31
Paul,

If you wish to discuss the rationale further it would be better to start a new thread on the Philosophy board or transfer your post there. It may generate some interest.

This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.

33
johannes susato wrote:
Nixx wrote:This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.
? ? ?

Johannes
See Tom's guidelines above the topics. Pre 20th Century Western Astrology.

34
Nixx wrote:Paul,

If you wish to discuss the rationale further it would be better to start a new thread on the Philosophy board or transfer your post there. It may generate some interest.

This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.
Nixx

I don't really have much more to say on the matter other than that Kirk's suggestion that psychological astrologers do suggest that houses with more than one planet in it are 'more important', broadly speaking, and all else being equal, does have a basis in reality.

For what it's worth I understand this thread to be about the ways to approach interpreting a house with multiple planets in it - not about discussing schisms, dogmas and confusions. Those things arose as a side-effect but aren't the main purpose of this thread.

johannes susato wrote: Do you think classical astrologers would dissent in this consideration?

In this point there cannot be any dissent between astrologers, can it?

Johannes
Well I'd be inclined to think so, implicitly at least if not explicitly. Whether it's just by the fact that so many other houses will be ruled by planets in the one house or whether it's because of primary directions, or even that in a given year a profection will come to that house place - I would think, implicitly at least, that the house would, classically, gain additional focus for the astrologer.

As I have a foot in both the traditional camp as well as retaining some influences and ideas from the modern camp, I can't say for definite that this is the case so would bow down to more educated minds than mine on the matter. I cannot recall it being explicitly stated, but if it was I might not have even remembered.
Last edited by Paul on Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

35
For what it's worth I understand this thread to be about the ways to approach interpreting a house with multiple planets in it - not about discussing schisms, dogmas and confusions. Those things arose as a side-effect but aren't the main purpose of this thread - even if the board, in a broader level, does.
More specifically the thinking of Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche?s in this respect, as a starting point at least. If you stuck 10 ''Traditional Astrologers'' in a room with this idea for a day (sounds like a Philosophy thought experiment) the bulk of the conversation could retrospectively be summarised as contentious, if not lively. Hopefully they would leave as the best of friends, between clenched teeth. If you stuck 10 of your 'psychological astrologers' in a room with the same idea there may be a punch up, or one or two may fall asleep. If you stuck 10 'Psychological Astrologers' in the room with the same idea the banter may flow a bit more seamlessly (shared concepts) and they may even spend the afternoon in the pub.

Someone ought to organise this and stick it on YouTube. Perhaps a quicker, more tangible and accurate way of getting a firm grasp on the last 2,000 of Western Astrology than ploughing through Campion's 2 volume opus.

36
Nixx wrote:
johannes susato wrote:
Nixx wrote:This board is set up to discuss schisms, dogmas and confusions from earlier in the tradition.
? ? ?

Johannes
See Tom's guidelines above the topics. Pre 20th Century Western Astrology.
I find two guidelines above the topics but cannot find anything written by Tom (Pre 20th Century Western Astrology) comparing to your words. Instead I read this for exmple:
"This particular forum exists to learn, apply, and exchange techniques and ideas regarding traditional and ancient astrology and astrologers."

Johannes

37
johannes susato wrote:
I find two guidelines above the topics but cannot find anything written by Tom (Pre 20th Century Western Astrology) comparing to your words. Instead I read this for exmple:
"This particular forum exists to learn, apply, and exchange techniques and ideas regarding traditional and ancient astrology and astrologers."

Johannes
In my book that is just another way of putting it. Mine was a bit more poetic, or cutting to the chase, perhaps. Either way it seems clear enough in principle.

38
Nixx wrote:In my book that is just another way of putting it. Mine was a bit more poetic, or cutting to the chase, perhaps. Either way it seems clear enough in principle.
I think we'd have to agree to disagree on that, Tom's wording puts the focus on learning and applying traditional techniques, yours on schisms and dogmas - obviously the two are not the same in focus.

In any event we're probably getting off topic now.


Another question regarding interpretive problems with multiple planets in a house may crop up with profections.
Something I've been trying to figure out for a while now and which may have some relevance to the idea of multiple planets in houses is a section from Vettius Valens on profections.

In Book IV, pg79 of Mark Riley's translation, he says:
If one transmission is found in a nativity (i.e. if all stars happen to come to one sign). /177K/ they themselves will transmit zodiacally. The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star. Say three or four stars are found in one sign, one or two in another: in this case the one in dominant aspect in its degree-position <to> will allot the chronocratorship (i.e. the one
with the lowest degree-position of degrees will receive the chronocratorship <first>.) Then the star next in order <will>. The same is true for the receivers <?>. Even though the distribution is complicated, if one pays attention he will not go wrong.
Do the first part of this is easy to understand, if there are is than one planet in a given house, then the chronocratorship hands over to the one earliest in degree in that given sign/house.

But what does the latter bit mean - 'then the star next in order will receive'? Does it mean that the next period (ie 12 years later) the next planet will receive the chronocratorship rather than the one earliest in degree?

39
Paul wrote:
Nixx wrote:In my book that is just another way of putting it. Mine was a bit more poetic, or cutting to the chase, perhaps. Either way it seems clear enough in principle.
I think we'd have to agree to disagree on that, Tom's wording puts the focus on learning and applying traditional techniques, yours on schisms and dogmas - obviously the two are not the same in focus.
In my opinion it is not only "not the same in focus" but a complete no go to give one's own words anotherone's name.
Paul wrote:In any event we're probably getting off topic now.
Right you are, Paul.

Johannes

40
Paul wrote:[...] Vettius Valens on profections.

In Book IV, pg79 of Mark Riley's translation, he says:
If one transmission is found in a nativity (i.e. if all stars happen to come to one sign). /177K/ they themselves will transmit zodiacally. The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star.
Say three or four stars are found in one sign, one or two in another: in this case the one in dominant aspect in its degree-position <to> will allot the chronocratorship (i.e. the one
with the lowest degree-position of degrees will receive the chronocratorship <first>.) Then the star next in order <will>. The same is true for the receivers <?>. Even though the distribution is complicated, if one pays attention he will not go wrong.
Do the first part of this is easy to understand, if there are is than one planet in a given house, then the chronocratorship hands over to the one earliest in degree in that given sign/house.

But what does the latter bit mean - 'then the star next in order will receive'? Does it mean that the next period (ie 12 years later) the next planet will receive the chronocratorship rather than the one earliest in degree?
In addition my understanding of this quotation is, that Valens stresses that every single star transmits "whatever overall quality this mixture of stars indicates". Whenever a star is affected by whatever, the whole number of stars in the same signe/house is affected - and affects (!) - because this mixture of stars indicates a certain overall quality.

Johannes

41
Hopefully I am allowed by English grammar, to read the Valens-sentence:
"The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star
."

also in this word order:
"The nativity will share with every star whatever overall quality this mixture indicates for it."

or in this order too:
"Whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
the nativity will share for it with every star."

If not so, please let me know.

Johannes

42
johannes susato wrote:Hopefully I am allowed by English grammar, to read the Valens-sentence:
"The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star
."

also in this word order:
"The nativity will share with every star whatever overall quality this mixture indicates for it."

or in this order too:
"Whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
the nativity will share for it with every star."

If not so, please let me know.

Johannes
I don't mean that bit actually, I meant the latter part, which is "Then the star next in order <will>."

When will it? What does it mean? The next star will do what? Will it be the chronocrator the next time we come to that profection place?

If a house has multiple planets - how does this affect profections?