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:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
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 zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Placement Relative to the Horizon
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:49 pm    Post subject: Placement Relative to the Horizon Reply with quote

Looking at my current lunar return chart I see the DESC at 06 LEO 55 and Mars at 00 LEO 28. That's a difference of 06° 27', so Mars is clearly below in the 6th house – well out of reach of the 5 degree rule. But the altitude of Mars is listed as +01° 02', and therefore it's above the horizon. Not only would that seem to make Mars a 7th house occupant, but Mars would be more comfortably and agreeably placed, being nocturnally placed in a nocturnal chart (the Sun is below the horizon). This is one of those cases of 'I haven't the slightest idea of what to do'.

What would the old guys have done? Would they have looked at the zodiacal placement only and left Mars in the 6th house, or would they have said Mars was nocturnally placed and in the 7th house? If they stepped outside they would have seen Mars just above the horizon – as long as there weren't any obstructing trees or hills, of course. Using whole sign houses they would have had a 7th house Mars in either case, but it does still affect sect placement. But if Mars had been at 29 CAN 59 and still above the horizon by altitude (and visual observation), whole sign houses would force Mars into the 6th. Did the ancients give priority to placement by zodiacal degree or by visual observation?


Last edited by ### on Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes this stuff really creeps me out. The idea flashed into my mind afterward to draw up a chart for the moment I started the topic (not something I do often) and there's Mars, the topic subject, rising at 01 LEO 47 and the ASC at 02 LEO 55 (at my location). Gobsmacked Mars' altitude is +02° 43'. I had no idea that Mars and Leo were even rising – I didn't bother to wonder what was going on up there at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pretty tough questions! I cannot say what the old timers would do-what they would consider happening-in Kirk's example, but (for whatever its worth) here's how I would look at it:
-I use Whole Sign exclusively; relating to house allocation in Kirk's example Mars would unquestionably be considered (by me) to be in the 7th house, regardless of Mars position above/below the horizon
-since I do not consider sect in my delineations, the diurnal/nocturnal situation of Mars would not enter into my considerations
-however, for certain other applications I do take into account if a planet is above or below the horizon as that horizon is indicated in the chart: for this determination I exclusively apply the "chart geometry" rather than visual observation (because in even using a chart method I am looking at occult relationships-or, if you will, relationships having their essential basis at another "level" than that of the apparently, visually, obvious) Thus in Kirk's example, if the desc degree of the chart = 6Leo55, and Mars is posited at the 0Leo28 degree of the chart, then my CHART BASED consideration would be that Mars is below the CHART horizon line. My belief is that an astrological chart (intended for astrological analysis) is not necessarily an exact representation of the obviously apparent visual "objective" state of celestial bodies as would be considered from an astronomical point of view. In reply to Kirk's question regarding priority of zodiacal degree vs visual placement, I would have to say that, for me, zodiacal degree has the priority. In certain cases (such as Kirk's example), I might make a "final determination" by comparing the declination of the planet with that of the descendant angle: if the 2 were the same, I would consider the planet to be essentially "below" the horizion; if the planet's declination were "above" that of the descedant angle, I would consider the planet to be "above" the horizon.

Note: this little "explanation" of mine is intended merely to outline the way in which I personally would consider these matters and I make no claim about being right or correct-or historically accurate-in my opinions!

PS:
1) Our model is based upon the path of the sun, ie, it has an ecliptic-referenced framework. A different model (such as the Chinese)-based upon an equatorial-referenced framework-could give different results in placement relative to the horizon.

2) The old time astrologers (prior to the 1800's) based their timing (and astrological calculations) upon sundials and sundial-connected water clocks: that is, their time was based upon the actual sun (what is today referred to as "local apparent time") Since the 1800's, timing is based upon civilly-determined "local standard time" ("mean time"), which is then converted to sidereal time. The difference between sun time and clock time varies throughout the year: from + or - 1 minute, to as much as + or- 15 minutes (see "Daily Sun Data", found by googling these words)
Since 1 zodiacal degree passes every 4 minutes (average), on some days of the year the degree-difference in calculations based on clock time vs calculations made on sun time can be over 3 full zodiacal degrees. This might make a difference relative to the issue of the chart asc/desc degrees vs where the "actual" horizon line is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know either what the ancients would do but I agree with dr. Farr:
Quote:
I use Whole Sign exclusively; relating to house allocation in Kirk's example Mars would unquestionably be considered (by me) to be in the 7th house, regardless of Mars position above/below the horizon
, in a way that the choice might be related to the used house system. In an ecliptic based system I'd say one should also use the projected place on the ecliptic.

The only other house systems to which mundane positions could be used, would be Campanus, Regiomontanus and Placidus because their definitions of the ascendant are based upon the entire horizon and not on that point on the ecliptic that crosses the horizon (like for example Alchabitius).

Furthermore I'd think that if this is applied to planets near the horizon, this should also be done with planets in the other houses, a planet in house II according to the ecliptical position could be in house III according to the mundane position.


Last edited by Eddy on Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:

Furthermore I'd think that if this is applied to planets near the horizon, this should also be done with planets in the other houses, a planet near cusp II according to the ecliptical position could be in house III according to the mundane position.


This looks me very far for me...a planet near the 2nd cusp could be in the first house or in the second according its "in mundo" position.

Solar Fire has an option which is called "analogue diurnal arc" from F6- I don't know if it corresponds to Placidus method.
Generally when I need I do calculation by hand- but I'm not a fan of "in mundo"calculations at least in nativities- so generally I don't need Smile
On the other hand in directions I saw many examples where they work.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

margherita wrote:
Eddy wrote:

Furthermore I'd think that if this is applied to planets near the horizon, this should also be done with planets in the other houses, a planet near cusp II according to the ecliptical position could be in house III according to the mundane position.


This looks me very far for me...a planet near the 2nd cusp could be in the first house or in the second according its "in mundo" position.

Indeed, I made a mistake. Although that position could also be possible, it might lead to confusion. I just changed it in the post.

Wasn't Placidus the one who applied the 'in mundo' techniques the most?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Estebon_Duarte



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 134
Location: West Coast USA

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say you have a 7th sign planet who can't really manifest properly. It has yet to fully enter Leo and is cadent by division.
I had a similar situation with my SR this year. The Descendant was 20 Gemini and Mercury was at 14 Gemini. Altitude aside, I think chart-wise or by visual omen this month would be a good one to see how Mars is determined toward your chart.
_________________
Western Predictive Astrology by Estebon Duarte Independent Researcher AMA MACAA
Natal Chart & Annual Solar Revolution Reports
www.organic-astrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:


Wasn't Placidus the one who applied the 'in mundo' techniques the most?


I believe yes, in another thread I recently copied this from Sibly translation of Coelestis Philosophia:

"there are two motions of the stars whereby they influence those inferior, that is under the primum mobile and round the world...it necessarily follows that there are two kinds of familiarities in the stars; the one under the Zodiac and the other round the world: these two kinds of familiarities are delivered by Ptolemy in several places. "

Then Placido explains quotes from Ptolemy, one is taken from book I of Tetrabiblos

"for example, Venus is in her proper face when making a sextile aspect to either luminary, provided she be occidental to the Sun, but oriental to the Moon, agreeably to the primary arrangement of her houses"

And Placido comments:
"Venus never has the sextile to the Sun in the Zodiac, as it can only be extended by it 48° ; wherefore unless any one will say that Ptolomy was ignorant of this (which is absurd) he must of course say, he spoke of the sextile in the world."

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

margherita wrote:
Then Placido explains quotes from Ptolemy, one is taken from book I of Tetrabiblos

"for example, Venus is in her proper face when making a sextile aspect to either luminary, provided she be occidental to the Sun, but oriental to the Moon, agreeably to the primary arrangement of her houses"

And Placido comments:
"Venus never has the sextile to the Sun in the Zodiac, as it can only be extended by it 48° ; wherefore unless any one will say that Ptolomy was ignorant of this (which is absurd) he must of course say, he spoke of the sextile in the world."


Didn't Ptolemy just mean that the sextile of Venus to the Sun was by two signs rather than by exactly 60 degrees? Measured along the ecliptic the first would still be possible, for example Sun in 25°Gemini and Venus in 10°Leo, a distance of 45° but two signs apart and occidental.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:


Didn't Ptolemy just mean that the sextile of Venus to the Sun was by two signs rather than by exactly 60 degrees? Measured along the ecliptic the first would still be possible, for example Sun in 25°Gemini and Venus in 10°Leo, a distance of 45° but two signs apart and occidental.


When Ptolemy mentions sextile says:

"in all parts at the hexagonal distance from each other, containing between them two-thirds of a right angle, or two signs, or sixty degrees"

Truth is nobody really knows what Ptolemy thought when wrote Tetrabiblos Smile You see how many brilliant professors are dedicated to astrology and all of them say a different thing about what was in Ptolemy mind.

In every case I think that in mundo directions work- I saw many examples; in nativities I don't use them.


margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

margherita wrote:
When Ptolemy mentions sextile says:

"in all parts at the hexagonal distance from each other, containing between them two-thirds of a right angle, or two signs, or sixty degrees"
Yes now I've found it in I.16 http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb19.htm or I.13 http://www.reocities.com/astrologysources/classicalgreece/tetrabiblos/tetrabiblosbooki.htm#side13

Quote:
Truth is nobody really knows what Ptolemy thought when wrote Tetrabiblos Smile You see how many brilliant professors are dedicated to astrology and all of them say a different thing about what was in Ptolemy mind.
Unfortunately we can't get Ptolemy to come to the forum to explain Smile .

Personally I like the ecliptic the most and usually do all astrology on that reference frame. But I like to look at the mathematical parts of the mundane issues.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:

Personally I like the ecliptic the most and usually do all astrology on that reference frame. But I like to look at the mathematical parts of the mundane issues.


I prefer ecliptic too, I should admit Smile because the greater part of astrologers worked on it.

But on the other hand I should admit I saw terrific things with in mundo calculation because in CieloeTerra they use a lot.

For example very recently Marco Fumagalli using profections calculated as they were directions, showed many working examples of famous nativities- between them using this method he rectified Michael Jackson birth chart getting the same time 11:43 pm as Ben Dykes in his famous article.

For being a coincidence is impressive...

So I would not say that they don't work, it's just that ecliptic is more familiar to me.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1406
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:
Didn't Ptolemy just mean that the sextile of Venus to the Sun was by two signs rather than by exactly 60 degrees?

Of course he did! Very Happy Placidus tried to foist off all sorts of new-fangled inventions on Ptolemy: mundane aspects, secondary directions, etc...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1406
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

margherita wrote:
For example very recently Marco Fumagalli using profections calculated as they were directions

Do you mean, in effect, primary directions with ever 30 degrees of RA corresponding to 1 year?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:

Do you mean, in effect, primary directions with ever 30 degrees of RA corresponding to 1 year?


with the rules of primary directions, RA for MC, OA for ascendant, mixed ascensions for the rest of planets.

An example of calculation - but Fumagalli article is more beautiful Wink))) because it's newer - is given here in CieloeTerra site:

http://www.cieloeterra.it/articoli.profezione/profezione.html

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
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