Mark wrote: This is clearly not the formula described Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos where we are told the nature of the soul is represented by the the Moon and Mercury. Nevertheless, it does seem to represent a valid alternative strand in traditional astrology with equal authenticity.

I'm not sure if we mean the same thing for "soul."

In Ptolemy soul in that chapter is the intellective soul - see Hindsight translation of Montulmo (and Regiomontanus comment).

In my opinion it is something more connected with what we now call psychological portrait, not something about the "the level of evolution of the soul".

margherita

You may have a great chart, but if you`re born with an afflicted Moon, the real significator of destiny, especially in the first 4 years of your life, the Moon`s influence may cause something of an Oedipus complex that will harm not only your future love life, but the professional life, yes, even if you have Venus in H7 or Jupiter in MC. Which pre-historic astrologer talks about this?

This is a common knowledge in traditional astrology which isn't pre-historic(whatever that may mean to you).

Goran

DrStarman wrote: I`m not going to market the Project Hinsight and the use of all those Greek names meant to make one feel left out if one doesn`t get on board the Wagon of the real ancient Astrology. And if you enjoy moderating Big brother style,then you`re a frustrated dictator-politician whose onlyway of controlingl is his forum.
At Bob Marks frum there`s hardly any moderation and nobody feels tempted to go against the rules, or coming through the back door and annoy the moderator.

Nobody's asking you to market Project Hindsight. Or ARHAT. Or Ben Dykes. Or the AFA. Or any other translators/publishers of ancient and medieval astrology texts.

We do ask that you respect that this is one of the very few forums on the Internet that is devoted to traditional astrology. There are plenty of forums on the Internet that are devoted to modern astrology, and it's welcome in most of the forums on this board, too - just not this particular one.

Why this would make you want to 'come though the back door and annoy the moderator' is beyond me. Regardless, it's not a nice sentiment, and I hope you don't plan to actually do it.

If you don't like it here, post in the other forums on this board or go somewhere else. It's really that easy. And leave us hopeless old fogies to discuss the Greeks, Indians, and Persians in our dotage. We're pretty harmless, after all.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if we mean the same thing for "soul."

Fair enough. Its just that this is the usual terminology used in English. How well it reflects the Greek of Ptolemy is another issue.

This seems an appropriate point to give the link to Nicholas Campion's article: Astronomy and Psyche in the Classical World: Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Ptolemy. The article discusses the ideas of Ptolemy in comparison to the four main classical philosophical approaches and discusses notions of the soul and their contemporary cosmology.

http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy118.html

While ,as Campion notes Ptolemy may have had various philosophical influences the naturalist outlook of Aristotle seems the strongest element in his work. The notion of soul used by Aristotle is only distantly related to the usual modern conception. He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing. It is not a distinct substance from the body. It is difficult to reconcile Aristotle's approach with the modern popular picture of a soul as a sort of spiritual substance "inhabiting" a body. One might bettter translate Aristotle's view as a 'lifeforce' rather than a 'soul' to avoid confusion.

This contrasts to Plato's notion of the soul who clearly believed the soul can exist independently of the body. He sets out his ideas in his work known as the Phaedo amongst others.

Ptolemy, appears to rely on Aristotle's scheme, when he associated the intellectual, or rational, soul with Mercury and both the nutritive and sensitive souls to the Moon, writing that

Of the qualities of the soul, those which concern the reason and the mind are apprehended by means of the condition of Mercury...and the qualities of the sensory and irrational part are discovered from the one of the luminaries which is the more corporeal, that is, the moon (Tetrabiblos, translated by Frank E. Robbins, 1940, III.13).

In contrast it has been noted by many commentators that Vettius Valens was more influenced by Stoic ideas. The Stoics had a unique understanding of the soul. I am quoting from Beatrix Murrell's online article on Stoic philosophy:

For the Stoics God was Fire (active energy) and Logos (reason) diffused throughout the Cosmos.They believed, too, that the Law of Nature was God's material presence in the Universe. As cosmic reason, God was Providence. This Providence ordained all things.God was Fate, too.The Stoics believed Fate imposed upon humanity a certain determinism that allowed for freedom only within the context of a person's inner acceptance of cosmic necessity.

As for Fire, the Stoics likened this concept of God as seed that having in itself the "reasons of all things and the causes of what was, is, and shall be."This energy was the vital principle from which all the flora and fauna springs. The Stoics considered that through any stage of development, it was God (as a living force) who molded and dominated passive matter in terms of "progress."

The Stoics believed in soul ? even for the animals, though not a rational soul. In rational creatures, however, they considered the Pneuma (fiery breath) to be manifested at a higher degree of intensity as an "emanation from the world-soul."This Pneuma was a spark of the celestial Fire.

Essentially the Stoics believed that what God is for the world, the soul is for man.They declared that the Cosmos must be viewed as a single Whole ? with its "variety being referred to varying stages of condensation in Pneuma." Therefore, for the Stoics, the actual nature of a human person is the universal on a small scale ? a microcosm.

There is a parallel between the macrocosm and the microcosm. God, the Soul of the World, fills and penetrates it. Similarly, the human soul pervades and breathes through all the body ? informing and guiding it. In both the macrocosm and the microcosm, there is a ruling part.

The Stoics considered each human soul a "fragment of the universal divine force, yet not completely sundered from the parent-stock." They were talking about family. They declared that "We are thy offspring!"

http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/stoicism.html

For the Stoics such connections operated through webs of "sympathy" and, being universal, connected stars to people. Hence when Valens describes the Sun as The all seeing Sun, then, being truly fire-like and the light of the mind, the organ of perception of the soul his comments can be seen as embodying a Stoic viewpoint.

In Ptolemy soul in that chapter is the intellective soul - see Hindsight translation of Montulmo (and Regiomontanus comment).

I'm afraid I cant check this out as the English translation by Project Hindsight has been out of print for many years.

In my opinion it is something more connected with what we now call psychological portrait, not something about the "the level of evolution of the soul".

Your referring to Ptolemy here I assume not Valens? Not sure I recognise the idea of 'level of evolution of the soul' in Valens either. This sounds more Hindu or Theosophical to me.

Mark wrote: In contrast it has been noted by many commentators that Vettius Valens was more influenced by Stoic ideas. The Stoics had a unique understanding of the soul.

I'm sure you are right.

Still Valens writes nothing else than a generic reference to the centrality of the Sun. For Ptolemy too the Sun is at the center of everything, much more than for whoever I would say.

Someone between Hellenistic astrologers wrote something in order to judge the soul from the Sun? Something like "you should consider this and this"?

Or from something else? What Ptolemy calls soul, it is not the soul as we understand now, it's evident.

margherita

The point is that throughout the years I`ve noticed some Moderators seem to enjoy their job more than others if you see what I mean? The moderator of Chinese Astrology Yahoogroups is a good example. He doesn`t believe in Chinese Astrology.But boy, does he relishes splitting hairs about some member forgetting to edit a post or submit something off-topic. He never misses a chance to tell them off.

Dr Starman

The issue isn't about moderation here. Its about you refusing to grasp you are posting in the wrong place on Skyscript. I have no problem reading or discussing the ideas of Evangeline Adams. I just dont come to the traditional forum on Skyscript to do it. You dont seem to have any relevant contribution to make to this particular thread so I politely request that you stop posting here and cluttering up the thread with irrelevant comments.

Thanks

Mark

The point is that throughout the years I`ve noticed some Moderators seem to enjoy their job more than others if you see what I mean?

The point we're trying to make is this isn't about you. See what I mean? You said you weren't going to post here any longer. Please keep your word.

I'm sure you are right.

Of course I am. I am always right Margherita.

Actually, its not really my point. I am picking up Valens Stoic leanings from the comments of much more knowledgeable writers on the subject.

Still Valens writes nothing else than a generic reference to the centrality of the Sun.....Someone between Hellenistic astrologers wrote something in order to judge the soul from the Sun? Something like "you should consider this and this"?

You have a good point there and I confess I have no ready answer for you. I would have expected a reference like this to pick up the significance of the Sun. I will put more time in on the Anthology to double check but so far I am coming up with nothing. Then again I haven't seen a practical reference to the natural signification of the Moon either. I would expect this focus to disappear in later hellenistic astrology as the influence of Ptolemy became stronger. Although Rhetorius defines the Sun very similarly to Valens. I plan to look at sources before Valens too to see if this idea appears there too. What is undeniable is that we do not find any reference in Ptolemy referring to the Sun connected to the mind or intelligence do we? That point alone represents a considerable difference in emphasis.

For Ptolemy too the Sun is at the center of everything, much more than for whoever I would say.

I agree with you although at the beginning of this thread you stated:

to be honest I don't see the Sun so important in Ptolemy (and then in Renaissance authors)

I think I know what you mean though.

What Ptolemy calls soul, it is not the soul as we understand now, it's evident.

Agreed as noted in my comments in my last post.

Mark

Mark wrote:

For Ptolemy too the Sun is at the center of everything, much more than for whoever I would say.

I agree with you although at the beginning of this thread you stated:

to be honest I don't see the Sun so important in Ptolemy (and then in Renaissance authors)

I think I know what you mean though.

I don't deserve this

What I meant is both, namely the Sun is central in Ptolemy - think about the epicycle theory- everything depends on the position of the significator in respect with the Sun, still the Sun is not a significator for anything.

I believe that Astrojinn explained this point very well.

margherita

What I meant is both, namely the Sun is central in Ptolemy - think about the epicycle theory- everything depends on the position of the significator in respect with the Sun, still the Sun is not a significator for anything.

Yes I know I was just teasing you. The quote was in another context regarding the role of the Sun as a natural significator in Valens. Sorry I couldn't resist it.

Mark

Olivia wrote:
Technical note: SolarFire does display Nakshatras - click on the Reports and Tabulations tab on the side, and in Tabulations just scroll down to - Nakshatras.

Thanks Olivia. I missed this post earlier. I have now been reunited with the Nakshatras and Arabic Lunar Mansions on SF thanks to you.

Mark