Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Traditional Astrology

Traditional Astrology For discussions on Traditional Astrology only. (Note: Typically, traditional astrology is defined as using techniques developed prior to 1700 by astrologers from the Hellenistic, Persian, Hebrew, and Renaissance eras. In general, it relies on Ptolemaic aspects (sextile, trine, square, opposition and conjunction) though there may be some exceptions, and always excludes modern planets (Neptune, Uranus and Pluto,) as well as any asteroids. The focus is less on what would be considered modern psychological chart interpretation and more on prediction. Members who wish to explore a combination of traditional and modern ideas should feel free to start a new thread in an appropriate forum for further discussion.)


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 08-04-2013, 09:56 PM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Feral Planets

I've asked about this in a couple of other forums and have yet to receive a definitive answer. The best I got, as always, were conflicting opinions as to whether or not it was even possible for planets other than the Moon to be wild, especially in natal charts.

The parameters for a feral planet differ depending on which authority, and age of astrology we choose to look at. Morin seems to be the only one I have found reference to who attempted to offer a way to delineate a feral planet.

Quote:
will act simply in accordance with its own nature...[and] indicates something unusual--good or ill--depending on the nature of the planet
Here is a chart in which the Sun appears to be feral. We have Sun in Cancer in the 12th with Leo rising. Mars is in Sagittarius in the 5th, intercepted. Moon in Aquarius as Sun's ruler pretty tightly applying to the descendant. Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter are all in Gemini in the 11th (also intercepted.)

The Sun's last aspect would have been a conjunction with Jupiter.


***Mistake. Sun's last aspect was the prenatal lunation which was an opposition to the Moon in Capricorn.***

However, as this is a natal chart, the Sun is completely unaspected. So the question is, are we indeed looking at a feral Sun? And if not, why? I can only think of two reasons. The first would be that since Sun is <barely> still within orb of of Jupiter if you use 17* for the Sun, then technically Sun is not unaspected, and certainly wasn't unaspected when it entered Cancer.

The second way was proposed by a friend, and involves the Moon, and why it was important to consider phasis in natal charts. In trying to understand why some traditional astrologers today say that only the Moon can be wild, yet faced with a chart in which this didn't appear to be the case...Moon will aspect the Sun within 7 days of the nativity, in this case by trine once Moon gets to Pisces.

Opinions?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Feral Sun (2).jpg (68.0 KB, 72 views)

__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain

Last edited by tsmall; 08-05-2013 at 02:56 AM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 08-05-2013, 03:36 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Feral Planets

Although personally I do not account for a "feral" state (just as I personally do not account for a "peregrine" state), nonetheless in considering the various historical opinions about this I must point out that the potential "feral" planet ALSO CANNOT be in DECLINATIONAL aspect, that is, it would be excluded from being "feral" IF, although not in any longitudinal aspect with any other planet, yet it is in Parallel of declination with some other planet, than it would be excluded from being "feral"...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 08-05-2013, 04:03 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr. farr View Post
Although personally I do not account for a "feral" state (just as I personally do not account for a "peregrine" state), nonetheless in considering the various historical opinions about this I must point out that the potential "feral" planet ALSO CANNOT be in DECLINATIONAL aspect, that is, it would be excluded from being "feral" IF, although not in any longitudinal aspect with any other planet, yet it is in Parallel of declination with some other planet, than it would be excluded from being "feral"...
And now we have a discussion on how to mitigate aversion.

You would think, after the twists and turns you and I went through getting me to understand parallels, that I would remember it all. Sigh.

Ok, parallel in declination is a tight degree, correct?

Sun is at 22*33' N. What were the orbs we allowed? Jupiter is at 23*8' N. I'd like to see Sun closer to Mercury, which is at 19*59 N...

I was actually, back when I first discovered the possibility of a feral Sun here, looking at the relationship between Cancer and Sagittarius. Ptolemy called them signs commanding and obeying, but that diverges from everyone else's definition of commanding and obeying. At the very least, we can classify Cancer and Sagittarius as signs of equal ascension...which would be signs that can hear each other?
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 08-05-2013, 04:14 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Feral Planets

Parallel orbs: anciently 1degree30 minutes (Modernists = 1 degree*)
So the Sun and Jupiter are within the (oldtime) orb of Parallel of declination (defacto conjunction)
Sun could not be considered "feral"...

(and eclectic Dr. Farr uses a maximum orb of 2 degrees and finds it works very well!)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 08-05-2013, 05:05 AM
BobZemco's Avatar
BobZemco BobZemco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On a web-site far, far away...
Posts: 2,137
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Here is a chart in which the Sun appears to be feral. We have Sun in Cancer in the 12th with Leo rising. Mars is in Sagittarius in the 5th, intercepted. Moon in Aquarius as Sun's ruler pretty tightly applying to the descendant. Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter are all in Gemini in the 11th (also intercepted.)

The Sun's last aspect would have been a conjunction with Jupiter.


***Mistake. Sun's last aspect was the prenatal lunation which was an opposition to the Moon in Capricorn.***
It's a Preventional Chart. Good for you for catching that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
However, as this is a natal chart, the Sun is completely unaspected. So the question is, are we indeed looking at a feral Sun?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
And if not, why? I can only think of two reasons. The first would be that since Sun is <barely> still within orb of of Jupiter if you use 17* for the Sun, then technically Sun is not unaspected, and certainly wasn't unaspected when it entered Cancer.
I don't see that as an aspect.

I think part of the confusion for people where Sun is concerned are the concepts of Combustion/Under Beams.

Combustion/Under Beams is a condition, and it isn't contingent on Signs --- either the Planet is not Under Beams/Combust (and you can see the Planet in the sky), or the Planet is Under Beams/Combust (and you cannot see the Planet....unless you crank the Hubble Space Telescope around or use special filters on your lenses).

Being Combust/Under Beams doesn't have any relation to being joined by body to the Sun, which requires a Planet to be in the same Sign as the Sun. There are a couple of examples I have seen, one in Bonatti and few elsewhere and it is clear they don't use "out-of-Sign" aspects, even when the "aspect" is a "conjunction."

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up, because with respect to being joined to Sun, there are only three positions: Under Beams, Combust or Cazimi (well, I guess five if you count the outbound Combust and Under Beam positions). It kind of just donned on me that people might not be aware of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
The second way was proposed by a friend, and involves the Moon, and why it was important to consider phasis in natal charts. In trying to understand why some traditional astrologers today say that only the Moon can be wild, yet faced with a chart in which this didn't appear to be the case...Moon will aspect the Sun within 7 days of the nativity, in this case by trine once Moon gets to Pisces.

Opinions?
I'm not sure that's a correct view. Remember when you asked about Mercury going stationary?

Phasis is sort of a condition of a Planet as it Stations, goes Direct or goes Retrograde, or you have what you call an heliacal-rising, where a Planet rises just before Sun and is visible (hence the Crescent as a symbol for Islam, except that is Venus.....not Moon....Venus appears as a crescent when rising just ahead of Sun...and so Venus is a significator for Islam in Mundane Charts ---and just think....conventional wisdom says they didn't have telescopes way back then....how did they know?).

Having said that, to the best of my knowledge, Phasis does not involve aspects of any kind, and it only concerns the three Superiors (Mars, Jupiter & Saturn).

So Phasis doesn't apply to Moon, Mercury or Venus (and not Sun either) --- which doesn't mean Moon, Mercury or Venus cannot have an helical-rising (they certainly can -- as well as change Direction), but that would mean that Moon and Venus would not be in-Sect.

