EdF:

No offense taken by your response. Remember the Local Apparent Time thread (which I started) a while back? You made insightful and informative posts in that discussion and I appreciate your expertise in this area. Basically what I was trying to find out in that thread is if the generally available computer programs on the internet (such as Astrodienst) automatically took into account LAT in making necessary time conversions in the final determination of zodiacal degrees in chart construction. At the end of that thread I came to believe that they did; then I found out from Astrodienst that LAT is not automatically taken into consideration: that local mean time is converted to standard time then to TT/UT, etc, but that the basis (starting point) of these conversions is the "clock time" convention.
I ask again, here, of an expert like you (and I use this term with sincerity): if on March 5 the LAT is 11 minutes slower than the "clock time", does the "machinery" of astrological calculations automatically account for this in the final chart erected from the time/place data? When on March 5 I asked a horary question, at "clock time" 12 noon, then punched that time (12 noon) into the Astrodienst chart erection internet computer, does that computer adjust the LAT of the question to 11:49 AM, then make the other time conversions eventually to sidereal time, etc, and show a chart taking all of this into account?

PS: I am not trying to make, or defend, some point here, nor attempting to be controversial: I would love it if you could tell me in fact that the ascendant degree which would be determined from ephemeris calculations based on the sundial at 11:49 am March 5th would be the same if I punched the "clock time" of 12 noon March 5th into the chart-generating computer program (such as the one on Astrodienst.com) That would settle the nagging question I have regarding whether, using civil time conventions ("clock time") we are deviating from what "really exists" in the natural world (the Sun's time)...

Hi Dr Farr,

I would depend on whether the program accommodated LAT as a known kind of time. If it does, it should apply the equation of time to convert to LMT or a standard time, then proceed as usual. Probably most programs do not do this conversion because LAT is rarely used these days.

Perhaps this will help. If you had an LAT of 12pm, with the Sun on the meridian, there would be corresponding LMT and standard times that would also put the sun on the meridian. They're all the same moment.

- Ed

Thanks EdF for your reply.

Kirk wrote: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?

This is a situation where it helps to understand the anthropomorphic paradigms that Schmidt uses. The ancients had astronomical tables also, so they would have looked up these positions and Valens says to be careful about being as accurate as possible in doing so. Back in the early days of Project Hindsight we used to think that sect was a 3-fold principle where a planet could have a partial sect status (masculine feminine sign, above below horizon and in sect or out of sect) but we now believe that this is wrong. Planets are either of the sect or contrary to the sect that is in political power and this is because there are two sides struggling to set the agenda for the native and the only planet that switches political affiliation is Mercury depending upon his relation to the Sun.

What Schmidt says is that the planets are either of the sect or not (that is in power or not in power) and that the conditions of being above or below the horizon and being in a masculine and feminine sign are rejoicing conditions. If the sect is diurnal, a nocturnal planet might not be in power, but if it is below the horizon, it at least is not in the enemy camp where it may be subjected to maltreatment, etc and may be surrounded by sect mates. Nocturnal planets want to be in the hemisphere opposite the one the Sun occupies and in feminine signs and contrarily with the planets of the diurnal sect. Since planets are said to be in the service of heimarmene, he says that the planets consult the signs (the temples where the planets go to consult) to find out what should ideally be the fate of the native in a particular topos (house). Since the signs are houses, the image (sign) is responsible for setting this ideal (this is where whole sign houses are used). There is a whole section here on how Schmidt deals with the Antiochus aspect doctrine that could be addressed here but I don't want to be too long on this...

That doesn't mean that what happens up there is necessarily going to come to pass, it is just an ideal or potentiality, so you have the allotments (arabic parts) to show how these "fall to earth". So when it comes to questions that exist on a zodiacal level and planets interactions on the zodiacal level regarding heimarmene, then in zodiaco is more philosophically consistent, because the horizon doesn't exist at that level of the planet's interaction, as the earth is removed from consideration, but insofar as the question comes to the level of lots / parts then the rejoicing conditions of being above or below the horizon (observed) should come into play. That is why there are 3 frames of reference in the Preliminary Natal Analysis (Zodiacal, planetary and terrestrial) and each has their own set of coordinates to be used not to be confused mixed with each other. In the example above you are mixing horizontal coordinates with zodiacal coordinates.

Since Mars is of the sect in this chart, and the Sun is not in power, you can think of this Mars as getting ready to join in battle with the diurnal sect below the horizon and it would have it's joy in the 6th anyway in doing so.

BTW, this also might be a way to differentiate philosophically between coordinates in "zodiaco" or in "mundo" as referring to which level of fate you are dealing with (hemiarmene / tuche, etc) when dealing with primary directions. If something has it's decree from the realm of heimarmene, then the zodiac should be used, but if directions from the lots are used, then in mundo might be more appropriate. Schmidt frequently distinguishes the meanings of such things saying that you have to know what you are looking at first and what it represents before you can derive the meaning.

Hi Curtis,

Thank you for the reply. I'm late in replying because I didn't know what to say. I was frustrated by your statement:

Back in the early days of Project Hindsight we used to think that sect was a 3-fold principle where a planet could have a partial sect status (masculine feminine sign, above below horizon and in sect or out of sect) but we now believe that this is wrong. Planets are either of the sect or contrary to the sect that is in political power . . .

After some whining, moaning and groaning I've decided I prefer this view of it and, deep down, it was the direction I wanted to take, anyway. As far as the other two being conditions of rejoicing ? well, I have to figure out the difference between being in sect and rejoicing. Is it a matter of quantity vs. quality of strength and power?

So when it comes to questions that exist on a zodiacal level and planets interactions on the zodiacal level regarding heimarmene, then in zodiaco is more philosophically consistent, because the horizon doesn't exist at that level of the planet's interaction, as the earth is removed from consideration, but insofar as the question comes to the level of lots / parts then the rejoicing conditions of being above or below the horizon (observed) should come into play. That is why there are 3 frames of reference in the Preliminary Natal Analysis (Zodiacal, planetary and terrestrial) and each has their own set of coordinates to be used not to be confused mixed with each other. In the example above you are mixing horizontal coordinates with zodiacal coordinates.

I need to spend time with this. But it makes all the difference in the world if this is largely accepted or if we are in Mr. Schmidt's world. He is someone who's views I approach cautiously and I certainly don't want to accept things as truth merely because he has claimed them to be so. And then there's the fact that this concerns Hellenistic astrology. What was developed to the east several centuries later does differ, but it's no less valid.

**********************************

In any case, that lunar return month is finished and there wasn't anything particularly Mars-like about it, except for the usual ruffled feathers and battles here. Mars is my natal Moon's dispositor and they're natally in applying partile trine [Moon's next aspect to complete after birth], so I look closely at Mars in lunar return charts. I'm thinking Mars didn't play much role during that month not only because it wasn't aspecting any natal planets, but also because Mars was not in aspect to the return/natal Moon. Being so involved with the return DESC wasn't enough.

Mr. Schmidt doesn't claim all of these ideas as absolute truth. There is varying level of certainty in his thinking as might be the case with many people. His ideas on sect are derived from the word "hairesis" which means a number of things depending upon the context: a school of thought (as in those adhering to one view vs another), a faction (as in one side politically vs another), a split, divide, etc...

There is a tendency to do a direct one to one correlation in our thought as astrologers (planet in Aries, contrary to sect, etc means "such and such") without examining the world view and reasons for the meaning. One should always ask the question why something has a given meaning. The astrology that formed during the Hellenistic era came about as a reorganization of the basic Omen based observations as some noticed patterns and tried to understand why and this why was part of their world view, so their ideas on fate, religion, philosophy, etc all were a part of this. Why do we have "arabic parts" otherwise known as "lots"? The word is "daimon" which is a power of a deity that is disembodied from the person of the deity (or Theos as Schmidt would say). If we can get a complete picture in this way, then we can see the planets speaking to each other and their political battles, who wins in the arguments, who gets exalted and who is overcome and what offices they have control over and how this affects what they rule and at the lot level whether these arguments matter and are brought into reality through the interactions of these disembodied powers. It is a bit like a dungeon and dragons game. I had an idea to program it this way years ago, but this is not a one person project.

Kirk wrote:
After some whining, moaning and groaning I've decided I prefer this view of it and, deep down, it was the direction I wanted to take, anyway. As far as the other two being conditions of rejoicing ? well, I have to figure out the difference between being in sect and rejoicing. Is it a matter of quantity vs. quality of strength and power?

I forgot to answer this...

It is a matter of what the planet does and what its role is. Schmidt says that a contrary to sect planet is hindered in setting the agenda for the native and is placed in a role of going against the agenda of the ruling sect. That doesn't mean that the planet is powerless; look at the joys of the planets (Jupiter in Sag, Saturn in Aq, Mars in Sco, etc). Most of these are in places where there is no power shared (no exaltation lord) because the planet of the contrary sect is obligated to lift up the exaltation lord (Mars lifts up the Sun in Aries, Jupiter lifts up Venus in Pisces, etc) and they don't like to share power... Schmidt says cases like these are where planets "cross the isle" to the other side politically for a cause. The exceptions are the feminine planets which cooperate and share power and Mercury who being common to both sects decides to lift up himself and remain neutral to the power struggle.

We think that one planet has control of a given sign / house, but the more advanced thinking on this is that it depends... We get a hint of this in the concept of the almuten in the medieval period and with each place there are any number of planets that may have control - sometimes it is the exaltation planet, domicile lord, joint domicile master (signs trine to domicile), etc. Each planet has a political agenda and Schmidt says that the planets are said to be in the service of heimarmene.

So if a planet is contrary to the sect and has control of a given house, and it is in it's own places then it can effect from it's own significations, and such a planet is always subject to being overruled by a planet of the sect, but not necessarily. A planet contrary to the sect though and not in it's own places, but in the places of a sect mate, will bring things about with the help of the sect mate, again as long as it is not overruled, but a contrary to sect planet, not in it's own places, nor with help from sect mates can only affect the significations of the house; not bring in its own significations. So a Mars contrary to the sect having control of the 7th might bring marriage to someone in the military as long as its not overruled. If however it is not in its own places nor has any help, then it trashes the significations of the 7th because it is contrary to the sect, causing divorce, acrimony in old age, difficulty with the public, etc... Benefics contrary to the sect are not as disrespectful in this regard. It is always the malefic contrary to the sect you have to watch.

All of this is with a view of what the planets want for the native; and the planets want what they signify. These are the political distinctions that give the interactions of the planets depth. The lights (Sun and Moon) are opposed to the domiciles of Saturn as light is always opposed to darkness, good opposed to evil. What is good from one planet's perspective (Saturn for instance) will be at odds with what the lights want. Mars also squares the lights and will be at odds in a different way. Mars trines the light of the nocturnal sect because they agree on agenda, but squares the light contrary to sect (Scorpio squares Leo). And Mars is made to disagree with the Moon (by squaring from Aries - Cancer, when it crosses the isle to lift up the Sun in exaltation contrary to the wishes of the Moon). So Mars is the lesser malefic in part because of this partial agreement, but Saturn disagrees either way.

I find it odd that Schmidt's thinking is considered to be unreliable since most in the field have not thought through what any of these concepts mean, but simply go with established usage without further examination.

zoidsoft wrote:
I find it odd that Schmidt's thinking is considered to be unreliable since most in the field have not thought through what any of these concepts mean, but simply go with established usage without further examination.

For me it's a little difficult to follow this anthropomorphic explication, planets consult the signs, which are the temples and so on -it's like Frawley passions of the planets- at least I understand like that from what you write.

But I would say that I agree that the sect, hairesis, is one of the first - I would say the first one - factors they consider in Bezza's group- and I saw many and many examples where a planet out of its hairesis made a disaster.

I always check it if some important planet is in the wrong place in the chart- because I'm sure sooner or later this planet would manifest its effects.

margherita

margherita wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:
I find it odd that Schmidt's thinking is considered to be unreliable since most in the field have not thought through what any of these concepts mean, but simply go with established usage without further examination.

For me it's a little difficult to follow this anthropomorphic explication, planets consult the signs, which are the temples and so on -it's like Frawley passions of the planets- at least I understand like that from what you write.

But I would say that I agree that the sect, hairesis, is one of the first - I would say the first one - factors they consider in Bezza's group- and I saw many and many examples where a planet out of its hairesis made a disaster.

I always check it if some important planet is in the wrong place in the chart- because I'm sure sooner or later this planet would manifest its effects.

margherita

I didn't lay out the rules of interpretation well enough here, but was only trying to give a broad picture of what its like to work with a chart in this way. Schmidt has defined rules based upon an epistemological interpretation of the words used for the astrological terminology commonly found in Hellenistic era texts.

zoidsoft wrote: I didn't lay out the rules of interpretation well enough here, but was only trying to give a broad picture of what its like to work with a chart in this way. Schmidt has defined rules based upon an epistemological interpretation of the words used for the astrological terminology commonly found in Hellenistic era texts.

This is an example taken from an old Italian article of Bezza - it's written in 1996.

http://www.cieloeterra.it/articoli.prof ... zione.html

It's about profections, but obviously he starts from the natal chart.

This is the case of a girl raped when she was 18, now it's not important for us.

It's a diurnal nativity, the first degrees of Taurus are rising and the Sun is the seventh house (but quite near the cusp of the 8th). Mars is in its detriment and retrograde in the first house. This is the first thing Bezza notices: a malefic in a place where it is not familiar, and not in hairesis because a night planet in an angle in a diurnal chart.

I mean, a planet against its hairesis in an angle always harms- this is enough even if Mars is below the horizon.

Then I find true the opposite, that a planet in his hairesis but in the wrong part of the chart damages too, I find that in both situations the planet is wicked, not weak.

margherita

Hi, Curtis

If you would be so kind, I always have a doubt about Schmidt?s interpretation of sect.

He always seem to be comparing sect with a bipartisan system. Although this may seem very logic to americans, it is not so common in other countries.

So my question would be if Schmidt is making a metaphor to help his american audiences to understand the concept, or is really some deep "bipartisan" meaning on the Hellenistic texts?

After all. Greek democracy was very different from the current system. I dont know how the concept of "party in power" would be understood in a time where there were no parties and power could be taken by an Strategos without former elections... and I imagine how many systems would exist in all the City-States.

Thanks