Hi Nixx,

I keep thinking you're Coder for some reason.

Nixx wrote: ... I have been more interested in his ideas about the metaphysical foundations than the astrological ones.

He'd probably tell you that both are inextricably tied together, at least when it comes to Hellenistic astrology. Why are you more interested the former?

Nixx wrote: How can you disagree ? I have a clear memory of the first time I went to Africa and encountered the qualia of the heat there. I don?t think any amount of travel books, TV programmes, paintings or what have you could have prepared me for this. Further, these contexts alter one?s mind and body, so to speak.

Alter your mind/body, or your preception of it? Is such alteration, of either mind/body or preception of it, utterly unique, or could it be replicated?

Nixx wrote: I would have thought the context would matter considerably. Perhaps even the astrological context i.e. is one at the time seeking friends or feeling friendly. I think there is some data that we make our ?best? friends earlier in life. Are you asking as a way of explaining to me the answer to this friendly, do you know your Valenistic horoscopy, thought experiment?

More that I'm trying to see what it is you mean and what suppositions you're presenting to the discussion. But I also was thinking about the question of why one would make friends in the first place? Are they friends because they are from where one lives? Or they're engaged in what one does? Or are judged by one to be similar to oneself? Or are attractive to one for some reason or another?

Also, as a side note, I do think Paulus places friends in more than one place, but I'm only recollecting from my often faulty memory.

Hermes wrote:Guys

You have to integrate the discovery of Schmidt as a rationale for topic-assignment of the houses.

It's as simple as it is revolutionary . It is based on the daymovement which makes certain signs to being 'kentra', which is a pivotpoint.
Two signs are focused on this centre: a sign moving away from it, a sign moving towards it.

This creates housetrio's. The fate of these two signs is that they are bound to this kentron. The second sign moves towards the 1st. Thus it represents hope, but not in the way the 11th does. It represents hope as to 'life', the 11th represents hope as related to the 10th, moving through life.
The 12th sign moves away from the 1st, so it represents that which takes away from life. It's life risks.
And so for the other housetrio's.

Second, these houses have Fate-names. This might actually introduce a seperate way of delineating them. It's an overall Fateconcept, and it's quite seperate from the delineation of the topics of a house.

When you conflagrate them, you might be missing a point. Read Valens book one of his housedelineations, there you'll see the way he treats not of topics, but of general Fateconcepts. Take note of what he wrties about the 6th place.

Hermes, I've read everything by Robert Schmidt on houses on the Internet that I could get my hands on. Given my reading (above) of Firmicus Maternus and Dorotheus, I remain unconvinced that a "one size fits all" theory works in explaining house meanings in antiquity.

Discovery? Or "invention"?

We find the most discrepancy in the "towards and away" thesis in the below-ground houses. Arguably the second moves towards the ascendant angle, but it was oftentimes described as unfavourable due to its inconjunct angle with the first house. Sometimes the third was favourable, sometimes unfavourable depending upon the author.

Possibly my above posts were over-long, but I would certainly benefit from your reading them and offering feedback on my evidence that the ancient astrologers collated different house meanings derived from different sources.

Why should this be the case?
1. In part, you can ferret out discrepancies in house thematic contents and different rationales from a careful reading of particular texts.
2. In part, collation and editing from different sources is actually what the ancient authors or their copyists say they are doing. I've cited some passages, above, to this effect.

Schmidt also posited a diurnal motion to the rotation of signs through the houses that got kind of corrected by an annual motion of the signs in houses. I don't quite get this unless we posit a counter-clockwise meaning of houses at some point. This idea has some merit, but I haven't seen it well-articulated in what I've read from the ancient sources so far.

Again, we really have to distinguish between different motives in the present. If the goal today is to establish some kind of neo-Hellenistic astrological practice in the present, fine. We can smooth away historical discrepancies in the pursuit of a unified practice that can be neatly packaged and taught.

If the goal is historical, however, meaning, to determine what astrologers actually wrote in the past; then we have to be a lot more cautious about the inferences we can make from (often) limited texts.

This is why I am impressed by some of the academics who made serious studies of astrology based on archaeological as well as textual evidence, such as Otto Neugebauer and Francesca Rochberg. They are so careful to frame what can be known from the evidence and what would be mere speculation.

We have so few extant astrological primers from antiquity that they are easier to smooth over in the present than are the far messier and more diverse collections of archaeological horoscope artefacts.

I think speculation serves an important role in stimulating ideas, but it has to be specifically identified as speculation. Not as a "discovery" of an actual practice.

When astrologers talk about "modern Hellenistic astrology" we need to be careful not to project onto ancient Hellenistic astrology simplified notions that are not fully and clearly identifiable in ancient texts.

I have to say this.
Deb, I believe it was you who coined the term 'modern Hellenistic astrology'. All Schmidt does is try to stay as close to the texts as possible, and understand the Hellenistic texts on their own terms, and he has never made a claim that was unsupported by some evidence (at least). Read his Definitions and Foundations.
As far as I know you don't read Greek, so you have to rely on second hand sources.
Ans as far as I can tell, you're not at home in philosophy the way Schmidt is, and you have a (rather mercurial) position to defend of 'let's keep things in the air'.

So the simplified notions you mention are your points of view IMO.
I find it a sad thing that whenever Schmidt's name is mentioned, the discussion very quicky turns to his person and not his ideas.
What's going on here?

For now I will leave this thread, and bid you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Hermes, the only position I defend is the need to distinguish between speculation about Hellenistic astrology and points that are reliably established by reference to original sources. I?m not mercurial about that but adamant that it is necessary ? not so many years ago astrologers were being taught quite categorically, that there was no recognition of orbs of influence for aspects in ancient astrology, and no recognition of aspects except by reference to the relationships of the signs. I was blasted for making the same argument then ? this is not what the sources show. Another lingering point of confusion is that many astrologers still believe there is no evidence of quadrant house division in ancient sources, which then turned to the suggestion that even if there is it was never used in a way that acknowledged house meaning. Why should we accept this argument unquestionably when there is no evidence for it, and we have both clear descriptions of how to divide the houses according to quadrant methods, and one of the earliest examples of an ancient horoscope in chart form showing the use of a quadrant system as per the usual manner? The only appropriate response to comments that suggest it is a fact that something quite specific was done, for which there is less than reliable evidence, is ?perhaps?.

You keep giving me recommendations of reading material, for which I thank you. In return I ask that you re-read my two posts above and note that I have not commented on anything personal about anyone, but only presented discussion on very relevant ideas that are directly pertinent to this discussion. I?m not sure you realise that you are the one who centred the discussion around Robert Schmidt?s ideas, so I am surprised you are so sensitive to points of view and requests for clarification. I also don?t think you realise how you are the one that is now turning the discussion towards persons rather than ideas. I don?t really mind and don?t have an emotive concern one way or another to mentions of anyone?s name in relation to published ideas ? Robert Schmidt?s ideas are out there for discussion and have been very influential. As a result they will attract both compliment and criticism. That?s the basis of informative debate ? there should be nothing perceived as personal about that.

I hope you have a good Christmas and New Year too
Deb

Deb wrote:I agree that this element of the work proposes an original theory, and I am not sure if it belongs to Schmidt more than Hand, or if one proposed whilst the other popularised, or if it arose as a blending of their thoughts. Wherever or however it originated I find it unconvincing, being unsupported by the evidence, and not persuasive in its logic as far as I'm concerned. That happens to be my position on this - worth no more or no less than anyone else's...

Have you read the original Greek? Are you on a par with Schmidt in this area? Or are you saying that in your personal experience with the houses in your practice that your opinion is worth no more or no less than anyone else's opinion with their preference of house systems?

I doubt that Hand had anything to do with Schmidt's article on the "Facets of Fate" in the Mountain Astrologer from 1999 (but I could be wrong). Please give references to what was being circulated about this subject that makes Schmidt's assertions in that article more or less a regurgitation of previous statements by other scholars.

Hmm... have you developed a superiority complex that makes you think I have to answer your questions about my right to state an opinion? The question of whether I or anyone else reads Greek is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. Rather than pamper to your demands I will simply say that my personal level of interest and research is significant enough for me to feel justified in having my own opinion, and also expressing it, yes.

If you are saying that Schmidt's renown as a translator gives him an advantage in being able to demonstrate the sources that prove his speculated theory, I would agree. So maybe he has access to some untranslated texts that have not been made publicly available elsewhere? In which case, he will have no problem supporting his argument by reference to them. That is the kind of thing that makes an argument more persuasive IMO.

As for the article I've made all the comments I intend to make. I asked twice for clarification of what - apart from the topical/dynamic distinction - was considered a unique revolutionary discovery that should be attributed to Schmidt. I didn't get a clarification, but it's not that important that I want to labour and dwell on this. The original post of Hermes made it sound like the notion that the chart comprises four sets of houses that are related as trios through the diurnal revolution of the suceedent house moving towards the themes of the angular house, and the cadent house falling away from it, was newly discovered by Schmidt, which struck me as odd since this is obviously not the case. So we are left with the suggestion that his article presents a 'fate-issue' theme to the houses. Well, it is called 'The Facets of Fate' and if this is perceived as presenting a revolutionary discovery that is essential to the understanding of the themes of the houses (as other contributors have been told), then it would have been good to have had some explanation and development of that point. That didn't happen and I'm personally no longer interested. It should be remembered that Hermes made the assertion of revolutionary discovery not Schmidt himself, so if Hermes felt unwilling to elaborate, the point should be dropped.

On a more general note, anyone's opinion in this forum is worth no more or no less than anyone else's. This is not a place to demand qualifications of a right to comment, and neither I nor anyone else should feel there is a necessity to justify a comment made when the logic for the comment has been made self-explanatory in the post. Different views exist, and different astrologers hold different sources in different regard. I do not appear to share your view on this and if that makes a temple vein throb, sorry ? that?s your problem, not mine.

Deb wrote:On a more general note, anyone's opinion in this forum is worth no more or no less than anyone else's. This is not a place to demand qualifications of a right to comment, and neither I nor anyone else should feel there is a necessity to justify a comment made when the logic for the comment has been made self-explanatory in the post. Different views exist, and different astrologers hold different sources in different regard. I do not appear to share your view on this and if that makes a temple vein throb, sorry ? that?s your problem, not mine.

Of course it matters how qualified someone is when evaluating an opinion, but I've noticed that since the movie "Forrest Gump" came out there's this general idea that everyone's opinion should be weighed equally as if democracy means that "your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge". Isaac Asimov said something to that effect. In a health crisis, whose opinion matters more, that of a physician or that of a bystander who saw someone collapse? It is more logical to give the physicians medical opinion more weight.

I'm not saying that if one isn't qualified that one can't have an opinion and state it freely, but it is foolish to take all opinions at equal weight. It leads to inaccuracy not to take into account the source through "democratization" of all opinions.

I'm not even saying that different house systems don't work. But then you say "have you developed a superiority complex..." trying to deflect the real issue. I say you are equally free to disregard what I said.

Deb says:

The original post of Hermes made it sound like the notion that the chart comprises four sets of houses that are related as trios through the diurnal revolution of the suceedent house moving towards the themes of the angular house, and the cadent house falling away from it, was newly discovered by Schmidt, which struck me as odd since this is obviously not the case.

So is it so unreasonable to ask for a source for who was speaking about "angular triads" before Schmidt?

I really want to know (honestly) if there were others saying what Schmidt says in that article before he did. If you're no longer interested in the issue, don't respond, maybe someone else will. There's no need for personal attacks. I spent time with James Holden at AFA last Sept and have gotten another view of some of the material apart from Schmidt's and really don't know what to think about the different house systems at this point.

zoidsoft wrote:So is it so unreasonable to ask for a source for who was speaking about "angular triads" before Schmidt?

Without wishing to become embroiled in this discussion, I'd like to offer the suggestion that the concept of 'angular triads' (if not that precise term) is present in the very vocabulary used by ancient astrologers in talking about the houses. The succedent and cadent houses are commonly referred to as 'the epanaphora/apoklima of the ascendant', 'the epanaphora/apoklima of the midheaven', etc, making it clear (at least to my way of thinking) that the four angles were seen as the fixed points of reference, each angle having one place/house 'falling away' from it (apoklima) and one 'rising after' it (epanaphora).

This is also one reason why I think it unlikely that the astronomical midheaven -- the actual point of culmination -- would not have been of interest to ancient astrologers (except in length-of-life procedures). Difficult to calculate, and therefore generally approximated, yes; but the language of the primary motion is fundamental to the way the houses (or places) were discussed.

Martin Gansten wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:So is it so unreasonable to ask for a source for who was speaking about "angular triads" before Schmidt?

Without wishing to become embroiled in this discussion, I'd like to offer the suggestion that the concept of 'angular triads' (if not that precise term) is present in the very vocabulary used by ancient astrologers in talking about the houses.

OK. Then probably someone else translated the Greek terms which suggest "angular triad" before Schmidt and it shouldn't be too hard to track down a source who makes the same arguments about fate based upon the motions of the Same and the Other. However, I don't recall seeing anyone grouping the houses in the same way making the same arguments as Schmidt did in 1999 on this. The usual grouping is by quadrant (10, 11, 12... 1, 2, 3) etc...

GR,

I keep thinking you're Coder for some reason.

I wish I was, but my dispositions are not those sought at today's Bletchley Park.

He'd probably tell you that both are inextricably tied together, at least when it comes to Hellenistic astrology. Why are you more interested the former?

Bad English on my part. Yes, I think Schmidt has said it is a dynamic with one taking shape from the other. I was more interested in his proposal these foundations were based, or constructed, on a Platonic Idealist geometrical demiurge and how this compared to other paradigms. In respect of the nuts and bolts, these fiendishly complex calculations require a lot of commitment. Why learn how to bake a cake when a Greek speaking other can sift through the ingredients and, eventually, give you a slice. If tasty you can roll up your sleeves and get out your own rolling pin.

Alter your mind/body, or your perception of it? Is such alteration, of either mind/body or preception of it, utterly unique, or could it be replicated?

Yes utterly, even astrologically. I forget the maths as to when you can have the exact same chart again, but it?s a long stretch. Even then the world is a profoundly different context. Are you attempting to divert the discussion into the nativities of Siamese twins?

More that I'm trying to see what it is you mean and what suppositions you're presenting to the discussion. But I also was thinking about the question of why one would make friends in the first place? Are they friends because they are from where one lives? Or they're engaged in what one does? Or are judged by one to be similar to oneself? Or are attractive to one for some reason or another?

All these questions have been studied for decades. Proximity, personality, similarity, compatibility, etc are all factors which influence who we end up calling our friends. The supposition is Hellenistic astrologers, both then and now, would look at the contents of one or all of these 5 houses when faced with a question such as ?? Will I be seeing my friends and getting some half decent presents from them this Xmas.??

I take my hat off to anyone who understands ancient Greek to the point of being able to translate it.

But I detect an opinion here (and on a thread in another astrology forum) that:

1. unless an astrologer can read ancient Greek, his/her opinions on the astrology of antiquity can be dismissed.

2. Entire English translations of ancient texts can be dismissed on the grounds that some words are mis-translated.

This attitude (not held by you, dear reader!) would effectively limit any acceptable discussion of Hellenistic astrology to simply replaying the views of that handful of elect individuals deemed worthy of opinion-holding. Because apparently anglophone views are by nature inferior.

I am with Deb on this one.

My Hellenistic astrology education is incomplete, but I actually started with on-line articles by Robert Schmidt and Chris Brennan (!) that suggested (to me) a seamless narrative in ancient texts.

As I began to get into the primary sources more thoroughly, and with an eye on textual criticism, I began to see diversity all over the place, as per my previous posts re: Dorotheus and Firmicus Maternus on this thread.

What amazes me, is that some astrologers of unknown or apparently limited formal education in research methodology are so definite about various points. The academic scholars, in contrast, are far more cautious as a group. And what is more, the academics footnote their work so we can see more precisely how they've put their arguments together.

I read footnotes because I want to see how a particular case is built. Ditto for bibliographies. I would love to see this more often in astrologers' work.

Because if an astrologer is fluent in Greek, apparently that's considered enough to accept his theses, judging from what I've read in Internet articles. Full stop. The rest of us have nothing to say about them.

Waybread,

My Hellenistic astrology education is incomplete, but I actually started with on-line articles by Robert Schmidt and Chris Brennan (!) that suggested (to me) a seamless narrative in ancient texts.

This Mission Statment of Schmidt's may serve to clarify, and correct, some of these impressions.

http://www.projecthindsight.com/article ... istic.html