A kid born in early 60's learns astrology from a Traditionalist

Tim, could you please delete this thread? It does not need to be moved
[Note: people have posted to thread so could not delete - Moderator]

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

I'd be interested to know about her take on the quincunx and why it's the most difficult aspect. I ask, because with her method the ruler of my chart wouldbe Mars and it so happens that the only aspect it makes is a quincunx to Mercury.

Tim can move it if you ask. Quincunx is a modern aspect, but it means nearly the same thing as an aversion (lack of aspect) in traditional astrology. Planets don't/cannot work together or see each other.

And if they can't see each other, they aren't in aspect.

No, not trying to be pedantic here!

Marinka -

Sometimes my misplaced thoughts create a bad juju - so If I want to try again, I'll make another thread another time. My mother never cared about outer planets, but she always talked about that aspect as if it was the one to dread and tow the finest line with - beyond squares or conjunctions.

Kitchy said:

Marinka -

Sometimes my misplaced thoughts create a bad juju - so If I want to try again, I'll make another thread another time. My mother never cared about outer planets, but she always talked about that aspect as if it was the one to dread and tow the finest line with - beyond squares or conjunctions.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with your mom about that aspect - it is beyond squares, conjunctions, and oppositions. I call it the "break and adjust" - it breaks you from the path you are on and once you stabilize and think you are OK, it causes another adjustment. In my test charts, it shows up with major path breaks in life.

Oddity said:

Tim can move it if you ask. Quincunx is a modern aspect, but it means nearly the same thing as an aversion (lack of aspect) in traditional astrology. Planets don't/cannot work together or see each other.

And if they can't see each other, they aren't in aspect.

No, not trying to be pedantic here!

Click to expand...

Well, quincunx is not a modern aspect, I would say on the contrary, our Master of the Masters, Lilly, used it, just read Christian Astrology.
Next: quincunx is an aspect, called minor aspect, however a very important one, one which could change a lot in a chart.

Oddity said:

Tim can move it if you ask. Quincunx is a modern aspect, but it means nearly the same thing as an aversion (lack of aspect) in traditional astrology. Planets don't/cannot work together or see each other.

And if they can't see each other, they aren't in aspect.

No, not trying to be pedantic here!

Click to expand...

And something else Oddity: planets which don't see each other can work together, sometimes even big time! just think 'antiscia' - you can read this too in the books of the most majestic traditional astrologer ever, our old, great Lilly - or you can think 'parans' . Just two examples....I am sure there are more.

I just read this in regards to aversions on Zodiasoft:

"Some Hellenistic astrologers thought aversion to be cancelled by like-engirding, equal power, or commanding and obeying relationships"

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by commanding/obeying relationships or equal power, but the like-engirding is interesting. So it's saying, for instance, that the aversion between Aries and Scorpio would be cancelled because of the like-engirding symmetry. This also may make sense since like-engirding signs share the same ruling planet (with the exception of Leo and Cancer), so that's one major thing they have in common apart from the symmetry itself. (See this post)

HoldOrFold said:

I just read this in regards to aversions on Zodiasoft:

"Some Hellenistic astrologers thought aversion to be cancelled by like-engirding, equal power, or commanding and obeying relationships"

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by commanding/obeying relationships or equal power,

Click to expand...

Astrological Sign Classifications
Sign Symmetry
Commanding, Obeying, Hearing, Antiscia http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/?p=489

HoldOrFold said:

but the like-engirding is interesting. So it's saying, for instance, that the aversion between Aries and Scorpio would be cancelled because of the like-engirding symmetry. This also may make sense since like-engirding signs share the same ruling planet (with the exception of Leo and Cancer), so that's one major thing they have in common apart from the symmetry itself. (See this post)

Click to expand...

anca said:

Well, quincunx is not a modern aspect, I would say on the contrary, our Master of the Masters, Lilly, used it, just read Christian Astrology.
Next: quincunx is an aspect, called minor aspect, however a very important one, one which could change a lot in a chart.

Click to expand...

It isn't an aspect in trad. 30 degrees and 150 degrees do not see each other, and without sight, there is no aspect. Lilly sometimes used the 30 degree marker for the sake of counting, but not interpreting. Can you interpret aversions though? Sure you can.

I also wanted to not be pedantic. E.g., I wasn't going to get into antiscia, like-engirdling, etc., just wanted to note that this doesn't belong on the trad board.

Lilly used and interpreted many minor aspects, just grab his books and you'll see 36, 135, 150 degrees. Did I say that they are called aspects? "Minor" aspects and since Lilly used them, well, then they are traditional. Maybe your confusion comes from the fact that he used them mainly in predictions which are at the the end of the book.

Oddity said:

It isn't an aspect in trad.

30 degrees and 150 degrees do not see each other, and without sight, there is no aspect. Lilly sometimes used the 30 degree marker for the sake of counting, but not interpreting. Can you interpret aversions though? Sure you can.

I also wanted to not be pedantic. E.g., I wasn't going to get into antiscia, like-engirdling, etc.,

just wanted to note that this doesn't belong on the trad board.

Click to expand...

Moderator moved the thread to General Natal Astrology

anca said:

Lilly used and interpreted many minor aspects, just grab his books and you'll see 36, 135, 150 degrees. Did I say that they are called aspects? "Minor" aspects and since Lilly used them, well, then they are traditional. Maybe your confusion comes from the fact that he used them mainly in predictions which are at the the end of the book.

Click to expand...

I've read Lilly's book, and this I do not recall. I do recall him using 30 as a plotting marker when he was working out aspects to come.

And I don't have time to look. But if he called them aspects, he was mistaken. That doesn't mean he was a bad astrologer, because he wasn't, but they are not aspects.

The earliest source that clearly defines how to read, and how to mitigate aversion that I have found is in Paulus. I'm not near the bookshelf for a reference right now. I do agree with Oddity that traditionally (regardless of what Lilly called it) 30* and 150* apart placements are not aspects--much the same way that Mars in Libra and Venus in Scorpio are not in mutual reception, but rather what we call generosity, because they are not in aspect and reception requires an aspect.

The term aspect in astrology as it seems most understand it today is a bastardization of a translation of a translation of a translation...well, you get the point. Originally planets were said to "regard," "bear witness" and "testify." All of these terms imply sight. Planets that are in signs averse to one another cannot see, or "regard" each other. Think of the blind spots when you are driving a car.

So aspect or no, as far back as Hellenistic astrologers they were able figure out that these aversions could make things tricky. Or, as Paulus also points out, show sympathy and agreement.

Oddity said:

I've read Lilly's book, and this I do not recall. I do recall him using 30 as a plotting marker when he was working out aspects to come.

And I don't have time to look. But if he called them aspects, he was mistaken. That doesn't mean he was a bad astrologer, because he wasn't, but they are not aspects.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but are you seriously saying that Lilly, was mistaken?

LOL, no disrespect intended, but are any of us formidable enough astrologers to call out William Lilly?

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html
The Classical Origin and Traditional Use of ASPECTS, by Deborah Houlding:
Most of today's minor aspects were not recognised in ancient astrology. The fact that they are unable to inscribe a shape which is enclosed and complete within the zodiac wheel invalidates them according to their philosophical foundation. Only two of the minor aspects have a classical history: the semi-sextile (glyph for semi-sextile), which fulfils this requirement; and the inconjunct (Glyph for inconjunct) - also known as the quincunx - which acquired an inverted significance due to the fact that it represents an area where no aspectual relationship is possible (see below).

For the most part the semi-sextile was dismissed as too weak to be of noticeable influence, the reason being that the angle between the signs is too obtuse to allow a clear line of vision between the planets that reside within them: 'Their attentions are bestowed on distant signs which they can see', explained Manilius.[2] Where it was used, the aspect was taken to imply a condition of vague familiarity; a relationship which was unlikely to bring about a dynamic event unless supported by other testimonies.

and here, W Lilly lists semisextiles as 'good aspects':

https://books.google.com/books?id=H...EISzAI#v=onepage&q=Lilly semisextiles&f=false

katydid said:

I am sorry, but are you seriously saying that Lilly, was mistaken?

Click to expand...

Well, yes, lol. And it wouldn't be the only time.

katydid said:

LOL, no disrespect intended, but are any of us formidable enough astrologers to call out William Lilly?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Lilly had what he had of the ancient texts, but make no mistake, that he was the most celebrated astrologer of his time doesn't make him infallible. Once you start reading more of the texts from different sources (the Dykes translations are amazing!) you start to be able to synthesize the material and see where certain astrologers differed from the rest. Doesn't mean they got everything wrong. But it does mean Lilly put his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us. And probably got his shirt on inside out a time or two.

Of course I'm going to call out Lilly. As I said, it does not mean he was a bad astrologer. He did make some mistakes, though, like only using the day formula for Fortuna. Or go read his horary about whether he should buy property on the Strand!

I have yet to find a perfect astrologer. I'm certainly not one! But reading critically - that's a good thing.

On the matter of aspects, I am sure he was familiar with 'Keplerian aspects', albeit those are not used in interpretation in traditional astrology. And there's the matter of aversion, which isn't an aspect at all (traditionally, I know it is in modern).

Lilly was an early modern, btw, and given what I know of the guy, yes, if he'd heard about Sedna, he probably *would* have tried to work out if it meant anything in charts. Again, this does not mean he is bad.

Do modern astrologers write books with no errors in them? Has astrological practice been perfected, Katy? I'm kinda thinking no, it hasn't. You've been practicing for probably over 50 years, so have I. And sometimes, even smart people get things wrong. It's not the end of the world, and provided you're not being hateful about it, there's no reason not to see that sometimes they're mistaken about things.

Idols can be dangerous.

In my opinion, if the native has Mars@2 Libra and Venus @ 2 Scorpio, then they will have a Mutual Reception between the two, because of the semi-sextile.

I see semi-sextiles as strong connections between next door neighbors. I see a big difference between someone with 2 planets, unconnected 'next door' and having two planets in an exact semisextile. It is much more focused and thus more beneficial, in my opinion.

Certainly astrologers make mistakes. But I don't understand the claim that he was 'mistaken' when he said that semi-sextiles were aspects. He put them in his Table of Aspects, they have a symbol drawn up for them like other aspects do, and he discusses their orb. So how was he mistaken? He seemed pretty certain when he listed them in the table.