CentralScrutinizer wrote: Now, Unique_Astrology has mentioned a method where rectification can be done based on one event. There was recently a rectification challenge on this Forum using three events. I don't remember Unique's attempt or IF he participated, ...
Central Scrutinizer

I did not post regarding the exercise you mention during the time it was active. After reading Isaac's attempt wherein he used the PSSR technique I decided to look at it as my technique uses the lunar return generated from the nearest precession corrected solar or demi-solar return Moon as its primary tool.

I started using 3 AM and the midpoint location between the 2 cities given for location. I thought that I had found the answer on my third attempt but when the secondary progressed Jupiter came up on the ascendant of the progressed lunar return I decided that I had to find another time. When looking at the demi-anlunar and transit biwheel to progress the lunar return I had noticed that Mars had stationed between the commencement of the lunar return and the time given for the accident and thought that Mars was appropriate for an accident and its station on an angle would be appropriate. First attempt to put that Mars on an angle was to back up 1 hour from the time I had used to get Pluto on an angle. This change yielded a birth time of 1:38 AM but left Mars 0?26' above the descendant. A change of 2 minutes would give better results. I made that change to 1:40 AM for the birth time and wound up with Mars 0?01' minute above the descendant. Finished in just over 1/2 hour and 5 attempts.

I do not post often here as I get little or no response when I do. I did not post about my work on the challenge. When the answer was posted I was proud of the fact that my technique had produced the closest time to the answer and wrote a post giving the details and expressing my pride in the success of the technique. It was my post that Yuzuru deleted and derided. His action and the tone of his PM's to me prompted my previous post in this thread. A post I feel was way overdue given the manner in which the technique has been ignored by a supposedly open minded group such as this.

The math involved is subtraction, addition, and simple interpolation.

Bob

I think everybody's a little touchy on rectification just now, Bob.

I've done two mystery charts. The first one I got, but that launched a controversy because I used fixed stars in conjunction to angles - and people started to debate whether conjunction with fixed stars was traditional, or only paran was traditional, and whether conjunction even worked (as far as I can tell it does, and not just for me, and not just from that one mystery chart).

That went on for pages. I went elsewhere. It was probably a good discussion, but I don't like being a source of controversy. I'd got a few other things from the chart using fixed stars as well that turned out to be true, but it was beyond the scope of the game, and I never mentioned them, either during the game or after because that would just have created more controversy - but it was nice to know what I was doing worked, whether it fit someone's theory or not. Most people here are way smarter than I'll ever be, so it's always a little intimidating to post.

The second mystery chart, the person who posted it gave the pages in Lilly that were relevant. I'm not a native English speaker, and Lilly's writing style has always been somewhat confusing to me. He's an important source, but not usually the first I go to when I'm doing horary - and yes, I do horary professionally. But this wasn't professional, it was just a game, so I thought it might be fun to try to solve it by using Lilly only. At the time, I didn't think it would hurt. The person who posted the chart already knew the outcome, it wasn't like it was for a client or anything.

Lilly's really important on account of his worked chart examples, I know that, and I've read his works straight through three times as well as using them for reference - they just aren't usually my first reference.

I missed the answer by a mile. After it was over, I mentioned what I'd done, and if I'd used other methods, I thought I would've done better - so obviously I still need to work on Lilly a lot. That got me tagged for trolling and 'arrogance of sources'. It really wasn't trolling or arrogance - it was comprehensibility!

Now I just play along by myself and never post in mystery chart threads - either during the games or after. You can still learn doing things that way, and nobody will accuse you of trolling.

If you do want to play, simply post during a game, never after, whether you get it right or wrong. At least I think that's how it works.

I have not had the time to reply to Eddy's recent post so my apologies if this post is picking up the trail quite cold here.

I doubt if a child choses the moment of birth. Natural elements or on the other side Caesarean sections which depend on the decision of doctors etc. are stronger I think. Perhaps there is also something like 'divine intervention' which can be seen as the 'free will' of a 'supreme being'.

