skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Void of Course, when is it actually VOC?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Clinton Soule



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 471
Location: Reno, Nevada

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johannes said via this thread at the beginning, page one of this thread:

Quote:
..... "an apparently VOC Moon" can only be a Moon who is called VOC by all - at least by the vast majority of all - authors, the choice of your expression seems a little bit problematic.
Or is in fact the Moon in your example completely separated from another planet or his aspect (i.e. out of the half of the sum of both their orbs = the moiety of both their orbs = the moieties of both their orbs) and does she not enter into an application to another Planet or his aspect as long as she is in her present sign?
After all we know in practice there is only very little room for the Moon to be called VOC by all defintitions of VOC we know.


And that has to be why Lilly said that '...if a planet is aspecting another yet the other planet is already in another sign yet the orbs and moieties are in range and the two perfect they are Not in VOC'.

And just because my own horary failed this test and years ago the held consensus was by Contemporary artists on Angelicus Merlin Horary Forum owned and moderated by the adept Dorothy J. Kovach, most were adept professionals, the consensus being that Lilly was wrong. For as we know unless we put in the time to diligently study the horoscope using terms, face, etc., and go the extra mile and utilize Lilly's tedious point system we might find that there were testimonies other than the lord of the matter which spoke loudly of why Lilly's method on this concept had failed.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CA-II p399 Sir William Waller,
This charts fits the condition that Moon has not seperated from combined moiety or orbs to the planet preceeding but it is not within the combined moiety of orbs of the planet ahead-viz, Saturn.



Moon 8 deg Tau-Saturn 19 deg 40 min.
Lilly totally ignores this as a case a Moon being VOC.

So, the logic is that the Moon is not VOC because it has not fully separated yet from the previous aspect so it could not be VOC.

If we accept this logic, then, moon can only be well and truly VOC if it has separated from and also does not apply to another planet within the combined moiety of their respective orbs.

or, Lilly was a poet and he used his poetic license in astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it the eagerness to prove Lilly to be a poet which makes you err about the star positions? Very Happy

Saturn is 11°59 Aries
Moon 8 0 Taurus
Venus 19 40 Taurus

These can be seen very clearly by your fine reproduction of the original chart. Thanks for that!

So which chart's judgement of Lilly do you really doubt, PD?

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the chart above the Moon is separating from the Sextile of Mars who is in 1° Pisces and thus the Moon is still in separation for about three degrees and a half.
If you really want to discuss the chart above, then the problem is not with the Moon to be void of course as she is not void of course, but with the application to the conjunction of Venus, she being still out of orb of the Moon. Yet Lilly affirms an application (Lilly, CA, p. 399):

"for you may see the Moon is distant from Venus eleven degrees,
but withall is in her swift motion, and encreasing in light, all
which were arguments of our success, and the Enemies rout-
ing;"


and the Moon is very strong in her exaltation.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its clearly written in the middle of the chart: Moon separated from Mars, (1 Pisces) then from Jupiter (2 Taurus), and applied to Venus (19 Taurus) then to Mercury (21 Pisces)

With Lilly's orbs, the Moon will never go VOC

Saturn at 11 Aries is inconjunct..

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When we start dealing with moiety of orbs and this extends ahead and behind,then, platick aspect is still persisting in a separating from partile state.

I thought Lilly ,like his protege Coley is following this.

If this is not the case then we have a very strange situation where a planets orb of influence is very mobile.
A faster planets anterior moiety is functional and the slower planet's posterior moiety is function and soon as they are partile this contact is lost !
Clinton's original question was about a situation where a planet is still in contact within the combined moiety of orbs of the separating planet but moon does not make any aspect for the whole sign.

I could not find an example like that in CA II, this one came closest to that idea.


PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello PD

Are those strange charts confusing you? I always print out a modern version of these old charts.





l
Quote:
When we start dealing with moiety of orbs and this extends ahead and behind,then, platick aspect is still persisting in a separating from partile state.

I thought Lilly, like his protege Coley is following this.


