Dear Goran,

I do not have time or the disposition to fully analyse the issue here. What I said is the conclusion that I have reached during quite a few years of study. I'm sure that if you look into the writings of the same (let alone different) authors (e.g. Bonatti, Mashallah, Lilly etc), you will find different and conflicting testimonies concerning the issue. Even the quote you provided (Mashallah's) is conflicting in itself and not grounded on practice.

The fact remains that both Venus and Jupiter are temperate planets and if debilitated, their intemperance is not enough in itself to cause great evil. It has to be supported by other testimonies in the chart. It can never match the evil that Mars and Saturn can inflict due to their extreme nature.

However, if you can provide an actual chart, where death resulted due to a debilitated Venus or Jupiter only, then maybe I would examine this further.

Best regards,
A.

Hello, Alchemist

Even the quote you provided (Mashallah's) is conflicting in itself and not grounded on practice.

And where is the evidence that it is not 'grounded on practice'? Or should we just take your word for it? How is it conflicting in itself? Sorry, but a phrase like

What I said is the conclusion that I have reached during quite a few years of study.

does not impress me in the sense that I would accept your claims just because you say so, no matter how many years of study you've had - statements like this only tend to show either the inability or the unwillingness to elaborate your position on the matter. No offense intended, but that is how I perceive your answer

Venus and Jupiter are temperate planets and if debilitated, their intemperance is not enough in itself to cause great evil. It has to be supported by other testimonies in the chart. It can never match the evil that Mars and Saturn can inflict due to their extreme nature.

Yes, they are the benefics, however, as my quotes have clearly shown, they are able to kill. Since you've quoted Bonatt's aphorism first, I did the same thing, only my examples stated the opposite. Are you trying to say that Bonatti/Masha'allah didn't know what they were talking about?They didn't have enough experience to support their claims, they just made it all up?
I doubt it.

if you can provide an actual chart, where death resulted due to a debilitated Venus or Jupiter only, then maybe I would examine this further

.
Of course I can, and the benefic involved wasn't debilitated at all. Can you provide me with an actual chart where the benefic wasn't able to kill?
This is pointless, however, since here we don't talk about specific examples from practice, but about the theoretical principles underlying it, principles which were handed down to us from some very knowledgeable and experienced astrologers of the past, right?

Greetings,
Goran

The discussion has focused on Mercury. Jogi wrote:

?We can find similar statements about planets in their fall, e.g. the Sun in Libra oder [!!! I enjoyed the German touch ] Venus in Virgo?.

Are such statements truly so common regarding the other planets? I was wondering if this is another example of Mercury's easy adaptability, with his detriment and fall in the domiciles of Jupiter. Maybe the fact that Jupiter is the domicile ruler of Mercury's signs of detriment and fall is another way that we are told of Mercury's beneficial flexibility. Mercury and Jupiter seem to come as a pair of sorts, being the domicile and exaltation rulers of all 4 mutable or common signs. Those two run the whole mutable show. It seems to me that much more can be drawn from this fact than is commonly done. Mercury is the one who gains the most with his special relationship with the Greater Benefic. Mercury is too small to boost the position and power of Jupiter, but he can probably offer some pretty helpful service and intelligence ? intelligence of both the mental and the espionage kind.

cor scorpii wrote:And where is the evidence that it is not 'grounded on practice'? Or should we just take your word for it? [...] does not impress me in the sense that I would accept your claims just because you say so, no matter how many years of study you've had - statements like this only tend to show either the inability or the unwillingness to elaborate your position on the matter. No offense intended, but that is how I perceive your answer

I am only participating in this forum in order to freely exchange ideas, Goran. I'm not here to convince anyone about anything, nor to present a dissertation or a thesis. At the end of the day, if you don't agree with me, then ...don't! It's quite simple.

Warm regards,
A.

Just to clarify in case I was running around too much (as I sometimes do), I was wondering:
1) if Mercury and Jupiter are a special case regarding this matter

2) whether that special relationship of theirs is in good part an explanation of Mercury's adaptability.

Hi, Alchemist

It's quite simple

I agree, adding that it's also quite obvious who's avoiding constructive discussion.
I never said that you were trying to convince anybody, neither was I; however, the fact remains that you made some pretty strong assertions about certain elements of astrological method at the outset, quoting Bonatti and when you were provided with the quotes which run contrary to your claims(from Bonatti and Masha'allah), all of a sudden you fall short of some very important clarifications and answers regarding your arguments.

Best regards,
Goran

cor scorpii wrote:I agree, adding that it's also quite obvious who's avoiding constructive discussion.
I never said that you were trying to convince anybody, neither was I; however, the fact remains that you made some pretty strong assertions about certain elements of astrological method at the outset, quoting Bonatti and when you were provided with the quotes which run contrary to your claims(from Bonatti and Masha'allah), all of a sudden you fall short of some very important clarifications and answers regarding your arguments.

I provided a reasoned argument, which happens to be in accordance with the art and which also happens to be shared by other contemporary practitioners of the art and the tradition. If I do not wish to discuss this further with you for any reason whatsoever (either because I have nothing to discuss (this is basic traditional astrology) or because I find your tone of voice offensive), that is my choice and I will not apologize for it. I would appreciate it, if you could respect this choice.

A.

Dear Alchemist,

I provided a reasoned argument, which happens to be in accordance with the art and which also happens to be shared by other contemporary practitioners of the art and the tradition. If I do not wish to discuss this further with you for any reason whatsoever (either because I have nothing to discuss (this is basic traditional astrology) or because I find your tone of voice offensive), that is my choice and I will not apologize for it. I would appreciate it, if you could respect this choice.

there's no reason to become so upset, I was only posing additional questions to your mentor-like assertions, which have clearly proven to be unsustainable.
I understand if you feel embarrassed because of that, but I have in no way intended to insult you, you should blame it on yourself because all I've done was to point out(using quotes, just like you) the potential weakness and inaccuracy of your arguments.

You're so right about the basics of traditional astrology, only you've proven not to be so familiar with them I'm afraid, as one would expect from a purported long-time,highly experienced practitioner of the art. So by implying that the basics are something you've already mastered and I haven't(you have nothing to discuss about further, because these are the 'basics' - meaning of which is probably/that is how it came across!/ that I should stop asking 'ah so silly questions' and learn these 'basics' some more before I venture into discussion with someone of your 'format') is pretty disrespectful and mean.
It should be a lot easier(and better) to accept one's own, very clearly presented mistake and concede that there's always an opportunity to learn, than to treat others who may point out certain misconceptions/lack of information with paternalistic kind of disdain which can only create a very negative climate.

For me, this ends our small,in certain important respects very educative, albeit a bit 'sour' discussion and I apologize if I have offended you in any manner. At least I've learned not to ask for clarifications/arguments where obviously none can be provided, for whatever reason. I like being nice to people, but I also like sincerity, accuracy, knowledge and facts.

Wish you all the best,
Goran

Is this a private thread?

Goran,

Although I usually find myself in agreement with your views, it does seem to me that you have become surprisignly 'intense' about pursuing a certain point, and I don't understand why. Alchemist has said that this is his/her view, and it's not without reason. I decided not to contribute an opinion a few days ago, simply because it seemed that this thread was going to become contoversial 'no matter what'. Let's please keep the discussion informative and free-flowing, whilst keeping a sense of respect for other contibutors.

Deb

cor scorpii wrote:

I presume that the positive traits attributed to this position of Mercury stem from the fact that he is in the house of a beneficial planet Jupiter, but this is nevertheless his detriment so we might expect his sloppiness when it comes to ability of measuring/communicating/negotiating/calculating precisely, taking care of important details,distinctions,etc.

We might expect it but is this actually the case in real nativities? I think these aphorisms about Mercury in Jupiter ruled signs must have something going for them. Especially, if you start to look at real nativities rather than just debate this theoretically. I take the point that delineation is complex and there are lots of mitigating factors. Still I agree with Lee Lehman and Bernadette Brady that essential dignity in nativities is a quite different matter from electional or horary work. After all a person is a lifetime process of change not a single event. Rather than stress traditional notions like 'corruption' and telling people they have 'weak' planets they focus on the fact that these planets find it difficult to express themselves in a smooth way due to the mismatch between the planet and the sign. This therefore frequently leads to an unconventional expression of the planet due to its lack of harmony in the sign by dignity.

Here are some famous nativities of people that well noted for their exceptional intellect with a debilitated Mercury according to essential dignity:

Copernicus (Mercury in Pisces)

Galileo (Mercury in Pisces)

Sir Isaac Newton (Mercury in Sagittarius)

Thomas Jefferson (Mercury in Pisces)

Charles Darwin (Mercury in Pisces)

Isaac Asimov (Mercury in Sagittarius)

Oh and Robert Hand is Mercury in Sagittarius too.

It might be instructive to study their charts....


Margherita wrote:

Yes, it's contradictory, think how well Mercury is in the sign of the "malefics":

There is the very famous quote from Centiloquium, everybody repeats:

38. When Mercury shall be well fortified or placed in either of the houses of Saturn in any one's nativity, the native hath a divining soul, and is capable of prying far into matters; if he be placed in the house of Mars, especially in Aries, he inclines to eloquence.

Especially for Saturn, I would say, it's one of the best position for Mercury.

This seems completely validated in the charts of famous thinkers I have looked at so far. Moreover, the idea of Mercury being strong in the Saturn ruled signs is not just medieval as you find it in hellenistic writers such as Rhetorius amongst others.

Mark

MarkC wrote: This seems completely validated in the charts of famous thinkers I have looked at. Moreover, the idea of Mercury being strong in the Saturn ruled signs is not just medieval as you find in hellenistic writers such as Rhetorius amongst others.

Mark

Nice you noticed, because I have Mercury in Saturn sign

About Mercury in Jupiter signs, it seems to me that in the better cases gives over confidence.
Why Galileo had so many problems with the Church? Because he insisted in entering in theological business. Science was not enough for him.

Anyway it's obvious that it's necessary to see every nativity in detail, quality of the mind depends on a lot of factors.

margherita