Hi Eddy,

Didn't Gaughelin's research find the so called 'Mars effect' disappeared with induced births? The only book I have come across that tried to pull together Gaughelin's research with astrology was The Message of Astrology by the British astrologer Peter Roberts. Roberts had studied Harmonics with John Addey and his theory is an interesting combination of harmonic theory, Gaughelin's research and reincarnation. Worth checking out if you hold to a more naturalistic outlook.

Concerning horary, since I don't know much about it I'm not in the position to judge it. It seems to be the achilles heel of a pure natural view of astrology.

At least we can agree about that.

From a technical point of view the main difference with say Tarot is that if for example in two different rooms next to eachother a horary is done at the same time for the same question the chart will look the same and the answer would resemble if the same techniques are used (e.g. Lilly's). The chance that the Tarot cards laid down would be the same however would be extremely small.

Thats a good point. I accept astrology has some unique characteristics that distinguish it from other systems. That doesn't mean it cannot be viewed as oracular.

However there it may be possible to find a link between all these by which all stem from a natural source.

Good luck on that. I hope you are a patient man.....

Why would doubt be a problem. I think some doubt makes a person more careful and more willing to research.

I was discussing doubt in the context of a client consultation. It would be quite disastrous to start doubting your approach in that context. By all means lets question our techniques and probe deeper. However, a consultation is not the place to do that in my opinion.

I suspect your thinking more of an astrological researcher. Thats very different.

While Kirk is right that much depends on the astrologer and much happens in the interaction between astrologer and the other person, this view could be subject to the often heared criticism that all astrology and divination is a variant of 'cold reading'. There indeed is such a thing as 'cold reading' and I believe this kind of criticism should be rather acknowledged than rejected, because then the astrologer can learn to discern what is really astrology and what is merely a psychological effect.

To a certain degree any empathic human encounter could be accused of this. I am not sure its really as conscious as many sceptics claim.

Our culture in which we grew up affects that what we see or experience. For the one dreaming about a snake would mean the devil and for the other the cycle of life.

True. Your point being I assume that astrological symbols are culturally relative? Its the same as being able to speak Italian or Spanish. Its incomprehensible gibberish if you dont understand the basic vocabulary. Astrology has rules and conventions we all have to learn first whatever our explanation of how it works. I therefore dont see astrology like the law of gravity working in all conditions. Without an interpreter of the astrological symbols or language there is no astrology.

Moreover studying a chart (whether horary or natal) or the Tarot (or any kind of divination art) seems to bring you in a sort state of mind where intuitively a connection is made with the other person/client. Without this, both arts could simply be performed by machines.

Agreed.

The spider hanging on the ceiling sees the room from another perspective than the mouse down in the corner does, however it is the same room.

Gosh Eddy. I wouldn't like to have to clean up around your place!

Point taken though.

Perhaps there is something else we don't know yet and that cannot be explained by newtonian physics. We shouldn't give in too much to scientists' remarks that the gravity of the doctor or midwife is many more times greater than that of Jupiter and also of the Moon. Sure the Moon doesn't 'pull' on us individually but she excerts the gravity for certain on the sea. With the tides the sea goes up and down and within it all fish and other creatures. I think this also happens with humans. I'd say 'something' around us over the whole Earth is somewhat affected by the planets and we are within it. The moment of birth being the most sensible moment for us.

Even if it could be demonstrated that a small element of the planets influence is in some way causal, as Peter Roberts has speculated, that still leaves the vast majority of astrology beyond any hope of naturalistic explanation. Why should purely symbolic techniques like progressions, primary directions or Solar Returns work for example?

The drawback of a pure symbolical view is that one needs to be 'initiated' in it or one needs an astrologer to explain what is happening. However the relation of weather with astrology and the possible effects of astrology on animals and plants indicate that there should be something physically related and couldn't be explained from a pure symbolical view.

We can see such connections or interconnections operating without the need for a causal principle.

It occurs to me that the origins of this discussion stem back to the two giants of early western phiolosophy: Plato and Aristotle. Plato suggested our perception of reality was simply a shadow of the true nature of things contained in the ideal form or 'the good'. This could be conceived of in theistic or monistic terms. The symbols of astrology are therefore just emanations of this pure realm of reality. Many metaphysical schools whether Neo-Platonic, Gnostic, Sufi or Kabbalistic upheld such views and influenced astrologers throughout the generations. I would suggest the first astrologers in the west (excluding Ptolemy) conceived astrology in something like this manner.

Astrological techniques however apparently powerful would all be viewed as imperfect emanations of the good or the eternal unchanging truth. While the heavens plays out its eternal cycles astrology and astrologers exist in the the sub-lunar world where everything is subject to change and imperfection.

We see a Christian equivalent notion to this Platonic view in St Paul's much quoted phrase of seeing 'through A Glass Darkly' in the New Testament in the book of Corinthians.

Its a mistake to think that a symbolic or metaphysical approach to astrology necessarily implies one is seeking to 'psychologise' it in the way modern astrology often does.

Throughout history many astrologers have sought the assistance of intermediary beings which are variously known as Daemons, Angels or Devas. We find this view quite explicit in the astrology of Vettius Valens. The Church father St Augustine, who had probably been exposed to astrology in the Manichean cult, condemned astrology not because it was perceived not to work but because he saw it as putting the astrologer in contact with demonic spirits!

Aristotle represents the other tradition in the west based on empiricism and rationalism. Arguably, our scientific world view today owes much to this. Ptolemy was the astrologer(?) who sought to embody this approach the most. However, if the ideas of Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand are correct Ptolemy was very much the odd one out in his approach to astrology. Robert Schmidt certainly suggests the originators of hellenistic astrology were working from an essentially Neo-Platonist outlook.

I prefer the view of Ptolemy of humours etc. I think this view was always there with the medieval astrologers, notwithstanding their symbolic approach

.

Medieval astrologers could effectively have their cake and eat it. They could argue that astrology was both art and science and there was no science to prove them wrong. William Lilly was probably one of the last astrologers that could practice his art without concern for its compatibility with a scientific paradigm. We dont have that luxury today. Hence the Holy Grail of modern astrology has been to obtain scientific acceptance.

Both the naturalistic and symbolic (or metaphysical) explanations for astrology both fail under the test conditions of rigid empiricism. The difference is that the latter view doesn't regard scientific empiricism as the final arbiter of all truth.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the reply. As I'm in Avignon France now with 30? I haven't been able to join the forum for a while. I believe I read Robert's book in the past or at least a book of his, don't remember the title. There were some interesting ideas in it but I had my doubts about his explanation why the points of highest activity in the cadent houses as discovered by Gauquelin. But still interesting, just like Percy Seymour's book is interesting too.

The natural science of progressions directions is also difficult to explain. I therefore sometimes doubt about them especially because there seems to be a need for many different systems of these. Which isnt the case with transits only differenc"e is whether sidereal/precession corected or tropical. no need for for example reverse Saturn arc transits.

greetings from the Provence

Greetings:

I am new to this forum and this is my first post here. This thread is also what prompted me to join. I have found this to be a most fascinating discussion. So let me see if I can jump in with a few coherent thoughts.

The original question posed in this thread was ?why are there so many different methods and techniques?? The most simple answer I can think of is that every astrologer sees the world and thus the chart from a different perspective. Each of us who share a passion for the astrological arts learned those arts in different ways.

I have been a student of astrology for 35 years and one of the things I learned long ago is that there are different schools of thought in astrology. Each astrologer creates a different ?Model? of astrology in their mind. Over the years I have found that my own Model of astrology works pretty well, but I also know many other astrologers who?s model varies from my own and yet they too are very good at reading a chart.

Because we can never know all the factors outside of astrology that contribute to the subject of a chart we can only Model the possibilities from any chart. It?s like when Meteorologists use a variety of Models to predict the course of a storm. Each Model takes into account different factors. Then the Meteorologist will use the range of predictions to make their best guess as to what a storm will do.

