Hi Cor,

I missed your post earlier.

I think there's a fairly strong mitigating influence at work here that is worth mentioning - according to Valens. Jupiter dominates Saturn in this chart(9th, 10th and 11th sign from another planet were considered as dominant position, especially the 10th) and is thus able to break/mitigate its negative influence; moreover, Jupiter is angular and oriental and has the help of Venus.

This is evidence of what I see as a problem with traditional astrology. Maybe it's part of our growing pains. And Cor I'm not picking on you. This has to do with astrology, not its adherents. It seems to me that no matter what one authority has to say about a technique, there is another out there either mitigating it or downright rejecting it. So Valens says Jupiter can mitigate Saturn and therefore the entire idea of besiegement does not matter in this case even if Saturn is exalted and Jupiter is in detriment. Now Morin would reject that since Saturn is so much stronger than Jupiter.

Where do we go? Whom do we believe? Are these planets besieged or not? This is not the only instance where such things are possible to find even if we discount Morin who does this a lot. There are different definitions for void-of-course Moon, there are competing opinions of in sign and out of sign aspects dating back to Ibn Ezra etc.

OK I vented. If anyone interested in participating in this discussion wishes to ignore the idea that the planets between Mars and Saturn are besieged, feel free to ignore them, and concentrate only on the aspect or anything else. I was struck by the number of planets between the two malefics and thought it interesting in light of the native's upcoming election.

Tom

cor scorpii wrote:Greetings everyone

I think there's a fairly strong mitigating influence at work here that is worth mentioning - according to Valens. Jupiter dominates Saturn in this chart(9th, 10th and 11th sign from another planet were considered as dominant position, especially the 10th) and is thus able to break/mitigate its negative influence; moreover, Jupiter is angular and oriental and has the help of Venus.

For what it is worth- I agree.
Mars is invisible and combust, while Jupiter all the beautiful things you said, it can help.

margherita

This is evidence of what I see as a problem with traditional astrology. Maybe it's part of our growing pains. And Cor I'm not picking on you. This has to do with astrology, not its adherents. It seems to me that no matter what one authority has to say about a technique, there is another out there either mitigating it or downright rejecting it. So Valens says Jupiter can mitigate Saturn and therefore the entire idea of besiegement does not matter in this case even if Saturn is exalted and Jupiter is in detriment. Now Morin would reject that since Saturn is so much stronger than Jupiter.

Where do we go? Whom do we believe? Are these planets besieged or not? This is not the only instance where such things are possible to find even if we discount Morin who does this a lot. There are different definitions for void-of-course Moon, there are competing opinions of in sign and out of sign aspects dating back to Ibn Ezra etc.

I think this has definitely a lot to do with "our growing pains", as you put it. Only experience will show which of these principles bear fruit, and which are useless - as Steven said, we should not carve anything into stone yet
On the other hand, I can't see how the Sun is besieged here - it separates from both Saturn and Mars; the way I read Bonnati's quote on besiegment here is that the planet should be separating from one malefic and applyingf to another(I may be wrong, of course).
I agree with you that Saturn has a lot of essential dignity(potential) in this chart, and its malefic influence tends to increase because it is a night chart, but its power to act(accidental dignity) should be weakened because it is occidental, in an occidental quarter of the chart, and in a succeedent house(the 8th, one of the "dark places" of the chart, where planets have a hard time coming out, except when designating Anareta, of course)+it receives a close square aspect from debilitated Mars in it's fall(depression), and, if I remember correctly, Sahl thought that an aspect with a planet in such a celestial state draws another one down in a pit.
I don't have time now to analyze this chart further, but it looks like a pretty interesting example to work with and to see how she will fare in the upcoming election - if the fall from grace happens or not. I'll try to post my response in the coming days.

Thanks for the opportunity to exercise

Tom wrote: I wasn't looking for a campaign statement for Martha Coakley either {She favors equal rights for everyone? Her opponent does not? Even if that's correct, it isn't relevant). I was looking for an astrological analysis of her chances of being upset in a very safe state. Upsets make the case for predictive astrology far better than going with the odds. Her resume isn't necessary or desirable. This was about predictive astrology only or I would have brought up the other stuff.

Tom[/color]

Thanks for the confirmation of Coakley's birth time, Tom.

I see the value of content differently, including, and possibly even especially, for forecasts. I realize you began with the question about besiegement, Tom, and I took this more as a broader question about Coakley?s chart and what is happening now that might show whether she will be upset in the January election. For me, though content?Coakley and her life, including her political philosophy?is important. To look at the chart as though it is suspended apart from life is not interesting to me.

I need to know something about the life to check the birth time and whether the chart is working. That was one reason for the information, but not the only reason. If I know something about the life I can see what the planets have in fact delivered to Coakley thus far and so have a better clue what they may continue to deliver when they take center stage through forecasting techniques. Realistically, astrologers are trying to get real answers to real life questions using all the information available, including matters outside the chart. Content matters. We divine in part through content and our knowledge of life and of who people are and how they will act and, based on the kinds of things that have so far befallen them, what is likely to befall later?all of which are phases of the inquiry that are informed by astrology. I wouldn?t be interested in divining if in divining I weren?t engaged, as much as possible through the chart and other information, in life as the subject of divination.

Coakley?s politics even matter in order to predict and forecast. I knew absolutely nothing about Coakley until your post and wanted to know so that she could come to life for me as I consider what might happen in her life in January. For example, Coakley?s philosophy is strong and strongly stated. It sounds like she holds highly controversial positions and advertises them as her identity. Those positions may play an important role in her fate. They?re supposed to in politics. Mars and Pluto (taking a controversial modern ruler) are the 9th rulers. Mars is fallen in an unfortunate house and completely combusted. Mars is also ruler of the enclosed 2nd (with Regiomontanus houses). I take the 2nd to be voice (throat, mouth and so voice; not specifically words which are in the 3rd but the voice itself): speaking and speech, something very much a part of a politician?s life and how she states her beliefs most personally. Pluto coming from the 9th says that Coakley?s philosophy or beliefs, with Coakley?s 9th ruler in the public?s 1st, bring her before the public, who expect her philosophy to be steady and reliable: Leo, and powerful: Pluto. Mars reiterates the close relationship between the public and Coakley?s beliefs: Mars is conjunct the public?s ascendant ruler, Sun. This Mars is harmful: malefic, fallen, combust, in an unfortunate house, ruling by exaltation the unfortunate 12th, harassing the Sun, in a partile approaching square with Saturn in the 8th as 1st and 12th ruler, with Saturn also squaring the Sun, a quite harmful thing for a malefic to do. These things about Mars and Saturn, apart from, and in my view prior to, the besiegement, are important in an assessment of what will happen in the election. Saturn as 1st ruler is a prime significator of Coakley, in a square with her 9th ruler, while the 9th house cusp is in a square with the ascendant where we expect archetypally to see a trine: so many squares, in a chart with otherwise few aspects, and in a chart with a troubled Mars--and the placement of Mars is descriptive of how squares will act in the chart, because squares are in the nature of Mars so we have to look to Mars to see how all these squares will play. And I can't forget in any of this that Mars is 9th ruler and Coakley makes some pretty strong statements of her beliefs, some about things people react to a lot.

Maybe neither the 9th nor 9th rulers, and so Coakley?s philosophy, will make a determinative difference in what happens in January, but maybe they will. In looking at what is active leading up to, at and following the elections, it may be important to know something of Coakley?s stated philosophy and the public?s reactions to it. It may be, for example, that past primary directions show that her strongly stated beliefs assisted her during a successful time, or brought her down. It may be that primaries (not electoral ones, astrological ones) that are active now will highlight the 9th or 9th rulers and beliefs may turn out to be important in what happens in January. For example, I see that the trine of Pluto, which falls in the enclosed 2nd at 21 degrees Aries, is directed to Jupiter, 10th ruler, on January 15, 2010, a date that would surely change with a highly accurate birth time, but still a striking date for a January 19 election. So, 9th ruler Pluto is the promissor, Jupiter the significator of Coakley's career, the trine is in Mars' sign, in the 2nd, which is about speaking. So with more analysis, Coakley's life might prove to be relevant to Coakley's life as it continues to play out in the upcoming election.

I think this difference in perspective is interesting and important. It relates also, I think, to what you said, Tom, about what?s an astrologer to believe anyhow in view of all the stuff we hear telling us to do things every which way. Whether it?s traditional or modern, we have a whole lot of ways to do things that seem to conflict. Questions about which techniques really work, which work best, in what circumstances, or in what order of priority are all things that we can get a much better grasp of if we always tie the use of our techniques, not only into a stable method and structured approach to the chart, but also as much as we can into life and what we know about a life that a chart describes. To me this use of the realities of a life is very important to find my way around astrological symbols, techniques, methods, systems and approaches to the chart. It?s how I learn; how I confirm; and how astrology is real to me, and how it?s about life?and it being about life is what interests me about it. Technique is a necessity as I see it, not in itself a joy or anything I?d do if it didn?t reveal so much.

As I see it, approach to the chart is very important too, for similar reasons. Approach is: Do you jump in any old place and see what jumps out? Or do you knock on the front door and walk in the way you always walk in as the door opens, and look around as you always do, first to the most important things and then to the next most important things, then to third most important, and so on. And do it that way every time. If we don?t do that, I find that we?re at sea. it may be that different astrologers may have different and still legitimate approaches, but if we lack a stable and structured approach, I think we?ll always be confused. What if I am appraising real estate and sometimes I come in through the chimney and assess the mortar as I descend Claus-like to the ground floor, and maybe the attic catches my eye on the way to look at a gargoyle I found particularly intriguing on the roof, so I pay a lot of attention to that, and the cellar is captivating, but I forgot to check the foundation, walls and roof, and how many rooms there are and what they can be used for. And whether the furnace works. Or is it even there where it?s supposed to be? And are the floors hardwood, or was that linoleum?

It may be that the proper subject of this string of posts is the besiegement in Coakley?s chart and not the chart as a whole and other factors that promise to have an effect on the January election. I was going to do an analysis of the chart and the factors that I see as likely to be determinative?which may or may not have anything to do with the besiegement. It may be that what I thought I?d do is not really what?s called for here.

If I had more time right now, I'd edit this post and it wouldn't be such a long ramble. My apologies. Thanks for the chart, Tom, and for drawing attention to the circumstances, and for the comments on the beseigement. It's interesting to focus, as you say, on the potential for something surprising.

Penny

Hi Penny,

For example, Coakley?s philosophy is strong and strongly stated. It sounds like she holds highly controversial positions and advertises them as her identity.

In Massachusetts, Ms Coakley's positions are no more controversial than the Boston Red Sox. Leftists love to portray themselves that way, but it is really same old stuff - same old playbook. In fact in Massachusetts, she could be seen as old guard conservative since her politics vary not a whit from virtually every other politician in that state. If she were running on an anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, anti health care bill platform, you might have a point. This is the political reason why she will likely win. She's no different than her predecessor. What has this got to do with astrology? Not a thing.

The bulk of the events on the list you posted could have been and I would not be surprised if they were taken right from a piece of campaign literature posted online. Perhaps it wasn't billed that way. I found her birth data online in a lot less time than it would take to post all those events in her life. My source didn't give me the source of the data (I'm very trusting) and I couldn't make contact to ask. So I kept it to myself and then I looked for the data online, and found it with a rating the first place I checked.

Deaths of her parents and particularly her brother would be the exception to the campaign lit, unless they were used by the campaign for pity. I consider a curiosity that you listed her petition to deny clemency after 15 years imprisonment to a man probably wrongly convicted among her awards. That was probably an accident on your part. The parole board apparently thought he was innocent, and as much as said so. They are prohibited, however, from taking guilt or innocence into consideration, so they couldn't make that statement outright. Some view her action as a despicable publicity stunt/stepping stone to advance her career. He did 15 years for something he didn't do and then three more while Coakley grandstanded. See what I mean? We can use the events politically any way we want.

Again her case is of astrological interest only if she is ultimately defeated, a highly unlikely event given her politics and the political history of the state. That's where the astrology would come in. If Ted Kennedy hadn't died, very few would have heard of her.

In one sense I'm looking in her chart, should she lose, for the reverse of what I looked for, and never found in the Christine Keeler chart we did a long time ago. In that case, a nobody, born on the wrong side of the tracks ended up an international celebrity whose (less than admirable) actions brought down the government of a major western power, and I wondered how that would be shown in the chart. Now Coakley is no Christine Keeler and given her personal and educational background it is far more likely that she would end up in the US Senate than Keeler would end up a household name. But if Coakley loses, it might be seen as something more than a mere political upset. The immediate ramifications are enormous (The Democrats would lose their 60 vote majority for starters). This might take us beyond Coakley's chart, but first things first. Will she lose? I don't think so, but her political beliefs genuinely felt or opportunistic, are of no consequence here.

Tom

Mars is so closely combust the sun in this natal chart that I consider all of mars' "specific influences" burned up and absorbed by the sun, so that for practical purposes there is no SPECIFIC mars influence in this chart, but rather a vivified solar-mixed-with-martial influence (evidence of which I think we can find in the life/career history of the subject as posted by Penny) Since-to my understanding- the martial influence is absorbed by the sun (close combust) I (personally) don't believe that mars is CAPABLE of exerting a besieging influence; furthermore, we find in this natal chart a same-side-of-the-ecliptic parallel of declination (within 1 degree) involving sun+mars+jupiter-from my perspective I cannot accept any significant mars-malefic influence in this natal chart.

Tom wrote:Hi Penny,

For example, Coakley?s philosophy is strong and strongly stated. It sounds like she holds highly controversial positions and advertises them as her identity.

In Massachusetts, Ms Coakley's positions are no more controversial than the Boston Red Sox. Leftists love to portray themselves that way, but it is really same old stuff - same old playbook. In fact in Massachusetts, she could be seen as old guard conservative since her politics vary not a whit from virtually every other politician in that state. If she were running on an anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, anti health care bill platform, you might have a point. This is the political reason why she will likely win. She's no different than her predecessor. What has this got to do with astrology? Not a thing.

The bulk of the events on the list you posted could have been and I would not be surprised if they were taken right from a piece of campaign literature posted online. Perhaps it wasn't billed that way. I found her birth data online in a lot less time than it would take to post all those events in her life. My source didn't give me the source of the data (I'm very trusting) and I couldn't make contact to ask. So I kept it to myself and then I looked for the data online, and found it with a rating the first place I checked.

Deaths of her parents and particularly her brother would be the exception to the campaign lit, unless they were used by the campaign for pity. I consider a curiosity that you listed her petition to deny clemency after 15 years imprisonment to a man probably wrongly convicted among her awards. That was probably an accident on your part. The parole board apparently thought he was innocent, and as much as said so. They are prohibited, however, from taking guilt or innocence into consideration, so they couldn't make that statement outright. Some view her action as a despicable publicity stunt/stepping stone to advance her career. He did 15 years for something he didn't do and then three more while Coakley grandstanded. See what I mean? We can use the events politically any way we want.

Again her case is of astrological interest only if she is ultimately defeated, a highly unlikely event given her politics and the political history of the state. That's where the astrology would come in. If Ted Kennedy hadn't died, very few would have heard of her.

In one sense I'm looking in her chart, should she lose, for the reverse of what I looked for, and never found in the Christine Keeler chart we did a long time ago. In that case, a nobody, born on the wrong side of the tracks ended up an international celebrity whose (less than admirable) actions brought down the government of a major western power, and I wondered how that would be shown in the chart. Now Coakley is no Christine Keeler and given her personal and educational background it is far more likely that she would end up in the US Senate than Keeler would end up a household name. But if Coakley loses, it might be seen as something more than a mere political upset. The immediate ramifications are enormous (The Democrats would lose their 60 vote majority for starters). This might take us beyond Coakley's chart, but first things first. Will she lose? I don't think so, but her political beliefs genuinely felt or opportunistic, are of no consequence here.

Tom

Hey, Tom, thanks for all the good information about Massachusetts politics and your making clear how crucially relevant they are to the near impossibility of an upset. I knew absolutely nothing about Coakley and Massachusetts politics, and now I know a little, thanks to you. You've also made Coakley's chart more alive and interesting to me.

I always check some dates and events even when I have a birth certificate, especially for primaries and other forecasting techniques that are very time sensitive.

Penny

Tom,

I would like to know if your private source would have any way of finding the birth time of the other candidate, Scott Brown. We should examine his chart as well before we can really say that Martha Coakley will absolutely win. After all, while Massachusetts is widely Democratic it has elected some Republicans for Governor in the past, and in the state legislature.

Although I will say that it does look generally favorable for her already. She is currently in a 9th place profection with Venus as the ruler of the year. Saturn and Neptune are in there (complicated with issues with Mars), but this year, they hand over to Venus and Jupiter.

-September 3rd 2009, she announced her run for the open Senate seat. Venus was transiting on her Descendant/Mercury.

-December 8th 2009, Coakley wins the Democratic Primary. Venus was opposite its natal position.

-January 19th 2010, special election will be held, Venus makes an ingress into the 1st place on that day.

Anyway, so is your source in any kind of a position to get the birth time of Scott Brown?

Thanks,

Patrick