Proper Face

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
This is an essential dignity that can be found in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, whereby a planet is in proper face when it is in the same positional relationship to another planet as the signs that they rule. Example - Mercury in Scorpio and Moon in Sagittarius. These planets are in their proper faces because the placements of both mirror the zodiacal relationship between Gemini and Cancer.

Note that proper face is not the same as "face/decan".

Another thing to note is that Ptolemy saw the various essential dignities as equal to one another, which is in contradistinction to the popular tables of dignities and debilities, which places a hierarchy on planetary dignity.

Another distinction that I would like to highlight is that the concept of detriment was absent from his works (and in fact from the whole of Hellenistic astrology) while the concept of peregrination was seen as a dire state for a planet to be in. For a planet to be peregrine it must have no dignity at its location of the zodiac, so that Mars in Gemini isn't automatically peregrine if it happens to be placed in its bound, or if Saturn is in Virgo (Mirror Relationship of Scorpio and Aquarius - proper face)

Some things then become apparent based on this information from Ptolemy -
1. Proper Face, although ignored in the current day, was an important dignity alongside domicile, exaltation, triplicity and term.
2. It was in equal standing to other dignities, so that Jupiter in Leo could be a more essentially dignified placement than Jupiter in Sagittarius due to picking up 3 dignities (triplicity,term, proper face)
3. Lack of a detriment concept with more focus on peregrination means that it takes more work to deem a planet essentially debilitated, which will result in a less automatic and more nuanced interpretation as opposed to deeming a planet debilitated where the outcome of the life flies in the face of that interpretation. (Example: Fyodor Dostoyevsky - his Mercury in Sagittarius is in "detriment" which would mean a weakening or an atypicality if the concept of detriment holds. Yet his Mercury is in proper face it's one sign ahead of his Scorpio Sun - Mirroring the relationship to Leo and Virgo. It is also one sign behind Venus which hearkens to the relationship of Virgo and Libra)

Obviously, such an operations style with the.dignities is at odds with what is seen as "standard traditional astrology", and flies in the face of many of the contemporary conventions.

My question to all is, do you have any experience with the use of proper face in chart interpretation? What about the other ideas touched, do you see the validity or at least the plausibility in them? If you find them in any way disagreeable then it would be interesting if you elaborate on why you hold that view.
 

petosiris

Banned
This is an essential dignity that can be found in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, whereby a planet is in proper face when it is in the same positional relationship to another planet as the signs that they rule. Example - Mercury in Scorpio and Moon in Sagittarius. These planets are in their proper faces because the placements of both mirror the zodiacal relationship between Gemini and Cancer.

The proper faces probably apply only to the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury, and not to the Sun or to the Moon. If Mercury is in Scorpio, and Moon is in Sagittarius, then Mercury is in its proper face, but the Moon isn't because it doesn't have one (just like it doesn't have a term according to most astrologers - the Moon is also a marshal of Mercury according to Ptolemy - ''For the sun and the moon are the marshals and, as it were, leaders of the others; for they are themselves responsible for the entirety of the power, and are the causes of the rulership of the planets, and, moreover, the causes of the strength or weakness of the ruling planets'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/2B*.html#8). Ptolemy often refers to the planets as separate from the luminaries, not that different from modern astronomy.

Note that proper face is not the same as "face/decan".

Another thing to note is that Ptolemy saw the various essential dignities as equal to one another, which is in contradistinction to the popular tables of dignities and debilities, which places a hierarchy on planetary dignity.

Yes. He mentions sort of a hierarchy for the construction of terms in 1.21 though.

Another distinction that I would like to highlight is that the concept of detriment was absent from his works (and in fact from the whole of Hellenistic astrology) while the concept of peregrination was seen as a dire state for a planet to be in. For a planet to be peregrine it must have no dignity at its location of the zodiac, so that Mars in Gemini isn't automatically peregrine if it happens to be placed in its bound, or if Saturn is in Virgo (Mirror Relationship of Scorpio and Aquarius - proper face)

They didn't have exactly peregrination in the latter sense. Ptolemy, Antiochus and Porphyry talk about planets in their own familiarities, in familiarities of the same sect and in familiarities of the opposite sect. If a star is in the domiciles, exaltations, triplicities and terms of rulers of the contrary sect, it is said to be paralyzed, which is similar to a cadent star, an evening retrograde star, or one in its depression.

