Skyscript Astrology Forum

A lot of interesting ideas here, thanks for sharing guys.

zoidsoft wrote: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.

Like a matyr versus a tyrant?

I take it you mean that if the malefics are well-placed, then they benefit the native, but at the expense of others. Based on the quotations above, it seems that if the malefics are not in good places, all kinds of harmful things occur to the native; no benefits will be gained.

Levente Laszlo wrote:"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."

Now you're speaking my lingo!



Coming back to the topic of whether "weaker" malefic planets become more "malefic", my opinion is that we also need to evaluate the compatibility of the planet's nature with the significator that is making the planet weak or strong. I am thinking about the houses in particular. For example, Mars and the 6th house are compatible due to their similarity of being related to physical injuries. So a domiciled Mars in the 6th may be productive. It is not a weakening factor despite the fact that Mars will be cadent here. Mars will be productive or strong here, but it will be good at creating injuries! So the next question is, is it good for the native? Maybe if you're a surgeon or any of those professions involving dissection...or any kind of work where creating injuries is what you should be doing. Otherwise, maybe not.

Levente Laszlo wrote: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."

OK. Thanks for the explanation. Is there a Greek version (untranslated) online somewhere?

Hello Curtis,

an online facsimile version of the 1907 Kroll edition is available at
http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.it/2 ... gical.html
through the link
http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/cri ... dition.pdf
The Greek text begins at page 31

Iris

irisalbus wrote:Hello Curtis,

an online facsimile version of the 1907 Kroll edition is available at
http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.it/2 ... gical.html
through the link
http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/cri ... dition.pdf
The Greek text begins at page 31

Iris

Thanks!

Curiosity.

How would ancient greeks have written:

1) sometimes not.

2)not even sometimes.

Larxene wrote:For example, Mars and the 6th house are compatible due to their similarity of being related to physical injuries. So a domiciled Mars in the 6th may be productive. It is not a weakening factor despite the fact that Mars will be cadent here. Mars will be productive or strong here, but it will be good at creating injuries! So the next question is, is it good for the native? Maybe if you're a surgeon or any of those professions involving dissection...or any kind of work where creating injuries is what you should be doing. Otherwise, maybe not.

This is exactly my initial question, Larxene. As I see it, Mars, if "well placed" will be less malefic than usual. So let's say Mars is in Scorpion in the 6th, I would believe that he is less prone to cause problems for the native and, that, on the other hand, it could give him, for example, good servants and workers, people that work hard for the interests of the native. However, at the same time, I see this Mars in 6th can harm the native, with accidents or illnesses, because even though Mars is less malefic here, he is still a malefic. I would add a quick remark on that for my client. Just for comparison, if Mars was in the sixth but in Taurus, for example, then I would add a very important remark for my client (not a quick one), telling him to always take extreme care with dangerous actions, from driving a bike to bungee-jumping.

So this is the question.... the weak malefic is even more malefic and is the dignified malefic better for the native? How much better? Could it still cause harm?

Yair Alon wrote:

...As I see it, Mars, if "well placed" will be less malefic than usual. So let's say Mars is in Scorpion in the 6th, I would believe that he is less prone to cause problems for the native and, that, on the other hand, it could give him, for example, good servants and workers, people that work hard for the interests of the native. However, at the same time, I see this Mars in 6th can harm the native, with accidents or illnesses, because even though Mars is less malefic here, he is still a malefic.
(...)
So this is the question.... the weak malefic is even more malefic and is the dignified malefic better for the native? How much better? Could it still cause harm?

This is an interesting question, so I excerpted from AstroDatabank 4 all the charts that had Mars in the 6th house within a three degree orb of inconjunct (or quincunx) the ascendant in their domiciles, fall (Cancer) and exaltation (Capricorn). It seemed obvious that because the 6th house is part of the trinal group that includes the 2nd and 10th, planets in the 6th often relate to work, career or what one is publicly known for. Morin called this trigon The Triplicity of the angle of the Midheaven or the Triplicity of Action. I have posted the results here: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 1761#91761

It's possible to read only the tropical lists if that is preferred.

Thank you for the list, Therese. Before we examine the details, let me give Yair Alon my own opinion on this issue.

Your question, which is "are weak malefics more malefic?", is not as simple and basic as it looks. There are two main variables (the third can be ignored for the moment) that we are discussing here. They are a) planetary strength and b) the favourability of a planet's effects from the native's point of view, respectively. For convenience's sake, let's call them Strength and Favourability.

The problem arises when we try to operationalise these variables. Let's use strength as an example. To "operationalise" strength means trying to answer this question: what does it mean for a planet to be strong or weak? I'll list three factors that may affect strength, but you may be able to come up with more:

i) Planetary phase: visible, making a heliacal appearance (difference between rising and setting?), invisible (which may be broken down into under the beams, combust, cazimi)
ii) Velocity: swift, average, slow (what about retrograde movements?)
iii) Angularity: angular, succeedent, cadent

Each of these factors may represent different kinds of planetary "strength", or they may refer to the same thing. Even if we assume they give the same kind of strength, each factor has at least three different conditions. This gives us at least 3x3x3=81 combinations to deal with. The keyword here is AT LEAST.

The next problem is with the math: adding up the testimonies. For example, suppose that for planetary phase, we argue that heliacal phase and cazimi give the most strength (let's assume they are equally strong), while visible gives us medium strength, and all other invisible conditions are weak (again, we assume they are equally weak). So we have three values for planetary phase:

Strong, medium, weak

Next let's talk about angularity. Angular is strongest, succeedent is medium, cadent is weakest. Great, we also have three values for angularity:

Strong, medium, weak



...does this mean "angular" = "heliacal phase" ?

Similarly, which is stronger:

1. A planet with strong phase, but weak angularity, or
2. A planet with medium phase and medium angularity?





I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here. Natal charts are like rare phenomena. Each chart's results cannot be replicated easily. Therefore, we need to find ways to compare different charts to find common patterns. Our efforts at defining the Strength and Favourability of a planet is one such attempt. However, it is not an easy task, due to the massive number of variables and factors.

In closing, I want to give another example, this time it will be "simpler". Traditional astrologers in the past mostly agree that among the angles, cadent houses are the "weakest". So the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th would be the weakest houses. However, the 9th and 3rd houses are considered favourable houses, while the 12th and 6th houses are considered unfavourable. Thus, despite being all cadent houses, some houses are more beneficial to the native than others. Mars in the 9th would be better than Mars in the 12th, in spite of the fact that both are about equally "weak". How do we resolve this?

If I could use a little musical parallel here: if analyzing an opera (a score = a chart, life = performance), are we going to dissect it into every act and see how it could be played out and count all the possibilities? Or, are we just going to stick to the basics and see how this Gesamtkunstwerk was/has been/is/will be played out? All the ?fortes and pianos?, are the cellos too loud, shall we just shoot the trumpet player for being a bit too loud? I apologize to all non-musical astrologers, but do you get my drift?

Paul Paral

Thanks, Larxene, for breaking the question down into its various parts. We need to proceed by addressing them systematically next. A lot could be learnt from this, imo.

PaulParal,

Your opera example looks compelling, but the idea of sticking to the basics isn't as simple as it appears. That example only addresses one of the many factors that affect a musical performance. For this single factor alone, there are three basic values:

Too loud, everything matches, too soft

However, there are numerous other factors: tempo, varying levels of mastery of one's instrument, individual musical styles or flair (affecting chemistry), style of the musical piece (staccato or legato, etc), various musical effects (crescendo, decrescendo, etc), and so on.

I suck at music, but I've participated in choirs. There are so many issues that affected our performance. Some people frolick too much. Other people sing too loud, and some can't get to a certain amplitude for certain notes. Then there are individuals like me, who can get influenced by the others' parts and sing off-tune!


We do have to avoid over-analysing something, especially if some of the issues are irrelevant. For example, if everyone's tempo is perfectly synchronised, that's one problem solved; we don't need to consider it for that particular performance. Unfortunately, if we read charts regularly, we WILL come across all of the 81 factors. Not in one chart, because that's impossible (the values are mutually exclusive), but collectively, all or most of the combinations will present themselves to us. Sometimes we may have to choose between which is stronger among two or more planets (e.g. trigon lords of sect light). Other times, we may want to compare two or more charts of, say, people from the same profession, to determine which one is more eminent than the other.

Thus, I have reasons to believe that investigating each combination will lead to fruitful ends.

With that said though, I am too lazy to actually do it, so I shall propose another solution to Yair Alon below.



Yair Alon,

My current solution to this conundrum is as follows: I simply assume that strength is not associated with favourability.

Strength shows the effectiveness of a planet in giving indications about the events in one's life. If the planet is strong, then the effects will be strong. By that I mean that the native will experience its events immensely, and that the rate of manifestion is high (i.e. it happens quickly). If the planet is weak, then the events will be trivial and not greatly felt, and it may manifest slowly or not at all.

However, this is disjunct from the planet's favourability. Strong planets will be effective, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful to the native, while weak planets are ineffective, whether for good or for bad.

The planet's favourability will be assessed using other factors. Among them are planetary sect and zodiacal dignities.

In conclusion, are weaker malefics more malefic? Neither. It depends on their favourability factors. There goes your snake oil.



...there's just a teeny weeny problem with that assumption. Some factors are BOTH strength and favourability factors. But we just have to deal with these effects separately. We don't assume they are related, like, "because this is a weakening influence, thus it makes the planet less favourable." We just think, "this variable has two effects: it makes the planet strong/weak, and it makes it more favourable/unfavourable, but there is no correlation between the two effects."

An examplar would be the houses. I've introduced this problem in my previous post. All four cadent houses have different favourability ratings. So I rank them. The Ascendant and MC (also called the first angles) takes first and second place, respectively. Since the Horoskopos is more favourable than the MC, likewise its opposite is more favourable than the MC's counterpart. So the Setting Place is bronze-- I mean third, and the IMC is fourth place. And so on. The Evil Spirit is last place (maybe this explains to you guys why I made that post in the Philosophy section), while the Evil Fortune is just in front of it.



Michael Sternbach,

Thanks. Though I am an industrious a.k.a lazy person, so my personal solution is what you just read above.

I think I'll pass up the opportunity of doing the empirical work. Unless we have people working in maternity units, recording birth data and stalking-- I mean doing a longitudinal study on these babies feverishly as they grow up...in that case, I might lend a hand in analysing their charts.



Let me deal with Therese's results in a separate post. Hopefully that post will be shorter.

Larxene wrote:

Michael Sternbach,

Thanks. Smile Though I am an industrious a.k.a lazy person, so my personal solution is what you just read above.

I think I'll pass up the opportunity of doing the empirical work. Unless we have people working in maternity units, recording birth data and stalking-- I mean doing a longitudinal study on these babies feverishly as they grow up...in that case, I might lend a hand in analysing their charts.

I rather thought of looking at individual chart samples keeping your criteria as specified foremost.

Reading your previous posts, it is not entirely transparent to me which factors you see as indicating a planet's strength and/or favourableness so a list would be appreciated that could provide a working hypothesis.