Should I move back to UK

markeesi · May 31, 2014

Hello everyone.

Time of question 31st May 2014, 14:27 in Vaasa Finland (GMT 12:27 PM).

I think the chart accurately describes my current situation. Ruler of 8th is in detriment in 1st; I have issues with other people's money, benefits, inheritances and surgery. Also South Node in 8th, which further describes that situation. Ruler of 2nd in 8th; currently my income comes from other people and benefits. Ruler of 2nd though is essentially dignified, and PoF and North Node are also in 2nd.

Now my significator Mercury is peregrine but has accidental dignity. It is slow moving and will soon turn rx. It will then go back to its own sign (to Jupiter's detriment), but next aspect it will make will be a conjunction to Sun, which I don't think is good. Sun is the significator of 11th, which is not bad per se I suppose, but Mercury will nonetheless be combust. All of the main significators are in 10th. I would indeed move for better career prospects, but are they here or in the UK?

I use only traditional significators, so ruler of 4th and 7th are the same, which puzzles me. Moon and Jupiter are both accidentally AND essentially dignified, and applying to a conjunction. This should be good right? But is it me applying to where I now live or to where I wish to move, and what does Moon's trine to Saturn mean which will happen before the conjunction? Regardless of the trine, the last aspect Moon will make while in Cancer is the conjunction to Jupiter. I find this very auspicious, but have troubles understanding what it exactly means. Is it auspicious to stay or to go? Also, I read somewhere that 1st house can signify where I currently live and 7th where I will move. In that case it would be obvious that I would be better off moving.

What further confuses me is an issue with turned houses. I know that 7th is the 4th from 4th and thus where I would relocate to. Would that make the current 4th house signify me if/when I live in UK? Or am I still always just 1st + Moon? If I am always just 1st and Moon then will my income and career in UK be signified by 2nd and 10th, and not the turned houses?

I greatly appreciate any input and help with interpretation.

dr. farr · May 31, 2014

(Following is not in accordance with standard horary doctrines and uses whole sign house format)

-querent = 1st house = Virgo = Mercury
-moving house = 7th house = Pisces = Jupiter
-Mercury flows toward Jupiter = + testimony
-Jupiter is in its house of joy (11th whole sign house) in exaltation in Cancer = + testimony
-if the UK was the "home" of the querent, this = 4th house = Sagittarius = Jupiter
-so "moving back home" would have all the + testimonies re to Jupiter (and Mercury re to Jupiter) given above...
Answer to this advice-resquest question: Yes

Harold · Jun 1, 2014

There are some questions that are better answered using the natal chart, and any question that starts, "Should I....?" usually has me reaching for the natal chart. (Actually, Coley said much the same thing in his book, "Key to the Art of Astrology" way back in 1676)

This question is no exception. The question relates particularly to relocation to the UK, rather than anywhere else. I suggest you have a look at an astrocartography version of your natal chart and see if the UK stands out as a place which resonates with you in the required ways.

markeesi · Jun 1, 2014

dr. farr said:
(Following is not in accordance with standard horary doctrines and uses whole sign house format)

-querent = 1st house = Virgo = Mercury
-moving house = 7th house = Pisces = Jupiter
-Mercury flows toward Jupiter = + testimony
-Jupiter is in its house of joy (11th whole sign house) in exaltation in Cancer = + testimony
-if the UK was the "home" of the querent, this = 4th house = Sagittarius = Jupiter
-so "moving back home" would have all the + testimonies re to Jupiter (and Mercury re to Jupiter) given above...
Answer to this advice-resquest question: Yes

Thank you dr.farr! :smile:

Your method is interesting, and I have tried using it myself a few times. I'm glad it gives a definite answer.

The problem though here is that my "home" is in Finland. This is why the same significator is confusing to me, as the chart might also mean I will stay where I am. I have lived in the UK (and IE) before though, which is why I phrased the question as I did. Do you take Mercury going rx in consideration here? Do you even use factors like this in your method?

Harold said:
There are some questions that are better answered using the natal chart, and any question that starts, "Should I....?" usually has me reaching for the natal chart. (Actually, Coley said much the same thing in his book, "Key to the Art of Astrology" way back in 1676)

This question is no exception. The question relates particularly to relocation to the UK, rather than anywhere else. I suggest you have a look at an astrocartography version of your natal chart and see if the UK stands out as a place which resonates with you in the required ways.

Thank you Harold! :smile:

The reason I phrased my question as it is is because I feel that regardless of any chart I will do as I wish anyway, and I'm not sure I believe the future is set in stone (well, free will might just be my illusion to make me think I'm in control :tongue:

). I use horary charts as guidance because I often cannot interpret just a single outcome unless it's a definite no. My aim here is to see if relocation would be good for me and my life, and I was hoping the chart could also show whether relocation this time is at all possible. I wanted to relocate a few years back but due to circumstances it wasn't even a remote possibility and the charts were very clear about that.

I have attached my natal chart (4th Dec 1984, 3:54 AM/GMT +2, Raahe Finland) and a relocation chart if anyone is interested. Relocation chart is for Belfast, although I could've used Edinburgh as well. British Isles and Ireland area relocation charts have my Mercury/Neptune conjunction conjunct IC from the 3rd house. The chart moves my Jupiter from 3rd to 4th and Venus stays in 4th (both in Capricorn though so, oh well). It also moves Sun/Uranus conjunction to 3rd (natal 2nd). These are of particular interest to me as I write short stories and poems, and compose music and play and sing. However the jobs I would be doing in the UK are mainly accounts and customer service, your boring office jobs really. My main reason for moving would perhaps then be income (natal and relocation chart both have Saturn in 2nd so I'm not sure it would help! :sad:

) and the environment which I think could help my writing. I write in Finnish so that's not really the reason for relocation. I have a packed 3rd house in Finland as well though, so I don't know really. However Mercury/Neptune conjunct my angles in relocation charts is a pattern I have noticed when I feel an affinity to a place (San Francisco which I loved and Mongolia which I have a compelling interest in). I loved both Belfast and Edinburgh when I lived there. Relationships were slightly difficult for me though as I wasn't sure if I could trust what people say or how they behave due to subtle cultural differences. But I can be uneasy and very suspicious in Finland as well.

I started to wonder whether this chart tries to tell me something else, like something about my career since the significators are in 10th. I mean something in the likes of me receiving a career opportunity here which makes me forget about moving completely (Mercury soon retrograde).

dr. farr · Jun 1, 2014

From the original chart, simply looking at the 7th house (house of moving) and not considering the 4th house at all, the answer remains-yes.

In the Ankara method, only the CURRENT state of the planets at the time of the question, are taken account of-if a planet will turn direct from a current rx in the chart, or if a planet currently direct in the chart will turn rx in a day or week or whatever, from the date and time of the horary question/chart, is not taken into an consideration in the Ankara method.

tikana · Jun 1, 2014

markeesi said:
Hello everyone.

Time of question 31st May 2014, 14:27 in Vaasa Finland (GMT 12:27 PM).

I think the chart accurately describes my current situation. Ruler of 8th is in detriment in 1st; I have issues with other people's money, benefits, inheritances and surgery. Also South Node in 8th, which further describes that situation. Ruler of 2nd in 8th; currently my income comes from other people and benefits. Ruler of 2nd though is essentially dignified, and PoF and North Node are also in 2nd.

Now my significator Mercury is peregrine but has accidental dignity. It is slow moving and will soon turn rx. It will then go back to its own sign (to Jupiter's detriment), but next aspect it will make will be a conjunction to Sun, which I don't think is good. Sun is the significator of 11th, which is not bad per se I suppose, but Mercury will nonetheless be combust. All of the main significators are in 10th. I would indeed move for better career prospects, but are they here or in the UK?

I use only traditional significators, so ruler of 4th and 7th are the same, which puzzles me. Moon and Jupiter are both accidentally AND essentially dignified, and applying to a conjunction. This should be good right? But is it me applying to where I now live or to where I wish to move, and what does Moon's trine to Saturn mean which will happen before the conjunction? Regardless of the trine, the last aspect Moon will make while in Cancer is the conjunction to Jupiter. I find this very auspicious, but have troubles understanding what it exactly means. Is it auspicious to stay or to go? Also, I read somewhere that 1st house can signify where I currently live and 7th where I will move. In that case it would be obvious that I would be better off moving.

What further confuses me is an issue with turned houses. I know that 7th is the 4th from 4th and thus where I would relocate to. Would that make the current 4th house signify me if/when I live in UK? Or am I still always just 1st + Moon? If I am always just 1st and Moon then will my income and career in UK be signified by 2nd and 10th, and not the turned houses?

I greatly appreciate any input and help with interpretation.

moon meets Saturn first. looks like some kind of interference

Kaiousei no Senshi · Jun 2, 2014

Hi markeesi,

This is an interesting chart you have. In questions concerning potential relocation, you indeed have the correct technique. The Fourth represents the place we are now and the Seventh is the place we wish to go. Both of these places are represented by Jupiter, which is important in and of itself; the situation is likely to be similar no matter where you go. The Moon separates from a malefic planet (we are told this indicates a "leave" answer) in the second who she Squared from his Fall. This clearly speaks of the financial issues you are facing. However, she applies to another malevolent planet through a Trine with mutual rejection in the Third. This does not sound good either and seems to echo the same thought as Jupiter ruling both houses; difficulties no matter what with Saturn's influence falling more within the areas of travel in general which may make the act of leaving next to impossible.

The imminent retrograde motion of Mercury suggests a change of mind, so you probably won't be able to leave for whatever reason (you don't have a child do you?) and then ultimately decide it is best not to. I actually wonder if Mercury going back into Gemini will be a nice thing for you, since it will move to conjoin the MC. Perhaps you will return to some job or field you had before?

Harold said:
There are some questions that are better answered using the natal chart, and any question that starts, "Should I....?" usually has me reaching for the natal chart. (Actually, Coley said much the same thing in his book, "Key to the Art of Astrology" way back in 1676)

I think it is best not to try to limit horary too much. Coley may have said such things in 1676, but Masha'allah and Sahl were discussing charts on relocation and which direction querents should direct their affairs about 800 years earlier.

Heavensmystery · Jun 2, 2014

Harold said:
There are some questions that are better answered using the natal chart, and any question that starts, "Should I....?" usually has me reaching for the natal chart. (Actually, Coley said much the same thing in his book, "Key to the Art of Astrology" way back in 1676)

This question is no exception. The question relates particularly to relocation to the UK, rather than anywhere else. I suggest you have a look at an astrocartography version of your natal chart and see if the UK stands out as a place which resonates with you in the required ways.

Very true, it could help.

markeesi · Jun 2, 2014

dr. farr said:
From the original chart, simply looking at the 7th house (house of moving) and not considering the 4th house at all, the answer remains-yes.

In the Ankara method, only the CURRENT state of the planets at the time of the question, are taken account of-if a planet will turn direct from a current rx in the chart, or if a planet currently direct in the chart will turn rx in a day or week or whatever, from the date and time of the horary question/chart, is not taken into an consideration in the Ankara method.

Good to know so I can use this technique in conjunction with the more traditional method.

tikana said:
moon meets Saturn first. looks like some kind of interference

Yes, that's what I noticed as well. It's interesting as Saturn rules 5th and is in 3rd. I don't know what to make of it really, I don't have children nor am I pregnant. The only thing I can think of is health issues having to do with reproductive system (the surgery I mentioned in opening post). But then I thought it would've been shown by 6th. I even checked the 12th house lord for any hidden info but that's me in 10th. I suppose everything should be out in the open as is...

