How does one determine sect?

How does one determine sect? By this I mean with my own chart of course. Looking at it after doing some light reading on sect has made me wonder about Saturn and Jupiter. Both are strong in my chart, yet, being Diurnal planets in a nocturnal chart....does this make them out of sect? And I know Mars is comfy in a night chart, so that would make my own Mars in sect but in the 12th house, so I'm not too sure how comfy he is, even though in it's home sign of Aries.

Or are Saturn and Jupiter in sect do to the fact that they inhabit feminine signs?

Saturn sits in Capricorn, rx, while Jupiter sits in Cancer.


Huh. I'm confusing myself now. Maybe I should have made a thread for this.

Re: Chat Thread

Blaze said:

Huh. I'm confusing myself now. Maybe I should have made a thread for this.

Click to expand...

Why do you want to determine sect? Is there something you are worried about?

Maybe this will help
http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/11/25/the-astrology-of-sect/

I remember ages ago someone telling me that if you were born in the daytime you were an extrovert and at nighttime you were an introvert...

My naiveté totally believed that for YEARS, then I met my friend who told me she was born at 8pm. And she is such extrovert...she's like a cross between a comedian, a cop and a fratboy.


So to that astrologer who told me that many moons ago...



It's obviously not that simple

Re: Chat Thread

What in the world are "sects"

And I'm a night person and I'm a closeted extrovert. So that guy was half right

Re: Chat Thread

Blaze said:

How does one determine sect? By this I mean with my own chart of course. Looking at it after doing some light reading on sect has made me wonder about Saturn and Jupiter. Both are strong in my chart, yet, being Diurnal planets in a nocturnal chart....does this make them out of sect? And I know Mars is comfy in a night chart, so that would make my own Mars in sect but in the 12th house, so I'm not too sure how comfy he is, even though in it's home sign of Aries.

Or are Saturn and Jupiter in sect do to the fact that they inhabit feminine signs?

Saturn sits in Capricorn, rx, while Jupiter sits in Cancer.


Huh. I'm confusing myself now. Maybe I should have made a thread for this.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are out of sect. Your Mercury is rising before the sun so it is also out of sect. Meaning that the moon, Venus, and Mars should be more beneficial to you in the chart, and Jupiter/Saturn/Sun/Mercury not as beneficial or more harmful. I'd think Jupiter might be better off here, though, because it's still on the same side as the sun.

I'm wondering when I consider this stuff if I should consider a planet that is pretty much exactly on the horizon as being above or below the horizon. If it's above, I think my Mars would be in hayz but I don't know

Re: Chat Thread

animatedoodle said:

Why do you want to determine sect? Is there something you are worried about?

Click to expand...

Kinda sorta. I was reading on out of sect planets and too much dignity in a chart....which mine has. Having the greater malefic out of sect, as well as Jupiter while having both square Mars who is supposed to be happy doesn't....look so good. It might explain something I'm not willing to disclose.

AppLeo said:

What in the world are "sects"

And I'm a night person and I'm a closeted extrovert. So that guy was half right

Click to expand...

Sects,

Division of the planets, signs and chart areas into the polarities of diurnal or nocturnal. The word itself represents division (as in section), but also implies unification within that division through affiliation and common interest (as in a religious sect).

Of the signs, those which are masculine are also diurnal: Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius and Aquarius; those which are feminine are also nocturnal: Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, Pisces.

Of the traditional planets, those which are diurnal are: Sun, Jupiter, Saturn; those which are nocturnal are: Moon, Venus, Mars. Mercury is unique in having no affiliation to either sect but is usually considered diurnal as a morning star and nocturnal as an evening star (the scheme excludes the outer planets).

The alignment of a planet with its proper sect is considered favourable; that is, diurnal planets are more beneficial in diurnal charts and placed in diurnal signs and areas (when they are described as 'in sect').

Click to expand...

I think your Mars is in sect, banana head.

graay ghost said:

Yes, they are out of sect. Your Mercury is rising before the sun so it is also out of sect. Meaning that the moon, Venus, and Mars should be more beneficial to you in the chart, and Jupiter/Saturn/Sun/Mercury not as beneficial or more harmful. I'd think Jupiter might be better off here, though, because it's still on the same side as the sun.

I'm wondering when I consider this stuff if I should consider a planet that is pretty much exactly on the horizon as being above or below the horizon. If it's above, I think my Mars would be in hayz but I don't know

Click to expand...

I thought Mercury was immune to sect? Or maybe that's another debate for some other time.....

And that would come to an exact birth time, G. But then, if Mars is Hayz, would that grand cross you've got be worsened or lessened?

