I held a lecture for the Norwegian Astrological Association last month, where my lecture did touch into the question of radicality, and an unexpected event turned up. In the middle of the process of explaining the planetary hours to the audience and how they were structured and derived from the planetery week days, a gentlemen raised his hand in protest (An Aquarius, naturally!). His objection was "Who has decided that the Moon rules Monday?" I tried quoting the Bible and pointed to various classical authorities and our astrological roots. He failed to agree.

To a certain point, I agree with his arguement. While we have appointed the planets to various days of the week, who did decide that today is Sunday? If whoever it was decided to start with Sunday tomorrow, or somewhere along the line missed out a day of two, the whole order of planetary hours, days and rulership would be totally out.

The conclusion to this problem must be that it doesn't really matter, because the power is in the intelligence and design that constructed the system. Language has power because noises or words are given meaning. In the same sense, any kind of ritual or talismanic magic would have power on basis of the knowledge and intelligence of the person or persons who, singular or collectively, constructed the design...

Fortunately, the planetary hours are not influenced by adjusting the clocks for summertime, although the sphere of human experience is definately moved. This would lead us to conclude that the planetary hours reflected a rhythm in nature based upon the intervals between Sunrise and Sunset - and was not mearly a product of the clocks. However, the question of which day was to be held as Sunday, or on which day we should hold our Sabbat, this resolution must be left up to our religous beliefs.

As is easy to see, many teams and sport person play better or worse in the certain days of week.

Very interesting post, Andrew

I agree :

In the same sense, any kind of ritual or talismanic magic would have power on basis of the knowledge and intelligence of the person or persons who, singular or collectively, constructed the design...

and

the planetary hours reflected a rhythm in nature based upon the intervals between Sunrise and Sunset - and was not mearly a product of the clocks.

Good point!

And yet

His objection was "Who has decided that the Moon rules Monday?"

Can't help asking the same question myself

Thank you Ficina
I'll read it later.
I've deleted the post because it was irrelevant.

There's a very interesting discussion on triplicity rulers in this thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2395

Thank your for the link, Ficinia. I have skimmed the thread and will have to study it some more when I get the time. There is a lot of interesting stuff, but certain elements are very academic. A few levels higher than me, I'm afraid. I would not be able to participate at this level without risk of making a complete fool of myself!

I am much more a hammer and nails kind of guy!

The link provides a fascinating study into the discussion of triplicities, but I hope it doesn't blurr the question we are trying to answer, which refers to radicality. The signal effect might be 'Oh, I don't understand triplicities, so I might as well give up on radicality'.

Somewhere along the line something inside me feels like shouting - Keep it simple! Now I will let my shortcomings come to surface at once! I was definately one of the of the enthusiast that threw myself over an early selection of the work of Project Hindsight. Don't get me wrong on this, I am sure every word is of immense value - but I put my copies to one side not being quite sure how to put it to practical use. I am sure I will get back to them later. Now the posters in the link you refer to really seem to know their stuff, and they seem to have pressed though all the barriers I met, and are putting their knowledge to good practical use.

Everything you have read up to this point in this (my) present post is actually a side track. In the link you provided there is an interesting entry made by astrojin on April 28. 2007 that starts to explore the condition of a planet in it's detriment or fall and how this planet is affected by being located in one of its lesser dignities. This discussion is continued further into the thread and should be read. Now here is some really interesting stuff!

What I actually want to do is add a few comments to this, because 'a planet in his term in the sign of his detriment or fall gives the person a reason for being there', ie. Venus in her own terms in Scorpio put the querent in a situation of malice and suffering, but in capacity as a nurse. And Mars in his own triplicity in Cancer shows a person of considerable resources and means (triplicity), although he is in a situation most inflicted, as being mixed with the wrong people, at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm all for keeping things simple too. The triplicity thread makes fascinating reading but the most relevant issue here is which planet or planets rule the water triplicity and are we all singing from the same hymn sheet when we are assessing radicality? Mark's listing of the different versions is very useful in this respect. So Gem, I don't think your post was irrelevant at all

Lilly - Mars/Mars
Dorotheus - Venus/Mars
Ptolemy - Venus/Moon

I've always used Lilly's version, but it might be interesting to test out the alternative versions as and when this situation crops up in our football charts.

Thanks so much for the pdf document, Deb, but I now have a question. We have a chart over on the CL thread with hour ruler Moon and Asc Libra. Now I've always understood that the hour ruler has to be of the same nature as the Asc sign, not the Asc ruler, for radicality.

In your Hour Agreement paper you state:

"Hour-ruler and asc-ruler agree in complexion (humour):
That is, Mars agrees with Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, because they are all hot and dry (as before)."

Your heading refers to Asc ruler but your example refers to Asc sign

I guess we could say that it can work either way. So although Moon is of a different nature to Libra (Asc sign), the chart is radical because Moon is of the same nature as Venus (Asc ruler) - cold and moist.

I'd be interested to hear your or others' views on the matter. Thanks

I always have Culpepers' table of friendships and emnities among the planets in the back of my mind when it comes to the question of whether a chart is radical due to compliance between the powers of the lord of the hour and the ascendant. This is offered as an alternative explaination of the working of aspects cast through signs of long and short ascension. chapter 3 'Astrologicla judgement of diseases'.

Ficina wrote:

In your Hour Agreement paper you state:

"Hour-ruler and asc-ruler agree in complexion (humour):
That is, Mars agrees with Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, because they are all hot and dry (as before)."

Your heading refers to Asc ruler but your example refers to Asc sign

A slip of the pen Ficina. The heading should have said "Hour ruler and ascendant agree in complexion". Thanks for pointing that out - I've corrected it now.

I questioned the validity of the Water tripricity being given to Mars in my now deleted post becuase my understainding was that he was given it to modify his excessive heat. And then I wondered how in reality, Watery Mars in Pisces and particularly in Cancer where he is Fall, could perform effetively, and express his natural agression and assertiveness, especially in football charts.
Then I realised that as I don't use Essential Dignities in reading football charts, this was irrelevant. What matters in tripricity is that the planets are in a harmonial trine relationship. When we read complex human natures in nativities and delicate situations in Horaries, considering these finer points and exploring different systems as raised in the link given by Ficina do make sense. But I'm all for simplicity too as far as football event charts are concerned; it only lasts for 90+ mins and I agree with JF when he says that E Dignities do not matter while Accidental Dignites do in football charts. Footballers don't play better when their sig is represented by the Sun in Leo than when it's in Aquarius; nor do they, when their sig Venus is in Pisces than say it's in Scorpio.
So I wonder about sticking strictly to a system when judging whether a football event chart is radical or not. I remember I did when I had Libra AC and the LOH as Mercury in a diurnal chart. Mercury is a trip ruler by night only but there's still harmony between them(even during the day).
The question of radicality in football charts is still very new to me and I certainly need to do a lot of experimenting and observation.

Gem said:
The question of radicality in football charts is still very new to me and I certainly need to do a lot of experimenting and observation.

I am thrilled that we have added this to our observations and it feels quite pioneering. We are asking a lot of interesting questions. It is exciting to see whether we in fact uncover qualitive differences. In my opinion the question of radicality has been a much ignored topic and it is possible to make discoveries that also may point the way or set standards for other fields of astrology.

Stick with it! It's a gift!