Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hey.I read that its our link to the divine.The natives thoughts beliefs and character.Is all of this true?How is Almutem applied to the native?

Take five points (by Ibn Ezra) of horoscope - Sun, Moon, Ascendant, Parts of Fortune (differ for day and night) and Prenatal Syzygy. Then for every of these five points make calculation, similar as for house almuten (the ruler of point's sign gets 5, exaltant 4, triplisity 3, term ruler 2, face ruler 1). Then calculate a sum for every planets of septener. Then a ruler of day gets 7, and a ruler of hour 6. Then every planet gets points for location in houses: in 1st house 12, in 2nd house 6, in 3rd house 3, in 4th house 9, in 5th house 7, in 6th house 1, in 7th house 10, in 8th house 4, in 9th house 5, in 10th house 11, in 11th house 8, in 12th house 2. The planet with maximum count of points is the "Almuten Figuris".

To get you started, check this glossary entry for 'almuten' and then follow the link to 'Lord of the Geniture':

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/almuten.html

Hi Zuli,

Looks like we posted at the very same moment !

Deb wrote:Hi Zuli,

Looks like we posted at the very same moment !

Yes, but I was first.

zuli and deb.

Is it too far from the spirit of the tradition to weight the bodies and points? We all know how important the ASC is, so it seems plain ol? wrong to give the prenatal syzygy and PoF the same value. With Solar Fire I?ve created an almuten file (as one of a swarm of files) with Ascendant x2, Sun, Moon, PoF & Syzygy. I just can?t get myself to use the Ibn Ezra method as is. Giving the ASC twice the importance makes it acceptable to me. I also have a file with Ascendant entered 6 times and Lord of the ASC 3 times in order to keep the importance of the ASC in a fairly large number of other bodies and points. Is this unheard of traditionally?

Hi Kirk

It does seem to be inventing a new and 'interesting' approach.
Ezra?s method presents a more detailed consideration than we find elsewhere, because he requires us to evaluate from the planets that have most authority over the places used to establish the ?life giver?, from which we determine the length of life (aka, hyleg, alpheta, proprogator, see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/hyleg.html).
Ezra says the places of the life-givers are five, but he is following Ptolemy who specifies only four: Sun, Moon, Ascendant & Part of Fortune. The previous syzygy is used as an additional weighting factor to help us to decide which of these four places has the best claim to the title ?life-giver? (Tetrabiblos, III.10).

I think to make the kind of amendment you are making, and to use it with confidence, you first have to understand how and why the life-giver is defined, and you need to be comfortable about the reasons why those places that can generate the life-giver are made central to the definition of the Almuten of the Figure. Other astrologers have defined the Almuten of the Figure more simply, as the planet that has the best essential and accidental dignity overall, (without any reference to the places of the life-giver). I can see the logic of Ezra?s steps but I prefer to use the simpler definition myself because I have an uncomfortable relationship with the supposed power of the Part of Fortune and that interferes with my ability to trust the techniques that rely upon it. Also, the Almuten of the Figure says more about constitution and temperament, so I don?t see that it necessarily requires the same sort of emphasis as the life-giver.

I suppose that, after eliminating the previous syzygy and declaring my predjudice against the Part of Fortune, that puts me in the same bracket as you, as inclined to give them less significance. But I wouldn't keep 'upping' the significance of the ascendant because this gives it more value than the Sun and Moon, which would not do for me. I should stress that this is just my informal opinion ? which might change at any time!

Deb

PS ? Zuli, I have always found in my conversations, that having the last word is far more effective than having the first

But I wouldn't keep 'upping' the significance of the ascendant because this gives it more value than the Sun and Moon, which would not do for me.

But it does have more value! That's what we're told, isn't it? Repeatedly. Robert Corre, who is heavily influenced by Morin, has written that the ASC is 80% of the chart - in an article on this web site, if I remember correctly (80% is way over the top, I think).

OK, we could say the sect light is important too, so we can give both the ASC and sect light twice as much importance as other points. That still makes more sense than one spot each for ASC, Moon, Sun, PoF and prenatal syzygy. PoF?: Ha-ha. Who really knows what to do with it? Prenatal syzygy?: Simply the New or Full Moon before birth? Or the preceding New Moon for diurnal births, and the preceding Full Moon for nocturnal births? (Why is there always yet one more variation?) Either way, it seems very Hellenistic and not a concept that many traditionalist astrologers are comfortable with. It's too 'old'. The philosophical link just isn't there anymore.

PS ? Zuli, I have always found in my conversations, that having the last word is far more effective than having the first

It's what you quietly slip into the middle that lingers.

I?m sure I have some notice somewhere saying that I don?t necessarily agree with myself, let alone comments written in other people?s articles. If someone claims that the ascendant is 80% of the chart, then I would argue that he or she is 80% wrong. Nothing is more important than the Sun, or the Moon which reflects its light.

PS - I'm feeling tempted to edit this, to make it clearer that I don't believe the Moon sits on equal footing with the Sun, but it will probably cause more controversy than I can handle right now, so I'll just leave that hanging in the air for now

My feeling about making changes isn't because I feel like traditional rules are always perfect. I think that in any system or art, that the first thing you should do is learn the rules and foundations first, and then after extensive practice, you eventually start seeing where the holes are and aren't.

Regarding Almutem Figuris, I think it's better to see if that rule works first. If you start getting a lot of wrong hits, then looking at where the holes are. I don't think these kinds of things are really a matter of whether you agree with the logic of its construction.

Deb,

Of course I wasn?t implying that you do or should hold all the beliefs and opinions expressed on your web site. That would make you 100% confused and confusing. I do find find your opinion of the Sun?s importance over the ASC very interesting ? more modern than traditional. But we won?t talk about that and get you entangled in an uproar.


M6,

But Ibn Ezra?s methods aren?t the only ones. We start with conflicting ?rules and foundations?, so we?re forced to make judgements, decisions and changes at an early stage anyway.

My method often, even usually, produces results that are considerably different from the Ibn Ezra results. I have found that my method seems to point to the planet that is very involved in the personality and character of the person, whereas the Ibn Ezra results seem to tend more toward naming the planet that plays a major part in the life of the native through circumstances, events, etc. The latter was of more interest to the ancients than the former. It may just be a matter of what we're looking for.