Venus ~in or ~out of sect?

dr. farr · Jun 22, 2017

Bunraku said:
I guess whole houses/signs is a prerequisite to traditional astrology

Hey the Greeks and the Arabs used it

Unfortunately this is quite incorrect :surprised:

! IT SHOULD BE CORRECT, but the fact is that whole sign was forgotten after the late 6th century, and except for Abu'Mashar, was not followed during the Arabic transitional period: they mostly used the quadrant Alchabitius house system, while the Greco-Roman practioners at the very end of the classical period were using the quadrant Porphyry house system. Even advanced astrology authors as late as the 1970's, did not know of whole sign-it was not re-discovered until the late 1980's in academic circles, and really did not enter (or should I say, re-enter) the astrological consciousness, until the mid-1990's. Whole sign IS STILL CONSIDERED QUESTIONABLE AMONG THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CONTEMPORARY TRADITIONAL ASTROLOGERS, although movement toward the whole sign format is slowly gaining ground among our traditionalist friends...

conspiracy theorist · Jun 22, 2017

Lex Gemini said:
Through this thread we haven't forgotten that Venus remains a benefic.
-that fruit, for starters, HAH. not mains.

along with:

1) domain of Virgo. Her triplicity (essential dignity)

2) Ruled by mercury at night, which disposes her, is also disposed by the Sun, which shares it's dignity of rulership.

3) This is an underestimated Venus, i am starting to believe, which at first glance is appearing like a damsel in distress.

What do you think?

What do I think?

I'd agree with you and say that some might see that Venus is in fall and underestimate it's abilities in the chart.

So, it's automatically in sect being in a nocturnal chart, it's in a feminine sign and in it's in its face. I don't consider it picking up any dignity through triplicity as the moon is the primary trip ruler for Earth signs in the night (I tend to the dorothean triplicities). Venus is neither in hayz nor halb.

She's very angular and shares an analogy with the 7th house through relationships. This shows an easy ability to pursue and secure romantic partnerships. In that regard, Venus bears "fruit". The quality of the women/partners may be another story as she is located in her "fall". Her dispositor is in the 6th house and in a lustful sign (IIRC). The owner of this hypothetical chart may have interesting tastes in women.

*I've known a bunch of women with Venus in Virgo and they weren't prudes, I can tell you that.

*Other than mere "strength", the dignities have qualitative effects that they bestow/ I was reading something on triplicities yesterday and it stated that they were relevant to "nutrition", the explanation being that the triplicities were looked at to gauge the quality of life, each trip ruler signifying a one third stretch.

JUPITERASC · Jun 23, 2017

Lex Gemini said:
Listen, JupiterAscending. you're a bucket of info and all that, but.

the project outline is:

Using the equal housing system, define the characteristics of the placements provided to ascertain sect, essential dignitaries, triplicities, term & face. based on your understanding so far

For the sake of clarity, i have to do what the project says.
You must be the status quo around here.

You'll have to open your mind a little to the questions, your pre-disposition isn't helping me to solve the questions.

What difference does it make whether or not the chart is real or hypothetical.
the question is the question.
you can answer it or your can skip it. the fact that you have stuck around this long only to recommend i use a system that i have already stated isn't the one i'm using, seems to me waste of your time.

Lex

For the sake of clarity it is not my project
so I don't have to do what your project says
however, I have provided useful advice
which enabled you to realise and state
that "clearly you had not been thinking clearly"

and furthermore
ours is an online astrological forum
which provides FREE comments
from any member who is inclined to comment

and so
when posting on a free astrological online
be reasonable with your expectations
and keep in mind that
if you seek professional responses
there is always the option for you to consult with and pay a professional

Lex Gemini said:
I'm am so relaxed,

and now that someone has answered my question, I'm super energetic to get this working for me.
Thank you.

Seriously! That was hard for JupiterAscending. Obviously
Cheeky sod.

Obviously you are most likely to "get this working for you"
as soon as you study the matter sufficiently
and comprehend it

i.e.

conspiracy theorist said:
You sound unsettled Lex.

Relax and take your time.

You'll get it eventually.

To nudge things along, Venus will always be in sect in nocturnal charts. The rejoicing conditions (hayz etc) are less straight forward to figure out.

Another thing to note is that all signs within an element all share the same triplicity rulers. Meaning Taurus and Virgo (and Capricorn) will have the same triplicity rulers whether it be in the day or night. To keep things fairly straightforward, use the triplicity rulerships that you are most familiar with (there a few of them out there)

Halb occurs when a nocturnal planet is above the horizon by night and when a diurnal planet is above the horizon by day.

Hayz occurs when a planet is in halb plus in a sign that agrees with its essential sect - Nocturnal planets prefer feminine signs and Diurnal planets prefer masculine signs.

See if you can put that information together
with example chart you posted.

JUPITERASC · Jun 23, 2017

dr. farr said:
Unfortunately this is quite incorrect! IT SHOULD BE CORRECT, but the fact is that whole sign was forgotten after the late 6th century, and except for Abu'Mashar, was not followed during the Arabic transitional period: they mostly used the quadrant Alchabitius house system, while the Greco-Roman practioners at the very end of the classical period were using the quadrant Porphyry house system. Even advanced astrology authors as late as the 1970's, did not know of whole sign-it was not re-discovered until the late 1980's in academic circles, and really did not enter (or should I say, re-enter) the astrological consciousness, until the mid-1990's. Whole sign IS STILL CONSIDERED QUESTIONABLE AMONG THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CONTEMPORARY TRADITIONAL ASTROLOGERS, although movement toward the whole sign format is slowly gaining ground among our traditionalist friends...

Well said dr. farr
In fact astro.com added whole signs houses to their chart selection option
and so
clearly whole signs is re-gaining ground

JUPITERASC · Jun 23, 2017

dr. farr said:
Regarding the sect of Venus: since at least Ptolemy's time, here in the West, Venus has been considered in sect nocturnally. Part of the reason for this is that in middle and later Greco-Roman astrology, the joy of Venus was assigned the 5th house, ie, a nocturnal house.

But since earliest times, in the East, (Vedic) astrology has considered Venus a diurnal planet, and being in sect when in the daylight sky (or hemisphere of the map) When we consider early Greco-Roman astrology, before Ptolemy or Valens, looking at the earliest complete remaining book on astrology, by Manilius (14 CE), we find the joy of Venus being given as the 10th house, which is a diurnal house, and matches the Venus diurnal-in-sect classification found, then and now, in Vedic astrology. Either there was a change in Greco-Roman astrology (sometime in the 1st century CE), moving Venus into a nocturnal sect, or (as I suspect) Manilius represented a different school of astrology than the one (the Alexandrian School) which Ptolemy, Valens and others followed.

What do I use? I follow Manilius (and the Vedics) in considering Venus a diurnal planet, in sect during the day or in the daytime hemisphere of a chart. However, I do not assign sect much importance in my delineations.

Very interesting historical detail dr. farr, thanks :smile:

aleth3ia · Jun 23, 2017

dr. farr said:
Regarding the sect of Venus: since at least Ptolemy's time, here in the West, Venus has been considered in sect nocturnally. Part of the reason for this is that in middle and later Greco-Roman astrology, the joy of Venus was assigned the 5th house, ie, a nocturnal house.

But since earliest times, in the East, (Vedic) astrology has considered Venus a diurnal planet, and being in sect when in the daylight sky (or hemisphere of the map) When we consider early Greco-Roman astrology, before Ptolemy or Valens, looking at the earliest complete remaining book on astrology, by Manilius (14 CE), we find the joy of Venus being given as the 10th house, which is a diurnal house, and matches the Venus diurnal-in-sect classification found, then and now, in Vedic astrology. Either there was a change in Greco-Roman astrology (sometime in the 1st century CE), moving Venus into a nocturnal sect, or (as I suspect) Manilius represented a different school of astrology than the one (the Alexandrian School) which Ptolemy, Valens and others followed.

What do I use? I follow Manilius (and the Vedics) in considering Venus a diurnal planet, in sect during the day or in the daytime hemisphere of a chart. However, I do not assign sect much importance in my delineations.

Venus is in the diurnal sect for Ptolemy as well! For Dorotheus too, Venus is the triplicity for feminine signs in diurnal charts, Mars is for the night, for the water signs, Moon for the earth in nocturnal charts.
At least according to the Titrabiblos

dr. farr said:
Unfortunately this is quite incorrect! IT SHOULD BE CORRECT, but the fact is that whole sign was forgotten after the late 6th century, and except for Abu'Mashar, was not followed during the Arabic transitional period: they mostly used the quadrant Alchabitius house system, while the Greco-Roman practioners at the very end of the classical period were using the quadrant Porphyry house system. Even advanced astrology authors as late as the 1970's, did not know of whole sign-it was not re-discovered until the late 1980's in academic circles, and really did not enter (or should I say, re-enter) the astrological consciousness, until the mid-1990's. Whole sign IS STILL CONSIDERED QUESTIONABLE AMONG THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CONTEMPORARY TRADITIONAL ASTROLOGERS, although movement toward the whole sign format is slowly gaining ground among our traditionalist friends...

Yep, the more an astologer-astronomer was skilled, the more he'd have tried to calculate the most reliable representation of the actual earth globe, in the chart. That's about the houses...

Phoenix Venus · Jun 23, 2017

conspiracy theorist said:
You sound unsettled Lex. Relax and take your time. You'll get it eventually.

To nudge things along, Venus will always be in sect in nocturnal charts. The rejoicing conditions (hayz etc) are less straight forward to figure out.

Another thing to note is that all signs within an element all share the same triplicity rulers. Meaning Taurus and Virgo (and Capricorn) will have the same triplicity rulers whether it be in the day or night. To keep things fairly straightforward, use the triplicity rulerships that you are most familiar with (there a few of them out there)

Halb occurs when a nocturnal planet is above the horizon by night and when a diurnal planet is above the horizon by day.

Hayz occurs when a planet is in halb plus in a sign that agrees with its essential sect - Nocturnal planets prefer feminine signs and Diurnal planets prefer masculine signs.

See if you can put that information together with example chart you posted.

Ez Pz. Thanks for sharing homie :smile:

My sun is technically in hayz??? Hmm.. Ok. Well i guess its not that unordinary. Any day chart will at least have sun in bulbz. Then u got a 50/50 shot for hayz. So it'd happen about 1/4 of the time, averagelly.

Phoenix Venus · Jun 23, 2017

Question. Whats worse (if you exclude other conditions or say they are equal)

Two planets out of sect in an opposition (say mars-ven in a day chart) or one planet in sect and one planet out of sect? (say mars-sun in day)

Because the sun is more welcomed by being in sect, its acting more openly and so the mars opposition is further highlighted..? Or sun being in better position would offset some of the damaging qualities of the mars opp?

Bunraku · Jun 24, 2017

dr. farr said:
Unfortunately this is quite incorrect! IT SHOULD BE CORRECT, but the fact is that whole sign was forgotten after the late 6th century, and except for Abu'Mashar, was not followed during the Arabic transitional period: they mostly used the quadrant Alchabitius house system, while the Greco-Roman practioners at the very end of the classical period were using the quadrant Porphyry house system.

Honestly I was only referring to Abu’Mashar (and half joking), which was my mistake to imply that the rest of them followed whole signs.

Also Ptolemy in his tetrabiblos uses whole signs several times. :andy:

Greek whole sign system: http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/10/whole-sign-houses/

dr. farr · Jun 24, 2017

My response to your post was in NO WAY meant to be critical :happy:

Yes, the dominant house system in Greco-Roman astrology (until about the time of the end of the Classical Period) was whole sign, but (among the famous very early Arabic astrologers of the transitional period) only Abu'Mashar continued the ancient Greco-Roman practice, and the whole sign house format became virtually forgotten (in the West) until the mid-1990's.

Personally I think it was an historical tragedy for our astrological art that whole sign houses became lost to memory, for my experience over the past nearly 20 years of exclusively using whole sign houses has convinced me of the more consistent accuracy of this house system, over any other...

aleth3ia · Jun 24, 2017

Attributing house systems to Ptolemy is quite unfair because he never mentions which one he's using.
Instead, I was really implying him before, he was one of those astrologers-astronomers who calculated the times and distances and all those stuff, for accuracy sake. Probably he was using an archaic version of Placidus; the fact he does not mention it, and just draws charts following those placidian rules, is said to indicate that that house system was very common back then too.

aleth3ia · Jun 24, 2017

dr. farr said:
Personally I think it was an historical tragedy for our astrological art that whole sign houses became lost to memory, for my experience over the past nearly 20 years of exclusively using whole sign houses has convinced me of the more consistent accuracy of this house system, over any other...

We have to keep in mind that calculating the right time was not so easy to do back then, and whole house system was coming in help in those common occasions.
All the values attributed to the planetary strengths seem to come in help of this time division dilemma. The decans were first traced to calculate the hours, the terms and triplicities seem a good way to establish which planet is actually in a more favorable or less favorable degree... and that resembles how they divided the time of the day, of the week, and so on.
You can see how much science was applied in here, and it helped human kind in all the fields of knowledge: time keeping and all that is about "time" had an astrological denomination. But then we invented clocks and discovered new systems... applying egyptian, or babylonian, structures of time-keeping now, seem a bit outdated, at least to me. Science is all in our help sometimes~

JUPITERASC · Jun 24, 2017

aleth3ia said:
Attributing house systems to Ptolemy is quite unfair because he never mentions which one he's using.

'.....Anyone who wishes to argue that Ptolemy was not using whole sign houses
needs to tally up every single instance in which he uses the word “zōidion” to refer to a house/place
and then explain how exactly these reference should not be understood.
I felt that the references to the signs as houses occurred frequently enough in the Tetrabiblos
that I personally felt that the answer to the question was clear.....'
CHRIS BRENNAN

I just completed an article in which I highlight
what I think are the most clear references to whole sign houses in the Tetrabiblos
and I posted it on the blog
on the Hellenistic astrology website: http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/techniques/did-ptolemy-use-whole-sign-houses/

JUPITERASC · Jun 24, 2017

aleth3ia said:
Instead, I was really implying him before, he was one of those astrologers-astronomers
who calculated the times and distances and all those stuff, for accuracy sake.
Probably he was using an archaic version of Placidus; the fact he does not mention it
and just draws charts following those placidian rules, is said to indicate
that that house system was very common back then too.

PTOLEMY WAS NOT AN ASTROLOGER
VALENS WAS A PRACTISING ASTROLOGER
who provides evidence of well over a hundred of his own clients horoscopes.

Ptolemy was a mathematician and theorist.
That is a crucial difference between Ptolemy and Valens:

“Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity.
It is unique in several respects:

the author was a practicing astrologer;

the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients
or associates, including his own
which is used as an example many times throughout the work
the work also includes tables and the description of algorithms
used by astrologers and mathematicians” Professor Mark T Riley CSU

Valens perspective was that of a practicing astrologer
Valens was eager to preserve everything he possibly could intact
for the benefit of future astrologers.
Valens simply compiled without altering what he compiled.
Certainly Valens commented on the various astrological techniques
but crucially, did not alter any.
That fact
taken in tandem with Valen's work being 'the longest extant astrological work from antiquity'
obviously makes Valens an important figure.
Crucially, Valens utilised not only his own horoscope
but also those of more than a 100 authentic horoscopes of his own clients.

'....We know that Ptolemy, for example, seems to have been a theoretician
rather than a 'working-class' astrologer.
For Dorotheus, Firmicus and Hephaistio, we don't have much information.
But it is commonly known that Valens was indeed a 'working-class astrologer'
often prefacing statements with phrases like:

"I wandered throughout Egypt in search of knowledge
until someone taught me this technique, and I have found it to work beautifully.
I have found this lot to be very mystical and important." VETTIUS VALENS

Valens speaks from his own personal experience as a working astrologer
which makes me want to trust him....' Kenneth Johnson
- an astrologer with at least forty years experience

Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time,
instead he talks about observations made centuries earlier
by Hipparchus, another great astronomer
- Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus
And it was Hipparchus who, a century after Apollonius,
began applying the Apollonian geometry
in the first attempt to describe the movements of the heavenly spheres geometrically.

so it was Hipparchus who took the first steps
in attempting to make the Apollonian geometry fit the appearances of the heavens
- particularly in relation to the moon and the sun
- by developing moving circles as a technique
for dealing with the confusing appearances of the heavens

Ptolemy then expanded on the original ideas
of both his predecessors, Apollonius and Hipparchus.
Apollonius of Perga approximately four centuries earlier than Ptolemy
developed a form of geometric particular methods
within the geometrical practice
that are to do with circular motion - as well as motions of circles moving on circles and so on
Ptolemy then applied Appolonius original work
to discovering the much sought-after geometrical rationale thought to be underlying appearances
Thus Ptolemy described a rationale that 'explained' retrograde motion
- but incorrectly
- because the planets do not move with uniform circular motion in circles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga

Albert Timashev writing an article entitled "Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years"
has this to say of Ptolemy:

"....Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy
was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school
and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all.
Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal
and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions." http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en

IN CONTRAST TO PTOLEMY THE THEORETICIAN
VALENS THE PRACTICING ASTROLOGERS WORK
is NOT ONLY a valuable chronicle of ancient astrological techniques
BUT ALSO an interesting insight regarding Valens own personal testing of those techniques

SO Valens chronicled AS WELL AS tested techniques which in his time were already considered 'Ancient'
and in doing so
VALENS provides more than a hundred example horoscopes
for astrologers following him to glean information from.
but PTOLEMY PROVIDED NO HOROSCOPES

Furthermore, Valens work is proven reliable in historical terms
since Valens horoscopes have enabled scholars
to date many historical events with more certainty

JUPITERASC · Jun 24, 2017

Bunraku said:
Honestly I was only referring to Abu’Mashar (and half joking), which was my mistake to imply that the rest of them followed whole signs.

Also Ptolemy in his tetrabiblos uses whole signs several times.
Greek whole sign system: http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/10/whole-sign-houses/

dr, farr way back on 27 November 2011 posted the following comment :smile:

at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=335641#post335641

dr. farr said:
I have no doubt that Valens was passing on material
from the school of practice of which he was an exponent.
Actually there are statements in Valens to this effect.
See, back then hermetic (and other) arts were confined to special groups of people
(usually requiring initiation), and several "schools" of practice usually existed at any given time.
We find Manilius obviously doing much the same thing (in his "Astronomica")
as Valens did
-even translators Gould and Houseman say that Manilius was taking material from various earlier sources
and passing it on.

Now this is VERY different than Ptolemy
who specifically tells us (in the lead in to his discussion of natal astrology)
that he is NOT passing on the prevailing astrological doctrines
but rather, that he is introducing us to something entirely new
-ie, his own creative model, wherein any material deriving from other sources
is being reworked into the system Ptolemy presents us with.

So, yeah, big differences between Valens
-as a provider
-perhaps even just a copyist
- of a stream of ideas and practices representative of the particular "school" or tradition he was a part of
-and innovator Ptolemy, presenting us with a brand new astrological model.

Note: in re-reading Ptolemy in preparation from some comments to be made in our "whole sign" discussion
I have noticed how much Ptolemy sounds like Vedic astrologers!
They actually seem to have a lot in common
(wonder if Ptolemy had contacts with the large colony of "Gymnosophists"
-Greek term for Indian Buddhists
-who were residing in Alexandria during Ptolemy's time?)

Bunraku · Jun 24, 2017

JUPITERASC said:
'.....Anyone who wishes to argue that Ptolemy was not using whole sign houses
needs to tally up every single instance in which he uses the word “zōidion” to refer to a house/place
and then explain how exactly these reference should not be understood.
I felt that the references to the signs as houses occurred frequently enough in the Tetrabiblos
that I personally felt that the answer to the question was clear.....'
CHRIS BRENNAN

I just completed an article in which I highlight
what I think are the most clear references to whole sign houses in the Tetrabiblos
and I posted it on the blog
on the Hellenistic astrology website: http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/techniques/did-ptolemy-use-whole-sign-houses/

This is exactly why I thought he used whole signs. Though he never mentioned it explicitly, we can infer it through his methods.

I didn’t think the astrologers from back then anticipated such things in the sense that they didn’t feel the need to jot down what they thought was common knowledge at that time (even for Valens). Just a hunch, but anyone can correct me if this idea isn’t proper.

JUPITERASC · Jun 24, 2017

Bunraku said:
This is exactly why I thought he used whole signs. Though he never mentioned it explicitly, we can infer it through his methods.

I didn’t think the astrologers from back then anticipated such things in the sense that they didn’t feel the need to jot down what they thought was common knowledge at that time (even for Valens). Just a hunch, but anyone can correct me if this idea isn’t proper.

Anyone "correcting your improper ideas" needs to have mastered Ancient Greek
CHRIS BRENNAN whose comment I quoted
translates Ancient Greek to English
so until your critics have read the Ancient Greek texts in the original Ancient Greek

as have
Master scholars of Ancient languages such as ROBERT SCHMIDT
and
BENJAMIN DYKES
then
they are on flimsy ground

Bunraku · Jun 24, 2017

Well, this is a learning forum, so I appreciate the ideas, corrections directed to my posts, clarifications, counters, and such. :sideways:

Thanks for the information and sources by the way - I’ve learned a lot because of it.

JUPITERASC · Jun 24, 2017

Bunraku said:
Well, this is a learning forum, so I appreciate the ideas
corrections directed to my posts, clarifications, counters, and such.
Thanks for the information and sources by the way
- I’ve learned a lot because of it.

Chris Brennan is one of our forum members
you may be interested to have clarifications, counters and so forth
so there is t he option to send Chris Brennan a pm - he may respond :smile:

aleth3ia · Jun 24, 2017

I'm so glad there's someone in here all willing to put in doubt Ptolemy, since he's like the dad of astrology.
Yeah, let's put everything in check!

There's no doubt he was an astrologer, the fact he was one of the biggest astronomer in the history of humanity (nothing so weird about being an astrologer/astronomer, for those times), just adds to his fame. He was suggesting astrological methods and techniques (mostly old), and provides examples too, for his "previsions", that is just what astrology is about.
The problem with him, and one of the reasons why there are smth like 100 different versions of "commentaries" to the Tetrabiblos, which is just one of his astroLOGICAL works, is that he's vague. He applies ideas and concepts sometimes giving few hints for why he does so, and from here all the debates. But no doubt he was an astrologer.
He might have used an equal house system, definitely not a "whole" sign, although the rule of adding to the sign in ascension the 5 previous degree, which is quite dubious anyway, could lead to some questions about why... but from here to say "whole signs" there's that, eheh, he was a mathematician mind, as you said, so, he'd more logically divide the horizon with the correct ascension, not an approximated one.

Venus ~in or ~out of sect?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned