Ema and Trish,

The subject matter of the thread was, why didn't the chart work?

First, how do we know the chart did not work? Because the astrologer did not make the correct prediction from the chart. Anyone who wants to show me a prediction that works will show me, first of all, a prediction--a statement describing future events, not past ones. And in addition, they will show me a prediction that can be demonstrated to be accurate.

Reading a chart after the fact will never tell us the truth about which techniques work and which do not.

I would be glad to have the staggering number of years left to me to re-invent the wisdom of the ages that we have inherited with regard to the practice of horary astrology. As much as I like to be open-minded about learning about astrology, when it comes to backing into past chart interpretations that were meant to be predictive, I'm afraid that practice crosses into an area of greatly diminishing returns.

Trish, earlier you posed a question to me that was meant to provoke me, and it is alright. I know you won't do it again.

Best,

Pam

Reading a chart after the fact will never tell us the truth about which techniques work and which do not.

Really, Pam? And how did you learn your horary astrology?

And how do you think that horary astrology evolved, of course? Did God give astrologers the set of interpretive rules, or did they read the charts after the fact, and learn, and learn, and learn....? The way I see it, there's only one possibility

Hi, Ema

Thanks for your question. I am choosing to take it as a sincere and heartfelt request for information and not as a rhetorical question or attack. But please forgive me if I am mistaken. It is up to you where to go with the discussion your question has raised. Smile.

I will also be glad to elaborate on how I learned horary, but with your indulgence I will make that a separate post.

Your question assumes that the process of developing horary astrology as we know it was one of "evolution." Therefore I can't really answer the question as you have phrased it, since you have assumed the answer within the question. On the contrary, there is a historic basis for our advancements in astrology as we practice it on this list that is not described so well by "evolution over time".

However, let's assume for a moment that such was the process. Why would we think that it would be a good idea to disregard every fact about reading a chart that had been constructed about astrology in say, two thousand years (which describes the approximate lifetime of the form of astrology we use on this list), in favor of trial and error? What would be the advantage? Wouldn't each new inventor of astrology be starting two thousand years behind? How would one lifetime permit each individual to develop astrology as we know it to its current level?

Not to mention the errors that would accrue from reading supposedly predictive charts after the fact to acquire more and more novel--yet unproven--"techniques." I will discuss how I am defining the term, "unproven" in my next post.

But evolution is not the history of astrology as it is practiced on this list. The chart of the heavens as we know it was compiled from many ancient sources by the mathematician Ptolemy sometime in the second century AD. We know that mathematics was the tool he used in building astrology as we practice it today. If only we were able to ask him what led him to develop his concepts of astrology!

Of course, at this late stage a step-by-step breakdown of how he developed astrology as we know it today would be difficult to acheive. That's the problem with working backwards. Ptolemy wrote the Amalgest, but he did not write, "How I wrote the Amalgest." He did leave some clues behind, in the form of writings about his beliefs, life and philosophy. The one passage I find most intriguing is in the tenth chapter of his work, "The Republic." You can take the story on a literal level, or you can take it as a myth. But either way, it has been preserved as a published work of Ptolemy and does describe some of the beliefs he advanced.

http://www.davidson.edu/academic/classi ... rMyth.html

He tells the story of a man who experienced death and came back to life.
A soldier left for dead after a battle recovered days later and told a fascinating story of afterlife--and pre-life--that Ptolmey recounts for us.
A group of souls of those who had died were all gathered in the afterlife to choose the next life that they would live. They had each forgotten what the troubles and pains of this world felt like, and some in their excitement at encountering such a wide range of possibilities chose lifetimes they would later regret. Before descending to earth, the soul of each individual was spun together with the specific star that accompanies the life he had chosen. You see, Ptolemy believed in reincarnation, and based on this story he believed that a guardian or "genius" accompanied each person born in this world to lead them to their destiny. That genius in turn corresponded to a star of the heavens under which the person was born. And in fact, the genius was the choice the individual had made in the pre-life which corresponded to the life he had next chosen to live.

So, if we could ask Ptolemy how he came to invent astrology as we know it, perhaps he would say, "My genius led me to do it."

I hope this helps answer your questions. I promise to get back to your other question later.

Best,

Pam

Hi, Ema

Thanks for your question.

