Tom wrote:
Although I agree with what I think is your point: there needs to be a reason for a natal reading. Then things fall into place. If we have a chart in front of us with the instructions: "Tell me about myself," I admit I couldn't do more than the most basic cookbook type delineations. We're never sure where to go. Without context the reading is usually just fluff.

Horary on the other hand is very specific. This is my question and that is usually followed with an answer to that question. The human life is more complicated to unravel. In many cases horary is far more suitable than natal astrology. It's nice to have both.

That was exactly my point. You said it ten times better as I ever would, thank you. And there are some questions that can be answered only by horary. It is impossible to find a missing dog using natal astrology. Not saying horary is better or anything just like you said, it's good to have both.

And then there's always the exact time of birth issue. Even if we happen to have some kind of official document on our hands which is unlikely, the doctors are not robots yet 10-15 minutes off can sometimes change a lot esp. if signs of short ascension are in effect. Of course, there are methods etc but can you really trust them.

There are too many assumptions going on for my liking. As if astrology is not complicated enough.

Seiko wrote:
And then there's always the exact time of birth issue. Even if we happen to have some kind of official document on our hands which is unlikely, the doctors are not robots yet 10-15 minutes off can sometimes change a lot esp. if signs of short ascension are in effect..

It's not exactly like that.

In Italy for example doctors are obliged to have a clock in the delivery room, because the birth time has effects on the patrimonial rights of the new born.

margherita

In Italy for example doctors are obliged to have a clock in the delivery room, because the birth time has effects on the patrimonial rights of the new born.

In the US it's not like that, although the vast majority of hospitals make an honest effort at getting the time right, mistakes do happen. I know a woman whose been a Registered Nurse for well over 30 years. She's worked in operating rooms and delivery rooms for much of that time. At one time she worked in a New Hampshire hospital and they were instructed to have the clocks all around and accurately mark down the time. So if you're born in that hospital, you're probably OK.

Pennsylvania for a while mandated all births be recorded in Eastern Standard time even during DST. Some hospitals complied, others didn't so people born during DST could have a birth certificate that is an hour off. There are other quirks. Some towns refused to follow DST other than war time. In NJ for example, there was a one-hour difference between some small towns in Warren County and the rest of the state.

Since everything has been standardized these problems don't occur, but they did occur until the 1970s and not only in New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

The accuracy of birth times will always be an issue.

Margherita wrote:

I should disagree 100% Do you know some source where two different sets of rules are mentioned, one for horary and the other for natal astrology?

Good to see our yin-yang polarity is back on track. No I cant think of any traditional author making such an explicit distinction. I wasn't suggesting 'different sets of rules' in relation to essential dignities although there clearly are some idiosyncratic 'horary rules' in terms of delineation. My point was more about a different emphasis for a different branch of astrology. Do we need a traditional text to have an astrological opinion? Are traditionalists only allowed to repeat parrot fashion what earlier authorities state? Of course not. Incidentally, why bother to quote Ptolemy? Do you think he did horary?

We all look at charts and meet real people where we get a chance to match theory to practice. We also have the innate capacity to reflect and put astrological theory through the prism of philosophical scrutiny. We don?t need a traditional text to give us the ok that natal and horary astrology have important differences.

Horary relates to a specific question. The scope is usually restricted to a short period of time (days, weeks or months) and the issue at stake is quite restricted. Natal astrology on the other hand relates to an entire life and its scope is almost unlimited in that context. I don?t want to infringe on the philosophy forum but I think this issue relates fundamentally to how we view the subject of free will. I personally think we have a degree of freewill but how much we can exercise that depends on both how free we are of our conditioning.

I think that is why horary can be so accurate in predictive terms. Quite simply most people are predictable because in the short time scale and scope of a question they usually follow their conditioning. In the time frame of a horary question there is less scope to step back from our conditioning. A nativity is quite different. The symbolism is more fluid and can refer to various associations. Just as in translating Chinese into English the Chinese characters can have various meanings when converted to English. I don?t deny that can be applied to horary too but it?s a question of degree.

All of us have what the German philosopher Martin Heidegger called ?throwness? . We are literally thrown by birth into a particular time, place, family, ethnic group , religious and linguistic culture. All of these factors influence a person?s development. I am not suggesting planets in detriment or fall dont manifest in natal terms. In some respect it will always be reflected. Its more an issue of how. I think we need to avoid the mentality that such planets are necessarily ?weak? or doomed to lack fulfilment. None of this changes the natal promise of a nativity but we should never forget a person has a lifetime to work through such challenges and integrate them.

I haven?t looked at their ideas in detail but I believe both Lee Lehman and Bernadette Brady have expressed similar views. Brady has run a course on medieval astrology while Lee Lehman is noted for her writings on traditional natal and horary.

They tend to discuss such planets expressing in an unconventional or more obscure way due to the conflict between the planet and the sign and its ruler. Naturally, sometimes the more dire implications of fall or detriment do express themselves in a nativity. However, we cant leap to such an assumption.

It could be argued though this is over simplistic and obscures the traditional distinction between detriment and fall. For example Morin describes fall as 'numbing and weakening' while detriment is 'corrupting and peverse'. Ibn Ezra describes fall as 'worry, distress and hardship'. The notion of a person expressing a planet in fall in more positive way could be seen quite literally in terms of travelling or living away from the homeland or more negatively being ignored or neglected or dismissed. The idea of unconventionality is also consistent with detriment rather than fall. However, its 'corrupting' influence can be seen a self destructive too. For example, Ibn Ezra describes a planet in detriment as like a person fighting with himself.

In its own dignities a planet can act as it wants (mitigated by house placement, aspects etc) It its debilities the same planet is seen to be clumsy, inconsistent and yields corrupted or altered results. Generally, such planets show imperfect or incomplete execution of what they promise. Robert Zoller compared the general difference between a dignified and debilitated planet as that of a drunk and sober person. The drunk can still walk and talk but in a much more clumsy and unsatisfactory manner than a sober person.

Naturally there are lots of nuances mentioned in the tradition. For example, malefics in detriment are generally seen as worse in effect than benefics. Equally, house placement and aspects to benefics/malefics can improve or worsen the delineation. Morin suggests matters are worse if the sign of detriment or fall is of a gender or elemental quality that is inimical to the planet. So Venus is made worse by placement in Aries than in Scorpio. Hellenistic sources would emphasize sect so that a planet in fall would be made worse if it conflicted with the sect of the chart. Like the medievals they would also look at sign placement and the planetary dispositor.

Looking at Federer's chart the peregrine Mercury is important ruling both his ASC and MC. Peregrination is weakening but not a debility in the way detriment or fall are. A peregrine planet is traditionally a 'wanderer' like a person not in his native country. As always its effects depend on its rulers or accidental associations by aspect and its placement by house. Here Mercury conjoins the sign ruler (The Sun) and is received by it in its domicile rulership. The planets in fall and the peregrine Mercury all emphasize exile or travel from home and Federer has of course made his fame by constantly globe trotting on the international ATP Tennis event tour. Although travel is usually just linked to the 3rd and 9th houses all the cadent houses can be linked to travel. Equally all the succedent houses can be linked to different ways we interact financially.

I understand Federer has dual Swiss and South African nationality and speaks numerous languages fluently. Regarding his Mars its interesting that he had a problem in his early career with temper tantrums on court and was referred to a sports counsellor to address this.

Mark

The building blocks of astrology are all the same, but their application is different.
The set of rules of horary don?t apply for natal, mundane or electional and vice versa

hello Mark

Mark wrote:I wasn't suggesting 'different sets of rules' in relation to essential dignities although there clearly are some idiosyncratic 'horary rules' in terms of delineation.

This is exactly what I disagree. These are in my opinion the basic rules of traditional astrology, without any distinction.

Do we need a traditional text to have an astrological opinion? Are traditionalists only allowed to repeat parrot fashion what earlier authorities state?

I don't think so. We can have our ideas as in the past traditional astrologers, who in practice were divided on everything. I have astonishing examples about the fact if one says white, for the other is black.

Of course not. Incidentally, why bother to quote Ptolemy? Do you think he did horary?

I quoted Ptolemy because for what I understand him, Ptolemy method is based on observation and judgement of significators. How we could not consider if the planet is dignified or not by essential and accidental virtue?
He needs the whole first book to describe the planetary conditions. Why should he do if this is not important?

We all look at charts and meet real people where we get a chance to match theory to practice. We also have the innate capacity to reflect and put astrological theory through the prism of philosophical scrutiny. We don?t need a traditional text to give us the ok that natal and horary astrology have important differences

.

The famous Italian expert of Renaissance Eugenio Garin once wrote that horary is a moment of freedom from the destiny promised by a natal chart. Words are mine but this is the idea...

None of this changes the natal promise of a nativity but we should never forget a person has a lifetime to work through such challenges and integrate them.

I'm very skeptical about this.
In Italy we say "who is born a circle cannot die a square."

It is the reason way Paul's conversion on Damascus road is very famous, because one can hardly change, if so it is a miracle

However, its 'corrupting' influence can be seen a self destructive too. For example, Ibn Ezra describes a planet in detriment as like a person fighting with himself.

