Skyscript Astrology Forum

To Kirk,

Thank you for interupting. I am pretty sure you have more to contribute. Please contribute more! I also apologize for being too sensitive!

PS: I didn't write my own opinions about hellenistic astrology in those threads simply because I didn't want to mix personal opinions into my dissemination of information on techniques used by modern hellenistic astrology. You'll find that I myself do not agree with a number of the so called hellenistic astrology premises (or interpretations of hellenistic texts by the few who monopolizes it). I hope that those who have studied hellenistic materials (I certainly have not studied all of them) would come forward to comment and give their "versions" of hellenistic astrology as they understood it.

So sasha_i, you should (no, you must) contribute.

I didn't write my own opinions about hellenistic astrology in those threads simply because I didn't want to mix personal opinions into my dissemination of information on techniques used by modern hellenistic astrology

I am not an Helenistic's follower, instead I have the same opinion as Astrojin's. My wish is only to know what has been produced in the Hellenistic Track - to test in my practice!

Igor wrote: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.

Yes, that is right. There are a couple of things I'd like to add here... If a planet is in the same boundaries as the ascending degree, then the domicile lord is not considered. Bob Schmidt says that this is because there can be only one first officer. What does one do when there is more than 1 planet in the bounds of the ascending degree? Don't know, but I'd assume the one closest to the ascendant is the one that has his hands on the helm (the ascendant was called the helm - "oiax" in Greek).

Also if there is a planet that has authority over many of these places (say Venus is domicile lord of fortune and the ascendant, then that officer is said to have more experience and is more fit to take on the captains chair. According to Rhetorius this is one of the most difficult judgments to make, but one is supposed to find that planet that is "more in a rising condition" and "the one that lies prior". Schmidt says that the 7 planets compete for the position of Kurios, so if during the role call, any planet is found to be walking backwards (retrograde) it is very likely rejected as a fit officer. He also says that there is a composite concept from the PNA where the planet needs to be able to "get up" which means that it should ideally be direct and visible (not under the Sun's beams) in order to be considered a candidate.

The point of determining the Kurios is to see what planet is responsible for carrying out the orders of the oikodespotes. If these 2 planets are of the same sect (political party as Schmidt would say) and are in agreement and especially if they are the same planet, then that ship has the potential to go far in life. But if they are at odds, then there is mutiny and chaos.

This determination though is meant to come later. First you find the destination of the boat (political officer) aka "oikodespotes" which is the domicile lord of the one that "summons the wind" (for the boat so that it has the power to reach its destination). [1]

I wrote Delphic Oracle based upon Schmidt's ideas, but I have always had my own company separate and distinct from Project Hindsight (Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC).

1. Schmidt says that the sect light "summons the wind" and the trigon lords of the sect light (aka "sail masters") "manage the wind".

Thank you!

zoidsoft wrote:He also says that there is a composite concept from the PNA where the planet needs to be able to "get up" which means that it should ideally be direct and visible (not under the Sun's beams) in order to be considered a candidate.

Just want to ask one thing more to be sure. Does being visible mean not to be under the Sun's beams only or the planet should be above the horizon as well?

Igor wrote:Thank you!

zoidsoft wrote:He also says that there is a composite concept from the PNA where the planet needs to be able to "get up" which means that it should ideally be direct and visible (not under the Sun's beams) in order to be considered a candidate.

Just want to ask one thing more to be sure. Does being visible mean not to be under the Sun's beams only or the planet should be above the horizon as well?

That's a good point. It doesn't need to be above the horizon, just far enough away from the Sun to be visible. I seem to recall that Ptolemy thought only planets above the horizon could have any effect, but I don't remember the passage. Astrologers don't go by this though. Ptolemy wasn't an astrologer, but a philosopher who constructed a theory of how the world worked.

Robert Schmidt says that the PNA table at the level of fitness of a planet is built upon a composite concept of "permission and control" because of the word "kentron" which in the Greek lexicon indicates a pivot upon which something revolves around such as a hinge. He says that a door hinge does 2 things: it permits motion, but at the same time controls it. So he believes that the fitness of a planet depends upon whether it has permission to do something and whether its action is controlled.

At the planetary level, a planet is permitted action when it is visible, but it is in control when it is direct in motion. When retrograde a planet tends to stumble and not have control. So for optimal fitness a planet should be both direct and visible.

At the terrestrial level (the houses) a planet is fit if it is angular or succeedent. Again the greek word for angle is "kentron" so this angle is again a hinge that both permits action and controls it. The succeedent signs are called "epi-kentron" or "epinaphora" and are like the epicycle upon a deferent in medieval astrology that initially deflect the action away from the native but bring it back under control through the diurnal motion to the angle. But the cadent places are called "apoklima" which in the hinge motion deflect away and hinder. Schmidt says that this is one of the reasons why it is good to have a malefic in a cadent sign, because the actions of the malefic are deflected away from the native.

Schmidt says that at the zodiacal level there is again fitness that is an analog of "permission and control". When a planet is in one of it's own places, it has it's own resources and obviously has no need to ask permission, so it can use it's own resources to effect what it wants to. As an analog of the succeedent signs, at the zodiacal level, there is the concept of "being in the place of a sect mate", which is an intermediate level of fitness where the planet does not have its own resources available but has permission to use the significations of the sect mate, but a planet in an alien place "peregrine" can only affect the things of the domicile, it can't use them to effect it's own agenda because it doesn't have permission. Now the control factor he says is through the terms (Schmidt calls them bounds, confines, limits) of the sign, because he says that the resources of the sign belong to the domicile, but how they are used have to do with the terms/bounds under which planet it is in. So optimally, a planet should be in its own domicile or exaltation, but be in the terms of a planet friendly to its cause so that it is controlled in a favorable way.

Hi Zoidsoft,

Thank you for making that clearer.

I seem to recall that Ptolemy thought only planets above the horizon could have any effect, but I don't remember the passage.

Yeah... I think I recall somebody who said that in ancient times (when the stars lie on the sky and not in front of the desktop!), the effects of a planet are made "visible" if the planet itself is "visible". If I am permitted to extrapolate and summarize on what others (including) have said, visibility (like PNA or Preliminary Natal Analysis) are also divided into 3 levels:

1) Visibility relative to the horizon i.e. whether a star/planet can be seen on the night sky. Here, I think the ancients could not have taken only at the exact time of birth as all stars and planets are not visible in the day sky (except Sun - well, sometimes the moon). Hence, if you are born at night (where all planets except sun have the possibilty of being visible), the planets that are visible have more impact on you. If you are born during the day then you look to the visibility of the stars/planets the night before (as most ancient cultures started the day at sunset).

2) Visibility relative to the sun i.e. any planets that are not under the sun's beams are considered visible. However, if you adhere to the first consideration of visibility, then this is redundant.

3) Visibility relative to zodiacal position i.e. planets in its own domicile, exaltation or terms (bounds) are made more conspicuous. Planets in peregrine are made less conspicuous. Planets in fall are made invisible because they are in a pit (depression).

astrojin wrote:Hello again,

[My own twist: The cadent luminary can still be predominator if it is in his/her own house of Joy i.e. sun in 9th or moon in 3rd. Sun in 9th is in his own house of Joy and also in his own sun-god house. Moon in 3rd is in her own house of Joy and also in her own moon-goddess house]

The predominator is the planet that represents the life of the native. The trigon (triplicity) lords of the predominator tell use the thirds life of the native i.e. the first trigon lord = first part of life, second trigon lord = second part of life and third trigon lord = third part of life.

Once the predominator has been determined, we can then proceed to the oikodespotes of the natal chart.

Hi Astrojin, I was wondering about your twist to the rule, like if this is a consistent rule, or if there are other factors to consider where it depends?

Hi Angela,

So far it seems to work for me. The detrmination of the predominator depends on the whole sign house positions of the luminaries as I have outlined. I just observed that if a luminary is cadent yet in his/her house of Joy - he'she can still be predominator.

Hi Astrojin, thanks a lot. Does their ability to be predominator change their other abilities as well...like, does it tie into anything related to being able to conduct business like when figuring out the Kurios...or is that something else altogether?

Hello again Angela,

At the moment I use the twist in general which means that when sun is in the 9th or moon in the 3rd, they are effective and are able to conduct its business though they may not be conspicuous enough compared to when they are in angular whole sign houses. Try using this concept to Bush's chart and you will see what I mean. He has luminary in sect (sun) in the 12th (cadent) and out of sect luminary (moon) in the 3rd whole sign house (also cadent). Without the twist, we will automatically go to ascendant (which is Leo) ruled by sun who (as it happens, also cadent) - hence non-effective person! If you use the twist, the out of sect luminary (moon) can be used as predominator because she is in her house of Joy and her oikodespotes would be Venus(Moon is in Libra) conjunct Pluto (planet of power - if you want to use Pluto). Venus the oikodespotes is in the 11th from the moon (very good according to Hellenistic principles) as well as located in the royal sign Leo...
For me I still use the outer planets but only in conjunction and I do not use them as rulers.

Hi Astrojin, thanks again for sharing your thoughts, and also for this example too

Astrojin, this is my first reply on your posts, and first I want to say to you big THANK YOU for sharing all this valuable information with us here.
I'm always reading your posts with a pen and paper in my hands.

I also want to thank to Curtis Manwaring for his wonderful explanation on the visibility of the planets and choosing the Kurios of the chart.

I have a few questions to astrojin though; and these are related to the Nautical Metaphor.

The first and second Trigon (triplicity) lords of the predominator = the winds that carry the ship to its destiny. The third trigon (triplicity) lord is the oars that move the ship.

Why should the third trigon lord be the one who is the mover of the ship?
How is this one distinguished from the other two and why?

Oikodespotes (Domicile Master) of the chart = ship owner = the one who sets the agenda or destiny for the native under the restriction set by the bound ruler of the pre-dominator.

Why is the bound ruler of the Predominator, the one who sets any "restrictions"?

Keep the good work!

Best,
Ile