Feral Planets

Paul_ · Aug 10, 2013

BobZemco said:
Sun never made an aspect in Cancer.

Sun can only aspect 3 Planets: Mars, Jupiter & Saturn.

I guess it depends on our definitions, I think this is why I prefer to only really consider these concepts for the Moon. Depending on which definition you use we may have things like the criterion being that the planet enters into no aspects with any planet during its tenure in that sign - however, obviously, the sun will enter into aspects during its tenure in a sign, if by nothing else than the Moon of course. Which is why I think the further back in time we go, the more we see these concepts are only really applied to the Moon. I think it's been a bit of a mistake to consider it that the important point is that a planet is feral if it does not make an application to another planet whilst in that sign.

Al Qabisi describes it, translated by Dykes, as "And if a planet were in some sign, and another planet did not look at this sign so long as it were in it, it is said to be wild[feral]"

Al Biruni says "When a planet is in a sign and no other planet has been in aspect with it from the time of its entry to that of its exit, it is said to be feral in its course."

But notice that there's no concept of the feral planet having to apply, the key distinction is that it is isolated and alone, it is abandoned and in solitude. Therefore the distinction is that during its time in a given sign, it meets with no other planets (by their aspect or conjunction).

The Arabs note that it happens more often with the Moon, but in the earlier tradition (granted it wasn't always clear if it means the next 30 degrees, or the sign) we see that concepts like these are only really applied to the Moon anyway. We don't see examples of a feral/wild Sun or Mars for example.

This is just my $0.02, for me, it's clear that the spirit behind the meaning of a wild planet is one which is utterly abandoned during its time in a sign, and this only really happens to the Moon, certainly in this case the Moon will make an aspect to the Sun (or several) before it leaves the sign, so for me, this is not a wild/feral planet.

Many Greeks and Egyptians would use a 3° orb, in which case Sun is not in aspect. Still others would use a 6° orb, and so Sun is not in aspect. Even with a 12° orb --- and that's pushing the limits of absurdity --- Sun is not in aspect.

Just a tangent, but why is that absurd? It's not uncommon to see the orb of the Sun as 15 degrees in medieval literature. (Personally I agree with the 3 degree orb as showing true effect, but 15 degrees would be pretty common as an orb for the Sun through the medieval period). Sahl, for example, who we've just mentioned does exactly that.

But I believe Zael considers a Planet within 5° of the Cusp to be in the succeeding House anyway, so that would make sense.

A conjunction is not an aspect -- it's two bodies being joined, which is not the same as an aspect. I'll have to look at Zael and think about that.

Right, but I don't think I said it was an aspect, so I'm not sure if that was just as a by the way, or in reference to something I wrote. I said "joined by body". This is in reference to your stating that they didn't allow out of sign aspects even when the 'aspect' is a 'conjunction'.

I'm quite interested in the history of out of sign aspects, though in particular the idea of the Moon being void or not if it enters into orb of a planet which it would perfect in the next sign. Some of the quotes I have handy are with that context in mind, so apologies for that. It's possible that really what they're saying is that provided the aspect perfects, even if it needs to cross boundaries to do it then it's okay - my interest with Sahl has horary firmly in mind of course so the below may not be appropriate for a natal chart, but it's still interesting that he is more interested in whether two planets will eventually perfect rather than their current sign positions which, by whole sign aspects, would prevent it.
"Suppose a planet wishing to be joined to a planet in one sign but it cannot catch up with it in that same sign until it goes to the next sign. And if it catches up with it in the next sign, then the purpose is perfected"

MassaAllah does allow out of sign conjunctions provided they are in orb, but I don't have the quote to hand. I'll find it if you like.

Clearly showing that Sahl allows planets to perfect provided they enter into orb with one another in a given sign, and perfect with one another, even if they do so in the next sign. This isn't quite the same thing of course, but it's interesting and worth bringing up maybe.

Clearly it was not a clear a defined rule as some astrologers did and some did not. Perhaps this sentiment is best summed up by Ibn Ezra who writes, in the Beginning of Wisdom:
"If two planets should be in two signs and each one of them should be in the force of the other's body, they must not be said to be in conjunction, because they are in different signs. That is the opinion of the ancient scientists, but I, Abraham, the compiler of this book, disagree with them."

Morinus seemed to be of a similar opinion.

Manilius also offers us some hints that simply using whole sign configurations, and not aspects by degree, can lead to mistakes been made when he advises us to note that signs in trine to one another may not actually be really trines but squares instead when he says, in Astronomica:
"And though a man compute a fourth sign from a fourth, the degrees in themselves will cause the wreck of a whole sign. It is therefore not enough to count trigons by signs or to expect a true square from signs at intervals of four"

Anyway, I thought I'd just throw some examples to state why I would put a big question mark over the idea that the ancients didn't allow for out of sign aspects. It's probably clear that many did not of course, but, for me at least, it's equally clear that many did. I think people like Robert Schmidt are similarly starting to move away from the notion that hellenistic astrologers only used whole sign aspects as well (his Definitions and Foundations).

I'm pretty sure it's Zoller. Or Schmidt. I get them confused. It's one of those two. I got the "R" part right. Doesn't Schmidt run Hindsight? I think that's where I saw it.

Yes Schmidt runs project hindsight. I wonder if you could provide a quote or a rationale? I have never heard that only the superiors can make a phasis, and, to me, it makes no sense - clearly astronomically the inferior planets can make a phasis - they just need to be able to heliacally rise or set.

Certainly I know many who do use the inferiors as making a phasis in a given chart so it's a new one to me to not allow it. I have to be honest and wonder if you've misunderstood something about what determines a phasis? I might have a look through some texts and see if I can get some examples.

tsmall · Aug 11, 2013

I started a pretty good post on this last night but got interrupted by a neighbor, a piglet and bats. :surprised:

Paul, you have circled around the point I was going to make. I'm going to try to summarize with only a few quotes (Benjamin Dykes Introductions to Traditional Astrology is the source I'm using.)

I think medieval wildness is either a conflation or corruption of three earlier aspectual conditions of a planet. The first is disregard, which gives us an understanding of how to interpret separating aspects. The term "disregard" itself implies an active connection that has already existed, since we wouldn't disregard/ignore/stop looking at something unless we had already been looking at it in the first place.

The next is solitude, or emptiness of course. This is where the stringent Hellenistic definition was that in order to be void of course the planet couldn't enter into any aspects for the next 30* of the zodiac, irrespective of sign boundaries. Ok. The Sun moves what, a little less than one degree per day? Venus and Mercury faster (and I didn't look it up so I'm just going with my analogy. If someone wants to correct me on how many degrees Mercury and Venus travel in a day please feel free.) Let's say they go as fast as two degrees per day. That means in 7 days they would travel 14* and in 14 days they would travel 28*. Within those 14 days the Moon would have completed at least what? Two or three or more aspects to them? With the superior planets this would be more because they move so slowly. Which is why the Greeks gave the ponderable reason that emptiness (according to their strict definition) could "only happen to the Moon, because she moves so swiftly. This isn't an opinion, but rather a function of planetary physics.

If we think about the terms, empty or void of course, and solitude, we get a pretty bleak picture.

Quote from Dykes IA footnote p. 143

to be forsaken, deserted, abandoned; to be empty and isolated. These meanings specifically refer to a condition in which a past condition is no more, and in which there is little hope of anything further.

