Oddity
Well-known member
Outside of this forum it's pretty unanimous in my experience.
I don't think this has anything to do with horary questions, or if it does, you've lost me. Sorry.
What is chart rectification?
- Thread starter waybread
- Start date
Outside of this forum it's pretty unanimous in my experience.
I don't think this has anything to do with horary questions, or if it does, you've lost me. Sorry.
Dirius
Well-known member
Waybread let me show the contradiction on your own post. You said from Ptolomy:
...of both luminaries if it's a new moon, or of the luminary above the earth if it's a full moon.....
That simple statement requires for you to know if it was night or day, which is indeed....a time frame.
It is not a 24-hour method.
Re-read your words.
And still I'm not sure why you are still talking about horary. Not an horary thread. Not an horary comparison. So not sure whats your aim in spending 2 paragraphs to discuss horary.
You are talking horary basing it on people not knowing how to use a clock. That doesn't make much sense. Specially because you are basing it on people doing it in an online forum.
Hmm...I don't think I deleted any post, or that neither one of my posts got deleted by a mod.
My last 3 posts were the ones that still are in the topic (the one adressed to you in page 2, and the other two in page 3).
...of both luminaries if it's a new moon, or of the luminary above the earth if it's a full moon.....
That simple statement requires for you to know if it was night or day, which is indeed....a time frame.
It is not a 24-hour method.
Re-read your words.
And still I'm not sure why you are still talking about horary. Not an horary thread. Not an horary comparison. So not sure whats your aim in spending 2 paragraphs to discuss horary.
You are talking horary basing it on people not knowing how to use a clock. That doesn't make much sense. Specially because you are basing it on people doing it in an online forum.
Hmm...I don't think I deleted any post, or that neither one of my posts got deleted by a mod.
My last 3 posts were the ones that still are in the topic (the one adressed to you in page 2, and the other two in page 3).
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
Dirius, let's try again. Ptolemy's method is called the animondar or animodar method of chart rectification, and it is described from the second century CE through William Lilly in the 17th century. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/animodar.html In terms of a luminary being above or below the earth, the date and time referred to isn't the native's birth date, but the date and time of the syzygy that precedes the native's birth date. This information as well as the luminaries' horoscopic hemisphere for this date would be gleaned from an ephemeris.
Basically if the pre-natal syzygy involved a new moon, you look at which planet in the natal chart has the most dignity at the degree of the pre-natal new moon. If the syzygy was a full moon you look at which natal planet had the most dignity in the degree of the luminary above the earth on the date of the pre-natal syzygy. You then look at the degree of this most dignified planet in the natal chart, and assume that the ascendant has the same degree in the nearest sign, taking ascension times into account. (Tetrabiblos 3.2.) Mr. Pt. goes on from there, on how to handle two or more most-dignified natal planets, but the point is, none of these steps require knowing an approximate birth time in advance.
Even in a system that required knowing whether the native had a day or night birth, a 12-hour rectification system is still a far cry from your insistence that rectification requires a close birth time estimate to be given.
William Lilly (Christian Astrology, Book 3) says that the astrologer should ask for the birth time, but "consider whether that be the true time of Birth yea or not lest he be deceived either wholly in the Sign ascending... or mistake many degrees thereof." He gives several rectification methods that don't require a birth hour: in noting that he has his doubts about some of them, he says that they were common amongst other astrologers.
....
Sigh...... You might have noticed Oddity and Byjove discussing horary, as well.
I demonstrated, for comparative purposes, that the exactness of time that you find so important actually doesn't pertain to a lot of astrology. I gave the example of horary, precisely because it has been viewed as a way around the problem of inexact birth times. A bigger problem than a potentially unreliable clock in horary is that you have no way of confirming that the moment of the burning question is identical to the clock-time of the chart. You can look for radicality in a horary chart, but you actually won't get independent objective verification. We are participating in an online forum, the last I noticed; but you could still have this problem with a traditional office visit or phone call from a client.
Taking the time of a chart is a matter of faith, not independent verification.
It's not a problem. You've made the same points elsewhere.
Dirius
Well-known member
The animondar doesn't really work waybread. It is a failure of concept. If it was written in ptolomy its been around for centuries. If it worked, don't you think people would use it more often??
The failure of these ancient methods is that they usually net the same results for a bunch of people.
For instance if the concept is to look for the prenatal lunation, then that position will be common to a lot of people born within 2 weeks, and might net the same planetary results.
You can always test it, and proove it. I'll be actually delighted if a method could work.
But they don't.
So whats the point then? Of course there are completly bogus methods out there. But they have been proven not to work for ages.
Lilly happens to mention them because he has an open mind. He does however, disregard them completly, and prefers to rectify by direction. Furthermore, his methodology is different than Ptolomy, and for his work you need a sort of working Ascendant/MC.
-------
The thing of horary that you are saying is:
Because some people in internet forums don't know how to use horary; Then there must be people that don't know how to use birth certificates; Thus a method to find the Ascendant without information exists.
I understand you were trying to make a comparison. So please, if you have doubts about horary, do so in the horary section. You were the one who made it into an horary discussion in the first place, thats why I called you on that.
-------
The failure of these ancient methods is that they usually net the same results for a bunch of people.
For instance if the concept is to look for the prenatal lunation, then that position will be common to a lot of people born within 2 weeks, and might net the same planetary results.
You can always test it, and proove it. I'll be actually delighted if a method could work.
But they don't.
So whats the point then? Of course there are completly bogus methods out there. But they have been proven not to work for ages.
Lilly happens to mention them because he has an open mind. He does however, disregard them completly, and prefers to rectify by direction. Furthermore, his methodology is different than Ptolomy, and for his work you need a sort of working Ascendant/MC.
-------
The thing of horary that you are saying is:
Because some people in internet forums don't know how to use horary; Then there must be people that don't know how to use birth certificates; Thus a method to find the Ascendant without information exists.
I understand you were trying to make a comparison. So please, if you have doubts about horary, do so in the horary section. You were the one who made it into an horary discussion in the first place, thats why I called you on that.
-------
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
Dirius, you apparently missed my point on horary yet again. Within a broader perspective, it's just an example of timing problems common to astrology of all sorts, not just nativities. It's no good claiming that the rest of astrology can lay claims to pinpoint accuracy when rectification techniques cannot. So there was nothing to "call me out on." But if that's how you take it, feel free to "call out" the others who joined in the horary discussion-- including yourself.
I'm not here to defend or criticize the animondar method so far as its accuracy is concerned. Again, please do not misunderstand me. My point, simply, is that you cannot claim that rectification is universally restricted to charts with nearly-known birth times. This claim just isn't born out by reading the actual methods of contemporary astrologers today, whether trad or modern; or by a look at astrology's history. Frankly, the animondar method looks goofy to me, but clearly the distinguished traditional astrologers from the second through the seventeenth century used it, either when no birth time was known or when a given birth time was suspect.
Al Biruni cited it, Lilly thought it was a common method of rectification in his day; and Galileo attempted to rectify his chart with it. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/animodar.html
It didn't end with Ptolemy, by any means.
I haven't tested out the method myself, but you might wish to read about it in its entirely. before making assumptions about it. The animondar method didn't end with the pre-natal lunation, but linked its degree to known planetary degrees and dignities in the native's nativity. So these would have differed amongst individuals with the same syzygy date. With an essentially ZPG population growth rate prior to the mid-18th century, there just wouldn't have been that many people born within the same locale, either; and latitude affects ascension times of rising signs, as Ptolemy noted.
However, what is the basis for your comment that the animondar method isn't accurate? Are you familiar with any objective tests of it?
Here is Deborah Houlding's (owner of the Skyscript site) surprising take on it:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=822
I'm not here to defend or criticize the animondar method so far as its accuracy is concerned. Again, please do not misunderstand me. My point, simply, is that you cannot claim that rectification is universally restricted to charts with nearly-known birth times. This claim just isn't born out by reading the actual methods of contemporary astrologers today, whether trad or modern; or by a look at astrology's history. Frankly, the animondar method looks goofy to me, but clearly the distinguished traditional astrologers from the second through the seventeenth century used it, either when no birth time was known or when a given birth time was suspect.
Al Biruni cited it, Lilly thought it was a common method of rectification in his day; and Galileo attempted to rectify his chart with it. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/animodar.html
It didn't end with Ptolemy, by any means.
I haven't tested out the method myself, but you might wish to read about it in its entirely. before making assumptions about it. The animondar method didn't end with the pre-natal lunation, but linked its degree to known planetary degrees and dignities in the native's nativity. So these would have differed amongst individuals with the same syzygy date. With an essentially ZPG population growth rate prior to the mid-18th century, there just wouldn't have been that many people born within the same locale, either; and latitude affects ascension times of rising signs, as Ptolemy noted.
However, what is the basis for your comment that the animondar method isn't accurate? Are you familiar with any objective tests of it?
Here is Deborah Houlding's (owner of the Skyscript site) surprising take on it:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=822
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
When you are making an horary chart you can make it for the moment you sit down in the computer, not the original moment the question "pops into your head". Its when you decide to ask. Someone doing that will know what time it is.
Besides you are comparing the way people make horary on an online forum, to the way a birth is recorded. Its not exactly a good comparison.
----------
Going to the subject, most of the methods proposed by the ancient for Ascendant finding (which would be the sign) don't work, and the few that do only work if you already have an ascendant.
Its actually a good example this one, but there is a reason it didn't work in the past.
I have tested a few of Valens own methods who operate under similar premises, like 3 of his methods of Ascendant finding along with the Trutine of Hermes.
The problem with those methods is that they usually end up giving you an Ascendant that is close to the position you make the chart with. So usually when you use a "blind" chart they will merely move the Asc a few degrees.
Rectification methods are meant to correct the Ascendant. They are used to adjust the Ascendant to its more accurate position. Not to find it.
The methods design to find it, have been proven not to be succesful. This is why the methods aren't really used rather than confirmation.
As Lilly said, the best method is with directions. You can confirm a direction using, for example, the trutine of Hermes which is a good method if you already have an Ascendant in place. But to do it on a blind chart, just doesn't work.
The astrologer would usually end up "making" a chart with an Ascendant in mind, which would correspond to the time frame he is giving by the native
example: "born at night but before it was midnight" -
The methods are applied to this Ascendant and help moving the Ascendant to its rather accurate degree and sign. But you can notice that it will usually be the sign you have already placed the Ascendant in, or the adjacent signs.
The method can't be done with a "blind" chart, it doesn't net good results.
This is why, as I say, you need a time frame.
I'll be honest, I haven't tested Ptolomy's specific method, I've tested Valens, and the methods from back then are similar. So if Ptolomy's method could work that would be amazing. But it already fails on a concept level.
Besides you are comparing the way people make horary on an online forum, to the way a birth is recorded. Its not exactly a good comparison.
----------
Going to the subject, most of the methods proposed by the ancient for Ascendant finding (which would be the sign) don't work, and the few that do only work if you already have an ascendant.
Its actually a good example this one, but there is a reason it didn't work in the past.
I have tested a few of Valens own methods who operate under similar premises, like 3 of his methods of Ascendant finding along with the Trutine of Hermes.
The problem with those methods is that they usually end up giving you an Ascendant that is close to the position you make the chart with. So usually when you use a "blind" chart they will merely move the Asc a few degrees.
Rectification methods are meant to correct the Ascendant. They are used to adjust the Ascendant to its more accurate position. Not to find it.
The methods design to find it, have been proven not to be succesful. This is why the methods aren't really used rather than confirmation.
As Lilly said, the best method is with directions. You can confirm a direction using, for example, the trutine of Hermes which is a good method if you already have an Ascendant in place. But to do it on a blind chart, just doesn't work.
The reason the methods don't work is because they don't provide accurate information for the individual.
The astrologer would usually end up "making" a chart with an Ascendant in mind, which would correspond to the time frame he is giving by the native
example: "born at night but before it was midnight" -
The methods are applied to this Ascendant and help moving the Ascendant to its rather accurate degree and sign. But you can notice that it will usually be the sign you have already placed the Ascendant in, or the adjacent signs.
The method can't be done with a "blind" chart, it doesn't net good results.
This is why, as I say, you need a time frame.
I'll be honest, I haven't tested Ptolomy's specific method, I've tested Valens, and the methods from back then are similar. So if Ptolomy's method could work that would be amazing. But it already fails on a concept level.
Last edited:
Oddity
Well-known member
Ibn Ezra tested the trutina method and found it to not work. I've read some studies in Portuguese within the past couple of years with modern day testing, and that was a bust, too - on several hundreds of charts. I can't find the papers online, however. I personally haven't found it to be particularly accurate, either.
On horary: Ok. I go talk to Dirius (using you because you're right here!) and tell him my question. If he understands it, we're good, and he casts a chart. If he doesn't, we clarify it, and when he understands it he casts a chart - for the time and place that he is. That's how we know what time a horary is asked. It's really simple.
Alternatively, I'm bored, and wonder if that cute waitress will have me, so I post a chart in the forum. That makes me the de facto astrologer whether I know anything about astrology or not, and whether Dirius comments or not, and if he does, he's just commenting. It's probably an idle question, anyway. Forum horary is fraught with these kinds of problems, and worse. You can comment on forum horaries, but you can't be certain of radicality in any event - and you're not the astrologer. The person who asks the question is. Or else every astrologer who comments would have to cast the chart for the time and place they understand the question, and that would just lead to a bigger mess in forum astrology.
On horary: Ok. I go talk to Dirius (using you because you're right here!) and tell him my question. If he understands it, we're good, and he casts a chart. If he doesn't, we clarify it, and when he understands it he casts a chart - for the time and place that he is. That's how we know what time a horary is asked. It's really simple.
Alternatively, I'm bored, and wonder if that cute waitress will have me, so I post a chart in the forum. That makes me the de facto astrologer whether I know anything about astrology or not, and whether Dirius comments or not, and if he does, he's just commenting. It's probably an idle question, anyway. Forum horary is fraught with these kinds of problems, and worse. You can comment on forum horaries, but you can't be certain of radicality in any event - and you're not the astrologer. The person who asks the question is. Or else every astrologer who comments would have to cast the chart for the time and place they understand the question, and that would just lead to a bigger mess in forum astrology.
Well, another heated debate about astrology 
How familiar
I am indeed interested in the techniques/methods of those who do practise rectification since they do seem to use all kinds of different methods. It would indeed be interesting to see if they would all run a test on their rectifications to see if results would be similar on a certain person that has many known life events that are recorded to the day and hour and maybe even to the minute.
I would like to ask of those of you who do practise rectification and have done so for years, so some experience is already there:
Do you use the EP as well? (I've seen it becomes extremely important in higher latitudes, but I rarely see people in astrology forums actually using it)
Are you familiar with the Orient point? *(see footnote)
Do you use the relocated axis in case people have moved from their birth place?
Do all of you use the appearance/facial features of the individual to verify the ASC? (I guess the placement of the luminaries can also be a factor in appearance).
*
"the publication of Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976, by Dean and Mather. On pages 181-182, they mention the work of one Joseph Frederici. There, they mention a point Frederici calls the "Orient." Actually, Frederici came up with two distinct points he dubbed "Orient" but it's the second that got my attention." ...
"In his culminating article The "Universal Domification System" Frederici asks us to imagine how astrology might have developed if it had originated in the far north instead of at lower latitudes. He notes that a hypothetical Hyperborean astrologer would have seen the planets a being near the horizon all the time, and this would not have been given much significance. More important would have been the passage of the planets through the Prime Vertical and the Meridian. He suggests that something like the Zenith house system would have been developed. As astrology moved south, in his scenario, astrologers would have encountered difficulties transposing the Zenith system to their new environs, ultimately having to recognize the importance of the Ascendant. (This is a very short and inadequate summary of his narration.)
Frederici then has an insight which I did not have, or if I did, forgot about. The Zenith system and Regiomontanus system are complementary systems, when Zenith is cast at the Poles, and Regiomontanus is cast at the Equator. With this, he goes on to construct his UDS. He states "...since the Zenith and Regiomontanus Systems are complementary, would it not be possible to find a general system of which the two be particular cases, fit for the extreme situations prevailing at the Pole and at the Equator? ... Reasoning along these lines I have devised a completely new House System which sums up all my work in this field up to date."
Though stated in different terms, Frederici pursued and solved the same question I'd pondered earlier.
Before going on to the technical formulas, let me pause here and give a brief bibliography and summary of the articles Joseph R. Frederici published in The Astrological Journal, insofar as I know of them.
Vol. XVI No. 3, Summer 1974
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 1
Frederici begins his exploration of the houses with two assumptions: 1. Houses are analogous to the signs structurally. Thus his inquiry begins with identifying which features of each are properly analogous. 2. A proper house system has to be applicable everywhere on Earth.
Vol. XVII No. 1, Winter 1974/75
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 2
Frederici continues his study in Part 1. Emphasis is on a comparison of several systems, by way of the principle "If a House System is not universally applicable - i.e. applicable to all places and all times - then it should be rejected."
Vol. XVII No. 3, Summer 1975
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 3
Frederici examines the characteristics of his "Lost Ascendant," his first "Orient" point.
Vol. XVII No. 4, Autumnr 1975
"The Meridian System of Houses"
A consideration of same, with thoughts on the difference between "cusps" (edges or boundaries) of houses and "apices" (peaks of strength) of houses.
Vol. XIX No. 4, Autumn 1977
"The 'Universal Domification System' "
The primary focus of my essay here.
Beyond this, I do not know anything of Mr. Frederici's work, nor of Mr. Frederici himself. He obviously put a lot of thought and care into the question of houses. I think his work deserves more attention than it has gotten (that is, almost completely lost and forgotten). Agree or disagree with his conclusions, his work is painstaking and done with care about the topic from a technical approach. "
"Now, we come to the really technical part of the UDS, the dreaded math!
The first part is easy. The Tenth House is the Midheaven, and by the logic of the system this is where the meridian (the one you are on, from one Pole to the other) intersects the ecliptic.
While usually formulas are presented first and the explanations of the abbreviations are given later, I'll reverse the process and list the abbreviations and their definitions first. I've always thought that the standard way was sure to induce anxiety and incomprehension upon those unfamiliar with the conventions.
T = RAMC in degrees
E = obliquity of the ecliptic (given precisely by Solar Fire)
S = 0 for the MC
= 30 for the 11th cusp
= 60 for the 12th cusp
= 90 for the 1st cusp
= 120 for the 2nd cusp
= 150 for the 3rd cusp
H = geographic latitude
B = tan^-1 (tan H sin S)
A = tan^-1 (tan E sin B cos B sin (T + S))
R = T + S + A
L = tan^-1 (tan R / cos E)
= celestial longitude of the cusp
Apply the SVP to L to get the sidereal longitude.
When creating a spreadsheet or program to do this, remember that is it is often (as with Excel or Open Office) to convert the degrees to radians first, and vice versa when necessary. "
(the source is a thread in solunars.net)
How familiar I am indeed interested in the techniques/methods of those who do practise rectification since they do seem to use all kinds of different methods. It would indeed be interesting to see if they would all run a test on their rectifications to see if results would be similar on a certain person that has many known life events that are recorded to the day and hour and maybe even to the minute.
I would like to ask of those of you who do practise rectification and have done so for years, so some experience is already there:
Do you use the EP as well? (I've seen it becomes extremely important in higher latitudes, but I rarely see people in astrology forums actually using it)
Are you familiar with the Orient point? *(see footnote)
Do you use the relocated axis in case people have moved from their birth place?
Do all of you use the appearance/facial features of the individual to verify the ASC? (I guess the placement of the luminaries can also be a factor in appearance).
*
"the publication of Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976, by Dean and Mather. On pages 181-182, they mention the work of one Joseph Frederici. There, they mention a point Frederici calls the "Orient." Actually, Frederici came up with two distinct points he dubbed "Orient" but it's the second that got my attention." ...
"In his culminating article The "Universal Domification System" Frederici asks us to imagine how astrology might have developed if it had originated in the far north instead of at lower latitudes. He notes that a hypothetical Hyperborean astrologer would have seen the planets a being near the horizon all the time, and this would not have been given much significance. More important would have been the passage of the planets through the Prime Vertical and the Meridian. He suggests that something like the Zenith house system would have been developed. As astrology moved south, in his scenario, astrologers would have encountered difficulties transposing the Zenith system to their new environs, ultimately having to recognize the importance of the Ascendant. (This is a very short and inadequate summary of his narration.)
Frederici then has an insight which I did not have, or if I did, forgot about. The Zenith system and Regiomontanus system are complementary systems, when Zenith is cast at the Poles, and Regiomontanus is cast at the Equator. With this, he goes on to construct his UDS. He states "...since the Zenith and Regiomontanus Systems are complementary, would it not be possible to find a general system of which the two be particular cases, fit for the extreme situations prevailing at the Pole and at the Equator? ... Reasoning along these lines I have devised a completely new House System which sums up all my work in this field up to date."
Though stated in different terms, Frederici pursued and solved the same question I'd pondered earlier.
Before going on to the technical formulas, let me pause here and give a brief bibliography and summary of the articles Joseph R. Frederici published in The Astrological Journal, insofar as I know of them.
Vol. XVI No. 3, Summer 1974
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 1
Frederici begins his exploration of the houses with two assumptions: 1. Houses are analogous to the signs structurally. Thus his inquiry begins with identifying which features of each are properly analogous. 2. A proper house system has to be applicable everywhere on Earth.
Vol. XVII No. 1, Winter 1974/75
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 2
Frederici continues his study in Part 1. Emphasis is on a comparison of several systems, by way of the principle "If a House System is not universally applicable - i.e. applicable to all places and all times - then it should be rejected."
Vol. XVII No. 3, Summer 1975
"The Lost Ascendant" Part 3
Frederici examines the characteristics of his "Lost Ascendant," his first "Orient" point.
Vol. XVII No. 4, Autumnr 1975
"The Meridian System of Houses"
A consideration of same, with thoughts on the difference between "cusps" (edges or boundaries) of houses and "apices" (peaks of strength) of houses.
Vol. XIX No. 4, Autumn 1977
"The 'Universal Domification System' "
The primary focus of my essay here.
Beyond this, I do not know anything of Mr. Frederici's work, nor of Mr. Frederici himself. He obviously put a lot of thought and care into the question of houses. I think his work deserves more attention than it has gotten (that is, almost completely lost and forgotten). Agree or disagree with his conclusions, his work is painstaking and done with care about the topic from a technical approach. "
"Now, we come to the really technical part of the UDS, the dreaded math!
The first part is easy. The Tenth House is the Midheaven, and by the logic of the system this is where the meridian (the one you are on, from one Pole to the other) intersects the ecliptic.
While usually formulas are presented first and the explanations of the abbreviations are given later, I'll reverse the process and list the abbreviations and their definitions first. I've always thought that the standard way was sure to induce anxiety and incomprehension upon those unfamiliar with the conventions.
T = RAMC in degrees
E = obliquity of the ecliptic (given precisely by Solar Fire)
S = 0 for the MC
= 30 for the 11th cusp
= 60 for the 12th cusp
= 90 for the 1st cusp
= 120 for the 2nd cusp
= 150 for the 3rd cusp
H = geographic latitude
B = tan^-1 (tan H sin S)
A = tan^-1 (tan E sin B cos B sin (T + S))
R = T + S + A
L = tan^-1 (tan R / cos E)
= celestial longitude of the cusp
Apply the SVP to L to get the sidereal longitude.
When creating a spreadsheet or program to do this, remember that is it is often (as with Excel or Open Office) to convert the degrees to radians first, and vice versa when necessary. "
(the source is a thread in solunars.net)
waybread
Well-known member
Dirius, I don't think you quite grasp my point. It is about horary only by way of example. As such, when you read a horary chart for someone-- whether in person or in an on-line forum such as this one-- you don't actually know whether "the decision to ask" came within minutes of when she posted the chart, or hours previously. You could inquire further about the accuracy of timing, I suppose, but I have yet to see any chart readers on a horary astrology thread do that. I would go so far as to say that most people don't get burning questions like, "does he love me?" or "where is my missing passport?" at the very moment they are sitting at their computers or smart phones, logged in to an astrology website, and feeling like that's precisely when the spirit moves them.
If I have a burning horary question and I'm not by my computer, I try to write the time on a slip of paper for later referral, but we have no way of knowing how many of the posters on an Internet forum are so particular.
The comparison with a natal chart is valid. Both horary and natal chart depend on clock time. Both depend upon the astrological moment being recorded (1) at the moment (2) for the moment to have any sense of real accuracy.
So a critique of natal chart rectification cannot be based on the notion that astrology as a whole can be objectively demonstrated to use only accurate times. It really doesn't matter which branch of astrology we take. We run into similar problems with timing mundane events for which an astrologer didn't stand by with a stop watch. A bigger problem in mundane astrology of political events (such as national independence) is that they take place over time in major stages, such that locating a single "birth date" is highly subjective.
I have no problem with your claim that these historical methods weren't accurate-- although how you would substantiate that I cannot imagine, unless you compare them with a big sample of charts with absolutely known times. Maybe you could settle for a Rodden AA rating.
But this was not my point, was it, Dirius? You've got a "straw man" debate tactic going. As I stated above, my point was that you cannot accurately make statements like the following:
Dirius, never mind that you don't read my or Kannon's posts; or if you read them, you simply reject any parts that don't fit your preconceived beliefs. The above statement is simply and unequivocally incorrect. you Were you to read up on rectification in the history of astrology or if you worked through the methods recommended by out excellent contemporary astrologers, you would see this. I have asked you several times to explain where/how you got this idea, but you have remained silent. Whose idea is this? Your teacher's? A colleague's? A book's? A website's? Your own opinion? This leads me to believe that you actually cannot substantiate this opinion.
Again, if astrologers have a near-birth time estimate, that's lovely. But rectification just isn't restricted to such examples. You will find some chart rectification examples over at the Astro-DataBank, incidentally.
Is anybody arguing with this? But note how you've contradicted your earlier statement that you can rectify within only an hour or so. At my latitude "night before midnight" could be between 6:00 or 7:00 pm and midnight in winter, giving you a possibility of 5 different potential rising signs. Hardly a narrow time range.
Like what? Five hours "at night before midnight" as you imply above? What about Capricorn births at high latitudes, where it's dark at 4:00 pm? It is becoming increasingly pointless to debate this with you. If your mind is so solidly made up, no amount of contrary cold hard facts will change it. I mentioned that astrologers who develop rectification methods will often practice on charts with known birth times. This is how they can move beyond them, once they feel they have a reliable protocol (or computer program.)
Oh dear, oh dear. So this is all about concepts, not evidence for you?
Dirius
Well-known member
Waybread, so far your argument has been:
"there are some secret and mysterious methods other users employ".
Aside from that you've posted a few links of authors to normal rectification techniques, without anyone of them specificaly talking about 24 hour rectification, or discussing a method.
Ptolomy's method was a good example of a method at least, I'm sad you would say that once the conversation was actually going somewhere. Ptolomy's method and all other ancient methods that do not concern the individual are not accurate, because they do not concern the life of the individual, but a planetary event that can be equal to many people.
-------------------------
You still got it a bit wrong regarding horary. The chart posted on the online forum is responsability of the user, he is his own astrologer (as Oddity mentions), and we are simply commenting on posts.
Furthermore, its not that hard to spot when a question wasn't done correctly, and the chart is not the original one.
We are posters on the forum, we provide an alternate analysis, but it is the OP the one responsable to checking how radical or accurate his own chart is. (as Oddity said).
"there are some secret and mysterious methods other users employ".
Aside from that you've posted a few links of authors to normal rectification techniques, without anyone of them specificaly talking about 24 hour rectification, or discussing a method.
Ptolomy's method was a good example of a method at least, I'm sad you would say that once the conversation was actually going somewhere. Ptolomy's method and all other ancient methods that do not concern the individual are not accurate, because they do not concern the life of the individual, but a planetary event that can be equal to many people.
-------------------------
You still got it a bit wrong regarding horary. The chart posted on the online forum is responsability of the user, he is his own astrologer (as Oddity mentions), and we are simply commenting on posts.
Furthermore, its not that hard to spot when a question wasn't done correctly, and the chart is not the original one.
We are posters on the forum, we provide an alternate analysis, but it is the OP the one responsable to checking how radical or accurate his own chart is. (as Oddity said).
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
Well, another heated debate about astrology
....
I would like to ask of those of you who do practise rectification and have done so for years, so some experience is already there:
Do you use the EP as well? (I've seen it becomes extremely important in higher latitudes, but I rarely see people in astrology forums actually using it)
Are you familiar with the Orient point? *(see footnote)
Do you use the relocated axis in case people have moved from their birth place?
Do all of you use the appearance/facial features of the individual to verify the ASC? (I guess the placement of the luminaries can also be a factor in appearance).
I don't practice rectification very often, because I view it as a very time-consuming process, based upon more techniques than I have mastered. If I really wanted my chart rectified I'd consult a professional who advertised a specialty in rectification. I am not sure what the EP means (East Point?), and am not familiar with the orient point.
I think facial features can be very misleading. The rising sign descriptions of which I'm aware tend to focus on northern Europeans, where it makes sense to indicate whether or not somebody has red hair or a pale complexion. But this makes little sense for dark-skinned, -eyed, and -haired ethnic groups. It also doesn't adequately allow for family genetics, or the possible impact of a first house planet or planet in a hard angle to the ascendant. However, Kannon has made a serious study of physical appearance and claims that it has meaning.
I think you can do a little better with how the person expresses his personality-- mannerisms, in particular. I don't know if anyone has read Jodie Forrest's book, The Ascendant, but it is very wise and funny in this regard. Not everyone with a mane of blond hair will have Leo rising, but you might look consider attention-seeking behaviours in a native as a potential, hypothetical rising sign if these are not indicated elsewhere in the chart.
However, I think most serious astrologers would emphasize timed events prior to guessing a rising sign based on appearance or demeanor, because the chance for bias is simply too strong.
And then I do think some natives respond better to some types of predictive/post-dictive methods than others. Sometimes in my chart a straight-up transit in my radix chart explains events, but sometimes a relocated lunar return chart works better. Some astrologers swear by solar arcs, but I've not found them to be so significant in timing events in my life. I definitely think methodology is a case where you just have to see what works for an individual chart. As a woman with a night birth, the moon above the horizon, and the sun below it, just possibly I would be expected to respond better to lunar events than would a man with a day birth, sun above the horizon, and moon below.
But more advanced astrologers than I am (like unique_astrology) have worked out far more sophisticated methods. You might be interested in this article by Bernadette Brady: http://www.bernadettebrady.com/Pdfs/GraphicRectification.pdf Brady, incidentally, emphasizes the search for a radical chart that demonstrably explains events, vs. an "accurate" chart.
If the native has moved a long way from her birth place and especially if the event relates to the current location (such as the home or career,) I think it makes sense to use a relocation chart.
waybread
Well-known member
Say what? This hasn't been my argument at all. By analogy, there is nothing secret or mysterious about combinatorics to mathematicians. I never studied math beyond the 9th grade, so it would simply be above my level of expertise. However, I do a lot of cooking and baking from scratch without consulting recipes, because I've done it so long that I just now how to do it. This might seem mysterious to a mathematician who doesn't cook. But I don't believe there is anything secret or mysterious about higher mathematics-- or making dinner.
My approach to astrology is essentially pragmatic. If someone has found a technique that produces reliable results, then I don't have to follow each step of their procedure to acknowledge that their results are impressive.
Unbelievable. Dirius, did you actually read these links and sources? You couldn't possibly make such a statement, otherwise. Steven Forrest (linked above) says that if you have no idea of the birth time, begin with a noon chart, and work from there. (Also recommended by Diana Garland in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CRwrVvgBsc .)
Astrologers take entire books to discuss their rectification techniques. I couldn't possibly compress their methods into one or even multiple posts. And why should I do your homework for you? I've given you links, cited books, and now it's time for you to lean into the subject matter.
If you prefer YouTube tutorials, try this one by research astrologer David Cochrane, although you would have to buy astrological software (Sirius 1.3) to follow him precisely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nImlYOwxIR4
There is a partial google book here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=8LgGJ2gyMCYC&pg=PR26&lpg=PR26&dq=astrology+rectification&source=bl&ots=4UiacPmdU0&sig=L07PIawQQkvp7ldG3C5GZv5NgPo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCDgUahUKEwj8xYjvz_DHAhXJOYgKHUfGAO8#v=onepage&q=astrology%20rectification&f=false just to give you the flavour of these things.
Just possibly where you're mistaken in thinking you can rectify a chart only if you have an approximate birth time, is because it's a Big Pain In The Patootie to start from scratch. But this doesn't mean it's impossible. It just takes a whole lot more time and effort. Some professional astrologers don't wish to commit this kind of time and energy, and most paying clients would find it expensive.
Well, let's discuss his method (used for around 1500 years) all you like. But please note that you did make a couple of erroneous assumptions about his method by way of discrediting the fact that traditional astrologers do have a repertory of methods for rectifying a chart with no birth time whatsoever.
-------------------------
This is a pleasant fiction that I don't buy in the newbie "read my chart" horary questions. I've read my share of them, and no, the querent is not posing as her own astrologer. You can tell when the OPer is earnestly trying to read her chart and just needs help.
At the risk of "calling you out" on this one, how would you determine a wrong time?
This is a lovely idea, but it simply cannot be validated for non-astrologers who want a horary reading.
waybread
Well-known member
Dirius, in the midst of this now long-running thread, I had an example yesterday of how rectification might be used. You should like this one, because it starts with recorded birth times.
I obtained my birth time some years back from a since-disappeared official birth certificate, and I have used this time consistently ever since. I got a surprise several weeks ago when going through some old papers I found another unofficial birth time that was 40 minutes later. This was just enough difference to bump my ascendant from late Virgo into early Libra.
I now have both charts on file, and generally use Astrodienst for chart services.
Yesterday morning two events happened that were both striking and similar, dealing with some expensive improvements for our home. (1) My husband and I need a new mattress, and were shocked to find the one we wanted would cost around $3000, once all of the expenses like shipping and taxes were added in. We just decided to purchase it when.... (2) We have a long driveway (about 250 feet/76 meters) that goes up a steep slope to our house. The driveway once was graveled, but due to erosion it had turned into a rocky, eroded dirt driveway It really needed paving, but we knew this would be super expensive (like $20K,) and for now, beyond our budget.
Yesterday a reputable paving contractor saw my husband working in our front yard, and explained that a local job had been canceled, after he had already hired the workers, brought his equipment to our neighbourhood, and purchased the asphalt. This contractor gave us a deeply discounted price on paving our driveway so that he didn't have to take a total loss. His quote was still really expensive by our lights, but cheap for the size of the project involved. We decided to go for it by dipping into our savings.
"Aha!" I thought to myself. "Perfect opportunity to see which chart is correct."
I thought two horoscope houses must be involved: the second house (money) and fourth house (home.) I used Placidus houses, generally recommended for timing events. I spent a couple of hours, trying both charts with the different prognostication methods available at Astrodienst.
I wasn't finding decent results with normal transits, progressions, solar arcs, &c until I used a relocated lunar return (RLR) chart. Then I found on my official birth time chart, that:
1. Jupiter (ruler of my natal radix IC) was conjunct partile my RLR ascendant.
2. North node, Mercury (rules money, trade,), and P of F in the 2nd house.
3. Saturn (rules pavement) partile and conjunct the IC
4. Degree of RLR chart 2nd house cusp partile conjunct my natal radix ascendant degree.
I got no such results with the second more dubious birth time chart.
"OK", I thought, while still logged into Astrodienst. "I really, really, really want to know which is my correct chart." Astrodienst can give you an instant chart of the moment. The sign and degree on the quesited house was conjunct within a degree of my natal IC/ MC axis with the first official birth time. (I don't know if you interplay the natal and horary charts like this, but some astrologers do, like Karen Hamaker-Zondag in her horary book.) So this isn't proof of accuracy, but the chart sure was radical.
If I hadn't a clue of my birth time, I could work at it by following a similar procedure. But of course, I would have to input multiple dates and probably take days instead of hours to arrive at a radical chart.
I don't know if you've read Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology. I highly recommend it. He gets into the problem of the "wrong" chart producing the "right" answer in some depth.
In using Placidus houses to time events, I would probably concur with Chris Brennan (linked above) that once you've rectified a chart, stick with whole signs for subsequent interpretations. Because you shouldn't claim more accuracy than you've got.
I obtained my birth time some years back from a since-disappeared official birth certificate, and I have used this time consistently ever since. I got a surprise several weeks ago when going through some old papers I found another unofficial birth time that was 40 minutes later. This was just enough difference to bump my ascendant from late Virgo into early Libra.
I now have both charts on file, and generally use Astrodienst for chart services.
Yesterday morning two events happened that were both striking and similar, dealing with some expensive improvements for our home. (1) My husband and I need a new mattress, and were shocked to find the one we wanted would cost around $3000, once all of the expenses like shipping and taxes were added in. We just decided to purchase it when.... (2) We have a long driveway (about 250 feet/76 meters) that goes up a steep slope to our house. The driveway once was graveled, but due to erosion it had turned into a rocky, eroded dirt driveway It really needed paving, but we knew this would be super expensive (like $20K,) and for now, beyond our budget.
Yesterday a reputable paving contractor saw my husband working in our front yard, and explained that a local job had been canceled, after he had already hired the workers, brought his equipment to our neighbourhood, and purchased the asphalt. This contractor gave us a deeply discounted price on paving our driveway so that he didn't have to take a total loss. His quote was still really expensive by our lights, but cheap for the size of the project involved. We decided to go for it by dipping into our savings.
"Aha!" I thought to myself. "Perfect opportunity to see which chart is correct."
I thought two horoscope houses must be involved: the second house (money) and fourth house (home.) I used Placidus houses, generally recommended for timing events. I spent a couple of hours, trying both charts with the different prognostication methods available at Astrodienst.
I wasn't finding decent results with normal transits, progressions, solar arcs, &c until I used a relocated lunar return (RLR) chart. Then I found on my official birth time chart, that:
1. Jupiter (ruler of my natal radix IC) was conjunct partile my RLR ascendant.
2. North node, Mercury (rules money, trade,), and P of F in the 2nd house.
3. Saturn (rules pavement) partile and conjunct the IC
4. Degree of RLR chart 2nd house cusp partile conjunct my natal radix ascendant degree.
I got no such results with the second more dubious birth time chart.
"OK", I thought, while still logged into Astrodienst. "I really, really, really want to know which is my correct chart." Astrodienst can give you an instant chart of the moment. The sign and degree on the quesited house was conjunct within a degree of my natal IC/ MC axis with the first official birth time. (I don't know if you interplay the natal and horary charts like this, but some astrologers do, like Karen Hamaker-Zondag in her horary book.) So this isn't proof of accuracy, but the chart sure was radical.
If I hadn't a clue of my birth time, I could work at it by following a similar procedure. But of course, I would have to input multiple dates and probably take days instead of hours to arrive at a radical chart.
I don't know if you've read Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology. I highly recommend it. He gets into the problem of the "wrong" chart producing the "right" answer in some depth.
In using Placidus houses to time events, I would probably concur with Chris Brennan (linked above) that once you've rectified a chart, stick with whole signs for subsequent interpretations. Because you shouldn't claim more accuracy than you've got.
Dirius
Well-known member
To be honest waybread I didn't read all of them. You do post like 3 or 4 links per post, you know I won't read the all.
But most of them didn't contain much that would discuss 24 hour rectification. Most are posts on normal rectification. They don't seem to advance the argument in any way.
I didn't read this author you mentioned Steven Forrest. But the point I tried to make is exemplified in that situation he describes. The author, advises to "make a noon chart" and work from there. That is unfortunatly the observational bias I was talking about.
If you do that, usually the way you build the chart will be in a fashion that derives from that original position. Is it possible you end up getting the correct chart? Yes it is. But it is unlikely. Most of the times things just seem to "click". In reality many planetary positions can serve to explain different things, this is why it is hard to accept a method like that, given that it could present high chances of failure.
Regarding the repertoire of traditional techniques for ascendant finding. Of course there are many! To them it was much harder to know birth times, particularly for Hellenic astrologers, so it seems logical they would search for this methods.
However most were based on random occurrances that didn't relate well to the individual, usually to the Moon before birth, or conception charts. Most astrologers that followed discarded this methods. William Lilly, whom you quoted, does mention the method, but he doesn't think much of it. As he advises, the best way is directions.
Unfortunatly those methods didn't work. When I first read Valens (my favourite author), that was one of the topics that I liked the most.
I tested most of Valens methods, with different charts...they all failed. But its easy to understand why, they can only be use to sort of "correct" the ascendant, and even so they only have like a 20% succes rate in doing so. So they don't really work.
When you look at the concept of finding the Ascendant through pre-natal events, mostly general events like eclipses and the position of the Moon, you end up realising the method is doom to begin with. They just (unfortunatly) don't work.
-------------------------
In many threads, some of us in the horary section always tell the OP to "please give their own interpretation of the chart".
He is posing as his own astrologer, because he is casting the chart for the time he/she understood the question. Thats the moment he decided to ask to the universe the answer for whatever is troubling him. Because of this, he is responsable for knowing if this was done so at a correct time.
In this forums, the idea is for people to present their charts and get "help" to read the chart. However all we can do is offer an interpretation. All those details of radicality are something the individual must take care for himself.
And to answer your question, you can't exactly notice a "wrong time", but many times you can realise some charts don't really make much sense. Usually this is because it is like the 3rd or 4th chart done about the subject, rather than the original (mostly happens in relationship questions by heart-broken people). I ask this on many posts, and it turns out it usually isn't the original or real chart.
----------------------------
It is a good example.
But on this case you sort of have to just compare 2 charts. One around the time you knew, and one around the new time.
In that case you are working around one chart against the other, so it might be easier to realise which one is it, given that you have just 2 very different ascendants.
Last edited:
unique_astrology
Well-known member
Ob-la-di, ob-la-da life goes on brah
La la how the life goes on
Today a reputable astrologer (Meself) saw the above post.
"Aha" I thought to meself. "Perfect opportunity to see if me chart for the poster is correct."
I did the relocated, non-precessed lunar return to compare to the post. Zounds!! Correcto Mundo!!!
Onward and upward in haste! (Using my constructed birth chart from long ago and a newly minted place of residence and a guesstimate for the time of the fortunate opportunity.)
The nearest solar return was the demi-solar.
I progressed it to my chosen date and time of Jupiter's abundance being showered upon the fair maiden. The progressed MC was at 314°23. Transit Venus at 315°21' was on the IC (a nice gift). The progressed Nadir (an exact square to the Asc) was at 163°11'. Return Moon-Jupiter midpoint at 163°25' was conjunct. So was progressed Moon-Jupiter at 162°45'. Happiness prevails!
The nearest preceding anlunar (lunar return made from the Moon in the nearest preceding solar or demi-solaar return) was a demi-lunar return from the demi-solar return.
The Sun in the demi-anlunar return was at 158°54', on the date and time I chose for the transaction transit Jupiter from the beneficial heavens at 158°39' conjoined it. A difference of hours would only change Jupiter's position by minutes of arc.
The progressed demi-anlunar's Nadir was at 173°20'. Transit Mercury-Jupiter midpoint (good for business) at 174°57' was there too.
The PDAL's RAMC was 323°20'. Relocated natal Uranus rises at 325°52' (later that day basking in the glow of s̶u̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶h̶o̶r̶s̶e̶t̶r̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ the sudden windfall).
Voila! Like Susan Boyle, I can go back to the theoretical village with my head held high. I have a bunch of theoretical Yes's.
La la how the life goes on
Today a reputable astrologer (Meself) saw the above post.
"Aha" I thought to meself. "Perfect opportunity to see if me chart for the poster is correct."
I did the relocated, non-precessed lunar return to compare to the post. Zounds!! Correcto Mundo!!!
Onward and upward in haste! (Using my constructed birth chart from long ago and a newly minted place of residence and a guesstimate for the time of the fortunate opportunity.)
The nearest solar return was the demi-solar.
I progressed it to my chosen date and time of Jupiter's abundance being showered upon the fair maiden. The progressed MC was at 314°23. Transit Venus at 315°21' was on the IC (a nice gift). The progressed Nadir (an exact square to the Asc) was at 163°11'. Return Moon-Jupiter midpoint at 163°25' was conjunct. So was progressed Moon-Jupiter at 162°45'. Happiness prevails!
The nearest preceding anlunar (lunar return made from the Moon in the nearest preceding solar or demi-solaar return) was a demi-lunar return from the demi-solar return.
The Sun in the demi-anlunar return was at 158°54', on the date and time I chose for the transaction transit Jupiter from the beneficial heavens at 158°39' conjoined it. A difference of hours would only change Jupiter's position by minutes of arc.
The progressed demi-anlunar's Nadir was at 173°20'. Transit Mercury-Jupiter midpoint (good for business) at 174°57' was there too.
The PDAL's RAMC was 323°20'. Relocated natal Uranus rises at 325°52' (later that day basking in the glow of s̶u̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶h̶o̶r̶s̶e̶t̶r̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ the sudden windfall).
Voila! Like Susan Boyle, I can go back to the theoretical village with my head held high. I have a bunch of theoretical Yes's.
Last edited:
unique_astrology
Well-known member
Another blessing added to my day!
I added a beautiful signature to my profile earlier.
I was concerned that you might not approve but nobody could reconstruct your natal chart from the data I posted not even me. My work took me less than an hour.
The demi-solar and demi-lunar returns are returns done for the opposition of the transiting Sun or Moon to their original positions in a chart.
When I use my technique I start with a preceding solar or demi-solar return which is closest to the event I want to chart. From that solar or demi-solar I use the Moon to compute a lunar or demi-lunar return (which ever precedes and is closest to the event) and then progress that to the event by adding the difference between the event Moon and the return Moon to the MC of the return.
My 40 years of experience since discovering the technique has shown me that all charts must be precession corrected and planetary positions measured in right ascension. Not much of a learning curve beyond that except to allow the usage of midpoints and trines and sextiles aspecting the angles to be included.
When I note East or West points or Zenith or Nadir they are just 90 degree aspects in right ascension (meaning true measurements, not longitudinal ones) to the MC or Asc. That is hard squares - strong aspects indeed to an angle.
I added a beautiful signature to my profile earlier.
I was concerned that you might not approve but nobody could reconstruct your natal chart from the data I posted not even me. My work took me less than an hour.
The demi-solar and demi-lunar returns are returns done for the opposition of the transiting Sun or Moon to their original positions in a chart.
When I use my technique I start with a preceding solar or demi-solar return which is closest to the event I want to chart. From that solar or demi-solar I use the Moon to compute a lunar or demi-lunar return (which ever precedes and is closest to the event) and then progress that to the event by adding the difference between the event Moon and the return Moon to the MC of the return.
My 40 years of experience since discovering the technique has shown me that all charts must be precession corrected and planetary positions measured in right ascension. Not much of a learning curve beyond that except to allow the usage of midpoints and trines and sextiles aspecting the angles to be included.
When I note East or West points or Zenith or Nadir they are just 90 degree aspects in right ascension (meaning true measurements, not longitudinal ones) to the MC or Asc. That is hard squares - strong aspects indeed to an angle.
waybread
Well-known member
Dirius, I'm sorry, but your astro-emperor has no clothes. I don't post so many links on average, but I am trying to help you. You don't have to read my links or recommended books, but then what have you read? Your gaps in knowledge of chart rectification are becoming increasingly apparent. I specifically linked sources (since you claim to be of the "Internet generation," meaning you don't read books????) that describe 24 hour rectification.
You cannot criticize their methods if you haven't even read them.
Your rhetorical strategy appears to be: (1) Base an opinion on.....(what exactly? I've asked you repeatedly where you got your claim about rectification and you haven't yet answered me.) (2) Strongly express that opinion multiple times. This gives you the opportunity to be factually wrong in more posts. (3) Decline to read anything that would expand your knowledge of said topic, let alone change your mind. (4) When challenged, revert back to #2.
Dirius, are you even familiar with Steven Forrest's work? He is one of the most successful astrologers of our time. There is no observational bias with a noon draft chart, merely a preliminary starting-point. You could use some other time; or if you have either the software or extreme patience for it, you could construct multiple charts (24? one for each hour?) and then work with each of them in turn.
This is simply incorrect, Dirius. Basically all a noon default time does is to position the planets by degree, and give you a "stub" location for the moon within a 6 degree margin of error on either side. We anticipate that a default noon time would not somehow magically be close to accurate, but Now Hear This: if you use a simple technique of (a) collecting dated life events, and (b) applying them to their relevant house, you will find yourself trying out various chart permutations that seem to match up with the timed events.
You will quickly learn whether or not your original starting-point time is even close. If it's not, then you rotate the working draft chart forward or backward accordingly. If a noon birth time puts the birth of one's child nowhere near the 5th house, then find a birth time that does: maybe it's 3:00 am. Then repeat this process with each life event given until you have no further disagreement between them.
You do (b) in horary all the time. Someone asks, "Will my husband leave me?" and right away you assign the quesited to the 7th house. Someone asks about his friend, and you look to the 11th house. Same here.
Yes, planets have various meanings, but let's start with houses for rectification purposes, shall we? There are other rectification methods not anchored to houses, but I think houses are a good way for beginners to start.
Moreover, some phenomena are not signified by more than one planet. I go by Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book. He gives one planet only (Saturn) to pavement, and That's It.
Lilly argued that even if a client gives you a birth time, it may simply be dead wrong. So if a birth time estimate just seems completely off-kilter to you, then what would you do? Doggedly work with it regardless?
Dirius, never mind that you don't read my links. Do you even read my posts? Where did I ever claim accuracy for the historical methods? I've been repeating, au contraire, that my point about historic methods like Ptolemy's, that they contradict your claim that rectification means correcting an essentially known birth time or good estimate.
"Random occurances"? What, like a birth date? Like the pre-natal new moon?
Moreover, you actually have no way of knowing whether the historical rectifications were accurate or not. You simply do not know.
Fascinating. How many charts did you use? And did you notice that Valens mostly did a whole signs astrology? I actually cast some of his horoscopes using (and correcting for) the dates and times given in Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's Greek Horoscopes. Although claiming to find a horoscopic point, mostly Valens went by signs, not degrees, even when calculating the Part of Fortune. So he gave himself a whole lot of wiggle-room.
Mind you, I am not promoting Valens's methods, merely contradicting your belief that rectification means correcting a nearly-known ascendant.
My dear Dirius, whoever claimed that they did?
(to be continued)
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
(continued from my previous post)
Once more, with feeling. You can usually tell when someone is acting as her own astrologer. And when she's not. The "astrologer" member, however inexperienced, will take a stab at her horoscope. The "client" type of poster will not do that. Several years ago, this forum changed from requiring "read my chart" natal and horary posters to at least try to answer their own questions, in keeping with the founding principle that this should be a true astrologers' community, to one where we've become a simple volunteer organization dispensing retail chart readings.
When the OPer doesn't work at her own question, other than giving you personal (not astrological) details, then let's face it: you are the astrologer, not her.
Moreover (as previously stated,) you have no idea when the burning moment of an inexperienced newbie or a non-astrologer actually made it to her electronic device and onto the horoscope. It might have been yesterday, and she just now had a minute to fire it off.
Bingo.
I agree that there is a special case of a chart that reflects a repeat question. But the timing issue in horary is bigger than this.
Again, this isn't a thread about horary, but horary does provide many examples of charts where you have no verification that the time is accurate.
-------------------
Thank you, unique_astrology! May I ask what software you use? Pretty much if Astrodienst doesn't offer it as a chart option, I don't do it; but there are obviously so many more techniques to get to than they offer.
Once more, with feeling. You can usually tell when someone is acting as her own astrologer. And when she's not. The "astrologer" member, however inexperienced, will take a stab at her horoscope. The "client" type of poster will not do that. Several years ago, this forum changed from requiring "read my chart" natal and horary posters to at least try to answer their own questions, in keeping with the founding principle that this should be a true astrologers' community, to one where we've become a simple volunteer organization dispensing retail chart readings.
When the OPer doesn't work at her own question, other than giving you personal (not astrological) details, then let's face it: you are the astrologer, not her.
Moreover (as previously stated,) you have no idea when the burning moment of an inexperienced newbie or a non-astrologer actually made it to her electronic device and onto the horoscope. It might have been yesterday, and she just now had a minute to fire it off.
Bingo.
I agree that there is a special case of a chart that reflects a repeat question. But the timing issue in horary is bigger than this.
Again, this isn't a thread about horary, but horary does provide many examples of charts where you have no verification that the time is accurate.
-------------------
Thank you, unique_astrology! May I ask what software you use? Pretty much if Astrodienst doesn't offer it as a chart option, I don't do it; but there are obviously so many more techniques to get to than they offer.
Dirius
Well-known member
This is just another none astrological comment meant to deflect/create conflict. I'll just ignore it.
1) Basing an opinion on a tested method rather than written conjectures
2) Expressing the opinion on point 1 which was never answered.
3) Not declining. I just said I wasn't going to "read all of them" because of the number you posted. I did read a few of what you posted. But you certainly posted a large amount of links on the course of the discussion. It is because of the amount, not because of the content.
4) When challenged I usually answer you with the same answer from before, given that they were never actually countered, but rather deflected.
The first statement is rather unsubstantial. I do not know who Steven Forrest is. But fame does not equal knowledge.
As I said before, multiple planetary positions can indicate similar things. You give the example of the 5th house. Many planets in similar positions can be acting as the ruler of the 5th house from that perspective. So while it is true that you may find a planet that fits as the ruler of the 5th, you can do the same with other planets.
You really can't expect this method to be working proof, because there is a high rate for a failure.
You keep repeating this point, saying that it is "possible". Is it? Well yes, but the chances of that being the correct chart is rather low. So given that situation, its rather inproper to attempt to do it.
But as you clearly proove here: any planet can take on the signification of the house, regardless of his natural rulerships.
Thus if you are doing rectification by house meaning, you are invalidating the point you make in the previous paragraph, given that you are admitting that any planet can very well represent different things.
I do not decline reading your links. I simply stated that, because of the shear amount you posted, I didn't read all of them. I do read your posts, I just tend to ignore the comments that are not directly linked to the subject of rectification (like the ones in which you talk about horary).
I used 23 charts, people I know. Birth times are with birth certificate. All the individuals were born in the 80's and 90's, where hospital records are quite accurate in my country. Also there is family confirmation of the time for most members (a parent pointing out the individual was born around the time the birth certificate indicates).
Applying the techniques by Valens you get similar Ascendant signs, only when you are using the original chart, but in around 50% of them the Ascendant bounces onto the adjacent signs.
Changing the time for the charts will net Ascendanmts that are always close to the "new time".
These methods by Vallens only provide Ascendants that are similar to the position you begin the techinque with.
Random occurances are planetary positions that are common to a large amount of individuals, and may not necessary indicate in large part the Ascendant for the relevant native. That is the problem with this techniques.
That is the reason they don't work.
EDIT: not sure if you are reading/read this before the edit, I removed the "example" while I was adding further comments, because it was long and I think you got the point. I can re post it if you wish.
If the individual is providing you with a chart, then by definition he isn't just providing you a personal information given that he took the time to search for an ephemeris, and knows that horary requires a chart "for the moment" he or she is asking rather than posting his or her birth chart, and this implies knowledge of how horary works.
Both of this factors would imply he or she has knowledge of horary, however little it may be. Furthermore, most forum members do provide a chart interpretation by themselves.
So by your own definition, he or she is being his own astrologer and thus is responsable for his own chart radicality. So I'm not sure how much proof you need about that.
It doesn't. You are just using a small example from internet forums which doesn't apply to the whole of horary astrology.
Besides as we mention, the charts done on the internet forum are responsability of the user, not the posters that comment on it.
Last edited: