Re: How to ask a Horary Question!
Tsmall stated:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clinton Soule
That is the whole point, most who struggle to be a committed traditionalists, to try to perfect their horary skills, respecting their elders who are the fore-fathers of horary, realize that the Modernes have made the mistake of utilizing Outer planets as they misunderstood the Ancients and those in Lilly's time, wrote books upon it, and spread their confusion and now an army of those from the Mod Squad are on the Band wagon touting the Mod veiws of which the Mods misunderstood and others adopted as gospel.
You need to stop freaking out about this. Seriously, it does not matter how others practice horary. It only matters how you practice it, and that what you practice works for you. As in gives correct answers.
Well as you said in the post prior to this, '...there is no traditional accounts of this practice!'
And I'm Not freaking out, it is the same malady as those who use
Outers and
John Frawley's usage of
Outers yet Not ruling house cusps or the matter!
Or like
Bob Zemco's observation that so many
so-called Trads misunderstand the Early and Late Asc., either they do understand or they understand enough to confuse the teachings, yet have missed certain points!
Tsmall:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clinton Soule
I mean should we invent concepts or pass on wrong data for others to be further confused upon?
Tsmall:
There is a difference between inventing concepts and understanding which charts are or are not valid.
If you feel better not using the chart posted by the querent because the querent isn't able to read it, then by all means recast every chart you read for the moment you understood the question. Again, if you get good results (as in correct answers) by doing this, then what do you care what others do or don't do?
Red added by yours truly!
That is Not my point!
Most Trads understand that the Modernes have invented or thought the usage of Outers is proper as they did not happen to have the data prior to 1700 of the Outers. But that is Not traditionalism by any early sources!
It is in this same manner I address this issue as Outers are Not Traditional and ***IF*** there are no writtings to support this by pre-1700 authors it must Not be Traditional as well!
Tsmall:
Quote:
Let me make sure I understand. You are saying that because
I said that a chart cast by someone who can't read it is still valid, and because
I further confirmed that I have seen nothing about that in the texts (while giving a very logical and rational explanation as to why they didn't write about...as in, it was impossible and so therefore likely never crossed an ancient astrologer's mind that they should directly address it...since they were so <ahem> clear about everthing else <not>) that
I could be further confusing the horary scientic community (what exactly is that? Is there a membership card for it or something?) by
stating something contrary to the words of Traditionalism?
Tsmall, I have a few hypothesis or theories just as I'm certain they had about such things as Outers, etc., yet possibly like the Trad writters prior to 1700 there are reasons they didn't deviate as you have stated.
Like
Lilly deviates, I'm certain others May Agree when he uses the time he first hears of a rumour for 3rd house matters and the time someone is known to lay down in their sickbeb for 6th house matters. This is confusing and as I understand it deviates from the consistency of the time he understands a query.
I understand the confusion and question the method, that is all I'm saying!
It's like
Bob Zemco's comment about that
Bonatus and other pre-1700 writters allowed queries to be asked more than once under certain conditions. But I have Not yet read of this or seen any post this methodology by the
Ancients or the page numbers of the source;
Academic Honesty goes further that 3rd house rumours!
.