Saturn in 3rd puzzles me even more. I can't think of any 3rd house issue that would hinder me. 3rd house lord is also Mars in a bad position and in my 1st. Difficulties in transportation, or some post-op mobility issues? Mars also rules 8th. Accident? I can't think of anything that would have to do with my sister. But then it hasn't happened yet as it's applying. My time frame for relocation is about 6 months. Perhaps I don't get in to surgery as early as I thought I would.

Kaiousei no Senshi said:
Hi markeesi,

This is an interesting chart you have. In questions concerning potential relocation, you indeed have the correct technique. The Fourth represents the place we are now and the Seventh is the place we wish to go. Both of these places are represented by Jupiter, which is important in and of itself; the situation is likely to be similar no matter where you go. The Moon separates from a malefic planet (we are told this indicates a "leave" answer) in the second who she Squared from his Fall. This clearly speaks of the financial issues you are facing. However, she applies to another malevolent planet through a Trine with mutual rejection in the Third. This does not sound good either and seems to echo the same thought as Jupiter ruling both houses; difficulties no matter what with Saturn's influence falling more within the areas of travel in general which may make the act of leaving next to impossible.

The imminent retrograde motion of Mercury suggests a change of mind, so you probably won't be able to leave for whatever reason (you don't have a child do you?) and then ultimately decide it is best not to. I actually wonder if Mercury going back into Gemini will be a nice thing for you, since it will move to conjoin the MC. Perhaps you will return to some job or field you had before?

Jupiter here is in a good position, so I suppose both options are equally as good or as bad. I don't hate it here at all, I just miss UK and was hoping to have better job options there as here there are too many unemployed educated people (probably in UK as well, but they've got multilingual positions I can apply for). Also Moon is well positioned (Saturn's house though), so whatever is coming it can't be that bad, right?

Mercury moving towards MC made me think again of what I mentioned earlier about all of the significators in 10th. I feel like there's something about my career I currently don't know/understand. It seems to be an auspicious turn of events though if I'm reading it correctly. Hopefully (and probably) I won't return to an old job, as I wouldn't find that a happy event at all. :biggrin:

Mercury rx makes me also think I would change my mind about relocating. But like I wrote previously in this post, I can't think of 5th or 3rd house issues that would stop me (applying trine Saturn).

What I find attention-worthy is 2nd house ruler's essential dignity (bad house though) and PoF and North Node conjunct in 2nd. This to me suggests I have or will have quite good earning opportunities... currently this isn't the case. In fact I have debt more than I can manage as my sole income is unemployment benefits.

Harold · Jun 3, 2014

Kaiousei no Senshi said:
I think it is best not to try to limit horary too much. Coley may have said such things in 1676, but Masha'allah and Sahl were discussing charts on relocation and which direction querents should direct their affairs about 800 years earlier.

It is not a question of limiting horary too much, it is a question of knowing where the limits are.

Remember, horary as we know it reached its full flowering with astrologers like Masha'allah and Sahl and they were proselytizing and promoting horary astrology. They were not going to hang back and say horary is very useful - sometimes. After 800 years of experience in using horary astrology, Coley was saying use natal if you can: Gadbury was even more a fan of using natal when possible. Ditto Partridge. Ramesey thought that horary was so debased that he did not even write about it in his book.

Three hundred and fifty years later, we have just rediscovered horary astrology and we are still in the "Wow, this is neat!" stage. But we should not press the authority of horary too hard - expecially when the question is of a speculative and offhand nature. (The querent has already said the he will do as he wishes regardless of the testimony of the horary chart.)

Kaiousei no Senshi · Jun 3, 2014

Harold said:
Remember, horary as we know it reached its full flowering with astrologers like Masha'allah and Sahl and they were proselytizing and promoting horary astrology. They were not going to hang back and say horary is very useful - sometimes.

This is ridiculous conjecture and is not a phenomenon limited to the Arabians. Even Coley's teacher William Lilly had sections on relocation and similar matters. The only instance I can recall Lilly mentioning the preferment for nativities is when answering questions in absolutes "Will I ever...?". There may be more, but it is the only one that has immediately come to mind. Even in this, though, he is merely parroting these same Arabians who have similar warnings about judging in absolutes.

After 800 years of experience in using horary astrology, Coley was saying use natal if you can: Gadbury was even more a fan of using natal when possible. Ditto Partridge. Ramesey thought that horary was so debased that he did not even write about it in his book.

The opposition to horary in the late Renaissance was never about its inaccuracy, it was a philosophical decision by individuals to put astrology back on the "path of Ptolemy" and argue for a naturalistic and "scientific" version of astrology that could fit in with the emerging Enlightenment mindset. Ptolemy argued that astrology was naturalistic and causal, this is why he did not utilize houses in Tetrabiblos as there is no naturalistic cause for them. Horary astrology, by this definition, is not naturalistic and is too spiritual to fit within this philosophical mindset. It is no coincidence that horary and magic began their declines around the same time while other branches of astrology would continue to be championed for a bit longer.

Three hundred and fifty years later, we have just rediscovered horary astrology and we are still in the "Wow, this is neat!" stage.

This is actually the exact opposite of the response horary has had in its recent reemergence. Many early practitioners (Barclay and her students) were extremely limiting on what horary could and couldn't do to the point that she believed horary could only answer questions exactly as they were stated. This means that questions about illness would only have their cures discovered if the querent specifically asked if that particular method would help them. It is only in the recent past have we been able to see the various ways horary can be applied to assist people and not just answer "yes/no".

I'm often shocked that this is a period of history we went through when almost every horary manual has sections that discuss cures and work arounds or choices in difficult matters.

But we should not press the authority of horary too hard - expecially when the question is of a speculative and offhand nature. (The querent has already said the he will do as he wishes regardless of the testimony of the horary chart.)

This is not an unusual circumstance in the slightest. People ask for advice and do not take it. Even Bonatti has an example of this where an army general asks if he will take a city. Bonatti's answer is "You can if you follow my advice, but you won't".

It is not a question of limiting horary too much, it is a question of knowing where the limits are.

The limits of horary are already firmly handed down throughout the tradition. 1) Respond to sincere questions. 2) Only allow questions that involve the person asking the question or someone they love as much as themselves. That's about it.

I'm not arguing that horaries are more powerful than nativities, because they clearly are not. I only implore you to open up your mind. You will never learn horary by differing to nativities and transits.

markeesi · Jun 3, 2014

Harold said:
But we should not press the authority of horary too hard - expecially when the question is of a speculative and offhand nature. (The querent has already said the he will do as he wishes regardless of the testimony of the horary chart.)

This is a mere illusion of free will that I like to maintain (while knowing I might not be right). I like to believe I'm doing whatever the heck I please, but in fact I have done as predicted or as advised pretty much each time a chart has been cast or I Ching or tarot consulted (as far as I can remember). Of course I only realize this afterwards. Hindsight 20-20.

I Ching by the way highly dislikes questions with yes/no answers. Instead of "will I" I have to ask "what is the most fruitful attitude/course of action" etc. Otherwise it will pretty much call me a fool. Anyone who consults I Ching has most likely experienced this. Tarot on the other hand is more open to showing glimpses of the future. With horary I was not 100 % sure. To me it has in the past definitely given a lot more than a yes/no answer, and that's what I was hoping for here as well.

Harold · Jun 4, 2014

markeesi said:
This is a mere illusion of free will that I like to maintain (while knowing I might not be right).

Lee Lehman puts it very well I think - the chart shows what will happen if we abrogate our choice of free will. It shows the the most likely course of events if we do nothing to change that course of events. But you do have a choice and if you wish to exercise your free will, you go right ahead and do something else. You may find it a struggle to exercise your free will in this manner, but in the end you do have a choice.

dr. farr · Jun 4, 2014

Harold said:
Lee Lehman puts it very well I think - the chart shows what will happen if we abrogate our choice of free will. It shows the the most likely course of events if we do nothing to change that course of events. But you do have a choice and if you wish to exercise your free will, you go right ahead and do something else. You may find it a struggle to exercise your free will in this manner, but in the end you do have a choice.

I am in complete agreement with the above-quite well said :wink:

!

Harold · Jun 4, 2014

Kaiousei no Senshi said:
The opposition to horary in the late Renaissance was never about its inaccuracy, it was a philosophical decision by individuals to put astrology back on the "path of Ptolemy" and argue for a naturalistic and "scientific" version of astrology that could fit in with the emerging Enlightenment mindset.

The mistrust (rather than opposition) to astrology in general (and horary in particular for reasons I will deal with later) came about precisely because of its "inaccuracy". It did not work. This led astrologers to go back and look at the primary texts - on the one hand to get at the "true" astrology and so improve accuracy, but on the other hand to "prove" astrology ranked as a science in the modern sense of the word and would be accepted in the new Enlightenment. This was very similar to the situation in the 1980s when it finally had to be admitted that the huge effort in the post war decades to prove astrology scientifically had (with notable exceptions) been an abject failure. This led to astrologers going back to the classical and traditional texts in an effort to get testable rules from the original, true, pure source material of astrology. And so the modern revival in traditional astrology was born.

Many early practitioners (Barclay and her students) were extremely limiting on what horary could and couldn't do to the point that she believed horary could only answer questions exactly as they were stated.

Speaking as someone who was myself a student of Olivia Barclay, I think you are being rather black-and-white about what she believed could be interpreted from a horary chart. And I should point out that while I would not have the hubris to put myself in their august ranks, many (if not most) of the horary astrologers held in highest regard today were students of Olivia Barclay...

The limits of horary are already firmly handed down throughout the tradition. 1) Respond to sincere questions. 2) Only allow questions that involve the person asking the question or someone they love as much as themselves. That's about it.

Agreed. And I would say that 1) applied here.

I'm not arguing that horaries are more powerful than nativities, because they clearly are not. I only implore you to open up your mind. You will never learn horary by differing to nativities and transits.

Horary is not the same as natal astrology, or any other kind of astrology. All other types of astrology have an un-arguable and distinct time for when the chart should be set - which is the start of event chain which it describes. Not so horary astrology. In contrast to all other forms of astrology there is no relationship between the timing of a horary chart and chain of events the chart describes. The time for a horary chart is the asking of a question about a chain of events, but that can be any time before, during or after then chain of events the chart describes. It is this fact that has always - and still does - made astrologers suspicious about the use of horary astrology and so seek to put limits on the circumstances in which horary can be said to be valid.

I think it is wise to take heed of this natural caution that astrologers down the ages have had for horary astrology and not risk squeezing invalid detail from a chart whose limited response matches an insincere, vague or ill conceived question. To do otherwise is to sail off into a Neptunian fog and loose touch with reality.

Kaiousei no Senshi · Jun 4, 2014

The mistrust (rather than opposition) to astrology in general (and horary in particular for reasons I will deal with later) came about precisely because of its "inaccuracy". It did not work. This led astrologers to go back and look at the primary texts - on the one hand to get at the "true" astrology and so improve accuracy, but on the other hand to "prove" astrology ranked as a science in the modern sense of the word and would be accepted in the new Enlightenment.

This is somewhat disingenuous. The perceived "inaccuracy" in astrological technique was not the driving force behind these philosophical changes, it was the infighting between "real" astrologers and "fake" astrologers at the time. This was essentially the entire impetus behind Kepler's work and it is no accident that Ramsey titled his text Astrology Restored (and discusses why he did so) then there is also the works of Morin who hoped to accomplish the same. They wanted to show what the "true" astrology was to distance it from the people on the street who claimed to be astrologers and made bogus predictions, giving all astrologers a bad name (some things never change).

Skeptics of astrology became much more vocal, and astrologers felt like it was time to cut out the spiritual and mystic forms of astrology to help it gain credibility in the eyes of a changing worldview. Add into this a healthy dose of racism and it's easy to see why horary didn't make the cut, being mostly thought of as an Arabic invention.

Speaking as someone who was myself a student of Olivia Barclay, I think you are being rather black-and-white about what she believed could be interpreted from a horary chart. And I should point out that while I would not have the hubris to put myself in their august ranks, many (if not most) of the horary astrologers held in highest regard today were students of Olivia Barclay...

I think I'm being rather accurate based on the information I've seen and heard from individuals who have taken or are taking the QHP and what I've gathered from her book.

It is true that most of the prominent astrologers in horary these days are students of Barclay, but most of them had falling outs with Barclay in the later years and this led them to changing their opinions on how horary should be handled. Many have starkly different philosophies from the ones Barclay presents in her materials.

Agreed. And I would say that 1) applied here.

What are you basing that off of?

Horary is not the same as natal astrology, or any other kind of astrology. All other types of astrology have an un-arguable and distinct time for when the chart should be set - which is the start of event chain which it describes. Not so horary astrology. In contrast to all other forms of astrology there is no relationship between the timing of a horary chart and chain of events the chart describes. The time for a horary chart is the asking of a question about a chain of events, but that can be any time before, during or after then chain of events the chart describes. It is this fact that has always - and still does - made astrologers suspicious about the use of horary astrology and so seek to put limits on the circumstances in which horary can be said to be valid.

I agree and disagree with this at the same time. I definitely understand your point and you are correct that the timing for a horary need not be connected to the events the horary is concerned with, but I would also argue that it is not alone in this matter. Decumbiture charts also have a rather uncertain beginning, since the time of their construction will probably never be for the onset of the illness they are describing.

Mostly, I think this is just an excuse for those who are uncomfortable with astrology as a form of divination. This basically just comes across as a more technical way of saying "horary astrology acts like baseless fortune telling" in much the same way many early modern texts dismissed the branch. Your quote below is eerily similar to others I have seen with this goal in mind.

I think it is wise to take heed of this natural caution that astrologers down the ages have had for horary astrology and not risk squeezing invalid detail from a chart whose limited response matches an insincere, vague or ill conceived question. To do otherwise is to sail off into a Neptunian fog and loose touch with reality.

I think it is best to remember that the "natural caution" with horary astrology you are appealing to is a modern invention that has been overblown. If historical discomfort is your biggest concern I would be very interested in hearing what your thoughts on electional astrology are. That is a branch that has been argued back and forth "down the ages".

I also think (going off of my own experiences) it is best to let each individual chart tell you if they are invalid, they will definitely let you know.

Harold, I'm glad I've been able to take this time to speak with you. I don't think we've really interacted much on the forum I usually just end up posting around you rather than engaging you. It's been an interesting discussion and I look forward to future ones.

Harold · Jun 5, 2014

We are well off topic here, and I too look forward to future opportunities to explore the matters we touched on. But I will just pick out one point....

Kaiousei no Senshi said:
and it is no accident that Ramsey titled his text Astrology Restored (and discusses why he did so) ...

Indeed, and in that book he did not even write about horary astrology. Why was that?

Ramesey did, however, give what is widely recognised as the most comprehensive rendering of election astrology available - and with that in mind,

If historical discomfort is your biggest concern I would be very interested in hearing what your thoughts on electional astrology are. That is a branch that has been argued back and forth "down the ages".

Actually, that branch of astrology is the oldest and (Ramesey would have argued) the purest form of astrology. And, contrary to your statement above, electional astrology has never had a bad press, even when other forms of astrology were in disregard or even dangerous to practice.

Should I move back to UK

markeesi

Member

Attachments

dr. farr

Well-known member

Harold

Well-known member

markeesi

Member

Attachments

dr. farr

Well-known member

tikana

Well-known member

Kaiousei no Senshi

Heavensmystery

Banned

markeesi

Member

Harold

Well-known member

Kaiousei no Senshi

markeesi

Member

Harold

Well-known member

dr. farr

Well-known member

Harold

Well-known member

Kaiousei no Senshi

Harold

Well-known member