The Moon would have joined with Mercury after it has passed the square with Saturn, ruler of the quesited, before the chart was cast

.

The aspects between the Moon, Mercury and Saturn already belong to a distant history in the moment the chart was cast. And here we're searching for a future event, so what might have happened previously is irrelevant. Why mention Mercury anyway? It is not one of the significators, and it doesn't reach the square with Saturn, because it turns direct again (if you have in mind this possibility of his translating the light it got from the Moon to Saturn)

Goran

cor scorpii wrote: The aspects between the Moon, Mercury and Saturn already belong to a distant history in the moment the chart was cast.

Not "distant history", the day before.

cor scorpii wrote: And here we're searching for a future event, so what might have happened previously is irrelevant.

That frankly doesn't make sense. This question relates to the resumption of something that was previously undertaken and then withdrawn from, and this past is on the native's mind at the time of the question. Of course what occured before matters, and I think you can see that.

cor scorpii wrote: Why mention Mercury anyway? It is not one of the significators

It signifies learning and education in general, and it is in the 9th sign, which pertains to the question in both matters of learning and foreign journeys.

cor scorpii wrote: ... and it doesn't reach the square with Saturn, because it turns direct again

Ah, a useful comment! Thanks Goran, I didn't notice that Mercury was retrograde! Actually didn't notice that trine to Mars either ... Well, Mars is exalted lord of the 9th, though it is adverse to Capricorn, and retrograde as well; but then looking at wintersea's report of the long delay in getting re-admitted and then the delay for the visa, maybe that figures in.

GR:

Not "distant history", the day before.

Well, distant history in terms of horary symbolism by all means. The separation between Moon and Mercury/Saturn had already occurred by the time the question was asked. They're not even in each others moiety of orbs any more...

Of course what occured before matters

As a background for the question, maybe, but in no way must something what happened previously influence(be it positively or negatively) the outcome of a future undertaking/event in a certain area of human life, in general terms. Hope this is clear as well, since it certainly corresponds to every day human experience. The fact I was living in Germany four years ago, doesn't necessarily contribute to a high likelihood of my living there again, though I would gladly return...so what is the practical importance of my past experience, other than my proficiency in German language? But this alone can not bring me back to Frankfurt am Main.

It signifies learning and education in general, and it is in the 9th sign, which pertains to the question in both matters of learning and foreign journeys.

Of course it does, but it is still retrograde, i.e. stationary so ill-disposed to signify anything and neither Venus nor Moon are joining with it, which would be necessary if Mercury was to have any kind of say in the matter. Since the question was posed about the readmission to a graduate school,

Will I be readmitted to the graduate school

we certainly have to look for future aspects of the Moon/Venus, not the previous ones, which are by all means able to show what has already transpired - nothing against that. But the main focus in this kind of questions pertains to future aspects, which should also be self - evident.

Greetings,
Goran

cor scorpii wrote:Well, distant history in terms of horary symbolism by all means. The separation between Moon and Mercury/Saturn had already occurred by the time the question was asked. They're not even in each others moiety of orbs any more...

As the Moon is still within 13 degrees of both Mercury and Saturn, it is still in the process of separating from them both.

cor scorpii wrote: As a background for the question, maybe, but in no way must something what happened previously influence(be it positively or negatively) the outcome of a future undertaking/event in a certain area of human life, in general terms. Hope this is clear as well, since it certainly corresponds to every day human experience. The fact I was living in Germany four years ago, doesn't necessarily contribute to a high likelihood of my living there again, though I would gladly return...so what is the practical importance of my past experience, other than my proficiency in German language? But this alone can not bring me back to Frankfurt am Main.

But if the question at hand was "Will I go back to Germany?", what happened previously would influence the matter, esp if there were problems previously that are on the mind and trouble the soul of the querent at the time of the question.

cor scorpii wrote: Of course it does, but it is still retrograde, i.e. stationary so ill-disposed to signify anything and neither Venus nor Moon are joining with it, which would be necessary if Mercury was to have any kind of say in the matter.

This I think is not a proper judgment. Of course Mercury has signification to the matter of the question: it is the last planet aspected by the Moon before the question; it is in the 9th sign, which has signification for the question; and Mercury by its own nature relates to the matter of the question by giving signs for learning. That it is retrograde doesn't negate its signification, it shows how Mercury is going about administering it, i.e. the querent, who had been in the program, but had left and thus her admission was cancelled. Also the fact that Mercury is about to station direct gives a sign that the the matter is turning around to the querent's benefit.

Hello

Thanks for everyone's discussion so far.

A few things have been niggling in the back of my mind since the other day, and I will add this Mercury information to the pot of niggles there

One of the niggling things is the solar eclipse. It's not there in this horary but it was impending. Obviously during a solar eclipse the Moon is cazimi. I can't help but wonder if the solar eclipse had influence in this chart despite it not being there in degrees and minutes. Could its impending presence have been stamped on this chart? Or is the impending cazimi-ness of the Moon unable to counteract the idea that eclipses and New Moons are a negative testimony (obviously there's still combustion and being under the sun's beams) and the Moon's debility in Capricorn? I'm uncomfortable with that idea, but I'm thinking through possibilities as I re-check things.

Or perhaps it's more likely that this impending eclipse would combine with the combustion of the significator and be an even stronger consideration before judgement? That seems a bit like a cop-out though so I'm not inclined to take that view at present. I'm open to thoughts on it all though.

Regards

H.

As the Moon is still within 13 degrees of both Mercury and Saturn, it is still in the process of separating from them both.

Maybe, and it means....what? That the Moon is separating from Mercury and that it is a case of an one-sided influence of the Moon toward Mercury and Saturn? How about their influence upon the Moon as a co- significator, since it is out of their orbs? Bottom line of all this, practical consequences, conclusion telling us... what?
That the past aspect of a detrimented Moon, nearing the point of its eclipse and combustion produced the desired outcome which actually happens later, in the future?

Sorry, but this is utterly ridiculous - not because I say or think so, but according to all the available traditional sources.


What you are trying to do here is to negate the basic principle of horary delineation concerning some future event, i.e. the inquiry about the desired outcome which still hasn't occurred and hence must , per all available definitions and principles of delineation, be sought by means of future aspects.

Sorry, but I cannot see any constructive intent behind such statements of yours. Rather the opposite. As to why you insist on such an untenable position, is of no interest to me.

Deb has also contributed to this thread, and her opinion/analysis as an experienced horary astrologer should be able to show you how wrong your reasoning is.
I have no intention to proceed with this discussion, since I've made my position clear, more than once, trying to explain some basic principles of horary astrology which still seem to be too complicated for you.

Greetings,
Goran

Hello Goran

I for one certainly appreciate your knowledge of the traditional approaches and practices and your concern for accuracy therein. I can only speak for myself, obviously, but wish to say that your comments aren't falling on deaf ears, I can assure you.

Regards

H.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, H., and I apologize for that. This sort of display Goran has put on is the sort of thing that gets me to ignore most if not all of what such a person has to say.

How about the rest of us look at the chart and see if we can find out how success came out of all these bad conditions, hmm?

Hello Gabe

No need to apologise for disagreeing

If possible I'd like to continue the process of learning from this chart in this thread and I don't mind which approaches or views are taken nor by whom as long as the reasoning is explained because then I can follow the train of thought.

If no reasoning is included then all we have is a bald assertion with no thought process to follow, which makes my poor brain feel impoverished

I'm just confirming that my desire is to understand horary better and I'm open minded in doing that as well as being very appreciative of any input in that process, and of course appreciative that this chart was brought to us, the outcome was updated more than once, all of which gives a really good chance to learn.

Regards

H.

Hi H.

I freely admit that my posts are often "off the cuff", so to speak, as I frankly don't often have the time to ponder a long a weighty response. I hope that I haven't contributed to your brain's poverty.

Don't worry Gabe, I think I follow your reasoning, particularly about Mercury's natural signification.

'Tis all grist for the mill!

I'm sorry for not being very sharp in moderation at the moment, since I'm catching up with many things right now and so mainly skimming through posts. But I have read through the recent relevant posts and I don't see any comment that can justifiably be called "utterly ridiculous". Even if there were, I would want members to avoid using that kind of terminology because it causes threads to become inflamed and divisive.

Good arguments stand up for themselves so let's keep a friendly and tolerant tone which encourages good, constructive discussion, from which we'll all benefit.

Deb