Yes, indeed, Venus escaped from the Moon while the Moon herself is feral or wild.
Feral Planets
- Thread starter tsmall
- Start date
Yes, indeed, Venus escaped from the Moon while the Moon herself is feral or wild.
tsmall
Premium Member
For me at least, it isn't that what you have said is not simple, it's just that there are still questions.
For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to stick with the chart example I gave and not go into suppositions.
I'm not of the opinion that out of sign aspects don't exist. And I gave up trying to cite sources and find references because I keep getting interrupted when I try to reply to this thread. But the Greeks had a word for it, and it had to be a tight orb...5 or 3* I misremember which.
Ok, so if I allow out of sign aspects by a tight orb, then the Sun was still being influenced by Jupiter in this chart, but the Sun changed signs after disregarding Jupiter and then becoming feral. This is where the "silver lining" of abolito comes into play. Because the Sun separated from Jupiter and entered Cancer with a clean slate. Annulmnent means somting legally. It's like..starting over. And all of that happened what? 15 days before the Sun arrived at it's current position in the nativity?
The second reason I gave for a possibility of not having a feral Sun was based on the concept of phasis, and how we are supposed to look forward and back in a chart to see if any planets station retrograde or direct, and set into or rise from the beams, because those planets will influence the entire chart. Some give 7 days, and I've seen 9 in a few sources, but never 15. Extrapolating from that and based on answers similar to what you are proposing, it was a pretty easy leap to discern that some might come to the conclusion that if phasis, and looking forward and back matter, then so we should for the Moon.
Except that when we get down to the nitty gritty, after the moment of birth, all the aspects the Moon makes to the Sun are transits. And nowhere have I read that we need to determine what any transiting planet will do with regard to phasis.
And this is where I disagree. Because "The Moon will aspect it" is in the future, and will help with prediction of what will happen, not with the delineation of the chart in situ. At some point, progressing what all the planets will do, every single one of them will aspect or be in aspect with the Sun. When the Moon does so next, will it still be in Aquarius? Will that change the tone of the aspect? And what exactly do we predict that means for the native? Because when we look at natal charts, are we going to say wait, hold up, the Moon is the ruler of the 12th and exaltation ruler of the 10th sign, but just you wait until she gets to Pisces and trines the Sun.
How about, although she is seeking solitude, or to march to the beat of her own drum (which this native has been doing from the moment of her birth) there will be circumstances that prevent that from happening?
And Mercury and Venus will make multiple aspects to the slower moving planets as well. During that time, planets will change signs and the world will move on.
I follow you here. In revisiting IA, it is only with the definition given by al-Qabisi that we get to
Quote from Dykes Introductions to Traditional Astrology, pp. 145
Yet, just prior to that, there is a distinction.
Note the distinction between the two, and the use of the terms "happens more to the Moon" not only to the Moon.
Except again, when delineating a natal chart we always look at the position of the stars in situ in order to do so. So either there is a difference between a natal chart or an horary chart, or we are delving into the realm of prediction and not what is at the moment of birth.
I just would like to point out that this conversation is like the best discourse on aspect theory I have ever found on AW.
Assembly and disregard and what the planet is doing at the moment vs. what it will do in the future are highly relevant to the discussion.
Well I found one, as shown above, and then here's another that doesn't imply the future aspects of the Moon.
Again from Dykes' IA, ibid
There is a footnote which states
And I just know this post will be nailed for too many quotes.
Well, that's not true. There is a lot of vagueness in the definitions, and a lot of aspect theory to think about.
At the end of the day, I agree that it isn't important whether a planet applies or is applied to. And that brings us back to the question..
How exactly would you delineate Sun in situ in this chart. Because when we look at it, Sun is in aversion to every single important point with the exception of Lot of Spirit, and Sun is ASC ruler, as well as sect light.
All ears here, because I'm pretty sure that's what I've been asking, and that's what Bob was also alluding to. Define the planet where it is at the moment of birth.
This is what I was trying to point you toward in the difference between a planet that is void while still being assembled, and a planet that is wholly in aversion to all other planets. Because at the end of the day, the translations or definitions differ, but it is what the planet is actually doing that matter.
Ok. You come live with the child.
Yes! That is what I was so inexpertly trying to say.
Because at the end of the day, it isn't whether or not a planet is feral by so-and-so's definition that matters, it's how we interpret the mathematical aspects and the symbolism that does.
And this makes all the difference in the world. Void of course is not the same as feral, and the distinction becomes readily apparent when we apply this to natal astrology. If the native's ASC ruler and sect light were truly void of course, proof of life wouldn't be necessary.
Last edited:
tsmall
Right, but the part you've emboldened, the part about being in the entire sign, is NOT a supposition - that's pretty much the key criterion for whether the planet is feral or not. The definition hinges upon it. It is not a supposition or a by the way point, it is central to the definition.
Out of sign aspects don't exist according to who?
I've already provided some sources of those for whom they do. So clearly, as I said earlier in the thread, many ancient astrologers did use out of sign aspects. That's not to say that you should, or anyone else should, just that, contrary to popular opinion, out of sign aspects were used through the tradition.
Regarding the orbs etc, do you mean Kollesis? For what it's worth the hellenistic astrologers tended toward a 3 degree orb, is this what you mean? A general exception to this is the Moon who gets about 13 degrees. Kollesis refers only to the conjunction though. Sunaphe I think is for aspects generally. I don't speak ancient Greek in any way though.
Right but phasis does not pertain to whether or not a given planet is feral. Of course, from the point of view of interpreting the chart, you should of course check whether or not there was a planet making a phasis and work this into your interpretation, but it's not related to ferality.
Similarly, to stick to this point, assembly and so on may be interesting discussion and of course they are useful and important, generally, when it comes to your interpretation of the chart and so on, but again, not relevant to the definition of ferality nor answering the question of whether the sun in this instance is feral. That's not to say the conversation isn't worth having, just in pointing out that it won't make the least bit of difference in us discovering whether or not a planet is feral.
Again, I don't know how I can make it simpler, I don't know why it's not already understood. The concept requires us to examine future motion. Let's take void of course as a simpler example - you need to check the FUTURE movement of that planet to determine whether it is in orb of making any applying aspects. You don't turn around and say, no, that's a transit!! Similarly with a feral moon the definition requires us to examine the Moon's future movement through the sign to discover whether it will make any aspects during that sign.
It is implicit within the definition that we need to examine the future movement of the planet involved.
I'm going to bow out of this conversation soon, and only reply if someone needs me to clarify a point, because I'm finding it like walking through honey. I don't understand why this concept is not already fully understood tbh. I've provided references and quotes from varying authors to support my testimony and, in my opinion, the definition is crystal clear.
It is not about applying planets. It is not about examining the frozen moment of the chart, it is explicitly about examining the planets entire time during a sign. Nowhere do we see these other considerations in any definition.
Right, but my point is that although he said this happens more to the Moon, you'll find NO examples of it ever happening to anything BUT the Moon, for a start, but also, with simple logic, we can realise that actually it CAN'T happen to any other planet. So the point is that in theory there's nothing inherent in the quality of any of the planets that would prevent them being feral, but, simply down to the Moon's speed, in practice only she can be feral.
Al Biruni says it's practically impossible for it to happen to any other planet, but with the Moon it does sometimes happen. He explicitly goes on to say that if the inferior planets were to move quicker than it might be possible.
His definition is so clear cut it's impossible to get it wrong - if a planet is in a sign, and no other planet has been in aspect with it from its entry to that sign until its exit, then it's feral.
It so simple. I can't imagine a more clear cut definition than this one.
Right, but the part you've emboldened, the part about being in the entire sign, is NOT a supposition - that's pretty much the key criterion for whether the planet is feral or not. The definition hinges upon it. It is not a supposition or a by the way point, it is central to the definition.
Out of sign aspects don't exist according to who?
I've already provided some sources of those for whom they do. So clearly, as I said earlier in the thread, many ancient astrologers did use out of sign aspects. That's not to say that you should, or anyone else should, just that, contrary to popular opinion, out of sign aspects were used through the tradition.
