hi guys/gals

Extremly interesting topic!

i have an idea

let's test it!

lets actually look at resolved charts with YESes and get to the bottom of what exactly Frawley is talking about?

anyone objects?

Cheers!
CD

cosmicdolphin wrote:hi guys/gals

Extremly interesting topic!

i have an idea

let's test it!

lets actually look at resolved charts with YESes and get to the bottom of what exactly Frawley is talking about?

anyone objects?

Cheers!
CD

Where are you going to get the resolved charts?

RC

I have them... I am saving them as much as I can!

CD

I do cringe slightly reading these old posts! Two years ago - gee!

I'm still for Frawley, still for a "common sense" approach - but I have subtly altered my understanding over the years and I don't think my posts in 2006 reflect my current understanding. It's called "LEARNING" and it's a process we all go through!

RC, if you disagree with Frawley's methods, fine - Frawley is not everyone's cup of tea. However his books are still a good starting point because his continual message is "Keep it simple" - a valuable lesson when beginning one's studies in astrology, or indeed in any other topic. You were frustrated with this simplicity - fine. I have found it works for me: just because it's simple does not mean it is unsubtle or inaccurate. Remember that horary is the most basic branch of astrology - if simplicity frustrates you, I suggest you study mundane astrology

RC - I'm assuming you wrote this in haste:

He (or anyone for that matter) could make up a lot of nice simple rules, but that wouldn't make it true!

You may sincerely dislike the man and disagree strongly with his books, but the one thing he most certainly did not do was "make it up", as your post implies. Criticism, not abuse, is a vital part of this forum.

Back to the issue at hand : Tom's original reply to Maurice's post sums everything up very well. Methods for orbs are simply unclear in Frawley's writings. This has led to misunderstandings. He never suggested "banishing" them in the first place. Case closed.


Keren

Hi Keren,

I know what you mean about reading back posts that were written a couple of years ago. I had the same reaction and couldn?t actually re-read this thread for squirming ? it was so much a mood of the moment, and we?ve all moved on a little. I?m sure we would all ? John Frawley included ? present the discussion a little differently now. But one thing that struck me was Gunhilde?s suggestion that members can argue ?until they're blue in the face, with no change in viewpoint from either side. As shown here.? I don?t think that is true. I think the discussion here led to concepts being challenged and re-considered, which I am sure was beneficial for everyone involved. If people think that orbs have no importance then they really ought to read this thread several times over I much prefer the idea that John never called for them to be 'banished' in the first place!

What is worrying, is that the renewed interest in this thread occured after Gunhilde seemed surprised that I would take orbs into consideration. Unfortunately, the effect of some of JF's simplifications has been to leave some of his readers thinking that some prinicples can be simplified out of existence. As an example I am thinking here of Gunhilde's suggestion to use whatever works at a personal level - not suggesting at all that JF intended this to happen! I am sure that John always imagined his work to be an aid to understanding Lilly, but what appears to have happened, at the popular end of the horary market, is that this very introductory text has been viewed by some as authoritative and complete within itself. The irony is that, in that sense, the book is in danger of becoming the kind of popularised, simplified, watered down version of traditional technique that John built his reputation by criticising.

(Maybe there simply needs to be a reminder that the book is an introduction to horary - a great read to spur the horary interest along, with some great practical tips and some extremely interesting personal observations. But even reading it from cover to cover, does not a fully-informed horary practitioner make.)

kerenhappuch wrote: You were frustrated with this simplicity - fine. I have found it works for me: just because it's simple does not mean it is unsubtle or inaccurate. Remember that horary is the most basic branch of astrology - if simplicity frustrates you, I suggest you study mundane astrology.

No, leading an entire generation of new students astray with an over simplified quick approach leads me to criticize that method.

I'm hardly "frustrated" about it. I could care less! But I will say, that I've heard his new student/readers attempt to use his system in other forums to the point of absurdity and think its a shame that they have so fully embraced his Astrology for dummies guide approach so completely that they miss the very important points and as a result are not really learning astrology.

As for horary being "the most basic branch of astrology", I do not agree at all with that statement. I don't think one can ever be very good at horary analysis until they've learned how to read a natal chart properly.

kerenhappuch wrote: You may sincerely dislike the man and disagree strongly with his books,

Why would I "dislike" the man? I don't know him - never met him.

kerenhappuch wrote: but the one thing he most certainly did not do was "make it up", as your post implies. Criticism, not abuse, is a vital part of this forum.

I never said he made up rules. However he has oversimplified them greatly, and for that, I am critical.

That comment about anyone making up rules was a generalized statement to be applied to any such oversimplification and was in response to something another poster wrote.

kerenhappuch wrote: Criticism, not abuse, is a vital part of this forum.

LOL...I can see I've really ruffled the feathers of another of his student/fans.

I hardly think I've "abused" him. He did make a couple of points in his book that I liked. I am not completely critical of all of it.

Deb wrote: Unfortunately, the effect of some of JF's simplifications has been to leave some of his readers thinking that some prinicples can be simplified out of existence....

but what appears to have happened, at the popular end of the horary market, is that this very introductory text has been viewed by some as authoritative and complete within itself.

Exactly! This is what I've observed. And that is my criticism.

And I think anyone who relies completely on his methods or that book, will only go so far in their understanding and ability to read a chart and will often arrive at wrong conclusions in their analysis.

One example comes to mind. That wedding chart you posted sometime ago and let all of us analyze it. If I remember correctly, using Frawley's analysis, the woman and her mother should have exalted the fiancee but in fact, the mother hated him. His A loves B but B hates A approach - which looks no further - is simple yes, but isn't going to work like some mathematical formula always yielding the same result.




RC

Hello Deb

I was going to reply to a bit of your post but it all seems quite apt.

Reading your old posts is a bit like re-visiting a previous life. I doubt I would express myself the same way as I did in those posts now.

However, I do think you are missing a deeper problem that dare not speak its name. The issue is not just confined to what John Frawley wrote in the Horary Textbook although that has undeniably created issues as you suggest.

I have come across two fully qualified students of John Frawley who take a similiar line on orbs as The Horary Textbook. So either John Frawley is teaching very badly (which I doubt) or this attitude is quite central to his personal teaching approach.

That is fair enough if he is transparent where he differs with the traditional approach in his own experience. However, I am not sure Frawley is even relating that to his students. The ones I have communicated with seem to have a very vague idea on Lilly's (and all other traditional sources) teaching on moeity orbs and aspects.

I realise this isn't the place to go in for personal attacks on other astrologers. Especially, world famous ones with armies of admiring fans who might take offence. Still, maybe its time someone pointed out the Emperor is not wearing any traditional clothes?

As for horary being "the most basic branch of astrology", I do not agree at all with that statement. I don't think one can ever be very good at horary analysis until they've learned how to read a natal chart properly.

Does anyone agree with this from RC? Did Lilly put the cart before the horse in CA? I guess he is a bit like JF learning older authors' works and presenting them anew in the light of his own practice to a contemporary audience.

Matt
[/quote]

In the medieval and renaissance approach horary provided the basic grounding in astrology before more complex areas like electional, natal and finally mundane were tackled.

I wish I had been taught horary 20 years ago rather than struggling with the vague natal delineation methods of modern astrology.

In the medieval and renaissance approach horary provided the basic grounding in astrology before more complex areas like electional, natal and finally mundane were tackled.

You know Mark, I'm not sure about that - I think it might be an urban myth If you look at William Ramesey's massive text he publishes several volumes on various astrological techniques, yet manages to avoid the subject of horary altogether (apart from suggesting it's all a load of rubbish).

The only thing that Lilly makes clear, is that the first volume is his ?Introduction?, which teaches the basics. This needs to be read first so that the books that follow make sense. It doesn?t seem to be the case that the natal volume needs to be studied after the horary volume, or vice-versa. It was quite usual for traditional authors to create new books or new volumes to cover different techniques, and the order by which they published them doesn?t necessarily say anything about their perceived importance or preferred priority for study. Ibn Ezra, for example, wrote and circulated his Book of Nativities before he wrote and circulated his Book of Questions, but no one would suggest he put the cart before the horse, or wrote his work in the wrong order! Also remember that Lilly?s Introduction was available as a separate publication. It wasn?t the case that everyone bought it as a 2 volume or 3 volume bound set as we are used to seeing it.

You know Mark, I'm not sure about that - I think it might be an urban myth

That will teach me to rely on secondary sources.

Incidentally, have you let John Frawley know yet?

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

As might be expected, traditional didactic texts start the student from the bottom and lead him gradually upward. So the first subject to be covered is the lowest on the list: horary astrology, which is the art of answering specific questions by judging an astrological chart for the moment at which the question is asked. The traditional teacher has a careful belief that it is better to start with what is easier and work towards what is more difficult. The study of modern astrology invariably begins with birth-charts, which is akin to confronting children in the first year of elementary school with the differential calculus. A few of those who master natal astrology will find their way to a study of horary, as if that small proportion who study maths at university were finally to be introduced to the multiplication tables. This might not be unconnected with the lack of mastery prevalent today.

From horary, we come to electional astrology. This can be seen as horary back-to-front: while horary takes the moment and judges the likely consequence, in electional astrology we take the desired consequence and look for the moment most likely to produce that result. Only then do we come to the thorough study of natal astrology; for only through having attained mastery of horary and elections will the student have acquired sufficient knowledge to be able to soundly judge the infinitely more complex matter of a human life.

But even natal astrology, the be-all and end-all of the craft today, is but a stepping stone on the path to the three highest sections in our list of subjects, which together comprise 'mundane' astrology: the astrology of the world, traditionally considered the flower and the crown of astrological learning.

(The Real Astrology, John Frawley)

Thank you Mark and Deb for your thoughts on this. I am in the Horary side on this because my long dormant interest in astrology was revivified by a John Frawley talk. I suppose that makes me a John Frawley fan - but not his orbs though

Matt