109 by Mark Atlantean wrote: I got all three correct with very little muss and fuss. The actor was easy to pick out of the three because his chart is the one that most obviously fits the "Performing Channel". Congratulations James! Although to be fair quite a few of us here got it right too using a variety of different approaches. So I am not sure you have demonstrated we all need to give up traditional astrology yet. Atlantean wrote: I regularly do group readings, where I read for 10 to 20 people in a sitting. The methods in this book have been vital to discussing vocational issues with only a very brief look at the natal chart. Though it's not a traditional text, I am still sure that it can be immensely helpful to anyone. That is impressive and I suspect that kind of extensive delineation experience counts for an awful lot in practical exercises like this. Especially, if you have honed in of spotting vocational characteristics. In contrast many people like myself are astrological hobbyists or more research orientated. We dont have that kind of extensive experience of natal chart reading or have our approach streamlined down as you seem to. Hence my methodology does look more workmanlike and laborious than yours. For me these charts are an interesting test of some ancient techniques which I am experimenting with. I like the ethically clean environment of a mystery chart where we can have the space to try new ideas out. We can also have the luxury to totally screw things up with no harm to a client. Its a sort of victimless consultation! I did attend some workshops with Noel Tyl some years ago. I do respect the fact Tyl has a clear technique he teaches his students. People who describe modern astrology as vague on delineation ignore schools like Tyl, Huber or the Uranians who all have definable techniques. I have never been one of those traditionalists that thinks modern astrology doesn't work. Its just not the kind of astrology that generally appeals to me or resonates with my consciousness. For me personally abandoning modern rulerships was the crossing of the rubicon that transformed my understanding of astrology. It was like a light being turned on in my brain with charts finally starting to come to life and make sense. Studying with the Faculty of Astrological Studies had failed to do this for me. I put a lot of this down to trying to use modern or dual rulerships of signs. On the other hand traditional astrology reveals layer after layer of new riches the longer you study it. Mark Last edited by Mark on Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:21 pm, edited 4 times in total. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:48 pm
110 by Mark James_M wrote: if one is going to entertain whole-sign houses for some of redfords planets, it will put redfords saturn rising in his first, not tucked away in the 12th.. in a nocturnal chart with moon/mercury applying to it, i recall valens harsh words for saturn rising in a nocturnal chart.. the jupiter in the 10th would be a big help, but i don't know if it washes out what i recall reading from valens on saturn rising in a nocturnal chart.. Hi James, Excellent point! Your quite right that from a Hellenistic perspective this Saturn is not good as the malefic out of sect in a night chart. Here it falls in the 1st house by WS. Saturn is rising here as it is oriental of the Sun. However, according to Ptolemy this part of its phase is preferable to the part following the opposition when it is occidental of the Sun. Following opposition the inherent cold and dryness of Saturn becomes more manifest making it more malefic in expression. You will recall the essential nature of Saturn is cold and dry. In this part of its phase both the qualities are mitigated somewhat. As you suggest I do go with the argument that the square of Jupiter is a significant factor in moderating the negative effects of Saturn here. Jupiter is clearly the most dignified planet in the chart and exceptionally powerful in this particular chart. Saturn is peregrine here. However, Saturn is received by Jupiter as his sect mate (Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are diurnal sect mates) . With no dignity here Saturn doesn?t have much power to dictate his own agenda in Jupiter?s domicile. It can conduct its business in the 1st but only with the support of Jupiter its sect mate. Hence Jupiter receiving and aspecting Saturn means this Saturn is not able to express its malefic side due to the moderating influence of this extremely powerful Jupiter. Of course I accept there will be specific items favouring Whole sign and Quadrant in most charts. Overall, I have found the balance favouring WS in nativities but that is just my opinion. For example in Robert Redford?s chart the fact his strong Moon is in the 7th by WS rules the 5th seems a more powerful testimony to me than the Placidus chart for acting. Still whatever, house system we adopt I think we need to stick with whatever approach resonates for us. Otherwise we will toss and turn every time a chart seems to favour one approach over the other. For me a more searching question is does the presence of Saturn in the 1st house make it the Kurios or Master of the Nativity? I think not as it is out of sect and peregrine. As the domicile ruler of Pisces Jupiter is clearly the Master of the Nativity and Redford?s life seems to express that. Mark Last edited by Mark on Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:44 pm, edited 2 times in total. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:56 pm
111 by Deb One thing needs saying in this thread: well done Pankajdubey - you're a good sport and make me feel like I did very well. Last edited by Deb on Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:02 pm
112 by GR Mark wrote:For me a more searching question is does the presence of Saturn in the 1st house make it the Kurios or Master of the Nativity? I think not as it is out of sect and peregrine. As the domicile ruler of Pisces Jupiter is clearly the Master of the Nativity and Redford?s life seems to express that. Mark I'd say no, since Saturn isn't in the confines that the rising degree falls in. Being contrary of the favored sect and in a alien place doesn't help either. So Jupiter holding that office makes sense. Gabe Quote Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:23 pm
113 by Mark Gabe wrote: I'd say no, since Saturn isn't in the confines that the rising degree falls in. Being contrary of the favored sect and in a alien place doesn't help either. So Jupiter holding that office makes sense. Where have you been? You have been missing all the fun! Yeah it would have made me question the whole approach if Saturn was Kurios here!!! I have seen the primary emphasis given to the bounds of the ASC. However, I thought a planet in the 1st WS house would be the next thing to check out? Or are planets only relevant if they fall in the bounds of the ASC degree? Its something I have been a bit unclear on. Astrojin did some brilliant posts on all this a while back and he presented the checklist for Kurios as follows based on some of Schmidt's lectures: 1.Ascendant sign. We look to the planet(s) in the Ascendant sign AND bounds of the ascending degree. 2.Domicile Lord of Ascendant. 3.Moon and its Domicile Lord. 4.Tenth sign from ascendant and its Domicile Lord. 5.Lot of Fortune and its Domicile Lord. 6.Any planets that make phasis* in the chart. Should also include planets that make a first or second station 7 days before or after nativity. 7.The bound lord of the pre-natal lunation. Sorry is 'an alien place' PH for peregrine? Maybe we should save further discussion for a new thread on the Lord of the Nativity? Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:41 pm
114 by Nixx Tom wrote: Polk and every other member of the human race is not one dimensional. There is more to him than the fact that he owned slaves, and therefore judging every aspect of his character by that one fact surely distorts the whole picture. I don't see any problem with viewing a slave holder as self sacrificing, if it is true. George Washington owned slaves, yet he risked everything he owned not to mention his life, for a cause. He was more than a slave holder. If I was ignoring the fact he was composed of contradictory, paradoxical, hypocritical, nuanced, subtle, confounding ...impulses, drives, motivations, dilemmas ........like everyone else, then it would be one dimensional. However in his ?cultural context' he would have been aware of the abolitionists perspectives yet did not give up his economic securities. He may well have been able to argue a practical case for this, but if we look at his chart (despite this 9th house idealism, which for me is now potentially reinforced by Neptune there) and Jupiter rising (or it might be), the chart overall is not obviously that of a revolutionary or radical monkey. The Sun is in Scorpio, Moon in Cancer and maybe the Ascendent is Capricorn. The 3 main players in feminine signs suggest to me, his 'female brain? was more fundamentally motivated to feed the baby, so to speak, than sacrifice this primary orientation for the ?rights of man'. So I would suggest we can ponder on the possibility he was more disposed to put certain securities before certain principles, if indeed he did think on balance slave ownership was a non redemptive soul destroying path. Also, and this may be more 'modern' ? no luminaries are in the 4th quadrant which is one dynamic I would intially think about if wondering about the 'social conscience/ awareness' of the person. Mark mentioned self-sacrifice as a possible 'contributory factor' for this relatively early death. Wiki says he caught cholera. Cholera is not a stress or psychologically ?caused? condition. It may be, as Mark wonders, too much work in the oval office weakened his metabolism so the bacteria was more able to flourish but the online bio?s don?t support this to date. I can also find no evidence which suggests he put other's before himself, to any great extent. Do any Presidents?, as one would have thought there would need to be a certain amount of ?selfishness ? and personal ambition to go through the motions resulting in ending up as a leader of a political party. Those delivering leaflets or making phone calls may be where the more tangible sacrifices are going on? Polk?s presidency appears to be notable or remembered for him increasing the size of the USA somewhat aggressively, other than this? Quote Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:43 am
