Hello,
Following ideas from a couple of my previous threads, I would like to expand on the concept of randomized horary charts and get some feedback from the community on this. Dr. Farr, whose judgement I put much stock in, seem to find the method acceptable, but I also think it warrants further discussion.
The basic concept is simply using a random generator to produce a point in time within a certain interval of years. Obviously, there are many ways to do this, but personally I just use a computerized randomizer to give a date and time between the years 1800 and 2013. I would use the querent's present location as the geographical focal point.
I can certainly see the purists of horary astrology object to this method. The question will not have any connection to the present celestial configurations, and hence the emergence of the query in the querent's mind will not "represent" the heavenly state of affairs. Yet, to me it rings true from a divinatory point of view. What time frame is used will of course be arbitrary, but I'm not sure that matters.
The pros, in my opinion, include the fact that the resulting maps will be much, much richer in variation. With the outer planets moving as slowly as they do, horary charts created anywhere in the world, within the time frame of several months, will have major structural similarities. Now, I am aware that houses play a greater importance in horary than do planetary configurations, but even so, that limitation seems to me to be rather discouraging.
Also, while horary astrologers may object to the idea of similar questions being asked by the same person within a short time-span, I don't consider this to be as much of a problem when using randomized horary charts. I am of the conviction that every form of divination, even natal astrology, is a way for the conscious self to dip into the collective unconscious for answers that may be simply out of reach of the rational mind. I don't believe in actual "planetary influence" - I think it's all about representation.
I'm a bit ambivalent about this. The traditionalist in me leans towards not giving up on the normal method. But perhaps they are not mutually exclusive.
Would love to hear some opinions about this.
Following ideas from a couple of my previous threads, I would like to expand on the concept of randomized horary charts and get some feedback from the community on this. Dr. Farr, whose judgement I put much stock in, seem to find the method acceptable, but I also think it warrants further discussion.
The basic concept is simply using a random generator to produce a point in time within a certain interval of years. Obviously, there are many ways to do this, but personally I just use a computerized randomizer to give a date and time between the years 1800 and 2013. I would use the querent's present location as the geographical focal point.
I can certainly see the purists of horary astrology object to this method. The question will not have any connection to the present celestial configurations, and hence the emergence of the query in the querent's mind will not "represent" the heavenly state of affairs. Yet, to me it rings true from a divinatory point of view. What time frame is used will of course be arbitrary, but I'm not sure that matters.
The pros, in my opinion, include the fact that the resulting maps will be much, much richer in variation. With the outer planets moving as slowly as they do, horary charts created anywhere in the world, within the time frame of several months, will have major structural similarities. Now, I am aware that houses play a greater importance in horary than do planetary configurations, but even so, that limitation seems to me to be rather discouraging.
Also, while horary astrologers may object to the idea of similar questions being asked by the same person within a short time-span, I don't consider this to be as much of a problem when using randomized horary charts. I am of the conviction that every form of divination, even natal astrology, is a way for the conscious self to dip into the collective unconscious for answers that may be simply out of reach of the rational mind. I don't believe in actual "planetary influence" - I think it's all about representation.
I'm a bit ambivalent about this. The traditionalist in me leans towards not giving up on the normal method. But perhaps they are not mutually exclusive.
Would love to hear some opinions about this.
Last edited: