Did you ever make anything happen?

Anything you couldn't explain?

You're a wizzurd Y'zuru!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1XQvA4xqo4

I hope it (i.e. the haunting ghost) is either Elvis or Michael Jackson.

But it'll probably be Ptolemy or William Lilly.

By the way, I saw the post Yuzuru is referring to so I know he didn't imagine it.... unless he put a spell on me to imagine it too.

Edited: for clarity

Mystery solved - wrote up delineation for lot of fortune for Truman Capote as a nocturnal figure then realized it was a diurnal figure - typical mercury retrograde b.s. and the hazards of staying up late to post something. So I deleted it. Will try to come up with something later when Mercury goes direct.

In fact I was more worried that I might have pushed the wrong moderator button

But I confess I have been trying a little hocus pocus, astrological magic it is.

I'll use some examples of the Lot of Spirit in action from the natal charts discussed in the Lot of Basis thread.

In the thread on Basis I said the Spirit indicates "the motivating force behind our actions".

Example 1: John F. Kennedy's Spirit as an indicator of his family obligation that he must become President as dictated by his father. Also, his infamous libido.
For those who favour the 3pm time, Spirit is still in Cancer. For those only vaguely familiar with the Kennedy life story, the biography "An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy" would be a good place to start.

The Lot of Spirit is in Cancer, the 10th place with Saturn/Cancer, ruler of 4th and 5th. I delineate Saturn/Cancer/10th as the family patriarch Joe Kennedy who foisted his Presidential ambitions onto his son. Although intelligent and academically gifted, JFK is described as relatively unambitious without his fathers constant prodding, support, and string-pulling to seek high political offices (Congressman, Senator) as a path to Presidency.
Now, Saturn also rules the Lot of Fortune, so his own fortunes are fatefully tied up with his fathers ambitions that he become President.
The outcome of this was also his own death, as he was assasinated while in office as President.
With Fortune in Aquarius, the "deadly place" (8th from fortune) is Virgo/12th with Moon/Virgo - the ruler of the Lot of Spirit.

Regarding the strong libido and desire to have sex with many women, notice that the Moon (Spirit ruler) translates Venus/Gemini (1st ruler) to Mars/Taurus (7th ruler).

Example 2: Spirit as an indicator of J. Edgar Hoover's authoritharian personality, obsession with communism and fear of revolutionary violence.
Spirit is in Scorpio, the 11th place with the MC and Saturn (1st and 2nd ruler). Ruler is Mars/Taurus/5th. Hoover is described as a disciplinarian, a vengeful and mean spirited man who ran his organisation with an iron fist. Hoover was also feared by the powerbrokers in Washington, including Presidents (Saturn/MC). His favourite type of leverage to hold over people were sexual indiscretions, which were duly noted in his extensive files (Saturn sextile Mercury/Capricorn). He was said to be "first class prude" and railed against the liberal attitudes to sex that came about in the 1960s
(Saturn/Scorpio opposite Mars/Taurus). JFKs extensive womanising especially outraged his moralistic opinions.

If Uranus/Scorpio is delineated as revolutionary violence, one of Hoover's main motivations (an obsession in fact) was preventing communism (Mars/Taurus) and revolutionary violence.

Tom wrote:Thank you Stellarium,

I feel I owe you an apology. All during the various discussions of the lots, you were in fact posting charts on and discussing the lot of basis in relation to specific charts. Without thinking I mentioned that no one had done that.

I am sorry I didn't point out your fine posts. I'm also glad you brought some over here. Thank you.

Tom

Thank you Tom. I agree that threads sometimes descend into too much discussion about theory with little if any practical application of that theory shown so that people can make up their own minds about the topic at hand.

Back to the Lot of Spirit and the Lot of Fortune, I believe that a good way to make a distinction between the two would be to consider the relevence of the Lot of Fortune to the circumstances experienced by the native when s/he was a child (Where Spirit could be considered temporarily redundant as a child is dependent on the parents) and Spirit would come more to the fore in the native's life as an adult when s/he makes decisions about their life themselves.

