologer to decide whether the underlying assumptions are the 'correct' ones or not. See my previous point.

Consider this: a person who doesn't follow a sexual monogamy paradigm probably wouldn't ask such a question anyway. It is for those under this paradigm that the technique is relevant. Should we refuse such requests?

36
Lihin, I see your point regarding the latent patriarchal underpinnings of many medieval and classical works. I agree that much of what is written in these texts, you cite Lilly in particular, sounds somewhat 'sex-negative.'

However, I don't think a matriarchal 'reinterpretation' is necessary. The aphorisms apply to men and women equally.

Really what they are referring to with these Venus/Mars configurations is the predilection of the native to lie or be dishonest regarding sexual matters. This is because most individuals (but obviously not ALL individuals) value transparency in their interpersonal relationships.

There are some people whose nativities sort of 'encourage' them to be opaque rather than transparent regarding their relations. I'm not judging this...just commenting that one can't really expect a native born with Venus strongly configured with Mars, or vice versa, to live up to the ideal of transparency.

The problem is when one person expects something of the other person...and the other person cannot fulfill this expectation.

Again, no one is at fault here. It could be that individuals with 'lecherous' nativities are here to teach us some very important lessons!

37
Nixx wrote: You say so but if you look at comments here and elsewhere you do wonder. Young Paul is a notorious amoralist and one would assume if you entered his Horary space for a good time to go on a mission to kill a hundred 3yr old children in a 13 hr time period he would regard it as his duty to provide you the ''optimal' moment. He may not if reality appeared in his conceptual consciousness, or you would hope his senses appeared.
Please do not consider yourself wise enough or knowledgeable enough to assume to know what I would or would not do.

'One would assume' nothing of the sort.

For the record, my name is just 'Paul', not 'Young Paul'. Perhaps, based on your later statement regarding your own age, you feel that by prefixing my name with 'Young' you hope to degrade my points. Who knows.

Mathesis

38
Good afternoon,

On a positive note one might recommend reading Julius Firmicus Maternus' delineations in his Mathesis, a complete, annotated translation of which by James H. Holden was recently published. Maternus' style and contents are amongst my favourites. They stand in stark contrast to the exclusively pastel-coloured ones found in many 20th century astrological textbooks and are not for the faint of heart. On nearly all occasions i find combinations of Maternus' delineations very reliable, even 'shockingly' so, including matters of moral and sexual behaviour.

Maternus explicitly states that the delineations are NOT to be used in an isolated way but combined and applied according to the structures of the chart.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

39
Ile wrote:
Lot of the Unchastity of Women (Asc + Mars - Moon) is also not to be neglected. This formula given by Al-Biruni is also given to other similar lots:
- Misconduct by women
- Intercourse of women with men.

Lot of Sexual Unions (ASC + DC - Venus) is also informative.

Trickery and deception of men and women (Asc + Venus - Sun).
This one was exactly on Solar Return DSC in the year when my friend's wife cheated on him.
These are all sexist and biased in favor of men. Also it would be informative to find out whether your friend has cheated on his wife and which Solar Return placements fell with that.

These formulas by their very title "misconduct by women, intercourse of women with men" are misogynistic. Why shouldn't they be neglected, because male infidelity is accepted, expected, and promulgated by just about every culture?
Last edited by StellarTiggy on Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

40
zoomaster wrote:Lihin, I see your point regarding the latent patriarchal underpinnings of many medieval and classical works. I agree that much of what is written in these texts, you cite Lilly in particular, sounds somewhat 'sex-negative.'

However, I don't think a matriarchal 'reinterpretation' is necessary. The aphorisms apply to men and women equally.
Really, you don't think matriarchal reinterpretation is necessary? Just out of curiosity, are you male?

Secondly, where did you get the idea that the aphorisms apply to men and women equally? Do they sound as if they were applied equally? Because from what I've been reading it looks like they have not only been biased but they are even titled in such a way, as to pass down only that, which is biased, instead of bringing in the idea that infidelity is inherently sex-blind. Throughout the course of this discussion have you wondered why there are so many of these Lots and/or "aphorisms" geared specifically towards the "unscrupulous behavior" of women, and we have little to show for the same principle in the unscrupulous behavior of men? Of course it was discriminatory! And no, unless you can find a legitimate translation of an ancient work that specifically explains of the equality you are mentioning, don't assume there was any equality in these works.

Cultural biases

41
Good morning,

In my humble opinion, Ms Stella Tiggy's points are mostly valid. In other threads, e. g. on the Third House of the Goddess, i have mentioned the increased pervasive, patriarchal, Abrahamic-monotheistic influence in Mediaeval compared to Hellenistic astrologies. One might, however, recall that both the Brahmin Indian and the ancient Greek tribes were patriarchal. Thus, it could only be expected that these values and attitudes are reflected in the corresponding astrologies.

Other similar items are ex. gr. preference for the right to the left, for the light to the dark, for the 'masculine' to the 'feminine'. The ancient texts seldom use 'active' and 'passive' that would be applicable in matriarchies as well as patriarchies with reversed gender roles. Many stringent rules of patriarchy concern patrilineal inheritance of property that precludes female promiscuity because, until quite recently, it was quite difficult or impossible to clearly establish fatherhood in cases of polyandrous mothers. So indeed, in practice patriarchal societies have often de jure and almost always de facto accorded liberties of sexual conduct to men but denied them to most women, at least to 'virtuous' ones.

Since most observation of real conduct leads to the conclusion that homo sapiens, like other primates, is more likely polygamous-polyandrous than monoandrous-monogamous, why should one object to widening the delineations of some of the astrological lots to apply equally to both sexes, if such widening respects the underlying astrological symbols?

On the other hand, equivalence of 'matriarchy' to a kind of 'paradise' and 'partriarchy' to a kind of 'inferno' is in my humble opinion illusory, often part of a political ambition to (re)establish matriarchy in the particular interest of some females. Are female tyrants by nature milder than their male counterparts? Given the balances between Benefics and Malefics, generation and corruption, etc., human society, matriarchal or patriarchal, might best be compared to a 'purgatorio', mitigated when its members of both sexes seek to behave towards each other with respect, understanding and - occasionally - even love.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

Re: Cultural biases

42
lihin wrote:Since most observation of real conduct leads to the conclusion that homo sapiens, like other primates, is more likely polygamous-polyandrous than monoandrous-monogamous, why should one object to widening the delineations of some of the astrological lots to apply equally to both sexes, if such widening respects the underlying astrological symbols? lihin
Hi Lihin,

I appreciate your support. The reason I am opposed to widening it is because it isn't clear at this time whether they really do apply equally. There should be a panel of astrologers who sits down and does the due diligence, and collects the charts of cheating men to see whether the Lots created for women also apply to the cheating men. Then, assuming the Lots do apply equally (which I highly doubt they will) they should be renamed to account for both sexes.

This is the point: there is an understanding of why these sexist scripts have survived and the fact that they were passed along from one sexist society to the next (let us call it what it is), but where will this stop? Where can we stop and say "let the discrimination stop" and take action to see whether these actually hold up for both sexes in practice? And if they don't, how can we, as astrologers, take an ethical stance on such a one-sided deal?