Regarding the orbs etc, do you mean Kollesis? For what it's worth the hellenistic astrologers tended toward a 3 degree orb, is this what you mean? A general exception to this is the Moon who gets about 13 degrees. Kollesis refers only to the conjunction though. Sunaphe I think is for aspects generally. I don't speak ancient Greek in any way though.
Right but phasis does not pertain to whether or not a given planet is feral. Of course, from the point of view of interpreting the chart, you should of course check whether or not there was a planet making a phasis and work this into your interpretation, but it's not related to ferality.
Similarly, to stick to this point, assembly and so on may be interesting discussion and of course they are useful and important, generally, when it comes to your interpretation of the chart and so on, but again, not relevant to the definition of ferality nor answering the question of whether the sun in this instance is feral. That's not to say the conversation isn't worth having, just in pointing out that it won't make the least bit of difference in us discovering whether or not a planet is feral.
Again, I don't know how I can make it simpler, I don't know why it's not already understood. The concept requires us to examine future motion. Let's take void of course as a simpler example - you need to check the FUTURE movement of that planet to determine whether it is in orb of making any applying aspects. You don't turn around and say, no, that's a transit!! Similarly with a feral moon the definition requires us to examine the Moon's future movement through the sign to discover whether it will make any aspects during that sign.
It is implicit within the definition that we need to examine the future movement of the planet involved.
I'm going to bow out of this conversation soon, and only reply if someone needs me to clarify a point, because I'm finding it like walking through honey. I don't understand why this concept is not already fully understood tbh. I've provided references and quotes from varying authors to support my testimony and, in my opinion, the definition is crystal clear.
It is not about applying planets. It is not about examining the frozen moment of the chart, it is explicitly about examining the planets entire time during a sign. Nowhere do we see these other considerations in any definition.
Right, but my point is that although he said this happens more to the Moon, you'll find NO examples of it ever happening to anything BUT the Moon, for a start, but also, with simple logic, we can realise that actually it CAN'T happen to any other planet. So the point is that in theory there's nothing inherent in the quality of any of the planets that would prevent them being feral, but, simply down to the Moon's speed, in practice only she can be feral.
Al Biruni says it's practically impossible for it to happen to any other planet, but with the Moon it does sometimes happen. He explicitly goes on to say that if the inferior planets were to move quicker than it might be possible.
His definition is so clear cut it's impossible to get it wrong - if a planet is in a sign, and no other planet has been in aspect with it from its entry to that sign until its exit, then it's feral.
It so simple. I can't imagine a more clear cut definition than this one.
Last edited:
Although I have a very different concept about what a feral planet means (and which definition is outside of this Traditional forum), I concur with Paul regarding the direct clarity of al-Biruni's clear-cut definition of "feral", which is also to be found in Abu Mashar's "Great Introduction", and in the (translated fragments I have) of Sahl's "al-Masa'il al Nujumiyah" ("The Astrological Problems")...
Thanks Dr Farr
I'd appreciate any reply on your own thought about what ferality means - for me it means a sense of abandonment, depending on the dignity of the planet I think that will manifest in different ways, but I'd be curious what your own thoughts are. If you're worried about detracting from the 'purity' of the tradition (or rather, in providing endless quotes to back up your view) then feel free to PM me instead. I always enjoy hearing other opinions.
BobZemco
Well-known member
I think I just figured this out.
Remember when I said sometimes you have to switch hats or eye-glasses when using a particular technique? This is one of those times.
This technique has been badly translated, and I can see where people get confused. It is nothing more than a generic, guesstimate, rough-guide technique for longevity.....since there's no point in wasting time casting dozens of charts for someone who isn't going to live.
You want to look at the Moon's position at three select points:
1] the 3rd Day (actually Day 4 On Earth)
2] the 7th Day (Day 8 On Earth)
3] the 40th Day (Day 41 On Earth).
This has nothing to do with being Feral, or VOC or anything else. It is a strict focus on what the Moon is doing, to get a very general non-specific idea of what the Native's life will be like, as each day represents an equal number of years in the Native's life.
Moon on the Descendant is bad, except here, Moon is in an applying trine to a very strong and fortunate Saturn who receives Moon by Domicile.
On Day 4 (3rd Day) Moon is in Pisces, that's actually the 8th Sign and even though the 8th House is evil, what we're interested in here is that it is a Succeedent House, and then by Sign Moon trines Ascendant Ruler Sun. Yes, both Malefics are in square by Sign, but then so are both Benefics and then Mercury in the 11th in Gemini not Combust and moving from a Malefic to a Benefic is good, so we judge the Native's first 3 years as okay.
On Day 8 (7th Day) Moon in Taurus (Exalted), in Sign Aversion to everyone but Sun (sextile) and a Sign square to Ascendant, alles klar for the next 7 years of the Native's life.
On Day 41 (40th Day) Moon is in Leo, no problems there.
Again, this is a very generic technique. What we are actually looking for is the Moon landing Cadent, meaning being in the 3rd, 9th, 6th or 12th, and either being with a Malefic, or being attacked by Malefics (especially from the opposition) with no relief from Benefics. Moon in 4th or 7th and in opposition/square Malefics (even more so if Moon is in Sign of Detriment or Fall for the Malefics). For example, suppose Saturn was alone in the 12th and Moon landed there and the Benefics were in aversion to the 12th, and then if not Sun in aversion, then Sun in square or opposition to Moon, then we have a problem. That whatever period of life that represents for the Native will be very negative and bad, and being in the 12th, that will most likely manifest itself through illnesses.
tsmall
Premium Member
It's late, and my brain is fried. Which means that I'm unwilling to venture to the Riley translation of Valens...but I think you just explained Valens' 40 days of the Moon. I was mystified as to why it would matter, and even wondered if it had something to do with Egyptian theosophy, but I believe what you have posted will help make sense of it.
Last edited:
tsmall
Premium Member
For those other than myself who might be interested, here are the charts showing the nativity in the OP on the 3rd, 7th, and 40th days of the Moon. It makes it a bit easier to "see" what Bob explains here with the charts for reference.
Attachments
BobZemco
Well-known member
Aha, see, that's what was I was talking about. The texts don't make it clear, and I didn't help much, but it's actually Transiting Moon.
Remember that Age Rulers shift, so Moon rules the first 4 years, then passes the baton to Mercury, then Venus, Sun and so on through the end of life.
The theory behind that revolves (no pun intended) on the Moon being the Age Ruler for infants/toddlers. The specific days selected for viewing are based largely on biology and medicine.
Then, as now, if the infant isn't feeding by the 3rd Day, there's a medical issue. By the 7th Day, the infant should be in a regular cycle of feeding and sleeping and feeding and sleeping....ad infinitum...and if not, then a medical issue. Somewhere around Day 40, the infant's eyes should have adjusted from everything-is-one-gigantic-blurry-mess to there's-lots-and-lots of-blurry-fuzzy-things-and-some-are-shiny...meaning the infant should be grabbing/reaching for things, and reacting to stimuli such as light, movement and sound. If not, then there's a potential problem.
Okay, so we're looking at the exact Longitude of Transiting Moon on the 3rd Day (Day 4 of Infant's Life), the 7th Day (Day 8) and the 40th Day (Day 41) against the Natal Chart.
It isn't so much what we want to see, rather it's what we don't want to see on those 3 select days. We don't want to see Moon joined with Mars and/or Saturn in Cancer in a Cadent Sign. We don't want to see Moon Combust in a Cadent Sign --- although Cazimi Moon would be good. We don't want to see Moon in a Cadent Sign with Mars/Saturn, or in square/opposition to Mars/Saturn, and if that is the case, then we would want to see Jupiter, Venus or Sun in trine with Moon by Sign, or Jupiter/Venus square by Sign. We don't want to see Moon in a Cadent Sign and besieged by Malefics.
Again, this is a very generic technique to estimate the health of the Native.
I should point out that people failing to understand these concepts simply assumed that 1 Day = 1 Year of the Native's life, and then applied that to a new technique called Secondary Progressions. Anyone wondering why Secondary Progressions don't work, now you know why.
I'll try to kill 50 birds with one small pebble here.
If anyone intends to buy classical music, listen to a sample of it first, before buying. Musical works are subject to interpretation, and not every conductor of every symphony is sane. Nowhere is that more true than with Carl Orff's Cantiones Profanes --- the Profane Songs -- aka Carmina Burana.
Granted, music is highly subjective, but a recording that everyone may enjoy is the Philadelphia Symphony with the Rutger's University Choir...and I mention that since that is the recording most commonly used in film scores...and so probably the version you're all most familiar with...and you'd be gravely disappointed to spend money and not hear what you thought you heard.
The opening lines in the score are these...
O Fortuna
velut luna
statu variabilis,
semper crescis
aut decrescis;
vita detestabilis
nunc obdurat
et tunc curat
ludo mentis aciem,
egestatem,
potestatem
dissolvit ut glaciem.
That's Latin, and Holden would translate it like this...
O Fortune,
like moon
you change states,
ever waxing
and waning;
hateful life
first oppresses
and then soothes
as fancy takes it;
poverty
and power
it melts them like ice.
Dykes would translate it as such...
Fortune!
Like the Moon
[constantly] changing phases,
always increasing [in light]
or decreasing [in light];
Detesting life!
First oppressing [life]
then soothing...
and [all] on a whim;
Melting poverty
and power
as though
they were [made of] ice.
Verbatim translations may be technically and grammatically correct, and Academicians might fawn and drool over them, but they are not linguistically correct: Ma-duc acasa...Holden = Me take at home; Dykes = I'm going home.
When purchasing texts, people might want to bear that in mind.
Anyway, regarding the significations of the Planets, the Moon's primary signification first and foremost is Change.....or Instability.
How do you know which is which?
Apply the Simple Rule: "Planet, Sign, House, always."
The Planet is Moon; Moon will either be domiciled (in Cancer or Exalted in Taurus), exiled (in Capricorn or in Fall in Scorpio) or Peregrine; and Moon will be Angular, Succeedent or Cadent.
Cadent Signs/Houses are falling away from the Angles: 12th is being pushed over the hill by the Ascendant, not the MC. The MC has pushed the 9th Sign/House over. The 7th has pushed away the 6th, and the 4th Sign/House has forced the 3rd Sign/House over the cliff.
So Cadent Houses signify things that have ended or changed, and Moon in a Cadent House intensifies that, since Moon is about Change, or Instability.
That does not mean other Planets cannot suggest Change, they can, but unlike the other Planets, Moon indicates very rapid change....like the kind of change you'd see in an infant, right?
So, then, what would a Cadent distressed Moon on one of those 3 days signify? It signifies instability for the worse, while a Cadent Moon in good condition indicates positive change for the better.
Likewise, Succeedent Moons indicate a continuation of things, while an Angular Moon suggests starting something new, a new beginning or or something like that.
Why does Moon Joy in the 3rd House? Because it is Below Earth and Cadent and represents Change/Instability. Moon in 3rd increases the power of the Moon to act, but doesn't alter it's condition in the House, and since the 3rd Sign/House is Cadent to the 4th Sign/House and the 4th Sign/House is opposite the 10th House, well, there you go.
Since the Ascendant tells us about the Native, what would you say about Cancer-rising Moon in 3rd? That would be a Virgo Moon. Mercury rules Virgo. Are Mercury and Moon Planetary Friends? No, they are Planetary Enemies.
While I'm on the subject of Ascendants and Joys, Ascendant Ruler in the 6th Sign/House is what? A slave for the most part....literally...except when the Ascendant Ruler is also domiciled in the 6th Sign/House, or when Aries rises and Mars is rejoicing in the 6th Sign/House.
Taurus-rising with a 6th House Libra Venus. What is that?
6th House is what? Work? No, people, wrong answer. The 6th House is Service.
Venus signifies what? Love? No, people, sorry, wrong answer. Venus signifies the love of people....the love of Humanity.
So...then....Taurus-rising 6th House Libra Venus is service-oriented to Humanity.....I'm guessing people have a real difficult time figuring out the 10th House Aquarius thing.....and the meaning of "trine"....and whirled peas.
Mars signifies "things Martial."
Scorpio-rising 6th House Aries Mars is going to be protecting/defending Taurus-rising 6th House Libra Venus, so that Venus can perform her vital humanitarian mission, whatever that might be.
And why would Mars do that? I don't know....."trine" anyone? How about Triplicity? If Aries is the 6th Sign, then what Sign is the 10th? Leo.
And who rules Leo?
Sun.
And amongst it's significations is power, authority and government.
What then can we say about Cancer-rising 6th House Sagittarius Jupiter?
Jupiter doesn't rule Cancer. Okay, very good, but Cancer is one of the domiciles of Jupiter, since Jupiter is Exalted in Cancer.
Libra-rising, 6th Sign/House Pisces Venus is going to be different, since Cancer is the 10th Sign (that's the trine thing again).
Just thought I'd mention that since people struggle delineating Vocation. Stupid nonsense on the internet doesn't help; people make it harder than it must be ignoring the meanings of Planets; the texts really aren't all that great; and then let's face it, most of the example charts floating around are for politicians, musicians, entertainers, athletes and such, and not for truck drivers, ditch diggers, clerks, warehouse workers, firemen, managers, fast-food workers, or the wipers of other people's bottoms.
I hope that clarifies things a wee bit.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
tsmall may we clarify for interested readers
that since 3rd Day of the Moon is Day 4 of Infant's Life
AND IF
OP natal chart - i.e. Day 1 of Infant's Life - shows Moon at 5 Aquarius 38' 36
THEN
by Day 4 of Infant's Life Moon would be definitely Pisces
and not Aquarius as shown in posted chart
JMO you appear to have labelled the OP natal chart in error as 3rd Day of the Moon
tsmall
Premium Member
tsmall may we clarify for interested readers
that since 3rd Day of the Moon is Day 4 of Infant's Life
AND IF
OP natal chart - i.e. Day 1 of Infant's Life - shows Moon at 5 Aquarius 38' 36
THEN
by Day 4 of Infant's Life Moon would be definitely Pisces
and not Aquarius as shown in posted chart
JMO you appear to have labelled the OP natal chart in error as 3rd Day of the Moon
Well, then perhaps this must be one of those human programming errors. One of the many interesting techniques I have/had yet to understand in the Delphic Oracle software is the ability to cast charts for the 3rd, 7th, and 40th day of the Moon. These charts are taken from the software.
Interesting. I wonder if, since the developer takes his equations straight from Valens' Anthologies, there were differences in text translations that would produce such an error?
Vettius Valens, Anthologies, Book 1
Valens goes on to describe
Since this is the Riley pdf of Anthologies, and Valens (who it admittedly gives me a headache to read) Bob's explanation should allow us to conclude that when Valens says fortune, he is talking about health.
Last edited:
BobZemco
Well-known member
Holy cow, no wonder you're confused.
15K;14P. The Third, Seventh, and Fortieth Days of the Moon.
The third, seventh, and fortieth days of the moon as follows: assume the moon is in Scorpio 7*; the third day will be in Sagittarius 7*. [It is necessary to investigate the day in this way. Sagittarius 7* has become the 3rd day.] In the nativity chart the seventh will be found in square, at Aquarius 7*. The fortieth will be at Taurus 7*. (Some add 160* to the moon's position at birth and count off this amount from the moon's sign. Others add to the moon's position at birth <its positions> on the third and seventh and fortieth days, then after calculating, they interpret the moon at those places.)
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
It looks like he's copying it from something, but he doesn't understand it.
From 7° Scorpio to 7° Sagittarius, all he's done is add 30° to the Moon's original Longitude, or 10° per day. The Moon averages 13°12' per day, getting to just over 15° but never slower than 11°48' per day, so what he's doing isn't based on Moon's speed or a Transiting Moon.
That becomes clearer when he says on the 7th Day the Moon is in square at 7° Aquarius, and then again the 40th Day at 7° Taurus.
I thought maybe he was using Profections, but that doesn't work either. You can profect by month, moving one Sign for each month. You can also profect daily at 1 Sign every 2 and a half days or so.
It's a bit of a stretch to think he's profecting the Moon daily. Rounding 2.5 days up to 3 days, yes that would be 1 Sign. It falls apart there, since he'd be adding 1 Sign for every 2 days to get to a square position.
40 Days would be 16 Signs @ 2.5 Days per Sign, but that would put Daily Profected Moon in Pisces, not Taurus. Even rounding to 3, that would make 13 Signs. Rounding down to 2 Days per Sign gives 20 Signs, and in no case do you end up at Taurus.
Moon is specifically profected to examine Health matters. In fact, I believe it was Valens who said that (not to mention that Mars/Moon Primary Directions are very negative, especially for health and life).
Anyway, the way Valens explains it makes no sense to me, not to mention it would be demonstrably wrong. For me, adding 30° puts Moon in the 6th Aries 6th House with enemy Mars, which isn't even remotely descriptive of my first 3 years on Earth (but Transiting Moon exalted in Taurus would be).
tsmall
Premium Member
It doesn't help being mathematically challenged. And to think I questioned my high school trig teacher about what possible purpose advanced math would serve me in life.
Ok, let's skip Valens. The charts in Oracle are auto-derivative charts. The birth date is July 7th, and the day three chart is cast for the exact same time on July 9th. The 7th is the first day, the 8th is the second day, so the 9th would be the third day of life. Are we having a counting problem? Or is the chart cast improperly?
All the charts are cast for the exact moment of the nativity on the 3rd, 7th, and 40th days of the nativity if we count the date of birth as day one. So, correct or not?
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
tsmall, I'm highlighting that in order to note any differences between the two charts under discussion that you attached
then
there needs to be a difference to note
- and there clearly is none
Yet one is the OP natal chart
and ORACLE software claims that
the other is the 3rd Day of the Moon chart
Since the 3rd Day of the Moon chart
traditionally highlights/considers/homes in on the location of the transiting Moon 3 days after the Nativity
THEN
the natal Moon location as illustrated by the natal chart
MUST differ from the location of the transiting Moon 3 days AFTER the birth
as illustrated by the 3rd Day of the Moon chart
HOWEVER
since you have explained that the 'Days of the Moon' charts you posted are all auto-derivative charts using Oracle software
THEN
EITHER
it's a software glitch
OR
it's a data input problem
ALTERNATIVELY
it's a Valens glitch as dr. farr has surmised
Attachments
Delphic Oracle is correct (for the 3rd day). They (the ancients) counted the day of birth as one just as they did with all levels of profections and as Valens does with his Quarters of the Moon technique. It looks like Tsmall has incorrectly posted the natal chart as the 3rd day of the Moon chart, as Jupiter ASC has suggested.
As for Valens quote, it is quite clear he is just illustarting an idealised version of the technique in which the Moon is moving 15 degrees a day. This is, in part, so we understand that the day of birth is one, and therefore the 3rd day is two calendar days and not three. If we write his example out by hand, we see that the 2nd calendar day falls at 7 Sagittarius, the 6th calendar day at 7 Aquarius. The comment about 7 Taurus being the 40th day seems to be a different idea. In the charts I have looked at, the 40th day Moon (39th calendar day as we would count it in our time) falls out at the sign opposed to the natal Moon though sometimes in a diffierent sign if the natal Moon is close to a sign boundary. I am also not sure we are to take only the transiting Moon since Valens says that someone with a malefic or Mercury with the 40th day Moon suffers a violent death, this would mean that everyone with the Moon opposed to a malefic at birth will have an indication of a violent death. I feel we may have to use the whole chart but then this brings up the problem of clock time and what time do these new charts begin at. I would suggest that they be converted into a more natural time system and set for the 3rd, 7th and 40th day of this time rather than modern clock time.
EDIT: sorry I forgot to mention the 160 degree figure given by Valens, if we multiply 13.2 degrees (Moon's mean motion according to a period of 27.3 days)by 39 (40th day), we get 515 (360 + 155 degrees), hence Valens saying some just add 160 degrees to the Moon's natal position.
Also, ignore what I said above about the opposition, DO has been programmed correctly for the 3rd day but not the 7th or 40th for some reason.
As for Valens quote, it is quite clear he is just illustarting an idealised version of the technique in which the Moon is moving 15 degrees a day. This is, in part, so we understand that the day of birth is one, and therefore the 3rd day is two calendar days and not three. If we write his example out by hand, we see that the 2nd calendar day falls at 7 Sagittarius, the 6th calendar day at 7 Aquarius. The comment about 7 Taurus being the 40th day seems to be a different idea. In the charts I have looked at, the 40th day Moon (39th calendar day as we would count it in our time) falls out at the sign opposed to the natal Moon though sometimes in a diffierent sign if the natal Moon is close to a sign boundary. I am also not sure we are to take only the transiting Moon since Valens says that someone with a malefic or Mercury with the 40th day Moon suffers a violent death, this would mean that everyone with the Moon opposed to a malefic at birth will have an indication of a violent death. I feel we may have to use the whole chart but then this brings up the problem of clock time and what time do these new charts begin at. I would suggest that they be converted into a more natural time system and set for the 3rd, 7th and 40th day of this time rather than modern clock time.
EDIT: sorry I forgot to mention the 160 degree figure given by Valens, if we multiply 13.2 degrees (Moon's mean motion according to a period of 27.3 days)by 39 (40th day), we get 515 (360 + 155 degrees), hence Valens saying some just add 160 degrees to the Moon's natal position.
Also, ignore what I said above about the opposition, DO has been programmed correctly for the 3rd day but not the 7th or 40th for some reason.
Last edited:
Yep, sorry, I've been such a dullard. Reading Valens again, he proposes that you use the ideal of the adjacent sign/square sign/opposition sign respectively. He then says that others use the actual 3rd, 7th and 40th days of the Moon. It is the old ideal vs. actual debate! If you use the actual, obviously you would count the day of birth as "one" as there was no zero in ancient mathematics and every other time-lord system counts the beginning point as one and not zero.
I asked Curtis Manwarring about the DO calculation and he said he wanted it to follow the Valens ideal version of adjacent/square/opposition and the only way to do this was to count 2 calendar days/7 calendar days/40 calendar days hence the seemingly mixed together methods of ancient and modern counting.
I asked Curtis Manwarring about the DO calculation and he said he wanted it to follow the Valens ideal version of adjacent/square/opposition and the only way to do this was to count 2 calendar days/7 calendar days/40 calendar days hence the seemingly mixed together methods of ancient and modern counting.
tsmall
Premium Member
since you have explained that the 'Days of the Moon' charts you posted are all auto-derivative charts using Oracle software
THEN
EITHER
it's a software glitch
OR
it's a data input problem
ALTERNATIVELY
it's a Valens glitch as dr. farr has surmised
Either that, or what happened. In that I inadvertenly saved the base chart a second time.
Attachments
tsmall
Premium Member
Konrad, thank you for clearing that up!
One thing interesting to note (now that I have attached the correct 3rd day chart
) is that even though Curtis was trying to show the Moon in the ideal adjacent/square/opposition, in these charts the Moon is in the same sign on the third day, sextile on the 7th, and averse on the 40th.The charts are all transit charts cast for the time of birth on the chosen days. I did test this by simply creating a new chart for such a time in the natal location on the calendar date shown in each chart and it is identical to the software chart. Note that the positions of the planets moves in each, as does the ASC.
For the sake of clarity and education then, what we want to look at using this method are transit charts for the days in question, which anyone can do, and it only remains to determine where to start the counting of days?
Yeah, he does say that he actually wanted to take the option out as it doesn't work the way he wanted it to but was worried about people getting annoyed at that. He told me he may redo the whole thing at a later date. He claims that the ancients looked only at the Moon, and not the whole chart, so I may be wrong with wanting to look at the full chart. It is the usual problem of isolating factors, and seeing what is doing what.
As for where to start, for me there really isn't any question of where to count from as the ancients would always have counted the day of birth as "one", just as they did with all levels of profections. When Valens (or anyone) says XYZ happened in the 40th year, the native would be 39 years old by our reckoning. For me being born in 1984, my 40th year would be 2023 when I am 39 years old to everyone living now.
As for where to start, for me there really isn't any question of where to count from as the ancients would always have counted the day of birth as "one", just as they did with all levels of profections. When Valens (or anyone) says XYZ happened in the 40th year, the native would be 39 years old by our reckoning. For me being born in 1984, my 40th year would be 2023 when I am 39 years old to everyone living now.