73 by Mark Nixx wrote: I wouldn't assume it ''is one for WSH' but it might be. WSH' s for me are intriguing like lots of early ideas but any emergent legitimacy would reduce my own scopics to unreserved ridicule. Note the bias. Its was largely a tongue in cheek comment Nixx although it probably appeared more dogmatic. I was simply hoping to get a reaction from Margherita. Still if anyone is interested here is Robert Duvall's chart in whole sign houses: Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:38 pm
74 by Mark Damon wrote: The triplicity rulers suggest the first part of life was hard as Jupiter was in 8th place,but the remaining periods are good,Sun and Saturn are in second,or first if you prefer placidus.However they are out of sect Its a night birth Damon so the sect light is the Moon here. In sequence the Dorothean triplicity rulers of water in a night chart are Mars, Venus and the Moon. I assume you must be taking triplicity lords from the ASC rather than the sect light? That is not the original method found in Greek or Perso-Arabic astrology which focused on the luminary of time. I think Bonatti was the first to apply this method to the ASC. Of course we can apply these methods anywhere we like. For example the MC which in sequence is ruled by Mercury, Saturn, and Jupiter. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:19 am
75 by damon Mark wrote:Damon wrote: The triplicity rulers suggest the first part of life was hard as Jupiter was in 8th place,but the remaining periods are good,Sun and Saturn are in second,or first if you prefer placidus.However they are out of sect Its a night birth Damon so the sect light is the Moon here. In sequence the Dorothean triplicity rulers of water in a night chart are Mars, Venus and the Moon. Mark I was looking at triplicity rulers of ASC like Dykes mentioned in the M Jackson thread.But I see your point. What do you think was the main reason chart 2 won the day? I am wondering whether without that Venus in first in WSH, he could still be an actor. One member mentioned that Saturn conjunct Sun or MC ruler makes actors to add to the confusion. I had never heard ofSaturn being associated with acting though Christopher Lee has it rising in Libra Note that in Susan Boyles chart triplicity of ASC seems to make more sense Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:30 am
76 by Mark There are many different kinds of actors aren't there? For example, compare Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller. What do they have in common? Its not as if there is one type of actor. I think the idea is a fallacy. I dont look for that. As I said at the outset I look for links between the Moon (popularity) and the benefics. No actor will be much of a success with the public without some kind of link there. Hence it was obvious to me chart 1 could never be an actor of any note. The link wasn't so strong in chart 3 either. The 5th house is important too. Only WSH put the NN in the 5th. The IC was located there too. Of course I am massively over simplifying here. There is a lot more too it. But that is my initial starting point. I dont look at Neptune in such questions. Your just as likely to have a drug addict as an actor. Although these days we do see a lot of common ground there! Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:45 am
77 by damon Mark wrote:There are many different kinds of actors aren't there? For example, compare Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller. What do they have in common? Its not as if there is one type of actor. I think the idea is a fallacy. I dont look for that. As I said at the outset I look for links between the Moon (popularity) and the benefics. No actor will be much of a success with the public without some kind of link there. Hence it was obvious to me chart 1 could never be an actor of any note. The link wasn't so strong in chart 3 either. The 5th house is important too. Only WSH put the NN in the 5th. The IC was located there too. Mark The NN is often a source of confusion,most astrologers dont know very well what it means,and in Vedic systems it is an evil deity. What was the Hellenic view of it? A point of evolution like modern astrologers like to claim? thanks Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:54 am
78 by Mark Damon wrote: The NN is often a source of confusion,most astrologers dont know very well what it means,and in Vedic systems it is an evil deity. What was the Hellenic view of it? A point of evolution like modern astrologers like to claim? thanks Your raising a lot of new questions for this thread I think. Your asking about triplicities again but have numerous other threads running on the topic right now on Skyscript. We have had extensive discussion of nodes before. Although that was before you joined. I have studied all the approaches-hellenistic, medieval, Vedic and psychological. I have more or less developed my own approach to nodes that works for me. However, I dont want to get into that here. Its a full topic in itself. I would prefer to devote this thread to post mortem of the charts James displayed for us. There are a lot of opinions out there in astrology. But there is no replacement for actually seeing how these ideas work out in real charts and making your own mind up. Dont believe everything your told. Question it all. For example the idea that the nodes have an ancient pedigree in Indian astrology is widely held but has little evidence to support it: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6320 Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:03 am
79 by Geoffrey Nixx wrote: Re Smit and co they would say ok then here is another thousand let's see if it was luck, quite rightly so as well. Actually, I think this exercise does point up the dilemma of astrological research. I was impressed that the number of approaches people used to get at the 'actor' in these charts actually exceeded the number of people taking part! And yet, the majority came to the conclusion that chart 2 was the actor. The point was that in general, the whole chart was looked at to see if the chart as a whole made sense as an actor - or something else. Now, that took quite a bit of effort - and that was only three charts. Suppose you are given a thousand charts to look at with the brief of picking out the actors. What are you going to do? You are going to look for shortcuts which will turn the process into a mechanical one. How many charts have Libra rising and so on. The process by which the one thousand charts would be analysed would be different to that which would be used to analyse one, or three charts. Is this why 'scientific' validation of astrology has failed? Where the art is left in the delineation process, validity tests of astrology do quite well. The problem is that it is not scientifically valid to leave the art in astrology and when you try to remove it, the astrology suffers. Geoffrey Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:41 am
80 by margherita Mark wrote: Its was largely a tongue in cheek comment Nixx although it probably appeared more dogmatic. I was simply hoping to get a reaction from Margherita. Mark I should say that I'm experimenting with WSH and it looks they work Anyway at the moment I'm not ready to betray Placidus. Moreover in Duvall chart Venus was everywhere, ruled the MC and the first planet to which the Moon applied margherita Traditional astrology at http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:04 am
81 by Graham F damon wrote: This is one for tropical. Excuse me! There were two sidereal entries only, mine and Damon. I correctly guessed 2 without having looked at any other opinions first (I do emphasise "guess"...). I was very interested to read the entries here on the tropical forum, and was particularly impressed by Ile's analysis, and by Margherita's pithy analysis from one look at Venus (WSH). Here are my original remarks on chart 2 (no jiggery-pokery). (About Saturn: in introductory remarks I said I'd look for links of H5 and H3 with ascendant or H10 or their rulers, as H3 is "often linked to the performing arts in Indian astro, perhaps through the idea of exploits, impressive turns, martial arts." So the sidereal R3 Saturn, casimi Sun, doesn't necessarily give a Saturnine character, but it means R3 is conjunct R10 and aspects R5 and H5.) I think chart 2 is the most likely. Both the ascendant and its ruler Mars (in 9) get close aspects (trines: respectively 9 and 5) from the North node Rahu in 5 (poetry, music, esthetics). This should give great ambition, powers to "win friends and influence people", while also being somewhat "odd" or unusual. Rahu is said to be linked to "illusion, juggling and prestidigitation". Saturn R3 is cazimi (to the minute ) to Sun R10 in H2, also both Sun and Saturn are very closely conjunct Mercury (which also rules the MC, in 11). This could give something remarkable, vocally or in terms of charisma and oratory, public speaking). Venus (esthetics, voice) is strongly placed in 1, above horizon and in sect; Moon (relations with people, the public; mentality and emotions of subject) is still almost full, and is especially benefic as R9 (the deeper aspects of artistic or spiritual calling). Moon is in sect in 8, conjunct Jupiter R5 and 2, both aspecting the cluster Sun/Mercury/Saturn in H2. This could be good for career in the arts and esthetics, using the voice and oratory, success with the public, good public relations. All this should support those aspects of the North node in 5, which I think are probably the key factor. May not have time to do the next one, with travel, Christmas, but thanks again! Graham Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:21 am
82 by damon I may have to read Ptolemy again.Did he actually say Saturn makes people who pretend to be different from what they are,like actors? Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:26 am
83 by Mark It seems like a lot of us honed in on chart 2 this time. Lets not look around for pats on the back though. I mean ok I may be the only forum member to get the last 3 of these mystery chart exercises right in a row but I somehow manage to remain a paragon of modesty despite my success Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:38 pm
84 by Ile Mark wrote:It seems like a lot of us honed in on chart 2 this time. Lets not look around for pats on the back though. I mean ok I may be the only forum member to get the last 3 of these mystery chart exercises right in a row but I somehow manage to remain a paragon of modesty despite my success Mark OK Mark, your success is my goal now. I have a good start with 1, I need 3 more, if you miss the following. But if you don't, mine can be the effort of sisyphus Quote Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:00 pm