I just programmed Valens versions of the lots of Eros and Necessity according to both Schmidt's and Brennan's interpretation into Delphic Oracle 5. What is interesting is if you set the animation to 1 hour, Schmidt's version of the lots always have Fortune and Necessity on the same side of the horizon whereas Brennan's version will not maintain that correlation. In other words, the animation switches for Eros and Necessity to the opposite side of the horizon take place when Spirit and Fortune switch sides, whereas the Brennan version of the lots have a steady motion in opposing directions.

To Chris Brennan:

Putting aside Eros and Necessity for the moment, do you maintain that lots generally speaking change their nature by day and by night in such a way that this calls for different delineations?

While I am waiting for your answer to that question, let me repeat my central point. Your reckoning in the case of Eros and Necessity leads to a lot that does not change its position by day and by night, and retains its name, either Eros or Necessity, but changes its character from Eros to Necessity or Necessity to Eros by night.

This is not analogous to what happens with Fortune and Spirit. There the same point in the chart changes both its name and its character in a nocturnal chart with the same interval between the lights.

What would be analogous to what you are doing is to first calculate a diurnal Lot of Spirit. By night you would continue to call this the Lot of Spirit, but really it would have the character of the Lot of Fortune.

You have not responded directly to this argument, but instead have pursued your symbolic associations. The main reason I brought up this issue of the Valens lots was to show that that the word reversal does not always refer to the order of counting. I think we need to get this point settled.

I see why you wish to side-step my characterization of Eros as Spirit?s Lot of Spirit and Necessity as Fortune?s Lot of Fortune (although this is clearly and unequivocally what they are in diurnal charts, only the nocturnal characterizations being in dispute), because this is what reveals the absurdity of your account in the nocturnal case. Instead, you evidently want to understand Eros as somehow directly deriving from the Sun, taking a detour around Spirit, and Necessity from the Moon with a detour around Fortune.

Your rationale for the lots leads you to say that Eros is more associated with the Sun and Necessity with the Moon. I on the other hand am claiming that Eros is a specification of Spirit in relation to Fortune, and Necessity is a specification of Fortune in relation to Spirit. There is a big difference. In the Platonic context I was alluding to earlier, there is a higher Eros that is certainly more associated with the Sun, but there is a lower Eros that is more associated with the Moon. It is not Eros itself that is more associated with the Sun.

You cannot take out this intermediate step. Eros and Necessity are derived from lots, not from planets. Just as Spirit is a specification of the Sun directed at one of its multiple significations, so Eros is a specification of Spirit directed at one of the numerous faculties that human beings possess?namely, love that involves desire.

Robert Schmidt

Actually the above is only true with Schmidt's version when the lights are within 90 degrees of each other, when greater than 90 degrees (either waxing or waning), Eros pairs up with Fortune and Necessity with Spirit on opposing sides of the horizon.

Robert Schmidt wrote: (At some point I would dearly love to discuss this issue with Osthanes in the context of the Phaedrus and the two horses. But perhaps I am presuming too much on what I take to be his Platonic predilections, in which I of course partake, and for which methexis all astrologers should strive. Is a well positioned Lot of Spirit and its lord obedient to the commands of nous, the Sun; and is not a more poorly positioned Lot of Spirit and its lord subject to epithumia in the sense of orexis and the Moon?)

Robert Schmidt

Greetings Mr. Schmidt! Hope you are well.

I would dearly love to be privy to this conversation should it occur. I've been studying Fortune and Spirit in relation to the Soul metaphor in the Phaedrus - seeing Fortune and Spirit as astrological analogs of the Black horse (appetitive desires) and White horse (will) respectively. This leaves me with the Charioteer corresponding to the Ascending portion - indeed I've heard it said many times that in the calculation of the Lots the Ascending portion "mediates" - which exactly describes the relation of the Ascending degree to Fortune and Spirit.

Mr. Noblehorse

zoidsoft wrote:Actually the above is only true with Schmidt's version when the lights are within 90 degrees of each other, when greater than 90 degrees (either waxing or waning), Eros pairs up with Fortune and Necessity with Spirit on opposing sides of the horizon.

Hi Cur^H^H^H Mr. Manwaring,

True, as is your previous calculations. What this would seem to me is that the relation (and perhaps analogy) of these variant Lots of Eros and Anagnke are related to the Lots of Spirit & Fortune as the Moon relates to the Sun, the former being an image moving more quickly around the latter original in a proportionate manner.

During the New Moon, all these Lots would conjoin the rising degree. At the Half Moons, Spirit and Fortune are tetragonal to the rising degree while Eros and Anagnke are conjoined to the setting degree. At the Full Moon Spirit & Fortune are at the setting degree while Eros and Anagnke are at the rising degree.

Robert Schmidt wrote:To Chris Brennan:

Putting aside Eros and Necessity for the moment, do you maintain that lots generally speaking change their nature by day and by night in such a way that this calls for different delineations?

Yes, I do. What we disagree on is my point that Spirit and Fortune have subtle differences in day and night charts, by virtue of the fact that a different luminary is being emphasized during one part of the day versus the other. For example, the Sun is emphasized in the Lot of Spirit calculation by day, since it is the luminary of the sect that is being counted to, whereas the Moon is emphasized in the Lot of Spirit calculation by night, since it is the luminary of the sect that is being counted to. I think that this distinction is what you are overlooking in your objection to the way that Valens outlines the calculations for Eros and Necessity in his text, and also why the lots can hold the same position and yet still have it be characterized as a reversal.

Robert Schmidt wrote: While I am waiting for your answer to that question, let me repeat my central point. Your reckoning in the case of Eros and Necessity leads to a lot that does not change its position by day and by night, and retains its name, either Eros or Necessity, but changes its character from Eros to Necessity or Necessity to Eros by night.

The position of the lot does not change, but what does change is the luminary that dominates the Fortune or Spirit calculation. So it is not just that Spirit and Fortune reverse their placements by day and night, but there is something different about their composition as well, and this is why the Eros and Necessity calculations have to be reversed - in order to maintain the association of the Sun with Eros and the Moon with Necessity.

Robert Schmidt wrote: This is not analogous to what happens with Fortune and Spirit. There the same point in the chart changes both its name and its character in a nocturnal chart with the same interval between the lights.

It is not just its name and its character that changes, but also there is a shift in the emphasis of one of the two luminaries that compose the lot.

Robert Schmidt wrote: What would be analogous to what you are doing is to first calculate a diurnal Lot of Spirit. By night you would continue to call this the Lot of Spirit, but really it would have the character of the Lot of Fortune.

That is not an accurate analogy for the reasons I have outlined above.

I think that it would be useful for me to draw an analogy about what you are doing with your approach here though. What would be analogous to what you are doing with the Lot of Eros is to calculate the Lot of Spirit in a day chart by measuring the distance from the Moon to the Sun, and then to say that is the only correct calculation because that is the only one that emphasizes the Sun, which makes sense since it is called the lot of "Spirit". You would say that measuring the distance from the Sun to the Moon in a night chart does not make sense, because then the Sun is not emphasized, so we should only use the diurnal calculation. In that instance you would be overlooking the fact that it is not the Sun itself that is important in the calculation for Spirit, but it is the fact that it is the sect light in a day chart, in the same way that the nocturnal calculation for Spirit measures the distance from the contrary to the sect luminary to the sect light (the Moon).

This is precisely what you have done with the Eros and Necessity calculations in Valens. You have assumed from looking at the diurnal calculations of those two lots that they were meant to be associated with Spirit and Fortune, but that conclusion is flawed because it doesn't make sense when applied to the nocturnal calculations that Valens clearly outlines. The problem is that it is not Spirit and Fortune that are being associated with Eros and Necessity, but it is the Sun and the Moon.

Robert Schmidt wrote: You have not responded directly to this argument, but instead have pursued your symbolic associations. The main reason I brought up this issue of the Valens lots was to show that that the word reversal does not always refer to the order of counting. I think we need to get this point settled.

I responded to it by pointing out a consistent rationale underlying the calculations, despite your earlier assertions that there wasn?t one. The implications of this should be self-evident.

You have not demonstrated that the word "reversal" does not refer to the order of the counting in this instance at all.

Robert Schmidt wrote: I see why you wish to side-step my characterization of Eros as Spirit?s Lot of Spirit and Necessity as Fortune?s Lot of Fortune (although this is clearly and unequivocally what they are in diurnal charts, only the nocturnal characterizations being in dispute), because this is what reveals the absurdity of your account in the nocturnal case. Instead, you evidently want to understand Eros as somehow directly deriving from the Sun, taking a detour around Spirit, and Necessity from the Moon with a detour around Fortune.

I didn't "side-step" your characterization of the lots. I found a rationale that explained what the text actually said better, and this superseded your rationale.

hello,Mr Schmidt.

i am from china,a Hellenistic Astrology learner.

always enjoy your articles and posts about Hellenistic Astrology.

so according to your comments about valens' lot of eros and Necessity.

whether i can deduce that:lot of Victory is jupiter's lot of fortune;Lot of Nemesis is saturn's lot of spirit?

Thank you.

Robert Schmidt wrote:By similar reasoning, I find the Lot of Necessity to be Fortune?s Lot of Fortune, or a Lot of Fortune cast out from the primary Lot of Fortune rather than the Hour-marker, and I have no trouble seeing Necessity as a further specification of Fortune.

This is what I mean by conceptual consistency in a system.

Surely this analysis begins to cast some light on the remark of Rhetorius in the ?Tabular Examination? that the lord of Basis?Basis being either Eros or Necessity in any given chart--indicates the ?foundation of Fortune? in the native?s life. I notice that the Lot of Basis is being discussed on another thread.