In its own dignities a planet can act as it wants (mitigated by house placement, aspects etc) It its debilities the same planet is seen to be clumsy, inconsistent and yields corrupted or altered results. Generally, such planets show imperfect or incomplete execution of what they promise. Robert Zoller compared the general difference between a dignified and debilitated planet as that of a drunk and sober person. The drunk can still walk and talk but in a much more clumsy and unsatisfactory manner than a sober person.

It's what I think.
A planet in its debility can act, but in its very peculiar way, generally damaging the native.

So where you are in disagreement with me?

Looking at Federer's chart the peregrine Mercury is important ruling both his ASC and MC. Peregrination is weakening but not a debility in the way detriment or fall are. A peregrine planet is traditionally a 'wanderer' like a person not ........ Regarding his Mars its interesting that he had a problem in his early career with temper tantrums on court and was referred to a sports counsellor to address this.

I believe that if we wonder where sport is Federer's chart we can find quite easily. Then as someone told in this thread he has all his life ahead and it's likely soon or later Mars and Mercury give some effects of their condition, together with the ones you already mentioned.


margherita

Mark wrote:

I wasn't suggesting 'different sets of rules' in relation to essential dignities although there clearly are some idiosyncratic 'horary rules' in terms of delineation.

Margherita wrote:

This is exactly what I disagree. These are in my opinion the basic rules of traditional astrology, without any distinction.

Maybe if you stick with Ptolemy no distinctions appear. But then he never did horary astrology. However, if the delineation method was totally identical why do traditional authors write separate books on natal and horary? Horary for example uses planetary hour rulers and the Moon as a secondary significator for the ?querent?. What about the horary consideration on rising degrees which are early or late? This doesn?t appear in any traditional natal sources I have read. What about Bonatti?s considerations before judgement?

Mark wrote:

Do we need a traditional text to have an astrological opinion? Are traditionalists only allowed to repeat parrot fashion what earlier authorities state?

Margherita wrote:

I don't think so. We can have our ideas as in the past traditional astrologers, who in practice were divided on everything. I have astonishing examples about the fact if one says white, for the other is black.

Amen!

Margherita wrote:

How we could not consider if the planet is dignified or not by essential and accidental virtue? He needs the whole first book to describe the planetary conditions. Why should he do if this is not important?

Exactly who suggested we shouldn?t do this or that it wasn?t important? It certainly wasn?t me!

Margherita wrote:

The famous Italian expert of Renaissance Eugenio Garin once wrote that horary is a moment of freedom from the destiny promised by a natal chart. Words are mine but this is the idea...

Interesting. I always meant to read his book. That?s kind of the opposite position to the one I currently hold.

Mark wrote:

None of this changes the natal promise of a nativity but we should never forget a person has a lifetime to work through such challenges and integrate them.

Margherita wrote:

I'm very skeptical about this. In Italy we say "who is born a circle cannot die a square." It is the reason way Paul's conversion on Damascus road is very famous, because one can hardly change, if so it is a miracle

I am not proposing a modernist, astro-babble based on evolutionary ?personal growth?. I do think modern astrologers over-emphasize the degree of free will available to us. Most of us follow our conditioning. Plus the conditions of our early life present most of us with fated limitations. Neo-Platonic and Pythagorean astrologers would probably have seen this as a product of reincarnation. I am not a monotheist so a ?miracle? from divine intervention is not a concept I accept. However I do believe that spiritual illumination can provide the insight for a person to step back from a habitual ways of thinking and acting. I accept that is much rarer than many of us would like to believe.

Mark wrote:

However, its 'corrupting' influence can be seen a self destructive too. For example, Ibn Ezra describes a planet in detriment as like a person fighting with himself.

In its own dignities a planet can act as it wants (mitigated by house placement, aspects etc) It its debilities the same planet is seen to be clumsy, inconsistent and yields corrupted or altered results. Generally, such planets show imperfect or incomplete execution of what they promise. Robert Zoller compared the general difference between a dignified and debilitated planet as that of a drunk and sober person. The drunk can still walk and talk but in a much more clumsy and unsatisfactory manner than a sober person.

Margherita wrte:

It's what I think.
A planet in its debility can act, but in its very peculiar way, generally damaging the native.

So where you are in disagreement with me?

You?re the one who said you disagreed with me 100%. Don?t ask me I just posted some comments.

Margherita wrote:

I believe that if we wonder where sport is Federer's chart we can find quite easily.

mmm natal charts are always a lot easier when you know who it is and what they have achieved.

Mark wrote:
mmm natal charts are always a lot easier when you know who it is and what they have achieved.

That's not true.

Unfortunately there are tons of charts where you are obliged to search and search in books for something that can fit with information you know about the native.

Have you ever tried to find examples for one of your seminars or articles and whatever native you try, then you open his/her chart and it does not fit? If not you have been very, very lucky.

For Federer on the other hand he has Lepus on the MC, and Mercury and Mars in the 11th house, and Mars has just passed its heliacal rising: it took me five minutes to locate the exact quote in Firmicus.

margherita

Mark wrote:

mmm natal charts are always a lot easier when you know who it is and what they have achieved.

Margherita wrote:

That's not true.

You really enjoy disagreeing with me dont you?

I think many would disagree with you. Knowing Federer is a world famous Tennis player and other biographical details answers a lot of questions and helps us to focus on particular areas of his chart. For example, the Mercury and Mars you have alluded to. One of the differences between natal and horary is that the latter is targeted on a single question while the former addresses a multitude of issues affecting a life. Knowing who the horoscope belongs to doesn?t tell us everything but it does restrict the potential options for consideration a lot.

However, since you feel knowing the identity of a chart holder is of little advantage I am assuming you will be at the forefront of the Skyscript delineation next time we have an anonymous mystery chart!

Incidentally, not everyone is into fixed stars/paranatellonta. I think you should explain why Lepus culminating is significant here.....

Your point about charts not always simply reflecting the details we know about a person does happen of course. Some charts are a real puzzle and take considerable effort to delineate whereas others seem to be much more straightforward to read. I am glad that you acknowledge traditional delineation methods are no magic wand. In my experience most astrologers giving talks or writing articles on delineation techniques tend to ?cherry pick? charts to fit their approach with obvious examples. Its only when you research charts privately you see the cases that don?t fit that easily at all. Perhaps that is understandable as a teaching method. However, it does give the impression delineation methods are far more reliable and cut and dried than they really are at times.

That is why I posted Federer?s chart in the first place. Its straightforward enough to agree what planets in fall means theoretically from a traditional perspective. Using the concept of fall simplistically it would be very easy to write off Federer's potential based on this. However, its more challenging and interesting in my view to see how well this plays out in actual charts/lives. Plus as Konrad indicated at the outset of the thread this concept cannot be hermetically sealed in isolation since the traditional sources draw our attention to mitigations such as other dignities, placement by masculine/feminine sign, as well as house placement, aspects, reception, sect, solar phase , fixed stars, lots, antiscia etc.

Mark

You really enjoy disagreeing with me dont you?

That is a permissible activity. I think you misunderstood her point that was pretty clearly spelled out in the following sentences from her post that you omitted in yours:

Unfortunately there are tons of charts where you are obliged to search and search in books for something that can fit with information you know about the native.

Have you ever tried to find examples for one of your seminars or articles and whatever native you try, then you open his/her chart and it does not fit? If not you have been very, very lucky.

Both of those are valid points. We've all seen charts where what we know about the native doesn't fit with the chart and we all know of concepts we wish to illustrate from a chart but we can't find a natal chart to illustrate it. Overall hindsight astrology seems easier, but it is not always the case. That was Margherita's point. There was no need for this:

However, since you feel knowing the identity of a chart holder is of little advantage [something she never said - tc] I am assuming you will be at the forefront of the Skyscript delineation next time we have an anonymous mystery chart!

We can disagree without remarks like that.

Mark wrote:

You really enjoy disagreeing with me dont you?

Tom wrote:

That is a permissible activity. I think you misunderstood her point that was pretty clearly spelled out in the following sentences from her post that you omitted in yours.

Of course it is. You totally missed the context and the laughing icon. That was a light comment referring to the background of our numerous discussions here on Skyscript! Thats pretty evident to any regular reader of posts on the forums. If someone tried to censure disagreement on Skyscript they would end up a very frustrated body! Much of the pleasure of the forums is the dialectics that get going. However, I sometimes forget that casual readers looking in could miss all this and take such a comment quite literally.

Tom wrote:

Both of those are valid points.

I acknowledge that in my post above:

Mark wrote:

Your point about charts not always simply reflecting the details we know about a person does happen of course. Some charts are a real puzzle and take considerable effort to delineate whereas others seem to be much more straightforward to read. I am glad that you acknowledge traditional delineation methods are no magic wand.

Tom wrote:

We can disagree without remarks like that.

I think you are being uneccessarily heavy handed here as this was only another light comment and not meant maliciously. Still, such teasing comments like this can be misinterpreted as something darker I suppose.


Mark