I don't use proper faces, but I use houses, exaltations, triplicities and terms as equal dignities, as well as Ptolemy's ''rejoicing'' and Ptolemy's ''peregrinity'' - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130820

Proper faces are based on only one of the plausible reasons given for the house rulerships, and I personally think that the climatological factor (that Ptolemy gives as an additional reason in 1.17) is more important and exhaustive than the geometrical reasons.

It is also interesting to note that Ptolemy almost never (maybe 3.14 is an exception?) mentions diurnal and nocturnal as a standalone method for judging the planets effectiveness, but rather the zodiacal, heliacal and topical placement.
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
I had you in mind when I was making the thread, knowing your attraction to Ptolemy's astrological ideas.

I haven't looked at his tetrabiblos in ages (going off memory). So for the sake of being comprehensive I'd be interested if you posted his hierarchical construction of terms.

On the broader basis of essential dignity, could you provide an example on how you'd delineate a chart using your preferred style of analysing dignity?
 

petosiris

Banned
As you probably know there are many tables allegedly constructed according to Ptolemy's instructions for his terms.

''At any rate the general scheme of assignment of the terms is as follows. For their arrangement within each sign, the exaltations, triplicities, and houses are taken into consideration. For, generally speaking, the star that has two rulerships of this sort in the same sign is placed first, even though it may be maleficent. But wherever this condition does not exist, the maleficent planets are always put last, and the lords of the exaltation first, the lords of the triplicity next, and then those of the house, following the order of the signs. And again in order, those that have two lordships each are preferred to the one which has but one in the same sign. Since terms are not allotted to the luminaries, however, Cancer and Leo, the houses of the sun and moon, are assigned to the maleficent planets because they were deprived of their share in the order, Cancer to Mars and Leo to Saturn; in these the order appropriate to them is preserved. As for the number of the terms, when no star is found with two prerogatives, either in the sign itself or in those which follow it within the quadrant, there are assigned to each of the beneficent planets, that is, to Jupiter and Venus, 7°; to the maleficent, Saturn and Mars, 5° each; and to Mercury, which is common, 6°; so that the total is 30°. But since some always have two prerogatives — for Venus alone becomes the ruler of the triplicity of taught, since the moon does not participate in the terms — there is given to each one of those in such condition, whether it be in the same sign or in the following signs within the quadrant, one extra degree; these were marked with dots. But the degrees added for double prerogatives are taken away from the others, which have but one, and, generally speaking, from Saturn and Jupiter because of their slower motion.'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#21

Here is my reconstruction:

I posted it on skyscript, I might as well post it here.

1. Order:
Aries
Jupiter is first because of triangle
Venus is second because of house and triangle in Taurus
Mercury is third because of house and triangle in Gemini
Mars is fourth because of house
Saturn is fifth

Taurus
Venus is first because of triangle and house
Mercury is second because of house and triangle in Gemini
Jupiter is third because it is benefic
Saturn is fourth because it has triangle in Gemini
Mars is fifth

Gemini
Mercury is first because of triangle and house
Jupiter is second because of exaltation in Cancer
Venus is third because it is benefic
Saturn is fourth because of triangle in the same sign
Mars is fifth

Cancer
Mars is first because of triangle and house
Jupiter is second because of exaltation
Mercury is third because of exaltation and house in Virgo
Venus is fourth because of triangle in Virgo
Saturn is fifth

Leo
Jupiter is first because of triangle
Mercury is second because of exaltation and house in Virgo
Venus is third because of triangle in Virgo
Saturn is fourth because of house
Mars is fifth

Virgo
Mercury is first because of exaltation and house
Venus is second because of triangle
Jupiter is third because it is benefic
Saturn is fourth because of exaltation and triangle in Libra
Mars is fifth

Libra
Saturn is first because of exaltation and triangle
Mercury is second because of triangle
Venus is third because of house
Jupiter is fourth because it is benefic
Mars is fifth

Scorpio
Mars is first because of triangle and house
Jupiter is second because of triangle and house in Sagittarius
Venus is third because of triangle in Capricorn
Mercury is fourth because it is common
Saturn is fifth

Sagittarius
Jupiter is first because of triangle and house
Venus is second because of triangle in Capricorn
Mercury is third because of triangle in Aquarius
Mars is fourth because of exaltation in Capricorn the following sign
Saturn is fifth

Capricorn
Venus is first because of triangle
Mercury is second because of triangle in Aquarius
Jupiter is third because it is benefic
Mars is fourth because of exaltation in the same sign
Saturn is fifth

Aquarius
Saturn is first because of house and triangle
Mercury is second because of triangle
Venus is third because of exaltation in Pisces
Jupiter is fourth because it is benefic
Mars is fifth

Pisces
Venus is first because of exaltation
Jupiter is second because of house
Mercury is third because it is common
Mars is fourth because it has house in Aries
Saturn is fifth

In this way, the order of the following signs was consistently followed, in accord with the instructions by Ptolemy. Some are misled by the statement ''And again in order, those that have two lordships each are preferred to the one which has but one in the same sign'' to assign the malefics differently (for example Mars before Saturn in Gemini or after Saturn in Capricorn), but they do not follow the instruction of the order of following signs of the previous sentence. This instruction seems to refer to Cancer and Leo where Mercury has one more familiarity than Venus. Thus six terms end with Saturn, and six terms end with Mars, two with beginnings.

2. Assign + 1 degree to those that have two familiarities in one of the signs of a quadrant:
Saturn receives 6 in Leo, Virgo, Libra, Sagittarius, Capricorn and Aquarius
Jupiter receives 8 in Libra, Capricorn and Sagittarius
Mars receives 6 in Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Virgo, Libra and Scorpio
Venus receives 8 in Aries, Taurus and Pisces
Mercury receives 7 in Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo and Virgo

3. Assign the remaining degrees accordingly, subtracting from the slowest whenever possible:
In Aries, we subtract 1 from Saturn and 1 from Jupiter
In Taurus, we subtract 2 from Saturn and 1 from Jupiter
In Gemini, we subtract 1 from Saturn and 1 from Jupiter
In Cancer, we subtract 2 from Saturn
In Leo, we subtract 1 from Jupiter and 1 from Venus
(Mars gets 5 in all his remaining terms for 66 - 36 = 30 : 5 degrees = 6 equal terms)
In Virgo, we subtract 2 from Jupiter and 1 from Venus
In Libra, we subtract 2 from Venus and 1 from Mercury (those have one, but Venus is slower)
In Scorpio, we subtract 2 from Saturn
In Sagittarius, we subtract 1 from Venus and 1 from Mercury
In Capricorn, we subtract 1 from Jupiter
In Aquarius, we subtract 1 from Jupiter
In Pisces, we subtract 1 from Saturn

In this way, we only subtract proportionally from Venus and Mercury only when we can't subtract from Saturn and Jupiter. I believe Ptolemy intended his instructions to be sufficient in this way.

Sources:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#20
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/pdf/Houlding_ptolemy_terms.pdf

Maybe we should read what Ptolemy actually says - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#21, and what I, petosiris, faithfully set forth and expounded.

Saturn 57°, Jupiter 79°, Mars 66°, Venus 82°, Mercury 76°, the total is 360°. Their arrangement within each place is based on elevation, triangle and house, for the planets with two familiarities are always put first even though they may be maleficent, but where this condition does not exist, the maleficent planets are always put last, the lords of the elevation first, the lords of the triangle second, and the lords of the house third, following the order of the places, and again, those that control two familiarities are preferred to those that have but one. Since no terms are given to the luminaries, the houses of the Sun and the Moon are assigned to Saturn and Mars respectively. As for the number of the terms, when no planet is found with two prerogatives, either with the same place or with those that follow it within the quadrant, there are 7° assigned to beneficent planets, 5° to maleficent planets, and 6° to Mercury, which is common, so that the total is 30°. But since some always have two prerogatives, they are given extra degree, subtracted from those that have but one, proportionally starting with the slower moving planets, however, one does not subtract from Jupiter in Cancer on account of the elevation, and from Mars on account of its revolution.

OJUpA8e.png


:smile: As can be seen, this table is made of the least steps possible, simple and absolutely indisputable. :smile:

I no longer use these terms - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1017269&postcount=14
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
As you probably know

there are many tables allegedly constructed according to Ptolemy's instructions for his terms.

I no longer use these terms -
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1017269&postcount=14
I had you in mind when I was making the thread,
knowing your attraction to Ptolemy's astrological ideas.

I haven't looked at his tetrabiblos in ages (going off memory).
So for the sake of being comprehensive I'd be interested if
you posted his hierarchical construction of terms.
On the broader basis of essential dignity, could you provide an example
on how you'd delineate a chart using your preferred style of analysing dignity?
BobZemco highlighted the following issues with ptedious ptolemy :smile:


Anyway, there are like some 50+ surviving manuscripts of Ptolemy's work,
and no, Ptolemy did not write them,
rather other people copied them from other manuscripts, including the original manuscript.
All manuscripts have variations
and deviations from one extent to another,
including the chapters being arranged out of order
and amendations and deletions to the text.

So, now we can see how doctrines and concepts get messed up in translation
and misunderstanding over the centuries
(and even recent days apparently).

As I mentioned on another thread
Ptolemy retells a method of calculating a Conception Chart
and from this Conception Chart, Ptolemy claimed
one could determine the Native's future rank or station in life,
whether the birth would be a single birth, or a multiple birth (like twins)
and whether the child would be born deformed or have birth defects.

Someone copying Ptolemy's manuscript re-arranged the order of the chapters
to make it appear that Ptolemy was using the Natal Chart
to determine the Native's rank and station in life
....instead of the Conception Chart.

Fast forward a few centuries,
and you have Jewish and Arab astrologers pulling out their hair
....or maybe their beards
...trying to figure out why they keep failing when using Ptolemy's...on a Natal Chart
....because they don't understand that Ptolemy was using a Conception Chart.....

snipped
.......So here we all are
.....centuries later
.....still trying to figure out how to determine a person's rank and fame in life....

snipped
......From 1900 BCE to 1700 CE, the Human Race actually got really dumb
before they started to get smart
(or I suppose less dumb), and they still ain't really all that....
snipped
.....Like Math and Science, in Astrology, you can get the right result for the wrong reasons.
Maybe we should read what Ptolemy actually says - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#21, and what I, petosiris, faithfully set forth and expounded.

Saturn 57°, Jupiter 79°, Mars 66°, Venus 82°, Mercury 76°, the total is 360°. Their arrangement within each place is based on elevation, triangle and house, for the planets with two familiarities are always put first even though they may be maleficent, but where this condition does not exist, the maleficent planets are always put last, the lords of the elevation first, the lords of the triangle second, and the lords of the house third, following the order of the places, and again, those that control two familiarities are preferred to those that have but one. Since no terms are given to the luminaries, the houses of the Sun and the Moon are assigned to Saturn and Mars respectively. As for the number of the terms, when no planet is found with two prerogatives, either with the same place or with those that follow it within the quadrant, there are 7° assigned to beneficent planets, 5° to maleficent planets, and 6° to Mercury, which is common, so that the total is 30°. But since some always have two prerogatives, they are given extra degree, subtracted from those that have but one, proportionally starting with the slower moving planets, however, one does not subtract from Jupiter in Cancer on account of the elevation, and from Mars on account of its revolution.

OJUpA8e.png


:smile: As can be seen, this table is made of the least steps possible, simple and absolutely indisputable. :smile:
 

Bunraku

Well-known member
Dear Conspiracy Theorist,

I can see that you've survived the harrowing experience of the *forbidden to be mentioned name* planet, and are alive, sassy, an in good spirits, with such lively questions showing that your mental flame is still burning bright with such passionate and probing questions. Truly it has been a blessing that the planet has had such a profound influence on your inquisitive nature. :joyful:

Jean Baptiste Morin has a chapter dedicated on this method. Though, he seems to have a profound dislike of this method and Ptolemy in general. He says outright "...I say first. This dignity is not an essential one. For the essential dignities of the planets are immutable, and they do not pass from one part of the Zodiac to another..."
"...but this dignity can occur for a planet in individual signs of the zodiac due to the simple orientality or occidentality with respect to the Sun and the Moon therefore it is not an essential dignity..."

He then goes on to say that there is no mention of the powers or effects of this dignity among the astrologers, and that this is (the concept) a falsehood/fabrication made by the Arabic astrologers.

Sources: Astrologia Gallica Book 15
 

petosiris

Banned
On the broader basis of essential dignity, could you provide an example on how you'd delineate a chart using your preferred style of analysing dignity?

I use all of the following literally except for angular and succedent at the end (I found quadrant and phase enough for timing in revolutions) - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130820

In the first place, we should examine that place of the zodiac which is pertinent to the specific heading of the geniture which is subject to query; for example, the mid‑heaven, for the query about action, or the place of the sun for the question about the father; then we must observe those planets which have the election of rulership to the place in question by the five ways aforesaid; and if one planet is lord in all these ways, we must assign to him the rulership of that prediction; if two or three, we must assign it to those which have the more claims. After this, to determine the quality of the prediction, we must consider the natures of the ruling planets themselves and of the signs in which are the planets themselves, and the places familiar to them. For the magnitude of the event we must examine their power and observe whether they are actively situated both in the cosmos itself and in the nativity, or the reverse; for they are most effective when, with respect to the cosmos, they are in their own or in familiar regions, and again when they are rising and are increasing in their numbers; and, with respect to the nativity, whenever they are passing through the angles or signs that rise after them, and especially the principal of these, by which I mean the signs ascendant and culminating. They are weakest, with respect to the universe, when they are in places belonging to others or those unrelated to them, and when they are occidental or retreating in their course; and, with respect to the nativity, when they are declining from the angles. For the time of the predicted event in general we must observe whether they are oriental or occidental to the sun and to the horoscope; for the quadrants which precede each of them and those which are diametrically opposite are oriental, and the others, which follow, are occidental. Also we must observe whether they are at the angles or in the succedent signs; for if they are oriental or at the angles they are more effective at the beginning; if they are occidental or in the succeeding signs they are slower to take action. - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/3A*.html#3

Predomination is partially used for planetary dignity and mostly to separate the wheat from the chaff in topics by focusing (preferably) on one or two lords than all of them (they can often be well over 5 if we include aspects). In the latter sense, it is used for planets that are conspicuous.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Dear Conspiracy Theorist,

I can see that you've survived the harrowing experience of the *forbidden to be mentioned name* planet, and are alive, sassy, an in good spirits, with such lively questions showing that your mental flame is still burning bright with such passionate and probing questions. Truly it has been a blessing that the planet has had such a profound influence on your inquisitive nature. :joyful:

Jean Baptiste Morin has a chapter dedicated on this method. Though, he seems to have a profound dislike of this method and Ptolemy in general. He says outright "...I say first. This dignity is not an essential one. For the essential dignities of the planets are immutable, and they do not pass from one part of the Zodiac to another..."
"...but this dignity can occur for a planet in individual signs of the zodiac due to the simple orientality or occidentality with respect to the Sun and the Moon therefore it is not an essential dignity..."

He then goes on to say that there is no mention of the powers or effects of this dignity among the astrologers, and that this is (the concept) a falsehood/fabrication made by the Arabic astrologers.

Sources: Astrologia Gallica Book 15

That is somewhat of a shallow objection. First, I don't see why the zodiacal dignities have to be immutable, for example the triplicities differ based on sect, because the admixture with the ambient is different for day and night. No one claims that triplicity is therefore an accidental dignity. Second, proper face is based on whole sign configuration or whole sign aversion, which Morin couldn't possibly fathom (Placidus for example claimed that Ptolemy meant mundane aspect with Venus in sextile to the Sun even though his example quite clearly means whole sign aspect). My objection to the method based on the Thema Mundi (even if you don't accept aspects the way I do) is more natural, it would be like saying that Saturn is also in its proper face when it is in opposition to the Sun, because Libra is in opposition to Aries, or that Mars is in its proper face with any square to the Sun, because Scorpio squares Leo and Capricorn squares Aries, that is a ridiculous scheme, not to mention some contradictions like Mercury disjunct the Moon, and Saturn as evening retrograde disjunct the Sun being in their proper faces. I mentioned this elsewhere, but the Greeks didn't seem to make a difference between essential and accidental dignity, only one based on time (universe or nativity). That is quite clear in the previous quote and in the examples I give here - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1019579&postcount=10
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
JA, if you actually read ptedious ptolemy,
you would realise that he never mentions a method for calculating a Conception Chart
- no joke you do prefer quantity over quality sometimes. :smile:
of fifty plus surviving manuscripts
copied by those who ptediously WERE NOT ptolemy
you presumably refer to one in particular :smile:



Anyway, there are like some 50+ surviving manuscripts of Ptolemy's work,
and no, Ptolemy did not write them,
rather other people copied them from other manuscripts, including the original manuscript.
All manuscripts have variations
and deviations from one extent to another,
including the chapters being arranged out of order
and amendations and deletions to the text.

So, now we can see how doctrines and concepts get messed up in translation
and misunderstanding over the centuries
(and even recent days apparently).
 

petosiris

Banned
of fifty plus surviving manuscripts
copied by those who ptediously WERE NOT ptolemy
you presumably refer to one in particular :smile:

I refer to all critical editions and paraphrases of Ptolemy, the latter of which are older than the manuscripts. :smile:

No need for such grand conspiracies. It is an astrological text with a remarkably preserving line of transmission compared with any other Hellenistic astrological text and most ancient texts. We also have Hephaistio quoting Ptolemy, unless you think he was also tampered with. :smile:
 
Last edited:

Bunraku

Well-known member
Petosiris,

Message,
(Generally there's this idea that Hellenistic Astrology was practiced and formulated by a small number/group of men.)
;

Do you agree,
(yes or no?)
;

If: yes,
(then this leads to the credence of a conspiracy, if we have an exclusive and select group of people formulating these ideas)
;

If: no,
(then where are the rest of them. :andy:)
;
 

petosiris

Banned
I don't know. If we believe Renaissance astrologers or the ancient oral traditions of the Jews, traditional astrology comes from Abraham or even from patriarchs before him like Noah.
 

Bunraku

Well-known member
The renaissance came like thousands of years after the Greeks and Babylonians fell. (The ancient civilizations that we consider, I mean)
Why should we listen to them. :confused::confused::confused:
 

petosiris

Banned
The renaissance came like thousands of years after the Greeks and Babylonians fell. (The ancient civilizations that we consider, I mean)
Why should we listen to them. :confused::confused::confused:

However, the oral traditions of the Jews are contemporary of the Greeks. Astrology was practiced (in a more idolatrous way) under some form or another in Egypt and Mesopotamia before the Greeks, and Abraham lived in both of these geographical areas. He may have taught them a bit of maths and astronomy along the way.
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
I see BobZ's ghost has entered the thread. Good thing I was taught that there is no such things as ghosts. So I will ignore it like a good rationalist until Bob himself chimes in.

I like Morin's scathing tone; reminds me of Schopenhauer. I hear that his astrological ideas tend to be dominant in France and Spain. It's interesting that he mentions how proper face was an invention of the Arabians. The heyday of Arabic intellectual development being in the time of the Abbasid Caliphate, one wonders if Ptolemy's impressive achievements also included time travel.

Petosiris, I can respect the denouncing of technique based on theoretical grounds. If you disagree with Morin that zodiacal dignities are immutable, then wouldn't that also sanction the use of proper face, since it is trading one zodiacal relationship (sequence of signs) with another (geometrical discordance)? What about those instances where mutual reception cancels the maleficence of a square or generally discordant aspect (Mars in Aquarius, Saturn in Scorpio), or like engirdening signs that have a naturally discordant relationship zodiacally (Aries-Scorpio, Taurus-Libra) but still have affinity based on ridership by the same planet? What about similar cases where a planet is naturally caught in a mixed position - Mars in Cancer or Saturn in Aries (fall but in its triplicity?)

I haven't found a dignities scheme where you don't encounter those sort of "grey" situations, and then I'd still want a system that had both theoretical beauty and practical utility. The practical part is harder to find, since many of these ideas just sit in these books without any movement toward application.
 

petosiris

Banned
Arabs in Renaissance astrology = superstitious/unnatural e.g. blamed for "Arabic parts"

I don't recall Ptolemy mentioning reception or like-engirding. He does seem to intend mixing. I agree with the last sentence, especially due to lack of any adaptation of the material.
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Yeah, those questions would only apply if you also applied those techniques in your astrology. I find your rejection of proper face perfectly acceptable, in the framework that you've chosen.

I guess one way to encourage application is not hold investigators of the tradition to any artificial strictures that would turn them off of exploring ideas that aren't "orthodox". You're pretty unique in that regard, since you've been challenging ideas the moment you started with the tradition.
 

petosiris

Banned
Yeah, those questions would only apply if you also applied those techniques in your astrology. I find your rejection of proper face perfectly acceptable, in the framework that you've chosen.

I guess one way to encourage application is not hold investigators of the tradition to any artificial strictures that would turn them off of exploring ideas that aren't "orthodox". You're pretty unique in that regard, since you've been challenging ideas the moment you started with the tradition.

I've always tried to have faithful understanding for (un/)faithful adaptation. For example, if an astrologer is mixing tropical and sidereal considerations into the same thing, I am going to drop one, because it is neither faithful to the author, nor is faithful to nature today. Most people just aren't reading the source material often enough to have more faithful understanding (not that anyone can have perfect).

Another example is in relation to Ptolemy doing predomination techniques for everything else but profections in 4.10 (he uses only the houserulers). Clearly the houseruler didn't have advantage over the exaltation ruler before, why should we suddenly ignore the other rulers for the sake of continuing this illogical pre-Ptolemaic technique that goes against the rest of the treatise?
 
Last edited:
Top