Day or Night Chart?

[filly]

Hi to all!

My Sun is in the 7H-Taurus so it's suppose to be a day chart.
The reason I'm asking this question it's because when I was studing the Triplicities one Astrologer refered that having the Moon in Cancer override this rule.
I have Moon at the MC...
Is that true or was just a personal opinion?

Thank you in advance

 

[Moog]

I've not heard that one.

Did they perhaps mean that they consider a planet in its domicile to overcome or mitigate any problems caused by it being out of sect?

I could kinda see that being a reasonable, if perhaps speculative, idea.

 

[dr. farr]

Moon in any sign would not change a diurnal nativity into a nocturnal one; in the reference chart, the Moon also would be out of sect, although elevated by being @ the MC; also, you say the Sun is in the 7th house: is the Sun ABOVE the descendant line or BELOW it? If the Sun is above that line then you have a diurnal chart; if the Sun is below that line (ie, the line of the horizon) then you have a nocturnal chart (and the Moon would be IN sect and elevated and probably in great power)

 

[filly]

I've not heard that one.

Did they perhaps mean that they consider a planet in its domicile to overcome or mitigate any problems caused by it being out of sect?

I could kinda see that being a reasonable, if perhaps speculative, idea.

I don't really know but it confused me enough to post this thread.
Dr Farr clarified this question above.

 

[filly]

Moon in any sign would not change a diurnal nativity into a nocturnal one; in the reference chart, the Moon also would be out of sect, although elevated by being @ the MC; also, you say the Sun is in the 7th house: is the Sun ABOVE the descendant line or BELOW it? If the Sun is above that line then you have a diurnal chart; if the Sun is below that line (ie, the line of the horizon) then you have a nocturnal chart (and the Moon would be IN sect and elevated and probably in great power)

The Sun is above the Descendant line in the 7H so it's a diurnal nativity.
That's why it confused me when I read this. Plus all the examples that where shown and that I've seen until now didn't show any example like mine. First with Moon and Sun above the Descendant, and then the comment about Moon in Cancer changing Nativity as I posted. Though didn't make further comments if the Moon should be Below or Above the Descendant either.
Just wanted to check with the Pro's! Thank you!

Another thing that confuses me is that my Sun is in Taurus ruled by Aries.
So I should follow the Taurus triplicity, so it's good to have this triplicity(Moon, Venus, Mars) planets above the horizon or below?

I have Venus and Mars below. Moon, Saturn, Jupiter and Merc above.

Again all the examples shown put the Sun in a masculine sign or the Moon in a feminine one. I have all inverted and probably in the wrong sects as well!

Thanks in advance!

 

[Rebel Uranian]

The sect of a chart is determined by the Sun being positioned above or below the Ascendant, not by the sign of a person's Moon. The planets reflect the light of the Sun, and less sunlight is supposed to be good for planets like Venus, Mars and the Moon, while more sunlight is good for the Sun (duh,) Saturn and Jupiter. There are other factors contributing to sect, such as the gender of a sign and the position of a planet above or below the horizon, but the Moon dispositing 5 out of the 11 points it has (which isn't even half) is not one of them.

 

[filly]

The sect of a chart is determined by the Sun being positioned above or below the Ascendant, not by the sign of a person's Moon. The planets reflect the light of the Sun, and less sunlight is supposed to be good for planets like Venus, Mars and the Moon, while more sunlight is good for the Sun (duh,) Saturn and Jupiter. There are other factors contributing to sect, such as the gender of a sign and the position of a planet above or below the horizon, but the Moon dispositing 5 out of the 11 points it has (which isn't even half) is not one of them.

That's another thing that confuses me, as I said I've only seen examples for a masculine Sun and a feminine Moon...
The examples are very clear about the sect and the best location for the planets, have no doubt about those.

In a day chart as you say it's best for Saturn, Jupiter to be above the Ascendant. I have this.
And the planets of a feminine(night)nature are below the Ascendant(except the Moon).
But then my Sun is in a feminine sign... Would that swap this configuration around?
What I'd like to know is if the planets that belong to my triplicity which are Venus, Mars and Moon (don't recall the correct order, but doesn't matter for now) Still farewell below the Asc or should be above with the Sun.

Did I make any sense?

 

[Rebel Uranian]

The Sun being in a masculine or feminine sign has no relevance to triplicity dignities for other planets from everything I've read, but there's probably something special I don't know about here, because I get what you're saying and I think it's interesting. Whoever knows that "something special," please post it.

 

[dr. farr]

Remember that the Sun is always in sect, but more "potent" in a day chart; as RU states, the Sun being in a feminine sign does not make any difference UNLESS you are attempting an further (advanced) determination of dignities (personally I believe that the dignity/debility matter was ultimately taken to an unrealistic degree of complexity through the medieval and Renaissance periods, but that's just my opinion)

The triplicty lords (Moon, Venus, Mars) are all nocturnal sect planets, and never are in sect if in the same hemisphere of the chart where the Sun is placed. So, with your Venus and Mars below the horizon, they are in the nocturnal hemisphere of the chart and are therefore in sect; Moon is above the horizon so it is out of sect (but not "powerless"-the ancients went quite far with this sect thing, and taught that if a planet is out of sect IN ITS PERIOD, it was "powerless"-kind of like being in a pitted degree! What does this means? For example, say you had a night chart, and the Moon was out of sect because it was below the horizon and therefore in the "day" hemisphere of the chart: since this is a NIGHT chart, and the "period"(sect) of the Moon is at night, then the Moon being out of sect in this example chart means that the Moon would be considered powerless because it happens to be out of sect IN ITS PERIOD; another example, say you have a day chart, and Jupiter is below the horizon, ie, in the night hemisphere of this chart; since the PERIOD of Jupiter-day-is the nature of this day birth chart, Jupiter is out of sect below the horizon AND, since Jupiter's PERIOD is day and this is a day birth chart, Jupiter being out of sect IN ITS PERIOD would render Jupiter powerless in such a chart; personally I consider this "out of sect in its period = powerless" doctrine to be too extreme and do not follow it, but it was a key sect doctrine in the time period from the Greco/Romans right through to late Renaissance times)

 

[Rebel Uranian]

According to that, all of my planets are out of sect one way or another. That means that I'd have no planetary influences. Oh wait, Venus is just barely in the opposite hemisphere from the Sun, so never mind. I wouldn't say I'm very Venusian. I'm the only person I know who never gains weight on the holidays. I'm also not good at letting people walk all over me. I mean that I'm worse than average at letting people walk all over me.

Wouldn't the picture I uploaded be a more accurate picture of sect by hemisphere? By the way, the "out of sect" planet is Jupiter.

 

[MSO]

According to that, all of my planets are out of sect one way or another. That means that I'd have no planetary influences. Oh wait, Venus is just barely in the opposite hemisphere from the Sun, so never mind. I wouldn't say I'm very Venusian. I'm the only person I know who never gains weight on the holidays. I'm also not good at letting people walk all over me. I mean that I'm worse than average at letting people walk all over me.

Wouldn't the picture I uploaded be a more accurate picture of sect by hemisphere? By the way, the "out of sect" planet is Jupiter.

First, you grow into your chart. You're still very young, give it 5 or 6 more years and you'll start to realize just how much your chart says about you.

And no, it's not. It's pretty difficult for a planet to be in hayz, but there's not really anything special about it, at least from my point of view. My Moon is in hayz... it doesn't do any tricks

 

[Rebel Uranian]

I already see what my chart says about me. My Moon is basically mutilated, hence why I think "being a girl" is an insult. (By the way, a scorpion was once thought to be a mutilated crab. Hmm...) Venus is the closest thing to an obscure planet I have. Pluto is probably the most prominent. Yes, Pluto.

I think you misunderstood what I said in the second bit of my post about sect in hemispheres and you didn't click on the picture I uploaded.

 

[dr. farr]

I agree with MSO's opinion about hayz; also, being merely out of sect does not = being powerless or without effect. Also, as I said earlier, I do not follow the oldtime concept of a planet being out of sect in its period being powerless (as if it were in a pitted degree)-I think that carried the sect idea way too far.
To me, being in sect indicates a + consideration for the given planet's efficacy of expression; and being out of sect indicates a - or somewhat inhibitory or restraining element regarding the given planet's efficacy of expression.

 

[Rebel Uranian]

Again:

(atleast10characters)

 

[dr. farr]

Where is the E/W horizon line in the drawing (ie, the asc/desc axis line)? (Perhaps I'm blind to it!)

 

[Rebel Uranian]

It's a horizontal black line passing through my poorly-drawn Earth.

 

[dr. farr]

Thanks (kind of thought that but wanted to be sure) So, this model seems to make the Sun the defining element of day half/night half, rather than the horizon. Am I correct in this or did you mean something else by the model you illustrated?

 

[Rebel Uranian]

Yes, the Sun defines the day half/night half instead of the horizon. That's how it works in real life. That's probably ridiculous of me to mention...

 

[dr. farr]

No its not ridiculous at all, and in my opinion it definitely could be a valid model, and in fact it IS more valid from the astrophysical point of view.

But from a symbolical point of view, the horizon is taken as the symbolic dividing line: what is "above the earth" is the "current period", and what is "below the earth" is opposite to what is "above the earth". If (as in your chart) the Sun is "below the earth" (even though its about twilight time), then what is "above the earth" is "night" and what is "below the earth" is "day"-but it is clear (to me at least) that this is symbolic, and that your illustrated model is the actual astrophysical state present.

Using the symbolic (ie traditional sect) model, therefore, in your chart Jupiter and Saturn are "in sect" (because they are in the "day" hemisphere of the chart), and Mars and Venus are also "in sect" (because they are in the "night" hemisphere of the chart), and the Moon is "out of sect" because it is in the "day" hemisphere of the chart.

Using your suggested model, (approximately) we would still have Jupiter and Saturn in sect (day half of model) but Venus would now be out of sect (because now it would be in the day half); Mars would remain in sect (night half of model) but now the Moon would also be in sect (now in the night half according to the model) So, using the model, the sect changes would only be 2: Venus would go out of sect and the Moon would go into sect.

 

[Moog]

It's an interesting diagram.

I was reading this thread that sandstone linked too, which addresses some matters regarding sect and heliacal phase, maybe interesting?

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6483

If my understanding of this material is correct, then Sect is essentially reading the phase of planets in relation to the lights, and they to each other.