Using information on the Moon after passing out of the sign

Zarathu

Using information on the Moon after passing out of the sign

1 by Zarathu

On another forum a person asked a Horary question. A poster answered by saying that things would change after the Moon left its sign. I said that was fine as an astrological answer but that it passing out of horary.

My reasoning for this is that two fold.

1. Much is made of VOC in horary, implying that once the Moon moves out of its sign its the end of discussion for the question, even though it doesn't always mean a "no" it does introduce more complication toward a yes

and

2. That we always look to the final aspect of the Moon before she leaves her sign as the end point for what the question would be about.

The responder disagreed and believes that horary can be taken further after the Moon leaves her sign; I think that ends horary's action on the question, though regular astrology can certainly address it.

I'm looking for an astrologer with some verified stature in Horary(or someone with an FHP degree) to stand on either point of view, so that I can learn more about this.

Can anyone here help?

Zarathu

Zarathu Astrology: http://zarathuastrology.zohosites.com/

PFN

2 by PFN

One medieval author, I do not recall if it is Sahl or Al-Biruni, does stipulate that on the advent of a Moon leaving a sign without aspect, you may look unto aspects made on the next sign.

He does warn, though, that delays will happen even if the answer proves positive.

I believe that every horary has an expected time to happen, and when the Moon escapes a sign without any action or the intended action to take place, that points to the frustration of the matter. That does not prevent it from happening alltogether in the future, maybe under different than expected circunstances, but I'd consider the answer negative even so, at my own peril.

Paulo Felipe Noronha

Clinton Soule

3 by Clinton Soule

Zarathu, if our beloved Johaness will magically appear he may enlighten all of us on this grey area as he did on this thread yet more needs to be said:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 3&start=30

Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 3:22 am Post subject:

.....Omitted....

Clinton Soule wrote:
3) Years ago on Angelicus Merlin forum, owned and moderated by the adept Dorothy J. Kovach, this concept that Lilly used of the matter being aspected yet already in another sign that generally was not thought as traditional had been discussed.

The bulk, if not all Contemporary Traditionalists saw Lilly's method as in error as we discussed the horary I had asked using Lilly's method and they had the consensus that Lilly was wrong on this.
But this error was not Lilly's error but the early error of those who "re-discovered" Lilly as an authority. As Deb has stated repeatedly it was Sue Ward, who simply read what Lilly had written, took him by the words of his defintion of void and there were nor "errors" with his examples any longer.

Clinton Soule wrote:
But we know the first aspect to the matter perfecting does not nessasarily mean it will be as Terms, Face, Dignity, lord of the hour, etc., have to be weighed to find the true verdict.
This statement of yours seems to be interesting: In my opinion we would need a perfection between lords 1 and 10 (if at all the job is one of the quality of the tenth!).

This could be by translation.
1. The Moon could translate the light of the Sun to Venus, but is hindered by the sextile with Mercury, who is no signficator in the question. The question is whether the Moon's translation is still hindered by the excaped Mercury, when the Moon perfects the - possibly "new" - sextile after the entrance of both planets into the next sign.
The void of course problem is always discussed, when the planet is already in the next sign and the general rule of escape does not apply.

I wonder how the conflict of escaping on the one side and being not void of course on the other is to be resolved.

2. Mercury could translate the light of the Sun to Venus. Leaving aside the problem of the hindrance by the sextile of the Moon with Mercury I repeat here the answer I gave to CD very early in this thread.
Following Lilly and Dariot for example, the fact that Mercury had to change the sign for translation should not be the problem with this question.
But here Mercury and Venus are still out of their orbs (and this even if you take Lilly's large orbs where Venus gets 8?) then Mercury and Venus being sill apart more than the for application necessary 7 1/2 degrees.
There still is another problem: The way both planets have to run until their conjunction, is about or more than twice the orbs of the planets. In practice this does not work and so the translation of the Sun light to Venus by Mercury, would not work in my opinion.

Altogether I would be surprised if the querent would get the job the Moon being lord of the 12th and her in the twelfth at the very end of her sign and immediately entering into her peregrination.

Johannes

Johannes knows it appears more than many Contemporary Traditionists who were in that discussion about this concept that many Trads apparently misunderstand.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know

cor scorpii

4 by cor scorpii

This might be interesting

And if the Moon were void in course [and] after this were she to cross over to the next sign and were joined to the Lord of the first sign (or to the lord of its exaltation) the Moon will be received. And if she were joined to a planet which was not the Lord of the first sign nor the Lord of its exaltation, it impedes her.

Sahl ibn Bishr, On the reception of the planets

Goran

http://7heavenastrology.wordpress.com
http://klasicnaastrologija.wordpress.com

james_m

5 by james_m

since sahl ibn bishr is being referenced, it might be helpful to give his definition of 'void of course' from book 1 introduction (to astrology) - James Herchel Holden translation page 19 in the 2008 translation titled "The Introduction to the Science of the Judgments of The Stars'

Void of Course

The explanation of void of course is when the Moon and its orb or that of a planet is empty, that planet will be like one who is exiled; then it is said to be "void of course"; this is when it is not joined to any planet or when no planet is joined to it.1

below is footnote 1

1 The reader should note that this definition of "void of course" is entirely different from the usual modern definition, which is that no aspect is formed before the Moon leaves the sign that it is in.

johannes susato

6 by johannes susato

Zarathu wrote:On another forum a person asked a Horary question. A poster answered by saying that things would change after the Moon left its sign. I said that was fine as an astrological answer but that it passing out of horary.

My reasoning for this is that two fold.

1. Much is made of VOC in horary, implying that once the Moon moves out of its sign its the end of discussion for the question, even though it doesn't always mean a "no" it does introduce more complication toward a yes

and

2. That we always look to the final aspect of the Moon before she leaves her sign as the end point for what the question would be about.

The responder disagreed and believes that horary can be taken further after the Moon leaves her sign; I think that ends horary's action on the question, though regular astrology can certainly address it.

I'm looking for an astrologer with some verified stature in Horary(or someone with an FHP degree) to stand on either point of view, so that I can learn more about this.

Can anyone here help?

Zarathu

Your question seems to implicit that there is only one definition of void of course (void, if no perfection of conjunction or aspect within the Moon's or other planet's sign of position) and no other definition. But there is another of Lilly, CA p. 112, followed also by others, where you can see, that Lilly does not claim perfection, but only application within the sign of position at the time of the question to the body or aspect of another planet, even though perfection might not happen before having left the sign of position at the time of the question.

Lilly, Christian Astrology, p. 112:
"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other:[...]"

The terms "separated" and "apply" is not meant as to body only, but also as to aspects of another planet as can be easily seen by Lilly's examples.

Johannes

Geoffrey

7 by Geoffrey

Zarathu, Lee Lehman is probably more formally qualified in astrology than anyone else alive right now, so - if you account that as important - it is interesting to see what she has to say about VOC moon and out-of-sign aspects. Have a look at Lehman's book "The Martial Art of Astrology".

Lehman confirms that a horary question only has 'life' while the Moon is in its present sign, but that the Moon can be applying 'out of sign' to another planet before it leaves its present sign. Lehman's personal take on how seriously to take this application depends on whether the Moon would gain dignity (or loose debility) when it changes sign. (See page 51 ob. cit.) In this way, she would appear in a general sense to echo Sahl ibn Bishr, as quoted by Goran, where Sahl ibn Bishr is effectively saying that if the Moon gains a particular accidental dignity by moving to the next sign, then this should be noted.

I cannot find any particular instances in Lilly's example charts where his judgement includes aspects to which the Moon starts to apply after it has entered the next sign. But there are numerous references to the past history of the question, as signified by aspects the Moon made while in the previous sign.

Coley's generic example chart has the Moon at 28 degrees of Pisces, so we might expect him to be tempted to make something of any aspects the Moon makes when in Aries. The only time he does this is in questions relating to the 5th house where he says the Moon will apply to a sextile to the cusp of the 5th house, which as 17 degrees of Gemini.

Otherwise, my reading of traditional (17th century) authors is that they do not consider aspects to which the Moon will only start to apply when it moves into the next sign.