Hello Tom,

Well if I misrepresented you I apologise. Although, you were slightly guilty of doing pretty much the same thing to me in your previous comments!

There is always a danger of these kinds of discussions looking more polarised than people probably are in reality.

Mark

I dunno, guys. I'm self-taught, and have mostly learned through looking at others' examples online; I've read very few of the books although I have a zip-drive copy of C.A. Although I'm still in the apprentice stage of horary, I think I've done pretty well *without* a teacher, and your hair-splitting about teaching practices has convinced me to continue with self-study! At least it's free!

There is always a danger of these kinds of discussions looking more polarised than people probably are in reality.

Sometimes there is more to the discussion than the readers are aware of, such as one participant sending private messages to another participant regarding the discussion while the discussion is taking place. I prefer the approach of coming right out and saying what is on one?s mind in full public view. It?s not truthful or sincere to try to always maintain an agreeable ?We?re all friends here? image.

I was reading the Anthony Louis book about a month ago, but got sidetracked with books about earlier Hellenistic astrology. The Louis book was making me uncomfortable because it is filled with methods and ideas that are not found in Classical horary as usually discussed here. But since I have learned how questionable much of Classical horary is, and that I?m probably not cut out for it, I?ve come to appreciate the Louis book more. But any beginner should realize that there are quite a few contradictions from what they will read at this site and forum. Louis does mention in the book that he was learning more from the traditional sources. The book?s copyright date is 1998 and the date after the preface text is November 1996, so it would be interesting to know how much he may have changed his ideas and methods.

Hello Kirk,

You state:

''Sometimes there is more to the discussion than the readers are aware of, such as one participant sending private messages to another participant regarding the discussion while the discussion is taking place. I prefer the approach of coming right out and saying what is on one?s mind in full public view. It?s not truthful or sincere to try to always maintain an agreeable ?We?re all friends here? image''

I am not clear if you are making a general comment or discussing this specific thread. All I can state is that I felt I was trying to be honest and up front with what I thought. Whether I expressed myself clearly or well is another issue! I don't know Tom and have never privately communicated with him. However, I don't think its incompatible to passionately disagree with someone in a non-aggressive manner. Don't know about you but I do that with friends. Look at Sue and Tom ..they often disagree but it doesn't mean they have put a contract out on each other!

In one sense I hope we are all allies or yes friends ( I'm an Aquarian I would say that!) in trying to expand our understanding and share ideas. I also hold out the idea of being persuaded to other's people's views if they present their case convincingly.

I think you need to detach a person's ideas from getting personal. I may not always succeed but thats my aim.

As for Louis...my copy is from 2005 but LLewelyn mention their first edition as 1998 . His earlier book was published in 1991 I think. The difference between Louis and 'classical horary' would apply to a lot of famous horary teachers-Simmonite and Ivy Goldstein Jacobson for example. Ivy Goldstein seems to have had a big influence on American 20th century Horary and I think Louis is somewhat of a hybrid of this tradition while also incorporating ideas from classsical horary. Her influence also extends to other horary writers...for example Derek Appleby cites Ivy Goldstein Jacobson as his major influence after Lilly.

Louis's book raises some interesting points such as use of minor aspects in horary ( esp the 'non-aspect'-Quincunx) . Also areas of controversy such as use of outer planets. I plan to start a thread on that soon but its too far away from this rather meandering thread......

Mark

Bonjour All

well I bought fawley's book, and started to read it since this morning. I think the issue of horary is to forget all concepts of traditional astrology that can be mould to it and compared to it.

As I am new to this knowledge i could not debate if it's predictive methods are valuable, the same way, i could not assess as to whether by having a question responded quickly, that the horary answer will be reflected in the natal chart.

At the present hour, by reading the book, i feel like watching macbeth play which characters are now out on the stage, what time in the plot I have reached. Maybe I know the plot and the characters but I may have arrived late at the performance and walk in after the play has begun....
time has progressed already, an event has already occured or gone. I do not know!

I need to rehearse the play to understand how is started like cluedo who did it!!!!!!!!!!

that why i feel by reading this book on saturday afternoon