Robert Schmidt

If Necessity is a further specification of fortune, then do you regard it as the Lot of Basis? I've been seeing good results with Valen's Lot of Basis which is the shortest arc between Fortune and Spirit projected from the Ascendant regardeless of diurnal or nocturnal sect.

I think that the best way to settle the disagreement over who is correct or incorrect with regard to Eros and Necessity would be to provide real life examples (preferably of well known people with AA data) comparing both differing viewpoints.

I think that the best way to settle the disagreement over who is correct or incorrect with regard to Eros and Necessity would be to provide real life examples (preferably of well known people with AA data) comparing both differing viewpoints.

Unfortunately I think the interpretation would be too far subjective to be determined that way. Since the discussion concerns the translation of meaning in ancient texts surely it is better to explore the real life examples of the ancient astrologers - looking at the example charts of Valens, for example, to see how he applied the principle in practice.

Deb wrote:

I think that the best way to settle the disagreement over who is correct or incorrect with regard to Eros and Necessity would be to provide real life examples (preferably of well known people with AA data) comparing both differing viewpoints.

Unfortunately I think the interpretation would be too far subjective to be determined that way. Since the discussion concerns the translation of meaning in ancient texts surely it is better to explore the real life examples of the ancient astrologers - looking at the example charts of Valens, for example, to see how he applied the principle in practice.

Unfortunately the chart examples in Valens typically do not give a lot of information on the surface, but I agree that this kind of thing would quickly degenerate into the typical "it works for me" mantra solving nothing.

To Chris Brennan:

I must say that I am rather astounded that you continue to cling to your position so doggedly. Eros is not a primary signification of the Sun; it is a primary signification of Venus. Daimon and the soul are primary signification of the Sun. This much is obvious from Valens.

The purpose of the lots is to single out meanings from more general significators such as the planets so that these more specific meanings can be studied in isolation in the chart. The calculation of the Lot of Spirit singles out Daimon, which relates to the soul in action. Eros is a further specification of Daimon as the purposive soul, insofar as Eros is one of the faculties (and perhaps the primary one) that moves us to action. You cannot get to Eros without the mediation of Daimon, which is why Eros is derived from the two primary lots. This is equally true of the Hermetic lot of Eros. This much should also be obvious.

You do not seem to have understood my earlier algebraic argument. My interpretation of the algorithm for Eros results in Spirit?s Lot of Spirit both by day and by night. Similarly, Necessity gives Fortune?s Lot of Fortune both by day and night. This is simply the result of the calculation; it is not some artifact of the algebra. Moreover, it brings out the symbolic significance of Eros and Necessity.

Your interpretation results in Spirit?s Lot of Spirit by day and Spirit?s Lot of Fortune by night. This means that there must be a colossal difference in meaning between a diurnal and a nocturnal Eros or Necessity.

Which brings me to what I believe is really the central point in all this discussion. You have stated that you believe that there is a fundamental difference in meaning between the diurnal and nocturnal versions of the same lot, to the extent that they need to be delineated differently. To refer to the example you used in your paper, a person with a diurnal Spirit is supposedly more active in his work in the sense that he generates it out of himself; someone with a nocturnal Spirit is supposedly more passive in the sense that he receives and takes on the work of others. You have also said that this principle applies generally to all lots.

First of all, I know of no textual evidence for your claim. In Hellenistic astrology, the types of distinctions you are trying to make do not belong to the lots themselves insofar as they are nocturnal or diurnal, but rather are brought out in the analysis of the position of the lot itself, planets that bonify or maltreat this place, and the condition of the ruler.

Secondly, do you not see that if all diurnal lots have a different character than all nocturnal lots, then you are dividing humanity into two broad categories which depend simply on whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal? Such a kind of astrology would be far cruder and coarser than Sun-sign astrology, which at least has twelve categories.

Most of your recent responses to my arguments have been based on this underlying assumption of yours.

Robert Schmidt

Unfortunately the chart examples in Valens typically do not give a lot of information on the surface,

If that is the case, then isn?t this now a purely theoretical argument which cannot be demonstrated to be correct one way or the other? In which case the only way for the discussion to end is at an impasse? Two very seriously considered points of view have been put forward, but with fundamental disageements and no way for one to disprove the other ? at this time. Sometimes it is best to accept that the thread has reached that point, and where there are no bridges between the arguments, its more constructive to let the arguments stand until there *are* new developments. I?m wary of the fact that both Chris and Robert have committed a lot to this thread, and have made impressive arguments that have been explained very openly, demonstrating their expertise, and allowing others who are interested to know how to follow up their inclinations.

My own feeling is that after seven pages of very intense discussion, the main participants should consider whether further debate on this same point is going to lead to a constructive realisation at this time, or whether it might be a good idea for them to take a break and let some other input develop, before coming back in with some answers to questions or new angles for discussion, if they wish.

Deb

Though it has to be said that this is quite an impressive level of development for a thread that was started as an aside to another topic!