Is that not what is happening in this chart?

Lilly does not mention that the Moon is VOC, and it is not mentioned in the middle of his chart. Had he thought the Moon would go VOC before applying to Venus, he would have written "☽ a ∗ ♂ a ☌ ♃ ad vac et ☌ ♀ et ∗ ☿"

Geoffrey[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Geoffrey,

I thought so but I wanted Johannes to say that Very Happy

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clinton Soule



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 471
Location: Reno, Nevada

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m said:

Quote:
clinton i am curious if someone can reject anything that lilly has said especially if it doesn't comply with what he did? or is lilly the final word and always will be the final word on any approach to horary astrology?


James_M, every movement or trade has their icons or mentors, and as astrology is according to Lilly a 9th house type matter, it is along the lines of faith or a religion just as science is. Is not Science always testing out accepted facts to find much latter after much controversial weighing of different variables that facts later become accepted hypothesis as a new proven fact is accepted in it’s place? Astrology as a faith and science is right in there as we are testing out these writers of horary constantly.

Since Lilly placed science, religion, and astrology in the 9th, one can see all faiths have their mentors. The astrologer Abraham was the patriarchal ancestor of three major religions, then Moses become the icon of Judaism, and Muhammed become the icon of Islam yet borrowed from many of the same stories as the Hebrew descendants since they share a somewhat similar genealogy. The Piscean Master, one who has transformed the western world of thought even if it has been largely confused and with much deception as most religions of the past age if the Mayan calendar is correct, is the mentor of Christiandom as Lilly states in the following.

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

Quote:
Stand fast oh, man ! to thy God: then consider thy own nobleness; how all created things, both present and to come, were for thy sake created; nay, for thy sake God became man: thou art that creature, who, being conversant with Christ, livest and reignest above the heavens, and sits above all power and authority. How many pre-eminences, privileges, advantages, hath God bestowed on thee? thou rangest above the heavens by contemplation, conceivest the motion and magnitude of the stars: thou talkest with angels, yea, with God himself: thou hast all creatures within thy dominion, and keepest the devils in subjection.


Just as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, North American Plain's Indian Pipe related religions, Aborigines in Australia, etc., all have their iconic mentors that will be revered by humanity forever by their followers.

Lilly a giant Taurean mountain of knowledge as solid as 'the Rock of Gibraltar', a Man of his age being a Piscean asc., in the Piscean age will remain the horary icon more than the Greek Philosophers are to philosophy forever.

But answering your question, just as the Piscean Master told of the astrologer Moses had made mistakes, we can see how Lilly has made a few. But typically it is his students whom frequently misunderstand him and go off on feral tangents because they may think they have found a flaw in Lilly's methods and publish their own opinions contrary to Lilly which may latter be proved invalid. Like John Frawley’s writing that he doesn’t ‘…necessarily take the rectification of horoscopes seriously..’; where Lilly and myself see it as very important.

James, in horary in this lifetime my body will not allow me to live long enough to become as great as Lilly, but yes I'm certain Lilly has some flaws but maybe more within his natal astrology, just as the astrologer Moses raised by Egypt’s royal family was said to have made an error by the Piscean Master from what is written!

Beloved Forum I purposely did Not wish to answer this question while Luna was in the sign of the 12th house of the Moon even if I loved Moon cjt Zeus(Jupiter), so I waited for a good aspect to Falcifer.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
If you really want to discuss the chart above, then the problem is not with the Moon to be void of course as she is not void of course, but with the application to the conjunction of Venus, she being still out of orb of the Moon. Johannes

Geoffrey wrote:
Lilly does not mention that the Moon is VOC, and it is not mentioned in the middle of his chart. Had he thought the Moon would go VOC before applying to Venus, he would have written "☽ a ∗ ♂ a ☌ ♃ ad vac et ☌ ♀ et ∗ ☿"

pankajdubey wrote:
I thought so but I wanted Johannes to say that

PD

PD, obviously you clipped my text above for what you want me to say has been said by me already: the Moon is not void of course.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3721
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks for your response clinton. i like it!

i think astrology is like a religion as well. people can get attached to astrological beliefs and are sometimes unable to separate there beliefs from the beliefs of others, or only in an unfriendly way where they are viewed as a threat, or considered 'wrong'.. if all the world religions operated this way, we'd be screwed! my own belief is that all the religions and astrology for that matter, are working with something less materialistic which can be difficult to quantify in any sort of scientific manner. it is true astrologers can consider whether they were right or wrong on a viewpoint on a question after the fact, or on any read of an astro chart. this is a blessing which i don't think religion shares in the same obvious way.

i go back to what geoffrey said about the difference between what lilly might have said, verses what he did that went beyond or outside of what he said. i see this as the 'art' part to astrology and the part that i believe we also have to develop.

thanks for your comments!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
johannes susato wrote:
If you really want to discuss the chart above, then the problem is not with the Moon to be void of course as she is not void of course, but with the application to the conjunction of Venus, she being still out of orb of the Moon. Johannes

Geoffrey wrote:
Lilly does not mention that the Moon is VOC, and it is not mentioned in the middle of his chart. Had he thought the Moon would go VOC before applying to Venus, he would have written "☽ a ∗ ♂ a ☌ ♃ ad vac et ☌ ♀ et ∗ ☿"

pankajdubey wrote:
I thought so but I wanted Johannes to say that

PD

PD, obviously you clipped my text above for what you want me to say has been said by me already: the Moon is not void of course.

Johannes


Johannes,

Moon is out of the orb of conjunction of venus and nothing intervening and no other aspect happening, then what is this condition if not void.

So either Lilly is using here his definition of another planet still being in this sign how so ever far away or he means that it is not void because it is not yet fully separated from previous aspect.By the time this previous aspected is considered separated by platic(moiety of orbs) it would have already be in contact with another one by the same definition.

Kind of a rolling boil cooking.

Now suppose, Moon is at 1 degree taurus and Sun at 29 degree taurus.
Is moon VOC or just out of the orb of conjunction of Sun.

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
Moon is out of the orb of conjunction of venus and nothing intervening and no other aspect happening, then what is this condition if not void.

We should distinguish void of course from application.
Application has to be seen in dependency of two planets and whether they are approaching within the half of the sum of both their orbs.
Even though in the given William Waller question the application is not working yet by orbs, Lilly gives reason for its working all the same.

In contrast to this the state of being void of course has to be seen in dependency of three planets: the moving Planet (a), the planet he es separating from (b) and the planet he is applying to (c).

Following Lilly, void of course is not given, as long as a is in separation from b.

Now c has to be analyzed. Will there by application between a and c, and when?
If there is already application, then a is not void of course, a separating from b and applying to c at the same time.
If no application is given now, i.e. at the moment of the question, then we have to analyze, if there will be an application to c, and when.
If an application to planet c will start before the separation from planet b ends, then Planet a is not void of course.
And this is why in the William Waller question Lilly does not mention the Moon to be void of course, because she is not void of course nor will she be void of course.

But when planet a will not enter the state of application to c before his (a) separation from b has come to its end, a is then in the state of ad vacuum, i.e. of applying/approaching to the state of being void of course.




pankajdubey wrote:
Now suppose, Moon is at 1 degree taurus and Sun at 29 degree taurus.
Is moon VOC or just out of the orb of conjunction of Sun.

If the Moon is still in separation from another planet, she would reach a region in the sign, where she would end separation and not yet be within the moyety of both, hers and the Sun his, orbs, i.e. she would be void of course then, later on.

Lilly Twould call this State of the Moon ad vacuum , i.e. not yet void of course, but later on.

But if the Moon is not in separation fom another planet, she would be void of course already now.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johannes,

Given your differentiation between application and void- how does moon apply to void ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
Johannes,

Given your differentiation between application and void- how does moon apply to void ?

By what else than by her own motion, PD?

You shorten the terms a little bit too much in my opinion. And was not your question answered already some pages before?

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated