View Full Version : John Frawley astrology
06-24-2008, 10:01 PM
i just heard about Horary astrology
can u explain me what it is
06-24-2008, 11:18 PM
You can do a little bit of reading here:
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/weekly-horary/index.php and especially here:http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary.html
10-11-2008, 12:13 AM
That is the first level when you envolve yourself to astrology.many would say low level astrology.But useful.If you are not familiar with terms in astrology might be better to start with the books by Marion March and Joan Mekevers.
The best way to learn astrology and there are a few books.Read them all.Then ask for some books for learning Horary A.
We have an open thread 'John Frawley is a stand up philosopher' and all open minded persons and astrologers are welcome.anyway make your choice and visit any of the suggested sites that treat that theme.
10-12-2008, 06:51 AM
Yes, I agree, do get a basic knowledge of natal astrology first before starting on horary. Just to know what houses and planets signify as well as what aspects are. With this very basic knowledge you could indeed start horary ^(which is in no way easy!! but easier to master than full fletched natal astrology).
10-12-2008, 10:10 PM
With full respect for the thread 'JF is stand up philosopher' we do analize charts and I have to say that none of my thoughts are based on personal opinion about Mr.Frawley.I do not know him. I checked all bolded definitions he wrote in his book Sport astrology concern soccer. On more than 3500 charts in Solar fire astrology software.Although that is not only astrology software I use.But sutible for me.
In his book Horary astrology he also wrote some opinions about astrologers themselves.I would say without any basic respect to collegues.
That book was in one way funny and interesting for me but in the book Sport Astrology he represented himself in domeenering position like Master and abusive aspect to the student itself.
That is not acceptably.
I also wrote email to him personly,to Mrs Branka Stamenkovic his publicher in Serbia, I made also thread on skyscript but they shut that down.They do not agree with JF but they have link for selling his books.Ha.
I also noted to all of them that I will do my best to express to anyone why I think and say what I have said. Why?
Becouse I spend a lot of time, months and finally I found many wrong definitions in that book.
And I am giving the proof.That match shows us that that definition is wrong.
It cannot be at one moment right and in the other wrong.Is it or not, that's the point.
Why I was so analytic to that book.Well I do respect and I am honoured with my sign in Gemini with analytical Virgo.Sometimes is boring but I must live with that.Believe me, when we decide to scan anything we go to the deepest part of anything.And we also do not tell anything without perfect analize.
So I do suggest the things which I found useful for me and I am sorry becouse there are not more persons involved on my thread about JF.
I do not have personal interest against JF.
And I apologize if I accept personly your red coloured words but I agree with them. I am just very dissatisfied with that book I wrote about, also how would you feel when you realise that you wasted so much time for, let us be gentle, at least noncenses in that book.
Above all you will find that some people invested money folowing rules JF defined.
And they constantly missed.
What is the point when you write the book and pretend that book to be the manual for sport predictions?
I am still student and I will rather stay the student for life.There are always many ways for improvement.
With apologize again
10-13-2008, 10:17 AM
Hello Branislav, you wrote:
With full respect for the thread 'JF is stand up philosopher'
I have not seen this thread! But I will look at it after I finish this post:)
Personally I like the way JF writes, as you also said, it is often funny.
But, as you also do, I do not follow his writings 100% as I also disagree with some of his writings.
I have book from Anthony Louis which I like very much as well, Derek Appleby, Karen Hamaker-Zondag and the great William Lilly.
I take from these books what makes sense to me. I dont even agree with all that Lilly wrote to be honest. Things like taking a Mutual Reception as " a thing that is brought to pass and that without any great trouble, and suddenly to the content of both parties" even is the signifiers make no contact to one another or are making contact by square and opposition.
I have seen much the contrary. Only when MR's are made between strong planets in strong houses, could this be the case, but otherwise.... I doubt it.
Karen Hamaker says that when the Asc. ruler is the same as the quisited, then the answer is YES. This is also not always the case.
Antony Louis uses inconjuncts and minor aspects, as does Appleby. JF does not. I use intercepted houses and rulers of those houses, JF says that that is neglectable. I disagree.
I actually dont know why you are writing this to me because I have not mentioned JF in this thread. I only have one book of his, " The horary textbook".
I will have a look at that thread now.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.