Take Hoover as an example. As a child he was described as fearful and sickly and clung excessively to his mother. His mother was the strongest parent in his life and he was very close to her (he lived with her until she died in 1939 when he was 44). His Lot of Fortune is in Pisces with the Moon - I suggest that this is a much stronger match than Fortune in Scorpio with Saturn. As he got older, his Lot of Spirit became more visible through his actions as an adult (as delineated above).

Another example from the Lot of Basis thread is the pornographic actor John Holmes (Biography:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holme ... hic_actor). Natal chart: http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Holmes,_John

The Lot of Fortune is in Cancer/5th with Saturn ruled by Moon/Aries/2nd.
The Lot of Spirit is in Scorpio/9th ruled by Mars/Virgo/7th.

Early life: Knew little of his father (Saturn), an alcoholic (Saturn/Cancer) who abandoned his family (Saturn/Cancer consistent with family abandonment by the father) when John was an infant. Stepfather was also an alcoholic "who would come home inebriated, stumble about the house, and even vomit on the children." Another stepfather "was a good father until his younger half-brother was born, at which point Bowman lost interest in his non-biological children and began neglecting them." Little is said about his mother in the biography, although she appears to have negatively impacted on John through the men she brought into her life.
Perhaps Moon/Aries could be delineated as his mother rushing into relationships with unsuitable men (Alcoholics, violent men etc).

Life as an adult: pornographic actor, also trouble with the law (Pimping, theft, accused of murder) and premature death from AIDS.
Here, we see Spirit in Scorpio ruled by Mars/Virgo/7th conjunct Mercury/Virgo (pornographic industry, magazines, cinema showings of movies, etc - I have also seen Mercury/Mars to signify trouble with the law.) Notice that the Mars also rules the Moon/Aries/2nd, a further indication of sex for public viewing (Moon) to make money (2nd).
This is what he is famous for and the Moon culminates with respect to the Cancer lot of Fortune (and Basis).

Mark wrote

Isn't the very fact you regard the lots as comparatively minor in importance a legacy stemming from Ptolemy and reflective of your personal identification with his approach?

Hi Mark

I think we need to qualify what 'comparatively minor' means. In a nutshell, I?ve found by experience that astrologers can make great use of outer planets (or not), or fixed stars (or not), or lots (or not), and so on...
Regarding my own use, I?ve been advocating the use of Spirit and Fortune together and the reversal of lots for many years, based on exploring the majority of traditional sources. Ptolemy has never been a main reference for me in this topic. Also, it is only in recent years that I have realised my current view, that at a practical level there is more prospect of weakening the astrological system through an overuse of lots, than underusing them. (Many ?traditional astrologers? would say the same about outer planets, although I think they have much to add when they support the traditional planetary focus by extending certain points of symbolism, rather than when they take the focus away from it; so that?s quite a useful analogy to my view on this subject).

If the Anthology of Valens rather than Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos had been the main text passed from the Arabs to Europeans wouldn't we be looking at this issue quite differently in regards the Lots?

I have heard this kind of comment a few times, but we should accept that such a scenario never would have happened. It was the intellectual prestige and standard of astronomical excellence attached to Ptolemy?s reputation that the Arabs sought to emulate, and many of the astrological texts passed through the translation process in the wake of their primary interest in *his* works (and those of other ?great intellectuals? like Aristotle and Euclid, etc). So like it or not Ptolemy (i.e., the emphasis that was given to his works) is part of the reason why this discussion on lots is even taking place here.

