Gem said: I appreciate different approaches and do want to understand why you and Andrew think that
Quote:
radicality works for the favourite, who is not necessarily the ascendant!

Any help'll be greatly appreciated

Ficinia aks:
Andrew, any chance you could give your own explanation of this? Since my view is based on what you've always said, i.e. radicality supports the fave, non-radicality moves the result away from the faves, I'd be interested to hear your take on it. No obligation of course

Yes, I'll try...

From www.astronor.com/hours.htm
Aph. 12: Nothing can be performed without the assistance of the lord of the hour. If there is no relation between the lord of the hour and the sign ascending or its lord, the chart shows something out of tune and not working properly. It is like striking a dumb note on the celestial instrument. The querent may not have had a serious intention of proposing the question. According to the ancient stricture, the astrologer is more liable to plunge himself into difficulties and should examine whether the querent has the correct reasons for asking the question. An irregularity is in existence and the rules are not being followed. There could be a disturbing circumstance and the matter leads to unhappiness or unacceptance.

The non-radical chart is for the honky-tonk team, Ficina. Sure, you could still get away with playing the piano, but it would take an underdog to appreciate it.

This is what I wrote in another thread:

Radicality and AC are closely tied. Any election, event chart, AC is given to those who initiate action. If I start something when the time is not right(LOH and LOA not in agreement) then the project/enterprise or whatever I initiated won't be likely to go to my liking. In football event charts we haven't given AC to teams who kick off but if the AC is represented by underdogs and the chart is not radical, then the result isn't favourable for the AC. This is how I see it and I appreciate people seeing this differently

Ficina's way of looking at it:

If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins. Obviously other testimonies (if any) then have to be considered. If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win. It may be a draw or underdogs win

My replies:

Most of the time though, we can't expect anything. What about the time when either side is not clear favourite?

Quote:
If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins.... If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win.

This is all viewed from faves' perspectives ( chart being identified with faves). It makes sense only if the AC is given to faves.

I quoted above so that we can continue the discussion here because I agree with Ficina when she said:

I think this radicality idea is still in the experimental stages.

I agree with Ficina when she said:
Quote:
I think this radicality idea is still in the experimental stages.

Sure! All my best thinking was done over 20 years ago and everything I have done in the mean time could be wrong. Whatever I have got on the website is only 13 years old and I don't mind waiting another 20 years to see if any of it makes any sense.

It's alright, Gem! I'm only pulling your leg!

Andrew
I quoted Ficina's comment because that exactly expressed where I'm at right now regarding using radicality in football charts: an experimental stage.
From the way you read charts, it's obvious that you're really versed in using it; it's part of your style, well-integrated

I'd be very interested to know what the stats look like so far. You've been using radicality in your analysis of these charts for much longer than the rest of us, Andrew. What do your records show?

Your basic premise is radicality supports the faves, non-radicality doesn't. Obviously other factors then have to be taken into consideration, but I'm just wondering whether the numbers show that radical = faves win, non-radical = faves don't win.

Andrew
I'd be interested to read your reply to Ficina too.

I read your reply to my question over and over but it's still too cryptic for me:

The non-radical chart is for the honky-tonk team, Ficina. Sure, you could still get away with playing the piano, but it would take an underdog to appreciate it.

One thing I have problem understanding is that why radicality is particulary associated with faves only, who are not 'necessarily AC'. What about the chart with underdogs on the AC with a radical chart?

Favourites are quality. Radicality shows quality. Not radical charts show an 'absence of quality', if that isn't putting it to harsh. The rough and gritty performs better on a rough and gritty day.

Gem, any idea you have got is worthy of attention. You could be onto something and I have to adjust my thoughts or clairify my thinking. Either way it is great! I don't know anyone else in Norway, except from Stig Oyan, who uses radicality in their charts. So really, I feel quite spoilt when you ask a question or offer different ideas!

Radicality seems to show the drift of things, or it is easier to outrule one of the alternatives of a match. 'The underdogs do not get it today'. What I discovered be practicing radicality in horary astrology was that it lead me straight to the answer instead of getting lost in the chart. You will have to watch it, though, because if you get too good you will be answering questions too quick and your clients won't think you are giving them worthy consideration..

Thank you Andrew.
There're different ways of looking at it and I just wanted to understand yours better.

I've had a thought about this, Gem, and that is that Andrew tends not to allocate teams to either Asc or Desc. His approach seems to be more holistic, if that's the right word. So when you ask

What about the chart with underdogs on the AC with a radical chart?

That wouldn't really be relevant to Andrew's way of looking at a chart.

Is this a fair observation, Andrew?

That's fair, Ficina! If the problem confuses me (i.e. which team is the asc.) then I tend to push it to one side and try to think whether there is another way of getting around it.

I think all the rules and guidelines are important, but then try to look at the testimonies in a creative manner to try and stay ahead of things.

In the stockmarket there is always the law of alternation, which means that if in one movement there is a pattern according to a certain structure then the next movement shows a pattern according to a different structure. The same movement does not occur twice within the same sequence. In my opinion it is important to approach sport predictions with a similar mind - unexpected things are happening all the time!

Andrew said: Gem, any idea you have got is worthy of attention. You could be onto something...

Gem, I seem to recall you mentioned once before about looking at the hour ruler in relation to the Desc. I'm thinking that it would be interesting to follow this up when the chart isn't radical. So if there is no affinity between hour ruler and Desc sign/ruler, the result is more likely to be a draw, but if there is some affinity then the Desc team/underdogs are more likely to win. Just a theory, but it might be worth testing it out in practice.

From Sue Ward's Astrology Pages
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/

"To find accord between the hour and the Ascendant, Lilly provides three criteria:

1. that the ruler of the hour and the ruler of the Ascendant are the same planet;

2. that the ruler of the hour and the ruler of the Ascendant triplicity are the same planet;

3. that the ruler of the hour and the ruler of the Ascendant are of the same nature. (Not, as has been said, the ruler of the hour and the ascending sign.)"

No.2 appears to be yet another version of radicality by triplicity. No.3 is also interesting especially in view of the discussion on the CL thread re Liverpool/Chelsea game.

Edit: I've realised that No.2 is not a different version but she just puts it in a different way. In fact her emphasis in all three criteria is on the Asc ruler rather than the Asc sign.