hi jupiterianquest,

welcome to skyscript!

a better place for you to start would be on this thread - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7399
hopefully they gives you the answer you are looking for.
james

Thanks James_m

So I looked at three charts. The Moon makes no major ptolemaic aspect before leaving it's sign. However in all three cases, it is still within orbit of its last aspectual contact and its next aspectual contact(in the next sign).

Chart 1 - my chart
Moon's peregrine, void of course and placed in the malefic 8H. A benefic sits in the 10th.

Chart 2 -
Peregrine, void of course but sits in it's house of joy. No benefic in any angular house.

Chart 3 -
Peregrine, void of course, sits in the 9H. Sun here is a benefic and sits in the 1st but is afflicted by a conjunction to Mars.

We aren't destitute, beggars.... and I hope I never get reduced to that state.

Jupiterianquest wrote:Could someone clarify a few things

Let's assume the native's Moon's at 24 Aries and Venus is at 1 Taurus. My question is whether the Moon's void or not.

Following Ibn Ezra (and others), who claims that the Moon or another planet has to perfect his aspect or conjunction within the sign of his position, the Moon would be void of course.

Following Lilly (and others), who states application within the Moon's (or another planet's) sign of position is sfficient, the Moon would not be void of course here.

Johannes

Jupiterianquest wrote:Thanks James_m

So I looked at three charts. The Moon makes no major ptolemaic aspect before leaving it's sign. However in all three cases, it is still within orbit of its last aspectual contact and its next aspectual contact(in the next sign).

Chart 1 - my chart
Moon's peregrine, void of course and placed in the malefic 8H. A benefic sits in the 10th.

Chart 2 -
Peregrine, void of course but sits in it's house of joy. No benefic in any angular house.

Chart 3 -
Peregrine, void of course, sits in the 9H. Sun here is a benefic and sits in the 1st but is afflicted by a conjunction to Mars.

We aren't destitute, beggars.... and I hope I never get reduced to that state.

Following Lilly, in none of these three charts the Moon would be void of course, because "in all three cases, it is still within orbit of its last aspectual contact and its next aspectual contact(in the next sign)."

Johannes

Ezra gives the view of older authorities, that planets in different signs should not be said to be said to be in conjunction, but notice he then says: "That is the opinion of the ancient scientists but I, Avraham, the compiler of this book, disagree with them? (Beginning of Wisdom, Levy and Cantera p.209).

Deb wrote:Ezra gives the view of older authorities, that planets in different signs should not be said to be said to be in conjunction, but notice he then says: "That is the opinion of the ancient scientists but I, Avraham, the compiler of this book, disagree with them? (Beginning of Wisdom, Levy and Cantera p.209).

But in the special case of the void of course Moon he claims the Moon to be void of course, when it "does not join another planet as long as it is in that same sign, or no planet beholds it by a complete aspect, whichever it may be." (The Beginning of Widom, Epstein, p.120.)

I think you are referring to the passage translated by Levy Cantera as

Isolation sets in when a planet separates from its satellite 15 degrees either in conjunction or in a sextile aspect, and does not enter into conjunction with any other planet as long as it is in this sign, and no planet enters into complete aspect with it as long as it stays there, regardless which aspect it may be.

Correct me if I'm wrong. The condition is not specific to the Moon, and seems to me to describe a state of isolation (or emptiness I suppose) if fully separated from another, and not in a state of application to another, and no other planet completes an aspect to it. I'm not sure that the phrase "enter into conjunction with" means "perfect an aspect with" because he talks a lot about planets entering into each other's aspects when they go into the force of each other's bodies (by which he means orbs). But without demonstrated examples, like we have with Lilly, it's difficult to be certain.

Deb wrote:Ezra gives the view of older authorities, that planets in different signs should not be said to be said to be in conjunction, but notice he then says: "That is the opinion of the ancient scientists but I, Avraham, the compiler of this book, disagree with them? (Beginning of Wisdom, Levy and Cantera p.209).

In fact, its aproblem we face, if theres no asolution to this point of Ezra and others
The judge which is right , must come from aright rule
Now, what opinion of them we have to follow ?

examples always illustrate meanings immediatly in short ways It is known that,
Also, one of the Aemmah (Jahfar Al Sadik) said : what is here is like what is there (meaning the sky and the earth)

So, if we look to this ex. members here at this forum are like planets there at that sky
members conjunct in this house
one member like me is from the east, while another one like you is from the west
that is like different signs
Doesnt this case call aconjunction ?
If the answer is no , then what can we call it ?
regards

I wasnt sure whether the moon's void or not. Some astrological schools call it a void, some dont. So I decided to go neutral.

in reading the introduction notes to ben dykes 'persian nativities volume 2' i have found a few paragraphs that are especially informative with regard to my initial pondering on using horary techniques in natal astrology. i share them with others here for consideration...

page XV third paragraph down

"Second, the timing and length of certain translations also affected what texts and techniques were used. For example, Abu Ma'shar's On Rev. Nat. seems to have been translated into Latin too late (1268) for Bonatti to have used it. Thus, early and shortish introductory works like al-Qabisi's, which uses a weighted muhtazz, but has only minimal information on the annual predictive techniques, enjoyed great popularity--thus passing on the weighted muhtazz but not the extensive annual methods. This too, affected how astrologers worked.

Third, one clear feature of the astrology of the very popular 'Uma and Abu 'Ali is the use of methods akin to horary in delineating natal matters. Abu 'Ali clearly draws on the older 'Umar, looking at the relationship between the most powerful planet ruling the matters of the native, and the one ruling the matters of some topic (such as parents). This would have been familiar to people practicing horary, for which 'Umar was well known. But the delineation material in JN and TBN which supplies the remaining details (based on Hellenistic-era texts) is disorganized and thin compared with the parallel and fuller accounts in the Book of Aristotle. Thus horary contribution to astrology began to blend into much natal practice."