The first time this really struck home for me happened years ago when I was doing a chart for a suicide. I did a chart for the moment of death; I ran the transits for the natal chart; I looked at the synastry for the moment of birth and death; I ran a progression and then looked at the transits to that progression. With each technique I found another level of comprehension. And then I sat down with people who knew the individual and asked about the circumstances of the suicide. When I was done it felt to me as if understood what had happened; as if I had peeked into that strange moment when one individual thought life no longer worth living. No single technique could have given me that insight.

I have also come to realize is that different astrologers key into different factors in a chart, filtering what they see through the experience of their own lives. There are things I might see in a chart that they will miss completely and by the same token they will see things I miss. You can take a dozen artists and ask them to paint the same sunset. You will end up with a dozen different perspectives.

It is no different with astrologers. Each of us will filter a chart through or own individual Model and experience and reveal a different perspective. Instead of asking everyone to see the same thing in a chart, are we not better served by the accumulated perspectives of different astrologers?

Welcome Benevolentwizard - or may we just call you Ben?

Thank you for your thoughts on this

Regards

Matt

Thank you for the Welcome Matt. And calling me Ben is just fine. This is a very interesting forum and will probably take me a while to read through all these back posts

Hello Benevolentwizard,

Good post!

By the way, welcome to the Forum. Meeting a benevolent wizard is much better than the slightly disenfranchised necromancer that I met yesterday...

Have fun!

TransmaniaconMC

Thank you MC.

This is a fasination and very educational forum and I have only just begun to explore all the interesting threads. I hope I will be able to contribute something along the way.

Ben

I don't think the issues are a modern debate as some seem to be saying here. Al-Kindi favored a total determinism based on stellar rays, while Abu Ma'shar preferred a kind of synchronization (contrary to an earlier assertion I'd say Arabs in particular were forced to theorize and justify because of the religious context they were operating in). While the modern approach may pay lip service to symbolism, in reality it seems to favor techniques that are most compatible with a Newtonian world view (transits, asteroids) and would probably be ready to toss out symbolism if a physical causation would be found. On the other hand from extreme subjectivity it's not far to say that it's all just a placebo effect (as some skeptics have also tried to prove).

I moved my reply from the 'Primary directions in William Lilly vo. 3' thread to this thread because I felt it would be better in its place over here.

Gjiada wrote:In every case I believe that there is no right method.

This has always been my problem with primary directions. I've calculated several systems of them (different keys and different reference frames) and applied them to my chart. I manage to find events/important periods for the same direction in different methods even when they are years apart.

Would this mean that they all work ? I never wanted to reject the primary directions immediately but this makes the choice of a system very difficult. The choice then will be based upon theoretical preference for a system rather than upon experience. However I experience choosing a satisfying theory as a very difficult issue.

Edit,

However my practise in general is not that dramatically as I described.
Since years I have been using 365.25 : 361 as key and directing only MC andAsc with satisfying results.

Eddy wrote:I moved my reply from the 'Primary directions in William Lilly vo. 3' thread to this thread because I felt it would be better in its place over here.

Gjiada wrote:In every case I believe that there is no right method.

This has always been my problem with primary directions. I've calculated several systems of them (different keys and different reference frames) and applied them to my chart. I manage to find events/important periods for the same direction in different methods even when they are years apart.

Would this mean that they all work ? I never wanted to reject the primary directions immediately but this makes the choice of a system very difficult. The choice then will be based upon theoretical preference for a system rather than upon experience. However I experience choosing a satisfying theory as a very difficult issue.

My 2 cents is I have myself somehing of a philosophical problem with systems that alter the natal chart such as progressions and directions (not that I've tried them to some extent of course). If they do that they should at least be consistent in my view and alter the natal chart permanently. I don't think it's purely my opinion as at least De Vore's encyclopedia also sounds a bit skeptical about them.