I just want to emphasize the point that the notion of a 'hierarchy of charts' is a very ancient principle in astrology and its origin goes back millennia before modern astrologers such as Charles Carter.

Lets not forget the origin of astrology in ancient Babylonia started with mundane astrology. The fate of the King, his Kingdom and the people were regarded as one. It was a later development to consider the technique of examining individual horoscopes.

The 12th century medieval Jewish astrologer Ibn Ezra discusses the issue of the fate of the individual within that of the collective horoscopy in his works such as The Book of of the World. He and other medieval writers such as Abu'Mashar focus on larger cycles such as the Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions and solar ingress charts as the effectively the generators of events. Such writers discusses two kinds of hierarchy. Firstly the hierarchy of charts used in mundane astrology and secondly the hierarchy of mundane over natal astrology.

The latter is also implicit in Ptolemy's ideas set out in the Tetrabiblos. It is evidently no random coincidence that Ptolemy placed his second book on mundane astrology before his third book on nativities. There is a clear recognition in his work that the individual fate is subject to the configurations concerning the collective.

This does not invalidate natal astrology but it does mean it is only a portion of the truth. That is why claims to infallibility in natal prediction are so suspect. From a freewill viewpoint one can object to this outlook. However, even coming from a more fatalistic perspective there is justification to challenge this approach since natal destiny is traditionally subordinate to collective destiny.

Below is part of Ptolemy's introduction to Book II of the Tetrabiblos that makes the hierarchy of the branches of astrology clear:

Since, then, prognostication by astronomical means is divided into two great and principal parts, and since the first and more universal is that which whole races, countries, and cities, which is called general, and the second and more specific is that which relates to individual men, which is called genethlialogical, we believe it fitting to treat first of the general division, because such matters are naturally swayed by greater and more powerful causes than are particular events. And since weaker natures always yield to the stronger, and the particular always falls under the general, it would by all means be necessary for those who purpose an inquiry about a single individual long before to have comprehended the more general considerations.

Of the general inquiry itself, a part, again, is found to concern whole countries, and a part to concern cities; and further, a part deals with the greater and more periodic conditions, such as wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, deluges, and the like; and another with the lesser and more occasional, as for example the changes in temperature in the seasons of the year, and the variations of the intensity of storms, heat, and winds, or of good and bad crops, and so on.

But in each of these cases, as is reasonable, procedure by entire countries and by more important conditions is preferred, for the same reason as before. Tetrabiblos, 2.1 , Claudius Ptolemy

Mark

Maybe I was a bit too ... passionate when talking about the nativities. But that was not my intention. I was basically asking the question Ptolemy just answered for me through Mark.

If there is a gigantic field battle between cities or countries even, it subsumes the individuals. So we are unique until we participate in a unique battle or experience a unique earthquake. The country, city, earthquake, disasster, famine, war -- everything that is stronger than an individual human being. Man, Ptolemy makes a lot of sense.

Hats off to Mark.

I like how we have to use metaphysics to understand the obvious. From a different perspective, though, to be fair.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it appears we are more dependent on the time and location we are at than we thought. Or I thought. And it doesn't have to be a major catastrophe, presumably even not so big things can affect us.

So our fate can be a tiny part of a "bigger" fate, then of an even bigger fate etc. So it's all kind of tied together and maybe that's how "As above, so below", or astrology, works.

So the horary shows us the current situation of the time and space we're in at the moment -- and it happens to include everything, including our own little world, our microcosm. Yet we are thinking that planets are rushing to align to show us where our missing keys are. Well, that's just human.

And that's why the houses have only symbolic meanings -- if L4 is my father to me, it is the house or land for another guy at the moment.

Wow. And no, I don't smoke weed or anything , just some random thoughts. Astrology can blow your mind, if you're not careful.

Although I like Kepler, I don't use these aspects he proposed. Kepler himself changed his views during his life and also returned to the major aspects. When I just started astrology and drawing geometric forms of aspects, I discovered something that I only recently found out that Kepler mentioned. It's namely all about congruence

With the keplerian aspects (and also the modern harmonics aspects) you can see them as belonging to series like the 5 (72, 144) 8 (45 135) 10 (36 108) 12 (30 150) ( and in modern astrology the septile 7 (51 3/7; 102 6/7; 154 ?/7th)) aspects series. You also can see that adding up to an opposition with e.g 36+144=180 and 45+135=180 relates these aspects (an aspect exceeding 180degrees is infact smaller than the oposition again, although the nature could be argued as different).

Now when you multiply 72 by 5 you get 360 a complete circle, however if you try to do this with his 'confrere' in the 5 series the 144 you get 720 twice the circle. You wont manage to do it with smaller numbers; 2 times is too less, 288 and 3 times is too much, 432. This counts for all the minor aspects, not for the major aspects though, just try it. This makes the major aspects geometrically more 'perfect' and I therefore think definitely 'major' over the other aspects, not to mention the 7, 9 or 11 series of aspects which were considered 'unclean', unwissbar, ineffabilis, by Kepler.

It's therefore not only musical theory which was at the basis of Kepler's view how astrology works, but geometry was too and rather the main one. The musical theories stimulated me to read a lot about music theory and to listen ancient Ars Antiqua, Ars Nova and Renaissance music in experiencing the effects of the music it on the mind in practice. And for the aspects the 0, 180, 120 and the 90 can be related to the prime, octave, fifth and the fourth tone distances in music. In fact till a millennium ago these tone intervals were the only accepted ones in (church) music. Only in later centuries the intervals third (major and minor) and sixth (major and minor) got accepted. Initially these were considered as rather frivolous. You can experience the differences in music when you compare Gregorian music and still to a major extent Ars Antiqua (e.g Perotinus) with Ars Nova (Guillaume de Machaut) and later polyphonic music of Dufay etc. While the former types sound more heavily and serious the latter somewhat lift you up in higher spheres.

And the sextile. One could reject it on Gregorian music basis but geometrically it is so perfect in line wih the trine (2x60=120 and 60+120=180) that it can be considered major (perhaps only a little less than the others) too.

Ptolemy too already mentions the relation of the aspects with music, Tetr. I-13, http://www.reocities.com/astrologysourc ... htm#side13 . So I think the direction to look at when thinking about how astrology works is through music and especially geometry. The effects that the old music has on the states of the mind I find very convincing and applicable in astrology. Are these 'causes'? Well perhaps no modern physics causes or unknown magical energies but the effect of music can't be denied. I feel that this approach strongly contrasts with the 'symbolic' and synchronicity view of modern astrologers which gives an excuse to use anything you want, just saying: "It's a symbol" For example the 7 is a 'mystical' number so a septile in the chart means that the native is mystical or Chiron's orbit in relation to the orbits of Uranus and Saturn. Sorry for this ranting at the end of my post but I remembered a discussion some years ago in which this beutiful musical/geometrical approach was endlessly being hammered on as being "not astrology" etc. Well to anyone their taste but with the above I hope to have illustrated what Kepler thought at a certain time.

Eddy, your musical approach has nothing to do with astrology! Just kidding.

You are talking about WHY it works. I don't know why it works so I can't agree or disagree. But the notion HOW it works is not so complicated.

Let's say the farmer uses pesticides to kill crop eating bugs. The current chart shows Mars, L8, in the 4th house. It is the death from the bug's perspective (8th and 4th). It's an agricultural issue for the farmer, i.e., it shows nasty bugs killing his crops (8th and 4th). For the local authority it may be a loss of the tax money (8th) because of the farmer's problems (4th) and so on. As above, so below.

If the ancient astrologers did not find any need to use the minor aspects, I don't think we are smarter than they are. Maybe, a very big maybe, there is a point in looking at semisextile and quincunx because they are "the missing brothers" between conjunction and sextile and trine and opposition, respectively. They work with the whole signs, i.e., semisextile is a sign apart, quincunx is five signs apart. But what is a 72? aspect? or 108?, or 144?? Why should anyone go into sub-sign level?

So maybe those two. Maybe. But I personally am not planning on looking at them. If people are 'complaining' that sextile can be weak, what about SEMI-sextile then?

Seiko wrote:
So, ladies and gentlemen, it appears we are more dependent on the time and location we are at than we thought. Or I thought. And it doesn't have to be a major catastrophe, presumably even not so big things can affect us.

So our fate can be a tiny part of a "bigger" fate, then of an even bigger fate etc. So it's all kind of tied together and maybe that's how "As above, so below", or astrology, works.

.

I use Matryoshka(Babushka) metaphor in such case. Babushka doll is set of wooden dolls of decreasing size placed one inside the other. When the outer doll (country, bomb attack, tsunami...) is shaked all inner dolls are affected, especially the innermost, the smallest, WE.

horarcek wrote:I use Matryoshka(Babushka) metaphor in such case. Babushka doll is set of wooden dolls of decreasing size placed one inside the other. When the outer doll (country, bomb attack, tsunami...) is shaked all inner dolls are affected, especially the innermost, the smallest, WE.

This is also a nice comparison. It might sound contradictive to what I wrote previously, but I'm not specifically against symbolism, just against the excrescenses. Sometimes metaphors can help a lot in explaining things. Kepler wrote also something on hierarchy of aspects. I once wrote it down in this: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 61d846365b thread, post: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:26 pm.
There Kepler compares the major aspects with the magistrates in a society and the minor aspects with the people, and how their powers relate.

Seiko wrote: You can shoot me but so far I haven't seen any good astrologers that can predict things using the radix. It's all yadda yadda he's like this and he's like that but no one can really tell anything until it happens, i.e., after the fact. "He's dead. Why? Oh yeah, he's alcocababibazon is cadent which means he will die young. ... In his chart everything is cadent, afflicted and combust, yet he's rich and famous. Why? Apparently the sig of his money is less combust than it is." I mean, come on.

Look harder then.
Many astrologers predict things accurately using a natal chart and the relevant forecasting methods. I myself do this all the time both with my own nativity and those of others.

And what about the major accidents or disasters?

Testimonies of death are "all else being equal" and a tsunami is NOT "all else being equal". Mostly testimonies of death relate to the idea of 'life force', rather than the idea of external events happening to you. You could calculate the hyleg etc and discover you won't die til your old ages, and then walk across the street and get knocked down by a car for example.
In any event, as already shown, the nativity is subsumed by the charts greater or external to the individual, or which the individual is always a part.

Paul wrote:

Seiko wrote: You can shoot me but so far I haven't seen any good astrologers that can predict things using the radix. It's all yadda yadda he's like this and he's like that but no one can really tell anything until it happens, i.e., after the fact. "He's dead. Why? Oh yeah, he's alcocababibazon is cadent which means he will die young. ... In his chart everything is cadent, afflicted and combust, yet he's rich and famous. Why? Apparently the sig of his money is less combust than it is." I mean, come on.

Look harder then.
Many astrologers predict things accurately using a natal chart and the relevant forecasting methods. I myself do this all the time both with my own nativity and those of others.

And what about the major accidents or disasters?

Testimonies of death are "all else being equal" and a tsunami is NOT "all else being equal". Mostly testimonies of death relate to the idea of 'life force', rather than the idea of external events happening to you. You could calculate the hyleg etc and discover you won't die til your old ages, and then walk across the street and get knocked down by a car for example.
In any event, as already shown, the nativity is subsumed by the charts greater or external to the individual, or which the individual is always a part.

That's what I/we were talking about. So you kind of disagree yet somehow agree.

The question is -- what are the boundaries of "all else being equal"? Is there a state when you are in complete control of your destiny? People have accidents in their own homes all the time.

The question is -- what are the boundaries of "all else being equal"? Is there a state when you are in complete control of your destiny? People have accidents in their own homes all the time.

We're never in complete control of our destiny. Does astrology ever say we are anywhere? Does astrology ever claim to predict death caused by 'chance'?

I don't believe so.

It's not that I kind of disagree and kind of agree. I disagree with you that accurate predictions are not made by great astrologers using a natal chart. If for nothing else than I know that not so great astrologers manage to do it all the time - I being one of them, and no doubt many many others on this forum too.

I agree with whoever said that we are subsumed by the charts of countries etc and that our 'destiny' (to use your own word, I don't particularly think it's appropriate) is tied up with things outside us.

So it's not that I'm knid of agreeing and kind of disagreeing. I'm agreeing with one part, and disagreeing with another.

Tom's point is the most simple - if you're not looking to predict something and you don't predict it, what's the big surprise?

I have to also agree with Tom's point of you inventing straw men - I guess Mark's posts have perhaps clarified some things now hopefully. In any event, I'd suggest practicing predicting things with your natal chart yourself - you'll see it works.

Predict what? "This year is going to be great for you! -- Great. What will happen? -- You're going to be healthy and will have a chance to make some money. -- That's brilliant. Much obliged."

I have seen a lot of EXPLAINING why such a thing happened, not actual predictions.

But Tom is right in one aspect - if I don't like it, I don't have to use it. So I will stay away from both using and discussing the nativities.

Seiko wrote:Predict what? "This year is going to be great for you! -- Great. What will happen? -- You're going to be healthy and will have a chance to make some money. -- That's brilliant. Much obliged."

More strawmen?
Predict what? Whatever is in the chart of course. It's up to you how and what you predict as guided by the chart and whatever forecasting methods you happen to use.

Here's some examples of what I've predicted recently in my own chart for this year: The week that I'd end up getting a new place (been looking for months) and eventually move. That I would start a new romance. (I used a mix of horary and natal to show when it would end).
In my friends chart I predicted when the very weekend that a lover would "show up again".

What I've never ever ever predicted: This year is going to be great for you!

If it's not specific, I don't predict it. I only predict what I think is specific and I try to trap it down to a couple of weeks where I can. Sometiems down to the day, then add on "a week or two either side of that date" to give me more playing room. Often I get the actual day - depending the scope of the thing being predicted.

Basically before making straw man arguments, maybe actually look harder and see for yourself. Have you ever been to a professional astrologer for example who went through your nativity and offered predictions for the coming year?

You say you've never seen it happen, but how hard have you actually looked?

I have seen a lot of EXPLAINING why such a thing happened, not actual predictions.

Then keep looking and try yourself to do it. Learn the techniques. Apply them. See if they work.