Display posts from previous
Sort by

3 by Ouranos
Thank you Martin for sharing your article,

On p.36
'Perhaps more surprising is the fact that Valens occasionally uses the term moirikos to denote a square configuration between two planets that is not based on ecliptical degrees at all, but rather on the horizon and meridian dividing the celestial sphere into four equal parts: the foundation of the quadrant places.'

When you say that quadrant divisions constituted Valens preferred method of calculating places by degree, should we understand that the Equator was the measure of time instead of the Ecliptic?

Ouranos
Blessings!

5 by Ouranos
My question is rather to find out which one is more important. The ecliptic or the equator with ascensional degrees over a day and night?
You mention both but how do you work with the difference you find in many charts. For example, I have 10 degrees difference with my natal Venus if I look at it from the ecliptic or from the equator.
And there is no middle ground formula to merge the two.
Considering also that astronomers use RA as their primary measure on the ecliptic. It does look like what Valens 'moirikos' describe when you find two planets in a square configuration 'not based on ecliptical degrees.'

Appreciate your answer as always,
Ouranos
Blessings!

6 by Martin Gansten
Well, Valens uses 'by degree' (moirikos) in several ways, with this special kind of square just being one. He doesn't tell us how it would compare to an ordinary partile square in the ecliptic, so we can't say for certain what he thought about that. Also, his method is itself a sort of hybrid rather than a straight square by right ascension: he begins with a degree on the ecliptic, then finds out what other ecliptical degree would rise as the first degree culminated, and then looks for transits to that second degree.

Personally, I only use aspects in the ecliptic. But I think it is important to note how significant positions by degree and the use of mundane quadrants were to Valens, particularly as his work is often used as an argument for a signs-only approach.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

7 by Ouranos
Interesting!
Although the beginning of a sign is different in Indian sidereal astrology, do you find any value in Whole Sign being widely used out there?
I have read that the Whole Sign approach was somehow linked to the Thebaic calendar from the Egyptians and it would describe more the path of the Sun in conjunction with the Fixed Stars.
A Solar Chart with 30 degrees from the Sun for each house makes more sense in this regard.
What is your view on this?
Blessings!

8 by Martin Gansten
I hadn't intended for this thread to be about my own practice and preferences, but since you ask: no, I don't think whole-sign houses are ever anything but a rough approximation. Many Indian astrologers use quadrant houses (often known as the Śrīpati system after an 11th-century author, but probably used long before his time) -- more so in North than South India, which I suppose is natural, as the difference would be more marked the further you get from the equator.

I have never heard about the Thebaic-calendar idea, but horoscopic places/houses are based by definition on the horoskopos or ascendant, not on the sun.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

9 by Deb
This is a wonderful, well informed paper, and what an achievement to have your work published by Brill! Huge congratulations and thanks for your important work. So glad I caught the news - just in time for me to add a recommendation on the new design of the home page, which I hope to get uploaded tonight.
Well done Martin and thank you, thank you, for your careful, scholarly contributions!

12 by Moses_Siregar
Hi Martin! I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your paper and found it eye-opening. I’m still working to understand the dimensions of the debate and the point of view of those who are disagreeing. Below I’ve given a quote from a conversation I have been having on Twitter today over your paper and Deb’s position as well. I wonder if you might have any comment on this. I’m not going to name the person here out of desire to have as little drama as possible. But it is on my Twitter feed if anyone is curious, to read the whole conversation, which has been a surprisingly good one overall, so far. Thanks for your excellent work, and I look forward to anything you have to share!

This was the comment: “What Gansten and Houlding continually obfuscate is that a "place by degree" is not necessarily a Quadrant-based House. Valens' calls 'place by degree' a number of factors, including Sign-based Lot placements AND Sign-based MC placements. These are not QHs.???
Check out my 50-hour Masterclass on Holistic Locational Astrology!

You can find me on FB, Twitter, and IG. www.AstrologyForTheSoul.com
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “News, Notices, Books, Links”