**Bolded emphasis mine**

He goes on to explain that the medieval notion of emptiness ending at sign boundaries rather than in 30* from where the planet sits gives nod to Ptolemaic aspects, in that signs that regard each other witness each other and confer an aspectual relationship. My thought is that it wouldn't matter if the aspect perfects or completes in the next sign, because of the planets witnessing each other one will be applying ~that is seeking to join in aspect~ to the other no matter how far apart they are. This eliminates the notion of loss of hope and gives us more interpretive meaning. Whether or not the aspect will perfect gives us more interpretive meaning still.

Lastly we come to the concept of wildness...or feral planets. Other words used to describe this condition are estrangement, annulment, and sometimes emptiness of course, although this is where I think the problem arises. Because from what I am reading, Dykes often refers in IA to earlier Greek interpretations of the etymology yet doesn't always say why or where. Yet he gives the same name for emptiness and wildness in the earlier Greek, kenodromia, but does not explain if there was a difference between the two. Google translate says that means empty streets, btw.

For emptiness of course, we have from Abu Ma'shar

The emptying of the course is if a planet would be separated from the conjunction of another planet by {bodily} conjunction or by aspect, and it would not be joined to another so long as it were in that same sign.

So a planet can be void in a sign even if another planet occupies the same sign in an earlier degree. And that will have a certain interpretation attached to it, because even though the planet is currently void, it may still be assembled with the planet it is disregarding (conjunction by sign), or still able to witness (aspect by sign.) Meaning that empty of course does not automatically confer wildness or annulment.

Again from Abu Ma'shar, we have this for wildness

But "wildness" is if a planet is in a sign and another one does not look at it at all. And if it were so, it is called "wild." And this happens more to the Moon.

Note the difference from the earlier Greek with emptiness can happen only to the Moon and the later Persian wildness happens more to the Moon.

So what we have here are actually two different ideas. One is emptiness, and the other is wildness.

A wild planet then isn't necessarily empty of course (and in physical fact using the strict Greek definition of empty completely impossible for any planet other than the Moon.)

The key here isn't an argument about who said what when, but identifying and understanding how to interpret a planet's significations in a chart.

We get (again from Dykes, though reading his complete comment on the differences I think he is stressing the wrong argument/delineation) the Latin translation of abolito, or annulment, as the ability to start with a clean slate. Isn't that like the opposite of empty or void?

I know I'm just a newbie student and all, but isn't it always the first consideration in reading charts to delineate the condition of the planet and it's ability to perform the tasks at hand before we even look at the aspects?

Isn't that what Morin was getting at, when he said that a feral planet will act simply and according to its nature? As Bob mentioned, there is in this chart no planet that impedes the Sun, likewise no planet that helps it. It doesn't take away from it's ability to act (as much as it can for being in the 12th house at any rate) and it will still cast its rays into the houses it can regard. That too is a feature of planetary physics.

tsmall · Aug 11, 2013

rox said:
Is the Sun at 17° (16° new) in Aries, 11th h., which does not aspect any planet in the chart, still considered feral?

rox, this isn't an easy question to answer until we either see the chart or know the locations of the other planets. In order for the Sun to not regard any other planet in the chart, all those planets would have to be in Taurus, Pisces, Virgo and Scorpio...the signs that are in aversion to Aries. Or, as you can see, the Sun could be separating from another planet in Aries and entering into no more aspects because the rest of the planets are in the signs mentioned.

Paul_ · Aug 11, 2013

tsmall said:
Paul, you have circled around the point I was going to make. I'm going to try to summarize with only a few quotes (Benjamin Dykes Introductions to Traditional Astrology is the source I'm using.)

My apologies for only circling the points, I actually thought I was much clearer than I obviously was. I had hoped to make the point that really the earlier the source the clearer it is that these concepts only apply to the Moon (a point which you've also made), and that the important point is that this planet is unaspected during its time in the sign.

I realise now from your reply you may have wished to distinguish this from void of course, which you seemed to have contrasted it with, but I had not realised from your opening post that there was a need for that distinction.

I think medieval wildness is either a conflation or corruption of three earlier aspectual conditions of a planet. The first is disregard, which gives us an understanding of how to interpret separating aspects. The term "disregard" itself implies an active connection that has already existed, since we wouldn't disregard/ignore/stop looking at something unless we had already been looking at it in the first place.

We may be splitting hairs, but I would disagree with this slightly - if I understand what you mean. I think if we look to the definitions of wildness the idea is that there has been no regard whilst in that sign - so it's not so much that there was once a regard that is no disregarded, it is instead that there was no regard in that particular sign. Obviously at some point in the past the Moon would have regarded a planet, but the point is that with wildness there isn't any regard during that sign. I'm in two minds between whether or not the Moon has to have fully separated from its orb and not apply to any other planet within its orb before leaving the sign.

Meaning that empty of course does not automatically confer wildness or annulment.

Right, but was that ever in doubt? Obviously all wild moons are going to be void of course, but not all void of course moons are going to be wild.

Later you say: "A wild planet then isn't necessarily empty of course"

But, depending on whether you allow for perfection across sign boundaries, if you do not, all wild planets will indeed be void. It depends on whether you allow wild or void planets to have that negative status remove or ameliorated by entering into orb with another planet, even if perfects with that other planet in another sign.

Personally I currently swing toward suggesting that entering into orb with a planet would remove the idea of being void or wild, but its not always crystal clear from the sources we have.

The key here isn't an argument about who said what when, but identifying and understanding how to interpret a planet's significations in a chart.

We get (again from Dykes, though reading his complete comment on the differences I think he is stressing the wrong argument/delineation) the Latin translation of abolito, or annulment, as the ability to start with a clean slate. Isn't that like the opposite of empty or void?

I don't agree with that definition, is this something that Dykes makes? I have that book but not to hand. Annulment or abolitio would better represent something which had once been, and which no longer is. I wouldn't see that as the the opposite of void so I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems that regardless of whether we are talking of void or feral, the abolitio or annulment involved here is that the Moon was, prior to this, active or there was some active state in the chart, which, now, there is not. That state or status is no longer active or is removed. This is because the Moon went from doing something in the chart, to do nothing in the chart.

BobZemco · Aug 11, 2013

Paul_ said:
I guess it depends on our definitions,...

Not really....Sun can never aspect Moon, Mercury or Venus, but they may aspect Sun. Even when Mercury or Venus are Retrograde, Sun can never make an applying aspect to them, rather they have changed direction and are applying to Sun.

Sun makes no aspects, which makes it Void of Course, and since no Planets are looking at Sun -- being in aversion to all other Planets (not to mention the Asc/Dsc and Lot of Fortune) -- that makes it Feral.

Paul_ said:
I think this is why I prefer to only really consider these concepts for the Moon.

But that's illogical.

Paul_ said:
Depending on which definition you use we may have things like the criterion being that the planet enters into no aspects with any planet during its tenure in that sign - however, obviously, the sun will enter into aspects during its tenure in a sign, if by nothing else than the Moon of course. Which is why I think the further back in time we go, the more we see these concepts are only really applied to the Moon. I think it's been a bit of a mistake to consider it that the important point is that a planet is feral if it does not make an application to another planet whilst in that sign.

Again, that's illogical, as well as contradictory.

Planetary Order & Speed

...Moon-Mercury-Venus-Sun-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn...

I beat people up with that to no end. It's really important for those starting out in Astrology, if for no other reason than it helps in correctly delineating aspects.

Bearing that in mind...

What does everything in this Universe do?

It seeks.

Water seeks its own level. Water also seeks equilibrium as do gases, plasmas and colloids. Rocks seek? Sure. Rocks seek to be at rest, or to resist the forces of gravity. Plants seek. Plant roots seek water...and grow in that direction, while stems, branches and leafs seek the Sun, and so they'll grow all cock-eyed, twisted and distorted around obstacles like other trees, rock outcrops and what not in an attempt to find the Sun (and those that don't get Darwin'd). Animals seek things....and so do people, whether its food, shelter, water, clothing, companionship, a purpose in life or whatever.

The Planets do the same.

Planets are constantly seeking to join with, or aspect another Planet -- for good or bad.

Going back to Planetary Order & Speed, Moon seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets....and some people wonder why the Moon represents change or instability.

Referring again to Planetary Order & Speed, on the other side of the spectrum sits Saturn who -- like all other Planets --- seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets...except that Saturn cannot...

....and some people wonder why Saturn signifies stability, a lack of change, things that are old, oneness, aloneness, things that are solitary, things that are fixed....and that's what he does when he's in a good mood....otherwise Saturn destroys, delays, hinders and corrupts everything.

So what does that say about a Planet that seeks to join with or make aspects to other Planets, but cannot do so in the Sign it is in?

Paul_ said:
Al Qabisi describes it, translated by Dykes, as "And if a planet were in some sign, and another planet did not look at this sign so long as it were in it, it is said to be wild[feral]"

Al Biruni says "When a planet is in a sign and no other planet has been in aspect with it from the time of its entry to that of its exit, it is said to be feral in its course."

But notice that there's no concept of the feral planet having to apply, the key distinction is that it is isolated and alone, it is abandoned and in solitude. Therefore the distinction is that during its time in a given sign, it meets with no other planets (by their aspect or conjunction).

It's clear that at some point in the distant past, Sun & Moon were "Lights" while Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter & Saturn were "Planets."

At some later point, this distinction between the Lights and the Planets became blurred. I believe this is one reason the doctrines related to Sect became corrupted. You can see that in continuous references to the Sect Light or Light of the Sect. Yes, each Sect has a Light, but the Sect Light is not automatically the Sect Ruler --- that would violate numerous doctrines, which more or less show that the most powerful Planet of that Sect should be Sect Ruler, meaning between Sun, Jupiter & Saturn, anyone of those three could actually be the Sect Ruler depending on their condition and placement.

Anyway, it would appear as if the Lights were treated differently than the 5 Planets (I'm working on tracing that back).

If we take that track, then if Moon can be Feral, so can Sun, since both are Lights.

Paul_ said:
The Arabs note that it happens more often with the Moon, but in the earlier tradition (granted it wasn't always clear if it means the next 30 degrees, or the sign) we see that concepts like these are only really applied to the Moon anyway. We don't see examples of a feral/wild Sun or Mars for example.

If it is rare, then we wouldn't expect to see many examples.

Paul_ said:
This is just my $0.02, for me, it's clear that the spirit behind the meaning of a wild planet is one which is utterly abandoned during its time in a sign, and this only really happens to the Moon, certainly in this case the Moon will make an aspect to the Sun (or several) before it leaves the sign, so for me, this is not a wild/feral planet.

It's possible for people to go overboard with that.

For me, I limit Natal Charts to the current Sign. "What is this Planet doing in this Sign right now, and what will it do while in this Sign?"

A Planet in a given Sign is applying (seeking) the aspect of another Planet, or it isn't, and if it is, then either it perfects or does not.

Another Planet is either in an applying aspect to the Planet [in focus] or not, and if it is in aspect, then either it perfects or does not.

In this Chart, the Sun makes no aspects in Cancer, and none of the other Planets will make aspects to Sun in their present Signs.

Paul_ said:
Just a tangent, but why is that absurd? It's not uncommon to see the orb of the Sun as 15 degrees in medieval literature.

No one said Medieval people had Big Brains.

Paul_ said:
Right, but I don't think I said it was an aspect, so I'm not sure if that was just as a by the way, or in reference to something I wrote. I said "joined by body". This is in reference to your stating that they didn't allow out of sign aspects even when the 'aspect' is a 'conjunction'.

I know that you know, but I said that for the benefit of others who might have some bizarre ideas about aspects.

Paul_ said:
Clearly showing that Sahl allows planets to perfect provided they enter into orb with one another in a given sign, and perfect with one another, even if they do so in the next sign. This isn't quite the same thing of course, but it's interesting and worth bringing up maybe.

Both Zael and Masha-allah say that a conjunction is "by degree" meaning that two Planets are conjunct only when they are in the same Degree.

Zael also says that once the lighter Planet (here Sun) moves off by 1° then the conjunction is no more...they have separated.

Both Zael and Masha-allah agree that for aspects (which do not include conjunctions) the lighter Planet has separated once it reaches half of half its orb.

According to Zael then, Sun's orb is 30° and its half orb is 15° so in an applying aspect -- a sextile, square, trine or opposition -- to Mars, Jupiter or Saturn he says Sun is joined at 15° applying, then the aspect perfects, then Sun separates at half of its half-orb once it is 7.5° past Mars, Jupiter or Saturn.

Paul_ said:
Yes Schmidt runs project hindsight. I wonder if you could provide a quote or a rationale? I have never heard that only the superiors can make a phasis, and, to me, it makes no sense - clearly astronomically the inferior planets can make a phasis - they just need to be able to heliacally rise or set.

Never mind. In hindsight, Schmidt would never say something as silly as that. I had to dig up the paper I had been working on to refute the claims of some idiots who create non-existent problems and then try to attack them (a Straw Man) and I was actually using a quote from Zoller who said it was more important to note what Medieval astrologers did, instead of [the Hellenists] speculating on what the Medieval astrologers might have done.

tsmall said:
My thought is that it wouldn't matter if the aspect perfects or completes in the next sign, because of the planets witnessing each other one will be applying ~that is seeking to join in aspect~ to the other no matter how far apart they are. This eliminates the notion of loss of hope and gives us more interpretive meaning. Whether or not the aspect will perfect gives us more interpretive meaning still.

Uh, I'll have to think about that.

Yes, the Planets all seek to join or aspect another for good or bad, but having done so, and completed whatever was they were doing, one moves off by separating.

There's nothing wrong with that...except for people who refuse to recognize that conjunctions are not aspects (because they butcher the interpretation).

When Planets are in aspect, they are in different Signs, and thus different Houses, and so they have differing agendas (good or bad), and that's where pushing management, power and nature, plus Reception (and location --- left vs right) tells you who comes out on top (as far as gaining the upper had with their agenda).

With a conjunction, the Planets are in the same Sign, and so in the same House, and so they have the same purpose/agenda (good or bad).

When Planets separate in aspect, that's it....the story's over.

When Planets separate from a conjunction --- it ain't over 'til its over.

Why? Because the conjunct Planets are in the same Sign, and so when they separate, they are still assembled for the same purpose.....so long as they are within 12° or 15° (depending on the authority) of each other in the same Sign.

Understanding that allows to understand why a Planet in aspect that separates and is VOC has abandoned its cause....and that is different from a Planet that conjuncts and moves off, but has not abandoned its cause since it is still assembled with one or more Planets in the same Sign for the same purpose.

Can a conjunct Planet become Void?

Sure. Moon, Mercury or Venus conjunct one of the Superiors early in the Sign can separate, still be assembled for the same purpose, until it reaches the limit of assembly, and then if no further conjunctions or aspects are made, the Planet is VOC.

And that tells a different story.

Two Planets conjunct, one moves off, yet remains assembled until it exits the Sign, versus two Planets conjunct, one moves off remaining assembled, and then becomes VOC before exiting the Sign.

In the latter, the Planet "abandoned all hope" while in the former, the Planet continued serving its purpose until it changed Signs.

That's why we say in Electional, Horary and Mundane that the matter comes to nothing when the Moon is VOC, because it signifies the Querent gave up (or will give up), or in Mundane Charts where the issue is ultimately abandoned.

tsmall said:
So a planet can be void in a sign even if another planet occupies the same sign in an earlier degree. And that will have a certain interpretation attached to it, because even though the planet is currently void, it may still be assembled with the planet it is disregarding (conjunction by sign), or still able to witness (aspect by sign.) Meaning that empty of course does not automatically confer wildness or annulment.

Uh, okay, I guess I should start reading the entire thread/post first.

tsmall said:
So what we have here are actually two different ideas. One is emptiness, and the other is wildness.

A wild planet then isn't necessarily empty of course (and in physical fact using the strict Greek definition of empty completely impossible for any planet other than the Moon.)

The key here isn't an argument about who said what when, but identifying and understanding how to interpret a planet's significations in a chart.

I have an issue with the definitions, too.

Sure, Planets can seek to join or aspect others, but why can't a Planet seek solitude?

tsmall said:
As Bob mentioned, there is in this chart no planet that impedes the Sun, likewise no planet that helps it. It doesn't take away from it's ability to act as much as it can for being in the 12th house at any rate) and it will still cast its rays into the houses it can regard. That too is a feature of planetary physics.

Again, we have to ask what is actually negative here?

Alnilam with Mercury: hasty, quick temper, quarrels with associates, domestic disharmony through actions, troubles through writings and opposite sex. (Robson).

Alnilam and Mercury culminate at 84°03' and 84°22' respectively.

But that's Mercury not Sun.

Contrary to popular belief, the Lights do not need to be Angular to be famous.

One can be a president, like Truman, who had Moon/Sun opposition on the 2/8 Axis....meaning Sun and Moon were in aversion to the Ascendant; or Reagan who had a 3rd House Sun and 6th House Moon --- more proof the Sect Light does not need to aspect the Ascendant; and "W" had a 12th House Cancer Sun, Leo Ascendant and 3rd House Moon.

Really, the only thing bad here is the Sun's Dispositor Moon, who is in Aquarius -- Sun's Detriment. Normally, the Ascendant Ruler in the 12th indicates self-destruction, but that's typically the case when the Ruler is afflicted or impeded, or otherwise in bad condition (like being in Detriment/Fall). Aside from that, 12th House Sun protect against powerful enemies, provided the Sun is competent (and if not, then aided by Venus/Jupiter). Sun is plenty competent here, and trouble will probably come from Aquarius Moon in the 7th -- [business partners, associates, legal actions, competitors and open enemies] and that will be associated with groups (Saturn in Gemini 11th).

.

Paul_ · Aug 12, 2013

BobZemco said:
Sun can never aspect Moon, Mercury or Venus, but they may aspect Sun

Right, hence it is about definition - according to your implicit definition the importance rests upon the planet which is applying. But according to my understanding as per the quotes I've provided that caveat is not stipulated. Hence it is a matter of definition.

But that's illogical.

It is not, it is a direct extension of the fact that the Moon is the swiftest planet - not just by a little bit. By extension of that logic it is the only one which, realistically, is likely to be feral (by the definition as I understand it). It is not a case of illogic but rather a case of not being more careful in understanding the definition I've described and the conclusions which arise from that.

...Moon-Mercury-Venus-Sun-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn...

I beat people up with that to no end. It's really important for those starting out in Astrology, if for no other reason than it helps in correctly delineating aspects.

Why do you beat people up over it, and what relevance does it have upon my basic point? I'm not sure you actually have understood it if you are responding with this - not a criticism, just being honest. I'm already very much familiar with the order of speed of the planets so I'm not sure whether you are, again, providing this for the greater benefit of others who may not, or if it directly affects the points I've made.

The point you're missing is that application is not the key criterion. Nowhere in the definitions I've provided is applicaiton mentioned nor implied. In fact the opposite is clearly implied that the planet must be in a given sign and be alone and without connections during its tenure in that sign.

I guess I can make this simpler and ask for which source explicitly dictates that the feral planets are dependent upon whether or not they APPLY in a given sign?

There are none that I am familiar with.

If we take that track, then if Moon can be Feral, so can Sun, since both are Lights.

Now this is utterly illogical as it presupposes that the doctrine of ferality is directly dependent or related to the doctrine of sect. It isn't. There is no propagation of logic flowing from sect to ferality so it's a non-sequitor to point out issues pertaining to sect.

For me, I limit Natal Charts to the current Sign. "What is this Planet doing in this Sign right now, and what will it do while in this Sign?"

Right, and that's fine. I don't mind that at all.

What I'm trying to point out is that whether or not you yourself do it this way, the concept of ferality is not what OTHER planets are doing in their sign, but what is happening to the feral planet whilst it is in that sign - will it meet other planets? If not - it's feral.

Obviously others did use out of sign aspects which is what I was showing with my quotes previous to this. So whilst I understand and respect your own personal preference to not do so, my point in posting was to put a question mark over the statement that "it is clear they do not use out of sign aspects" because clearly that is not true, as per some of the examples given, and I can find some more if necessary.

What is clear, is that, like with us today, astrologers through the ages have not always been utterly unanimous in everything they did, and some used out of sign aspects and some did not.

The obvious ones are people like Ibn Ezra and Morinus who are more explicit about it. And those like MassaAllah who are less so but clearly also did allow for out of sign aspects (or at least conjunctions) and then the conditional types like Sahl, who note what happens after planets change signs.

No one said Medieval people had Big Brains.

Right but in this case it isn't really the Medieval people, it's through the entire tradition back to the Hellenistic astrologers and beyond into Babylonia.

Anyway I just wanted to put a question mark over some of the sureties given in your earlier post, and I've done that now and provided my rationale. I stand firm until shown otherwise that the key criterion of ferality is not in whether a planet is in applying aspect or not, but rather whether a planet is alone and disengaged through a given sign.

JUPITERASC · Aug 12, 2013

BobZemco said:
Sun never made an aspect in Cancer.

Sun can only aspect 3 Planets: Mars, Jupiter & Saturn.

Sun joined Jupiter at 23° Gemini, and then Sun separated from Jupiter. Having done so, Sun has disregarded Jupiter and is no longer in aspect.

Retrograde Mercury joined Sun, then separated, blocked Jupiter, and then joined Jupiter.

Moon joined Mercury, then Jupiter, then Sun.

Many Greeks and Egyptians would use a 3° orb, in which case Sun is not in aspect. Still others would use a 6° orb, and so Sun is not in aspect. Even with a 12° orb --- and that's pushing the limits of absurdity --- Sun is not in aspect.

What we're looking at is the action of the Feral Planet, not how other Planets act on the Feral Planet.

Since Sun entered Cancer, Sun has not, and will not make any applying aspects to any Planets -- that, plus the fact that Sun is in aversion to nearly everything in the chart (except the MC -- which isn't a Planet) makes Sun Feral.

I suppose if people want to get technical, there was a New Moon at 0° Cancer 10', but that isn't addressed in the texts.

But I believe Zael considers a Planet within 5° of the Cusp to be in the succeeding House anyway, so that would make sense.

A conjunction is not an aspect -- it's two bodies being joined, which is not the same as an aspect. I'll have to look at Zael and think about that.

Well, actually in Introduction Zael says a "conjunction" is two bodies within 12° in the same Sign. I'll have to think about that, too, because most authorities consider an Assembly when two [or more] Planets are within 15° in the same Sign, so now I'm wondering what Zael actually meant.

So we're focusing on the action of the Feral planet and NOT how other planets act on the feral planet

That's an interesting distinction - thanks :smile:

JUPITERASC · Aug 12, 2013

BobZemco said:
Not really....Sun can never aspect Moon, Mercury or Venus, but they may aspect Sun.

Even when Mercury or Venus are Retrograde, Sun can never make an applying aspect to them, rather they have changed direction and are applying to Sun.

Sun makes no aspects, which makes it Void of Course, and since no Planets are looking at Sun

-- being in aversion to all other Planets (not to mention the Asc/Dsc and Lot of Fortune) --

that makes it Feral.....

So for the particular chart in this case, the sun is Feral then

BobZemco said:
..........What does everything in this Universe do?

It seeks.

Water seeks its own level. Water also seeks equilibrium as do gases, plasmas and colloids. Rocks seek? Sure. Rocks seek to be at rest, or to resist the forces of gravity. Plants seek. Plant roots seek water...and grow in that direction, while stems, branches and leafs seek the Sun, and so they'll grow all cock-eyed, twisted and distorted around obstacles like other trees, rock outcrops and what not in an attempt to find the Sun (and those that don't get Darwin'd). Animals seek things....and so do people, whether its food, shelter, water, clothing, companionship, a purpose in life or whatever.

The Planets do the same.

Planets are constantly seeking to join with, or aspect another Planet -- for good or bad.

Going back to Planetary Order & Speed, Moon seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets....and some people wonder why the Moon represents change or instability.

Referring again to Planetary Order & Speed, on the other side of the spectrum sits Saturn who -- like all other Planets --- seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets...except that Saturn cannot...

....and some people wonder why Saturn signifies stability, a lack of change, things that are old, oneness, aloneness, things that are solitary, things that are fixed....and that's what he does when he's in a good mood....otherwise Saturn destroys, delays, hinders and corrupts everything.

So what does that say about a Planet that seeks to join with or make aspects to other Planets, but cannot do so in the Sign it is in?.............

...............Yes, the Planets all seek to join or aspect another for good or bad, but having done so, and completed whatever was they were doing, one moves off by separating.

There's nothing wrong with that...except for people who refuse to recognize that conjunctions are not aspects (because they butcher the interpretation).

When Planets are in aspect, they are in different Signs, and thus different Houses, and so they have differing agendas (good or bad), and that's where pushing management, power and nature, plus Reception (and location --- left vs right) tells you who comes out on top (as far as gaining the upper had with their agenda).

With a conjunction, the Planets are in the same Sign, and so in the same House, and so they have the same purpose/agenda (good or bad).

When Planets separate in aspect, that's it....the story's over.

When Planets separate from a conjunction --- it ain't over 'til its over.

Why? Because the conjunct Planets are in the same Sign, and so when they separate, they are still assembled for the same purpose.....so long as they are within 12° or 15° (depending on the authority) of each other in the same Sign.

Understanding that allows to understand why a Planet in aspect that separates and is VOC has abandoned its cause....and that is different from a Planet that conjuncts and moves off, but has not abandoned its cause since it is still assembled with one or more Planets in the same Sign for the same purpose.

Can a conjunct Planet become Void?

Sure. Moon, Mercury or Venus conjunct one of the Superiors early in the Sign can separate, still be assembled for the same purpose, until it reaches the limit of assembly, and then if no further conjunctions or aspects are made, the Planet is VOC.

And that tells a different story.

Two Planets conjunct, one moves off, yet remains assembled until it exits the Sign, versus two Planets conjunct, one moves off remaining assembled, and then becomes VOC before exiting the Sign.

In the latter, the Planet "abandoned all hope" while in the former, the Planet continued serving its purpose until it changed Signs.

That's why we say in Electional, Horary and Mundane that the matter comes to nothing when the Moon is VOC, because it signifies the Querent gave up (or will give up), or in Mundane Charts where the issue is ultimately abandoned....................

..............I have an issue with the definitions, too.

Sure, Planets can seek to join or aspect others, but why can't a Planet seek solitude?................

Again, we have to ask what is actually negative here?

............Alnilam with Mercury: hasty, quick temper, quarrels with associates, domestic disharmony through actions, troubles through writings and opposite sex. (Robson).

Alnilam and Mercury culminate at 84°03' and 84°22' respectively.

But that's Mercury not Sun.

Contrary to popular belief, the Lights do not need to be Angular to be famous.

One can be a president, like Truman, who had Moon/Sun opposition on the 2/8 Axis....meaning Sun and Moon were in aversion to the Ascendant; or Reagan who had a 3rd House Sun and 6th House Moon --- more proof the Sect Light does not need to aspect the Ascendant; and "W" had a 12th House Cancer Sun, Leo Ascendant and 3rd House Moon.

Really, the only thing bad here is the Sun's Dispositor Moon, who is in Aquarius -- Sun's Detriment. Normally, the Ascendant Ruler in the 12th indicates self-destruction, but that's typically the case when the Ruler is afflicted or impeded, or otherwise in bad condition (like being in Detriment/Fall). Aside from that, 12th House Sun protect against powerful enemies, provided the Sun is competent (and if not, then aided by Venus/Jupiter). Sun is plenty competent here, and trouble will probably come from Aquarius Moon in the 7th -- [business partners, associates, legal actions, competitors and open enemies] and that will be associated with groups (Saturn in Gemini 11th)..............

Useful insights - many thanks

BobZemco said:
..........It's clear that at some point in the distant past, Sun & Moon were "Lights" while Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter & Saturn were "Planets."

At some later point, this distinction between the Lights and the Planets became blurred. I believe this is one reason the doctrines related to Sect became corrupted. You can see that in continuous references to the Sect Light or Light of the Sect. Yes, each Sect has a Light, but the Sect Light is not automatically the Sect Ruler --- that would violate numerous doctrines, which more or less show that the most powerful Planet of that Sect should be Sect Ruler, meaning between Sun, Jupiter & Saturn, anyone of those three could actually be the Sect Ruler depending on their condition and placement.

Anyway, it would appear as if the Lights were treated differently than the 5 Planets (I'm working on tracing that back).

If we take that track, then if Moon can be Feral, so can Sun, since both are Lights..............

.........For me, I limit Natal Charts to the current Sign. "What is this Planet doing in this Sign right now, and what will it do while in this Sign?"

A Planet in a given Sign is applying (seeking) the aspect of another Planet, or it isn't, and if it is, then either it perfects or does not.

Another Planet is either in an applying aspect to the Planet [in focus] or not, and if it is in aspect, then either it perfects or does not.

In this Chart, the Sun makes no aspects in Cancer, and none of the other Planets will make aspects to Sun in their present Signs.................

.................Both Zael and Masha-allah say that a conjunction is "by degree" meaning that two Planets are conjunct only when they are in the same Degree.

Zael also says that once the lighter Planet (here Sun) moves off by 1° then the conjunction is no more...they have separated.

Both Zael and Masha-allah agree that for aspects (which do not include conjunctions) the lighter Planet has separated once it reaches half of half its orb.

According to Zael then, Sun's orb is 30° and its half orb is 15° so in an applying aspect -- a sextile, square, trine or opposition -- to Mars, Jupiter or Saturn he says Sun is joined at 15° applying, then the aspect perfects, then Sun separates at half of its half-orb once it is 7.5° past Mars, Jupiter or Saturn................

The morphing of astrological techniques over the centuries
due to misunderstanding
as well as mistranslation et al
explains the confusion and generally apparently conflicting ideas - thanks

I'm particularly interested regarding your researches on the blurring of the Sect doctrine

Paul_ · Aug 12, 2013

JUPITERASC said:
So we're focusing on the action of the Feral planet and NOT how other planets act on the feral planet

That's an interesting distinction - thanks

Right, Bob focuses on what the Feral planet is doing - I don't believe this is reflective of the tradition, as per my points made.

I would be interested if anyone can provide a quote that backs up this idea though.

Instead I think it's clear that the distinction is on whether or not a planet in a given sign engages with any aspects during its time there. Of course originally this was with the Moon, so in practical terms, with the Moon, this is indistinguishable from application as nothing applies to the Moon. But when we examine what we mean by ferality and the definitions used we see clearly that the ethos is that the planet is abandoned and solitary during a given sign - which means that it does not engage with any other planets.

tsmall · Aug 13, 2013

Paul, I apologize that I don't/haven't had time recently to reply thouroughly to your post. I've been buried in legal work and work work.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64722

Briefly, the point I was trying to make was that the definition you gave of feral or wild (the Hellenistic one) was the same that was used for void of course. And I don't think they are the same.

Bob, I think the idea that a planet may actually seek solititude is a wonderful one.

Paul_ · Aug 13, 2013

tsmall said:
Paul, I apologize that I don't/haven't had time recently to reply thouroughly to your post. I've been buried in legal work and work work.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64722

Briefly, the point I was trying to make was that the definition you gave of feral or wild (the Hellenistic one) was the same that was used for void of course. And I don't think they are the same.

Bob, I think the idea that a planet may actually seek solititude is a wonderful one.

It confuses me that this is such a debatable issue. The definition I gave is of wildness/ferality not of being void of course.

A simpler definition for each -

Void: When the Moon has separated from her last aspect and applies to no other aspect during its current sign.

Feral: When the Moon has NEVER had an aspect in a given sign, and has not been attached to any planet so long as it is in that sign.

The two are not the same, and nor am I saying they are the same. The definitions I am giving, and am quoting from others, is that of being wild/feral.

The distinction that Bob makes, which I am disagreeing with, is that the planet needs to not apply to be considered feral, but my understanding is that it not only need not apply, but nothing can apply to it either. It has to be completely alone and aspectless and not regarding or being regarded by any planet during its time in that sign.

Obviously this is not void of course, so I'm not sure where the confusion lies. One, void of course, means not making any more applications during a given sign, the other, wildness, means never having been in aspect during a given sign.

I hope this clarifies things more.

tsmall · Aug 13, 2013

Paul_ said:
It confuses me that this is such a debatable issue. The definition I gave is of wildness/ferality not of being void of course.

A simpler definition for each -

Void: When the Moon has separated from her last aspect and applies to no other aspect during its current sign.

Feral: When the Moon has NEVER had an aspect in a given sign, and has not been attached to any planet so long as it is in that sign.

The two are not the same, and nor am I saying they are the same. The definitions I am giving, and am quoting from others, is that of being wild/feral.

Is Mercury retrograde?

In all seriousness, no it doesn't clear it up unless the astrologer or <ahem> student is sticking strictly to Hellenstic methods. If you are able to lay hands on IA it would be easier to point to exactly what I mean...and if I had an hour or more I might be better able to express myself, so again I apologize.

Paul_ said:
Obviously this is not void of course, so I'm not sure where the confusion lies. One, void of course, means not making any more applications during a given sign, the other, wildness, means never having been in aspect during a given sign.

I hope this clarifies things more.

It does, if you remove the stricture that this may only happen to the Moon. Do you see what I mean?

To make sure I understand your argument (because if you go back and read my OP, I did give two reasons I could think of that would negate a feral Moon in this particular chart. The first was that when the Sun entered Cancer it was still separating from Jupiter. The second was that within 7 days of the nativity the Moon would again aspect the Sun.

Which circles us back to the question of out of sign aspects.

And no, I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just trying to understand.

Paul_ · Aug 14, 2013

tsmall said:
Is Mercury retrograde?

lol I'm starting to feel the same. Let's try again...

In all seriousness, no it doesn't clear it up unless the astrologer or <ahem> student is sticking strictly to Hellenstic methods. If you are able to lay hands on IA it would be easier to point to exactly what I mean...and if I had an hour or more I might be better able to express myself, so again I apologize.

I have IA, I thought one of my quotes as taken from it (earlier in the thread). But I'll have a look again tonight. My definition is not strictly hellenistic though - if it were it would be more focused upon what the Moon is doing in the next 30 degrees rather than the next sign. The only thing that stays true to the earlier ethos is that, by extension of common sense, the only planet that can be feral is really the Moon. This is because she's so quick moving.

My definitions though are the same as you would find in Arabic sources.

The first was that when the Sun entered Cancer it was still separating from Jupiter. The second was that within 7 days of the nativity the Moon would again aspect the Sun.

Right, in much less than 7 days probably. But in considering the Moon aspecting the Sun, you're going with my own definition that whether the feral planet applies is not the important criterion.

It's really simple so I'm surprised that this is so confused here - if a planet is utterly alone whilst it is in a sign, it is feral. By alone I mean not making any contact with any other planet - either by applying to any other planets, or by other planets applying to it.

That is the definition of a feral planet. I will get the IA out when I have a chance and will provide those quotes, but I am 100% confident that they will match what I'm saying.

As I said earlier, it would be better to find a definition, ANYWHERE, through the tradition, that suggests ferality is dependent upon whether the planet applies.

Of course by extension of the logic implied by the definition, the ONLY planet which can be feral is the Moon. It changes sign every 2 days or so, and no other planet comes even close to that kind of speed. Therefore every second day or third day she'll change sign and as she does so she'll come into an aspectual relationship with a new set of signs. The important thing to think about here is that there are no two signs side by side which are in aversion to the same point. Therefore if you're not aspecting a planet in your current sign, you WILL be when you change sign.

For simplicity, consider Aries as the first sign the Moon is in. It is making an aspectual relationship to Gemini and Aquarius by sextile, Cancer and Capricorn by square, Sagittarius and Leo by Trine, Libra by opposition - and obviously in Aries it makes the conjunction.

So when the Moon or any other planet is in Aries, the only signs it does not form an aspectual relationship with are Taurus, Pisces, Virgo and Scorpio.

When the Moon changes sign to Taurus, it will obviously conjunct Taurus, sextile Pisces, trine Virgo and opposition Scorpio.

Therefore if the Moon isn't aspecting the sign today, it will aspect it in two to three days.

Therefore the Moon is the only planet that can be feral, because no other planet can leave a sign that quickly, and so the Moon realistically is the only one who COULD stay in a sign and not form any aspects with any other planet during that sign.

Does this make sense?

The definition, even in the Arabic world, allows for ANY planet to, in theory, be feral. But, in practice, ONLY the Moon physically can be due to her dominance in speed.

Which circles us back to the question of out of sign aspects.

And no, I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just trying to understand.

Right, and this, for me, is the only thing worth debating. I genuinely think Bob's view of ferality relating to applying aspects only is just a misunderstanding of the traditional texts, but also of the ethos of what ferality is all about - it is about being utterly abandoned by the rest of the planets.

So the only question, for me, is whether or not we allow the Moon to make out of sign aspects and, as I was saying to Bob, the tradition is not as clear cut on this as he was implying. I've given some examples of those astrologers which clearly allow for out of sign aspects, some which clearly don't, others who only allow for the conjunction. It is not clear.

For me, we can indeed get a better picture by examining what astrologers do with the planets generally (outside of the context of a feral Moon) and I'm leaning toward the spirit behind the idea being more that if still in orb of a given planet, then you haven't FULLY disregarded it - but this is debatable and I change my mind on it regularly, I think separation can show a disregarding, rather than a disregard - you're turning away from the planet rather than being utterly with your back to it.

Similarly as it approaches the end of a sign, if another planet falls within its orb, then clearly its not entirely alone. It is like being stuck on a dessert island and you see a boat coming toward you - you are technically alone, but the feeling of isolation is somewhat lifted.

What I would to do in practice is that, on those rare enough occasions where the Moon is not PERFECTING any aspects during a given sign, I'd roughly consider it feral, but I especially consider it feral if it's separated by 3 degrees from its previous aspect and no other planet even comes into orb with it during that sign.

Konrad · Aug 14, 2013

If any of you would like to put your theories to the test, I have a chart of what (may) be a feral Moon.

I can't give the birth details, but this is in the Ptolemaic Tropical zodiac and I know the person very well, so I can 'yay' or 'nay' your delineations of this Moon.

Venus is at 0 deg 02 of Pisces by the way.

Here is a link to a bigger size of the image if you can't see it: http://s9.postimg.org/tnb1v2zsf/trad.png

Paul_ · Aug 14, 2013

tsmall said:
ss the astrologer or <ahem> student is sticking strictly to Hellenstic methods. If you are able to lay hands on IA it would be easier to point to exactly what I mean...and if I had an hour or more I might be better able to express myself, so again I apologize.

Right, I have it and I've double checked and I am just as confident in my view as ever before. I've taken a copy of the relevant pages to my phone so if there' something you want to address in particular which you think disagrees with my definition then I can follow any points you wish to make.

BobZemco · Aug 14, 2013

tsmall said:
To make sure I understand your argument (because if you go back and read my OP, I did give two reasons I could think of that would negate a feral Moon in this particular chart. The first was that when the Sun entered Cancer it was still separating from Jupiter. The second was that within 7 days of the nativity the Moon would again aspect the Sun.

Which circles us back to the question of out of sign aspects.

Yes, I remember.

It highlights the difference between an aspect and a conjunction.

When two Planets are in aspect, they are in different Signs and Houses, and so they have differing agendas.

When two Planets are conjunct, they are in the same Sign and House and have the same agenda, working toward the same purpose.

That means there's a difference in interpretation when a Planet disregards or separates from another. The reason is that for a conjunction, when one Planet separates, both Planets are still assembled in the same Sign/House and working toward the same goal, albeit separately instead of jointly.

That also means that with a conjunction, there are two possibilities...

1] a Planet can separate from a conjunction, remain assembled and then exit the Sign, or

2] a Planet can separate from a conjunction, remain assembled, then become Void of Course, and then exit the Sign.

The symbolism there is quite different.

View that in the context of a Planet separating from an aspect or a conjunction, then ultimately being Void of Course, and then going Feral, versus a Planet that is conjunct, separates, remains assembled, exits the Sign and then becomes Feral, without ever being Void of Course.

Concerning "Out-of-Sign" aspects...

1] Conjunctions are by Degree. By definition, two Planets cannot be conjunct unless they are in the same Degree (although I actually consider within 60' of arc). That precludes the possibility of an "Out-of-Sign" conjunction. A Planet can certainly be in another Sign and in an applying orb to a conjunction, but that is not the same thing as being assembled, or being conjunct. Since many use the 5° Cusp Rule and so would consider a Planet applying to conjunction to be in the same Sign anyway, that doesn't really matter.

2] You can say the same thing for aspects, and then modify that for the orbs you use for aspects. Again, if you use the 5° Rule, it doesn't much matter.

I consider Moiety Orb to be "seeking" and then use 3° for the Inferiors and 6° for the Superiors (or an Inferior applying to a Superior).

Myself, I find the 5° Rule to be silly and contradictory. It's claimed a Planet has no power until it is "firm" in the Sign, so I don't see why a Planet at 28° Anything should be considered to be in the succeeding Sign, since it doesn't have any power/effect anyway. That's sort of like opening the garage door after you drive your car through the garage door.

Paul_ said:
It's really simple so I'm surprised that this is so confused here - if a planet is utterly alone whilst it is in a sign, it is feral.

Then Sun is Feral by your definition.

Paul_ said:
By alone I mean not making any contact with any other planet - either by applying to any other planets, or by other planets applying to it.

Then, once again, Sun is Feral by your definition.

Paul_ said:
As I said earlier, it would be better to find a definition, ANYWHERE, through the tradition, that suggests ferality is dependent upon whether the planet applies.

Morin says a Planet is Feral if no other Planets are in aspect, and that includes Sign Aspect.

Abu-Bakr mentions a Peregrine Retrograde Saturn being Feral in the 7th.

I suppose the real question is how much time did they actually spend looking at an Ephemeris?

Not much. I don't waste time on machts nichts technicalities, and I don't think they did either....they pretty much took the chart at face value.

If you look at things like the Determination of Births, they don't go waltzing forward and backward through the Ephemeris. Same with choosing the Hyleg.

You cast a chart, and whatever is there is there. In this Chart, Sun is in aversion to all Planets...so it is Feral.

I have no interest in the intricacies of technical exactitude, but I am very much interested in the symbolism, and that's what I go by.

To that end, I note Mercury is in Moiety Orb with Jupiter, and therefore seeking to join Jupiter. Does Mercury perfect the conjunction before Jupiter leaves Gemini?

Yes. But if that would not be true....if Jupiter escaped into Cancer before Mercury perfected, that has a [negative] meaning unto itself...symbolically.

Same with Retrograde Mars --- within 8° Moiety -- seeking the opposition of Saturn. Does that aspect perfect? Flipping through the Ephemeris, no, it never perfects, because Mars goes On-Station, then goes Direct.

It isn't the technical exactitude here, it's the [positive] symbolism that Mars never perfects.

Jupiter is not applying to a conjunction of Sun. Sun was joined with Jupiter, sepearted, remained assembled with Jupiter, and then changed Signs, and no longer has any relationship with Jupiter.

My interest in Sun's past activities, including the conjunction with Moon are only to help determine what kind of Feral Sun, not if the Sun is Feral.

None of this really matters, because according to Morin, Feral Planets denote something unusual -- good or bad --- but apparently that doesn't matter since Sun is Peregrine. Morin says a Feral Planet only really manifest when they are in Domicile/Exalted or in Detriment/Fall, or otherwise in poor condition. I would take that to be similar to Abu-Bakr's concept of a Peregrine Retrograde Planet being Feral.

Paul_ · Aug 15, 2013

BobZemco said:
Then Sun is Feral by your definition.
...
Then, once again, Sun is Feral by your definition.

Nope, and once again I can only express surprise and confusion that my definition is not being clearly understood. I really don't know how I can say it any simpler than I already have.

If a planet aspects or is aspected by ANY OTHER PLANET during its time in a sign, then it is not feral.

The sun is being aspected multiple times by the Moon during the course of the Sun's time in its sign. Ergo the sun is not feral.

It is not complicated, it is very simple. By my definition, the Sun is not feral directly because the Sun is not in its sign unaspected. The Moon will aspect it.

I completely disagree with you that the ancients did not check ephemerides - many techniques such as refranation or prohibition can directly require knowledge of the future movements of planets, however, even if they did or did not, it is UTTERLY irrelevant to this discussion. One does not ever need to glance at an ephemeris to know that the Moon will make multiple aspects to the Sun due to the Moon's speed.

