What is chart rectification?

waybread said:

What do you mean, "my method"?

Click to expand...

Dirius clearly stated his meaning when he quoted your post
- i.e.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread

Then once you have a working hypothesis, check it again, against further timed events.

Dirius said:

I really don't get why you would make such a long post explaining your method, while it still fails to take on account that the whole process you just described is merely based on choice.

As you start your post:
Quote: Originally Posted by waybread

Then once you have a working hypothesis, check it again, against further timed events.


Here is when the problem arises and the rest follows. It is still a "working" hypothesis, among many other working "hypothesis".

You can probably come up with 3 or 4 different charts that may explain the individual. The one you pick, doesn't make it right, on a 24 hour chart with no time.

Yes you can find a transit, and then a progression. You can do the same with the next chart, if you are looking to explain. Its observational bias.

If you give 2 different astrologers a chart with no time, both of them will probably come up with different ascendants. Why? because they both "found" different transits, positions, directions that seemed to explain the same thing.

However, with a more or less accurate time frame, most astrologers end up agreeing in a very similar degree Ascendant.

If you probably give everyone that commented on this post a chart with a lets say 2 hour time frame, most of us will probably rectify the chart very closely from each other (with a difference of a few degrees at best).

...but with a time less chart, its most likely that everyone that is claiming that they can do it, will probably come up with very different charts.
(unless of course the is some conjoint effort to make it similar, which would be cheating)

That it is why it would be a hypothesis. Its an idea, not a proven fact.

Nothing with that method could ensure that you have the right chart.

The rest of your post is you explaining your method of rectification, which I think is fair, but still not conclusive for a 24 hour rectification.

You keep sending links of well-known astrologers and their posts on rectification. Yet none of them has even implied that 24 hour rectification can be done.

They are just topics on common rectification techniques.
So I don't think it is fair to send a link, to pass it as "proof" when the subject isn't even mentioned.

Finally this:

The chart posted by unique_astrology was done:

- without many life events (2 perhaps).
- without knowing the individual at all.

Yet to keep stressing how important this things are...
yet the chart that originated this discussion fails to have the "requirements" you mention. That doesn't make much sense.

So whats the deal there?

Click to expand...

waybread said:

Without doubt, a recorded birth time is the best thing to go by.
But many things in life have a Plan B.

I should think it's obvious, that none of them says they will rectify a chart only if an approximate birth time is given!
Obviously, it's a lot easier to rectify a chart with an approximate birth time, but a skilled astrologer is not so limited.

Click to expand...

'A skilled astrologer' may 'not be so limited'
and there are numerous techniques from astrological antiquity
which work well such as
the pre-natal Epoch Rectification Method
which is available online FOR FREE at http://www.rosicrucian.com/zineen/pamen034.htm

waybread said:

You might contact Kannon, on this thread. Rectification is one area where I would suggest you pay a professional astrologer for his/her expertise and time.

Click to expand...

Kannon believes in and follows John Willner INCARN astrology
and
relies on psychic/intuitive methods of Edgar Cayce/John Willner
thus their 'skill' is based
on unverifiable "INCARN astrology incarnation windows"
which are a matter of conjecture

waybread said:

Well, yes and no. Dirius, are you familiar with the concept of probabilities in statistics? Or the "snowball" research method in sociology? Please read these explanations, if not:

In mathematics, probability essentially means "the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible." (from the Google search dictionary)

Suppose you have seven solid dates for a nativity of unknown birth time. You devise a chart in which 7/7 or 100% of the dates match up well with your hypothetical chart. (Keeping in mind that if astrology means anything, the events should coincide with the houses that pertain to those events.) The more your success rate compounds, the more likely it is that your chart is correct or close to correct.

Can you say for certain that your final rectified chart is correct? No, but then many astrologers question the accuracy of birth certificate times due to rounding errors, or inaccurate recording or transcribing.

The snowball sampling method involves obtaining qualitative information from more and more sources, until a point is reached where new sources reveal no new information not previously acquired. In rectification this might mean that after your 7 for 7 success rate, you acquire 5 more .............................................

Click to expand...

Let me highlight the most important thing you said on that post:

Can you say for certain that your final rectified chart is correct? No

I understand probabilities waybread, and I understand your point that if the chart seems to match, the odds of that being the time birth are obviously high.

Yet it doesn't mean the chart is the accurate one. Why? Simple, because another "sample" chart can also get the same high succes results.

