Hi everyone,

I have done a horary chart recently for which I now know the outcome.

Question was : Will the auditors come next week as planned?

Here, I was interested in knowing if there would be any delay or re-scheduling the planned audit to a later date.Yesterday they called me telling that they would come as planned.

Jupiter signifies me as the querent and Venus signifies the auditors as the quesited.Venus is separating from a past conjunction of Jupiter in this chart.For a yes answer, only hope is the co-significator Moon's aspects and translation of light.

Moon first makes a square to Venus then an opposition to Saturn and finally completes a translation of light by an applying trine to Jupiter.

The question was asked the day before yesterday and I was informed yesterday that they (auditors) would come as planned as I said above.
But I had predicted that this was not likely based on an "intervention" by Saturn's opposition to the Moon.Since Saturn is about restrictions and delays by nature and opposition is the strongest negativity, added also that saturn was in detriment in Leo I judged that it was not likely that the auditors would come on timely but instead they would come at a later date by postponing the audit.

It turned out that I was wrong!

What is wrong with this prediction?

Doesn't the rule of intervention prevent the outcome at least under such a powerful opposition by a powerful obstacle like Saturn? If such a powerful intervention does not work when actually is it guaranteed to work?

Or the outcome turned out yes simply because the final aspect by the Moon was a trine to one of the significators?

I will appreciate any assistance or comments.

My first thought is that perhaps the signification for the auditors was wrong. What house did you use to signify the auditors? you don't say in your post....

Hi Kurgal,

Thanks for interest and comment.

No, I don't think it is wrong.I used the 10th house (judges, judgement) for the auditors which I had used in a previous horary also (See the thread "I have predicted it correctly").Interesting enough for this case, even the 6th house (inspectors) leads to the same significator Venus.Because as 10th house is ruled by Libra, the 6th is ruled by Taurus for this query.

So signification remains the same when we take the 10th or 6th.

By the way, let me give the related data for this horary :

Date : September 14, 2005
Time : 10:32 GMT
Place : Eskisehir (30e32, 39n46)
ASC : 13.22 Sagittarius in case you cross-check

As they haven't yet arrived, what makes you think that they will not yet be delayed?

Granny

Granny,

You are right in principle

As of the past Thursday we have booked their hotel reservation because they informed us also in written that they would come on Tuesday (27.09.2005).But something unexpected may come up, so we still have Monday to see if it is true.

I will resume this on Wednesday or Thursday (28 or 29.09.2005) after they leave if they come, else on Monday evening if they don't!

Hi again,

Since it is important for me to understand how the rules of horary operate, leaving this ongoing thread for next week, I revert to a previous horary case (under thread "I have predicted correctly" on 13th of July 2005 on this forum) to discuss interposing (intervening, abscission of light).

Before that, let us see the definition from the Glossary on this site :

Interposing is a general term meaning 'standing in the middle of'.It can be applied to prohibition which is where two planets are applying to aspect, but before that aspect can perfect, another planet perfects an aspect first.This will mitigate the effects of the aspect, for good or bad.

In the example referred to above I had moon and sun as significators where the Moon was applying by sextile to sun.But before perfection she cast squares to saturn, venus and mercury one after another.There it seems to be a strong abscission of light as there were three successive squares to a significator before she perfected a sextile.

But those squares did not suffice to prevent (prohibit) the outcome!!!

This is the point that I fail to understand and this makes me embarrased as I grow sceptical about the validity of this rule, or at least I would like to know under which circumstances it does or does not work.

Well, I am also aware that the definition above does not suggest a guaranteed prohibition which makes it legitimate to ask/discuss/question the exact circumstances under which this rule helps.

Can anyone experienced kindly clearify this please?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Sigma,

Interposing or intervening isn?t the same as abscission of light. Interposing doesn?t deny the promise of an aspect ? the interposing planet might be able to promote the promise if it is a fortunate planet, well placed, or at least not damaging and powerful at the same time. The promise is only prevented if the intervening planet is identified as a destructive planet which has enough power to do damage ? that is when you get ?abscission? which means to cut off the influence of the aspect.

Think of an interposing planet like a person who interferes in something. Their interference might do damage or it might do some good, or it might just be a general nuisance that doesn?t influence the end result at all. So when you get an interposing planet you need to establish whether it is capable of assisting the hoped for event, destroying its potential, or whether it?s not really of great relevance at all.

The promise is only prevented if the intervening planet is identified as a destructive planet which has enough power to do damage ? that is when you get ?abscission? which means to cut off the influence of the aspect.

Thank you Deb for clarification.

Then re-writing the conditions for abscission, I should have an intervening planet that is both destructive AND powerful.

The saturn in my example is destructive by nature so it fits.But he is debilitated in cancer essentially and in the 12th house accidentally.So his power to prohibit is kind of restricted.Other planets that saw the moon by square are also debilitated only by their 12th house placement.

So the 'powerful' requirement is not met for this case.Therefore we don't have a real, or effective abscission here if I am correct.

Now this explains indeed why the outcome was not prohibited.

Many thanks

I said on September 17, 2005 :

I will resume this on Wednesday or Thursday (28 or 29.09.2005) after they leave if they come, else on Monday evening if they don't!

Yes, they came as planned and have left about an hour ago.

This message is to keep you informed about the outcome.

So horary worked against my initial judgement but in accordance with Deb's later explanation.

On Friday I hope to let you know the outcome of my prediction about the legal case (ref. "which union will win?")

Cheers,