pankajdubey wrote:

johannes susato wrote:Firmicus Maternus, Matheseos . . . , words:
"per vacuum currens" - running through void = being VOC.

Lilly uses:
ad vacuum = not yet void, but applying to be void
a vacuo = have been void, but not any longer now, as being in application to another planet.

@johannes

Wouldn't that be a misnomer

Applying to no application.

PD

Why should the application to a certain state, i.e. the state of being void of course = not separating from another planet and not applying to another planet, be a misnomer?
Wording "Applying to no application" you forgot one half of the definition of void of course.

@Clinton and @Johannes

Venus orb- I was tryng to simplify the maths.

In the question itself-
Is there any difference if the Moon's moiety extends beyond the sign to avoid the VOC or other planets moiety extending backwards into previous sign to help moon avoid being void.

Re: applying to void.
Whether moon was being void of course - it's own ways gone awry or applying to void of course as void being an object which will lead it to nothing.

PD

pankajdubey wrote:@Clinton and @Johannes

Venus orb- I was tryng to simplify the maths.

Having known this at once would have been very helpful.

pankajdubey wrote:In the question itself-
Is there any difference if the Moon's moiety extends beyond the sign to avoid the VOC or other planets moiety extending backwards into previous sign to help moon avoid being void.

As to my knowledge this distinction is not made by the "application authors"

pankajdubey wrote:Re: applying to void.
Whether moon was being void of course - it's own ways gone awry or applying to void of course as void being an object which will lead it to nothing.

Would you mind to repeat your question in other words, please. I donT understand it.

Johannes

PD[/quote]

johannes susato wrote:

pankajdubey wrote:@Clinton and @Johannes

Venus orb- I was tryng to simplify the maths.

Having known this at once would have been very helpful.

pankajdubey wrote:In the question itself-
Is there any difference if the Moon's moiety extends beyond the sign to avoid the VOC or other planets moiety extending backwards into previous sign to help moon avoid being void.

As to my knowledge this distinction is not made by the "application authors"

pankajdubey wrote:Re: applying to void.
Whether moon was being void of course - it's own ways gone awry or applying to void of course as void being an object which will lead it to nothing.

Would you mind to repeat your question in other words, please. I donT understand it.

Johannes

PD

[/quote]

A state of existence- void
Application to this state treats the state of being as being an object.

PD

PankaJ,

Please understand the Lunation may be starting presently, coming into a New Moon, hard time within 12 hours before and after the Sun and Moon Cjt to perfection.

But because you live in a nation that is Not dominantly English speaking an interpreter could help in your messages! I mean this politely!

Because this was going on prior to the coming Lunation!

PankaJdubey,

Try this website, and about 2/3 down note, the table that Deb and her devoted confederates have designed:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

Where it states that the Moon and Venus may connect at 9.5 degrees!

Yep, the moiety of both connect, but you have a problem in that they are out of sign. Read my first reply to you on this about the discussion on Angelicus Merlin.

Thanks Clinton for your advice.
I will buy a book on learning English
Make sure the interpreter knows astrology.
In the meantime you will have to bear me as I do with you

Clinton Soule wrote:PankaJdubey,

Try this website, and about 2/3 down note, the table that Deb and her devoted confederates have designed:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

Where it states that the Moon and Venus may connect at 9.5 degrees!

Yep, the moiety of both connect, but you have a problem in that they are out of sign. Read my first reply to you on this about the discussion on Angelicus Merlin.

I think you meant Skyscript.

I think that there is a tendency to treat what Lilly says in CA as holy writ and that every word in there is correct and should be used as the foundation of our astrology.

In truth, it would appear more accurate to say that Lilly wrote all those definitions and descriptions in the front of the book as a matter or record, but we need to go to the charts and examples to see how he used these techniques in practice.

Then there is the dilemma - do we do as Lilly said or as Lilly did? Much of the argument about Lilly's horary methods have hinged on this matter.

For example, take the "Degrees Pitted" etc. listed on page 116 and then described in detail on the following two pages. Do we ever see mention of them ever again in the book......?

On page 109 Lilly talks about "signs inconjunct" and describes how out-of-sign aspects are not aspects. I think this is what the discussion on Angelicus Merlin was about. But this is another little section that is casually tossed out of the window when we look how Lilly handles aspects in his example charts.

