Display posts from previous
Sort by

37 by Tom
Steven,

This is a really good post. Thank you for your time and effort. I'm going to read this more carefully than the I just did, but I'd just like to make a comment or two.
I would argue that it appears it was Ptolemy who ?rigged? the calculation of the Lot of Fortune to fit his preferences <g>.
"Rigged" was my word not Andrew's. I get the blame, but ...
The reasoning is not ?rigging? the chart; the method is simply following natures order! Of course I understand why today people cannot relate to this; especially in the west where man has tried to usurp the natural order of things with his own inventions and fills his cities with glaring synthetic light trying to block out the natural order of day and night! But just pushing it out of the consciousness does not mean that natural order does not exist! It only means we?re no longer conscious of it ? which is a travesty and at the root of the problem!
Maybe not. But, according to Lee Lehman Astrology had pretty much gone indoors by Ptolemy's day.

"Direct sky observation was virtually unknown by Ptolemy's time; in fact Ptolemy mistakes the date of the equinoxes in his writings because he calculated them rather than observed him." Essential Dignities page 14

In Classical Astrology for Modern Living on page 16 Lehman repeats this assertion and cites Otto Neugebauer as her source:
Despite our modern fantasy that even the skies were clearer in earlier, pre-industrial times, conditions for observation were hardly ideal. As Neugebauer reminds us:

" ... the almost proverbial brilliance of the Babylonian sky is more a literary cliche' than an actual fact. The closeness of the desert with its sand storms frequently obscures the horizon. This is the more essential as the majority of problems in which the Babylonian astronomers were interested are phenomena close to the horizon. ..."
The quote goes on and Lehman uses it as the basis of her argument that "observational astrology" is horizon based not sky based. That takes us elsewhere. The fact remains, if we substitute "sand storm" for "artificial light" the sky was obliterated for us and them from time to time. Furthermore, there are still plenty of places in the US where the night sky is clear and brilliant. We won't find these places near major cities or metropolitan areas, but they are out there. I just returned from a week long trip to Texas and I did quite a bit of driving at night on major highways in empty areas and the night sky was spectacular.


It seems, then, that the astrology of Ptolemy, Valens, et al, was computational, not observational and whether Ptolemy rigged the formulas or others did or no one did doesn't seem to matter. The decision to reverse or not reverse is or appears to be, at best philosophical and therefore subject to different interpretations, and not natural.


On the other hand ...

I have tried to cover these things in great detail in a book I have been writing for the last two years called, ?The Lots of the Luminaries; Fortune and Spirit.?
This is great news, get moving on it ;-) In my own often less than humble opinion what will settle this once and for all is a solid presentation of what these lots mean and how they are to be used. One can wander from authority to authority and not really get to the core of the matter. Robert Zoller's book on the lots is a good contemporary starting point, but even when I read his definitions, I still had the nagging feeling that what he said about fortuna seemed also to be applicable to spirit and vice versa. I'm always hearing astrologers gripe about fortuna and that they really don't know what to do with it.

Zoller pointed out that materialism, even in the "idyllic" past was paramount and people who hired astrologers were far more interested in their material well being than their spiritual life. So fortuna is often delineated only as having to do with the material world, but again Zoller tells us that is not all there is to fortuna. He then defined it in what I saw as a similar way to the way he defined spirit. What happens then, again in my view, is that the astrologer can almost use these lots interchangeably. That can't be correct. So the first thing we need to do is get a real handle on what it is that fortuna signifies and what it is that spirit signifies and differentiate them. Then we can compare night births by reversing and not reversing and see what if any differences occur.

I'm sure, as you say that Valens does this, but many astrologers do not have access to Valens and fewer still want to sit down and work with him or have the background to fully grasp what he is telling us. There is no doubt in my mind that you are the man for the job and I wish you well and fully expect to notified when the work is ready so I can buy it.

Like a lot of astrologers I used to simply ignore that little circle with the "X" in it because I didn't know what to do with it. But when I began to read Morin I realized that he grasped the significance since it was the only lot he used, dismissing the rest as "Arab fantasies." He incorrectly believed the lots were a product of Arab astrology. If Morin, who detested the Arabs, and disliked anyone who wasn't Catholic (As Gadbury disliked anyone who was Catholic) would use the part, it must be important.

I know you addressed some of my remarks in your post, but I want some time to read carefully and digest. Thanks again Steven. Great work as always.

Tom

38 by Andrew
Well, I guess if you want to believe that sect is a ?theoretical dynamic? that is your prerogative. I probably should remind you that Ptolemy says the same things about the lots, yet he denies his own scepticism in using the Lot of Fortune.
All theoretical conceptions (including "the theoretical conception that is astrology") depend upon theoretical and interpretive dynamics.

I don't think Ptolemy "denies his own skepticism," I think he adopts a different interpretive approach. I quote an extract from "Classical Scientific Astrology" by George Noonan:
Another important point in the solar chart, and required for the lunar chart, is the Part of Fortune ... This point now becomes the cusp of the first locus of the lunar horoscope.
I think this may be why Ptolemy neglected the part of spirit: he didn't need it to construct a solar horoscope, but he did need the part of fortune to construct a lunar horoscope. Just speculation on my part, of course.
Of course I understand why today people cannot relate to this; especially in the west where man has tried to usurp the natural order of things with his own inventions and fills his cities with glaring synthetic light trying to block out the natural order of day and night!
Thank God for that. Ancient Alexandria's streets were lit at night like any other capital of the world, but where would we be without the invention of the computer? In the words of Avery Cardinal Dulles S.J.:
To create in the strict sense means to produce from nothing. God created when he first produced the world, but when it left his hands, it remained in some respects incomplete. By giving human beings dominion over the rest of creation, God invites them to complete, in a certain sense, the work he has begun. Thanks to rapid advances in science and technology, we have witnessed an exponential increase in the production and distribution of goods. This progress is not a usurpation of God?s prerogatives, but a realization of God?s design that we should have dominion over the earth. Whatever we accomplish, of course, depends upon God?s prior gifts, without which we would be powerless.
I don't believe that this amounts to "usurpation."
But just pushing it out of the consciousness does not mean that natural order does not exist! It only means we?re no longer conscious of it ? which is a travesty and at the root of the problem!
Well, if you want to believe that this is a travesty, that is your prerogative. ;-)
Like the Lot of Fortune, Spirit will also give significations relevant to health, wealth, profession etc. ?But with this difference; it will be useful in determining motivation distinctions such as character, human conduct, and social awareness telling us something of the actualisations of the qualities of the natives? soul, intellect and discourse!
This seems like a distinction without a difference. If one wishes to address motivational distinctions and the actualization of qualities of character and conduct (which sounds somewhat like the "psychological astrology" of Liz Greene et al.) such an interpretive approach could be applied to virtually any point in the chart. I think it's a matter of interpretational perspective, astrologically reinforced, informed by the many different interpretational frameworks that various astrologers (both past and present) have taken into consideration.
The source of this fortune is 7th and 8th house matters; marriage, partnerships, and inheritances and heritage! (Aquarius is the sign of the 7th and 8th cusp).
I think this is a reductionist approach: it would seem to require that the source of wealth for all royals depends upon marriage, inheritances, and heritage. But the major source of tangible wealth for Prince Charles (unlike, for example, the source of wealth for, say, Prince Aga Khan) is
derived from the Duchy of Cornwall, which now includes 70,000 acres in Devon, 18,000 acres in Cornwall, 15,000 acres in Somerset and practically the whole of the Isles of Scilly. This land supports a range of businesses and agricultural and forestry enterprises valued at ?463m. Recently Prince Charles enjoyed a rise in his profits to ?13m, up 11 per cent. The revenues that generate this surplus come from farmers' rent.
My favorite articles on this topic:

http://gryphonastrology.blogspot.com/20 ... art-i.html

http://gryphonastrology.blogspot.com/20 ... rt-ii.html

Andrew

39 by Andrew
In reference to the above, I also wonder whether these discussions don't simply reflect the practices of different "schools" of astrology: Hellenistic astrology, Medieval astrology, Renaissance astrology, etc. William Lilly, for example, wasn't a practitioner of Medieval astrology; he didn't reverse the formula for night births, but he was the foremost exponent of horary in his day.

Andrew

40 by Andrew Bevan
Steven wrote:
Like the Lot of Fortune, Spirit will also give significations relevant to health, wealth, profession etc. ?But with this difference; it will be useful in determining motivation distinctions such as character, human conduct, and social awareness telling us something of the actualisations of the qualities of the natives? soul, intellect and discourse!
It would be interesting to see how the Part of Spirit turned up in a study involving psychiatric patients. It could give some indication of how 'well harboured' they were, or in which way the psyche was either safe-guarded or pressured by attack. The Part of Spirit does seem to relate to matters of honour. Does this imply strength of character, morals and ethical values?

On a slightly less philosophical leg, the sports section is looking into the Part of Fortune and Part of Spirit as deciding factors in the outfall of competitions and events. My thoughts at present are that it isn't essential to change Fortuna to decide who comes out on top. Either Fortuna wins by day and night, or the Part of Spirit wins by night in the changed nocturnal chart, in which case it has simply taken the place of Fortuna. But it is to early to conclude whether could be a qualitative difference to be noticed or not. Maybe Fortuna wins the toss in both diurnal charts and changed nocturnal charts, but winning the toss is not the same as winning the game. Just an idea. Too early to say.

Tom, Steven, Andrew - Great discussion! I will need more hours in the day to chew this through. Most of them are nocturnal in Norway at this time of the year, anyhow! :)
http://www.astronor.com

41 by Andrew
From A History of Horoscopic Astrology by James Holden:

The word "lot" is a translation of the Greek kleros; the corresponding Latin word is sors, which means the same thing. Both referred originally to small numbered balls that were selected at random to decide some issue or to allocate something to one or more people. Hence, the word "lot" acquired the figurative meaning of "luck" or "fate" or "destiny." In the earliest times the astrological lots were determined on a whole sign basis, so Firmicus, for example, calls them loci, "places." Later, when astrologers began to determine them by degree, the lot was found to lie in a certain degree, and the Latin word for degree is pars, "part"; hence we speak of the Part of Fortune, and all the numerous lots are called "parts." The ones under discussion here are apparently the oldest, since they are attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. They have all fallen out of use with the exception of the first two, the Lot of Fortune and the Lot of the Daemon, which Ptolemy combined into what is called today the Part of Fortune. (By the ancient definition, Ptolemy's Lot of Fortune was the Lot of Fortune by day but the Lot of Daemon by night).

It would appear that the Divine Ptolemy was not merely a copyist or an imitator, but an innovator and experimenter, perhaps the very first. Holden's comments suggest that astrologers who regard Ptolemy's approach as normative ought not to calculate the Lot of the Daemon separately from the Lot of Fortune, but to regard the Part of Fortune as a blend of their combined influences, on the basis of sect.

Firmicus notes:

We find the Part of the Daemon in the following way. (We have included it in this book because Abram called it the Part of the Sun and it is not right that it should be separated from the Part of the Moon.)

A bit peeved at Ptolemy?

Andrew

42 by Andrew
From Astrologia Gallica Book 22 by Jean-Baptiste Morin:
But with regard to the Part of Fortune, with which the Moon finds itself in the [same] ratio of ecliptical distance as the Sun is with the Ascendant of the figure, or vice versa and alternately; it certainly seems to me to be worthy of admiration because both in the general judgment of a figure and particularly in directions it is perceived to be allotted a manifest force of advantage or loss according to the nature of the house that it occupies in the figure and according to its celestial state. Pontanus in Book 3 of his De Rebus Coelestibus in the chaper on the Part of Fortune, wishing to present some reason for this thing, says that the Sun and the Moon find themselves to be the authors of generation and parents as it were in these sublunary things as male and female, material and form in the beginnings of bodies, and day and night in time. For the Moon prepares the material and the Sun induces the form; the latter moderates the time of day, the former the time of night; the Moon provides the nourishment of the body, the Sun preserves the vitality. And this pertains to the Ascendant, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sun. Since, moreover, the Sun and the Moon have conjoined times, day and night; conjunctive actions, material and form; and conjoined domiciles, Leo and Cancer; it is proper that in the genitures of those being born, just as the Sun has its Ascendant, so the Moon similarly has its Ascendant, no more distant from the Ascendant of the figure than the Moon herself is from the Sun.

I may add that since the Sun and the Moon are the only primary planets disposed above the Earth, and for that reason the primary causes among the planets of sublunary effects, the origin of which into this mundane stage, since it pertains to the Ascendant; therefore, in individual generations the Ascendant along with the Sun and the Moon have so necessary a connection, that however great is the distance of the Sun from the Ascendant of the figure, just so great should be the observed distance of the Moon from another point in the ecliptic, which is called the Part of Fortune and the Ascendant of the Moon, and according to the Sun precedes or follows its own Ascendant, so also does the Moon precede or follow its [Ascendant]. Whatever there is about it, it is certain and verified by many experiences that its directions are efficacious, as will be shown by examples elsewhere; and the Part of Fortune itself is allotted the function of significator in directions as well as the function of promittor.

You will object firstly that the Part of Fortune is a mere point in the caelum, greatly different from the point of the Ascendant, which at least has its own force, since it is the beginning of that part of the caelum that occupies the 1st house. But the point of the Part of Fortune is neither a part of the caelum nor the beginning of any part of the caelum which belongs to the celestial figure. Therefore the Part of Fortune can have no force.

I reply that the Part of Fortune does not have force because it is entirely a visual point or the beginning of a part of the caelum belonging to the celestial figure, but because it is a proportional connection of the Sun and the Moon with the Ascendant, by reason of which it can have force, or because it is a point in the caelum determined by the Sun and the Moon in a particular manner.

You will object secondly: Let the Part of Fortune be such a point and let it be of some virtue or other; why will it signify wealth, or why will it be determined to that, whatever house it may occupy, and whatever may be the nature, celestial state, and determination of its ruler in the figure?

I reply that even though the Sun and the Moon may be determined as the other planets are to the things signified by the houses in which they are placed and by the houses that they rule, yet because they are primary planets?indeed, by common consent, the parents or universal causes of all sublunar effects?with respect to which for that reason the consideration of orientality or occidentality of the other planets must be observed for their particular effects; in general it seems that it must be conceded that the Sun and the Moon at least from their own nature have a certain transcendental force for good, on account of which the Part of Fortune transcendentally determined by them or to their nature, also to utility or damage, is allotted a transcendental determination with the essential signification of the house to which it is particularly determined by its position in accordance with the nature and determination of its own ruler.
Now what could be clearer than that?

This is a re-statement of Ptolemy's definition of the Part of Fortune in Tetrabiblos, iii. 10, as being so placed that
That relation and configuration which the Sun has to the Ascendant, the Moon also has to the Lot of Fortune.
This is a consequence of Ptolemy's formula for finding the Part of Fortune, i.e., Fortuna = Ascendant + Moon - Sun, which can be rearranged to read Fortuna - Moon = Ascendant - Sun, or in other words, Fortuna is as far from the Moon as the Ascendant is from the Sun.

At dawn the Sun rises, crosses the horizon, climbs to its highest point (its upper culmination), descends and sets in the west and reaches its lowest point (its lower culmination) beneath the Earth before it rises again. Each planet has its own diurnal cycle: Every day, Mars does just what the Sun does, but because its light is so faint, we don't see it except at night. The Moon moderates the time of night, but the Sun's relationship to the horizon defines the various levels of sunrise and sunset as well as the different types of twilight (such as civil twilight). In addition, day and night are determined (if not entirely moderated) by the Sun's relationship to the horizon; there is therefore a natural resonance between the Sun and the horizon, a kind of symbiotic relationship between them. There is no such natural resonance between the Moon and the horizon, for no such symbiotic relationship exists between the horizon and the reflected light of the Moon (a light which is borrowed, not its own); any such relationship as may exist is a derived relationship, rather than a fundamental one (i.e., as with the Trutina Hermetis). This is probably the reason as to why Ptolemy did not ascribe any significance to the configuration which the Moon has to the Ascendant in relation to the Sun, i.e., the Part of Spirit. As Morin correctly points out, the Ascendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sun, not the Moon.

Andrew

43 by Andrew Bevan
I had a horary this evening, which I will share with you. A woman asks regarding the potential of a relationship or an affair, time 20.15 GMT.
Asc 13SC35 MC 8VI55 Moon 29VI00 applying to her own face in Libra. Venus, L7 and dispositor of Libra, in her own terms in 14AR20 in the 5th in conjunction with POF/POS at 14Ar24

There is no question that this chart indicated that the woman is due to enter an affair in either one month in time, since her previous relationship ended 27 months past with the Moon's allignment with Saturn.

Now Venus is conjunct the Part of Spirit, POS, as the calculation of POF is reversed for a nocturnal chart. In the Sports section we experience that the same point gives testimony of victory by both day and night, ie it is not necessary to reverse the calculation for this purpose. But as I have pointed out previously, the Part of Fortune wins by Day, while the Part of Spirit (reversed calculation) wins by night.

My hypothesis involves a qualitative difference to POF and POS by day and night. By reversing the calculation of POF by night in the provided chart is is obvious that Venus is in exact conjunction with the Part of Spirit. Seeing that the woman is to enter into a romantic love affair, could this be described in any other manner than something that was due to lift her Spirit and make her heart soar?
http://www.astronor.com

44 by Andrew Bevan
I had a horary this evening, which I will share with you. A woman asks regarding the potential of a relationship or an affair, time 20.15 GMT, 59N50, 10E26. Asc 13SC35 MC 8VI55 Moon 29VI00 applying to her own face in Libra. Venus, L7 and dispositor of Libra, in her own terms in 14AR20 in the 5th in conjunction with POF/POS at 14Ar24

There is no question that this chart indicated that the woman is due to enter an affair in either one month in time, since her previous relationship ended 27 months past with the Moon's allignment with Saturn.

Now Venus is conjunct the Part of Spirit, POS, as the calculation of POF is reversed for a nocturnal chart. In the Sports section we experience that the same point gives testimony of victory by both day and night, ie it is not necessary to reverse the calculation for this purpose. But as I have pointed out previously, the Part of Fortune wins by Day, while the Part of Spirit (reversed calculation) wins by night.

My hypothesis involves a qualitative difference to POF and POS by day and night. By reversing the calculation of POF by night in the provided chart is is obvious that Venus is in exact conjunction with the Part of Spirit. Seeing that the woman is to enter into a romantic love affair, could this be described in any other manner than something that was due to lift her Spirit and make her heart soar?
http://www.astronor.com

45 by Mark
I have decided to revive this old thread as the subject of the Lot of Fortune and Spirit came up in another thread unrelated to that topic.

Kent wrote:
I know this is a little OT but since Part of Fortune came up I wonder if you use a different formula for day births and night births as Robert Hand suggests in

http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_fortune_g.htm

In the article Hand says all the Lots have different formulas for diurnal and nocturnal charts.

Mark wrote:
Yes I do use the reversed formula for the Lot of Fortune/Spirit. Most authorities on the lots use the reversed formula ie Robert Hand, Dorian Greenbaum, Chris Brennan, Robert Schmidt and Steven Birchfield do this. Anyone strongly influenced by mainstream classical astrology is likely to do this. There is no question that reversal was the approach of most astrologers in the classical period with the Lot of Fortune. Ptolemy's rather maverick approach to the lots ie leaving out the lot of Spirit became more influential on medieval and renaissance astrologers due to revival of interest in his ideas. In particular the availability of medieval translations of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and Almagest.

The basic logic of reversing the lots relates back to planetary sect. In ancient astrology it was very important whether a chart was a day or night chart. In a day chart the Sun was sect light and of primary importance while in a night chart the Moon was sect light and of greater significance. Hence in a day chart the Lot of Fortune is calculated from the position of the Sun to the Moon but in a night chart the Lot of Fortune is calculated from from the position of the Moon to the Sun. In each case these are then projected from the ascendant. The Lot of Spirit is calculated in the opposite way ie in a day chart from the position of the Moon to the Sun and visa versa at night.

Ptolemy, unlike his contemporaries, did not reverse the calculation of the Lot of Fortune in day or night chart. Moreover, he did not use the Lot of Spirit at all. Ptolemy's idiosyncratic stance on the lots was very influential in the long term and became accepted practice for much of medieval, renaissance and early modern astrology.

Another factor leading to the decline of lot reversal was the changing understanding of what planetary sect meant in the horoscope. The fundamental distinction between a day and night chart became altered in Arabic and later medieval astrology. Hence the logic of Lot reversal was significantly diminished.

Personally, I think leaving out Lot reversal for the Lot of Fortune and Spirit lacks the philosophical consistency of the original approach. As I see it the relationship between the Lot of Fortune and Spirit tie integrally into the the lunation cycle and the ideas of planetary sect which are at the heart of ancient astrology. However, as in every debate there are always two sides of the argument.

By the way, I recommend Robert Hand's excellent booklet on planetary sect 'Night and Day' which you can order from Arhat publications.

Mark

Deb wrote:
As I see it the relationship between the Lot of Fortune and Spirit tie integrally into the the lunation cycle and the ideas of planetary sect which are at the heart of ancient astrology.
Speaking from a primarily horary perspective I see this as one reason why the lots of Fortune and Spirit may not be the crucial considerations they are sometimes reported to be. They are only reflections of the lunation cycle, so if an astrologer carries an awareness of the lunation cycle the lots become redundant. For example, in every chart ? nativity, event, horary, whatever ? cast when the Sun and Moon are conjoined, the POF will fall upon the ascendant; in every chart where they are in opposition, it will fall on the descendant. The solar-lunation cycle is similarly reflected throughout the house positions, meaning that the lots don?t really ?personalise? the solar-lunar relationship at all; they merely reflect it, whilst at another level distorting it's principle. For example, in horary I often have to remind students that it is not a ?great thing? to have Fortuna on the ascendant, since this only happens when the Moon is combust, and usually the negative considerations of that way outweigh any positive considerations that come from having Fortuna angular.

I do believe that astrologers can make great use of the lots, and make a great system out of their use; but that doesn't mean that they are necessary and fundamental factors which are essential, or 'maverick' to ignore.

Yuzuru wrote:
Agree. Have often seen astrologers from a particular sect electing times for fortuna angular, ignoring the fact that moon will either be combust or in hard relationship with the sun in most of these cases.

GR wrote:
Hello all!

Paulo, forgive the thread-drift!

Deb wrote:
Speaking from a primarily horary perspective I see this as one reason why the lots of Fortune and Spirit may not be the crucial considerations they are sometimes reported to be. They are only reflections of the lunation cycle ...

They are reflective of the lunation cycle, but not only, because they also partake in the Ascending degree.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

46 by Mark
Deb wrote:
I do believe that astrologers can make great use of the lots, and make a great system out of their use; but that doesn't mean that they are necessary and fundamental factors which are essential, or 'maverick' to ignore.
I dont think I ever suggested this. However, Ptolemy was never more unrepresentative of classical astrology than in his approach to the lots. In that specific context I think its fair to describe his approach as maverick or idiosyncratic compared to his contemporaries. Isn't the very fact you regard the lots as comparatively minor in importance a legacy stemming from Ptolemy and reflective of your personal identification with his approach? If the Anthology of Valens rather than Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos had been the main text passed from the Arabs to Europeans wouldn't we be looking at this issue quite differently in regards the Lots?

The topic of whether the lots are an inessential optional add on is interesting and begs the question what else should be added to the list? I suspect many might think fixed stars and antiscia points fit in this kind of category.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

47 by Tom
Suggestion

On the other thread and going all the way back to the beginning of this one a lot of theory has been cited and a lot of appeals to authority have been made. Instead of rehashing what has been said and finding this or that quote from this or that author using this or that system, which often only demonstrates who has the largest library, why not do what all this theory is supposed to do - help us better read charts?

This should be fairly simple. Find a night chart - any chart and cast the POF reversed and not reversed and demonstrate how theory is used in practice. Otherwise this thread will end up as just one more attempt to try to figure out how many angels dance on the head of a pin. There is no reason to limit ourselves to fortuna and spirit either, since many of the lots are supposed to be reversed according to authority. Astrology is, ultimately, a craft; let's apply the theory to the practice to see what happens.

Tom
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”