johannes susato wrote:If you really want to discuss the chart above, then the problem is not with the Moon to be void of course as she is not void of course, but with the application to the conjunction of Venus, she being still out of orb of the Moon. Johannes

Geoffrey wrote:Lilly does not mention that the Moon is VOC, and it is not mentioned in the middle of his chart. Had he thought the Moon would go VOC before applying to Venus, he would have written "? a ? ? a ? ? ad vac et ? ? et ? ?"

pankajdubey wrote:I thought so but I wanted Johannes to say that

PD

PD, obviously you clipped my text above for what you want me to say has been said by me already: the Moon is not void of course.

Johannes

thanks for your response clinton. i like it!

i think astrology is like a religion as well. people can get attached to astrological beliefs and are sometimes unable to separate there beliefs from the beliefs of others, or only in an unfriendly way where they are viewed as a threat, or considered 'wrong'.. if all the world religions operated this way, we'd be screwed! my own belief is that all the religions and astrology for that matter, are working with something less materialistic which can be difficult to quantify in any sort of scientific manner. it is true astrologers can consider whether they were right or wrong on a viewpoint on a question after the fact, or on any read of an astro chart. this is a blessing which i don't think religion shares in the same obvious way.

i go back to what geoffrey said about the difference between what lilly might have said, verses what he did that went beyond or outside of what he said. i see this as the 'art' part to astrology and the part that i believe we also have to develop.

thanks for your comments!

johannes susato wrote:

johannes susato wrote:If you really want to discuss the chart above, then the problem is not with the Moon to be void of course as she is not void of course, but with the application to the conjunction of Venus, she being still out of orb of the Moon. Johannes

Geoffrey wrote:Lilly does not mention that the Moon is VOC, and it is not mentioned in the middle of his chart. Had he thought the Moon would go VOC before applying to Venus, he would have written "? a ? ? a ? ? ad vac et ? ? et ? ?"

pankajdubey wrote:I thought so but I wanted Johannes to say that

PD

PD, obviously you clipped my text above for what you want me to say has been said by me already: the Moon is not void of course.

Johannes

Johannes,

Moon is out of the orb of conjunction of venus and nothing intervening and no other aspect happening, then what is this condition if not void.

So either Lilly is using here his definition of another planet still being in this sign how so ever far away or he means that it is not void because it is not yet fully separated from previous aspect.By the time this previous aspected is considered separated by platic(moiety of orbs) it would have already be in contact with another one by the same definition.

Kind of a rolling boil cooking.

Now suppose, Moon is at 1 degree taurus and Sun at 29 degree taurus.
Is moon VOC or just out of the orb of conjunction of Sun.

PD

pankajdubey wrote:Moon is out of the orb of conjunction of venus and nothing intervening and no other aspect happening, then what is this condition if not void.

We should distinguish void of course from application.
Application has to be seen in dependency of two planets and whether they are approaching within the half of the sum of both their orbs.
Even though in the given William Waller question the application is not working yet by orbs, Lilly gives reason for its working all the same.

In contrast to this the state of being void of course has to be seen in dependency of three planets: the moving Planet (a), the planet he es separating from (b) and the planet he is applying to (c).

Following Lilly, void of course is not given, as long as a is in separation from b.

Now c has to be analyzed. Will there by application between a and c, and when?
If there is already application, then a is not void of course, a separating from b and applying to c at the same time.
If no application is given now, i.e. at the moment of the question, then we have to analyze, if there will be an application to c, and when.
If an application to planet c will start before the separation from planet b ends, then Planet a is not void of course.
And this is why in the William Waller question Lilly does not mention the Moon to be void of course, because she is not void of course nor will she be void of course.

But when planet a will not enter the state of application to c before his (a) separation from b has come to its end, a is then in the state of ad vacuum, i.e. of applying/approaching to the state of being void of course.

pankajdubey wrote:Now suppose, Moon is at 1 degree taurus and Sun at 29 degree taurus.
Is moon VOC or just out of the orb of conjunction of Sun.

If the Moon is still in separation from another planet, she would reach a region in the sign, where she would end separation and not yet be within the moyety of both, hers and the Sun his, orbs, i.e. she would be void of course then, later on.

Lilly Twould call this State of the Moon ad vacuum , i.e. not yet void of course, but later on.

But if the Moon is not in separation fom another planet, she would be void of course already now.

Johannes

Johannes,

Given your differentiation between application and void- how does moon apply to void ?

pankajdubey wrote:Johannes,

Given your differentiation between application and void- how does moon apply to void ?

By what else than by her own motion, PD?

You shorten the terms a little bit too much in my opinion. And was not your question answered already some pages before?

Johannes

But there is nothing ahead within its reach to apply to!

pankajdubey wrote:But there is nothing ahead within its reach to apply to!

But surely, PD! It is the state of the Moon to be void of course!

In the length of our discussion you might presumably have clipped some of the following arguments and their support by Ibn Ezra and Lilly?

johannes susato wrote: Why should the application to a certain state, i.e. the state of being void of course = not separating from another planet and not applying to another planet, be a misnomer?
Wording "Applying to no application" you forgot one half of the definition of void of course.

johannes susato wrote:And what should be wrong or what be problematic with defining a state (void of course, for example) and making a judgement about it (void of course given or not given, for example) or about something belonging to it (application to the state of void of course, for example), thus making the state a subject/object of consideration?

Geoffrey wrote:Coley (Clavis Astrologiae Elimata), page 246, end of paragraph II, "...to encourage him to stay, the Moon applyes to a Void of Course."

johannes susato wrote:Lilly, CA, p. 386:
"[...], finding the the Moon separated from voyd of course, and applying to the opposition of Sun, [...]"

Void is a state not object or another planet, it is not a fixed point either-it is the planet's own state.
How does a planet apply to its own state ?
It can only BE in that state.

Correction for Modern English

Coley (Clavis Astrologiae Elimata), page 246, end of paragraph II, "...to encourage him to stay because the Moon is currently not Void of Course but would become so before exiting the sign ."




Lilly, CA, p. 386:
"[...], finding that the Moon was voyd of course, and is now applying to the opposition of Sun, [...]"


Edit: As suggested by Johannes

Horatio wrote:Correction for Modern English

Coley (Clavis Astrologiae Elimata), page 246, end of paragraph II, "...to encourage him to stay because the Moon is Void of Course."

This "correction" is a little erroneous because Coley's wording "the Moon applyes to a Voyd of Course'" means: the Moon is not yet void of course, but will be, is going to be so, but not before later.

On my last post via this debate on April 16th I stated:

Lilly a giant Taurean mountain of knowledge as solid as 'the Rock of Gibraltar', a Man of his age being a Piscean asc., in the Piscean age will remain the horary icon more than the Greek Philosophers are to philosophy forever.

Well I do not wish to side track the great discussion but I may have been in error as the online(ebooks) copy of CAII has Lilly with Pisces rising born on May the 11th. This debate is on the first Forum, 'Nativities & General Astrology', found upon the list of Forums page.

From what I'm finding out most of us Do Not know Lilly's true horoscope and if one calculates the horoscope that John Gadbury presents they will see his errors.

And I know all of you serious students in the celestial arts hate to be wrong upon your precious science.

As I thought he was a Pisces asc., as many of you may have considered.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know