And then there is the "Considerations before Judgement" on page 121 where top of the list of Lilly's considerations is ".... when the Lord of the hour .... and the Lord of the ascendant... are of one Triplicity... or of the same nature." Now, a lot of modern horary astrologers pay a lot of attention to this consideration and whether the chart is fit to be judged or not is decided on this consideration. But the truth is that even in the 17th century, it would appear that this consideration was honoured more in the breech than the observance amongst practising astrologers, and it becomes reasonably obvious that when you examine Lilly's charts and do some statistics, Lilly did not pay any attention to this consideration either. So, if Lilly didn't, why should we?

It is clear then, that Lilly was quite capable of picking and choosing which of the rules and definitions described in the front of the book he goes on to use in his example charts later on. In consequence, one could be quite justified in concluding that Lilly might define VOC one way on page 112 and then use it quite another way in his example charts.

Simply taking Lilly's definition on page 112 as what Lilly meant by VOC is not enough. It is only clear in retrospect, after examining Lilly's example charts, that indeed there is no conflict in the way Lilly used VOC and how he defined it on page 112. But that assumption cannot be made a priori.

Geoffrey

Geoffrey said:

I think that there is a tendency to treat what Lilly says in CA as holy writ and that every word in there is correct and should be used as the foundation of our astrology.

In truth, it would appear more accurate to say that Lilly wrote all those definitions and descriptions in the front of the book as a matter or record, but we need to go to the charts and examples to see how he used these techniques in practice.

Then there is the dilemma - do we do as Lilly said or as Lilly did? Much of the argument about Lilly's horary methods have hinged on this matter.

That is true of all astrology data, Moderne or Traditional.

We look at the documentation of prior writers, pre 1700, and they are holy or sacred as they are from those of the art centurys before us. But as Lilly found in that he rejected much of the prior horary lore, just because men wrote it and believed it does Not nessasarily mean it was the absolute truth.

Same with any science, and Lilly does place astrology in the 9th, just because scientists of renown believed certain things to be true doesn't mean they are the total absolute authority.

Same with the composite of books, wrote primarily independent from each other from the Bible, which include a great amount of pro astrology verses contrary to what many astrologers have been assaulted with out of much ignorance.

If we think of all the pre-1700 books as our collective of astro lore, sacred documents, but remember like the Bible there are errors and things that aren't nessasarily correct.

Because Lilly and the Ancients utilized this concept of planets perfecting even if the slower moving body had passed into another sign yet within orb and moeity and the participants of Angelicus Merlin Forum seemed to unanamously agree that Lilly was wrong upon this method, most very accomplished Contemporary Horary astrologers, doesn't nessasarily mean that Lilly and the Ancients are wrong for all of those horarys of Lilly and our own need to be carefully evaluated.

If one can see the Parallels, as many from 9th house faiths such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., etc., have misunderstanding from their held sacred texts, and some have to have flaws within or there wouldn't be such division. Same with our 9th house astrology sacred documents, just because a certain writer an artists practiced and wrote certain documents does not nessasarily mean the method was empirical for we all base our methods of testing out what we believe on our own acknowledged subjectivity.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know

pankajdubey wrote:A state of existence- void
Application to this state treats the state of being as being an object.

And what should be wrong or what be problematic with defining a state (void of course, for example) and making a judgement about it (void of course given or not given, for example) or about something belonging to it (application to the state of void of course, for example), thus making the state a subject/object of consideration?

In other words, Luna is separated from Mars about five degrees and will aspect no other planet before she leaves the sign, is she VOC?

Void of Course Moon is a phenomenon which is relevant in Natal as well as Horary Astrology.

Void of Course Moon is applicable to events in Future as well as events in the Past

VOC Moon is only considered when some one is looking/hoping/fearing an 'Event' in future or an 'Event' in Past


Moon IS Void of Course when it is not 'Perfecting/completing' any aspect with Planetary bodies before exiting the sign. Period. There is one exceptions to this rule and I call it 'Change of Heart' rule.

Moon WAS Void of Course when it has not 'Perfected/completed' any aspect at the time of query with Planetary bodies after it entered the current sign. Period. There is one exceptions to this rule and I call it 'Change of Heart' rule.