Hi Pam, you can believe me that as a horary teacher with some 15 years' history of teaching students I know quite well how people learn horary astrology (not by predicting but by carefully going over the charts which other astrologers have succeeded or haven't succeeded in answering correctly), so my question was really whether you are some sort of peculiar exception... The chart which was posted here on this thread did not ask us to predict the outcome but to try to answer the question of where does the timing "hide" itself. As for the "unproven techniques" you are mentioning, what do you mean, really? Lilly has given us examples of how the proper time was arrived at by the distance of a significator from a house cusp, so it's only logical that the distance of a significator from an angle (which is also a house cusp only much more "sensitive" and strong) is an acceptable (and often proven, even if you personally are not aware of it) technique. That's all that matters - as for this thread, I'm not commenting anything else you've written.

Hi, Ema

Here was the question of the astrologer who began this thread, in her first post:

Can anyone throw any light on why this chart didn't work?

She did not ask to be shown how the chart could work.

The considerations before judgement, with which you are no doubt quite familiar, have a significant bearing on why a chart "did not work" for the astrologer. We have not even discussed the Void of Course Moon or Saturn ruling the cusp of the seventh house; just knowing that the question was asked within forced time frames of less than 24 hours was enough to tell us it was not valid horary material according to all ancient sources.

By your post, I see you already have some very set ideas about how horary astrology is learned. Thank you for explaining your process. I will be glad to tell you how it differs from my learning style if you are interested.

Of course I initially looked at charts that worked for effective astrologers. But after a few false starts examining my beginning and failed attempts at prediction, I confined myself to looking at entirely at charts that were effective. I found no benefit in reading charts which had failed to produce a valid prediction for the astrologer or charts of questions which were not valid horary material in the first place. Hindsight is always better than foresight. It's easy to find or invent a technique that will give an answer after the fact. The proof of the pudding with horary astrology is prediction. Is the prediction made before the fact? Is the prediction borne out by the events the chart describes as they occur in real time?

Lee Lehman's books are good at describing similar excercises and the benefit of reading charts before the fact, not after. I realize natal astrologers look at birth charts after the fact all the time. That is one of the differences between natal astrology and horary astrology.

Predictive astrologers learn to predict, in my experience, by predicting. By that I mean going public with statements that put our techniques to the test, and then following up on the results to compare what happened with what we said would happen.

This is the test of our technique: whether it passes or fails the test of time and real life events. Predictions are to be made before the fact, not after. That is what our querents ask of us, and that is the standard we must meet if we are serious about our art.

When I say a technique is "unproven", I mean that it has not produced an accurate prediction before the fact. In the example we were talking about, you can point to a planet and a house cusp. But since the chart itself was not accompanied by a before-the-fact, accurate prediction using this planet and house cusp, the relationship you point to remains in my mind "unproven."

When I first began learning horary, I began a practice that has stood me in good stead all along. I began a spiralbound notebook and copied down all my charts into it, along with the questions, my interpretations, and my predictions. Later, when I found out the outcome of the question, I added notes that described what had happened in real life to answer the question that had been asked.

One of the really interesting things about that format was that since it is chronological, it allows me to follow closely the significance of planets changing signs, directions, and aspect. I also saw several charts that were virtually identical (same day, different hour) except for the question asked. This allowed me to see how planets in the same sign and condition could represent different things on charts that asked different questions. I could also see the similarity of say, Venus retrograde in Scorpio over several charts, but ruling different houses. Quite enlightening. This method of learning from time to time still gives me the thrilling sensation of learning from the very stars themselves.

After I began reading horary professionally, I had a turn as an astrologer at our local Renaissance Festival which was vastly educational. I read five or six charts a day on weekends over six weeks, which provided a wonderful opportunity to observe the actions of the heavens as they unfolded. It was remarkable to see people with the same or similar question approach: total strangers coming from different directions of the compass, asking a similar question within minutes of one another. . . it was a lesson in the immediacy of astrology I will never forget! Naturally, the similarities between these charts are fascinating and gave me a degree of insight into what to look for on future charts with similar questions.

I do believe there is room to learn techniques by observation using these experiential methods, whenever utilizing them produces valid predictions.
I'm not the sort of astrologer who spends most of my time researching all the branches of ancient astrology, although I use Lilly's instructions for most questions as closely as I am able. Much as I respect my human teachers like the very knowledgeable traditional practitioners on this list, I prefer to learn from the stars as much as I can. Which most likely makes me the the round peg in the square hole on a list of honorable and studious astrologers such as this one.

I am still learning about astrology all the time. I hope I never stop learning! As long as the stars keep teaching, I'm here to learn.

Best,

Pam

spirlhelix wrote:
Trish, earlier you posed a question to me that was meant to provoke me, and it is alright. I know you won't do it again.

Best,

Pam

Pam, I have no idea what you are talking about. It was apparent you were provoked after my discussion with Deb, which you seemed to take offense to for some reason and went on about workmen and such and I tried to make light of it but I really don't know what question you are referring to.

There is no reason to take it personally when someone takes a different approach or doesn't agree with some technique or philosophy. There is nothing "personal" about any discussion here and you shouldn't take it that way.

Trish

Pam,

I just read a good bit of your posts (not all of it), but enough to see that you seem to be assuming, taking it as fact, that all the charts by all astrologers that "didn't work" were never the fault of the astrologer!

You can't really believe that? There are many who may in fact be better called "students of astrology" rather than professional astrologers or "gifted" astrologers. I think I will go to my grave considering myself as a 'student of astrology' because I would never be so presumptuous to think that I always have to be right and can never make a mistake or miss something in a chart.

I'm sure Lilly, who you seem to much admire, had an entire catalog of charts which he only saw after the fact and then learned from. In fact, those charts are usually far far more valuable to an astrology for the very fact that they present something new to him/her which she can now add to her arsenal when reading future charts. If all you hang on to are your "correct" judgments, you will not progress. The easiest charts of course will always be correct.

Learning from one's mistakes is a part of life, not just in studying charts but in everything.


Trish

I am still learning about astrology all the time. I hope I never stop learning! As long as the stars keep teaching, I'm here to learn.

Hi Pam, and this is most important! Me, after having been in horary for 18 years, I still believe there's always something new to learn, and that's why I'm thrilled with every new chart that appears on the forum, or in my private files! That's why "charts that didn't work" strike me as particularly interesting. Incidentally, I've just come across a chart posted on another forum, with a known result. Someone lost his camera and found it 18,5 days after the question was asked - no other timing measure confirming this but the fact that the Moon, the lost item's coruler, was exactly 18,5 degrees away from MC! So - don't you think such cases are teacing us something?

Ema,

Of course there is something to be learned from every experience. Naturally, we are all students of the stars. I am sure we agree on all of that. On a valid chart, outcomes teach us more than anything else can.
When we apply ourselves to a chart, judge it, and post our predictions, we are like students waiting for the teacher to pass back the graded tests. The stars provide their feedback when we compare what we heard on the chart with what was actually said according to the outcome of the chart. But we need to take the test before we can get the grade.

There are charts that I look at on a list like this that are not accurately handled by the astrologer/serious student/list member who brings them to us. If someone were to request that I post my findings on a failed chart for their benefit, I would not refuse to do so. It's not against my principles as a student of the stars. But if I expect to learn anything from the experience for myself, I examine charts while they are still "alive"--before the outcome is known--not as "post mortem", failed charts. Actually, as long as the outcome is unknown to me, I am interested in the chart because I hope I can gain something from it--with the assumption that I will eventually learn the outcome of the matter.

In astrology, we are all apt to call ourselves students for good reason. There is so much to learn. There are students who are beginners, and there are students who are more advanced. If I were to urge a student to leave the safe place that is keeping him or her from advancing in the study of astrology, my suggestion would be to focus on charts with unknown outcomes.

In my opinion, "autopsy" astrology is easy and plentiful, but does not teach us the skills of listening for the living language of the stars. Shooting Pisces in a proverbial barrel, so to speak. I won't say there is nothing to be gained from it, but together with other potential errors, such an exercise can make it easy to jump to the conclusion that all charts will provide the "correct" answer if we prod them hard enough. According to the tradition of horary astrology, that is not the case. The tradition says that some charts are not productive horary material, and were never meant to be read.

Thank you for the lively discusssion! Unless someone has a new angle on this topic, I think I've said enough about my approach to the subject.


Best,

Pam