In a further attempt to stave off arthritis...

Aha! I think I understand. I'm not certain anyone in this group is trying to say they know everything about Mundane astrology, I was under the impression we were trying to figure it out??? I could be mistaken there, but that is my impression, also that occasionally someone seems to find a thread they think is important or at least has some directional bearing qualities.

Though I will say I think some people here have a better grasp than others (others equals me) ....

Granny

It?s only when we do predictions that our techniques are proven right or wrong.

That?s assuming that knowledge of all future events and circumstances is always and completely possible. I doubt if few astrologers, ancient or modern, would agree with that. Taking such a position is philosophically risky and has little historical support in nearly all cultures.

If you are in agreement that such complete knowledge of the future isn?t possible, then you?re left working with techniques that may or may not be useful and accurate. If a prediction failed to materialize was it because of faulty techniques or because the future in this case just was not to be known? You?re left with uncertainty concerning your techniques ? they haven?t been proven. And are we really trying to prove our techniques or trying to get astrology to prove itself?

Prediction tests our understanding and technique like nothing else can.

I would say that accurate description in the chart of people and past or current circumstances would be much more reliable. This would be description of what is and what has been ? much safer than looking at what might be.

Hi Mark

I?m usually pretty skeptical of the way that transits are used without regard to any sort of base chart, be it a natal, solar ingress or whatever.

Are you suggesting that planets don?t have any influence/significance unless viewed by comparison with a chart? Mundane astrology is the study of planetary cycles as related to world affairs, and (as I understand it) works on the principal that planetary cycles create world-wide effects, though those effects will be witnessed most readily when they fall upon sensitive points or relevant situations. Although I obviously see the sense of referring them primarily to charts that are receptive, I wouldn?t go so far as to suggest that there has to be a pre-existing chart for planetary conjunctions and aspects to mean something in their own right. Aphorism 50 of Ptolemy?s Centiloquium reads:

"In your general judgement pass not over the 120 Conjunctions. For the knowledge of Mundane affairs is posited therein, as well of generation as corruption."

You seem to be using the time of the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter as the base chart here, and then seeing when other planets have significant and unusual contacts with the sensitive point where their conjunction occurred, in this case at 22? 43? Taurus. Is that right?

I didn?t use a base chart for this. My point was only that Mars, when it stationed upon a certain degree, set the seeds of a controversy that came to full blown manifestation when Mars returned to that degree after its retrograde loop. And that return was to a particularly sensitive area with regard to that controversy for a number of reasons that I mentioned. Lilly advises a 5 degree orb for contact with Algol, so by 3? degrees I certainly think this is a significant contact with Mars, especially since this was at a time when there was a great deal of inflamed passions, emotive anger, and widespread fear, with the element of heads being lost, demonstrating how the astrological picture accurately described the kinds of tensions in play at the time. So not so much a base chart in my mind, but a comparison between the influences that came out into the open under that Mars-Algol contact, and the events that preceded them under the previous contact.

And then once we isolate a transit, like this Mars one, how do we figure out where on earth its effects will be felt and how they will be felt?

This is where I think the experience of watching, monitoring, and taking notice of these kinds of things is a very useful exercise. I doubt it is possible to reliably and successfully ?predict? in mundane astrology unless you are keeping a steady, watchful eye on mundane affairs. (I?ll never be a good mundane astrologer because I struggle to keep up with politics and what is going on in the world )

Also what are some good traditional books on such things?

If your interest is in 17th century texts I think you?ll find Ramesey?s work very good, but you also ought to be exploring the background philosophy of the quality of air and weather. Personally I like the approach that Dennis Elwell takes in these matters, and his powers of prediction were publicly proven by his forewarnings to P&O over the Herald of Fee enterprise disaster. I also think that books like ?The Combination of Stellar Influences? by Reinhold Ebertin are essential, but I?m not sure whether you?ll feel the same.

Incidentally, I?ve noticed in this forum lately there seems to be a sense of disapproval for transits, as if they are not a genuinely traditional tool for prediction. I can?t understand where that idea comes from. The book ?Dorotheus, Orpheus, Anubio and Pseudo Valens: Teachings on Transits? (PH, translated by R. Schmidt) should remove all doubt about the historical basis of transits. And of course the astrological notion that retrograde loops create a repeat of mundane events goes way back to the cuneiform texts.

Regards
Deb

I don?t think I have fundamental differences with you on this matter.

I think we do. The fundamental difference is that I do not believe that all transits have to be linked to something in a chart to be of significance.

I do think that we should always tie in transits or cycles to existing chart, be they natal, solar ingresses, or even to grand conjunction charts.

Why? A mundane chart is often an event chart for a particular event that has occurred. This can be anything from a train crash to an earthquake to a terrorist attack. An event chart is like a natal chart. A natal chart is the event chart for the moment of your birth. We gain great value out of delineating a natal chart without tying it in to anything else. Why is it so hard to understand that an event chart can offer the same understanding of whatever event it represents?

It?s easy but not very enlightening to talk in a general way about planetary cycles.

If you do not understand cycles you do not understand astrology. A look through some of the classic epics or poems, such as Virgil's Georgics, for example, will show you that an understanding of and belief in the importance of astrological cycles dates back thousands of years. Babylonians and Egyptians had a strong sense of the importance of cycles.

The same thing is happening in mundane, but from I can see, the work is years behind where we are with horary.

I have no idea where you get this view because it simply is not true. What might be true is that horary is currently more popular than mundane astrology and that mundane astrology has not had the same renaissance that horary astrology has had but people who are doing mundane work are hardly inferior astrologers to those of horary astrologers.

So we?re able to see that a conjunction or Saturn and Jupiter is bad, and the same for an opposition between Saturn and Pluto maybe even too. But that?s a pretty crude understanding of things.

It might be a crude understanding but it is not my understanding. Nor is it the understanding of mundane astrologers. You are simplifying things in the extreme. Who ever said that a conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn was necessarily a bad thing? I haven?t come across this view in mundane astrology. It is a cycle that is neither good or bad. It involves a benefic and a malefic. Deaths of US presidents is merely one example of how it may play out. One of the most common explanations for the ?Star of Bethlehem? is that it was the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction of -0006BCE. I guess it depends on your view of the Christian religion but generally this conjunction is considered to be a good thing because it announced the coming of the ?saviour?.

We?re not lowering ourselves or doing a cheap trick when we do a prediction. Like I said above it?s our only way of checking our technique.

Astrology is about so much more than technique. Anyone can use techniques to come up with the right answer in, say, a horary chart but it requires a much deeper understanding to give the depth of guidance that people are seeking. Personally, I am not all that interested in prediction but I am interested in understanding the cycles that repeat throughout history. I am also interested in looking at event charts in an attempt to determine what it was that brought us to this moment in time and why it manifested in the way that it did.

It?s the modern astrologers who are being superficial when they couch all their predictions in double-talk about growth and change, which could cover anything from being fired from your job to being hired for a new one.

You are being very unfair to modern astrologers. There are plenty of people who consider themselves traditional astrologers who would win hands down in the superficiality stakes. Just take a look at some of the horary questions on this forum. And I think it is arrogant to believe that it is modern astrologers who lack understanding and must learn from traditional astrologers without acknowledging that this learning can be a two way thing. A good friend of mine is a modern astrologer and through our conversations we learn from each other. Deb and I have both mentioned Dennis Elwell. Dennis is a modern astrologer and I disagree with much of what he says. However, ?Cosmic Loom? is one of my favourite astrology books and I have learned a lot from reading it. I have a problem with the application of some of his ideas (he uses the natural zodiac, for example) but I find the theory highly interesting. Deb also mentioned the judgement by Dennis on the ferry disaster. If P&O had listened to him rather than ignoring his direct warnings many lives may have been saved. The judgements that Dennis made were not tied into any other chart. If you have not read this article, I suggest you have a look at it. This is mundane astrology at its best.

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