hi morningsun,

i think it is worth exploring these ideas more, so i thank you for bringing this up.. i think any examination of a particular theory of astrology needs to be viewed in the context of the whole chart and this is very difficult to do when one is considering just one concept/theory.

i don't agree with pauls assessment of the reason for why saturn/mars are considered malefics - "excessive". i think one has to look at the whole chart to come to a conclusion on a particular planet being excessive and it isn't the basis for why these 2 are considered malefic.. i actually think jupiter or venus can be malefic in that sense for being overly excessive in nature - all dependent on the chart of course..

as to your question on nixons chart - there are three ways to define whether a planet is diurnal or nocturnally placed.. 1st - is it a day chart or a night chart - ie sun above or below the horizon? 2nd is the planet diurnally placed with the sun below or above the horizon line - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example), and 3rd -is it in a feminine or masculine sign? you'll get all this from re-reading hands book as well..

i agree with your view on mars in scorpio generally speaking.. i seem to get involved with mars in scorpio types more regularly then not and my father had this placement. mars in a fire sign tends to be more spontaneous, especially mars in aries which is a blessing even if it frightens some. again i think the whole chart needs to be taken into consideration in order to reach a wider perspective on just how healthy/favourable a particular position is with regard to mars or any other planet for that matter.. teh beauty of the concept of sect is it puts a focus on the sun and by extension the moon which have to be considered the most important points in any chart. in so far as sect highlights this, i think it is a really worthwhile concept to work with. as for how to treat mars with this information is more complicated as i see it, but then i would not go with black and white views on any of these concepts myself..

MorningSun wrote:

Paul wrote:Hi MorningSun

I don't think it's wishful thinking at all, and is in fact easily sensible from the same logic that makes the malefics malefic in the first place: they are excessive in their nature. Whether this was the 'original' intent behind sect or not, this is certainly an easy to make sense of way of thinking about it which is in keeping with the internal logic of the planetary natures.

Mars and Saturn are malefic because they are not moderate in their nature, but in fact are excessive.

I do not understand, (and I have to read it again and maybe I will, I know I missed something), How in Robert Hands book, Night and Day, Planetary Sect in Astrology, on page 58, regarding Richard Nixons Nocturnal Chart, he states regarding Mars, this is a nocturnal planet in a nocturnal chart, then says Mars is also Diurnally placed, ie., in the same hemispher as the sun". If Mars is in the 4th house of a nocturnal chart, below the horizon, how can it be diurnally placed?

Mark wrote:Mars also has its joy in Scorpio not Aries because that sign is in tune with its sect and helps to lead to a more moderate expression of the planet than in a diurnal sign like Aries..

Mars in Scorpio I think can be very treacherous, sneeky, subversive, passive aggressive, sly, deceptive, much more dangerous as they can blindside you, whereas Mars in Aries is a much cleaner energy, more in your face, easy to anger, but dissipated just as quickly, you at least know what you are facing, with Mars in Scorpio, you are not sure what you are facing, the anger and maliciousness is more hidden.

james_m wrote: i don't agree with pauls assessment of the reason for why saturn/mars are considered malefics - "excessive". i think one has to look at the whole chart to come to a conclusion on a particular planet being excessive and it isn't the basis for why these 2 are considered malefic.. i actually think jupiter or venus can be malefic in that sense for being overly excessive in nature - all dependent on the chart of course..

A couple of things here, firstly it is not so much my assessment, as the rationale that is given by other astrologers since antiquity.
Perhaps this article may help shed some light on things:
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/sect.html

Also with regards the last part of the quote, Jupiter and Venus can indeed be malefic, just as Mars and Saturn can be benefic. In fact sect helps us determine this. But when I say 'the malefics' I mean those who are naturally considered to be malefic - ie Saturn and Mars.

Damon wrote:

i have a strong saturn and in my experience it doesnt feel good in daylight.

i have a relative with mars in sect, yet that doesnt prevent the person from being extremely uncontrolled,just because moon square mars.
i think sect is a pretty weak factor

You seem to have completely ignored the point I made already about incorporating sect into chart synthesis.

Mark

Paul wrote: I don't understand what you mean, you allow that Mars in a nocturnal chart will mitigate its destructiveness - that's what I've been saying. Why are you thinking it's wishful thinking when I say it but not when you say it? Are we miscommunicating something somewhere? I also disagree that Mars in a feminine sign mitigates its destructiveness though. Mars in Taurus will not have less malefic nature.
When you say that because they do in their theory does not make it so, what do you mean?

Yes, Paul, I think I am or we are miscommunicating. My point is: I do not believe, in my opinion that Mars should be assigned to the Nocturnal sect, with the Moon and Venus. Saying Mars in a nocturnal chart, MAY, mitigate its destructiveness, is very different than actually DESIGNATING it as part of the Nocturnal Sect.

I agree with the nature of the elements, just not making Mars part of the Nocturnal Sect. I agree with you on all else, I get the reasoning, very clearly, regarding wanting to put Mars in the moisture of the nigfht to mitigate its hot and dry qualities, again, just not with the Nocturnal Sect.

As this current transiting Sun is squaring my Natal Sun and Mercury, I am sure I am not thinking nor expressing myself very clearly, so my apologies.

Perhaps, Paul, James, or all, can help me with this passage from Rob Hands book:

RobHand wrote: "Any planet is placed diurnally when it is above the horizon in the daytime or below it at night. Any planet is placed nocturnally when it is below the horizon by day or above it by night.

I get when the sun is below the horizon it is a nocturnal chart, above a diurnal.

But wouldn't a planet placed above the horizon in a night or day chart be diurnal, if not then why not? It is above the horizon? How can a planet be placed diurnally when it is placed below the horizon at night as the first sentence I quote above from Rob Hand?

Sorry, if I am being a pain, Thanks so much!!

Morning Sun wrote:

Mars in Scorpio I think can be very treacherous, sneeky, subversive, passive aggressive, sly, deceptive, much more dangerous as they can blindside you, whereas Mars in Aries is a much cleaner energy, more in your face, easy to anger, but dissipated just as quickly, you at least know what you are facing, with Mars in Scorpio, you are not sure what you are facing, the anger and maliciousness is more hidden.

Well your fully entitled to your beliefs. Still, I dont know where you are getting all these totally negative associations for Mars in Scorpio from though. Can you provide any sources please? It sounds more like a debilitated planet in Scorpio like Venus or the Moon to me.

It remains a basic fact ancient astrologers considered Scorpio the joy for Mars. Equally, Aquarius was the sign of joy for Saturn. Personally, I think that is a logical and consistent approach. I also dont have the strongly positive take on Mars in Aries vs Scorpio you have. Mars works in Scorpio in a purer uncorrupted form. Mars is more controlled and less volatile in Scorpio. The energy is more internalised since this is a nocturnal sign. Basically this is as good as a placement in Scorpio gets. As Mars is a malefic its better in a sign compatible with its sect.

Mark

But from what ive seen in astrology x files the ancient descriptions of signs were nearly all negative .
Those guys seemed to have a rather Saturnine attitude to astrology

paul,

i went to the link you provided and didn't learn anything i'm not already familiar with regarding sect.. my disagreement with your comment

Paul wrote:
I don't think it's wishful thinking at all, and is in fact easily sensible from the same logic that makes the malefics malefic in the first place: they are excessive in their nature.

stems for what i see as an explanation as to why mars/saturn are malefic : "they are excessive in nature"..
as the link your posted states :
"mars is out of sect because the heat of the day becomes excessive." which is not the same as mars/saturn are malefic becuase they are excessive.. that's all...

if you want to refer to ""the rationale that is given by other astrologers since antiquity."" go ahead, as i am curious to know where you are getting this from. thanks - james

Paul wrote:

james_m wrote: i don't agree with pauls assessment of the reason for why saturn/mars are considered malefics - "excessive". i think one has to look at the whole chart to come to a conclusion on a particular planet being excessive and it isn't the basis for why these 2 are considered malefic.. i actually think jupiter or venus can be malefic in that sense for being overly excessive in nature - all dependent on the chart of course..

A couple of things here, firstly it is not so much my assessment, as the rationale that is given by other astrologers since antiquity.
Perhaps this article may help shed some light on things:
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/sect.html

Also with regards the last part of the quote, Jupiter and Venus can indeed be malefic, just as Mars and Saturn can be benefic. In fact sect helps us determine this. But when I say 'the malefics' I mean those who are naturally considered to be malefic - ie Saturn and Mars.

MorningSun wrote:
Perhaps, Paul, James, or all, can help me with this passage from Rob Hands book:

RobHand wrote: "Any planet is placed diurnally when it is above the horizon in the daytime or below it at night. Any planet is placed nocturnally when it is below the horizon by day or above it by night.

I get when the sun is below the horizon it is a nocturnal chart, above a diurnal.

But wouldn't a planet placed above the horizon in a night or day chart be diurnal, if not then why not? It is above the horizon? How can a planet be placed diurnally when it is placed below the horizon at night as the first sentence I quote above from Rob Hand?

Sorry, if I am being a pain, Thanks so much!!

hi morning sun.. i explained the 3 conditions that define diurnal nocturnal in my first post already.. see the 2nd rationale for defining sect below...

james_m wrote: as to your question on nixons chart - there are three ways to define whether a planet is diurnal or nocturnally placed.. 1st - is it a day chart or a night chart - ie sun above or below the horizon? 2nd is the planet diurnally placed with the sun below or above the horizon line - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example), and 3rd -is it in a feminine or masculine sign?

James M wrote:

If you want to refer to ""the rationale that is given by other astrologers since antiquity."" go ahead, as i am curious to know where you are getting this from. thanks - james

Its basically Ptolemy's rationale. And that has influenced the entire astrological tradition since then. I dont think anyone else sat down to explain it as logically as him in ancient astrology.

Mark

Mark wrote:James M wrote:

If you want to refer to ""the rationale that is given by other astrologers since antiquity."" go ahead, as i am curious to know where you are getting this from. thanks - james

Its basically Ptolemy's rationale. And that has influenced the entire astrological tradition since then. I dont think anyone else sat down to explain it as logically as him in ancient astrology.

Mark

so the rationale is?
mars and saturn are malefic because they are excessive? or, mars and saturn are excessive when they are out of sect? i think there is a difference here!
are jupiter and venus not capable of being excessive in any context? sorry mark, but unless you quote me the passage, i don't recall reading this particular rationale for why mars/saturn are malefics from ptolemy or anyone else other then paul!!!

James_M

mars and saturn are malefic because they are excessive? or, mars and saturn are excessive when they are out of sect? i think there is a difference here!
are jupiter and venus not capable of being excessive in any context? sorry mark, but unless you quote me the passage, i don't recall reading this particular rationale for why mars/saturn are malefics from ptolemy or anyone else other then paul!!

Its late here so this will be quick. The notion of Mars and Saturn as malefics predates horoscopic astrology and can be traced back to Babylonian astrology.

The notion of an excess of quality ie cold or dyness is typical of the Aristotlean logic used by Ptolemy to explain the inherent nature of the planets.

Deborah Houlding once claimed these basic ideas were Babylonian in origin too here once but she never did provide a source for that statement.

Of course we are only discussing the 'essential' nature of the planets. Saturn can be an 'accidental' benefic and Jupiter an accidental malefic due to placement in a chart.

Lots things can make Mars and Saturn more inherently malefic in expression. Being out of sect is only one example. Others include being in fall or detriment or being in a part of planetary phase to the Sun that increases its excessive , malefic nature. According to Ptolemy, in terms of planetary phase Saturn is less malefic oriental to the Sun when it is more moist. Following opposition onwards its malefic nature increases as it becomes drier. Similarly, the excessively dry nature of Mars is ameliorated when it is oriental of the Sun and accentuated at opposition when it is hotter and drier.

Mark

james_m wrote: stems for what i see as an explanation as to why mars/saturn are malefic : "they are excessive in nature"..
as the link your posted states :
"mars is out of sect because the heat of the day becomes excessive." which is not the same as mars/saturn are malefic becuase they are excessive.. that's all...

if you want to refer to ""the rationale that is given by other astrologers since antiquity."" go ahead, as i am curious to know where you are getting this from. thanks - james

My use of this link was to demonstrate that being out of sect makes for the malefics to be excessive. If you want to find information that says that Mars is naturally excessive we only need to turn to Ptolemy.

But Saturn and Mars are esteemed of a contrary nature, and malefic, or causers of evil: the first from his excess of cold, the other from his excess of dryness.

Tet 1.5

and

Hence the coldness of Saturn is allotted to the day, to counterbalance its heat; and the dryness of Mars to the night, to counterbalance its moisture. Thus each of these planets, being moderated by this combination, is placed in a condition calculated to produce a favourable temperament. 2

Tet. 1.7

I must admit I always thought Mars was so because of excess heat as well as dryness but this may have been an assumption on my part.

Other authors simply tell us that Mars is nocturnal but do not usually theorise why. Ptolemy gives us a rationale as to why and as far as I know is the first to do so and others who give a rationale tend to be following from his lead.