Clelia said:

have a tendence to agree with Mark: I don?t like points created by maths;-)

We still have a hard job working with planets, houses, dignities, etc: Parts demand much more points to be delineated, and they don?t have the same face value the planets have. They are constructed by men?s minds.

I strongly disagree. Parts, houses, signs, even planets, none of them have really a natural signification and are all constructs of men?s minds. Attempts by modern astrology (and this comes since morinus, or even ptolemy) to make astrology scientific or to fit some sort of "natural philosophy", always have striped astrology of important elements.

To Astrojin:
I relate very much to what you said, my experience has been very similar. You can?t do proper delineation of a natal theme without reference to the particular part or lot. Just a few points I would like to comment.

Releasings (aphesis) (from Lot of Spirit for timings of profession and career and from Lot of Fortune for timings of general health and well-being as outlined by Vettius Valens)and Releasing from Lot of Eros for timings of relationships (as outlined by Chris Brennan). All of these techniques seem to work on many client charts that I have.

Unlike you I don?t have a lot of trust in aphesis. Despite the propaganda I have seen little predictive effect.

I still do not trust the Lots that use house cusps though

I also don?t trust them. None of the classical parts use house cusps.

There is also another problem of when one thing is governed by Lots of different formulae e.g. the Lot of Father

.
In my experience there is a classical part that is really repeated all over tradition, and "alternative" lots that are not worthy the time. For instance, for marriage, the most important lot is the one from Hermes, I don?t see value in the alternatives lots of valens, etc.

The commentary on the position of the parts by house is also important because we often see "insightful delineations" as "oh, his part of marriage is on the 7th house" :-)

There are some secrets on the delineation of the parts that can only be understood by looking at the real charts (I comment this because so many people talk about the parts, but few seem to actually use them). For instance, I don?t believe that the usual practice of seeing the dispositor of the part is of so great a use. Aspects suffered by the parts are usually of much greater value.

To Mark:
In an old ISAR conference, and in a number of the Apprentice, John Frawley proposes a method for delineating the seven hermetic parts, using the myths of the fixed stars.

The little I used of this method, I can?t say that it "work" as the delineation are always a little vague, but I confess I like the method.

In an old ISAR conference, and in a number of the Apprentice, John Frawley proposes a method for delineating the seven hermetic parts, using the myths of the fixed stars.

See The Astrologer's Apprentice No. 22 "On the Architecture of the Soul."

I believe all issues are available as downloads in pdf format. Write here for details:

j@johnfrawley.com

Tom

Hello,

To steven,

I think it is a project I am going to finish when I get up to speed again. It's been sitting for a while in a pretty rough format of over 300 A4 pages. A lot of new material also has been recently translated and I need to go through this material also. Good delineation tips in the Book of Aristotle for example that Ben translated and published not so long ago.

I am sure that many of us are with me when I say that we eagerly await your book!

Yuzuru wrote:

I strongly disagree. Parts, houses, signs, even planets, none of them have really a natural signification and are all constructs of men?s minds. Attempts by modern astrology (and this comes since morinus, or even ptolemy) to make astrology scientific or to fit some sort of "natural philosophy", always have striped astrology of important elements.

As my name was mentioned in Clelia's post I feel the need to clarify my point. I think my comments have been somewhat taken out of context. I wasn't dismissing the idea of lots at all. I would hardly have created this thread with that view. I was simply expressing some caution in using the Hermetic Lots at this point in my limited experience of working with lots. I have only recently started working with the Lot of Spirit so moving to a system based on these lots to derive another lot felt a step too far for me at this point! I already conceded that all astrology is symbolism and therefore a construct of the human mind. Over the years I have found my views changing on many areas.

However, I disagree with you that the term 'naturalistic' has to be perceived as a dirty word for traditional astrologers. I do not mean by this term embracing scientific minimalism al la Gaughelin or rejecting the tradition. I was simply expressing my feeling that if I had to create a hierarchy within astrology my personal starting point would be planets and stars. These are an observable physical reality although what they represent to us is undeniably subject to the constructs of human consciousness like everything in astrology. Rather than endorsing a scientific minimalism I see this as rather embracing a traditional notion of what unifies astrology in cross-cultural terms throughout history and location. Still, I suppose from a Platonic perspective astrology is all signs and symbols emanating from a higher level of truth which means that appeals to physical literalism are perhaps misplaced.

Yuzuru wrote:

To Mark:
In an old ISAR conference, and in a number of the Apprentice, John Frawley proposes a method for delineating the seven hermetic parts, using the myths of the fixed stars.

Thanks Yuzuru. So there was a fixed star link after all!

Tom wrote:

See The Astrologer's Apprentice No. 22 "On the Architecture of the Soul." I believe all issues are available as downloads in pdf format. Write here for details:

I will certainly consider following this up when I rejoin the land of the employed.

Steven wrote:

I've spent the last 5 years putting together a massive book on the lots with charts and real life clients and delineations and how to delineate in nativities, mundane work and even some horary examples.

Great. I look forward to seeing this important work.

Mark

Hello MarkC,

Is it OK if I discuss other Lots (not one of the Hermetic Lots)?

Thank you.

So there was a fixed star link after all!

Not with the parts. I think Yuzuru mixed up two of John's talks. Frawley uses mythology to understand the stars. He suggests we study the myth that is associated with the star or more specifically the myth associated with the constellation that holds the star in order to more fully understand the meaning of the star.

His use of the 7 lots based on Fortuna (The Hermetic Lots) requires an explanation that is too lengthy to go into here. Very, very briefly he treats these 7 lots as a sort of chart of the soul. They give insight into the core of our being. The example chart in the article is that of England's King Edward VIII, who, it can easily be imagined, did a great deal of soul searching before deciding to abdicate the throne in order to marry an American.

In the discussion of Edward's decision, the stars play a role and may play a role with the lots, but I don't believe this is something that is done with every chart or with these lots every time. It's been a while since I read the article so I claim the right of recision should someone prove me wrong.

No, I am right

Seriously, Frawley doesn?t talk a big deal about it, but, I have the CD from Pinkus (?) and he says "the more consultations I do, the more my astrological victims have their charts analysed by arabian parts and fixed stars(...)"

"the fixed stars that any of these things fall on (arabic parts)are key points to understanding"...

Then he gives the example of Bon Scott of AC/DC, and that his part of fortuna falls on the previous eclipse and in the star Al hena, an star in Castor, one of the twins.

So, unless I got it tottally wrong, I believe this is the process he would do for all the 7 parts...

Doesn't Frawley also try to say that the seven 'Hermetic' lots can be derived from the Bible and that they came from Hebrew astrologers or something? I was present for a lecture once a few years ago when he tried to assert something to that effect, although I don't know if he ever published anything on the matter.

Tom wrote:

Frawley uses mythology to understand the stars. He suggests we study the myth that is associated with the star or more specifically the myth associated with the constellation that holds the star in order to more fully understand the meaning of the star.

An off topic comment if I may.

I am looking forward to Frawley's book. It should be a significant improvement on existing modern literature on fixed stars from the point of view of delineating them. However, I am rather baffled by the fact that so many people seem to think the technique of relating the stars to constellation myths and stars specific location in a constellation is an original approach. One traditional astrologer I discussed this with thought I was going all 'Liz Greene' on her.

Actually, this approach is as old as the tradition. For example, in the in the classical period we have texts like the Catasterismi of Pseudo-Eratosthenes and the Astronomica of Hyginus which explicitly link the constellations to Greek myths. Both texts are thought to be complilations and abridgements of much older sources. Older texts like the Phaenomena of Aratus of Soli (3rd century BCE) link constellation myths, weather prediction and physical observation of stars rising and setting etc. Beyond this the idea of delineating stars according to their location in a constellation is very ancient. Especially with the alpha (lucida) stars. The other two streams of delineation from early astrology seem to be Babylonian notions of star colours linked to planets (found in the Tetrabiblos) and ancient star lore from weather prediction, navigation, agriculture etc. I dont know how many people have picked up the point that Deborah Houlding was already doing all this in her articles on the stars and constellation myths that appeared in The Tradition magazine from the mid 1990's.

These can now be accessed with several new articles on different constellations (36 out of Ptolemy's original list at present) here on skyscript:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/books.html#sc

Mark

Yuzuru,

I don' think you have it wrong. I think we're talking about slightly different things. My point was that the meanings and use of the parts does not require the stars. I didn't mean to imply that one can never have anything to do with the other.

"the more consultations I do, the more my astrological victims have their charts analysed by Arabian parts and fixed stars(...)"

Yes he said that but I took that to mean they are separate techniques. Like I said above I think we're on the same page here.

What follows is off topic, and I'm not interested in any kind of debate, so I offer what follows by way of explanation. Chris wrote:

Doesn't Frawley also try to say that the seven 'Hermetic' lots can be derived from the Bible and that they came from Hebrew astrologers or something?

Not exactly, but I'd have to read the article again to be sure. He says these lots are derived from Fortuna. Grasping his intent with similar remarks is not something that comes from a linear approach to history. Not that the linear approach isn't important; it is just that this isn't what he's doing or saying. His main point, and I've never been real successful at getting this across, and that may be because I don't fully understand it myself, is that astrology that comes from the Greeks is pagan in origin and that astrology also has a monotheistic tradition that is different. Naturally that monotheistic tradition would be Hebrew in origin. Obviously this doesn't preclude using Greek techniques.

Now it is natural that, upon hearing this, historians would run out and look for physical evidence or documentation of this monotheistic tradition When they can't find it, they scratch their heads if they are polite, or say nasty things if they aren't. This is what I mean by the linear approach. We nod to the Babylonians start with the Greeks and draw our lines from point to point with branches here and there. Again I'm not disparaging this method of learning or understanding. It's not the only way to understand things, though.

All of us understand our experiences through the lens of our culture. The culture of paganism is not the same as a monotheistic culture, and therefore each inhabitant would see and understand astrology differently. We do this, somewhat unconsciously, when we refer to "Arab" astrology and "Western" astrology. We recognize there are differences. John is just looking at the difference between pagan and monotheistic astrology as being deeper than technique.

Frawley points out over and over in talks and printed works that the best places to learn astrology is from works like the Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, and other places that are not what most of us would consider astrology texts. He quickly adds that his own texts are indispensable, however.

Astrology is all around us and part of our existence - at least that is the way it used to be seen prior to the Enlightenment. So Astrology is in the Bible and everywhere else. It is up to us to pick out those things and learn our astrology from them. This, of course, is not easy to do without the background of the Greeks et al, but I think his larger point has merit. He is not, in my mind, arguing that monotheistic astrology and pagan astrology originated and grew up separately, although he might be. Like I said I may not have fully grasped his intent. It's been years since I've seen him or attended a lecture. He moved to Poland a few years ago, and I live in the US.

In one of the first issues of The Astrologer's Apprentice, he discussed the temptation scene in Milton's Paradise Lost using astrology to explain the roles of the participants. This could be viewed as an indication that Milton knew astrology very well and expected his audience to know it, too, or that this is a fine example of learning astrology without an astrology text.

Coincidentally, last night I was rummaging through Morin and found this:

"Furthermore, this doctrine is truer and more in accord with the dogmas of astrology, because in Genesis, Chapter 1, (in which the principal dogmas of astrology are contained in very few words) ..." -Book 13, Astrologia Gallica, J. Holden trans. AFA p 51

[Note: what Morin meant by "this doctrine" isn't relevant to this discussion]

Ironically Morin is not one of Frawley's favorite astrologers, but the two have more in common than John might realize or be willing to admit

This approach doesn't go over well with audiences who are looking for technique piled on technique. I've heard there have been grumblings about wanting astrology and not wanting to go to church. Sad, because I think such complainers are missing something important. I happen to love this sort of thing, even if I don't get the ideas across very well.

Tom wrote:
His main point, and I've never been real successful at getting this across, and that may be because I don't fully understand it myself, is that astrology that comes from the Greeks is pagan in origin and that astrology also has a monotheistic tradition that is different. Naturally that monotheistic tradition would be Hebrew in origin. Obviously this doesn't preclude using Greek techniques.

...He is not, in my mind, arguing that monotheistic astrology and pagan astrology originated and grew up separately, although he might be. Like I said I may not have fully grasped his intent. It's been years since I've seen him or attended a lecture. He moved to Poland a few years ago, and I live in the US.

...I've heard there have been grumblings about wanting astrology and not wanting to go to church. Sad, because I think such complainers are missing something important. I happen to love this sort of thing, even if I don't get the ideas across very well.

This piece from John Frawley may help clarify his views a bit better:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/Russianpreface.pdf

A couple of choice quotes from John Frawley's preface to his Russian translation of The Apprentice:

Nor is it true that anything written a long time ago is part of that tradition. The western tradition of astrology is a montheistic tradition. It is the astrology of the Jews, the Christians, and the Moslems. As such, it stands over and against any astrology rooted in relativism. Egyptian astrology; Hellenistic astrology; Vedic Astrology; the astrology generally practised today: these are not part of the western tradition of astrology , and because of the philosophies within which they are framed, have far more in common with each other than they do with that tradition.

John Frawley also states: :

...the words with which Ibn Ezra began his textbook are the most important words ever written in astrology: 'the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord'

There was already a thread where several of us gave quite robust feedback on John Frawley's take on astrological history. Perhaps its wiser to take that controversial issue up there or in a new thread rather than continuing it here.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Mark

A couple of choice quotes from John Frawley's preface to his Russian translation of The Apprentice:

I believe it is from the preface for The Real Astrology Applied, a collection of articles most of which were taken from the Apprentice Magazine.

I re-read it. Now I"m not so sure.