Here you can go about that the method you described may get you good results. But its not really a certain one.

What you keep ignoring from my point, is the fact that, along with a very accurate chart, you can also make a different one, that may probably fit all those points too, with a very different setup. Given that there could be a wide arrange of charts that may fit the life on the individual, therefore, identifying the correct one with certain judgement is imposible.

The concept can't be sustained because it still has a high probability of not being the correct one.

Also that implication means leaving aside the other 2 or 3 possible charts that would also describe the native's life very well.

I should think it's obvious, that none of them says they will rectify a chart only if an approximate birth time is given! Obviously, it's a lot easier to rectify a chart with an approximate birth time, but a skilled astrologer is not so limited.

But here is the definition of rectification in James R. Lewis, The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences:

"Rectification is the process of adjusting the birth chart to the precise birth time in cases where the birthday is known but the birth moment is inexact or completely unknown."

Laurie Efrein, in How to Rectify a Birthchart, pp. 34-36, goes even further, arguing that the native's life-- his personality and biography-- are the core of astrology. We start with his personality (temperament to you trads) and life events: then we construct a chart that is true to life for this person prior to attempting any delineation. "The chart can work only the way the native's life works." In this context, we're not looking simply to tweak a pre-given rising sign.

Efrein gives some detailed protocols and worksheets, as a means of systematizing a potentially random process.

Click to expand...

I'm glad your authors thinks he can. Tell me does he offer any sample chart or method for a completly unkown chart? And any given example with a tested chart?

Or is just "his opinion" that it can be done.

Who's talking "proof", Dirius? Frankly, when you do a horary reading and the querent doesn't get back to you on the outcome of the predicted event, you have no "proof" of the accuracy of your methods.

As I said above, unique_astrology is the one to explain his own methods. They are more advanced than the ones I am used to. We don't know what research he may have conducted yet not mentioned in a brief post. In any event, this is now a thread on rectification more generally (thanks to Tim's ministrations. However, celebrities by their nature generally have a lot known about them, thanks to all their publicity. Their various life event dates are usually not hard to find.

I have to stress that there are many different methods for chart rectification, yet they all follow from the principle that the chart should represent the native's life. They don't actually follow from any principle about sticking to a guesstimated ascendant based on a parent's hazy recall, that could be way off, for its own reasons.

Click to expand...

Well given that the original question in the other topic was directed at unique_astrology and not at you, yet it was you the one defending the method, I suppose that you were either aware of the method, or at least agreeing with it.

Yet the contradiction on your statement makes me question on how you would agree or state that the method can be done, if it doesn't even have the qualifications you are saying it should have.

Given that the 2 points you are basing your argument are that you would require a large amount of events to time along with good knowledge of the individual, and the chart posted by unique_astrology probably lacks both this points, it doesn't really make much sense.

Furthermore, lets be realistic on something: The chart was termed as a "speculative" chart. You are keen on definitions, lets understand that the chart was labeled as just a speculation of what his chart may look like, but not exactly a real one.

It can't be done with a purely mathematical approach in the same way a chart synthesis can't be done with a purely mathematical approach. A chart synthesis is more than just compiling and adding up different parts. The whole is more than just the sum of its parts. The intellect can't see the whole, the intellect can only see the parts or the sum of all parts at best. To see the whole, one has to look at it from beyond the intellect, which is the realm of intuition and psychic phenomena. A computer can't do that. That's why computers can't do chart synthesis and why we need astrologers. If an astrologer can't see from beyond the intellect either, then the astrologer is not better than the computer and can't do a synthesis either and so is of limited use only. And what applies to chart synthesis also applies to chart rectification.

Dirius said:

Let me highlight the most important thing you said on that post:

Can you say for certain that your final rectified chart is correct? No

Click to expand...

Let me highlight an important thing that you are missing or simply dislke, Dirius. You have no guarantee that a birth certificate or hospital birth time is correct. Which is why some astrologers (not me) believe that all charts should be rectified, regardless, so that the resulting chart gives the best fit with the native's biography. So, Dirius:

Can you say for certain that any natal chart is correct? No

I understand probabilities waybread, and I understand your point that if the chart seems to match, the odds of that being the time birth are obviously high.

Yet it doesn't mean the chart is the accurate one. Why? Simple, because another "sample" chart can also get the same high succes results.

Here you can go about that the method you described may get you good results. But its not really a certain one.

Click to expand...

Dirius, nothing is certain in astrology!!! And for so many reasons. We don't look for certainty in astrology. We look for a chart that is radical. Then we do the best job of interpretation that we can with it. "Radical" here has nothing to do with far-left politics. In astrology, "radical" simply means a chart that gives good interpretive results. (For an excellent discussion of this principle, read Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology.)

I have no difficulty in taking your point, except that it is off-base. When you read a horary chart, you don't know for certain that the client gave you the correct time, or that your own timing (if you go by the moment that you grasp the question) is truly accurate for the moment of the question. But you would get a sense before proceeding, of whether or not the chart seemed radical. Some astrologers do this by checking the ruler of the hour, while others would plunge in, regardless.

What you keep ignoring from my point, is the fact that, along with a very accurate chart, you can also make a different one, that may probably fit all those points too, with a very different setup. Given that there could be a wide arrange of charts that may fit the life on the individual, therefore, identifying the correct one with certain judgement is imposible.

Click to expand...

Actually, Dirius, you have presented no evidence to support your position here. Can you supply some examples? (I can, but I'll wait, if the suspense doesn't kill me first.) But let's turn your question on its head.

Suppose 3 astrologers tackle the problem of rectifying the horoscope of Eva Perón, whose true birth time is unknown, and there are some conflicting testimonies. (Are you familiar with the Rodden rating system for birth times, explained at http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Help:RR ? The Astro-DataBank has hundreds of charts, and they're not all rated AA.) Each astrologer gets to work and comes up with a different birth chart. Ideally, the 3 of them then get together and work out their differences, but the "best" chart cannot be based on accuracy, when your sole definition of accuracy is an identical match up with the birth moment (which, mind you, may not even be the time on the birth certificate.) The radical chart is the one that gives the best results when subsequently checked against further biographical details of Eva Perón's life.

The concept can't be sustained because it still has a high probability of not being the correct one.

Also that implication means leaving aside the other 2 or 3 possible charts that would also describe the native's life very well.

Click to expand...

Review the concept of the radical chart, described above, and explain how you deal with the reality that an official birth record might be wrong: not just by minutes, but by an am/pm mix-up or transcription error.

[/quote]I'm glad your authors thinks he can. Tell me does he offer any sample chart or method for a completly unkown chart? And any given example with a tested chart?

Or is just "his opinion" that it can be done.
[/quote]

Occasionally an accurate birth time does subsequently show up, against which a rectification can be compared. See: https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/my-very-first-chart-rectification/

Back when I first learned astrology I had no birth record and both my parents were deceased. I struggled mightily with rectification, and actually came within several degrees of my subsequently-discovered birth record time. While my ascendant sign was off (it's late Virgo, vs. my best guess was early Libra,) it wasn't a bad effort for a novice, and most of my planets in houses stayed the same, depending on the house system used.

Well given that the original question in the other topic was directed at unique_astrology and not at you, yet it was you the one defending the method, I suppose that you were either aware of the method, or at least agreeing with it.

Click to expand...

Well, suppose again, Dirius. Rather, I've seen a lot of unique_astrology's work, both here and at Astrodienst. He's pretty impressive. What I am sticking up for, in a more general way, is the concept of rectification. And sure, as Chris Brennan (linked above) noted, let's understand that the rectified chart is tentative. It's not cast in bronze. But than neither is a hospital record.

Yet the contradiction on your statement makes me question on how you would agree or state that the method can be done, if it doesn't even have the qualifications you are saying it should have.

Given that the 2 points you are basing your argument are that you would require a large amount of events to time along with good knowledge of the individual, and the chart posted by unique_astrology probably lacks both this points, it doesn't really make much sense.

Click to expand...

You are arguing with the wrong person about this, Dirius. I suggest you PM unique_astrology and ask him for a full explanation.

Furthermore, lets be realistic on something: The chart was termed as a "speculative" chart. You are keen on definitions, lets understand that the chart was labeled as just a speculation of what his chart may look like, but not exactly a real one.

Click to expand...

Is there an echo in here? And good luck with verifying that "real chart."

While we're at it, Dirius-- now that I know how convinced you are that the accurate birth time is knowable, you still have to deal with the problem of different house systems yielding different cusps, because this will make a huge difference in planets-in-houses, especially at high latitudes.

You begin to deflect again by talking about things that don't really have much to do with 24/hour rectification.

A birth certificate, while may not be the exact time of birth, does defintly provide you with a time frame, and usually gives you a correct time frame to work with. Specially if you can compare this with a family member's memory of the time (like an aunt recalling it was "around 10 pm at night")

Most birth certificate's require a little adjustment through rectification, never said they didn't.

However, not sure how this has anything to do with 24-hour rectification being possible or not.



The horary chart comment also has nothing to do with this thread. First of all, you know the time of your question, because it is for the moment. Not sure how someone could miss the exact time you are given a question with today's incredible amount of accurate clocks. Seems to me that the problem of casting a bad horary would be done by a careless person that doesn't know how to use a clock, rather than an astrological problem.

If anyone has trouble with this, I suggest you use: www.google.com for accurate clocks.

The problem of the innacurate chart, with little evidence to support its veracity, basing on a technique of "reverse engineering", seems plausible, but not exactly reliable. It has to do more with the imagination of the astrologer regarding with what he wants to see in the chart.

As I mentioned, its observational bias. You can come up with many different charts to explain the same life of the individual.

Actually, Dirius, you have presented no evidence to support your position here. Can you supply some examples? (I can, but I'll wait, if the suspense doesn't kill me first.) But let's turn your question on its head.

Click to expand...

Sure I haven't. But I'm not the one saying that something imposible can be done, or quoting supposedly authors that "can do it".

Well, suppose again, Dirius. Rather, I've seen a lot of unique_astrology's work, both here and at Astrodienst. He's pretty impressive. What I am sticking up for, in a more general way, is the concept of rectification. And sure, as Chris Brennan (linked above) noted, let's understand that the rectified chart is tentative. It's not cast in bronze. But than neither is a hospital record.

You are arguing with the wrong person about this, Dirius. I suggest you PM unique_astrology and ask him for a full explanation.

Is there an echo in here? And good luck with verifying that "real chart."

Click to expand...

I asked him in his post. It was you that decided to answer instead of him, which eventually derived to this thread.

A hospital record + a family recollection gives you a time frame to work with, which most likely is the correct one, and you can be certain you have an accurate chart.

With a made up chart, you can't. Doesn't matter how "good" it may look.

Dirius said:

You begin to deflect again by talking about things that don't really have much to do with 24/hour rectification.

A birth certificate, while may not be the exact time of birth, does defintly provide you with a time frame, and usually gives you a correct time frame to work with. Specially if you can compare this with a family member's memory of the time (like an aunt recalling it was "around 10 pm at night")

Most birth certificate's require a little adjustment through rectification, never said they didn't.

However, not sure how this has anything to do with 24-hour rectification being possible or not.

Click to expand...

Dirius, I think that you are soooo.... trusting of the accuracy of official records. I think you're perplexed about 24-hour rectification and have fixed ideas about it-- but based on what??? Do your ideas come from a teacher, an astrology club, a website, or specific books and articles? Or did you invent this idea?

There is so much material on 24-hour rectification by respected astrologers out there. I've done my best to point you to good sources, including by respected traditional astrologers; but you don't seem to read any of them before firing off another post. You seldom engage critically with ideas that confound your opinions, merely reverting back to points that I've already addressed.

And please, let's realize that Auntie Annie may be completely mistaken in her recollections; or that her recollections may well disagree with those of Auntie Mable 30 years after the birth, when the native first becomes interested in astrology.

At some point you are going to have to do more reading than this thread will allow. I've cited or linked you to sources on rectification that can get you started, as there isn't room on a thread to go through techniques that some astrologers take an entire book to explain or substantiate.

And frankly I don't have the patience for it.

I might also note that Vedic astrology also has techniques of chart rectification that are capable of addressing unknown birth times. Possibly this is because accurate clocks were less common in India when these techniques were developed.

The horary chart comment also has nothing to do with this thread. First of all, you know the time of your question, because it is for the moment. Not sure how someone could miss the exact time you are given a question with today's incredible amount of accurate clocks. Seems to me that the problem of casting a bad horary would be done by a careless person that doesn't know how to use a clock, rather than an astrological problem.

Click to expand...

Dirius, surely you recognize that there are all kinds of problems with timing in horary astrology, not the least of which is that on an astrology forum, most readers use the time when the OPer cast the chart, because that's what shows up on the OP chart. We have no way of knowing whether the question was kicking around in her head the day before she cast the chart; or whether she might have even known enough astrology to time the chart for a moment she found more auspicious, even though her question was from last week. Then some horary astrologers believe that the moment of the question is actually the moment at which the astrologer grasps the question in his own mind, not the moment when the client asks it. Consequently, you could have the most accurate clock on the planet, yet still not have an accurate time for the moment of the question.

You seem to have a sense of security about accuracy in a horoscope that you simply cannot verify. Indeed, you can only speculate that a recorded time is correct.

If anyone has trouble with this, I suggest you use: www.google.com for accurate clocks.

Click to expand...

Which completely misses the above point, that the problem may not be the clock, but that the querent really formulated the question too long before she constructed her chart (or phoned her astrologer) for the chart to be "of the moment."

The problem of the innacurate chart, with little evidence to support its veracity, basing on a technique of "reverse engineering", seems plausible, but not exactly reliable. It has to do more with the imagination of the astrologer regarding with what he wants to see in the chart.

As I mentioned, its observational bias. You can come up with many different charts to explain the same life of the individual.

Click to expand...

Dirius, your comment again says to me that you would benefit from more reading on rectification, because professional astrologers who rectify charts are very aware of the problem. This is why they prefer to start with cold, hard dates.

Sure I haven't. But I'm not the one saying that something imposible can be done, or quoting supposedly authors that "can do it".

I asked him in his post. It was you that decided to answer instead of him, which eventually derived to this thread.

A hospital record + a family recollection gives you a time frame to work with, which most likely is the correct one, and you can be certain you have an accurate chart.

With a made up chart, you can't. Doesn't matter how "good" it may look.

Click to expand...

Dirius, your comments that "the impossible can't be done," "a made up chart" or that I presumed to speak for unique_astrology are patently obvious diversionary tactics. Nobody, least of all me, would argue against a hospital record or solid, impeccable family recollection, where these exist-- as starting points.

Before you fire back, why don't you address my point about radical charts, or comment on the sources I linked for you that you just read or are about to read on 24-hour rectification?

Please keep in mind that astrologers who develop methods of rectification will often practice on charts where the birth time is given in a birth certificate (a Rodden AA rating.)

I will also suggest that sometimes people get into traditional or horary astrology, and will insist on what they construe as "accurate" birth times, because they hope it will give them a greater sense of control and certainty about life. Certainty, unfortunately, is apt to be illusory.

I think we should all learn to read nativities without birth times and without house cusps, but this doesn't mean I discount rectification in the hands of a skilled and experienced practitioner.

waybread said:

Dirius, surely you recognize that there are all kinds of problems with timing in horary astrology, not the least of which is that on an astrology forum, most readers use the time when the OPer cast the chart, because that's what shows up on the OP chart. We have no way of knowing whether the question was kicking around in her head the day before she cast the chart; or whether she might have even known enough astrology to time the chart for a moment she found more auspicious, even though her question was from last week. Then some horary astrologers believe that the moment of the question is actually the moment at which the astrologer grasps the question in his own mind, not the moment when the client asks it. Consequently, you could have the most accurate clock on the planet, yet still not have an accurate time for the moment of the question.

Click to expand...

A horary is cast for the time and place when and where the astrologer understands the question. On this forum, I believe we take the the OP to be the astrologer, and we may or may not comment on the chart, as we choose.

I don't think it's a wrong time that causes the vast majority of the charts posted here to not be horary, but you may disagree. Most of the questions are idle speculation, things that can easily be known by direct methods, etc., which makes much of it 'let's pretend'. Not to mention that most people who post here are not astrologers (but they're still the astrologer, per forum rules), and as Bonatti opined, many have not even the wit to know what they would ask.

Those of us who actually have worked or do work in horary tend to look at the clock.

I will also suggest that sometimes people get into traditional or horary astrology, and will insist on what they construe as "accurate" birth times, because they hope it will give them a greater sense of control and certainty about life. Certainty, unfortunately, is apt to be illusory.

Click to expand...

I've not noticed this. Modern astrology puts a lot of faith in free will and control of one's destiny, traditional astrology - not so much. Sometimes you can help people get around some of the nastiness, or help them find a fruitful way to approach something, and that's worth a lot. But sometimes the bad is going to happen anyway. Life tends to be that way.

I think we should all learn to read nativities without birth times and without house cusps, but this doesn't mean I discount rectification in the hands of a skilled and experienced practitioner.

Click to expand...

Then you're advocating non-horoscopic astrology, though I'm not sure that you've got a useful replacement for it. Which is fine because modern doesn't have rules, and if you truly believe that most birth times (and probably most birth dates) are post-modernly 'suspect' - well, I guess you would consider it a rational move.

Do you find a lot of horaries don't work out for you because of the wrong times or dates for the question, etc? Or birth charts? Your argument seems to come down to 'we should do what we want because astrology can't be efficacious/is impossible (for whatever reason)'.

Which could go a long ways towards explaining why we just don't understand each other.

I just wanted to pull this out and comment separately.

waybread said:

...
Which completely misses the above point, that the problem may not be the clock, but that the querent really formulated the question too long before she constructed her chart (or phoned her astrologer) for the chart to be "of the moment."

Click to expand...

In traditional astrology, and amongst the people I know who practise horary regardless whether they use outer planets, the time a question 'pops into someone's head' is not a horary moment.

A horary question, barring an emergency, is something you've mulled over, that's kept you awake at night, that you cannot discover an answer to by normal means.

You're supposed to give it a good bit of thought before you ask it.

Oddity said:

A horary is cast for the time and place when and where the astrologer understands the question. On this forum, I believe we take the the OP to be the astrologer, and we may or may not comment on the chart, as we choose.

Click to expand...

Realistically, sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I first joined this forum, members were asked to at least attempt to read their own horary and natal charts, with the goal of a forum that actually was an astrologers' community, but this is less and less the case.

I don't think it's a wrong time that causes the vast majority of the charts posted here to not be horary, but you may disagree. Most of the questions are idle speculation, things that can easily be known by direct methods, etc., which makes much of it 'let's pretend'. Not to mention that most people who post here are not astrologers (but they're still the astrologer, per forum rules), and as Bonatti opined, many have not even the wit to know what they would ask.

Click to expand...

My point to Dirius is that in an on-line forum like this one, we actually have no way of knowing whether the horary chart truly indicates the moment of the question or not. So it's no use thinking that horary is accurate because each chart bears a time stamp. But I believe that in horary astrology the chart itself hints at whether or not the querent is sincere. (Very early or late degrees rising; a chart that doesn't seem to describe the situation.)

Those of us who actually have worked or do work in horary tend to look at the clock.

Click to expand...

Meaning that you look at the moment in which you grasped the question and then cast a chart for it, as some astrologers recommend? You don't need a clock if the querent has posted the chart for you, otherwise.

I've not noticed this. Modern astrology puts a lot of faith in free will and control of one's destiny, traditional astrology - not so much. Sometimes you can help people get around some of the nastiness, or help them find a fruitful way to approach something, and that's worth a lot. But sometimes the bad is going to happen anyway. Life tends to be that way.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the usual myth about why traditional is supposedly superior to modern astrology. And I don't buy it. I'm sure you've come across some heavy-duty modern karmic astrologers, as well as traditional Christian astrologers of the past, whose church demanded a free-will perspective.

Then you're advocating non-horoscopic astrology, though I'm not sure that you've got a useful replacement for it. Which is fine because modern doesn't have rules, and if you truly believe that most birth times (and probably most birth dates) are post-modernly 'suspect' - well, I guess you would consider it a rational move.

Click to expand...

Oddity, when are you going to quit making your aggressive hit-and-run assertions? It would be one thing if they were correct, but they're not. They just don't reflect well on you. Of course modern astrology has rules: you just don't like them.

I suppose I could take your point that reading a chart without houses is "non-horoscopic," but I wouldn't take this too far. You can extract a lot of information from a house-less chart-- and should be able to do so, even without knowing whether it's a night or day chart, in your case. If you've got a moon in Cancer tightly squaring Venus in Aries, that should tell you something, regardless.

Of course, if a person has a birth certificate birth time, I'd use it-- unlike some astrologers who believe all charts should be rectified. My point to Dirius, however, is that actually we seldom have a way of verifying that the given time is correct. There's no real certainty here, either.

Do you find a lot of horaries don't work out for you because of the wrong times or dates for the question, etc? Or birth charts? Your argument seems to come down to 'we should do what we want because astrology can't be efficacious/is impossible (for whatever reason)'.

Which could go a long ways towards explaining why we just don't understand each other.

Click to expand...

I've highlighted another hit-and-run (or finger-in-the-eye) comment, Oddity. Can you help yourself with them? Nothing I've posted could possibly lead you to this conclusion, provided you actually read and digest what I write.

Actually, I do read some horary charts for people, though recently they are mostly at Astrodienst. Your question about horaries "not working out" for me is curious. As you know, we would only learn whether our reading was accurate or not if the querent got back to us with the outcome of the event. Oftentimes, they don't.

Then some questions don't even lend themselves to definite feedback. I replied to one earlier today from a woman who wondered what might be the outcome of litigation, were she to undertake it. I and another chart-reader didn't think her prospects looked good (her signifier in detriment in the 7th house of litigation.) If she takes our readings seriously and doesn't initiate legal action, we will also never know whether our reading was correct or not.

So while I don't think we can know for certain whether a horary chart was done for the correct time or not (by way of comparison with rectified natal charts) we can say something about whether either type of chart appears to be radical.

Oddity said:

I just wanted to pull this out and comment separately.



In traditional astrology, and amongst the people I know who practise horary regardless whether they use outer planets, the time a question 'pops into someone's head' is not a horary moment.

A horary question, barring an emergency, is something you've mulled over, that's kept you awake at night, that you cannot discover an answer to by normal means.

You're supposed to give it a good bit of thought before you ask it.

Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree here, except that (a) we seldom know whether the querent truly mulled over the question or not prior to asking; and (b) the moment at which she truly and earnestly has a horary question may not be the time that you see on an OP chart. She may not construct the chart as soon as she reaches that "horary moment."

This is part of the reason why I think more about a chart's radical qualities than about its exact clock timing.

The 3rd page of this topic is now an horary discussion. Amazing.

Dirius said:

The 3rd page of this topic is now an horary discussion. Amazing.

Click to expand...

Looks like the reason is that you and Odd suddenly started talking about horary (posts #12 and #13) for whatever reason.

Re: What Pluto Giveth Pluto Taketh Away

muchacho said:

Looks like the reason is that you and Odd suddenly started talking about horary (posts #12 and #13)
for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

The reason was post #11

waybread said:

Are you aware that during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, astrologers often "rectified" a chart
merely on the basis of the client's personal appearance?
Someone with red hair would be assigned Mars in the first house or Aries rising, for example.
I believe it was Lilly who tried to improve on this method by looking for the position of facial moles, scars, and the like.

Click to expand...

Dirius post 12# then is very reasonably a comment on WB post #11

Dirius said:

Lilly's own words are that the best method of chart rectification is by accidents.

Anyone who read CA would know this because its literally in the first few pages,
when he explains how to set up a chart, and then on the rectification chapter itself.

The thing about "red hair, aries rising, moles, etc.",
is for horary, to get some sort of description on the querent or quesited.

Click to expand...

Oddity post #13 is a comment on WB post#11

Oddity said:

Are you aware that this isn't the case? I reckon you must be, if you've read the books you claim to have read.

Lilly used marks, scars, moles, and birthmarks to convince people of the veracity of their horary charts.
Insofar as I am aware, he did not use this technique to rectify birth charts, though I do believe he mentioned, as many have,
that Mars on the ascendant in a natal chart would indicate some injury about the neck or head likely to leave a scar.

Samuel Pepys wrote about an evening with Lilly, his feeling was that the whole thing was a con-game.
There, I've given you more evidence for your debunking arsenal.

Back around 1100, ibn Ezra wrote why it was a spectacularly bad idea to assume that Mars on the ascendant would lead to red hair and similar,
but you've read him, you know this.

I'm sure there were a few astrologers and street practitioners who were doing this routinely,
and making up charts, just like some moderns do. But you're really over-generalising here.

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

Most examples that were given by everyone, have been about charts with a time frame, or posted other authors that also agree with them, but don't provide a 24 hour rectification either.

Saying that something "can be done", without actually proving it, doesn't mean much.

Click to expand...

In regards to my examples, they were done to prove the veracity of the technique of progressing the lunar return by yielding appropriate symbolism in aspect to the angles of the progressed lunar for the event.

waybread said:

You are arguing with the wrong person about this, Dirius. I suggest you PM unique_astrology and ask him for a full explanation.

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

I asked him in his post.

Click to expand...

Dirius I missed the question - at least I have no recollection of it. Please link to it so I may read it in context. With threads getting hacked up and moved around by moderation and my posts being questioned and/or attacked in so many threads I have no idea of where to look.

unique_astrology said:

Dirius I missed the question - at least I have no recollection of it. Please link to it so I may read it in context. With threads getting hacked up and moved around by moderation and my posts being questioned and/or attacked in so many threads I have no idea of where to look.

Click to expand...

I think it got deleted it was from the original topic.

But I didn't imply you weren't willing to answer it, I just said that waybread took it on herself to answer a question that wasn't directed at her.

Dirius, either you or one of the mods deleted one of your posts, but it showed up in my email notification-- as these things do. I respect that you might have deleted this post yourself, so let me simply recap my points more generally.

We discussed horary by way of example or analogy. Astrologers typically assume that the time given for a nativity or horary chart is correct if it is not suspiciously rounded, but you really cannot verify this, at least not in situations typical of Internet astrology forum posts. Depending upon how one defines "accurate," however, it is worth noting that accurate clocks didn't exist, minimally, until the 1300s, and more realistically, until the 1600s. Traditional astrologers of the past were aware of this problem.

Moreover, it is simply incorrect to say that rectification never refers to 24-hour rectification. Of course, it does; and if you would like further links or titles, I can provide them.

Traditional astrology also dealt with 24 hour rectification.

We might start with Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos, 150 CE) who was the most important classical influence on the astrology that followed. In section 3.2 he points out the problems with ascertaining birth times because of the primitive and often inaccurate time-keeping instruments of his day. He says to take the pre-natal syzygy, getting the degree (presumably off an ephemeris,) of both luminaries if it's a new moon, or of the luminary above the earth if it's a full moon. Then see what planets ruled this degree on the birth date. His method of determining rulership gets more complicated after this, but none of it relates to having an approximate birth time from instrumental methods.

Since Ptolemy's aspects went by signs, rather than degree; and he scarcely discussed houses at all, he appears to have been suspicious of claims to complete accuracy.

Al Biruni (1027 CE) (The Book of Instruction..., pp 98-99, Wright translation) said that you really cannot know the ascendant if it wasn't recorded (in his era, either by astrolabe or water-clock-- some of them little more than leaky cups of water.) However, Al Biruni noted that Ptolemy's method was the most used, while some astrologers relied on "cautious questioning," or a simplification of Ptolemy's method.

These methods might seem dubious enough, but then the ascendant degree so obtained was used further to determine the moment of conception; which was important for determining temperament. A centuries-long debate ensued, as to whether the nativity or conception chart was more important, begging the question as to whether either of them could be based on an accurate birth time.

Al-Biruni noted that horary astrology developed because so few birth times were known in his day; from which we can infer that 24-hour rectification (or at least 12-hour rectification) were common. (In the Middle Ages, many people did not even know their date of birth, according to N. Campion, A History of Western Astrology II, pp. 63-68.)

We also have to realize that astrology's history was always peppered with "street astrologers" who showed up at Roman circuses and medieval fairs; magicians who included some astrological knowledge in their repertory, and professional astrologers who simply weren't very good-- or scrupulous. Astrology was an adjunct to medicine, with its share of desperate patients-- and their doctors. We know about the weak astrologers individually lost to record because the literary astrologers and sceptics (such as Jonathan Swift) condemned them collectively as quacks. But they certainly existed throughout traditional astrology's past, and it is doubtful that they would decline to rectify and interpret a chart for a fee merely because the client didn't know his birth time. (Jim Tester, A History of Western Astrology, p. 161. On the difficulty of fixing an accurate ascendant in the Middle Ages; p. 211 on the conception-nativity chart debate, and p. 212-13 on inaccurate time observations.)

Then just to bring us up to the present, one would think that if an experienced and respected astrologer today, whether traditional or modern, would rectify a chart only with a near-birth time given, they would say so clearly. In contrast, they indicate methods by which 24-hour rectification may be accomplished, however difficult the process might be.

Whether or not one believes that accurate 24-hour rectification is a good idea or even possible is perhaps a more personal matter. Which is why the concept of a radical chart has a lot of traction.

Oddity said:

I just wanted to pull this out and comment separately.



In traditional astrology, and amongst the people I know who practise horary regardless whether they use outer planets, the time a question 'pops into someone's head' is not a horary moment.

A horary question, barring an emergency, is something you've mulled over, that's kept you awake at night, that you cannot discover an answer to by normal means.

You're supposed to give it a good bit of thought before you ask it.

Click to expand...

How widely is the 'mulling over the question' held?

I asked a question a few months ago about the legitimacy of asking two horary questions (completely different topics) in rapid succession. The reply I got was that a highly regarded astrologer of the past (I keep thinking it may have been Lily) did so and so to many, is legitimate.

Does every action have to have been premeditated to be significant? If I walk outside my building now and unexpectedly get hit by a car, I didn't plan it, neither did the driver. Is it not significant?

- I'm just musing here, not challenging.