The definition itself implicitly dictates that one must take into account the future happenings of the planet in question when it suggests that the concept needs to apply for the entire sign - not just the moment of the chart, but it's entire sojourn in a sign which includes its future stay there.

As I said to tsmall, if the Moon doesn't aspect you today, it will aspect you within two days. The Sun, obviously, cannot move in and out of a sign in less time than that. Nothing can. Only the Moon can move that quickly. Therefore these concepts, implicitly, only really in practice relate to the Moon. Only it can be feral, because everything else would be aspected by the moon before it can leave the sign.

Assembly and so on are not relevant to that.

None of the definitions you've quoted suggests that:
"In this Chart, Sun is in aversion to all Planets...so it is Feral."

Nowhere is there a definition that indicates that ferality is dictated upon whether or not a given planet is in aversion to the others for an isolated moment. Nowhere. This is simply not a true definition of how the ancients understood ferality.

The definitions I have provided and quoted from, and even those which you have quoted from, never say this anywhere. This may be ferality as per BobZemco, but it is not ferality as per the greater tradition.

I have no interest in the intricacies of technical exactitude, but I am very much interested in the symbolism, and that's what I go by.

Right, but this confuses me even more now, because it is the symoblism that is important. The symbolism is in whether or not a planet is ABANDONED in a sign - nothing meets it, it meets nothing. It is like a person abandoned on a dessert island, becoming wild in nature because it is so disconnected from everyone else. The entire ethos and spirt of what ferality brings to a planet is that during its time under a certain condition - ie, the sign in which it is in - nothing interacts with that planet. By extension of even understanding that symbolism we can see that whether or not the planet applies is not important.

Now, when a planet is completely unaspected, well that's important too, and it will be something akin to what we're discussing here - a not too distant neighbour, but it is not ferality.

Btw you later contradict yourself with regards the notion that the ancients only cared for the chart as they saw it right there and then, and not any future aspects which would require checking an ephemeris, when, confusingly, you then go on to give an example of Mercury seeking to join Jupiter - the only way you know if there is frustration is by explicitly checking an ephemeris. Similarly the only way to know if refranation occurs with the retrograde mars in your example is similarly to check an ephemeris.

Just take that same logic and see if anything enters aspect with the Moon during a sign, it's not going to take any flipping back and forth - you can see it pretty quickly. It also does not require any technical minutiae - I would worry about anyone who found technically unfeasible to check at a maximum four or five rows in an ephemeris. When we look to refranation and prohibition etc. we often have to look several days in advance because of the slower movements of the other planets. The Moon moves QUICKLY, you only have to look at the very most a couple of days before and after the current day. It's actually LESS work than looking for the refranation of Mars or the frustration with the Mercury Jupiter example.

But, as I say, either way, you do not actually NEED to even use an ephemeris in this example, just know the relative speeds of the planets. Of course, it never hurts to double check one.

Morin says a Feral Planet only really manifest when they are in Domicile/Exalted or in Detriment/Fall, or otherwise in poor condition. I would take that to be similar to Abu-Bakr's concept of a Peregrine Retrograde Planet being Feral.

Morin makes up a lot of things not seen earlier in the tradition. That is fine of course. We also have to remember that we're dealing with translations here. The concept of a peregrine retrograde planet being feral is not the same word used by earlier sources when referring to the feral/wild moon. So although we translate it similarly to denote something untamed, the technical difference is not the same and only appears this way due to the translations needing to relate a given word to something in english.

In terms of ferality as tsmall was discussing, though, the Sun, no matter whose definition you use, is not wild/feral.

Again, I'd encourage you to find any definition that indicates that a wild planet is only resting upon whether or not that planet applies, to go back to your earlier point, or, as you are saying now, that a wild moon is only whether or not it is CURRENTLY in aspect or not - because there are no definitions that I know of, none that you've provided, and none that anyone else has provided which would indicate that. ALL of them explicitly dictate that it must be wild, not only now, but for the entire sojourn of a given sign.

Now we ourselves may invent our own definitions based on our own experience and our own understanding and logic. That is fine. But we must accept that they are not the traditional ones.

JUPITERASC · Aug 15, 2013

Paul_ said:
....None of the definitions you've quoted suggests that:
"In this Chart, Sun is in aversion to all Planets...so it is Feral."

Nowhere is there a definition that indicates that ferality is dictated upon whether or not a given planet is in aversion to the others for an isolated moment. Nowhere. This is simply not a true definition of how the ancients understood ferality.

The definitions I have provided and quoted from, and even those which you have quoted from, never say this anywhere. This may be ferality as per BobZemco, but it is not ferality as per the greater tradition....

'Being in aversion' is just one way of describing a planet NOT making any of the so-called 'Ptolemaic aspects'

i.e.

Ptolemaic aspects = conjunction, sextile, trine, square, opposition

Aversion = not in any Ptolemaic aspect

SO IF any planet IS NOT making any one of the Ptolemaic aspects to any other planet THEN that planet is described as BEING IN AVERSION.

i.e. NOT IN ASPECT

The sun 'being in aversion' to all planets simply means the Sun is not aspecting any of the planets - that's all - seems clear enough

Paul_ · Aug 15, 2013

JUPITERASC said:
Being in aversion' is just one way of describing a planet NOT making any of the so-called 'Ptolemaic aspects'

Thanks JupiterAsc, I am fully aware of what being in aversion means. My point, just to continually reiterate it, is that aversion is not what ferality is all about. The point is not whether the planet is making no ptolemaic aspects at the time of the chart - it is about whether it is EVER in a ptolemaic aspect during its time during that sign.

I guess, for the traditional forum, I'm guessing that everyone already knows what assembly is, what aversion is, what applying and separating planets are etc. so I'm finding some of these replies frustrating as they seem to focus on defining other matters. It's always hard to gauge how comfortable someone is with these terms of course, so perhaps it's no bad thing to reiterate them or clarify them, but I do find we're spending more time defining other matters than we are in dealing with the central issue.

I guess I'll just keep asking everyone if they can find any references anywhere to ferality NOT relating to the entire sign (or the next 30 degrees, as you sometimes see it implied with the Moon in hellenistic techniques), or if there's focus on ONLY the applying planet (where the planet is not the Moon). Cos really that's the central issue here and where I depart from Bob's understanding.

I think we're all in agreement with regards the planet needing to be in aversion to the other planets of course.

tsmall · Aug 16, 2013

Konrad said:
If any of you would like to put your theories to the test, I have a chart of what (may) be a feral Moon.

I can't give the birth details, but this is in the Ptolemaic Tropical zodiac and I know the person very well, so I can 'yay' or 'nay' your delineations of this Moon.

Venus is at 0 deg 02 of Pisces by the way.

Here is a link to a bigger size of the image if you can't see it: http://s9.postimg.org/tnb1v2zsf/trad.png

When Moon entered Leo Venus would still have been in Aquarius, right?

It's a great question, and I wanted to bump it so that it wasn't ignored.

Because even though I'm not the authority to answer these questions (obviously from this thread) it would look like Moon is Void and Venus is escaping.

Feral Planets

Paul_

Account Closed

tsmall

tsmall

Paul_

Account Closed

BobZemco

Well-known member

Paul_

Account Closed

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Paul_

Account Closed

tsmall

Paul_

Account Closed

tsmall

Paul_

Account Closed

Konrad

Account Closed

Paul_

Account Closed

BobZemco

Well-known member

Paul_

Account Closed

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Paul_

Account Closed

tsmall