A horary is a question asked in a moment of time. An event chart is the chart for a moment in time that an event is started. But the underlying motive is the same; what will be the probable outcome of a situation or question? So can the two be considered interchangeable?

I?m wondering about our usage of the term ?event chart?. The term is usually applied to past happenings such as explosions, plane crashes, political actions, and pretty much anything else. An event chart is backward-looking in that it explains and interprets something which has already happened or started - historical exegesis. Horary and electional charts are forward-looking ? forms of prognostication. If we look at a chart drawn for the first court day of a lengthy trial, is that truly an ?event? chart? The trial started, but the only event has been the trial?s start. I know that using charts for these occasions is common procedure and seems to be valid, but should we call it an ?event? chart?

The prospective bride has an election done and she picks Saturday, Dec 24 at 4:00 PM for her wedding. In this case the elected chart and the event chart are one and the same.

I would say that we only have an electional chart here. There hasn?t been an actual wedding event yet. At this point it is only a planned future event.

I wrote:

I know that using charts for these occasions is common procedure and seems to be valid, but can we call it an ?event? chart?

Sure we can! It?s a matter of what we are trying to do with such a chart. I guess my question is with drawing up an ?event? chart for a future - therefore only possible, and still uncertain ? event, and then trying to predict more of the future from it.

Quote:
The prospective bride has an election done and she picks Saturday, Dec 24 at 4:00 PM for her wedding. In this case the elected chart and the event chart are one and the same.

I would say that we only have an electional chart here. There hasn?t been an actual wedding event yet. At this point it is only a planned future event.

It is an election when the date and time are picked prior to the event. It becomes and event when the event happens. So if she picked the date on Nov 29th at that point it is an election. If she follows through, it becomes an event and is no longer an election.

I?m wondering about our usage of the term ?event chart?. The term is usually applied to past happenings such as explosions, plane crashes, political actions, and pretty much anything else. An event chart is backward-looking in that it explains and interprets something which has already happened or started - historical exegesis. Horary and electional charts are forward-looking ? forms of prognostication. If we look at a chart drawn for the first court day of a lengthy trial, is that truly an ?event? chart? The trial started, but the only event has been the trial?s start. I know that using charts for these occasions is common procedure and seems to be valid, but should we call it an ?event? chart?

In practice we tend to do event charts after the fact particularly in the case of natural disasters mostly because we don't know they are going to happen. We also do them for births. But event charts are frequently cast for predictive reasons, sports events, general elections, new jobs, etc. Doing them after the fact is for educational purposes..

Whew, Is anyone here familiar with Ocam's razor?

Tom

Whew, Is anyone here familiar with Ocam's razor?

I?m familiar with the usual ?Ockham?s razor? and the alternative ?Occam?s razor?. This alternative of ?Ocam?s razor? is new to me. The entry for ?Ockham?s razor? in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy states: ?The celebrated principle of Ockham that entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem: entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.?

I would say that three kinds of razor is beyond necessity.

Tom:

They are interpreted in a similar fashion, but they are different charts. Does this help?

Yes, that helps. In the context of your example, I would say that if a person draws up a chart for a moment in time in order to assess the probable course of events that will ensue as a result of a decision made in that moment, I think that chart would be a horary, even though they might have thought it was an event chart. Now if this person goes on to cast a chart for the right time to start the event, that would be an electional. Agreed?

Our bride asks the horary, "Will I be happy if I marry Tom?" And the answer is, "Yes you will experience constant bliss."

Clearly you are Leo Rising....
(It takes one to know one...grin.)

Quick wave as I'm really back now after a dead computer...

Ok, wave over.

What I'm finding interesting in this discussion is that prior to the sixteenth century, there wasn't always the sort of separation you're all trying to define. Horaries, electionals and inceptionals were usually bundled together as "interrogations." They all refer to events, whether you're looking at them forward, backwards or inside out. Therefore, the rules given could be applied across the board. Granted, there were writings that treated them separately, but the common attitude seems to have been to throw them in the same pot and mix them together.

This became relevant in a conversation I had recently about how academics define certain astrological writings. They'll usually be comfortable with the term "interrogations," and be baffled by "horary," even when they've genned up enough to understand the techniques involved.

I think this sort of issue is why we can easily get into a muddle when we try to define older concepts and rules through a twenty-first century perspective.

Kim's Razor

Kim:

Horaries, electionals and inceptionals were usually bundled together as "interrogations." They all refer to events, whether you're looking at them forward, backwards or inside out.

I think that a chart cast for the moment that is significant in time for the querent will tell you the probable course of events, given that it is a moment that something concrete has happened - call it what you will - an event or a horary...ah! but what do i know..... maybe this is just wishful thinking, because the chart i cast at that moment was kind of favorable to me...

BTW, Kim, I was browsing through the Barnes and Noble bookstore here in NJ, and I came across an astrology book for which you were the editor. It was on sale, it was heavily illustrated, seemed to have a lot of historical data, and it looked really good. This was several months ago. I'm afraid I don't remember the title at this time....

Kim's Razor

What I'm finding interesting in this discussion is that prior to the sixteenth century, there wasn't always the sort of separation you're all trying to define. Horaries, electionals and inceptionals were usually bundled together as "interrogations."

Actually, I have found in most of the readings I have come across that the more common attitude was to treat them separately and that the terminology used was to separate electional astrology from interrogations. I suppose it depends on whether we are talking purely about the rules of interpretation or whether we are talking about the philosophy of these charts. The rules for reading them may have been similar but attitudes towards the concepts seem to be quite different, particularly from astrologers who were members of the Church. Electional astrology was generally accepted by the Church because it did not interfere with free will. In fact, the Church used electional astrology extensively, particularly during the Renaissance period, but found interrogations problematic. Electional astrology, particularly as it related to medicine, was specifically approved of when Papal Bulls against certain types of astrology were issued, whereas interrogations were specifically not accepted because it was seen as an attempt to predict the future. Anything that asked about future events was believed to be potentially interfering with free will. But not all Church Fathers discounted interrogations out of hand and some argued that certain interrogations did not interfere with free will and are therefore acceptable.

In his book Speculum Astronomiae (c. 1260), Albertus clearly differentiates between four types of what he calls ?making judgements?. He calls these revolutions, nativities, interrogations and elections. But Albertus went even further and differentiated between certain types of interrogations, believing some to be acceptable and others not acceptable. This always related to the concept of free will. He found questions about past events acceptable because the stars have already imprinted their influence on the earthly plane. In other words, asking a question about what has already happened, e.g. 'what has happened to the ship?', is okay because it is not interfering with free will. He believed that questions asking advice about alternatives actually increased one?s free will because it requires one to make choices. The phrase he uses is something like interrogations ?rectify and direct it.? However, questions about future events are problematic for several reasons and it is with these charts that God will often choose not to reveal the answer. He believed that any doctor who did not take electional astrology into account before treatment was incompetent.

Augustine, on the other hand, thought that electional astrology was further proof that astrology was ludicrous. He argued that, by creating an auspicious day for an event, the person electing a time is attempting to create a destiny which was not theirs before and something that is fated to happen which was not destined at birth. Augustine calls this ?an extraordinary piece of nonsense.? He asks what has happened to what the stars had decided at birth asking whether someone can alter what has been fixed by the birth chart simply by choosing a day to do something.

I love Augustine.

Sue,

Actually, I have found in most of the readings I have come across that the more common attitude was to treat them separately and that the terminology used was to separate electional astrology from interrogations.

I disagree. Elections ARE one of the three types of interrogations. You can see how they're meshed together in Laurel Brasewell's writings on lunaries and electionaries. I've been loooking at 15th (and some 16th) century astrological manuscripts recently, and they're certainly meshed together in the manuscripts I've seen. The Church may well have treated them seperately, but the Church aren't most people. What people did, and what the Church thought they should be doing varied a lot. They are separated out in terms of electionaries, but lunaries (which often accompanied or formed part of electionaries) were intended for all types of interrogations. Lunaries form a huge part of astrological literature in the fifteenth century.

I stand by this. I'm aware that there are writings that treat them separately, but that doesn't mean that the common attitude wasn't to bundle them together.

More later, on the run.

Kim