Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:39 pm
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.
In Classical Astrology for Modern Living on page 16 Lehman repeats this assertion and cites Otto Neugebauer as her source:
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 ...
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
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.
"Rigged" was my word not Andrew's. I get the blame, but ...I would argue that it appears it was Ptolemy who ?rigged? the calculation of the Lot of Fortune to fit his preferences <g>.
Maybe not. But, according to Lee Lehman Astrology had pretty much gone indoors by Ptolemy's day.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!
"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:
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.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. ..."
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 ...
This is great news, get moving on itI 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.?
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