But also keep in mind that because of his scientific standing, what he endorsed about astrology had to be able to stand up to intellectual criticism and demonstrate natural reasoning. So Ptolemy can never be "unrepresentative of classical astrology", since he was a most important classical Hellenistic astrologer, who epitomized a certain enduring legacy from that period. What he wrote was important for exactly the way he wrote it. But the word ?maverick? is misleading because Ptolemy?s omissions are based on him taking a cautious approach rather than a non-conformist one.

[I cut a couple of extra paragraphs so as not to start a whole new debate here...] I also think it is great Stellarium, that you are posting up charts for exploration. I tried to keep this brief so as not to divert attention from your posts. A problem for me is that I have seen too many historical astrologers get good results from using the Part of Fortune whether reversed or not, to feel that either way can be proven wrong. It's a dilemma.

Regards
Deb

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=
Clelia makes a good argument for reversing pof by night.. and in my own nocturnal chart, the day formula puts pof in 12th.. and I don't like that! (but then part of spirit is in 12th, and not sure I like that either!)

Hello Deb,

Mark wrote

Isn't the very fact you regard the lots as comparatively minor in importance a legacy stemming from Ptolemy and reflective of your personal identification with his approach?

Deb wrote:

Hi Mark

I think we need to qualify what 'comparatively minor' means. In a nutshell, I?ve found by experience that astrologers can make great use of outer planets (or not), or fixed stars (or not), or lots (or not), and so on...
I agree.

Regarding my own use, I?ve been advocating the use of Spirit and Fortune together and the reversal of lots for many years, based on exploring the majority of traditional sources.

I hadn?t noticed reference to the Lot of Spirit in your talks or posts here. Guess I need to read more carefully. However, my interest in this topic is mostly natal anyway. I wouldn?t be giving as much attention to this in horary.

Deb wrote:

Ptolemy has never been a main reference for me in this topic.

I was putting together your stated admiration for Ptolemy and your scepticism on extensive use of lots. I had assumed your position owed something to Ptolemy. Clearly not. Although like Ptolemy I do detect in your view a sympathy for more naturalistically derived astrology.

Deb wrote:

Also, it is only in recent years that I have realised my current view, that at a practical level there is more prospect of weakening the astrological system through an overuse of lots, than underusing them. (Many ?traditional astrologers? would say the same about outer planets, although I think they have much to add when they support the traditional planetary focus by extending certain points of symbolism, rather than when they take the focus away from it; so that?s quite a useful analogy to my view on this subject).

I don?t disagree with anything you have said. Indeed that view is very close to my own so you must be right. Despite reactivating this thread I presently only work with Lot of Fortune and Spirit. I get distinctly uneasy when people start to delineate charts with numerous lots. Still I think the judicious use of lots can be very interesting. For some though they will form an even more extensive part of their astrological repertoire. Thats fine with me. Its similar to fixed stars where I know my interest and useage is higher than average.

Mark wrote:

If the Anthology of Valens rather than Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos had been the main text passed from the Arabs to Europeans wouldn't we be looking at this issue quite differently in regards the Lots?

Deb wrote:

I have heard this kind of comment a few times, but we should accept that such a scenario never would have happened. It was the intellectual prestige and standard of astronomical excellence attached to Ptolemy?s reputation that the Arabs sought to emulate, and many of the astrological texts passed through the translation process in the wake of their primary interest in *his* works (and those of other ?great intellectuals? like Aristotle and Euclid, etc). So like it or not Ptolemy (i.e., the emphasis that was given to his works) is part of the reason why this discussion on lots is even taking place here.

The web of historical cause and effect is extremely complex. You seem to be suggesting that without Ptolemy and his influence astrology would never have survived. Is that correct? No matter how much we have studied no one can state that definitively. There are just too many random factors in the equation to be certain. I fully accept that Ptolemy?s astronomical ideas presented in the Almagest added greatly to the acceptance of his associated astrology in the Tetrabiblos. Ptolemy?s immense scientific respectability made astrology more acceptable to both Arabic and later medieval Christian thinking. Its probably true that without the legacy of Ptolemy astrology would have been less readily accepted by Persian and Arab astrology. Ptolemy and the Tetrabiblos allowed astrology to be framed in more naturalistic, terms and his ideas blended well with the medieval scholastic interest in aristotlean philosophy. In contrast, an astrologer like Valens fits more closely into the pagan worldview and probably transferred less well into monotheistic , medieval thought.

So Ptolemy can never be "unrepresentative of classical astrology", since he was a most important classical Hellenistic astrologer, who epitomized a certain enduring legacy from that period. What he wrote was important for exactly the way he wrote it. But the word ?maverick? is misleading because Ptolemy?s omissions are based on him taking a cautious approach rather than a non-conformist one.

You are misquoting me again! I never suggested Ptolemy was unrepresentative in general terms. I used terms such as ?unreprepresentative? and ?maverick? exclusively in relation to the lots and nothing else. I think such terms can be substantiated by comparing Ptolemy to other classical astrologers. What you describe as a 'cautious' approach in Ptolemy others see as a revisionist or a reductionist one.

However, I think your debate is more with astrologers like Robert Hand and especially Robert Schmidt who are on record stating Ptolemy was unrepresentative in general terms. Still, when you get down to actual study of texts you can see unique features in several authors. For example, Manilius has a quite idiosyncratic approach to house meanings.

A problem for me is that I have seen too many historical astrologers get good results from using the Part of Fortune whether reversed or not, to feel that either way can be proven wrong. It's a dilemma.

Yes. I was going to raise this point earlier when Tom suggested moving over to chart examples to resolve the differences. However, it seemed too negative a point to raise at that stage. Personally, I don?t think such theoretical debates can be resolved by just delineating charts. I tend to hold to the ?you?ll see it when you believe it ? school of thought. In other words our basic prior outlook or personal construct determines how we see and work with a chart. A chart is only a tool. Its the astrologer that makes it come to life. Thats why I think apparently mutually exclusive positions can each be made to work.

If that wasn?t the case siderealists would have been converted by tropicalists years ago of the folly of their ways. There are so many areas of astrological dispute even in traditional astrology: zodiacs, house systems, aspects. This isn?t really a problem unless you are an astrological literalist that believes there is only one true route to astrological truth. That doesn?t mean I don?t think chart displays here are not useful. It can be very helpful to see a chart delineated using the approach of another astrologer. There is nothing wrong with being true to your chosen approach. I just dont think its very helpful to start telling other people they are wrong. We can base our position on the history and support our approach by recourse to traditional sources. That at least gives our ideas some kind of foundation. For myself reversing the Lot of Fortune makes more sense due to the philosophy of planetary sect and the fact that the majority of early sources support this. However, if others dont accept this that is their choice.

Regards
Mark

Hi Mark

You seem to be suggesting that without Ptolemy and his influence astrology would never have survived. Is that correct?

No I would never suggest that, only that the scenario you asked us to imagine, of what if the Anthology of Valens had been the main text passed from the Arabs to Europeans rather than Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, wasn?t plausible. There seems little point in imagining what might have happened as a consequence of that, as if it was nothing more than bad luck for Valens that Ptolemy?s work attracted the historical attention, (ignoring all the important reasons why astrological history unfolded as it did). I apologize if this wasn?t the point you aimed to make, but I am answering an argument that keeps making the rounds and which seemed to be implied here, to clarify that Ptolemy?s influence didn?t steal attention away from other works as is sometimes suggested, but instead helped to stimulate Arabian interest in other astrological works. It sounds like we are mainly in agreement so I am sorry if you thought I misquoted you ? you made the comment ?Ptolemy was never more unrepresentative of classical astrology than in his approach to the lots? which seems to imply that he was unrepresentative in general terms, as I read it. Also, (to clarify) its not a case that I admire Ptolemy?s work, or believe it to be the best source of technique, only that I appreciate why it is important to understand his work properly.


Deb