Where is my Part of Fortune?
- Thread starter Skillcoil
- Start date
Mark
Well-known member
Yours was a day birth, so forcing the day birth formula wouldn't change anything. Just for future reference, am/pm is a feature of standardised time-keeping. In antiquity, day or night was determined by whether or not the Sun was in the sky. If you were born on the Sun-side of Earth, then it was a day birth. If you were on the dark side of the Earth, then it was a night birth.
Using the time/place information on the chart in the first post, my software returns 19.7° Aries for the Lot of Fortune. My manual calculation results in 19.72°. Checking your information made obvious a problem I didn't know about, so that worked out well. Your Lot of Spirit (which is what you get if you switch the day and night formulas) is 26.4° Sagittarius.
P.S. A few things astro.com won't tell you: The SgrA* (galactic centre) is conjunct Saturn (0.9°) and Uranus (1.0°). Your natal Sun is conjunct the star Arcturus (1.4°).
P.P.S. I would consider your natal Moon to be too far from Saturn and Uranus to be called a conjunction. They are aspected, but at 10° instead of 0°.
Using the time/place information on the chart in the first post, my software returns 19.7° Aries for the Lot of Fortune. My manual calculation results in 19.72°. Checking your information made obvious a problem I didn't know about, so that worked out well. Your Lot of Spirit (which is what you get if you switch the day and night formulas) is 26.4° Sagittarius.
P.S. A few things astro.com won't tell you: The SgrA* (galactic centre) is conjunct Saturn (0.9°) and Uranus (1.0°). Your natal Sun is conjunct the star Arcturus (1.4°).
P.P.S. I would consider your natal Moon to be too far from Saturn and Uranus to be called a conjunction. They are aspected, but at 10° instead of 0°.
Last edited:
Mark makes an excellent point: in determining the day vs night formula (not only for the Part of Fortune and the Part of Spirit, but for many of the other Parts/Lots as well) to be accurate one must use whether the Sun is up and its daylight, or the Sun is definitely under the western horizon and its the hours of darkness. This, NOT listed "am or pm", is what we use in determining day or night formula for the Parts.
Mark
Well-known member
Skillcoil: The angles from Saturn/Uranus to the Moon are closer to 8° than 10°, but I don't count aspects under 10° unless they are conjunctions. At 8° of separation, my software returns a 10° aspect because it doesn't check for smaller aspects, except for solid conjunctions, and it's still within 2° of the 10° aspect. Mathematically, every degree from 0 to 12 is technically its own aspect, except for 7 and 11. I have the number tables to show this. I believe this is the reason why many people tend to give an huge orb for conjunctions. It simplifies matters greatly, but is misleading.
Your natal Saturn is ~8.29° from your natal Moon and your natal Uranus is ~8.39° from the same. If you wanted to get technical about it, you could call them both 8° aspects, but I still wouldn't call them pure conjunctions.
P.S. The only two objects my software will track external to the solar system thus far are the SgrA* and the star Arcturus. I haven't checked your other fixed objects. I'll have a piece in the works soon that could do that, but it'll be a little while in coming. There are a lot of stars to check. I was going to limit myself to only those stars used to establish the lunar mansions, but between the Vedic, Chinese, and Arabian systems, there are just under 90 stars overall, plus some star clusters. I've got it all worked out. Now I just have to do it.
Your natal Saturn is ~8.29° from your natal Moon and your natal Uranus is ~8.39° from the same. If you wanted to get technical about it, you could call them both 8° aspects, but I still wouldn't call them pure conjunctions.
P.S. The only two objects my software will track external to the solar system thus far are the SgrA* and the star Arcturus. I haven't checked your other fixed objects. I'll have a piece in the works soon that could do that, but it'll be a little while in coming. There are a lot of stars to check. I was going to limit myself to only those stars used to establish the lunar mansions, but between the Vedic, Chinese, and Arabian systems, there are just under 90 stars overall, plus some star clusters. I've got it all worked out. Now I just have to do it.
Last edited:
Mark
Well-known member
Actually, the point I was trying to make is that 8° is too far for any aspect. The only reason people give huge orbs to conjunctions is the fact that every degree from 0 to 10 (except for 7) is its own aspect and they all tend to work in similar ways. 8° will give you a distinctly different flavour than 0°, but there is still certainly an aspect. Your Saturn/Uranus conjunction does aspect the Moon, but it isn't another conjunction.
Also, if there are less than 25 aspects on your list (from conjunction to opposition), you're using an abbreviated list that is leaving out a lot of stuff. Actually, those 25 don't include the aspects less than 10°. Don't rely the common, short list if you can help it. If you want to see where I'm getting my information, then thoroughly investigate the article below. Look at the number tables and find the patterns yourself.
http://www.twelvestaralmanac.com/article2.shtml
Also, if there are less than 25 aspects on your list (from conjunction to opposition), you're using an abbreviated list that is leaving out a lot of stuff. Actually, those 25 don't include the aspects less than 10°. Don't rely the common, short list if you can help it. If you want to see where I'm getting my information, then thoroughly investigate the article below. Look at the number tables and find the patterns yourself.
http://www.twelvestaralmanac.com/article2.shtml
Mark
Well-known member
This is why I must approach astrology as a science. That's why I created those number tables. Those mathematical structures built into the number 360 are the foundation for all of the aspects. If there's a better foundation, please tell me. I've never found one and I don't believe any others exist. The aspects that you're already using originally came from divisions of 360 that produce integers. I've borne the burden of proof for these tables. If you want to say something different, you'll have to bear the burden of proof for your work. Show me better answers and I'll accept your answers.
I'm not trying to be an *** about this. I'm just trying to convey that I regard these number tables as the place the aspects get their scientific weight. I've put quite a bit of work into this particular area. Truthfully, I would be happy if you could prove me wrong. Then I would have better answers. Are you prepared to say that 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are all conjunctions, even though every integer in the higher ranges all have their own meaning? I'm not prepared to say that. It feels too much like an assumption to me.
I realise my tone may be harsh and I apologise for that. I'm not here to offend. I just want to keep the conversation strictly scientific. If you want to disagree, I want to know why.
It's also important to note that when your aspect list is as long as mine is, you still get a heaping table of aspects even at 2° orbs. That's why I believe all the lower integers were thrown into one big pile for simplicity. Honestly, the orbs only become important when you're dealing with high-accuracy calculations. Most astrology doesn't require <1° orbs, but you would need them to get meaningful measurements of the aspects less than 10°. For low precision calculations, it may even be acceptable to toss them all into one basket. I just don't think the basket should be that big.
I'm not trying to be an *** about this. I'm just trying to convey that I regard these number tables as the place the aspects get their scientific weight. I've put quite a bit of work into this particular area. Truthfully, I would be happy if you could prove me wrong. Then I would have better answers. Are you prepared to say that 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are all conjunctions, even though every integer in the higher ranges all have their own meaning? I'm not prepared to say that. It feels too much like an assumption to me.
I realise my tone may be harsh and I apologise for that. I'm not here to offend. I just want to keep the conversation strictly scientific. If you want to disagree, I want to know why.
It's also important to note that when your aspect list is as long as mine is, you still get a heaping table of aspects even at 2° orbs. That's why I believe all the lower integers were thrown into one big pile for simplicity. Honestly, the orbs only become important when you're dealing with high-accuracy calculations. Most astrology doesn't require <1° orbs, but you would need them to get meaningful measurements of the aspects less than 10°. For low precision calculations, it may even be acceptable to toss them all into one basket. I just don't think the basket should be that big.
Claire19
Well-known member
Being born at 6pm and in late winter it is difficult to say whether the day or night formula is to be used. However I find that the 4th house POF of the day calculation is accurate for me....
...And this is an example of the best way to proceed whenever there is a questionable issue: test out the variables, and the one which "works", or is most applicable, is what is accepted...
Mark
Well-known member
The method I build into my software checks the distance to the Sun from the horizon and so uses day calculations for positive numbers and night calculations for negative numbers. You could also find the difference of your 270° (90°) midheaven and the Sun. Anything less than 90 would be day and anything more than 90 would be night.
serafin5
Well-known member
Fellow Astrologers:
Now I'm completely lost: According to Astrodienst, and my 11:30pm birth, my POF is 17degs. Leo (10th H; conj. MC). Then reading some posts that some astrologers use only the day formula so that would make my POF at 11 degs. Aqua. (4thH, Conj. Sn/Merc/Mars/Sat/&IC.)! I'm an amateur at best and I'm not even sure how important the POF is in the scheme of things but I would like to know. I don 't feel comfortable saying that I feel one or the other fits best so that will be my POF; I'd prefer to really learn.
I really love this site; I've never been able to discuss astrology with anyone before. Thank you Astrology Weekly!
Serafin5
Now I'm completely lost: According to Astrodienst, and my 11:30pm birth, my POF is 17degs. Leo (10th H; conj. MC). Then reading some posts that some astrologers use only the day formula so that would make my POF at 11 degs. Aqua. (4thH, Conj. Sn/Merc/Mars/Sat/&IC.)! I'm an amateur at best and I'm not even sure how important the POF is in the scheme of things but I would like to know. I don 't feel comfortable saying that I feel one or the other fits best so that will be my POF; I'd prefer to really learn.
I really love this site; I've never been able to discuss astrology with anyone before. Thank you Astrology Weekly!
Serafin5
Mark
Well-known member
serafin5: If you let astro.com choose the day/night formula for you, it should be right. The people who created the lots (parts) all used both day and night formulas, as far as I'm aware. In fact, many lots are just flipped formulas for other lots, like the Lot of Fortune and Lot of Spirit. If you use the wrong formula for the Lot of Fortune, the answer you'll end up with is the Lot of Spirit, and vice versa.
Skillcoil: Well said and well taken. I've intentionally avoided creating threads about my own work. I can see how a couple of posts seem off-topic, but only because they were directed to you in public discussion. I was trying to avoid saying this last time. You can prefer whatever you want. That's the problem. Preference says nothing about Truth. If you don't treat astrology as a science, you may as well just be making up things. If you can't easily be proven wrong, then there's no reason to believe you're right about anything at all. Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, but by approaching astrology as anything other than a science, you break the discussion. The discussion is useless for real progress without sharp scrutiny. I do enjoy talking with you and I respect your ability to say things appropriately; something at which you may be better than me. Although, I can't pretend that all of my posts were off-topic. Honestly, if I'm rocking your artist's boat, it's only because you were rocking my scientist's boat. I hope we can talk plenty more in the future.
P.S. Now is when my avatar starts making sense.
Skillcoil: Well said and well taken. I've intentionally avoided creating threads about my own work. I can see how a couple of posts seem off-topic, but only because they were directed to you in public discussion. I was trying to avoid saying this last time. You can prefer whatever you want. That's the problem. Preference says nothing about Truth. If you don't treat astrology as a science, you may as well just be making up things. If you can't easily be proven wrong, then there's no reason to believe you're right about anything at all. Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, but by approaching astrology as anything other than a science, you break the discussion. The discussion is useless for real progress without sharp scrutiny. I do enjoy talking with you and I respect your ability to say things appropriately; something at which you may be better than me. Although, I can't pretend that all of my posts were off-topic. Honestly, if I'm rocking your artist's boat, it's only because you were rocking my scientist's boat. I hope we can talk plenty more in the future.
P.S. Now is when my avatar starts making sense.
Mark
Well-known member
Skillcoil: We're all good, then. I like leaving presents for people with search engine skills. 
General Recap: Proper calculation of the lots (parts) necessitates figuring whether one was born during the day or night and I would suggest doing this mathematically. The difference between the 270° (90°) midheaven and the Sun is the method I would use to calculate by hand. Less than 90°, it's day time. More than 90°, it's night time. The 270° midheaven is your 10th house cusp on an equal house system. You could also find that midheaven by adding 270° to your ascendant on any house system. This gives you mathematical precision in determining whether births were in the day or night and it is based directly upon the natural world. Note that the Placidus MC is generally not the point you want for this.
Once you have this figured out, you can apply any of the lots (parts) for which you can find a formula. There are tons listed in various places on this forum and the internet in general. If you really want to study them, I would suggest finding a good book on the subject. I believe there are a number of those referenced around this forum as well. Take note that some lots depend on male/female, rather than day/night. There are also a few that don't depend on either. It's an interesting study, so make it a full one.
Relevant Formulae:
Part of Fortune, Day Formula: Ascendant + Moon - Sun
Part of Fortune, Night Formula: Ascendant + Sun - Moon
Part of Spirit, Day Formula: Ascendant + Sun - Moon
Part of Spirit, Night Formula: Ascendant + Moon - Sun
General Recap: Proper calculation of the lots (parts) necessitates figuring whether one was born during the day or night and I would suggest doing this mathematically. The difference between the 270° (90°) midheaven and the Sun is the method I would use to calculate by hand. Less than 90°, it's day time. More than 90°, it's night time. The 270° midheaven is your 10th house cusp on an equal house system. You could also find that midheaven by adding 270° to your ascendant on any house system. This gives you mathematical precision in determining whether births were in the day or night and it is based directly upon the natural world. Note that the Placidus MC is generally not the point you want for this.
Once you have this figured out, you can apply any of the lots (parts) for which you can find a formula. There are tons listed in various places on this forum and the internet in general. If you really want to study them, I would suggest finding a good book on the subject. I believe there are a number of those referenced around this forum as well. Take note that some lots depend on male/female, rather than day/night. There are also a few that don't depend on either. It's an interesting study, so make it a full one.
Relevant Formulae:
Part of Fortune, Day Formula: Ascendant + Moon - Sun
Part of Fortune, Night Formula: Ascendant + Sun - Moon
Part of Spirit, Day Formula: Ascendant + Sun - Moon
Part of Spirit, Night Formula: Ascendant + Moon - Sun
Earth Sign
Well-known member
Sorry if I'm intruding, but I also have an issue with the PoF calculator on Astro.com. I calculated my PoF to be at roughly 10 degrees Cancer, but Astro.com placed it next to my Moon, at 16 degrees Scorpio. Is this something about the day/night formula? Because to my knowledge, I didn't adjust anything regarding that.
This has probably already been covered, but I'm just too spacey to have seen it, lol. Please explain it to me like I'm a child.
This has probably already been covered, but I'm just too spacey to have seen it, lol. Please explain it to me like I'm a child.
Attachments
Mark
Well-known member
Earth Sign: Using the information on the posted chart, my software says your Lot of Fortune is 15.9° Scorpio and your Lot of Spirit is 11.2° Cancer. It looks like astro.com got it right and you accidentally switched the day/night formulas in manual calculation. What you derived manually was your Lot of Spirit. I gave the formulas in my previous post above. Notice that if you switch the day/night formula for either, you're actually calculating the other lot.
Earth Sign
Well-known member
Mark said:
Thanks, Mark! I'm still trying to get a handle on these Arabic Parts... I have a ways to go, lol.
Relative to the question of calculating the Part of Fortune only by the day formula or varying according to day or night formula, here is the actual documented history of the issue:
+the first recorded mention of a Part of Fortune (and a Part of Spirit) is found in Manilius' "Astronomica", AD 14; the instructions given there are to calculate by either the day or the night formula, according to the birth being in daylight, or at night.
+around 58 AD Dorotheus of Sidon ("Carmen Astrologicum") mentioned the Part of Fortune (note: the Greco/Roman astrologers used the term "Lot" rather than "Part") and, like Manilius, directed calculating either by the day or the night formula
+in the mid-2nd century AD Claudius Ptolemy mentioned the Part of Fortune; Ptolemy stated only one way to calculate it, by the day formula (whether born in daytime or at night) Ptolemy mentioned no other Lots (Parts) unlike other Greco/Roman astrologers, who mentioned numerous types of Lots in addition to the Part of Fortune
+until Islamic times, all Greco/Roman astrologers after Ptolemy continued to mention the Part of Fortune and all of them recommended using day formula for day births and night formula for night births
+in the 11th century Al-Biruni mentioned the Part of Fortune (and many other lots) and directed that the formula vary according to day or night
+in the 12th century Ibn Ezra mentioned the Part of Fortune (and many other lots); he specifically referenced Ptolemy, and claimed that "Ptolemy was correct" and that the Part of Fortune should be calculated only by the day formula.
+subsequently, close followers of Ptolemy use only the day formula for the Part of Fortune; the majority of subsequent astrologers followed (and continue to follow) the original (Manilius) instructions and calculated the Part of Fortune by day formula if a daytime birth, and by night formula if a nocturnal birth
+in early 2010 I conducted a poll on skyscript (this thread is still there in the traditional astrology section) relative to the question, "do use you day formula only or do you vary in calculating the Part of Fortune"; about 2/3rds of the respondents voted that they vary the fomula according to diurnal or nocturnal birth time...
+the first recorded mention of a Part of Fortune (and a Part of Spirit) is found in Manilius' "Astronomica", AD 14; the instructions given there are to calculate by either the day or the night formula, according to the birth being in daylight, or at night.
+around 58 AD Dorotheus of Sidon ("Carmen Astrologicum") mentioned the Part of Fortune (note: the Greco/Roman astrologers used the term "Lot" rather than "Part") and, like Manilius, directed calculating either by the day or the night formula
+in the mid-2nd century AD Claudius Ptolemy mentioned the Part of Fortune; Ptolemy stated only one way to calculate it, by the day formula (whether born in daytime or at night) Ptolemy mentioned no other Lots (Parts) unlike other Greco/Roman astrologers, who mentioned numerous types of Lots in addition to the Part of Fortune
+until Islamic times, all Greco/Roman astrologers after Ptolemy continued to mention the Part of Fortune and all of them recommended using day formula for day births and night formula for night births
+in the 11th century Al-Biruni mentioned the Part of Fortune (and many other lots) and directed that the formula vary according to day or night
+in the 12th century Ibn Ezra mentioned the Part of Fortune (and many other lots); he specifically referenced Ptolemy, and claimed that "Ptolemy was correct" and that the Part of Fortune should be calculated only by the day formula.
+subsequently, close followers of Ptolemy use only the day formula for the Part of Fortune; the majority of subsequent astrologers followed (and continue to follow) the original (Manilius) instructions and calculated the Part of Fortune by day formula if a daytime birth, and by night formula if a nocturnal birth
+in early 2010 I conducted a poll on skyscript (this thread is still there in the traditional astrology section) relative to the question, "do use you day formula only or do you vary in calculating the Part of Fortune"; about 2/3rds of the respondents voted that they vary the fomula according to diurnal or nocturnal birth time...
Last edited:
Mark
Well-known member
Huzzah for history! Thanks, dr. farr, for that listing. It was my thinking that the originators of the lots calculated them with separate day and night formulas, and so a specific reason will be needed to justify deviation. Sadly, I don't think that Ptolemy nor Ibn Ezra gave clear reasons for why they preferred a single formula method. Perhaps I'm just out of the loop, but I would love to know the basis for the diurnal/nocturnal switch. Effectively, Ptolemy and Ibn Ezra would have calculated their lots without differentiation between complimentary lots, such as the Lot of Fortune and the Lot of Spirit. Shouldn't this have caused a notable variance? The only explanation is that the people on one side or the other (perhaps even both) were not interested in thoroughly error-checking their own work. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.
I think it would be enlightening if we could discern the purpose of the day/night switch in the first place. I'm going to contemplate this further. If anyone has more information about the purpose of the separation between diurnal and nocturnal formulae, please do share.
I think it would be enlightening if we could discern the purpose of the day/night switch in the first place. I'm going to contemplate this further. If anyone has more information about the purpose of the separation between diurnal and nocturnal formulae, please do share.
Mark
Well-known member
I've created an offshoot thread for discussion of the reasoning behind the parts here: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29050
But please, let's do hear more history in this thread. For the inconvenience, I'll verify your Part of Fortune for free.
But please, let's do hear more history in this thread. For the inconvenience, I'll verify your Part of Fortune for free.
Last edited: