Paul,the only way the ancients could have tested if Mars was beneficial by night would be to get charts with unaspected Mars,cause in my experience a night Mars makes no difference if the said planet has evil aspects.
I noticed,while reading Morin,that a lot of ancient theory are opinions and theyre not necessarily better than ours.And we have a few advantages.
Morin says in book 21 it doesnt make sense to have the Moon ruling mind,mother and wife cause then we would have to predict the same for the native,his mother or wife.
But according to modern psychology,men tend to seek women who resemble their mother, and emotions muddle or interfere with inteligence.
So,ancient astrologers words must be taken with a grain of caution

damon wrote:Paul,the only way the ancients could have tested if Mars was beneficial by night would be to get charts with unaspected Mars,cause in my experience a night Mars makes no difference if the said planet has evil aspects.

I don't necessarily think they did this empirically, I was just demonstrating that the only logic isn't MorningSun's assumption.
However I don't think there would need to be an unaspected Mars - just observation of Mars during night charts. I don't want to go down this road though as it was just an example to show that there are many ways of thinking about why or how these significations may have arisen and to refute that it is illogical to do it this way - it is surely no less logical than anything else.

I noticed,while reading Morin,that a lot of ancient theory are opinions and theyre not necessarily better than ours.And we have a few advantages.

Who is the 'ours' and the 'we' implied?

But according to modern psychology,men tend to seek women who resemble their mother, and emotions muddle or interfere with inteligence.

So,ancient astrologers words must be taken with a grain of caution

If you are thinking traditional astrology should be taken with a grain of salt what is the reason for posting in a forum dedicated to it? This forum is for discussion of traditional astrology as you know. If you think that psychologers have an advantage shouldn't you be posting in a psychological forum, and if you want to mix your astrology with that too then post in a psychologically oriented forum.

For what its worth though Mind does not mean intelligence. The two are not the same. Also whilst Morin may or may not have said this about the Moon regarding the Wife and the Mother (I do not know) I'm not sure why this tells us anything about traditional astrology as a whole. I could pluck a quote from a 'psychological astrologer' and present it to an actual psychologist and ask if it resembles any psychology they know and conclude that psychological astrology is on dangerous ground indeed if they say no. What will be gained from it? What is the real motive behind these kinds of things?

It can be a useful reminder to return to the sticky thread by Tom at the beginning of the forum:
"This is not an appropriate place for, ?which one is better traditional or modern? debates. We would rather discuss the subject than defend it. "

Not traditional astrology,just what any astrologer ancient or modern says.
But often people act as if some ancient astrologer.Ptolemy or Valens or Morin, was handed down the real astrology by aliens or god,thats all.
Yet in those days they also disagreed betwen themselves

MorningSun wrote:

Konrad wrote:

MorningSun wrote:Saturn needs to go where its nature is, Nocturnal and dark. That is where these two planets are most comfortable, more of their natures. They both have very good qualities. Saturn builds such strong and lasting foundations. It gives us discipline, form and structure, without which we would not have much of a lasting civilization.

I won't repeat what everyone else has been saying here as they all have been pretty clear about it but the bolded part is the point everyone is trying to make to you. You are right, both Mars and Saturn are more able to adhere to their innate natures in a dirunal and nocturnal chart respectively. It just so happens that their natures are against growth and life hence them being malefics. I don't think the ancients thought Mars and Saturn inherently bad or evil, it is just their natures are not conducive to an easy and blissful life. This is why it is more profitable for them to be somewhere where their inherent natures are subdued.

Hello Konrad, Very well put and a great reply. However, if you are wearing an article of clothing that you hate and are very uncomfortable wearing it, you are just not quite your normal self, probably a bit cranky and off, more cranky than if you had comfortable clothing on. I imagine that is how Mars and Saturn feel when out of their element and qualities. I would still argue that Mars would be a stronger triplicity ruler in a fire and air sign, and is more apt to be cranky, out of sorts in a water and earth sign. Yes, I understand the thinking of why "they" wanted to put Mars and Saturn where did. It is just food for thought, something to ponder.

I was thinking along those lines. Saturn by day must feel annoyd by the sun rather than warmed. Thats the problem with analogy ,it depends on individual perspective. As for Mars at night, think about nite club/pub brawls. They normally happen at night
And remember night facilitates crime

I guess the solution then is not to use sect. Or use sect in your own way, make Saturn be of the night sect or whatever. If we want to understand the traditional usage of sect, this forum seems ideal for it. However, if we want to invent our own brand of sect or ignore the traditional usage of sect, then it probably isn't tbh. Personally I've seen where sect can alter the expression of the planet such that, Mars and Saturn in particular, seem to be more troublesome for the native when out of sect - especially if both out of sect and contrary to their rejoicing hemisphere. But if others don't that's fine.

Remember also that Saturn by day in winter is still very cold and in autumn cold and dry. Mars in Summer at night would still be pretty warm. In chinese systems season comes first,day/night comes second. Dont know if the same could apply here,its only an idea.

I dont exactly criticize Morin. I like his approach to houses and planets. I know people with Sun in 8th house whose father didnt die when they were young,because the Sun doesnt rule the IC.
In my case it does,and my dad passed away when i was 21,but only in WSH does Sun fall in 8th,which would place IC on the third.
As far as I know Morin used quadrant systems though

damon wrote:Remember also that Saturn by day in winter is still very cold and in autumn cold and dry. Mars in Summer at night would still be pretty warm. In chinese systems season comes first,day/night comes second. Dont know if the same could apply here,its only an idea.

No. I'm not sure what the point is with Saturn being cold in winter. If you want to go with that logic, all the planets are cold in winter anyway, saturn, being naturally colder, will just be even colder still. Anyway I don't think this idea of the seasons really ties into sect like that. I think the best thing would be to study what the traditional authors (prior to Morin maybe check some Hellenistic sources for example) and examine their techniques, if you don't agree with them then the simple thing is to just not use them. I was surprised at how much subtlety and extra nuance can be extrapolated from the sect of the planets especially when a planet signifies a given house or become a particular time lord during a given year.

I dont exactly criticize Morin. I like his approach to houses and planets. I know people with Sun in 8th house whose father didnt die when they were young,because the Sun doesnt rule the IC.
In my case it does,and my dad passed away when i was 21,but only in WSH does Sun fall in 8th,which would place IC on the third.
As far as I know Morin used quadrant systems though

I don't think this is the thread for discussing that, maybe a new thread if you like?

Well,my idea was, if the heat of the day makes Mars even hotter,then why not use Season too?
In a Summer chart mars would be equally hot or even more

lihin wrote:Good morning,

Ar?s rules one Water and one Fire Sign. Ar?s enjoys being with Aphrodit? and S?l?n? and vice versa, the Former ruling one Earth and one Air sign. Opposites can and do attract.

lihin

Hello Lihin,

Very good point and well said.

Paul wrote: Why? Whoever said that this was an important consideration for sect? Whoever said that sect is about putting planets where their nature is? Isn't this just an assumption, and when we get down to it, the nature of the disagreement here. You think sect should be about putting planets in the environments that most readily resemble their nature. However the tradition of astrology implies that it is about putting planets in the environments that bring out the beneficial qualities of their nature, not simply match them.

Well said Paul!! This is the type of discussion that I was hoping for.

I thought it would be a critical thinking debate. Instead I felt LAMBLASTED by Mark and very closed to even debating the THEORY, of who came up with it, could it work another way, etc. Its a point I have pondered for some time, who came up with it, and does decreeing it so in a theory, make it so. When yes, Mars IS already modified in a water sign in a chart. Of course I understand the basis for the scheme.

Just thoughts to ponder thats it. Nothing so dire as you all seemed to have interpreted. I felt attacked for even throwing the idea out there, when it was simply for critical thinking debate. I could argue the case both ways. I do question many things and beliefs, think out of the box on many concepts, because I am pondering it, turning it upside down, sideways, etc, does not mean I am totally throwing out the theory.

Some comments, from Mark, as an idea "on a cigarette pack" and " I don't know if you are from a mental institution" are really rather personal attacks, and I think rather cruel, in my opinion. So the lesson here is not to think out of the box, not to analyze or question, as people will get upset. I do forget not all people have a tendency to analyze and question everything.

The comments on Sect are most appreciated! It clarified the thinking on sect extremely well!! I thank you so much for taking the time to do so.

If I have offended anyone, I do apologize, when feeling attacked I do go more on the opposite!

Morning Sun

Some comments, from Mark, as an idea "on a cigarette pack" and " I don't know if you are from a mental institution" are really rather personal attacks, and I think rather cruel, in my opinion.

The first point was a rhetorical flourish as I already explained. You clearly were unclear about certain aspects of how sect operated in ancient astrology. I hope the responses you have had here have helped in that process. However, I do think you were putting the cart before the Horse in terms of making suggestions how to reformulate the whole notion of sect. I think a little intellectual humility is in order before seeking to dispense with ancient astrological traditions like that.

My other point was not intended as as an insult although it looks like you perceive it that way. My tongue in cheek humour obviously backfired. It was simply reinforcing the basic fact that I and others members know absolutely nothing about anonymous posters here like yourself. We have nothing to go on but how you post here. So we inevitably form judgements and perceptions on that alone.

So the lesson here is not to think out of the box, not to analyze or question, as people will get upset. I do forget not all people have a tendency to analyze and question everything.

I actually question all the astrological ideas I encounter. I also test them out in actual chart delineations. Its not a question of adopting traditional ideas in a robotic way.

There is a difference though between questioning or analysing ideas and seeking to dismantle aspects of the astrological tradition. I find aspects of the western astrological tradition I am not entirely satisfied with either. The view on retrograde planets is one of them. I am personally exploring a different approach in that respect in my own astrological work. However, I dont intend to post up my views on that in this part of Skyscript because that is not the purpose of this forum.

Fundamentally, I think our difference is that you have an intellectual difficulty with sect theory and therefore have not worked with it. I have both studied the subject and find the theory very appealing. I have found it verified in actual charts on many occasions.

Ultimately, I see astrology as a symbolic system where we must all select our chosen delineation toolkit we are comfortable working with. We will inevitably not all agree on what we find attractive or unacceptable. So if the traditional logic of sect or combustion or triplicity rulerships dont make sense to you no one is forcing you to adopt them.

However, the traditional forum specifically exists to try to understand the astrological tradition rather than reform it. That doesn't mean we are all mindless clones or 'trad heads' off this forum without our own opinions or astrological idiosycracies. That is what human diversity is about. Its just that this particular forum is set up for discussing and understanding better the ideas of the astrological tradition rather than putting forth our personal theories on how to improve it.

Having said that many great astrologers have effectively reformed or revised what came before them. Ptolemy, Kepler and Morin are outstanding examples. So I have no problem if people want to challenge or reformulate an aspect of the astrological tradition. Its just that this particular forum isn't the best launch pad for such an approach.

Mark

I haven't had time to read the whole thread entirely, but I didn't see any mention of the political ramifications of sect. Schmidt translated the term "hairesis" as "sect" meaning a division, a school of thought, or as a political party which is not too far a stretch.

Within the politial paradigm, sect is a statement about where the planets fit in with relation to each other and whether in some cases a given planet might "cross the isle" on certain topics (the exaltations) in order to get some of its own agenda passed through bargaining with other planets through their domicile/exaltation relation. Planets are said to be in the service of heimarmene (loosely translated as what ought to be). There is an implied ideal in this statement and one of balance.

If there is an ideal, then there is also "what is" which Schmidt more closely associates with the lots in the terrestrial realm as either measuring up or falling short (more commonly the latter).

Planets of the sect in favor tend to work toward the benefit of the native (and vice versa). If Mars was of the diurnal sect, that would be saying that excess is favorable for the native, if we take the initial premise that Mars is hot and dry and inimical to life and therefore diurnal. To me this makes no sense whatsoever. Mars of the nocturnal sect can work to the native's benefit, but when it is diurnal, the excess of heat and dryness (not to mention it's squares with the Sun making it inimical to the day) would seem to create much havoc... The malefics have been placed in the sect contrary to their nature so that they can work toward heimarmene and balance which is of the greater good (excess is not what ought to be, but instead a balance). Malefics often benefit the native at the expense of others (particularly if the chart is eminent). In order to balance this in the world, the benefics suffer for our restoration (this is why they joy in the 5th/11th).

I would be hesitant to pull on the thread of sect of Mars; one might unravel the whole tapestry which was marvelously woven by the founders without first understanding why the assignment and under what principles it follows; not everything is about affinity (Mars is hot therefore it is day like). The systematic nature of the Thema Mundi as a teaching tool shows that Hellenistic astrology is like a Rubics cube... One must understand the chart on multiple dimensions to dismantle and be able to put it back together in the proper order.

Morning Sun wrote:

THE MOST IMPORTANT is: Mars being assigned to the Nocturnal Sect and trying to trace the origina of that, BECAUSE, THAT is where the TRIPLICITY Schemata comes from, or am I wrong in thinking that?

Which never made sense to me. So I try to put myself or the Skyscript group as the ones that are coming up with a theory and why? Put yourself back in time, and see if that is what you or the forum would come up with. As it all started with qualities of hot, dry ,wet, moist and the elements, fire, air, earth and water. That is the original basis/foundation is it not?

If so, then why would anyone, put Mars as ruler of the water triplicity, when fire puts water out and scorches earth. Where is the Logic in that? I just doesn't make sense. So if you were devising a triplicity scheme is that what you would do?

I actually missed this post of yours previously. Sorry about that. I think I see better now why you are so keen to discuss the origin of the triplicities. I think you may be operating under the misconception that ancient astrology used the four elements from its outset.

The basic point I want to make is that the triplicities are Babylonian in origin not Greek. The assignation of triplicities to particular signs long pre-dates the use of elements in astrology altogether.

In earliest hellenistic astrology texts there is no mention of the four elements. The first astrological text to set this out is The Anthology of Vettius Valens in the 2nd century CE.

Instead in Mesopotamian astrology there is the following scheme linking the triplicities to the four winds or directions.

Aries/Leo/Sagittarius-North wind
Taurus/Virgo/Capricorn-South Wind
Gemini/Libra/Aquarius-West wind
Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces-East Wind


If you study Ptolemy or his predecessors you find no reference to the four elements. All Ptolemy says is that Mars is linked to the west wind and the signs associated with it ie Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces. Ptolemy shifts the direction associated with Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces in Babylonian astrology from the east to west wind.

This tied into Babylonian mundane astrology which looked at the 4 kingdoms around Babylonia.

Aries/Leo/Sagittarius-North Wind Akkad
Taurus/ Virgo/ Capricorn -South Wind Elam
Gemini/ Libra/ Aquarius -West Wind Amurru
Cancer/ Scorpio/ Pisces -East Wind Subartu

So when Ptolemy suggests Mars is the main triplicity ruler of Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces he is not linking it to the water triplicity as medieval astrologers did.

The attribution of qualities to the signs was also different in hellenistic astrology to later medieval astrology. Ptolemy does not assign qualities to the triplicities the way later medieval astrologers did. He never states for example that air is warm and moist or earth cold and dry. Instead he has his own system of assigning qualities to individual signs based on the seasons.

Mark