Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi, Tom

To my knowledge there is no similar part for men, and so, yes, the double standard has a long and honorable history.

Yes, but maybe this is similar- pars luxuriae atque fonicationis virorum: "and Albumassar said that if it is in a sign signifying impeded coitus, the man will be of frequent coitus, lascivious, and a fornicator."

If this was considered a good or bad thing, Zoller doesn?t elaborate :-)

Hi, Astrojin

As always, an excellent contribution
How would you see the spiritual life of native, specially venus in the 9th sign, which would be the "rites of spiritual purification" ?

Hi Yuzuru,

Quote:

How would you see the spiritual life of native, specially venus in the 9th sign, which would be the "rites of spiritual purification" ?

Yeah... Venus is the universal significator of rites of spiritual purification (especially in the 9th house) but

1. Venus is retrograde
This gives the "backward" meaning for Venus in this chart.

2. Venus is out of sect
This inclines toward unfavorable expression of the planet

3. Venus is conjunct Mercury who is also retrograde
Mercury is the principle of contest and destabilizing (more so when he is retrograde) - hence, contesting and destabilizing Venus.

4. Venus is squared by out of sect malefic (Mars) who is also detriment.
This is as if Venus is being attacked by a really unhappy evil Mars.

All in all - not good for Venus to express her spiritual purification.

Saturn also squares Venus but this square has reception (as Saturn loves Aquarius, where Venus is). At the same time, the benefic in sect (Jupiter)trines both Venus and Mercury - which suggests (at least to me) that she would probably go into "spiritual purification" later in her life where she redeems herself?

I am really pleased that I picked this chart because there is so much first rate astrology in these posts, and there is so much a student can learn from the chart and the posts. Thank you all for all your efforts. Since this is a holiday weekend I'm going to post the identity later on today, and I hope this will generate some discussion of the things I've been reading.

My initial reason for posting this chart or what I was hoping to find in the chart didn't come up, but I know who she is; you don't. That being said, I don't care about that so much right now, although it will be discussed. There are things that have been posted that appear, at first blush, to be wrong, but the more I think about them, the less certain that I am they are so far off. After all,the delineations here are blind, and this case is extreme in that no one is likely to come across a native that has experiences quite like this woman.

Steven wrote:

When I consider her actions I find that both Fortune and Spirit fall in angular houses! Now Valens tells us that women (at least of his day) tended towards the actions of Fortune, that is purely physical actions that have their meaning to the native?s physical well being alone, rather than Spirit which he says Men most often are more governed by. This particular consideration I feel today is hardly valid, since we find that women today are just as likely to have actions that are dominated by their choices, decisions, speech and actualisations of their soul as men are! Prior to the 1900?s this might still have been rather true. The 1900?s though brought several transitions as the universal ?religion? of our times (democracy and humanism) came to fruition! We always need to remember that nativities are always subject to universals!

This quote got to me. Valens said women are governed by the material and men by the spiritual. Steven correctly points out that women today have more choices, but I think this goes deeper. There are only two ways one can forgo the pursuit of the material for the spiritual. One is to give up the material almost in its entirety, e.g. adopt the life of a monk. Or have so much money that you can live off the interest and spend your time as you wish and if that be spiritually, so be it. Very few are able to fit into either category.

But there are times when choices have to be made and people will either choose the comfort of what they have or their ideals. I'm reminded of the words that end the American Declaration of Independence:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our scared Honor."

These were wealthy men embarking on a dangerous course (defeat would have certainly resulted in their deaths) and it is their honor that they considered sacred.

Their wives had little say-so in the matter. Women then and for better or for worse to a slightly lesser extent now, were the primary caregivers to the children. They had little economic opportunity on their own. I cannot imagine it was different in Valens' time. So it is only natural that would gravitate to the material since it was the only way for her and for her children to survive. She is not motivated by the accumulation of the material for the sake of the material. She is motivated by what is in fact spiritual: the safety, well being, and survival of her offspring. Her man had the luxury of being honorable. I am not impugning the motives of either. Rather I am agreeing with Steven that universals must be considered. And I am noting what I believe is the spiritual side of fortuna. There is one. Even monks need some material things in order to survive. They are not less spiritual because they eat or seek shelter or wear clothes or raise money for the monastery. These things are necessary.

All that being said there are other kinds of people in the world. There are people who accumulate for the sake of accumulation. There are dishonorable men and dishonorable women. There are stingy, greedy wealthy people who view their fortunes as "proof" of their superiority. There are also philanthropists. There are women who sacrifice for the sake of their families. There are gold diggers.

For the vast majority of us the tug between spiritual and material requires a certain balancing act. "Ya do what ya gotta do," says the philosopher and I think this is part of the motivation of our native. But where we begin and how we perceive is part of that motivation. St. Francis was born to a wealthy family and gave it all up for the spiritual life. Perhaps he felt a sense of guilt or even shame that he had so much and others had so little. After all, he was born to it. He didn't earn it.

Highly motivated people born at the other end of the economic spectrum might seek comfort that they never had and experience a desire to be rid of (or extract revenge for) the indignities they suffered. Some take shortcuts. Like our native.

Thank you all for so much effort. I sincerely hope we can continue this once we get the anonymity out of the way. I've really enjoyed this one.

Tom