Skyscript Astrology Forum

cor scorpii wrote:Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject. I've finally found a place where I can learn so much about hellenistic astrology, but not only about it...
this forum is really great.
What you've presented here is simply outstanding-your writing is concise, clear and very educative.So I would give you an advice-do not read the ignorant negative comments and don't let them discourage you.

There are so many of us who are very grateful to you for your great contribution to this forum.
I hope you'll stay with us because we need you-it's as simple as that.

I'm thirding this. Astrojin, don't let the haters get you down!

I?ll add my name to the petition for him to reconsider.

I'll add mine too

I don't find anything 'suffocating' at all about what Astrojin has written. It's part of astrological tradition and even though some people may not like some aspects of it but that doesn't change the tradition.

Nowhere in Astrojin's post were personal evaluations such as

?Woe unto the child who has too many planets in cadent houses?. Formulae for existence. Keep an eye on the malefics.
Rules. Schemes of plus and minus. You could, you can?t. Implied: you will, you won?t.

and

perhaps you?re the lucky one: Everything smiles. The gods smile, the planets smile, and you smile ? as you are blessed to receive that which you desire.

These are not unchangeable rules imposed by gods and it's up to the individual to see if they have any validity or to decide whether they apply them in their astrology. I found Kirk's critisicism didn't help to have constructive discussions about those techniques. For example, I don't necessarily think that people with many planets in cadent houses can't receive what they desire.

Astrology is becoming smaller.

Astrojin's posts have enlarged my astrology and I hope he/she'll stay with us and I eagerly await more from him/her
The same goes for Kirk. I also appreciate his contributions( but when he's in a better mood, perhaps)

Gem wrote: I don't find anything 'suffocating' at all about what Astrojin has written. It's part of astrological tradition and even though some people may not like some aspects of it but that doesn't change the tradition.

Agreed. If anything it is pretty vital and something greatly lacking in later approaches.

Gem wrote: Nowhere in Astrojin's post were personal evaluations such as

?Woe unto the child who has too many planets in cadent houses?. Formulae for existence. Keep an eye on the malefics.
Rules. Schemes of plus and minus. You could, you can?t. Implied: you will, you won?t.

and

perhaps you?re the lucky one: Everything smiles. The gods smile, the planets smile, and you smile ? as you are blessed to receive that which you desire.

These are not unchangeable rules imposed by gods and it's up to the individual to see if they have any validity or to decide whether they apply them in their astrology. I found Kirk's critisicism didn't help to have constructive discussions about those techniques. For example, I don't necessarily think that people with many planets in cadent houses can't receive what they desire.

Mostly agreed. I do think it is important to realize that people and their lives are very much determined. It may be uncomfortable to agree to that, in this age of "Just do it!" and other "free will" inspired fantasies, but we live in this world, not the world of our hopes, fancies, and dreams. Now we can argue how or even if astrology can help us to see this determination with total or at least significant clarity.

Gem wrote:

Astrology is becoming smaller.

Astrojin's posts have enlarged my astrology and I hope he/she'll stay with us and I eagerly await more from him/her
The same goes for Kirk. I also appreciate his contributions( but when he's in a better mood, perhaps)

Yes, Astrojin has done a nice job posting this for us. There is a criticism, and I'm not even sure it's completely relevant, but these are checklist-type notes, and people seem to be forgetting that there is a process of judgment involved. Astrology isn't like a blood test; it doesn't state that we have an excess of protein or not enough iron as matter of fact. We go through the delineation processes, and then we judge, as rational creatures, hopefully inspired by divinity and not fear or ignorance.

As for Kirk, he seems to be at a point I myself have been, in a state of doubt as to the worthiness of astrology. There is a lot of it, coming from many different angles and no one on earth has yet to really process it all. We do have some shining stars, but it seems we are destined now to have to eat the whole meal of the tradition before we can really make true sense of it. It probably a generational process at this point, if we are lucky we'll be alive for it.

Deb wrote:
How often do members of this forum make disparaging remarks about modern astrology without appreciating (or caring) how offensive those comments can be to the astrologers who follow those techniques? (I?m talking about the Skyscript forum generally, BTW, not the traditional section in particular).

There is an ongoing tightrope in this forum between avoiding offensive posts, and discouraging passionate and earnest debate about controversial ? but sometimes important ? concerns.

I can think of a name in particular , fortunately not anyone in this thread.

... something I can?t quite put my finger on, that reassures me that I?m not alone in feeling suffocated by some aspects of the modern analysis of Hellenistic technique. This is not something that I experience when I read the actual texts or primary sources, and it does not detract from my own genuine interest in ancient and classical astrology.

There probably are issues to how the Project Hindsight people are interpreting the material, but I don't think we are going to be able to give it a fair listening until they manage to bring it all out, the translations and commentaries, etc.

Reading the source material usually gives me brain bleed. But I guess that comes from being in a culture where reading is a penance and not a joy.

I think that may have been Kirk's point too, although he expressed it differently. His comments were perhaps disrespectful of the Hellenistic approach to astrology, but not necessarily of the work of Astrojin.

This is a distinction without a difference. Astrojin put a good deal of time and made a significant effort to place valid information about Hellenistic astrology on the thread. The implication of Kirk's post is that the subject is hopeless so the work is hopeless. That's personal. If a reader doesn't care for Greek astrology, move on. We would not be so understanding of a skeptic who came here, and used the same words about all astrology. We would correctly ask what he or she was doing here.

There are all sorts of viewpoints on Skyscript on a variety of topics and there is the unlimited opportunity to start our own topic, if none of the above suit us. If Kirk's post has any merit, it belongs on it's own thread where it can be discussed in its own context, and it can stand or fall on its own merits. Using it in astrojin's thread was out of line.

Tom

Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject

Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject

Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject

And finally

Astrojin,

please don't stop writing on this subject.

Let the "geniuses" with their nonsense astrology. i am tired of that...

Thank you all for your support!

I shall ignore all the negative remarks and just keep posting.

Next post is on the "Hellenistic" meanings of the planets.

Thank you a lot, Astrojin!

I just would like to make a few corrections to your example of Hitler's chart:

astrojin wrote: Chart of Hitler [Diurnal chart, Sun in Tau in 8th house, Moon in Cap in 3rd house, Asc in Lib].

Moon is actually in the 4th house (whole-sign system).

astrojin wrote: Kurios

Candidates:
1. No planets in the bounds of the ascending degree.
2. Asc is in Libra, domicile lord of ascendant is Venus
3. Moon is in Capricorn, domicile lord is Saturn
4. MC in Sagittarius, domicile lord is Jupiter

Item 4. I heard Schmidt's lecture (Baltimore, NCGR 2007), and he explained that at step 4 we should consider the domicile lord of the 10th sign from Ascendent, which is not necessarily the domicile lord of MC in the whole-sign system. And this is true for this case, in Hitler's chart: the domicile lord of 10th house is Moon. That is, of coure, unless Schmidt changed his mind since last year :) At least Hindsight software (Delphi Oracle) still calculates item 4 by this method.

I just recommended your instructions to one friend of mine, and while checking the example with Hitler's chart, he brought my attention to these small mistypes. Overall, though, I believe your work has been incredibly useful to my friend and those who are interested in Hellinistic astrology. Thank you very much!

To Igor for the repsonses!

Your quote:

Moon is actually in the 4th house (whole-sign system).

Yes, you are correct! I plotted the chart in Prophyry and didn't count the whole signs correctly!

Your quote:

we should consider the domicile lord of the 10th sign from Ascendent, which is not necessarily the domicile lord of MC in the whole-sign system

Yes, it is the tenth sign from the ascendant and not MC calculated as via the modern way... but I suggest looking both ways [just in case]. I rarely use Kurios in my own practice so I can't really comment on the difference between tenth sign and MC sign in practice... though I suspect it should give a significant difference. For example, in determining the profession signifier (more medieval than hellenistic), I look to both tenth sign and MC but thank you for pointing out the differences. I like to be pointed out
when I am at variance with the authorities...

Astrojin
Re: Fortuna
Do you use reversed or unreversed formula?

Hello Gem,

If reversed Fortuna is the one where different formulae are used for different chart sect (day/night), then yes - I am using the reversed Fortuna.

I apologize to Astrojin for the way I went about my post. Once I started writing I left Astrojin far behind in my mind and could only see the uncomfortable matching of ancient astrology and modern minds. I was not addressing or thinking of any particular individual. Unfortunately, I was not only interrupting a thread, but I gave the impression that I was criticizing one particular individual -- a person who has given so much and whose posts are one of the reasons I've been a regular here. Astrojin gives freely, and such people especially deserve our respect. I believe the ideas I was trying to express are worthy; the way I went about it by hijacking Astrojin's thread was unworthy in the extreme. I am sorry for having acted with such rudeness and disrespect.

I'm afraid I've interrupted the thread again.