Hi all,

While sect is important, it isn't a primary consideration, only one that modifies, in an adjectival manner, the more basic delineation of a planet, that of its zodiacal & horizontal positions and its relations with other planets.

thanks gabe,

if you feel like answering any more questions i am asking, that would be great. let me ask another one - do you think a planet is stronger then the sign? for example is saturns energy in pisces more about the planet or is it dominated by the sign?

maybe some think i am trying to get free astrology lessons here.. i am here to learn, first and foremost. i see these questions as issues that astrologers have to ask themselves and they have to make a decision on these kinds of questions that do need to be asked.. these are some of the subjective factors that go into weighing everything and i want to know how others do it.. i haven't come to any hard and fast positions on all this, but i appreciate gabes openness and stating what he thinks of sect consideration which was one of the questions i asked earlier in this thread..

james_m wrote:thanks gabe,
if you feel like answering any more questions i am asking, that would be great. let me ask another one - do you think a planet is stronger then the sign? for example is saturns energy in pisces more about the planet or is it dominated by the sign?

You're welcome James.

Think of it this way, you are in a living room. Who has the ability to turn on the TV, you or the living room? Now, maybe it's your living room, so the TV is already set to all your favorite channels. Or maybe it's someone else's, and you have to endure watching some idiotic talking head show. Or maybe it's a prison cell, sans TV and occupied with an unsavory cellmate.

james_m wrote:thanks margherita,

let me ask you this - if one was only to look at venus and mercury for chart 1 and chart and have to decide which chart was stronger on the basis of this, how would you define the stronger chart?

In my opinion Venus is not strong at all in the chart 1, because in detriment and combust, looking at the chart - without casting it - I don't know if it could be the the lady of nativity; Jupiter is angular too and in its fall. Honesty I would not do which planet I should choose

In the n.2 Venus is better, because it is her best phase, visible and vespertine. It's not the lady of geniture, because in detriment and in the falling 6th, but surely makes the profession (consider that the 6th house is considered active for trades and professions- the 10th too obviously, but in the chart n.1 Venus is combust).

In every case- I don't want to add confusion, but Mercury is important because it rules on Moon and Mercury which are together and Venus is not too far in the same sign. In my opinion it should be something connected with political engagement and self expression through art,

margherita

Hi,

These mystery charts are great learning experiences so a big Thank you to Tom for providing them, and a big Thank you to everybody who has shared their insights!

Now, there is one thing that bothers me a bit with the chart of Robert Redford, the mystery actor, and I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned this.

I know that RR's chart is rated AA, but can't help wondering whether the time could be a couple minutes later. The Ascendant would then move into Aries and this would make Mars in Leo in the 5th house the ruler of the Ascendant. As much as I like RR, I don't really know that much about him, but Astro-databank tells us this, among other things:

"A poor student and often in trouble, he found his passion in art and baseball. "I grew up in a state of indescribable boredom - In grade school I hated being regimented. My mind wandered constantly. I'd amuse myself by sketching. My only outlet was sports. To alleviate the tedium I hung out with a pretty rough crowd in high school."

This would fit an Aries Ascendant with Mars in the 5th, I think.

With the Ascendant in Aries the MC would move into Capricorn and the ruler, Saturn, would move into the twelfth by whole signs.

What do you think?
ea

PS.
A humble wish, if I may present: please try to avoid charts with very early or very late Ascendants as there will always be the doubt about which sign is the right one.

I know that RR's chart is rated AA, but can't help wondering whether the time could be a couple minutes later.

Birth times are always problematic. Rodden's system is quite possibly the best we can do. AA means birth record in hand. Sure it could be off. Clocks are off, people make mistakes etc. So it is certainly possible that he could have Mars in 5 ruling the ASC. But it is also possible that this is fine or it is timed a little sooner than the birth. Besides the convenience of Mars ruling the ASC in 5, what else would that change? Then there is the problem that people don't like rectified charts. Also Mars is in the 5th quadrant house and the 6th whole sign house. So the whole sign folks don't think this matters at all. No matter how it is done, there will be problems. This does not even take into consideration that Redford loved sports but apparently didn't play well enough to make a career out of it. That's me on both counts and I don't have Mars ruling 1 in 5 - not even close.

If I or anyone else starts eliminating everything that could cause a problem in order to find the perfect set of charts, there might be precious few to choose from. And there isn't a whole lot riding on the outcome. People look at the charts, try to figure out a few things and submit their answers, and in the process have some fun. That's it, so if this or that chart turns out to be incorrect and as a result someone who might have got it right instead gets it wrong, so what? Unless there is some serious money bet on this, spending an inordinate amount of time on making sure all the charts are "just so" doesn't seem like it's worth the effort.

Hi Tom,

You are so right, and I didn't mean to criticize, so forgive me if it came across as such. I guess this is more of a problem of my own, starting to doubt charts with an early or a late ascendant. Probably reveals my lack of competence when it comes to delineate charts . Be it as it may, I really enjoy your mystery charts and the discussions about them, so actually it doesn't really matter whether the charts are correct or not. So a big Thank you, and I'm looking forward to the next one.

ea

gabe,

thanks for your analogy. it is an interesting one! i understand creating a hierarchy for the power of a planet hinges on the sign and house position, but by the sound of your analogy it seems to imply the planet is very much subject to sign and house position to the point it doesn't have much of a say in anything unless it finds itself in it's own sign, and or, a house favourable to it.. in the example of chart 2, saturn rising is like a non event, or worse, a position that is essentially ineffective and all under the domain of jupiter.. for me that is how it sounds.. what do you think?

i was reading up on redford as i was motivated to look more closely at his life to see how some of this astrology played out.. i was partly motivated by ea's comments on the degree of the ascendant and after running some important events in redfords life to transits, solar arcs and primary directions i would say the degree of the ascendant and midheaven look correct and most likely to be very close to what they are in the chart here.. one article that i happened to stumble on - google is great) is an article on redfords personal life involving his children.. his first child died at approx 2 months while his 2nd child suffered from some serious health issues as well. i used these events to take a closer look at redfords chart.. here is one of the articles that some might find interesting, if they want to explore more of this. http://www.jrifilms.org/housekeep.htm

what this tells me is that the moon is indeed applying to a powerful saturn that has direct bearing on his family however you want to approach it astrologically - cancer 5th house cusp, and etc. etc.

margherita,


thanks for your additional comments here.. i can see how you have come to this conclusion on venus being stronger in chart 2 then in chart 1.. what i get from this is that a planet on an angle - venus in chart 1 does not have the strength given it being under the suns beams primarily.. if i am reading this correctly, the way that you weigh these considerations is based more on planetary phase then on whether the planet sits closely to an important angle.. i find this interesting and it gives me something to ponder as i have always thought that a planet on an angle was given much greater importance regardless of the considerations you appear to be emphasizing..

james_m wrote:gabe,

thanks for your analogy. it is an interesting one! i understand creating a hierarchy for the power of a planet hinges on the sign and house position, but by the sound of your analogy it seems to imply the planet is very much subject to sign and house position to the point it doesn't have much of a say in anything unless it finds itself in it's own sign, and or, a house favourable to it.. in the example of chart 2, saturn rising is like a non event, or worse, a position that is essentially ineffective and all under the domain of jupiter.. for me that is how it sounds.. what do you think?

I think you're confusing the effectiveness or lack thereof of Saturn with whether it is the Kurios(Lord) of the chart, which is itself a specific office that requires particular conditions to hold. Saturn fails in this regard, but that is a different thing than to say it is ineffectual. While it is not in an angle by division, and thus not forcibly compelled to act in the native's life, it is angular by the signs, and thus can "do business". The way Saturn is going to do business with be represented by its zodiacal location & movement, and its interactions with other planets. Being that it is in a degree where it is in none of its places, Saturn cannot supply itself with its own objects in the native's life to act upon; it requires and is dependant on the lords of that degree for those objects, namely Jupiter. Saturn is retrograde, and as such, will take back the results of its actions. You've already noted the death of the first child and sickness of the second; he has had at least 3 more IIRC, 2 with the first wife, and one with his second. So he was clearly destined to have children, and the Moon's and Jupiter's applications to Saturn, I think, have to do with that, along with the angularity by sign of Venus, as well.

gabe,

i think saturn is acting in redfords life with regard to these dynamics that played out with his children.. i know nothing about the kurios of the chart or how that is arrived at..

for me all the planets have some input into a persons life in some way.. do you think differently, or that a planet will be subject to another planet having a greater say to the point where say jupiter has all the say in redfords life and saturn has next to none? i suppose i am questioning just how far one takes this idea of rulership..

i don't understand the idea that 'saturn can't supply itself with objects in the persons life to act upon'.. how does this work or not work? does this mean that certain planets like jupiter can supply itself with objects to act upon due its location in the sign sag? maybe you can elaborate on this idea as i don't understand it the way you have said here.

thanks for any additional comments you'd like to provide..

Hi James

james_m wrote: for me all the planets have some input into a persons life in some way.. do you think differently, or that a planet will be subject to another planet having a greater say to the point where say jupiter has all the say in redfords life and saturn has next to none? i suppose i am questioning just how far one takes this idea of rulership..

The planets will have "input", but what input? And where? and How?,Why? and To Whom? This is the point of astrological analysis.

james_m wrote:
i don't understand the idea that 'saturn can't supply itself with objects in the persons life to act upon'.. how does this work or not work? does this mean that certain planets like jupiter can supply itself with objects to act upon due its location in the sign sag? maybe you can elaborate on this idea as i don't understand it the way you have said here.

I should have said "Saturn can't supply itself with its own objects in the persons life to act upon".

Let's go back to the living room example. If you're in your own home, the objects, anemities, etc. at your disposal and can use are, in fact, your properties, the things you've associated with yourself.

Now if you're in someone else's home, you can't just use things like they were your own, they're not. Well, maybe you can, if you're in good enough company and have rapport with your host. Maybe you have similar or complimentary tastes, or not. Then there is the issue of what sort of relationship you have with your host, friendly, indifferent, hostile, which ever it may be, that you didn't have to deal with when you were in your own home.

hi gabe,

i understand this is the point of astro analysis, i just don't share in the many assumptions that i see built into so much of the astro analysis.. using your analogy of the home belonging to the ruler of the sign a planet is in, is only one way, albeit a popular one - to decide the pecking order of just what planet is calling the shots in a chart.. going back to redfords, jupiter owns the sag and pisces signs, and therefore anything saturn might say is under the domain of jupiter.. i just don't buy that for this reason.. i see the position of saturn as operating first as the planet saturn and 2nd as a planet in the sign pisces.. maybe it is bold to say this and i am thinking of up-ending a way of doing astrology.. the planet has an energy all its own.. saturn is the planet closest to any of the angles - to me planets and angles are before signs, or have to be considered in some way independent of this hierarchy of signs having the final say on the astro analysis...

to answer your questions "what input?" - the meaning of saturn applied to the place in the chart.. "And where?"- at the ascendant, not far removed.. "and How?"- thru angularity ,Why? and To Whom? why not? .... to planets aspected directly to it.. none of this hinges in some all or nothing manner to the signs and the signs only whereby all our wisdom on astrology is dependent on signs and rulership of signs only..

i will toss this out additionally to stir further questioning minds - use sidereal and the sign game reads differently..