Skyscript Astrology Forum

Konrad wrote:This general overview of a chart is the main reason for me concluding that attempts to "prove" astrology statistically are always going to fail. It just doesn't work that way.

Konrad, this is tangential to the current topic, but I just would like to say that I partly agree with what you are saying in the quotation, although I'd like to express another point of view.

I am a big supporter of a statistical approach to astrology. Even more, I strongly believe that a scientific/statistical approach to astrology is currently one of the best ways that Astrology can move forward and start to be taken seriously by academic researchers. Ultimately, I believe that Astrology does need a new breed of academic researchers which can study and validate astrological results in practical ways.

It is all about the seriousness of the practice we are doing here! We have a fair share of people who are doing research on older texts and history, but few or none which are doing high quality research in "practical" astrology (i.e., on the practice itself).

With that in mind, I must say that I agree with you that trying to prove astrology statistically like people have been trying to do so far is very hard. Specifically, trying to prove "everything at once" is always going to fail. Like the example of Einstein, people are complex and currently we don't have the ability to measure all possible variables.

However, there is another approach which is to try to do small validations regarding specific techniques or very specific configurations, etc. For instance, some 5 years ago, I've done a statistical study on the Animodar (a traditional technique for rectification of charts). We've used data from a Maternity Hospital and from people around the world, and we could detected that the Animodar was a "statistical illusion", so our conclusion was that the Animodar was not a valid technique. Older astrologers could not have clarified that without access to modern computers and databases, but now we can.

So, my saying is that "small" attempts to statistically prove techniques and small isolated factors, can and should be done. The Animodar was just a small example, but more techniques can be studied in a similar way.


Regards,
Jo?o Ventura

Wow, people, I didn't expect this thread to reach three pages.

zoidsoft wrote:...See Book 1, pg 17 Riley translation (I suspect error in inserting a "not" here because of the general principle that planets in their own domiciles and exaltations are beneficial and help to turn around negative aspects):

21K;19P. The Combinations of the Stars.
...Saturn and Mars are hostile, productive of reversals and ruin. They bring family quarrels, disharmony, and hatred, along with treachery, plots, malevolence, and trials. However, if these stars are not in their own or in operative signs, and if they have benefics in aspect, they produce distinguished and noble nativities, although unsteady in their happiness and prone to unexpected dangers and treachery.

Well if Schmidt's translation is accurate, then yes, you're right:

"Kronos and Ares, then, are hostile, productive of deterrents and demolition. For, they introduce seditions at home and malevolences and enmities, slaves and plots and malefactions and accusations (except that if they fall in their own zoidia or in profitable zoidia, and they are witnessed by benefics, they furnish notable and bright nativities), unreliability in prosperity, and unexpected dangers or betrayals."

Book I, p. 47, 1993.

Haven't read the other posts, just wanted to talk about this detail. (Also notice how, towards the end, Schmidt's translation brings about a totally different understanding than Riley's.)

Hi everybody,

this textual problem made me wonder if Riley or Schmidt is more accurate in his translation, so I've decided to examine the Greek text myself. I think the meaning as it was transmitted (I 19, 3 in Pingree's edition, based on two manuscripts of different branches) quite straightforward, the transmission is fairly reliable, and we are in the fortunate position of having a late (probably 10th or 11th century) summary of the opinions of Dorotheus, Ptolemy and Valens on the planetary natures and commixtures, which is extant in two closely related manuscripts, and which faithfully reports the passage in question.

On one hand, the difference in the two translations is explained by the use of brackets in Pingree's text, which is reproduced by Schmidt, even though this editorial change isn't justified if one compares the main text with the summary. (In this respect the earlier edition by Kroll is superior.) On the other hand, Riley seems to fail to translate the expression ektos ei m? (which equals the pl?n ei m? found in the summary) what it in fact means, "with the exception of". Therefore deleting the word "not" from the Riley translation gives perfect result, just as you observed.

To make comparison possible, I insert my translation of the summary (Appendix I 20) here:

The co-presence of Saturn and Mars is productive of ruin, quarrels, plots, malefaction, unexpected dangers, accusations and various reversals with the exception of being in their own images and being watched by either Jupiter or Venus; yet even if this happens to be, they signify the prosperity will be unsteady and dangers will occur unexpectedly.

(Please note that English is not my first language.)

Wonderful! Thank you, Levente. There's nothing like a good classical education and first-hand knowledge of the source texts. And your English is excellent.

English is just your 13th language, Levente.

Levente Laszlo wrote:...Therefore deleting the word "not" from the Riley translation gives perfect result, just as you observed.

That's what I thought. The principle of planets in hard aspects, but of their own domiciles turns the delineation to a more favorable result as Schmidt has said because planets in their own places can effect from their own significations. The problem is that sometimes their own malefic significations get thrown in so at the end we see that it effects something bad as well.

what is the traditional word for delete and not in ancient greek

pankajdubey wrote:what is the traditional word for delete and not in ancient greek

???
den

But I was saying that I don't think this was in the text. I think Riley just placed it there. If one simply omits the bold then it reads correctly:

However, if these stars are not in their own or in operative signs, and if they have benefics in aspect, they produce distinguished and noble nativities

zoidsoft wrote:

pankajdubey wrote:what is the traditional word for delete and not in ancient greek

???
den

But I was saying that I don't think this was in the text. I think Riley just placed it there. If one simply omits the bold then it reads correctly:

However, if these stars are not in their own or in operative signs, and if they have benefics in aspect, they produce distinguished and noble nativities

Thanks Curtis,

If I understand it correctly, the gist of Levente's translation is that it will be universally bad unless ...conditions...even then the optimism is very tenuous.



PD

Yes, because they are malefics, they still do bad things. What I find interesting is that Valens says that it effects something bad "in the end". This seems to agree with the eminence as a form of "support" given to the native which we all lose (through the anareta to the Hyleg or simply through passing through the max time range without encountering malefic rays). It seems at the end we are the most vulnerable; it is when karma catches up with those who benefit at the expense of others.

Robert Schmidt had an interesting observation in regard to Valens eminence considerations: as he phrased it... malefics benefit the native at the expense of everyone else, whereas benefics indicate suffering that the native has taken on for the benefit of others. We can see that in the translation quotes above.

Reminds me of the most modern interpretation of Karma:

Good karma is like a debit card - there is instant deduction and bad karma like the credit card - you enjoy for sometime but have to pay later

Martin, Gabe, thanks.

zoidsoft wrote:But I was saying that I don't think this was in the text. I think Riley just placed it there.

Not exactly. Actually, the phrase does contain the word "no" (m?; den is apparently Modern Greek), but this is the common way to express "with the exception of". If you wish, the text could be rendered as something like this: "The bad guys cause bad things, provided they are not in their sign or are not looked after by the good guys. If they are, however, they cause good things but also some bad things."