115 by margherita GR wrote: I'd say no, since Saturn isn't in the confines that the rising degree falls in. Being contrary of the favored sect and in a alien place doesn't help either. So Jupiter holding that office makes sense. I agree with Gabe. I would take Mars as almuten on vital places (Ibn Ezra) but Jupiter as lord of the chart, being in its dignities. Saturn except to be in angle, has very little power to do something good margherita Traditional astrology at http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com Quote Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:13 am
116 by Paul Well this has been a lot of fun. I really wasn't sure of this one so I think my correct answers are pretty much barely more than guesswork. The only one I think I was comfortable with was the actor being either chart 1 or 2. If instead the question was to find the politician or find the businessman this would have been a great deal harder. It seems my focus on the accidental positions and how they aspect the MC seems to be a little shaky but holding its own. Quote Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:47 am
117 by Paul Nixx wrote:Also, and this may be more 'modern' ? no luminaries are in the 4th quadrant which is one dynamic I would intially think about if wondering about the 'social conscience/ awareness' of the person .... I can also find no evidence which suggests he put other's before himself, to any great extent. Why? You're ruling out an incredible number of people with this statement, not just Polk. If I can be frank, it seems a little unfair and even prejudicial to be making judgements on this person based on their chart like this. You can't see any evidence of putting others before himself? Do you mean astrological evidence? Or evidence from wikipedia? What kind of evidence are you referring to? Quote Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:04 am
118 by Atlantean Hello Varuna2, Re: "If you looked at Chart 3 with this lens (Sun & Saturn in Pisces in the 4th) and compared it with the Tyl's book, would you still have predicted wealth through business?" That really is not considered so much in the Vocations book. He is mostly giving "channels" of career type and then fleshing the vocational situation out with splashes of meaning from other indicators. (oriental planet, unaspected planets, stellia, etc.) These channels do come in very handy in discussion. I can't even begin to count how many times someone has discussed what they were doing in their life (career-wise) and then to mention some element of these indicated channels (from their horoscope) and see their eyes suddenly light up because we have somehow touched upon an unfulfilled "dream" they've had. Life is frankly too short to leave large swatches of our horoscope unfulfilled. I would have expected wealth, now seeing the full chart, through his 2nd House ruler being conjunct Venus in acquisitions-oriented Taurus. These sitting opposite his 10th House Moon in Scorpio (a strong drive to somehow head up the show and gain some personal "prominence") would emphasize this and likely effectuate this through his career. Peace James Quote Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:14 am
119 by Atlantean Hello Mark, Re: "Congratulations James! Although to be fair quite a few of us here got it right too using a variety of different approaches. So I am not sure you have demonstrated we all need to give up traditional astrology yet." Thanks!!! Yes, several honed in on the correct answers using other methods. I am positive that I didn't say anyone should in any way reject their methods and replace them. It was an addition that was suggested, not a replacement. Peace James Quote Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:33 am
120 by Tom However in his ?cultural context' he would have been aware of the abolitionists perspectives yet did not give up his economic securities You say securities I say survival. The South looked at the abolitionists as forcing Northern viewpoints on Southerners without regard to the Southern economy while protecting their own economic interests. For support of their beliefs, they could point to the imposition of tariffs, to protect Northern industrialists, that resulted, as it always does, in retaliation abroad. The South could not compete. The North didn't depend on exports the way the South did, so what did they care? It protected Northern interests and that was that. To criticize Polk or anyone else for not instantly recognizing abolitionist viewpoints, some of which were pretty extreme, and tossing their economic survival to the wind is a bit much, but unfortunately the disregard of anything but the abolitionist viewpoint is taught in schools with a moral smugness that can only come with 150 years of hindsight. What is the saying? Oh yes, history is written by the winners. To draw conclusions of every other facet of Polk's life from the fact, that like many other Southern agriculturists, he owned slaves is over the top. Quote Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am