In this day and age I think it is hard for us to imagine how serious a matter of theft was in the 17th century. But that chart wasn?t just about Lilly having his supper stolen. The chart was based upon the time that Lilly heard about the robbery upon the warehouse. We don?t know the scale of the robbery, or of Lilly?s own investment (though it sounds like quite a large provision of fish); but we do know that the matter was serious enough for Lilly to procure a warrant from the justice of Peace, and then ? accompanied by a constable and the barge man ? reserve it until the time of the search. It was quite an inconvenience for Lilly to pursue this, and he obviously had a strong commitment to do whatever was necessary to resolve the problem.

Curiously, (and this is perfectly true but I won?t give names), just a couple of days before this chart was posted, I was chatting with some well known and very well respected astrologers. One of them mentioned the reliability of horary and used the comment ?I?m talking about a real horary of course, not someone asking when the workman will arrive?.
It seems to me that this question has become a classic example of the attempt to use horary as a way to avoid a little inconvenience, rather than a soul-filled attempt to gain guidance on a matter of significance. I don?t think we can know what is or what isn?t significant in someone else?s life, but I do know that horary is not a good tool for scheduling personal appointments ? that?s just not what horary is about.

Well my point was only that the chart did predict within 1/2 hour, the time of the workman's arrival. The question of whether that person *should* have asked such a question seems moot since the chart did work as he put it when he asked Why didn't it work?

There are many opinions as to whether one should ask this or that. But no one really knows that. Until someone unearths a source of Biblical comparison, inspired of God which states "Thou shalt not ask .... ", then no one, including well established astrologers who gather to discuss the issue or write about it in books can say "that question should not be asked" with any authority. It is opinion only. And we all choose which opinions we will follow.

As for Lilly?s fish question, I might conjecture that it was a big issue for him because he chose to make it a big issue and obsess over it. He just as easily could have let it go and turn the cheek. He might also have seen it as a challenge to try to attempt to solve the mystery to prove himself capable of doing so with astrology and thereby boost his reputation. Something seen as trivial to one might be very important to another or merely labeled trivial because it?s seen as an attempt to avoid an inconvenience. I would think that if a chart in fact did not work, then you *might* have a good argument and proof to back it up, that the question should not have been asked.

Trish

As you like Trish. But in my opinion the timing technique that was applied after the fact was not replicable for a chart where the timing wasn't already known. In other words, your argument that the chart did predict seems slightly flawed on account of the astrologer asking why it didn't. I'm not sure if there is a word such as post-dicting, but I think that's what we're doing here.

Deb wrote:As you like Trish. But in my opinion the timing technique that was applied after the fact was not replicable for a chart where the timing wasn't already known. In other words, your argument that the chart did predict seems slightly flawed on account of the astrologer asking why it didn't. I'm not sure if there is a word such as post-dicting, but I think that's what we're doing here.

Ahh, but but the fault would lie with the astrologer, not the question or chart would it not?

I would venture a guess that this particular astrologer who tried to answer this question, may have said that the workman was not going to arrive at all because of the moon being VOC. I would love to know what he/she in fact predicted.

Trish

If you?re proposing that we can use horary to answer absolutely anything we care to ask; then you are not really working within the framework or philosophy of horary. What you are probably arguing is that astrology ought to be able to reflect the predictability of every event ? which is a very deep discussion, so I won?t go there today.

My point is that this kind of question is likely to lack radicality, which means that the power of the symbolism ? and the astrologer?s expectation of being illuminated in order to read it with confidence and conviction, is going to be weak. Hence the question, the chart, and the astrologer, are all ?iffy?! After 20 years of teaching horary I have two points that I stress to students over and above all others ? never expect another astrologer to tell you what your chart means, and never ask a question where you wouldn?t sincerely pray to receive an answer (then when you get that question, never give up on it). Being successful with horary is not just about knowing the techniques, it?s about having a certain attitude of mind that respects the art, takes it seriously, and genuinely commits to seeking an answer. The more experienced we become the more we live with it as a constant guide, but students in particular need to be careful about asking questions lightly. That point that is stressed in all the traditional sources.

Trish,

I really don't think I can say much that will add to Deborah's lucid remarks; since you asked me a question specifically, though, I feel I owe you a response.

I agree with Deborah's remarks about Lilly and his question. I can't think of anything I would add.

When it comes to workmen, my experiences with workmen and time frames is completely the obverse of yours. In the past, I have worked as a dispatch operator for emergency services. Those workmen were frequently expected to be in several places at once. They were working all over the city. When people called, they couldn't answer their phones because they are on the road or up to their elbows in someone's furnace or main sewer line. They never knew when they got to the next job how long the repairs would take, or what parts would need to be fetched to complete the work. This is a simple case of one human being expecting too much from another. That's why those workmen had to hire a dispatch agency to handle their thoughtless callers so they could do their jobs instead of haggling on the phone with self-centered people who had no comprehension of or compassion for the workman's situation.

Yes, I do think the question about a workman's time of arrival is trivial. Perhaps the person who asks and is double-booked for time needs to make more thoughtful arrangements. They might want to call in a favor with a friend or relative and have someone house-sit for an hour or two. Alternately, they might want to reschedule the workmen if the other appointment is of critical necessity and impossible to delay.

If you could bring down Diana, the goddess of the Moon, and urgently ask her for her help with this question, what do you think her answer would be?

We are not gods, we are only human. But humans can be more resourceful than this, in my opinion--and more compassionate.

Best,

Pam

Deb wrote: If you?re proposing that we can use horary to answer absolutely anything we care to ask; then you are not really working within the framework or philosophy of horary. What you are probably arguing is that astrology ought to be able to reflect the predictability of every event ? which is a very deep discussion, so I won?t go there today.

No, I'm not proposing that. What I am saying is no one really knows.

Deb wrote: My point is that this kind of question is likely to lack radicality, which means that the power of the symbolism ? and the astrologer?s expectation of being illuminated in order to read it with confidence and conviction, is going to be weak. Hence the question, the chart, and the astrologer, are all ?iffy?! After 20 years of teaching horary I have two points that I stress to students over and above all others ? never expect another astrologer to tell you what your chart means, and never ask a question where you wouldn?t sincerely pray to receive an answer (then when you get that question, never give up on it). Being successful with horary is not just about knowing the techniques, it?s about having a certain attitude of mind that respects the art, takes it seriously, and genuinely commits to seeking an answer. The more experienced we become the more we live with it as a constant guide, but students in particular need to be careful about asking questions lightly. That point that is stressed in all the traditional sources.

Well that's one way. But that seems to require a lot of religious beliefs. There are in fact atheists who believe in astrology. It works regardless of whether you believe in some traditional concept of God or not. For those who may think there is some science at work that man does not yet understand and reject clothing it in spirituality or some religious dogma, they would reject those practices and yet the horary would still work for them.

I am not saying what is or what is not correct. I simply don't know. And neither does anyone else. That's all I'm saying. Not trying to give you a hard time here.

Trish

spirlhelix wrote:Trish,

I really don't think I can say much that will add to Deborah's lucid remarks; since you asked me a question specifically, though, I feel I owe you a response.

I agree with Deborah's remarks about Lilly and his question. I can't think of anything I would add.

When it comes to workmen, my experiences with workmen and time frames is completely the obverse of yours. In the past, I have worked as a dispatch operator for emergency services. Those workmen were frequently expected to be in several places at once. They were working all over the city. When people called, they couldn't answer their phones because they are on the road or up to their elbows in someone's furnace or main sewer line. They never knew when they got to the next job how long the repairs would take, or what parts would need to be fetched to complete the work. This is a simple case of one human being expecting too much from another. That's why those workmen had to hire a dispatch agency to handle their thoughtless callers so they could do their jobs instead of haggling on the phone with self-centered people who had no comprehension of or compassion for the workman's situation.

Yes, I do think the question about a workman's time of arrival is trivial. Perhaps the person who asks and is double-booked for time needs to make more thoughtful arrangements. They might want to call in a favor with a friend or relative and have someone house-sit for an hour or two. Alternately, they might want to reschedule the workmen if the other appointment is of critical necessity and impossible to delay.

If you could bring down Diana, the goddess of the Moon, and urgently ask her for her help with this question, what do you think her answer would be?

We are not gods, we are only human. But humans can be more resourceful than this, in my opinion--and more compassionate.

Best,

Pam

Hi Pam:

Glad to see the "workmen" of the world have such a zealous supporter!

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I or the original questioner was without compassion, i.e., thoughtless inconsiderate or unkind, just because we dared to believe it permissible to ask "when the workman might arrive"?

Trish

No I?m sure she didn?t, and I see no sense of that in her posts. But this is a forum for discussion of the philosophy and principles, not just the techniques.

Your argument seems to be that no one really knows. That you don?t know and therefore no one else should have a conviction about this - which, I suppose, makes any further discussion rather pointless. I?ll make this my last comment. I only want to clear up that what I said does not require religious beliefs, or any traditional concept of God. It only requires an acceptance that living things are in possession of a soul and that there is a spiritual basis to physical reality. You can call it an emotional basis if you like.

Deb wrote: But this is a forum for discussion of the philosophy and principles, not just the techniques.

It is a touchy subject but I can't resist pointing out that today is the feast day of St Catherine of Alexandria, patroness of philosophers. Whilst she may appreciate the debate we should remember that religions come and go but astrology endures. It is something to do with saturn and jupiter cycles apparently.

Matt

Deb wrote:No I?m sure she didn?t, and I see no sense of that in her posts. But this is a forum for discussion of the philosophy and principles, not just the techniques.

Your argument seems to be that no one really knows. That you don?t know and therefore no one else should have a conviction about this - which, I suppose, makes any further discussion rather pointless...

Hello again Deb,

Just to wrap this part up so that I am not misunderstood either, I am not saying that no one else should have a conviction about this, only that they should not try to force their convictions on others. I don't think you are doing that.

Pam seemed to think this question "didn't work" and then opened up that discussion. Nothing wrong with debating the issue. More often than not, no one's mind is changed by such a debate but if it gets people thinking about it, then that can't be bad can it?

I think the original question got lost in all this which is unfortunate because a discussion of how and why that chart worked would be more interesting I think. And I do think it easily could have been predicted before the fact.


Trish

I think the original question got lost in all this which is unfortunate because a discussion of how and why that chart worked would be more interesting I think. And I do think it easily could have been predicted before the fact.

Hi Trish, I totally agree with your first (quoted) sentence, except that, of course, it is perfectly "legal" for astrologers to express their opinons on the matter of "triviality" of questions. This question has raised such a debate, which is not bad in itself, although, in the end of the end, it's only a matter of opinion and as such does not pertain to the subject matter of the thread. As for the timing technique (angles to significators), it took me less than a minute to note the 17,5 distance from IC to Jupiter (or roughly 18 from IC to Saturn); this doesn't mean that I'd find the answer beforehand. It is true that it was found in retrospect - nothing else was possible either When I posted my finding I received the comment that it was "constructed" so to speak, which somehow raised the question of how "legal" this timing method is. I'd like to stress that I have found this timing technique (distance of angles to significators reflecting the appropriate time unit) "working" frequently in cases when no other technique worked. I find this fascinating, and I'm glad to see another case where this technique "worked". If nothing else, I think that this alone should "excuse" the triviality of the question.