Skyscript Astrology Forum

Eddy wrote:So Placidus did some wishfull thinking? Nothing wrong with new inventions/experiments but often people feel tempted to attribute them to a remote past.

That's exactly it. (And of course the Hellenistic astrologers did the same, not to mention the Indians!)

margherita wrote:It's a very old article. t's a pity they don't translate in English because the site is very beautiful, even is just the tip of the iceberg of what CieloeTerra does.

Pity indeed! Thanks very much for your summary.

I know you are skeptical about Placido aspects, but in CieloeTerra they use and they always find something even when there is nothing by zodiacal directions.

I am skeptical, but not dogmatic (well, not too dogmatic). I'd be happy to use mundane biquintiles if I knew from experience that they worked consistently. But of course, if one starts adding elements, the chances of lucky hits do increase.

They write very little in the site, but they do many things they don't share in the net.

And do they swear you to silence, or are you at liberty to say what sort of things?

As for Ptolemy, does Giuseppe Bezza actually teach his students that aspects by proportional semi-arcs, or secondary directions, were part of Ptolemy's doctrine in the 2nd century CE? I would find that really quite remarkable, given that (to my knowledge, at least) they were not mentioned by a single other author until Placidus 'rediscovered' them some 1,500 years later. (Please note that I am not saying they don't work -- I'm just concerned with the historical issue at the moment.)

Martin Gansten wrote: I am skeptical, but not dogmatic (well, not too dogmatic). I'd be happy to use mundane biquintiles if I knew from experience that they worked consistently. But of course, if one starts adding elements, the chances of lucky hits do increase.

Yes, I agree about this point, i don't like to use too much too.
But I never saw in CieloeTerra they use biquintiles. They use Ptolemaic aspects but both zodiacal and ? la Placido, mundane aspects.

And do they swear you to silence, or are you at liberty to say what sort of things?

':oops:'

I just meant that people who don't know CieloeTerra entourage generally think that they just do theory and don't cast any chart, I don't know why.
Moreover living in Rome, I met Bezza once in my life, just I read almost everything I could from him (still I studied with one of Bezza first students)
I like Bezza's method because he always puts quotes of what he writes and this does not always happens in the traditional world.

As for Ptolemy, does Giuseppe Bezza actually teach his students that aspects by proportional semi-arcs, or secondary directions, were part of Ptolemy's doctrine in the 2nd century CE?

He does not teach that Ptolemy used secondary progressions. For the rest I don't want to be between the two of you

Anyway Bezza will talk in Perugia the forthcoming 19th June and Deborah will be another of the lecturers. You could come too...

margherita

margherita wrote:Yes, I agree about this point, i don't like to use too much too. But I never saw in CieloeTerra they use biquintiles. They use Ptolemaic aspects but both zodiacal and ? la Placido, mundane aspects.

A somewhat more restrained Placideanism, then. Interesting.

I like Bezza's method because he always puts quotes of what he writes and this does not always happens in the traditional world.

I too am quite favourably impressed with what little I have read, and would love to come to Perugia in June! Perhaps if my Placidean Part of Fortune happens to receive a benefic aspect in mundo soon, I will...

Thank you for the replies. I would appreciate traditional references concerning this issue, if anyone can come up with some.

I'm becoming more confused and uncertain all the time. In defense of quadrant charts, and against whole sign houses, it's often mentioned how the horizon figured prominently in Mesopotamian sky watching and that that importance carried over into later horoscopic astrology ? thereby giving the actual ASC degree major importance. Yet here is a planet which is clearly still above the horizon [+1? 02'], but Western horoscopic astrology (ecliptic/zodiac-based) shoves it below the horizon [-6? 27']. The visual/observational foundation is lessened.

If the ecliptic and its associated zodiacal degrees have priority over visual observation, then it would seem that we have a clear case, for example, against the possibility of combustion over sign boundaries. If we can call this Mars diurnally placed (being with the Sun beneath the horizon) due to its zodiacal placement, then we could ? and probably should, for consistency's sake ? say that a planet at 28 Pisces is NOT combust the Sun at 3 Aries. This appears to point to a serious weakness in the practice of Western astrology. Thinking our way through it surely would solidify the whole structure rather than merely this one particular issue.

But I'm not a completely non functioning heap yet. Consideration of whole sign houses gives me some courage to place Mars in the 7th house sphere of affairs, and call it nocturnally placed in acknowledgment of its placement above the horizon. But do we really need either/or, nocturnal OR diurnal? Maybe this is related to the 'twilight effect' discussion of last spring. Rather than being simply diurnal or nocturnal Mars might be in a transitional stage ? an unsure passing stage, adding a degree of uncertainty and complexity. Yes, more subtlety and nuance in chart delineation. Or, just more messiness.

It has yet to fully enter Leo and is cadent by division.

Mars is Rx and has been in Leo for some time, so that doesn't apply in this case. [But could being Rx in the 1st degree be likened to being direct in the 30th degree?] Zodiacaly, he would seem to already be cadent, but Mars could in fact be angular and strong due to the altitude of +1? 02' indicating that he's still in a position of strength ? after all, he's right there above the horizon staring at us. Or is he so close to the horizon as to already be quite weak ? suffering from a 'twilight effect' and in a position of setting/dying?

I'm getting all worked up and flustered. When do we work with a clean theoretical structure and when do we go by what the sky tells us? Should the mind proceed alone or work together with the eyes

Kirk wrote:Thank you for the replies. ...........
I'm getting all worked up and flustered. When do we work with a clean theoretical structure and when do we go by what the sky tells us? Should the mind proceed alone or work together with the eyes

Heliocentric astrology could be the answer and once we have adjusted to this then residing on Moon or Mars will not have us change our perspective

PD

I have been a visitor to this site for years but have never posted before. So first off, thank you Deb for this great site, and my thanks to the moderators for what they do here.

I am interested in this but I want to replicate the effect to see what kind of 'above the horizon experience' is being discussed.

Looking at my current lunar return chart I see the DESC at 06 LEO 55 and Mars at 00 LEO 28. That's a difference of 06? 27', so Mars is clearly below in the 6th house ? well out of reach of the 5 degree rule. But the altitude of Mars is listed as +01? 02', and therefore it's above the horizon. Not only would that seem to make Mars a 7th house occupant, but Mars would be more comfortably and agreeably placed, being nocturnally placed in a nocturnal chart (the Sun is below the horizon).

[/quote].[/quote]

Kirk can you give the data for that chart, so we can draw up the example. If you don't want to give that data then can you offer another exmaple for discussion that we can all examine?

I'm not sure this is a big astrological problem because it is probably the reason that the 5 degree rule exists. But I would like to look at the chart example and see how that compares with the visual effect as mimicked by a program such as stellarium.

Thanks,
Geoff

________
Honda Legend Specifications

Hi Geoff,
Welcome to the forum. Just a few years ago astrologers were dreaming about the prospect of one day creating 3D sky models? now we have these amazing programs like Stellarium and things are developing more quickly than I can keep up with ...

Hi Kirk
there probably is the point that you wouldn?t be able to see Mars at only 1? above the horizon, but I would regard the influence of Mars as angular, not cadent, and effective upon the 7th house and not the 6th, being guided by common sense. William Lilly did something similar in CA (p.180) where Fortuna was 6?? from the 2nd cusp ? he says that even though it was beyond the 5 degree limit of tradition ?yet were it absurd to think it had signification in the first?.

This situation occurs occasionally because the ascendant is not simply the eastern horizon and the descendant is not simply the western horizon. To define daytime we are mainly interested in the rising and setting of the Sun, and that always rises in synch with the ascending degree because we use its apparent path as our plane of reference in the zodiac. And this is appropriate because all the planets are centred upon the ecliptic, although unlike the Sun they can drift away from it. The worst problem is with Venus which can go as far as 9? north or south of the ecliptic. It?s one of the things to look out for and its one of the reasons why any generic system of astrology (which is what we all use, whichever house system we adopt) is less than perfect at representing local astrological events.

The ancients, of course, were concerned with matching what they could see in the sky with an appropriate system of measurement that would allow them to replicate the timing of events in the future ? so they weren?t troubled by software information. They knew how the system worked. We have these problems because of our generic simplifications. But if you can see it in the sky, then that?s the way to go (IMO).

Watch out for that angular Mars
Deb

Edit: sorry, I meant the worst problem amongst the traditonal planets is with Venus, the problem is much worse with Pluto of course, with its 17? inclination to the ecliptic (one reason I was happy to see it demoted, even though I don't doubt its ability to be astrologically meaningful). A diagram that demonstrates the effect of misrepresented house position can be found on p.106 of this extract from my book:
http://skyscript.co.uk/temples/Chapter8.pdf

Deb wrote:
The ancients, of course, were concerned with matching what they could see in the sky with an appropriate system of measurement that would allow them to replicate the timing of events in the future ? so they weren?t troubled by software information. They knew how the system worked. We have these problems because of our generic simplifications. But if you can see it in the sky, then that?s the way to go (IMO).

Well put Deb. With rare exception, every planet except the Sun will be charted by our standard software programs in the wrong quadrant at four periods (certain times) in every day.

Regards, Steve

Hi Geoff,

Here's another one for you, same date but different location:

March 5, '10
5 am
Montreal, Quebec

DESC: 07 LEO 11
Mars: 00 LEO 28

Mars' altitude is only +00? 26' in this case, but is well over 5 degrees from the DESC.



Hi Deb,

It's nice to hear talk of common sense in a study that loves its numbers and graphic representations (visually displayed charts). The Lilly reference surprised me.

Maybe it's safe to imagine that the ancients were more graceful in moving from observation of the sky to their ?appropriate system of measurement? than we are in our awkward stumbling from software to observation of the sky. They may have been less 'in their heads' and stepped with two surely placed feet. They brought sensual experience to ideas, we bring ideas to sensual experience. But do I romanticize?

Kirk wrote:

It has yet to fully enter Leo and is cadent by division.

Mars is Rx and has been in Leo for some time, so that doesn't apply in this case. [But could being Rx in the 1st degree be likened to being direct in the 30th degree?] Zodiacaly, he would seem to already be cadent, but Mars could in fact be angular and strong due to the altitude of +1? 02' indicating that he's still in a position of strength ? after all, he's right there above the horizon staring at us. Or is he so close to the horizon as to already be quite weak ? suffering from a 'twilight effect' and in a position of setting/dying?

I'm getting all worked up and flustered. When do we work with a clean theoretical structure and when do we go by what the sky tells us? Should the mind proceed alone or work together with the eyes

your best bet is to take notes on the month and see how it manifests. if it truly is an angular, Mars in Leo you are going to see an effect, unless Mars is weak in your natal.

[quote="Kirk"]Hi Geoff,
Here's another one for you, same date but different location:
March 5, '10
5 am
Montreal, Quebec
DESC: 07 LEO 11
Mars: 00 LEO 28
Mars' altitude is only +00? 26' in this case, but is well over 5 degrees from the DESC.



As I mentioned in my earlier posting in this thread, use of "real" time (Sun's local apparent time) as opposed to civil clock time, can make a difference in zodiacal degrees in the chart.

In this above example, "real" sun time is 11 minutes slower than the clock time (used to determine the chart); ie, the Local Apparent Time (Sun time, which would be the time shown on the sundials-which were exclusively used in astrology prior to 1800 for determining the time in casting horoscopes) The chart erected for the "real" time (on March 5th, 2010 in Montreal) yields a Descendant degree of 3Leo25. This "actual" (real-Sun-time based calculation) Descendant is therefore less than 3 degrees (precisely 2 degrees 49 minutes) distant from the Mars position ( 0Leo28), rather than being over 6 degrees away as in the chart calculated on "clock time" (local mean time) The Descendant degree is more than 50% "closer" to the Mars position, when rectification for "real time" (the Sun's time) is made...

In the "clock time" chart there are over 6 degrees seperating Mars and the Descendant "line": even allowing a 5 degree orb, no Mars/Descendant conjunction would be indicated. In the Sun-time rectified chart, even limiting Mars orb to 3 degrees would make Mars conjunct the Descedant: with the very close visual Mars elevation of 00degrees26minutes, such a conjunction with the Descendant line would seem to be suggested, and in fact we do have this conjunction shown in the chart when it is "corrected" to Sun time.

dr. farr wrote: As I mentioned in my earlier posting in this thread, use of "real" time (Sun's local apparent time) as opposed to civil clock time, can make a difference in zodiacal degrees in the chart.

In this above example, "real" sun time is 11 minutes slower than the clock time (used to determine the chart); ie, the Local Apparent Time (Sun time, which would be the time shown on the sundials-which were exclusively used in astrology prior to 1800 for determining the time in casting horoscopes) The chart erected for the "real" time (on March 5th, 2010 in Montreal) yields a Descendant degree of 3Leo25. ...

Dr. Farr,

No disrespect intended, but this is misguided and shows a lack of understanding of how charts are calculated. The use of LAT vs the use of a standard time with a zone or even LMT is a convention for expressing time which is then converted into kinds of time agreed upon for indexing into an ephemeris and for determining the local sidereal time. In all cases, we need a reduction from the local time convention used to TT (terrestrial time, formerly ET, ephemeris time) for driving or indexing the ephemeris for planetary positions, and to UT for determining the sidereal time at Greenwich, and then the local sidereal time.

The important point is that there are distinct methods for performing these reductions from different local time conventions to the times actually used for calculations. Regardless of the local time convention used to express time for a given moment and place, they all reduce to the same TT, UT and LST - if the conversions are used correctly.

- Ed