Re: Chat Thread

Blaze said:

Kinda sorta. I was reading on out of sect planets and too much dignity in a chart....which mine has. Having the greater malefic out of sect, as well as Jupiter while having both square Mars who is supposed to be happy doesn't....look so good. It might explain something I'm not willing to disclose.

Click to expand...

What is too much dignity supposed to mean?

Blaze said:

I thought Mercury was immune to sect? Or maybe that's another debate for some other time.....

Click to expand...

My understanding is that Mercury isn't immune to sect but changes sect. It's like a coalition parliament, with Mercury sometimes siding with the majority and sometimes not. Mercury does as Mercury pleases.

Blaze said:

And that would come to an exact birth time, G. But then, if Mars is Hayz, would that grand cross you've got be worsened or lessened?

Click to expand...

In traditional astrology Pluto is not a thing, so it wouldn't be a grand cross at all. But there's also the question of if bringing stronger fighters into a fight makes it better or worse. No such thing as a good war, etc. But if we don't consider aspects at all, I think a Taurus Mars in hayz would be considered a, uh, well-tempered Mars.

Re: Chat Thread

graay ghost said:

What is too much dignity supposed to mean?

Click to expand...

Eh. I'd toss it up to a case of extremes. Remember whatcha said? Strong fighters into a fight? Well, all my planets involved in that T-square are strong as ****.

What this does to the native? ....I'll let others guess while the more seasoned types stop and stare. It's quite horrific.

GG said:

My understanding is that Mercury isn't immune to sect but changes sect. It's like a coalition parliament, with Mercury sometimes siding with the majority and sometimes not. Mercury does as Mercury pleases.

Click to expand...

...This is random but that actually might make the case for modernist and Mercury being exalted in Aquarius.

GG said:

In traditional astrology Pluto is not a thing, so it wouldn't be a grand cross at all. But there's also the question of if bringing stronger fighters into a fight makes it better or worse. No such thing as a good war, etc. But if we don't consider aspects at all, I think a Taurus Mars in hayz would be considered a, uh, well-tempered Mars.

Click to expand...

Mars is unhappy in Taurus though. So I'm guessing that, even if it was in Hayz, it'd be detrimental in some fashion. Maybe in the long run or something.

Re: Chat Thread

Blaze said:

...This is random but that actually might make the case for modernist and Mercury being exalted in Aquarius.

Click to expand...

If we're going to take "I does as I likes and I likes what I does" as reason to be exalted in Aquarius, you're going to have to look at Aries and even Leo too.

Blaze said:

Mars is unhappy in Taurus though. So I'm guessing that, even if it was in Hayz, it'd be detrimental in some fashion. Maybe in the long run or something.

Click to expand...

You're acting like Mars being in detriment is bad. A malefic being detrimented is not (necessarily) bad. It means that it does not express itself like itself. When something that is considered to have a "bad" expression changes its expression, that may actually be good. As you're implying, too much dignity is not good, either.

Re: Chat Thread

graay ghost said:

You're acting like Mars being in detriment is bad. A malefic being detrimented is not (necessarily) bad. It means that it does not express itself like itself. When something that is considered to have a "bad" expression changes its expression, that may actually be good. As you're implying, too much dignity is not good, either.

Click to expand...

Where did I use the word "bad" ? I said Detrimental, like it's status. Mars doesn't like being in Taurus, that is a fact. Same with Libra. Regardless if said detrimental planet serves the native in a "Good" or "Bad" way is entirely none of my concern.

The out of sect status was what I was interested in and that seems to have been settled. More of a reason for me to not look toward astrology, but meh, I got what I asked for.

Re: Chat Thread

Blaze said:

Where did I use the word "bad" ? I said Detrimental, like it's status. Mars doesn't like being in Taurus, that is a fact. Same with Libra. Regardless if said detrimental planet serves the native in a "Good" or "Bad" way is entirely none of my concern.

Click to expand...

'Detrimental in the long run' is a value judgement which means harmful. 'In detriment' is the planetary status. Wording is kind of important, I think.

Re: Chat Thread

graay ghost said:

'Detrimental in the long run' is a value judgement which means harmful. 'In detriment' is the planetary status. Wording is kind of important, I think.

Click to expand...

Oh well. Ya know what I meant now.

Re: Chat Thread

Blaze said:

How does one determine sect?

Huh. I'm confusing myself now. Maybe I should have made a thread for this.

Click to expand...

The chief way to determine sect is to find out whether your chart is diurnal or nocturnal. This is determined based on if the sun is above or below the horizon. above - diurnal, below - nocturnal.

There are rejoicing conditions that also fall under sect. One is which planet a hemisphere is in. Nocturnal planets prefer to be away from the hemisphere of the sun while diurnal planets prefer to be with the sun.

The second is what sign the planet is in. Nocturnal planets prefer feminine signs while Diurnal planets prefer masculine signs. The Arabs seem to have bend this with Mars stating that Mars likes masculine signs better but there is controversy over this point with some thinking that this was a translation error.

When a planet meets all the criteria for sect it is said to be in Hayz.
e.g Nocturnal Chart - Taurus Rising. Moon in Pisces in the 11th is Hayz.

The opposite is called Ex-conditione when a planet is completety out-of-sect.
e.g. Nocturnal Chart - Taurus Rising. Saturn in Capricorn conjunct the MC is ex-conditione.

As you have figured out with GG by now, a planet can be in hayz and still in detriment or it can be in ex-conditione and still dignified. Astrology is never cut-and-dried.

Re: Chat Thread

I had kind of thought that detriment/dignity had to do with how comfortable a planet would be versus sect/hayz determining how influential (and beneficial, to an extent) the planet is to a native.

Comfort does not necessarily engender good performance.

Re: Chat Thread

graay ghost said:

Comfort does not necessarily engender good performance.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by good performance?

Re: Chat Thread

conspiracy theorist said:

What do you mean by good performance?

Click to expand...

If people are comfortable all their lives they never do anything new, they're not challenged, blah blah blah. I guess it's the same thought of some people accusing grand trines of not being so good. Maybe not "good performance" but like being completely comfortable all the time doesn't make greatness. Then again being comfortable none of the time doesn't make greatness either...

I'm sorry, I'm babbling. Carry on.

Re: Chat Thread

graay ghost said:

If people are comfortable all their lives they never do anything new, they're not challenged, blah blah blah. I guess it's the same thought of some people accusing grand trines of not being so good. Maybe not "good performance" but like being completely comfortable all the time doesn't make greatness. Then again being comfortable none of the time doesn't make greatness either...

I'm sorry, I'm babbling. Carry on.

Click to expand...

Well I did ask what you meant so I don't see it as babbling.

Is that something you have seen in charts? That dignified planets leads to being unchallenged in the area they govern? A chart in the RMC section had a girl with an exalted in-sect Moon exactly conjunct the AC and what it seemed to mean for her is that her Psychic sensitivity was on overdrive which she found very alarming. The Moon may have been comfortable but she definitely wasn't.

What about the flip side where a planet is detrimented -- "Being comfortable none of the time". I'll use Mars in Taurus as an example. You have 4 people:

Adolf Hitler
Bernie Madoff
Arthur Ashe
Graay Ghost

How would describe these individuals use of Martial energy? Would you say they are deficient?

What about Mars in Cancer a la Roger Federer? His Mars is in fall but it can't be denied that he was a dominant figure in tennis for a long time.

It would seem that based on all of this that "Comfort does not necessarily engender good performance" has merit.

Re: Chat Thread

conspiracy theorist said:

Well I did ask what you meant so I don't see it as babbling.

Is that something you have seen in charts? That dignified planets leads to being unchallenged in the area they govern? A chart in the RMC section had a girl with an exalted in-sect Moon exactly conjunct the AC and what it seemed to mean for her is that her Psychic sensitivity was on overdrive which she found very alarming. The Moon may have been comfortable but she definitely wasn't.

What about the flip side where a planet is detrimented -- "Being comfortable none of the time". I'll use Mars in Taurus as an example. You have 4 people:

Adolf Hitler
Bernie Madoff
Arthur Ashe
Graay Ghost

How would describe these individuals use of Martial energy? Would you say they are deficient?

What about Mars in Cancer a la Roger Federer? His Mars is in fall but it can't be denied that he was a dominant figure in tennis for a long time.

It would seem that based on all of this that "Comfort does not necessarily engender good performance" has merit.

Click to expand...

I have not actually done that much study of celebrities and historical figures in astrology. I guess I'm hesitant because when it comes to celebrities and historical figures it seems like there is so much we can't know because one's public perception may be so different from who they really are, though better-recorded individuals (like, say Alexander Hamilton) might be easier.

But yeah I know what you mean about the moon. I haven't seen it so much with moon in Taurus but letting the moon (or even the sun) have too much free reign does not necessarily seem to be a good thing. As opposed to everything else, the luminaries seem kind of... egomaniacal and if they have too much power will drag you along whether you like it or not.

I am not familiar with Arthur Ashe but it sounds like the Mars in Taurus individuals are kind of... underhanded (and for Arthur Ashe that might be literal). Not everything, or even a lot of things, can be accomplished by "I am Mars, look at me!"

When I talked about comfortable 'all of the time' vs. 'none of the time' I was thinking of the sum of the whole chart, or the sum of the whole life. Challenge is good, just someone getting knocked down repeatedly forever is not going to be helpful at all.

Do you really like tennis? I always thought all the grunting was kind of funny.

Re: Chat Thread

graay ghost said:

I have not actually done that much study of celebrities and historical figures in astrology. I guess I'm hesitant because when it comes to celebrities and historical figures it seems like there is so much we can't know because one's public perception may be so different from who they really are, though better-recorded individuals (like, say Alexander Hamilton) might be easier.

But yeah I know what you mean about the moon. I haven't seen it so much with moon in Taurus but letting the moon (or even the sun) have too much free reign does not necessarily seem to be a good thing. As opposed to everything else, the luminaries seem kind of... egomaniacal and if they have too much power will drag you along whether you like it or not.

I am not familiar with Arthur Ashe but it sounds like the Mars in Taurus individuals are kind of... underhanded (and for Arthur Ashe that might be literal). Not everything, or even a lot of things, can be accomplished by "I am Mars, look at me!"


Do you really like tennis? I always thought all the grunting was kind of funny.

Click to expand...

I haven't sat down to study much about public figures either but I've seen some very good delineations that use the most known facts of a person's life to come to astrologically sound conclusions. I don't think you need to know every waking moment of a person's life to able to read their chart with great accuracy; the amount of "spot ons" I see when a chart is cold read in RMC is a testament to that.

Tennis is cool but I wouldn't consider myself a big fan of it. The constant grunting can be amusing but after awhile I ignore that ****. Those 2 tennis guys were just in my mental file for undignified Mars so I used them. Mars can be pretty effect when he goes covert but you know it's not "noble" or "socially acceptable".

graay ghost said:

When I talked about comfortable 'all of the time' vs. 'none of the time' I was thinking of the sum of the whole chart, or the sum of the whole life. Challenge is good, just someone getting knocked down repeatedly forever is not going to be helpful at all.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You know of anyone that has absolutely nothing in life going for them? That seems to be as hard to find as someone with a perfect life.

Re: Chat Thread

graay ghost said:

I have not actually done that much study of celebrities and historical figures in astrology. I guess I'm hesitant because when it comes to celebrities and historical figures it seems like there is so much we can't know because one's public perception may be so different from who they really are, though better-recorded individuals (like, say Alexander Hamilton) might be easier.

But yeah I know what you mean about the moon. I haven't seen it so much with moon in Taurus but letting the moon (or even the sun) have too much free reign does not necessarily seem to be a good thing. As opposed to everything else, the luminaries seem kind of... egomaniacal and if they have too much power will drag you along whether you like it or not.

I am not familiar with Arthur Ashe but it sounds like the Mars in Taurus individuals are kind of... underhanded (and for Arthur Ashe that might be literal). Not everything, or even a lot of things, can be accomplished by "I am Mars, look at me!"

When I talked about comfortable 'all of the time' vs. 'none of the time' I was thinking of the sum of the whole chart, or the sum of the whole life. Challenge is good, just someone getting knocked down repeatedly forever is not going to be helpful at all.

Do you really like tennis? I always thought all the grunting was kind of funny.

Click to expand...

I happen to be an Arthur Ashe scholar. He was the man I wanted to marry in 1973 and until he married someone else and the pragmatic saturnian in me said "good for him".

I know everything that has been written (I think) about Arthur Ashe. I read Portrait in Motion when I was 14, when it was hot off the press.

His Mars squared Jupiter and Pluto and he fought like a junkyard dog, quietly and ploddingly from his poor Virginia roots to get to the top. The Sun-Cancer and Mars-Taurus tenacity is a miracle to behold. Venus was his intermediary - he was polite and kind and genuine while he plodded forward.

When he got to UCLA - he had one white shirt, one pair of dress pants and a pair of shoes and he washed them everyday to wear them the next -

Sun at MC apex of chart - the foundation of his locomotive chart.

I heart Arthur Ashe forever and always - he got me interested in tennis and history and crosswords when I was hanging out with future robbers, killers and prostitutes.

He knew the power of the mind and will could overcome anything, which he showed daily.

He was born on July 10th.





He was very much a Mars in Taurus - a bulldozer

Re: Chat Thread

conspiracy theorist said:

Oh, I see. You know of anyone that has absolutely nothing in life going for them? That seems to be as hard to find as someone with a perfect life.

Click to expand...

Probably my dad was like that? I don't know, he was a whirling vortex of negativity pretty much all the time.

I am not sure how easy they would be to find. You might be able to find some online, but people looking for astrological help online may be desperate but at least tend to have hope, otherwise they wouldn't be asking. They seem like they'd be really hard to find among famous people, too, because when someone's life ***** and then they die they're unlikely to do anything to be famous for... so I dunno.