OculusTauri wrote:1/3 of my prediction that the native would be unsteady in his resolutions is based on the Moon, yes. The other 2/3 are based on Mercury and the basic temperament the of native.

So there should be no problem to call this 1/3 a great deal or part of your judgement.

OculusTauri wrote:

johannes susato wrote:As you can easily see, Lilly does not speak of an perfect conjunction or aspect, but he words: "apply" = application. This definition is very clear as to the necessity of application only and not perfection as long as the planet is in the sign to avoid a planet to be void of course. This is also supported by the examples in book II of CA.

At the same time Lilly states "when he is separated from a Planet", so if he's speaking of a perfected separative aspect, the applicative aspect must be perfected in the same sign too. The emphasis is on "during his being in that Sign".

This is not the text of Lilly's definition he gives (p.113):

"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other: This is most usually in the Moon;"

Beeing separarted from a planet (or its aspect) means separated from the planet's body (or his perfect aspect); thus the planet in question is, "when he is separated", still in separation as long he is within the orbs of both planets.
This you can see every time in Book II, when Lilly mentions a planet being separated from another.

It is not correct to claim Lilly's definition were that the application must be perfected in the same sign, wheras Lilly says "apply" thus speaking of application only.
We should always read what the author really says and avoid to see what we want to see, and we should understand the difference between application and perfection.

OculusTauri wrote:So if you can find, say one or two examples where Lilly clearly states that the Moon can't be VOC, because she will perfect an aspect in the early degrees of her next sign, preferably in a nativity, I'd have to admit differing from Lilly in this point. It wouldn't be such a big problem for me, though.

That Lilly is following his rules and definitions is understood. Why should he issue a statement about this implicitness?

Johannes

OculusTauri wrote: I see you're a follower of Uranian Astrology by Alfred Witte. Are you also interested in traditional astrology? I've known some people who abandoned it in favour of Uranian, saying it was much more precise.

I'm some interested in traditional astrology. But there's too much memorization; all these rules and step by steps. It doesn't fit in my brain so well with the exception of primary directons.

Uranian is more precise than traditional, it asks that you use 1 degree orbs.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html#ado

Ariondys wrote:Uranian is more precise than traditional, . . .

May I ask you, which software you are working with (primary directions and Uranian)?

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:This is not the text of Lilly's definition he gives (p.113):

"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other: This is most usually in the Moon;"

There's no need for splitting hairs. The Astrology Classics edition of CA that I'm using is offering basically the same text on p. 112, except with modern spelling: So "void" for "voyd", and "Sign" instead of "Signe".

johannes susato wrote:Beeing separarted from a planet (or its aspect) means separated from the planet's body (or his perfect aspect); thus the planet in question is, "when he is separated", still in separation as long he is within the orbs of both planets.

Yet Lilly doesn't mention anything of orbs in this quote (which he certainly would have if it was of relevance), the only thing he mentions is "during his beeing in that Sign". This is in fact the crucial point: It doesn't matter if the aspect is out of orbs, as long as it has perfected / will perfect within the same sign. So if for example the Moon were at 12 Leo and Saturn at 29 Sagittarius, though this would be an applicative aspect out of orbs, yet the Moon would be applying to trine Saturn during her beeing in the Sign of Leo, hence no VOC here.

johannes susato wrote:This you can see every time in Book II, when Lilly mentions a planet being separated from another.

If Lilly really demonstrates this understanding of VOC everywhere in CA II, it shouldn't be that difficult to find one or two examples so that we may discuss in detail. It need not to be a nativity, I would be perfectly content even with an horary.

Ariondys wrote: I'm some interested in traditional astrology. But there's too much memorization; all these rules and step by steps. It doesn't fit in my brain so well with the exception of primary directons.

Uranian is more precise than traditional, it asks that you use 1 degree orbs.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html#ado

Indeed there are some people I know that had studied traditional astrology before "abandoning" it in favour of Uranian. I can understand their fascination with Uranian, as it seems to be the only one of modern schools capable of precise and concrete predictions. In clarity of judgement, it is somehow similar to traditional "fatalistic" astrology.

Yet there's also much memorization in Uranian astrology, thinking of the "rulebook for planetary pictures" by Alfred Witte for example. This is basically a large dictionary, laying down rules for each single one of the midpoint pictures in more than 200 pages. While glancing at it, you almost get to think of Uranian as cookbook astrology (though this may not be the case).

OculusTauri wrote:

johannes susato wrote:This is not the text of Lilly's definition he gives (p.113):

"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other: This is most usually in the Moon;"

[1] There's no need for splitting hairs. The Astrology Classics edition of CA that I'm using is offering basically the same text on p. 112, except with modern spelling: So "void" for "voyd", and "Sign" instead of "Signe".



_____________________________________________________________

johannes susato wrote:Beeing separarted from a planet (or its aspect) means separated from the planet's body (or his perfect aspect); thus the planet in question is, "when he is separated", still in separation as long he is within the orbs of both planets.

[2] Yet Lilly doesn't mention anything of orbs in this quote (which he certainly would have if it was of relevance), the only thing he mentions is "during his beeing in that Sign". This is in fact the crucial point: It doesn't matter if the aspect is out of orbs, as long as it has perfected / will perfect within the same sign. [...]



_____________________________________________________________

johannes susato wrote:This you can see every time in Book II, when Lilly mentions a planet being separated from another.

[3] If Lilly really demonstrates this understanding of VOC
everywhere in CA II, it shouldn't be that difficult to find one or two examples so that we may discuss in detail. It need not to be a nativity, I would be perfectly content even with an horary.

[1] My point is not the spelling but the wording: there is no mentioning of "the applicative aspect must be perfected in the same sign" as you pretend but Lilly claims only that the planet must "apply". This is why I quoted Lilly's text again and gave the explanation in the next paragraph as you could read above.

[2] Please, stick to the text: there is only worded that the planet must "apply" during his being in that sign, and there is not at all claimed perfection by Lilly or that the planet "will perfect within the same sign" as you claim.

[3] You are constructing the wrong reference! Here I did not refer to void of course, but to perfection. Perhaps this quotation is more helping than all the examples of Lilly's use of the wording "perfected" in Book II - Lilly, CA, p. 110:
[...]let SA be in
10. degr. and 25. of ar and JU in 10. degr. and 25. min. of ar:
now in these degrees and minutes they are in perfect conjunction; [...] yet because SA hath
9. degr. allowed him for his rayes, and JU hath also the same
number allowed him, JU cannot be said to be totally separated
or cleere from the rayes of SA, untill he hath got 9. whole de-
grees further into ar, or is fully 9. degr. distant from him,
for the halfe of JU his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. and the halfe of
SA his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. added together they make 9.

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:[1] My point is not the spelling but the wording: there is no mentioning of "the applicative aspect must be perfected in the same sign" as you pretend but Lilly claims only that the planet must "apply". This is why I quoted Lilly's text again and gave the explanation in the next paragraph as you could read above.

[2] Please, stick to the text: there is only worded that the planet must "apply" during his being in that sign, and there is not at all claimed perfection by Lilly or that the planet "will perfect within the same sign" as you claim.

Seems as if Lilly's paragraph about VOC is a matter of interpretation. "Applicative" is often just another way of saying that there'll be an exact aspect in the future, just as "separative" indicates there was an exact aspect in the past.

A planet is applying until he reaches the exact aspect. So if a planet "applies to another during beeing in that Sign", it simply means there is an applicative aspect which will be perfected in the same Sign. If this planet enters the next Sign while still applying to the other planet, he won't be longer in the same sign. Lilly is a succinct writer, so he wouldn't have felt the need for inserting such parenthesis like "during his beeing in that Sign" if this wasn't an important distinction.

johannes susato wrote:[3] You are constructing the wrong reference! Here I did not refer to void of course, but to perfection. Perhaps this quotation is more helping than all the examples of Lilly's use of the wording "perfected" in Book II - Lilly, CA, p. 110:
[...]let SA be in
10. degr. and 25. of ar and JU in 10. degr. and 25. min. of ar:
now in these degrees and minutes they are in perfect conjunction; [...] yet because SA hath
9. degr. allowed him for his rayes, and JU hath also the same
number allowed him, JU cannot be said to be totally separated
or cleere from the rayes of SA, untill he hath got 9. whole de-
grees further into ar, or is fully 9. degr. distant from him,
for the halfe of JU his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. and the halfe of
SA his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. added together they make 9.

Johannes

Yes, Lilly is speaking about perfect/exact aspects in this paragraph on p. 110, and together with this about orbs. But let's not confuse this matter with the paragraph about VOC (CA I, p. 112), in which orbs apparently play no role, at least they are not being mentioned.

OculusTauri wrote:Seems as if Lilly's paragraph about VOC is a matter of interpretation. "Applicative" is often just another way of saying that there'll be an exact aspect in the future, just as "separative" indicates there was an exact aspect in the past.

"Applicative" belongs to Application and this is not "just another way of saying that there'll be an exact aspect in the future", as you say but application is essential and means a planet's being within the orbs of another planet, i.e. "within the moiety [or half] of both their orbs". Essential because only an applying (or separating planet) is of importance for the signification of both planets at all. Outside of application (or separation) there is no such connection in singnificance.

OculusTauri wrote:A planet is applying until he reaches the exact aspect. So if a planet "applies to another during beeing in that Sign", it simply means there is an applicative aspect which will be perfected in the same Sign. If this planet enters the next Sign while still applying to the other planet, he won't be longer in the same sign. Lilly is a succinct writer, so he wouldn't have felt the need for inserting such parenthesis like "during his beeing in that Sign" if this wasn't an important distinction

The application has to begin during the planet's being in that Signe. Lilly does not mention perfection at all. So, following Lilly, when the application has begun within the sign, it can end by perfecting the conjunction or the aspect within the next sign.
I cannot understand how you can of a clear application within a sign, which means application as long as it is in the sign, make aperfection within the sign.
Application is a movement during the time, perfection is a certain moment at the end of or just after of application (and just before or at the beginning of separation).

OculusTauri wrote:Yes, Lilly is speaking about perfect/exact aspects in this paragraph on p. 110, and together with this about orbs. But let's not confuse this matter with the paragraph about VOC (CA I, p. 112), in which orbs apparently play no role, at least they are not being mentioned.

But the definition of void of course is a synthesis of orbs, separation, application, signs, boundaries of signs. Thus orbs are understood as to the definition of void of course because separation ends and application begins only in accordance with the orbs.

Johannes

OculusTauri wrote:Indeed there are some people I know that had studied traditional astrology before "abandoning" it in favour of Uranian. I can understand their fascination with Uranian, as it seems to be the only one of modern schools capable of precise and concrete predictions. In clarity of judgement, it is somehow similar to traditional "fatalistic" astrology.

Yet there's also much memorization in Uranian astrology, thinking of the "rulebook for planetary pictures" by Alfred Witte for example. This is basically a large dictionary, laying down rules for each single one of the midpoint pictures in more than 200 pages. While glancing at it, you almost get to think of Uranian as cookbook astrology (though this may not be the case).

Well, I tried to think of an rational excuse why I learn one type of astrology better than another type. It's a complicated point to make transparent. I could get metaphysical instead, and just say I have ME conj VE/UR (1/2 arcminute orb) giving me an inclination to symmetrical astrology. (The asteroid Urania is also conj this midpoint)

400 pages from MC/MC to PO/PO which should be 253 midpoints and about 5000 cookbook categories. Still fundamentally all one really needs to know is 22 symbols of meaning.

Reference material passes through the lens of the reader. How else to display it than with words that can be taken literally...*

I don't take objection to calling references cookbook. They get used. I quote them a lot to maintain maximum objectivity. But they are just examples of what the actual underlying recipe can get cooked. If you have more than one reference, you enter into a range of translations. COSI and RPP go over a subset of the same midpoints. Solar Arc by Noel Tyl has mipdpoint reference in the back. Parkers Astrology (big hardcover textbook) has midpoint reference in the middle somewhere.

It is specific though. Rudolph Ludwig in the same RPP reference book gives what looks like a poem. And Uranians should and do know and understand this point. It is page "i"

Do not take the rules so literally and think
they are so valid...
etc

(maybe astrologies get labeled fatalistic by being predictive by being event oriented and by "working" sometimes, in which case fatalistic astrology = predictive astrology, while fatalism is different, a philosophy to be contrasted or reconciled with freewill.)

Everyone is going to have to reconcile that any predictive power is tacit implication of "some sort of fate"*. And not get worked up over that fact. (*The outcome may not be fate so much as a likelihood or probability.)

http://www.uranian-institute.org/bfwitte.htm
(*1) Publications by Hermann Lefeldt in the 1950s and 1960s picked out selected, traditional, techniques of Witte and presented a version of Hamburg School astrology biased toward classical methods and fatalism, and are generally quite negative in tone. Lefeldt played a key role in editing most later versions of the Rulebook for Planetary Pictures, and the negativity and fatalism of interpretations added by Lefeldt is noteworthy. Lefeldt's works and methods were translated by Hans Niggemann and presented to American astrologers as Uranian Astrology in the mid-20th century.

johannes susato wrote: May I ask you, which software you are working with (primary directions and Uranian)?

Astrolog32 v. 2.02
Morinus 6.2
Astro
Solar Fire 8
Sky Chart III Demo

That graphic was made with paint by editing a png of astrolog.

Thank you, Ariondys!

johannes susato wrote:"Applicative" belongs to Application and this is not "just another way of saying that there'll be an exact aspect in the future", as you say but application is essential and means a planet's being within the orbs of another planet, i.e. "within the moiety [or half] of both their orbs". Essential because only an applying (or separating planet) is of importance for the signification of both planets at all. Outside of application (or separation) there is no such connection in singnificance.

So according to this definition a planet can only apply another while both planets are in reach of their orbs. Moon at 12 Leo applying to trine Saturn at 29 Sagittarius hence would be regarded VOC, Moon and Saturn beeing out of orbs.

johannes susato wrote:The application has to begin during the planet's being in that Signe. Lilly does not mention perfection at all. So, following Lilly, when the application has begun within the sign, it can end by perfecting the conjunction or the aspect within the next sign.
I cannot understand how you can of a clear application within a sign, which means application as long as it is in the sign, make aperfection within the sign.

If this were true, why didn't Lilly just write: "A planet is void of course, if he doesn't apply to another planet within orb." If he had mentioned orbs, you would be totally right in your interpretation.

But instead he states "A planet is void of course, if he doesn't apply to another planet during his beeing in that Sign". The definition of VOC Lilly uses clearly refers to exact aspects, not just the "beginning of application" (which itself is rather vague when orbs are regarded). This understanding of VOC is also in concordance with the majority of other traditional authors, which Lilly would have followed.

johannes susato wrote:Application is a movement during the time, perfection is a certain moment at the end of or just after of application (and just before or at the beginning of separation).

This definition of "application" is a contradiction to the other one you're using above, in which orbs are regarded. So, does application begin immediately after the last exact aspect has taken place, or does it only begin as soon as the applying planet reaches the orbs of the next planet?

OculusTauri wrote:But the definition of void of course is a synthesis of orbs, separation, application, signs, boundaries of signs. Thus orbs are understood as to the definition of void of course because separation ends and application begins only in accordance with the orbs.

Yet Lilly didn't mention anything of orbs in his paragraph about VOC at CA 1, p. 112. An application out of orb is still an application, isn't it?