With regard to wealth, the problem is that we no longer have money as a system of ownership; but instead, money is a measure of debt and the credit score is a measurement of obedience (Have you ever wondered why most economists also have a background in political science?). Given the gradual onset of the Aquarian age in which the star of Kronos substitutes the real for that which is imagined (Saturn represents "feigned appearance" according to Valens), it might be a mistake to associate the zodiacal releasing of fortune with actual money. In Valens time it represented what one had and ones body. But fiat money with nothing backing up the currency is basically an "I Owe You" that works based upon the hegemony of corporations such as the Federal Reserve (another Aquarian entity). It is interesting that Aquarius has superior position to the Bull.

Now, what Valens would call money would be actual possessions in the form of silver, gold, etc. that one could use in trade which is much closer to a barter system that often didn't involve political elites looking over your shoulder. The result was that in those days agnoia (not knowing or unwit as Hand would say) worked in favor of personal wealth. The reason is because when you don't know what someone has, you have to offer the fair price of what something is worth. But when you ask someone how much something is and you get the question "how much do you have?" then you are in a situation where information is being used as a political wedge to manipulate you. This question is usually no longer asked directly, but all banks can track what you have which amounts to the same thing and because of that money is no longer a "possession" unless you have so much that it becomes a tool to corrupt others to your advantage. In this sense, money/credit comes much closer to eminence and political power and that is much closer to behavior manipulation by government or corporations and much less a matter of what you have. Now, you really only truly own what you can carry on your back. I suppose that was also the case in Valens time, but technology has really made this manipulation so much worse.

Forget to pay your taxes, your rent, etc. and you will soon find out who the real owners are. The question is: if what you have owns you, is it still money? I submit that we are all owned as if on a plantation; we are being farmed and managed like cattle.

I had written a long article about this (which included the tie ins with the Thema Mundi, Agenda 21, Georgia Guide Stones and the 8th house, etc.) almost 2 years ago that was far more in depth (roughly 40 KB), but the Dreamweaver editor crashed and I wasn't able to recover the data. Maybe someone else can fill out the details as it all seems really obvious once you stand back and look at the big picture. On the other hand you might have to look over your shoulder the rest of your life if you do.

zoidsoft wrote:

Konrad wrote:Curtis,

do you apply Zodiacal Releasings to either of the lots to time periods of wealth or poverty?

Not so much times of wealth or poverty, but I've seen periods of illness and death come up with zodiacal releasing from fortune. These days because of the corporate oligarchy owning almost everything, real wealth is probably a matter of eminence and general support of the nativity such as with the trigon lords being properly placed and fortune and the other lots (such as Spirit, Basis and Exaltation) having eudaimoniea (handing over to each other in busy places).

For the rest of us, wealth or having enough is a matter of Spirit releasing because we cannot make enough just collecting interest in the way corporations do (wealth building wealth is impossible for most of us); instead we make our wealth (or compensation) based upon our actions (Spirit). But I'm not sure that the ZR Fortune or Spirit is adequate in measuring wealth. I strongly suspect that anangke (family ties = Saturn) may have a stronger influence because mediocre charts coming from the right family are often far more financially substantial than eminent charts coming from the wrong background.

It often seems that what ought to be (heimarmene) and what is (tuche) do not follow "as above, so below" in the literal sense. Tuche is hard to measure and Dyadic (according to Schmidt) which a Platonist would say is ultimately "unknowable". Because Fortune is associated with "tuche", it might not be as easy to measure.

Ok, thanks Curtis.

I agree with you here and in your second post. I notice Valens talks only of health when Releasing from Fortune but what got me thinking was your comment about success overnight. Have you seen any examples of Fortune doing anything other than signify health? Have you ever tried releasing anything other than the two Lots? I could see some rationale in releasing from the other Hermetic Lots, but I haven't really looked into it.

Martin Gansten wrote:
If I understand your other question correctly, you are asking whether the ruler of the revolution ascendant can be more relevant as a significator of the year as a whole than the ruler of the profection; is that right? If so, I'd go with the Indians on this one and say yes. It depends on which is more strongly placed (not necessarily better, but more able to act) in the radix and the revolution -- but the ruler of the profection will still be an important planet.

martin - thanks for your comments.

the lock tumbler analogy is a popular one... having the proper key in order to make a prediction of relevance is an interesting when one thinks of the different astrologers with different methodologies getting thru the door with data off any number of charts in their own way.. i think it is more along the lines that if an astrologers ability to unlock the door to valid astrological predictions relied on only one key, very few valid predictions would be made.. using the example of the last usa election with only 2 candidates to choose from - many astrologers made a correct prediction using a number of different '''keys''' to arrive at their conclusion.

generally i see a lot of regurgitation of others ideas in astrological circles. i suppose this is to be expected if you think of people having to spend a lot of time following the wisdom of others for any length of time before being able to come to an independent position on their own.

james_m wrote:generally i see a lot of regurgitation of others ideas in astrological circles. i suppose this is to be expected if you think of people having to spend a lot of time following the wisdom of others for any length of time before being able to come to an independent position on their own.

If that's your ethos, you're probably in the wrong forum.

james_m wrote:generally i see a lot of regurgitation of others ideas in astrological circles. i suppose this is to be expected if you think of people having to spend a lot of time following the wisdom of others for any length of time before being able to come to an independent position on their own.

I've heard a lot of things stated without the source but I see nothing wrong with using popular analogies if it helps the understanding along. It wasn't meant to be taken too literally because in doing so any analogy will break down. As Schmidt would say, a perfect analogy tells us nothing. It is in the exception that we see how something is analogous.

In response to fortune releasing, I've seen a few cases where a windfall (unexpected source of money) comes in ZR Fortune to the places of benefics. I had this in my own chart in 1990-91 and have seen several other cases with clients as well. Occasionally I've seen losses as well when ZR Fortune handed over to malefics (one client lost $50,000 in savings when fortune releasing handed over to both Mars and Saturn in the 5th from fortune) in a bad investment with no benefics able to cast rays into the place, but the ZR fortune seems to be much more visible with health issues IMO.

james_m wrote: ...many astrologers made a correct prediction using a number of different '''keys''' to arrive at their conclusion.

"The form changes, but the Essence remains."

I think all this has been pointed out already but as I'm mentioned in the opening post...

james_m wrote: as i am always asking questions, i wonder if either of you or someone else would care to comment on why saturn would be considered the lord of the profection and not the moon which is the natural ruler of cancer the sign of the profection year?

I haven't read through the article. However the profection comes to Cancer. This makes Moon the Lord of the Year except for the fact that Cancer is tenanted by another planet, which therefore the Moon hands over lordship to, in this case Saturn. I am unaware of Valens dismissing a time lord due to it not having good dignity (if I follow your question right). I think you understood this point in a later post but it was in the article the first time too so I'm not sure if you were still in the middle of reading it or if there was some confusion still.

As Konrad says, if we never allow planets with no dignity to be time lords, then we'll never have time periods which reflect that quality.

astrologers have to make a decision about what predictive techniques they are going to work with.. there are a lot to choose from... obviously less is better.. one can be comfortable in not having to process as much data or weighing any competing data that will inevitably result.. this is what i am talking about - time lords competing with one another for supremacy.. the time lord of the profection can be different then the time lord of the solar return

Can you explain what you mean? Perhaps find an example? The profected lord is an important time lord over the native's year, but that doesn't mean we cannot find additional information or layer this up with more information from either other time lords, or, quite typically, examination of the solar return. We might want to examine what house in the solar return that the profected lord falls in for example and add this additional information into the mix. This is not about supremacy and battling one signification against the other to find some victor, this is about weighing up mixed testimonies and blending with regards particular context. In addition you want to find where the solar return ascendant falls in the nativity.

Other time lords may have more 'long term' periods that they operate under for example, such as circumambulations.

It is not about which one has supremacy, it is about recognising that there is a complexity which we can start to gradually shade in by inclusion of additional information. Of course if we are not comfortable or not capable of doing this we can strip back and use less information.

Of course some time lords are topical and contextual. Releasing from Fortune would tell us something about the material such as the body and finances. Spirit might tell us about career or some social recognition. We shouldnt' assume all time lords have lordship over the same themes.

Really what we should be trying to do is start up layering up some symbolism and examining time lords which get activated so we can track them using something like transits and so on.

zoidsoft wrote:In response to fortune releasing, I've seen a few cases where a windfall (unexpected source of money) comes in ZR Fortune to the places of benefics. I had this in my own chart in 1990-91 and have seen several other cases with clients as well. Occasionally I've seen losses as well when ZR Fortune handed over to malefics (one client lost $50,000 in savings when fortune releasing handed over to both Mars and Saturn in the 5th from fortune) in a bad investment with no benefics able to cast rays into the place, but the ZR fortune seems to be much more visible with health issues IMO.

Thanks, Curtis, sounds about right. If you'll indulge me one more time, you mention the malefics in the 5th from Fortune. Do you see any significance in their house position other than being in the triplicity of the Lot? I know in Valens' text he mentions that the 10th from Fortune is like the MC and so on, but I wonder if topics can be read from the Lot?

Konrad wrote:Thanks, Curtis, sounds about right. If you'll indulge me one more time, you mention the malefics in the 5th from Fortune. Do you see any significance in their house position other than being in the triplicity of the Lot? I know in Valens' text he mentions that the 10th from Fortune is like the MC and so on, but I wonder if topics can be read from the Lot?

I sometimes see both (natal angles and relative to fortune). Schmidt says we study the planets in the natal houses, but their lords and the lords of the lots relative to fortune. Since this is a general principle, this is what I look for. Schmidt explained 3 states from Aristotle's Metaphysics and adapted them to the process of going from katarche (beginning) to apotelesma (outcome) which is similar to the 3 house types, modes, etc... The lord of a lot represents an elevation from potential to energy and then perhaps the lord of the lord an apotelesma (outcome) which he seems to think is analogous to the 12th parts. I don't know what his current thinking on this is if it has changed.

Paul wrote:Can you explain what you mean? Perhaps find an example? The profected lord is an important time lord over the native's year, but that doesn't mean we cannot find additional information or layer this up with more information from either other time lords, or, quite typically, examination of the solar return. We might want to examine what house in the solar return that the profected lord falls in for example and add this additional information into the mix. This is not about supremacy and battling one signification against the other to find some victor, this is about weighing up mixed testimonies and blending with regards particular context. In addition you want to find where the solar return ascendant falls in the nativity.

It wasn't for me but I'll try to give some sample/clarification.
For instance, in my natal chart Venus and Saturn are strongest planets (angular in own signs) and I was naturally expecting while using few techniques that if some of those planets happen to be time lord for some year that suppose to bring up some events which are signified by those planets in my horoscope.
And I've discovered that yes, those planets triggered some expected (within their influence in natal chart) events, but almost each time by using different technicues.
Ones it was while Moon's Ferdaria with subperiod ruled by Venus (about a year), another time with profection and Venus ruling AC, third time with directions while AC was crossing Venus term degrees in sign.
But it was always hard to relate it to some solar return, ot progressions.
And if I started think more complex way, like Saturn is my MC almuten, or Venus is my 2nd house's degree almuten it was hard to follow at any prediction techniques...
But some significant events were not related to any of strongest planets by using any of those technique.
In my career it was only seen all ups and downs by Jupiter's direction (about degree per year). And Jupiter is weak planet, peregrine in 6th. But Jupiter is 2nd ruler of triplicity of sign at my MC. And Esra wrote that second ruler of MC's triplicity showing possible rank in your career...

Martin Gansten wrote:

james_m wrote:generally i see a lot of regurgitation of others ideas in astrological circles. i suppose this is to be expected if you think of people having to spend a lot of time following the wisdom of others for any length of time before being able to come to an independent position on their own.

If that's your ethos, you're probably in the wrong forum.

martin - based on the 'reception' i receive from some here, you might be right!

i want to take up something you mentioned about the importance of the solar return chart to indian astrology as opposed to the traditional western tradition which you seemed to suggest emphasized profections more.. would you like to comment on this more, or is their anything to add to that?

curtis - thanks for your comments which i haven't addressed directly. i liked what you had to say about wealth and how the changes of today make the issue of reading wealth in a chart very different from what they would have been when these traditional techniques were in practice many centuries ago.. the same could be said for predictions on length of life when one thinks of modern medicines ability to extend life well past when a person would have died even up until recently. consider ariel sharon being left in a state of coma since early 2006, but only dying the other day.. how does a person who is determined to read a chart the way the ancients might have go about reading length of life in such an example? i think some of the techniques need to be reconsidered in light of these changes. feel free to comment more on this if you have something more to say. thanks.

this is a general question for anyone here.. if a planet was in the same degree or the same terms or bounds of the ascendant would it alter your viewpoint whereby you incorporated this planet into a shared role as a time lord for the period it remained inside the term or bound of the ascending degree? i suppose this is a way of asking if you would consider a different lord, or a shared role for a year based on the position of a planet in the ascendant..

going back to the issue of conflicting time lords that might be gotten from the primary directions, profection, solar return chart and etc. etc. - there also needs to be an acknowledgement of different terms or bounds where a person can conclude a different time lord based on whether they opt for egyptian verses chaldean time lords as an example.. none of this is all that cut and dry, in spite of the nice analogy of a lock tumbler where everything fits into place and one magically comes up with a good prediction out in advance.. if it was any different we would see more predictions being made, but alas - we generally don't!

paul - read my quote from benjamin dykes in one of my previous posts and get back to me if you still have questions.. it appears you didn't read the quote that i left regarding the bezza example that i used as an example..

konrad - were you already familiar with the quote from benjamin dykes book, or was that covering old ground? the example in the bezza link didn't opt for moon as lord of the profection year with cancer in the ascendant, but saturn instead.. according to the quote i gave, it made more sense.. no need to respond.. my time quoting dykes book is something someone will appreciate.

here are a few links that some here might enjoy.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6916

http://www.demetra-george.com/Hellenist ... edures.pdf

and finally a good post and conversation initiated by astrojin that might be of interest to some.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=

james_m wrote:konrad - were you already familiar with the quote from benjamin dykes book, or was that covering old ground? the example in the bezza link didn't opt for moon as lord of the profection year with cancer in the ascendant, but saturn instead.. according to the quote i gave, it made more sense.. no need to respond.. my time quoting dykes book is something someone will appreciate

I'm not sure I understand the issue. Valens profects everything and looks to see what hands over to what, with importance being given to where the the Sun, Moon and ASC hand over to. The reason Bezza mentions the nocturnal planets in his article is because they are the planets handing over to occupied signs in that year, not because it is a nocturnal chart.

Abu Ma'shar is following a different tradition (one which counts the lord of the profected ASC as 'lord of the year') but mixing it a little with Valens' idea of handing over to occupied places. The reason the Moon would not be considered Lady of the Year is that the Cancer is occupied firstly, and secondly, Abu Ma'shar didn't see the luminaries as being capable of performing as lord of the year. If we alter the profection and make the ASC hand over to Gemini with Saturn, Saturn would still be lord of the year according to Abu Ma'shar.