Venus ~in or ~out of sect?

Lex Gemini

Well-known member
I don't know what you found, but i hope you tell me.
because i had spoken out of turn there, I am yet to find a chart that mercury serves in H10 whilst the sun is below the line.

What did you find?
What house system did you use?
You totally deserve a medal for that.

Hahaha
Thanks for putting the task to me.
I honestly thought i knew it for certain.

____________________

oh, from the other side you mean, yeah, but i'm curious now, did you find it from the ascending or descending side?
 
Last edited:

Phoenix Venus

Well-known member
I don't know what you found, but i hope you tell me.
because i had spoken out of turn there, I am yet to find a chart that mercury serves in H10 whilst the sun is below the line.

What did you find?
What house system did you use?
You totally deserve a medal for that.

Hahaha
Thanks for putting the task to me.
I honestly thought i knew it for certain.

____________________

oh, from the other side you mean, yeah, but i'm curious now, did you find it from the ascending or descending side?

No worries, you are still learning. Ive been studying astrology for ten years, just havent gotten too into trad techniques yet, so its easier for me to make sense of.

Merc can be HALB in any house 7-12 if mercury is of diurnal sect (oriental. basically if mercury is before the sun.)

If its of nocturnal sect (if mercury is occidental aka behind the sun) mercury can only be HALB in the 7th house during dusk. (possibly 8th in some locations/house systems but unlikely)

Ok. Let me see if i can explain it simply.

Mercury can only be a max of 28 degrees from the sun. Its either before the sun, meaning its of diurnal sect, or after the sun; nocturnal sect.

So as soon as the sun hits the desc at dusk, with mercury up to 28 degrees after sun, there is the potential for mercury to be in halb. As soon as the sun hits 28 degrees below the horizon, mercury must also be below the horizon.

Diurnal mercury will be in halb most of the day.
 
Last edited:

Lex Gemini

Well-known member
No worries, you are still learning.

Now that is a presumptuous statement if I've ever heard one, aren't we all?! Either way, i'm quite sure i haven't discussed with anyone the contents of my library, physical or causal for that matter, i'll let you off on a slight err, because your fingers are faster than your mind, in this instance.

Ive been studying astrology for ten years

congratulations are in order.:sleeping:

Merc can be HALB in any house 7-12 if mercury is of diurnal sect (oriental. basically if mercury is before the sun.)

Yes, i believe that's what i wrote, but i see, you are just working it out in your mind. ok.

If its of nocturnal sect (if mercury is occidental aka behind the sun) mercury can only be HALB in the 7th house during dusk. (possibly 8th in some locations/house systems but unlikely)

i personally believe you should look into that further, but that's up to you.

Ok. Let me see if i can explain it simply.

if it makes you feel better, ok! do it.

Mercury can only be a max of 28 degrees from the sun. Its either before the sun, meaning its of diurnal sect, or after the sun; nocturnal sect.

really? i thought mercury could go all around the ecliptic free of the sun? I mean this is breaking news, are you sure!? SPOT! Poor guy is solar-bound huh? wow, 28° you say? NOW, that is close! Must get hot over there. :bandit:

So as soon as the sun hits the desc at dusk, with mercury up to 28 degrees after sun, there is the potential for mercury to be in halb.

yes, we like potential. Very positive. You are so very bright and colourful in your explanation, i can tell you really enjoy this subject! :biggrin:

As soon as the sun hits 28 degrees below the horizon, mercury must also be below the horizon.

Diurnal mercury will be in halb most of the day.[/QUOTE]

Well, that was as entertaining as my Saturday night gets, i hope you enjoyed yourself there, it was a great show, it's such a delight to type it out so everyone can see it, read it, taste, copy & paste it.

Now, on a serious note, do you happen to have the chart? or was I the only one who could muster a northerner from my scraps?

I would consider life in Antarctica, to disprove your H7/H8 theory. :whistling:
But i mean, who on earth would have a chart from there!?
 

aleth3ia

Banned
Wtv Jup, like it or not, Ptolemy is behind pretty much most of what you call hellenistic astrology, and pity you don't even see he's influenced the ol' Vettius too, that'd be quite mind blowing to accept uh?

Why do you write sentences as if they're the ultimate truth, quoting questionable sources, that even have little to do with astrology anyway? What's with the astronomer's book? It makes no sense.

There's Aristotle and Pitagora behind much of all the astrological practices (Ptolemy introduced them, and we know of that as only reference), and they were no astrologers as well...
I'm not seeing you putting in doubt the entire astrological practice though, may I know why? Did you have some beef with Ptolemy himself when you were younger? I'd like to know, xoxo
 

Phoenix Venus

Well-known member
Lex, in this instance it doesnt matter if its a real person or not. Youre just looking to see what the chances of it happening in time.

So one would simply cast a chart for alaska/austrailia at dusk. Start with the solstice/equinox points if youre wondering if season effects it.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Wtv Jup, like it or not, Ptolemy is behind pretty much most of what you call hellenistic astrology
and pity you don't even see he's influenced the ol' Vettius too, that'd be quite mind blowing to accept uh?
Why do you write sentences as if they're the ultimate truth, quoting questionable sources
that even have little to do with astrology anyway?
What's with the astronomer's book? It makes no sense.
There's Aristotle and Pitagora behind much of all the astrological practices (Ptolemy introduced them
and we know of that as only reference), and they were no astrologers as well...
I'm not seeing you putting in doubt the entire astrological practice though, may I know why?
Did you have some beef with Ptolemy himself when you were younger?
I'd like to know, xoxo
"History of Horoscopic Astrology" by James Holden
states that Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos was not mentioned by any astrologers until Porphyry
over 100 yrs later :smile:

The fraud accusation against Ptolemy is that he stated that the observations he made
were HIS observations for this star catalogue, when in actuality
his observations could not have amounted to more than half the catalogue.
Apparently, he used the same numbers Hipparchus did, which the researchers say
was from Hipparchus' LOCATION and adjusted for the precession
rather than from Ptolemy's own observations.
In addition he used the precise value that Hipparchus did
which produced errors in the rest of his work
which then gave rise to the grounds of the fraud accusations
PTOLEMY would have had to have an error of 28 hours in his observation of the equinox
to produce that erro
r
which as stated
in the (St Andrews bio on Ptolemy)
was unbelievable that he could have made an error of this magnitude.

Hipparchus, Wikipedia article states that
Ptolemys work was copied from Hipparchus.
The mentioned researchers have shown CONCLUSIVELY
that Ptolemy did indeed copy Hipparchus.

St. Andrews University of Mathematics bio on Ptolemy states Tyco Brahe
was the first to make accusations against Ptolemy for fraud
followed by many others.

Also James Holden's Book: HISTORY OF HOROSCOPIC ASTROLOGY
Holdens opinion of Ptolemy falls just short of plagarism
and does not speak too highly of Ptolemy, or the Tetribiblos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

Delambre, in 1817, cast doubt on Ptolemy's work.
It was disputed whether the star catalog in the Almagest is due to Hipparchus
but 1976–2002 statistical and spatial analyses
by R. R. Newton, Dennis Rawlins, Gerd Grasshoff, Keith Pickering and Dennis Duke
have shown conclusively that the Almagest star catalog is almost entirely Hipparchan.
Ptolemy has even (since Brahe, 1598) been accused by astronomers of fraud
for stating (Syntaxis, book 7, chapter 4) that he observed all 1025 stars:
because for almost every star he used Hipparchus' data
and precessed it to his own epoch 2⅔ centuries later
by adding 2°40' to the longitude
using an erroneously small precession constant of 1° per century.

Another source, references the same accusations:
Scotland’s University of St. Andrews, Mathematics Dept.
Toward the end of the article.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Printonly/Ptolemy.html


James Holden, in his book HISTORY OF HOROSCOPIC ASTROLOGY
makes several points

such as Ptolemy frequently does not mention his sources and just says "the ancients"
as if he is in a hurry in writing or compiling the Tetribiblos
PTOLEMY doesn't give credit to his sources much anywhere
So if PTOLEMY copied Hipparchus, then how much of the rest is plagarised
PTOLEMY also leaves out volumes of information available at that time
in Greek Astrology says James Holden

 

Bunraku

Well-known member
Does anyone really read almagest these days? Why would it matter?
We have more modern, and more correct, textbooks for that...
Or is the implication that since his calculations are wrong his astrological methods are wrong too...?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Does anyone really read almagest these days? Why would it matter?
Not many on our forum
Why would it matter?
Quite
We have more modern, and more correct, textbooks for that...
We certainly have more recent traditional texts translated from Arabic & Greek to English :smile:
https://www.bendykes.com/

Or is the implication that since his calculations are wrong his astrological methods are wrong too...?
Ptolemy was not a practicing astrologer
but a mathematician, astronomer and theorist
VETTIUS VALENS in contrast was a practicing astrologer
and details more than a one hundred charts of clients
in THE ANTHOLOGY translated from Ancient Greek by Professor Mark T Riley CSU
and available in FREE pdf form at
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf
 

Bunraku

Well-known member
I only really tested out a few techniques from Ptolemy, and found them to be successful, but a “few techniques” isn’t very conclusive of anything.
Valens on the other hand is very informative and lush with details and examples, which I love :love:
 

aleth3ia

Banned
This is a pretty petty argument tbh, sorry for spamming the thread, Lex.

@everyone
If Ptolemy wasn't or was (more accredited version despite what Jup has to say about it) an astrologer, doesn't change the fact that he made nothing new, all that he gave to the world was a series of reviewed infos about astrology, he clearly says so. But he has indeed a new view in astrology, he doesn't want the more "magical" techniques, and previsions, to take part in it, so he makes some cuts, to leave behind all that is not making sense, to him.
Many ASTROLOGERS have the same view, even today, even without reading the old Ptolemy. Because many ASTROLOGERS follow a more scientific approach, such as Ptolemy tried to do. He clearly states, at some point in the Tetrabiblos, that the science of the phenomena is more important than the predictions, because predictions are caused by that science, and as Hermes said "the bigger contains the small", so that to Ptolemy the science was indeed more important than human matters. He's not the only ASTROLOGER with such a view... and there's a chance that such an approach was revolutionary, for his times. But let's not forget one thing: astronomy was just born, when Ptolemy was writing of stars observations, the 2 astro- doctrines are at the edge of their split, in his times.

I unfortunately have not much knowledge to be able to say if what Ptolemy did is to be considered a well planned fraud, or not, but if you're able to make such an accusation, because of some data he stole from Hypparcus (but Hypparchus stole many things too lol), you should accuse everyone else in the history of astrology, because they're always referring to something else, that someone else said before... then is all astrology a fraud? eheh

This is to say, astrology had, and still has, more shades than what you like to believe, dear Jup. If you don't like some of it, bring along more valid proofs, because Holden doesn't accuse him of anything.

I really like James Holden anyway, you should listen to more of him:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FmFXQSIzCo <3
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
@Phoenix V

You seem to have most of questions sorted out. Any more you want to pose?

Att: ConspiracyTheorist



Status of Venus if interpreted below the line: She is 1.34° below the line. Her effectiveness is moot by angle (paradox) But if interpreted as below finitely then:

out of sect.
fallen, peregrine
without face, without terms.
in triplicity through essential dignity being a day Venus. wrong
fruitful in terms of workplace environment & relations.

Out of sect - incorrect
fallen, peregrine - correct on being in fall, incorrect on being peregrine. Notice the face of Venus?
In triplicity - incorrect. The chart is a night chart.

Status of Venus if interpreted above the line: She is 1.34° below the line. Her effectiveness is moot by angle (paradox) But if interpreted as above according to 5° rule then:

in sect, (because it's night and above the horizon means she's in the darkness, where she is better off?)
not in triplicity because moon is the ruler of Virgo at night then
accidentally dignified due to 7th house placement.
fruitful in terms of relations
(which is further dignified through Mercury's accidental exaltation, disposed by a dignified sun sharing dignitary through dispositorship?

Is that getting somewhere?

In sect - correct, but not for the reason you think. Venus' sect is not hinged on whether she is above or below the horizon but where the Sun is.

Not in triplicity - correct

Accidentally dignified - correct

what you say in the brackets are not what I'm seeing in the chart.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
According to this which i have re-examined, and in accordance with 5° rule, Venus is both Hayz & Halb, because:

hayz 1) she is above the horizon by night.
halb 2) she is in a feminine sign.

No, not in hayz or halb. The 5 degree rule doesn't automatically change the location of a planet, so although read as if in the next house, it is "physically" below the horizon. This is because the start of the house is seen as the strongest point of the house, and not necessarily the "ending" or "start point". This is implied in the whole sign house system where the sensitive point of a house is the same degree as the one at the ascending sign. (Instead of the start of the sign).

how do you see this?
what are you looking at to make such a detailed report about such things as type of partners?

btw, excuse my ignorance, what is IIRC?

Best
Lex

IIRC is short for if I remember correctly.

Detail comes into the picture when you analyze the symbology of the chart and use those components to create a unified picture/declaration. So I started out with Venus in her fall. Venus is the natural significator for women and implicit in the debility "fall" is disgrace or a "fall from grace". As you might have noticed, I chose to go with her being in fall as opposed to the natural attributions that you'd find when looking at the sign Virgo i.e. purity, virginity etc etc. The only essential debility that the Vedics seem to consider is planets in fall, and I'm slowly coming around to the idea that fall may be more of an issue than detriment per se, but that's just thinking out loud.

I digress. Establishing that Venus is in her fall, it is conjunct the 7th house cusp and both the 7th house and Venus share an analogy with romantic partners. Venus is in sect but she is naturally inclined to creature comforts and enjoyments and if Venus is "disgraced" you might see what that could imply.

Then, the dispositor of Venus as well as the 7th house cusp ruler is located in the 6th house. The 6th house has a lot of low status connotations - being a house of servants, slavery, drudgery, disease and so on - topics which are more inclined to afflict someone who lives in poorer circumstances.

Then we see some attributions of the sign Leo. For one, it is feral alongside the second half of Sagittarius. What this indicates is that this section of the zodiac connotes lack of social graces and "playing nice" and is very destructive if allowed to get out of hand. Don't assume when I say this that this means that these signs have the inability to be gracious and whatnot, just that these signs are less inclined to go along to get along, if it doesn't suit them. Being wild, unruly etc is also implicit in this symbology.

Then we have the lustful aspect of Leo. As far as I can remember, Aries, Leo, Libra, Taurus, Capricorn, and sometimes Pisces are indicated as the signs of lust and I don't need to give any explanations as to what that means.

Put all the aspects of this together and apply to everyday life. What kind of individual would this person pursue actively for relationships? Remember too, that Venus is very strong in this chart by virtue of its angularity so it's going to be a strong drive in the life. After all of that, maybe you see why I might make such a interpretation.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Alright, let's take for a moment in consideration the fact that Ptolemy was only an astronomer (this means to ignore completely what his books are about, but oh well, who am I to judge what's astrology! right?), you should as well drop most of the astrological ideas that come from the ancient times; guess what? Ptolemy didn't invent any geo centered system, it already existed, he formulated it in his mathematical terms. He even summed up all that was known in astrology, up to that day, that's why he is a sort of Bible to all the astrological discourses, and yeah, you're right, there's the fact that the ptolemaic geocentric system was put in question and proved wrong, with the scientific progress, yet the entire astrological system doesn't break, and if it did, it would be at the expense of the entire old doctrines, not just of the person who wrote them down, trying to give them a sense.

sorry for the previous uncalled for rude comments, you drive me crazy Jup.
Interestingly a book currently available on amazon asks
Was Ptolemy an Intellectual Cheat?
Claudius Ptolemy, the Greek astronomer
whose publication 1,800 years, ago on celestial motions

brought him renown as the greatest astronomer of antiquity
has been described as a fraud.

Not just any kind of fraud either, according to a book titled

"THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY"
The book's author Robert R. Newton of the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University
says flatly:

"Ptolemy is not the greatest astronomer of antiquity, but he is something still more unusual:
He is the most sucessful fraud in the history of science." :smile:

If Newton is right, few of Ptolemy's observations were his own
and few that were his own he either made up or made incorrectly.
To hear Newton tell it, Ptolemy operated on a timeworn technique used by countless intellectual cheats.
He worked backward to prove the results he wanted to get.
"I taught physics when I was younger
and what poor students do to prove an experiment in physics is to make their date up
It occurred to me that Ptolemy might have done the same thing my poor students used to do
so I checked into it . . . I now believe he plagiarized some ideas and made others up." Robert Newton

Newton claims Ptolemy came up with his theories about the Earth, sun and moon
based on measurements that Hipparchus had incorrectly made almost 200 years before.
Newton says that Ptolemy claimed to have checked the measurements by Hipparchus
and confirmed them
when in fact Ptolemy never checked them out.

"Ptolemy made no allowance for the inaccuracies in Hipparchus measurements
which he could easily have done
Ptolemy tells us he worked for eight years before publishing his work.
The fact is he took Hipparchus' measurements on faith and never made any of his own." Robert Newton

Ptolemy said he observed the autumn equinox at Alexandria, Egypt
at 2 p.m. on Sept 25, 132 A.D.
Backcalculations from modern tables show that an observer in Alexandria
would have seen the equinox at a few minutes before 10 a.m. Sept 24, more than a day earlier.
The discrepancy is doubly strange, Newton says because
Ptolemy said he made this particular observation "with the greatest care."

Ptolemy goes on to say that he used his equinox observation
to show how accurately Hipparchus had measured the length of the year.
Newton says that all Ptolemy did was accept without checking the observations of Hipparchus
which were off by seven minutes.
"He wanted to be a great astronomer but he wasn't good enough to be one so he made up his data
He's fooled people for almost 1,800 years." said Robert Newton



This is a pretty petty argument tbh, sorry for spamming the thread, Lex.

@everyone
If Ptolemy wasn't or was (more accredited version despite what Jup has to say about it) an astrologer, doesn't change the fact that he made nothing new, all that he gave to the world was a series of reviewed infos about astrology, he clearly says so. But he has indeed a new view in astrology, he doesn't want the more "magical" techniques, and previsions, to take part in it, so he makes some cuts, to leave behind all that is not making sense, to him.
Many ASTROLOGERS have the same view, even today, even without reading the old Ptolemy. Because many ASTROLOGERS follow a more scientific approach, such as Ptolemy tried to do. He clearly states, at some point in the Tetrabiblos, that the science of the phenomena is more important than the predictions, because predictions are caused by that science, and as Hermes said "the bigger contains the small", so that to Ptolemy the science was indeed more important than human matters. He's not the only ASTROLOGER with such a view... and there's a chance that such an approach was revolutionary, for his times. But let's not forget one thing: astronomy was just born, when Ptolemy was writing of stars observations, the 2 astro- doctrines are at the edge of their split, in his times.

I unfortunately have not much knowledge to be able to say if what Ptolemy did is to be considered a well planned fraud, or not, but if you're able to make such an accusation, because of some data he stole from Hypparcus (but Hypparchus stole many things too lol), you should accuse everyone else in the history of astrology, because they're always referring to something else, that someone else said before... then is all astrology a fraud? eheh

This is to say, astrology had, and still has, more shades than what you like to believe, dear Jup. If you don't like some of it, bring along more valid proofs, because Holden doesn't accuse him of anything.

I really like James Holden anyway, you should listen to more of him:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FmFXQSIzCo <3



Why did Ptolemy's fraud last for 1,800 years?

Newton says it was because there were no competent astronomers around
to point out the fraud in the 100 years after Ptolemy lived.
"The next time there were competent astronomers were the Arabs of the 9th century,"
Newton says. "I think it didn't occur to them to check it."

Ptolemy's astronomical work was summed up in a massive book he wrote called The Syntaxis
which, after his death in the second century A.D., became known as Almagest
which is Arabic for "The Greatest."
The Almagest was a synthesis of Greek astronomy
especially the work of Hipparchus who lived almost 200 years before Ptolemy.
The work broke down into 13 books, the first of which placed the Earth at the center of the solar system.
The third book dealt with the motion of the sun and length of the year
the fourth with the moon's motion and length of the month.
L
ater books were concerned with the motions of the planets and stars.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
@Phoenix V

You seem to have most of questions sorted out. Any more you want to pose?

Out of sect - incorrect
fallen, peregrine - correct on being in fall, incorrect on being peregrine. Notice the face of Venus?
In triplicity - incorrect. The chart is a night chart.

In sect - correct, but not for the reason you think. Venus' sect is not hinged on whether she is above or below the horizon but where the Sun is.

Not in triplicity - correct

Accidentally dignified - correct

what you say in the brackets are not what I'm seeing in the chart.
Thanks conspiracy for clarifying :smile:
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Yes, i do actually.

Say sun is 4-5 degrees or so below horizon. Day or night chart? Technically its still light outside (civil twilight)

The standard opinion is that it would still be considered below the horizon and therefore a night chart. But, there have been some arguments that have contested that due to the issue you bring up.
 
Top