Rules, evidence, intuition?

JUPITERASC said:

Assuming the question is rhetorical,
Can a great artist produce Green by mixing Red and Blue?

Click to expand...

So, an artist can never be great unless he can paint in green....?

I think you are missing the point. Great art is not about knowing how to mix colours. Its about how you use what you have to reveal a truth through your chosen medium.

Horary astrology is about letting a chart reveal the truth about a given situation through your interpretation of the chart. Sure, there are the rules. . . . but great astrology is much more than just the rules.

Beyond the rules, there is the art.

JUPITERASC said:

Example of Ancient Rules of Art For Painters

There are three Primary colors
Red
Blue
Yellow

When Green is required
Mix Yellow plus Blue = Green

When Orange is required
Mix Yellow plus Red = Orange

When Purple is required
Mix Red plus Blue = Purple

Those are basic Rules of the Art of Painting

Astrology
irrespective of whether Art or Science
necessarily has rules as well

Click to expand...

Yes, so it is. If I have not been clear: there is no art without rules.

Cap, thanks.

Most professional historians would take exception to the idea that, where facts are available, uninformed opinion or sheer speculation is a reasonable substitute!

Thanks for the link-- Deborah Houlding has a comparable article on the differences between Lilly's explanation of reception and his actual usage at: receptionhttp://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception.html

This article on the history of terms in astrology may be of interest. Rules, yes-- but whose?

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/pdf/Houlding_ptolemy_terms.pdf

Right about terms!! Ptolemy himself talked about previous Egyptian and Chaldean term systems, and then went on to modify yet another system of terms ("taken from an old book" ) into what became the Ptolemaic terms. Manilius (before Ptolemy) suggested yet another system of terms based on 1/2 degree sections of a sign via duodenary division (see Gould's introduction to the Astronomica) Then there were the terms of Astaurus (mentioned by al-Biruni), a system of Hindu terms (described in al-Biruni's "Elements") and then Lilly's reworking of Ptolemy's terms!
So we have (historically):
Chaldean-Egyptian-Manilius-Ptolemaic-Astaurus-Hindu-and reworked (Lilly) Ptolemaic systems of terms. And they are ALL different!

I gave up using term systems for any purpose, years ago: I use that most ancient system of planetary monomoiria (dating to early Hellenist times) which has always been the same and consistent, and includes ALL the planets (does not exclude the luminaries, which all systems of terms do: note that when using any system of terms one is mechanically discriminating against the Sun and the Moon in arriving at essential dignity: Sun and Moon can score essential dignity by domicile, exaltation, triplicity and face but are automatically excluded from scoring essential dignity by term: puts Sun and Moon at a 20% disadvantage to the other 5 planets in scoring essential dignity and increases the potential for Sun and Moon to be peregrine by 20% over the other 5 planets!! Using monomoiria instead of terms, eliminates this mechanical essential-dignity bias against Sun and Moon...but of course no authority has "authorized" use of monomoiria instead of term systems over the past 1500 years, so it would not be "...traditional..."to do so...)

dr. farr said:

(does not exclude the luminaries, which all systems of terms do: note that when using any system of terms one is mechanically discriminating against the Sun and the Moon in arriving at essential dignity: Sun and Moon can score essential dignity by domicile, exaltation, triplicity and face but are automatically excluded from scoring essential dignity by term: puts Sun and Moon at a 20% disadvantage to the other 5 planets in scoring essential dignity and increases the potential for Sun and Moon to be peregrine by 20% over the other 5 planets!!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the luminaries are at a disadvantage. There are several sources (al-Qabisi is the one that comes most immediately to mind) that give them each a half of the chart (the Sun from the beginning of Leo up to the end of Capricorn, and the Moon from the beginning of Aquarius through the end of Cancer.) These then are the "terms/bounds" of the lights, and should be treated as such. Why this idea fell out of favor is beyond me, but it makes quite a bit of sense, and if nothing else gives the luminaries a very large advantage over the rest of the planets...as it should be.

There were some early dignity allocations for Sun and Moon (as you mention, above) Another ancient one was assigning the first 15 degrees of masculine signs to the Sun, the last 15 degrees to the Moon (and the reversal for feminine signs)-as the "bounds" (so to speak) of the Sun and Moon: however, by Bonatti's times these had completely vanished vis a vis both the concept of essential dignity and also the concept of reception as well-and none of these methods (al-Qabisi or the Sun/Moon sections of each sign or the ancient monomoiria) enter into determinations of essential dignity, peregrine status or reception, in the practice of (traditional)Western astrology from the 12th century to the present time...lost knowledge, in my opinion!!