Most of this is related to determining if a child will live (the first three states) and/or for determining length of life, and if I remember, some used it as the Chart Ruler (that is if one of the 3 Superiors made an heliacal-rising it was chosen as the Chart Ruler).

Also if I recall correctly, this Phasis is 7 days either side of the birth-date.

The logic for that seems to be that when the Superiors change Direction, they go Retrograde for months and months and months on end, not just a couple of weeks like Mercury/Venus, and that holds greater weight.

Feral is related to Void of Course, and I apply to all Planets, plus I'm of the opinion that both definitions for VOC are correct.

To be VOC in a Sign, holds a particular signification.

To be VOC in a Sign, and then for the next 30 has a different meaning.

When you have a Feral Planet, like Sun in this chart, what impedes it?

Nothing, but then by the same token nothing helps it either.

A Feral Planet can pretty much do whatever it wants to do within the limits of its condition. Sun at 15 Cancer is going to be Peregrine as well.

What is unique here is that Sun is also Ascendant Ruler and is disjunct to not only the Ascendant and every freaking Planet in the Chart, but also in aversion to the Lot of Fortune.

Is this person still alive?

I ask because Sun in 12th cannot be Hyleg. I don't consider Moon in a Day Chart, not that it matters, because if Moon was Hyleg, they'd already be dead. Since the Chart is Preventional, we can rule out the Ascendant and have to use the Lot of Fortune, or we'd have to find a Planet that has Dignity in the appropriate places, and that would probably be Saturn or one of the others in Gemini.

You understand that the Sun in the 12th protects against Secret Enemies, right? Except the Sun rules the 1st, so they are their own worst enemy.

To help delineate the Sun, I'd use antiscia and Lots.
__________________
Addressing his pupil, Satyacharya said, "The science of Astrology is a great secret. It should be guarded with care. This sacred science of Astrology should never be taught to bad people. Nor should it be revealed to too many people and very frequently. It should be taught only to a few chosen disciples who really deserve and have the necessary qualifications."
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BobZemco For This Useful Post:
SunConjunctUranus (12-30-2018), tsmall (08-31-2013)
  #6  
Unread 08-05-2013, 06:26 PM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
What is unique here is that Sun is also Ascendant Ruler and is disjunct to not only the Ascendant and every freaking Planet in the Chart, but also in aversion to the Lot of Fortune.
Pretty neat, hunh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Is this person still alive?
Proof of life?

Yes. This is a female nativity. The twelve year old native is in and always has enjoyed excellent health. I just spent the last hour going through all of Masha'Allah's methods to recognize if the native will prevail or not and I'm still trying to sort that out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
I ask because Sun in 12th cannot be Hyleg. I don't consider Moon in a Day Chart,
Just today alone I've read in the same book conflicting views on if the Moon should be considered in a day chart. It looks like Ptolemy and Bonatti and Abu'Ali allowed for it. Indeed, even my software gives high certainty that Moon is predominator. Honestly I haven't been invested enough to learn and test all the methods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
not that it matters, because if Moon was Hyleg, they'd already be dead.
I've been puzzling over that one. Because Moon is in the descendant in a masculine sign and beseiged?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Since the Chart is Preventional, we can rule out the Ascendant and have to use the Lot of Fortune, or we'd have to find a Planet that has Dignity in the appropriate places, and that would probably be Saturn or one of the others in Gemini.
I would like to make sure I understand. If we use LoF, don't we then need the planet that has most dignity in the degree of Lot of Fortune and is in aspect? Because yes, Saturn has the most dignity where Lot of Fortune is. Saturn trumps all the other planets for dignity in all the hylegical places and comes out as Almuten of the chart. So LoF as hyleg and Saturn as alcocoden?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
To help delineate the Sun, I'd use antiscia and Lots.
Sun's antiscion is at 15* Gemini. Hardly anyone uses antiscia. Do you read it the same as you would if the Sun were actually at 15* Gemini, except that obviously those planets would still be free from the beams?

Which Lots?
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 08-06-2013, 04:11 AM
BobZemco's Avatar
BobZemco BobZemco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On a web-site far, far away...
Posts: 2,137
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Pretty neat, hunh?
Enough to merit study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Proof of life?

Yes. This is a female nativity. The twelve year old native is in and always has enjoyed excellent health. I just spent the last hour going through all of Masha'Allah's methods to recognize if the native will prevail or not and I'm still trying to sort that out.
Didn't mean to frighten. Saturn rules the 6th.

Saturn is in Hayz, and more than that, in a Masculine Bright Degree, plus in a Masculine Quarter.

Saturn is highly competent ---- 110% competent -- to perform the task it has been given.

Saturn would be Besieged by Benefics, but Mars breaks that with is rays. The Rx Mars/Saturn opposition is the only thing that would impede Saturn, who is fine in his own Triplicity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Just today alone I've read in the same book conflicting views on if the Moon should be considered in a day chart. It looks like Ptolemy and Bonatti and Abu'Ali allowed for it. Indeed, even my software gives high certainty that Moon is predominator. Honestly I haven't been invested enough to learn and test all the methods.
I don't trust the software. Solarfire incorrectly calculates the Hyleg in my chart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
I've been puzzling over that one. Because Moon is in the descendant in a masculine sign and beseiged?
The Ascending Degree and Midheaven are "visible," but the IC and Descending Degree are not. Just as the Ascendant Point/Degree is Life, the Descendant Point/Degree is the opposite of life. And to clarify, we're not talking about the 7th Sign or 7th House, rather the actual Descending Degree.

Aquarius is a Sign of Short Ascension (from Capricorn to Gemini) and Planets or Points in Quadrant II moving to the Descendant Point move very fast, much faster than Signs of Long Ascension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
I would like to make sure I understand. If we use LoF, don't we then need the planet that has most dignity in the degree of Lot of Fortune and is in aspect? Because yes, Saturn has the most dignity where Lot of Fortune is. Saturn trumps all the other planets for dignity in all the hylegical places and comes out as Almuten of the chart. So LoF as hyleg and Saturn as alcocoden?
There's a lot of confusion with that.

Bonatti's method comes via the Arabs/Persians, and Ptolemy's method is something else entirely.

The theory behind Ptolemy's method (which isn't even his), is based on the connection to Life.

So we have to take off all of our Astro-Hats and Astro-Glasses and put on our Astro-Life/Death Hat and Astro-Life/Death Glasses (I don't think Ray-Ban or Versace make any special frames for those).

Below Earth is Death, Above Earth is Life, and so Hyleg can only be Above Earth.

Hyleg must be in Sign Aspect to the Ascendant to establish a connection with Life, so that rules out the 8th and 12th Signs, which even though Above Earth are in aversion to the Ascendant.

Life is also represented by the Sect Light, so in a Day Chart, that is Sun.

Effectively, in a Day Chart, you take Sun and any Planet except Moon (which is actually a Light) that is in the 7th, 9th, 10th or 11th Signs, and they are candidates to be Hyleg.

Now you score them, even though it appears that Ptolemy seems to suggest that Sun is automatically Hyleg in a Day Chart if situated in 7th, 9th, 10th or 11th Houses.

Scoring is by Dignity in the Ascendant, Sun and Longitude of the last pre-Natal Moon (Full or New).

People err here, because they use a weighted scoring system like Lily's. It's just one point per Dignity --- Domicile Ruler, Exaltation Ruler, Triplicity Ruler, Bound Ruler and Decan Ruler.

It is unclear if Ptolemy uses the Sect Triplicity Ruler or not, meaning in a Day Chart Sun is Sect Triplicity Ruler for Fire....so ignore the Night Ruler (Jupiter in Ptolemy's Ptriplcity Scheme).

I use Dorothean Triplicities, and use the Sect Triplicity Ruler and Participating Ruler with stellar results so far (ignoring the non-Sect Triplicity Ruler).

1 point each.

In the chart you have, Moon is not the Sect Light, Sun is in the 12th, so that leaves Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn as Hyleg candidates.

Ascending Degree (4 Leo):

Mercury: 0
Venus: 0
Jupiter: 1 (Bound Ruler)
Saturn: 1 (Joint Fire Triplicity Ruler)

Sun (15 Cancer):

Mercury: 1 (Face Ruler) + 1 (Bound Ruler) [2]
Venus: 1 (Triplicity Ruler) [1]
Jupiter: 1 (Exaltation Ruler) [2]
Saturn: 0 [1]

Pre-Natal Full Moon (13 Capricorn)

Mercury: 0 [2]
Venus: 1 (Triplicity Ruler) [2]
Jupiter: 1 (Bound Ruler) [3]
Saturn: 1 (Domicile Ruler) [3]

So we have a tie between Jupiter and Saturn.

Both sextile the Ascendant. Both are in Hayz. Neither are Combust or Retrograde. Jupiter is Peregrine, Saturn is not. Jupiter is in Detriment, Saturn is in his own Triplicity. Saturn is in a Diurnal Air Sign --- Hot & Moist -- which tempers his nature -- Cold & Dry. Saturn is Oriental of Sun.

Saturn is Hyleg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Sun's antiscion is at 15* Gemini. Hardly anyone uses antiscia. Do you read it the same as you would if the Sun were actually at 15* Gemini, except that obviously those planets would still be free from the beams?
Antiscia is kind of like a passive Transfer of Light.

We already established that the pre-Natal Moon was a Full Moon at 13 Capricorn. There was also a partial Eclipse two days prior to birth at 13 Capricorn. You have Retrograde Mars casting his shadow at 13 Capricorn.

Contra-antiscia are bad, and Mars casts his at 13 Cancer, and likewise Sun casts his at 14 Sagittarius.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Which Lots?
1st and 12th House Lots.

A couple of other things to help you....

Moon and Alpheratz rose together at 9:44 PM

Betelgeuse is with Jupiter at 28 Gemini

Part of Spirit sits at 14 Capricorn.

That Mars/Saturn opposition never perfects. About 12 days later Mars goes On-Station.
__________________
Addressing his pupil, Satyacharya said, "The science of Astrology is a great secret. It should be guarded with care. This sacred science of Astrology should never be taught to bad people. Nor should it be revealed to too many people and very frequently. It should be taught only to a few chosen disciples who really deserve and have the necessary qualifications."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BobZemco For This Useful Post:
tsmall (08-07-2013)
  #8  
Unread 08-06-2013, 07:08 AM
DreamingTheSeas's Avatar
DreamingTheSeas DreamingTheSeas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: I want to see the Northern Lights
Posts: 514
Re: Feral Planets

I know its out of theme but...

Bob

We found the Hyleg planet or point, and we bring that to the Dsc. In Tsmall 's examble, we calculate Saturn to Dsc which 4'18 Aquarius and its 174,7. Saturn conjuct Dsc at 174,7.
Mars square Dsc at 39', Saturn square Dsc at 34'

174,7-39'-'34 = 101,7 That's a long life span.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 08-06-2013, 07:43 PM
BobZemco's Avatar
BobZemco BobZemco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On a web-site far, far away...
Posts: 2,137
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingTheSeas View Post
I know its out of theme but...

Bob

We found the Hyleg planet or point, and we bring that to the Dsc. In Tsmall 's examble, we calculate Saturn to Dsc which 4'18 Aquarius and its 174,7. Saturn conjuct Dsc at 174,7.
Mars square Dsc at 39', Saturn square Dsc at 34'

174,7-39'-'34 = 101,7 That's a long life span.
Ah, well how stupid am I. I forgot to explain the whole premise behind the two theories.

Okay, this Egyptian Method Ptolemy relates is Angle/Pivot-based.

If the Hyleg is found in Quadrant II -- a Feminine Quadrant comprising the 7th, 8th and 9th Houses --- then the Hyleg and any Planets in the 7th, 8th or 9th Houses, are directed to the Descendant Point. The Arc of Direction is the "base years" and the Arcs for Benefics/Malefics in Quadrant II add/subtract to that.

If the Hyleg is in Quadrant I -- a Masculine Quadrant of the 12th, 11th and 10th Houses, then, uh, well, here's where Zoller and a few others are going to have a cow.

Most say to direct the Hyleg and Planets to the MC. That isn't exactly what Ptolemy says; they confused the technique of directing with the technique for determining life span; that would be really hard to do since they didn't use the MC for a long time; and even when they were using the MC, it was actually the 0 Point of the 10th Sign.

You actually direct the Ascending Degree in Primary Motion (clock-wise) to the Planets in Quadrant I.

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.

So they try to crow-bar a new scheme of "body-guarding" to conform with Ptolemy's method.

That fails...obviously...so a few centuries later, they try to crow-bar a second scheme of "body-guarding" into the Natal Chart.

That failed, too.

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

That same sad story repeats itself with the Hyleg.

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.

Armed with really bad copies of Ptolemy's work containing amendations, errors and omissions, and not knowing a thing about math and how to calculate ascensional differences and things, the Latins, Jews and Arabs are trying to figure out Ptolemy's scheme of longevity predicting....they can't do it....maybe they're looking for short-cuts.....so they crow-bar another technique on top of Ptolemy's Egyptian Method, and that's how we end up with the Hyleg & Alcochoden.

Like Math and Science, in Astrology, you can get the right result for the wrong reasons.

Their work-around for the Egyptian Method of longevity prediction works....for awhile, and then it breaks down, and when it does....that's when people start creating "exceptions to the rules"....now you can have the Sun in the 8th and the Moon Below Earth in the 3rd House and blah, blah, blah, blah....except that each new "exception to the rule" only creates more exceptions, because the method keeps breaking down.

So here we all are.....centuries later.....still trying to figure out how to determine a person's longevity.

The Hyleg & Alcochoden Method is very arbitrary and highly subjective, which is why it sometimes gives the correct answer, and sometimes not.

The Hyleg Method with Primary Directions is based on math and science, is much less subjective, and consistently yields more accurate results.
__________________
Addressing his pupil, Satyacharya said, "The science of Astrology is a great secret. It should be guarded with care. This sacred science of Astrology should never be taught to bad people. Nor should it be revealed to too many people and very frequently. It should be taught only to a few chosen disciples who really deserve and have the necessary qualifications."
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BobZemco For This Useful Post:
DreamingTheSeas (08-07-2013), JUPITERASC (08-07-2013), SunConjunctUranus (01-06-2019), tsmall (08-07-2013)
  #10  
Unread 08-07-2013, 03:51 AM
DreamingTheSeas's Avatar
DreamingTheSeas DreamingTheSeas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: I want to see the Northern Lights
Posts: 514
Re: Feral Planets

First of all THANK YOU for making things clearly even for a person astrologically idiot like me!

Second: When the Ascendant or any other Hyleg planet or point which is in 1st house house, how to calculate?

Third: The benefic and the malefic planets we handle the same? I mean if my Jupiter or Venus are in the quadrant II we direct the Ascendant degree to that planet to see what give or abstract us ?

Fourth: When the Hyleg is Jupiter or Venus and or Mars or Saturn do you still add or abstract?

For everyone who maybe get annoyed with this discussion about longevity : if you dont want to get wet, dont go the sea.
__________________

Last edited by DreamingTheSeas; 08-07-2013 at 06:55 AM. Reason: sorry
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 08-07-2013, 05:40 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Enough to merit study.
You had mentioned before, and I think others agree, that feral planets are rare in natal charts.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Didn't mean to frighten. Saturn rules the 6th.
That was actually a joke. Because obviously I know the native is still alive. I was looking at the methods for proving that the native will survive because, you know, proof of life. I got totally and completely lost, but my intention was to learn to show why the native was still alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
I don't trust the software. Solarfire incorrectly calculates the Hyleg in my chart.
Which is why we need to learn the reasoning behind everything, and then compare it to what the software says. Instead of relying on a computer program to do everything for us.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
The Ascending Degree and Midheaven are "visible," but the IC and Descending Degree are not. Just as the Ascendant Point/Degree is Life, the Descendant Point/Degree is the opposite of life. And to clarify, we're not talking about the 7th Sign or 7th House, rather the actual Descending Degree.
Is this then why planets in the descendant are considered to be unfortunate? Because you see reference to that idea, but then everyone is like "oooh, that planet is angular which is way cool."

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Aquarius is a Sign of Short Ascension (from Capricorn to Gemini) and Planets or Points in Quadrant II moving to the Descendant Point move very fast, much faster than Signs of Long Ascension.
All right. And now I can say I'm very glad that Moon isn't Hyleg. You know what is interesting though is that she had a proven case of Scarlet Fever (she was quarantined at the ER and everyone had to come and see...wearing gloves and masks of course) at the age of 6. $1.46 worth of penicillin took care of what could have been a case of the nasties.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
There's a lot of confusion with that.

Bonatti's method comes via the Arabs/Persians, and Ptolemy's method is something else entirely.

The theory behind Ptolemy's method (which isn't even his), is based on the connection to Life.

So we have to take off all of our Astro-Hats and Astro-Glasses and put on our Astro-Life/Death Hat and Astro-Life/Death Glasses (I don't think Ray-Ban or Versace make any special frames for those).

Below Earth is Death, Above Earth is Life, and so Hyleg can only be Above Earth.

Hyleg must be in Sign Aspect to the Ascendant to establish a connection with Life, so that rules out the 8th and 12th Signs, which even though Above Earth are in aversion to the Ascendant.

Life is also represented by the Sect Light, so in a Day Chart, that is Sun.

Effectively, in a Day Chart, you take Sun and any Planet except Moon (which is actually a Light) that is in the 7th, 9th, 10th or 11th Signs, and they are candidates to be Hyleg.

Now you score them, even though it appears that Ptolemy seems to suggest that Sun is automatically Hyleg in a Day Chart if situated in 7th, 9th, 10th or 11th Houses.

Scoring is by Dignity in the Ascendant, Sun and Longitude of the last pre-Natal Moon (Full or New).

People err here, because they use a weighted scoring system like Lily's. It's just one point per Dignity --- Domicile Ruler, Exaltation Ruler, Triplicity Ruler, Bound Ruler and Decan Ruler.

It is unclear if Ptolemy uses the Sect Triplicity Ruler or not, meaning in a Day Chart Sun is Sect Triplicity Ruler for Fire....so ignore the Night Ruler (Jupiter in Ptolemy's Ptriplcity Scheme).

I use Dorothean Triplicities, and use the Sect Triplicity Ruler and Participating Ruler with stellar results so far (ignoring the non-Sect Triplicity Ruler).

1 point each.

In the chart you have, Moon is not the Sect Light, Sun is in the 12th, so that leaves Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn as Hyleg candidates.

Ascending Degree (4 Leo):

Mercury: 0
Venus: 0
Jupiter: 1 (Bound Ruler)
Saturn: 1 (Joint Fire Triplicity Ruler)

Sun (15 Cancer):

Mercury: 1 (Face Ruler) + 1 (Bound Ruler) [2]
Venus: 1 (Triplicity Ruler) [1]
Jupiter: 1 (Exaltation Ruler) [2]
Saturn: 0 [1]

Pre-Natal Full Moon (13 Capricorn)

Mercury: 0 [2]
Venus: 1 (Triplicity Ruler) [2]
Jupiter: 1 (Bound Ruler) [3]
Saturn: 1 (Domicile Ruler) [3]

So we have a tie between Jupiter and Saturn.

Both sextile the Ascendant. Both are in Hayz. Neither are Combust or Retrograde. Jupiter is Peregrine, Saturn is not. Jupiter is in Detriment, Saturn is in his own Triplicity. Saturn is in a Diurnal Air Sign --- Hot & Moist -- which tempers his nature -- Cold & Dry. Saturn is Oriental of Sun.

Saturn is Hyleg.
This part is awesomesauce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Antiscia is kind of like a passive Transfer of Light.
That already makes a ton of sense, and I still need to ruminate on the idea for a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
We already established that the pre-Natal Moon was a Full Moon at 13 Capricorn. There was also a partial Eclipse two days prior to birth at 13 Capricorn.
Yes. Not much of a surprise there. Other than that you noted it. Most astrologers seem to disregard eclipses and eclipse points in natal charts. Since the year that I was born there were five eclipses, and each one conjuncts an important planet or point in my chart...I pay attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
You have Retrograde Mars casting his shadow at 13 Capricorn.

Contra-antiscia are bad, and Mars casts his at 13 Cancer, and likewise Sun casts his at 14 Sagittarius.
This is the part I most need to think about. Thanks.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
1st and 12th House Lots.

A couple of other things to help you....

Moon and Alpheratz rose together at 9:44 PM

Betelgeuse is with Jupiter at 28 Gemini

Part of Spirit sits at 14 Capricorn.

That Mars/Saturn opposition never perfects. About 12 days later Mars goes On-Station.
This is why I originally started exploring this chart. I'm not keen on trying to find out if my children will survive me. I have enough to worry about, thank you very much. So DreamingTheSeas

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingTheSeas View Post
For everyone who maybe get annoyed with this discussion about longevity : if you dont want to get wet, dont go the sea.
Discuss longevity to your heart's content. Let's just leave this chart out of it? Otherwise I'll have to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "lalalalalala, I can't hear you..."


Kiddo has a feral Sun, which according to Morin will act entirely within it's own nature. What is the nature of a peregrine Sun in Cancer, ruling the ASC but in aversion to it and so possibly the author of her own destruction, with retro Mars intercepted in the 5th applying to an opposition with Saturn...which never perfects. We have...anger and temper issues that boarder on life and death over trivial matters whenever her autonomy is threatened.

There are days when she is the most glorious child you ever met, and then there are days when I wonder if she will be a serial killer, starting with her own sisters (and for those of you worryworts, that was a joke.)

Bob, thank you for your comments. I'm glad to know that the Sun is indeed feral here, and yes, I got over the freak the freak out about it a bit ago.

You do realize that I'm about to go and try to figure out body guarding? Because I believe that if I remember correctly the body guards don't have to be in the same sign.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tsmall For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-07-2013), Mandy (08-07-2013)
  #12  
Unread 08-07-2013, 05:55 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
[FONT=Verdana]
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.
I have...issues with the conception chart. Because I don't think, based on personal experience, that it actually works. I tested it with all three, and I'd have to go back a couple of years to my arguments with JUPITERASC about the prenatal Epoch to find my replies...

But it worked in none of the times.

My third was concieved on Dec. 25th 2004. If I remember correctly, her "conception chart" was off by at least a month.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tsmall For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-07-2013)
  #13  
Unread 08-07-2013, 06:24 AM
DreamingTheSeas's Avatar
DreamingTheSeas DreamingTheSeas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: I want to see the Northern Lights
Posts: 514
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
..... So DreamingTheSeas



Discuss longevity to your heart's content. Let's just leave this chart out of it? Otherwise I'll have to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "lalalalalala, I can't hear you..."


.......
Tsmall i'm so sorry for using this chart as an example. I sincerely apologize.

ohhh the thing about wet and sea was not for you, just for everyone who would say how unethical is to determine life and death things.
__________________

Last edited by DreamingTheSeas; 08-07-2013 at 06:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DreamingTheSeas For This Useful Post:
tsmall (08-07-2013)
  #14  
Unread 08-07-2013, 10:11 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54,783
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
I have...issues with the conception chart. Because I don't think, based on personal experience, that it actually works. I tested it with all three, and I'd have to go back a couple of years to my arguments with JUPITERASC about the prenatal Epoch to find my replies...

But it worked in none of the times.

My third was concieved on Dec. 25th 2004. If I remember correctly, her "conception chart" was off by at least a month.
QUOTE FROM THE PRENATAL EPOCH by E H Bailey - currently available on amazon


'…..Many people ask, why do astrologers study birth charts, why do they not study the moment of conception? This is not a new question. The reason against conception is that it's darn hard, in most cases, to figure out exactly when that was. You need a technique.

The standard technique, which was not new to Bailey - nor Sepharial, his muse - was to go back nine months, interchange ascendant & moon, and call that the Epoch, or moment of conception.

THIS IS AS FAR AS IVY GOLDSTEIN-JACOBSON EVER TOOK IT

THE PROBLEM WAS THE SIMPLE INTERCHANGE DID NOT WORK IN ALL THAT MANY CASES.....'



'….The solution, which both Sepharial & Bailey gradually arrived at,

was an additional three epochs

Which one applies to you depends on where the moon is by house, and the angular relationship it has to the sun.

As to the various goodies in this book, the prenatal epoch is a factor in rectification, twins & multiple births, and birth defects. It can also be used with directions, primary directions & more. Which amounts to an entire school of astrology, if anyone wants to push it.....'



TOWARDS THE END OF BAILEY'S LIFE (1876-1959), HANS NIGGEMANN - OF URANIAN ASTROLOGY FAME - GOT HIM TO ADMIT:

THERE SHOULD BE EVEN MORE RULES & EPOCHS,

BUT UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE IS SO INSPIRED, E.H. BAILEY'S WORK IS THE STANDARD WHICH ALL OTHERS MUST MEET
http://www.amazon.com/The-Prenatal-E.../dp/1933303247
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JUPITERASC For This Useful Post:
BobZemco (08-07-2013)
  #15  
Unread 08-07-2013, 10:53 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 54,783
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
I have...issues with the conception chart. Because I don't think, based on personal experience, that it actually works. I tested it with all three, and I'd have to go back a couple of years to my arguments with JUPITERASC about the prenatal Epoch to find my replies...

But it worked in none of the times.

My third was conceived on Dec. 25th 2004. If I remember correctly, her "conception chart" was off by at least a month.
Good idea to read Abu Bakr and then deduce as to whether the techniques he describes
to find the time of projection of seed into the womb aka Pre-Natal Epoch aka Conception Chart
are applicable or not - in particular to the charts you are studying

i.e.

PERSIAN NATIVITIES
Vol II Ben Dykes Translation

ABU BAKR
On Nativities
page 85
Chapter 1.2 On the projection of seed into the womb.

Page 89
Chapter 1.3 On the native's stay in the mother's womb

page 91
Chapter 1.4 On knowing the namudar and the hour of the projection of seed into the womb
    1. First Method
    2. Second Method
    3. Another way concerning the native's stay in the mother's belly [Ben Dykes notes that '….This seems to be a way of determining whether the birth was premature or not, to help in judging the date of conception. See Appendix C....']

page 93 to page 101
Chapter 1.5 Detailed planetary disposition of the months
[Ben Dykes notes that:

'...Here we see more clearly that this is the astrological equivalent of genetics, since the native's attitudes and abilities will be signified while already in the womb and not through teaching or experience after birth. This must be why Abu Bakr reports that these months are considered by some to be more important than the nativity – at least in terms of the native's behavior and character....']
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-07-2013 at 11:19 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JUPITERASC For This Useful Post:
BobZemco (08-07-2013)
  #16  
Unread 08-07-2013, 07:31 PM
BobZemco's Avatar
BobZemco BobZemco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On a web-site far, far away...
Posts: 2,137
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Kiddo has a feral Sun, which according to Morin will act entirely within it's own nature. What is the nature of a peregrine Sun in Cancer, ruling the ASC but in aversion to it and so possibly the author of her own destruction, with retro Mars intercepted in the 5th applying to an opposition with Saturn...which never perfects. We have...anger and temper issues that boarder on life and death over trivial matters whenever her autonomy is threatened.

There are days when she is the most glorious child you ever met, and then there are days when I wonder if she will be a serial killer, starting with her own sisters (and for those of you worryworts, that was a joke.)
Do you remember our discussion on Aspect Application and its significations?

Both Planets Direct: one is chasing after the other; chasing someone or something?

One Planet Direct/One Retrograde: one is colliding with someone/something; running headstrong into someone/something?

Both Planets Retrograde: one Planet is fleeing...attempting to escape....to runaway from someone/something?

Do you recall our discussion on Aspects in the Natal Chart not perfecting?

And the symbolism?

I'm sorry, which House does Mars rule in the Chart?

10th Sign/House, plus the MC, right?

And Saturn rules the 7th (and 8th).

Retrograde Mars colliding in opposition to Saturn will always push the limits...but never actually step over the line....because Mars never perfects....more importantly, the reason Mars never perfects is that Mars goes On-Station.....comes to a complete stop.

.
__________________
Addressing his pupil, Satyacharya said, "The science of Astrology is a great secret. It should be guarded with care. This sacred science of Astrology should never be taught to bad people. Nor should it be revealed to too many people and very frequently. It should be taught only to a few chosen disciples who really deserve and have the necessary qualifications."

Last edited by BobZemco; 08-07-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BobZemco For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-10-2013), tsmall (08-31-2013)
  #17  
Unread 08-09-2013, 07:10 AM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
The parameters for a feral planet differ depending on which authority, and age of astrology we choose to look at.
...
Here is a chart in which the Sun appears to be feral. We have Sun in Cancer in the 12th with Leo rising.
...
However, as this is a natal chart, the Sun is completely unaspected. So the question is, are we indeed looking at a feral Sun? And if not, why? I can only think of two reasons. The first would be that since Sun is <barely> still within orb of of Jupiter if you use 17* for the Sun, then technically Sun is not unaspected, and certainly wasn't unaspected when it entered Cancer.
I suppose it depends on how you define a feral planet, but for me, no, the sun is not feral - because it has been aspect with a planet during its tenure in the sign in which it is in.

I know others have responded that it is indeed feral, but I do not know which authority they are using to form that conclusion. According to Al Biruni, Ibn Ezra, Johannes Shoener and so on then it would not be considered feral.

The definition of feral would be if a planet makes no aspects during its tenure in a given sign - it's normally only the Moon that will do this.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Paul_ For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-10-2013)
  #18  
Unread 08-09-2013, 07:34 AM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Being Combust/Under Beams doesn't have any relation to being joined by body to the Sun, which requires a Planet to be in the same Sign as the Sun. There are a couple of examples I have seen, one in Bonatti and few elsewhere and it is clear they don't use "out-of-Sign" aspects, even when the "aspect" is a "conjunction."
Whilst I agree that combustion is not dependent upon signs and is an observable phenomena, I would put a question mark regarding the idea that being joined by body requires the two planets to share the same sign. I'm thinking of people like Sahl Ibn Bishir* who certainly does allow for out of sign conjunctions. Perhaps it depends on what we think joined by body means - for me it's when both are in the orbs of one another (rather than a partile conjunction). Obviously planets can only perfect in the same sign - that probably goes without saying.

Quote:
So Phasis doesn't apply to Moon, Mercury or Venus (and not Sun either) --- which doesn't mean Moon, Mercury or Venus cannot have an helical-rising (they certainly can -- as well as change Direction), but that would mean that Moon and Venus would not be in-Sect.
I was not aware of this, I thought Venus could make a phasis as well. Where did you learn this from? I am pretty certain that many hellensitic astrologers allowed for Venus to make a phasis so I'm curious if I've misunderstood it or if there's some other approach/authority who popularises that only the superior planets can make a phasis.


*EDITED after double checking this, it is MassaAllah and Ibn Ezra who allow out of sign conjunctions

Last edited by Paul_; 08-11-2013 at 09:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Paul_ For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-10-2013)
  #19  
Unread 08-09-2013, 07:14 PM
BobZemco's Avatar
BobZemco BobZemco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On a web-site far, far away...
Posts: 2,137
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
I suppose it depends on how you define a feral planet, but for me, no, the sun is not feral - because it has been aspect with a planet during its tenure in the sign in which it is in.

I know others have responded that it is indeed feral, but I do not know which authority they are using to form that conclusion. According to Al Biruni, Ibn Ezra, Johannes Shoener and so on then it would not be considered feral.

The definition of feral would be if a planet makes no aspects during its tenure in a given sign - it's normally only the Moon that will do this.
Sun never made an aspect in Cancer.

Sun can only aspect 3 Planets: Mars, Jupiter & Saturn.

Sun joined Jupiter at 23 Gemini, and then Sun separated from Jupiter. Having done so, Sun has disregarded Jupiter and is no longer in aspect.

Retrograde Mercury joined Sun, then separated, blocked Jupiter, and then joined Jupiter.

Moon joined Mercury, then Jupiter, then Sun.

Many Greeks and Egyptians would use a 3 orb, in which case Sun is not in aspect. Still others would use a 6 orb, and so Sun is not in aspect. Even with a 12 orb --- and that's pushing the limits of absurdity --- Sun is not in aspect.

What we're looking at is the action of the Feral Planet, not how other Planets act on the Feral Planet.

Since Sun entered Cancer, Sun has not, and will not make any applying aspects to any Planets -- that, plus the fact that Sun is in aversion to nearly everything in the chart (except the MC -- which isn't a Planet) makes Sun Feral.

I suppose if people want to get technical, there was a New Moon at 0 Cancer 10', but that isn't addressed in the texts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Whilst I agree that combustion is not dependent upon signs and is an observable phenomena, I would put a question mark regarding the idea that being joined by body requires the two planets to share the same sign. I'm thinking of people like Sahl Ibn Bishir who certainly does allow for out of sign conjunctions.
But I believe Zael considers a Planet within 5 of the Cusp to be in the succeeding House anyway, so that would make sense.

A conjunction is not an aspect -- it's two bodies being joined, which is not the same as an aspect. I'll have to look at Zael and think about that.

Well, actually in Introduction Zael says a "conjunction" is two bodies within 12 in the same Sign. I'll have to think about that, too, because most authorities consider an Assembly when two [or more] Planets are within 15 in the same Sign, so now I'm wondering what Zael actually meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
I was not aware of this, I thought Venus could make a phasis as well. Where did you learn this from? I am pretty certain that many hellensitic astrologers allowed for Venus to make a phasis so I'm curious if I've misunderstood it or if there's some other approach/authority who popularises that only the superior planets can make a phasis.
I'm pretty sure it's Zoller. Or Schmidt. I get them confused. It's one of those two. I got the "R" part right. Doesn't Schmidt run Hindsight? I think that's where I saw it.
__________________
Addressing his pupil, Satyacharya said, "The science of Astrology is a great secret. It should be guarded with care. This sacred science of Astrology should never be taught to bad people. Nor should it be revealed to too many people and very frequently. It should be taught only to a few chosen disciples who really deserve and have the necessary qualifications."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BobZemco For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-10-2013)
  #20  
Unread 08-09-2013, 10:55 PM
rox's Avatar
rox rox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Anywhere but here, please.
Posts: 91
Re: Feral Planets

Is the Sun at 17 (16 new) in Aries, 11th h., which does not aspect any planet in the chart, still considered feral?
__________________
More than one truth equals no truth.

Last edited by rox; 08-10-2013 at 01:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 08-10-2013, 02:52 PM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobZemco View Post
Sun never made an aspect in Cancer.

Sun can only aspect 3 Planets: Mars, Jupiter & Saturn.
I guess it depends on our definitions, I think this is why I prefer to only really consider these concepts for the Moon. Depending on which definition you use we may have things like the criterion being that the planet enters into no aspects with any planet during its tenure in that sign - however, obviously, the sun will enter into aspects during its tenure in a sign, if by nothing else than the Moon of course. Which is why I think the further back in time we go, the more we see these concepts are only really applied to the Moon. I think it's been a bit of a mistake to consider it that the important point is that a planet is feral if it does not make an application to another planet whilst in that sign.

Al Qabisi describes it, translated by Dykes, as "And if a planet were in some sign, and another planet did not look at this sign so long as it were in it, it is said to be wild[feral]"

Al Biruni says "When a planet is in a sign and no other planet has been in aspect with it from the time of its entry to that of its exit, it is said to be feral in its course."

But notice that there's no concept of the feral planet having to apply, the key distinction is that it is isolated and alone, it is abandoned and in solitude. Therefore the distinction is that during its time in a given sign, it meets with no other planets (by their aspect or conjunction).

The Arabs note that it happens more often with the Moon, but in the earlier tradition (granted it wasn't always clear if it means the next 30 degrees, or the sign) we see that concepts like these are only really applied to the Moon anyway. We don't see examples of a feral/wild Sun or Mars for example.

This is just my $0.02, for me, it's clear that the spirit behind the meaning of a wild planet is one which is utterly abandoned during its time in a sign, and this only really happens to the Moon, certainly in this case the Moon will make an aspect to the Sun (or several) before it leaves the sign, so for me, this is not a wild/feral planet.

Quote:
Many Greeks and Egyptians would use a 3 orb, in which case Sun is not in aspect. Still others would use a 6 orb, and so Sun is not in aspect. Even with a 12 orb --- and that's pushing the limits of absurdity --- Sun is not in aspect.
Just a tangent, but why is that absurd? It's not uncommon to see the orb of the Sun as 15 degrees in medieval literature. (Personally I agree with the 3 degree orb as showing true effect, but 15 degrees would be pretty common as an orb for the Sun through the medieval period). Sahl, for example, who we've just mentioned does exactly that.

Quote:
But I believe Zael considers a Planet within 5 of the Cusp to be in the succeeding House anyway, so that would make sense.

A conjunction is not an aspect -- it's two bodies being joined, which is not the same as an aspect. I'll have to look at Zael and think about that.
Right, but I don't think I said it was an aspect, so I'm not sure if that was just as a by the way, or in reference to something I wrote. I said "joined by body". This is in reference to your stating that they didn't allow out of sign aspects even when the 'aspect' is a 'conjunction'.

I'm quite interested in the history of out of sign aspects, though in particular the idea of the Moon being void or not if it enters into orb of a planet which it would perfect in the next sign. Some of the quotes I have handy are with that context in mind, so apologies for that. It's possible that really what they're saying is that provided the aspect perfects, even if it needs to cross boundaries to do it then it's okay - my interest with Sahl has horary firmly in mind of course so the below may not be appropriate for a natal chart, but it's still interesting that he is more interested in whether two planets will eventually perfect rather than their current sign positions which, by whole sign aspects, would prevent it.
"Suppose a planet wishing to be joined to a planet in one sign but it cannot catch up with it in that same sign until it goes to the next sign. And if it catches up with it in the next sign, then the purpose is perfected"

MassaAllah does allow out of sign conjunctions provided they are in orb, but I don't have the quote to hand. I'll find it if you like.

Clearly showing that Sahl allows planets to perfect provided they enter into orb with one another in a given sign, and perfect with one another, even if they do so in the next sign. This isn't quite the same thing of course, but it's interesting and worth bringing up maybe.

Clearly it was not a clear a defined rule as some astrologers did and some did not. Perhaps this sentiment is best summed up by Ibn Ezra who writes, in the Beginning of Wisdom:
"If two planets should be in two signs and each one of them should be in the force of the other's body, they must not be said to be in conjunction, because they are in different signs. That is the opinion of the ancient scientists, but I, Abraham, the compiler of this book, disagree with them."

Morinus seemed to be of a similar opinion.

Manilius also offers us some hints that simply using whole sign configurations, and not aspects by degree, can lead to mistakes been made when he advises us to note that signs in trine to one another may not actually be really trines but squares instead when he says, in Astronomica:
"And though a man compute a fourth sign from a fourth, the degrees in themselves will cause the wreck of a whole sign. It is therefore not enough to count trigons by signs or to expect a true square from signs at intervals of four"

Anyway, I thought I'd just throw some examples to state why I would put a big question mark over the idea that the ancients didn't allow for out of sign aspects. It's probably clear that many did not of course, but, for me at least, it's equally clear that many did. I think people like Robert Schmidt are similarly starting to move away from the notion that hellenistic astrologers only used whole sign aspects as well (his Definitions and Foundations).

Quote:
I'm pretty sure it's Zoller. Or Schmidt. I get them confused. It's one of those two. I got the "R" part right. Doesn't Schmidt run Hindsight? I think that's where I saw it.
Yes Schmidt runs project hindsight. I wonder if you could provide a quote or a rationale? I have never heard that only the superiors can make a phasis, and, to me, it makes no sense - clearly astronomically the inferior planets can make a phasis - they just need to be able to heliacally rise or set.

Certainly I know many who do use the inferiors as making a phasis in a given chart so it's a new one to me to not allow it. I have to be honest and wonder if you've misunderstood something about what determines a phasis? I might have a look through some texts and see if I can get some examples.

Last edited by Paul_; 08-10-2013 at 03:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Paul_ For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-10-2013)
  #22  
Unread 08-11-2013, 04:43 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: Feral Planets

I started a pretty good post on this last night but got interrupted by a neighbor, a piglet and bats.

Paul, you have circled around the point I was going to make. I'm going to try to summarize with only a few quotes (Benjamin Dykes Introductions to Traditional Astrology is the source I'm using.)

I think medieval wildness is either a conflation or corruption of three earlier aspectual conditions of a planet. The first is disregard, which gives us an understanding of how to interpret separating aspects. The term "disregard" itself implies an active connection that has already existed, since we wouldn't disregard/ignore/stop looking at something unless we had already been looking at it in the first place.

The next is solitude, or emptiness of course. This is where the stringent Hellenistic definition was that in order to be void of course the planet couldn't enter into any aspects for the next 30* of the zodiac, irrespective of sign boundaries. Ok. The Sun moves what, a little less than one degree per day? Venus and Mercury faster (and I didn't look it up so I'm just going with my analogy. If someone wants to correct me on how many degrees Mercury and Venus travel in a day please feel free.) Let's say they go as fast as two degrees per day. That means in 7 days they would travel 14* and in 14 days they would travel 28*. Within those 14 days the Moon would have completed at least what? Two or three or more aspects to them? With the superior planets this would be more because they move so slowly. Which is why the Greeks gave the ponderable reason that emptiness (according to their strict definition) could "only happen to the Moon, because she moves so swiftly. This isn't an opinion, but rather a function of planetary physics.

If we think about the terms, empty or void of course, and solitude, we get a pretty bleak picture.

Quote from Dykes IA footnote p. 143

Quote:
to be forsaken, deserted, abandoned; to be empty and isolated. These meanings specifically refer to a condition in which a past condition is no more, and in which there is little hope of anything further.
**Bolded emphasis mine**

He goes on to explain that the medieval notion of emptiness ending at sign boundaries rather than in 30* from where the planet sits gives nod to Ptolemaic aspects, in that signs that regard each other witness each other and confer an aspectual relationship. My thought is that it wouldn't matter if the aspect perfects or completes in the next sign, because of the planets witnessing each other one will be applying ~that is seeking to join in aspect~ to the other no matter how far apart they are. This eliminates the notion of loss of hope and gives us more interpretive meaning. Whether or not the aspect will perfect gives us more interpretive meaning still.

Lastly we come to the concept of wildness...or feral planets. Other words used to describe this condition are estrangement, annulment, and sometimes emptiness of course, although this is where I think the problem arises. Because from what I am reading, Dykes often refers in IA to earlier Greek interpretations of the etymology yet doesn't always say why or where. Yet he gives the same name for emptiness and wildness in the earlier Greek, kenodromia, but does not explain if there was a difference between the two. Google translate says that means empty streets, btw.

For emptiness of course, we have from Abu Ma'shar

Quote:
The emptying of the course is if a planet would be separated from the conjunction of another planet by {bodily} conjunction or by aspect, and it would not be joined to another so long as it were in that same sign.
So a planet can be void in a sign even if another planet occupies the same sign in an earlier degree. And that will have a certain interpretation attached to it, because even though the planet is currently void, it may still be assembled with the planet it is disregarding (conjunction by sign), or still able to witness (aspect by sign.) Meaning that empty of course does not automatically confer wildness or annulment.

Again from Abu Ma'shar, we have this for wildness

Quote:
But "wildness" is if a planet is in a sign and another one does not look at it at all. And if it were so, it is called "wild." And this happens more to the Moon.
Note the difference from the earlier Greek with emptiness can happen only to the Moon and the later Persian wildness happens more to the Moon.

So what we have here are actually two different ideas. One is emptiness, and the other is wildness.

A wild planet then isn't necessarily empty of course (and in physical fact using the strict Greek definition of empty completely impossible for any planet other than the Moon.)

The key here isn't an argument about who said what when, but identifying and understanding how to interpret a planet's significations in a chart.

We get (again from Dykes, though reading his complete comment on the differences I think he is stressing the wrong argument/delineation) the Latin translation of abolito, or annulment, as the ability to start with a clean slate. Isn't that like the opposite of empty or void?

I know I'm just a newbie student and all, but isn't it always the first consideration in reading charts to delineate the condition of the planet and it's ability to perform the tasks at hand before we even look at the aspects?

Isn't that what Morin was getting at, when he said that a feral planet will act simply and according to its nature? As Bob mentioned, there is in this chart no planet that impedes the Sun, likewise no planet that helps it. It doesn't take away from it's ability to act (as much as it can for being in the 12th house at any rate) and it will still cast its rays into the houses it can regard. That too is a feature of planetary physics.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain

Last edited by tsmall; 08-11-2013 at 05:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 08-11-2013, 05:00 AM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by rox View Post
Is the Sun at 17 (16 new) in Aries, 11th h., which does not aspect any planet in the chart, still considered feral?
rox, this isn't an easy question to answer until we either see the chart or know the locations of the other planets. In order for the Sun to not regard any other planet in the chart, all those planets would have to be in Taurus, Pisces, Virgo and Scorpio...the signs that are in aversion to Aries. Or, as you can see, the Sun could be separating from another planet in Aries and entering into no more aspects because the rest of the planets are in the signs mentioned.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tsmall For This Useful Post:
rox (08-11-2013)
  #24  
Unread 08-11-2013, 10:09 AM
Paul_ Paul_ is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 154
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
Paul, you have circled around the point I was going to make. I'm going to try to summarize with only a few quotes (Benjamin Dykes Introductions to Traditional Astrology is the source I'm using.)
My apologies for only circling the points, I actually thought I was much clearer than I obviously was. I had hoped to make the point that really the earlier the source the clearer it is that these concepts only apply to the Moon (a point which you've also made), and that the important point is that this planet is unaspected during its time in the sign.

I realise now from your reply you may have wished to distinguish this from void of course, which you seemed to have contrasted it with, but I had not realised from your opening post that there was a need for that distinction.

Quote:
I think medieval wildness is either a conflation or corruption of three earlier aspectual conditions of a planet. The first is disregard, which gives us an understanding of how to interpret separating aspects. The term "disregard" itself implies an active connection that has already existed, since we wouldn't disregard/ignore/stop looking at something unless we had already been looking at it in the first place.
We may be splitting hairs, but I would disagree with this slightly - if I understand what you mean. I think if we look to the definitions of wildness the idea is that there has been no regard whilst in that sign - so it's not so much that there was once a regard that is no disregarded, it is instead that there was no regard in that particular sign. Obviously at some point in the past the Moon would have regarded a planet, but the point is that with wildness there isn't any regard during that sign. I'm in two minds between whether or not the Moon has to have fully separated from its orb and not apply to any other planet within its orb before leaving the sign.

Quote:
Meaning that empty of course does not automatically confer wildness or annulment.
Right, but was that ever in doubt? Obviously all wild moons are going to be void of course, but not all void of course moons are going to be wild.

Later you say: "A wild planet then isn't necessarily empty of course"

But, depending on whether you allow for perfection across sign boundaries, if you do not, all wild planets will indeed be void. It depends on whether you allow wild or void planets to have that negative status remove or ameliorated by entering into orb with another planet, even if perfects with that other planet in another sign.

Personally I currently swing toward suggesting that entering into orb with a planet would remove the idea of being void or wild, but its not always crystal clear from the sources we have.

The key here isn't an argument about who said what when, but identifying and understanding how to interpret a planet's significations in a chart.

Quote:
We get (again from Dykes, though reading his complete comment on the differences I think he is stressing the wrong argument/delineation) the Latin translation of abolito, or annulment, as the ability to start with a clean slate. Isn't that like the opposite of empty or void?
I don't agree with that definition, is this something that Dykes makes? I have that book but not to hand. Annulment or abolitio would better represent something which had once been, and which no longer is. I wouldn't see that as the the opposite of void so I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems that regardless of whether we are talking of void or feral, the abolitio or annulment involved here is that the Moon was, prior to this, active or there was some active state in the chart, which, now, there is not. That state or status is no longer active or is removed. This is because the Moon went from doing something in the chart, to do nothing in the chart.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 08-11-2013, 11:44 PM
BobZemco's Avatar
BobZemco BobZemco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On a web-site far, far away...
Posts: 2,137
Re: Feral Planets

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
I guess it depends on our definitions,...
Not really....Sun can never aspect Moon, Mercury or Venus, but they may aspect Sun. Even when Mercury or Venus are Retrograde, Sun can never make an applying aspect to them, rather they have changed direction and are applying to Sun.

Sun makes no aspects, which makes it Void of Course, and since no Planets are looking at Sun -- being in aversion to all other Planets (not to mention the Asc/Dsc and Lot of Fortune) -- that makes it Feral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
I think this is why I prefer to only really consider these concepts for the Moon.
But that's illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Depending on which definition you use we may have things like the criterion being that the planet enters into no aspects with any planet during its tenure in that sign - however, obviously, the sun will enter into aspects during its tenure in a sign, if by nothing else than the Moon of course. Which is why I think the further back in time we go, the more we see these concepts are only really applied to the Moon. I think it's been a bit of a mistake to consider it that the important point is that a planet is feral if it does not make an application to another planet whilst in that sign.
Again, that's illogical, as well as contradictory.

Planetary Order & Speed

...Moon-Mercury-Venus-Sun-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn...

I beat people up with that to no end. It's really important for those starting out in Astrology, if for no other reason than it helps in correctly delineating aspects.

Bearing that in mind...

What does everything in this Universe do?


It seeks.

Water seeks its own level. Water also seeks equilibrium as do gases, plasmas and colloids. Rocks seek? Sure. Rocks seek to be at rest, or to resist the forces of gravity. Plants seek. Plant roots seek water...and grow in that direction, while stems, branches and leafs seek the Sun, and so they'll grow all cock-eyed, twisted and distorted around obstacles like other trees, rock outcrops and what not in an attempt to find the Sun (and those that don't get Darwin'd). Animals seek things....and so do people, whether its food, shelter, water, clothing, companionship, a purpose in life or whatever.

The Planets do the same.

Planets are constantly seeking to join with, or aspect another Planet -- for good or bad.

Going back to Planetary Order & Speed, Moon seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets....and some people wonder why the Moon represents change or instability.

Referring again to Planetary Order & Speed, on the other side of the spectrum sits Saturn who -- like all other Planets --- seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets...except that Saturn cannot...

....and some people wonder why Saturn signifies stability, a lack of change, things that are old, oneness, aloneness, things that are solitary, things that are fixed....and that's what he does when he's in a good mood....otherwise Saturn destroys, delays, hinders and corrupts everything.

So what does that say about a Planet that seeks to join with or make aspects to other Planets, but cannot do so in the Sign it is in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Al Qabisi describes it, translated by Dykes, as "And if a planet were in some sign, and another planet did not look at this sign so long as it were in it, it is said to be wild[feral]"

Al Biruni says "When a planet is in a sign and no other planet has been in aspect with it from the time of its entry to that of its exit, it is said to be feral in its course."

But notice that there's no concept of the feral planet having to apply, the key distinction is that it is isolated and alone, it is abandoned and in solitude. Therefore the distinction is that during its time in a given sign, it meets with no other planets (by their aspect or conjunction).
It's clear that at some point in the distant past, Sun & Moon were "Lights" while Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter & Saturn were "Planets."

At some later point, this distinction between the Lights and the Planets became blurred. I believe this is one reason the doctrines related to Sect became corrupted. You can see that in continuous references to the Sect Light or Light of the Sect. Yes, each Sect has a Light, but the Sect Light is not automatically the Sect Ruler --- that would violate numerous doctrines, which more or less show that the most powerful Planet of that Sect should be Sect Ruler, meaning between Sun, Jupiter & Saturn, anyone of those three could actually be the Sect Ruler depending on their condition and placement.

Anyway, it would appear as if the Lights were treated differently than the 5 Planets (I'm working on tracing that back).

If we take that track, then if Moon can be Feral, so can Sun, since both are Lights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
The Arabs note that it happens more often with the Moon, but in the earlier tradition (granted it wasn't always clear if it means the next 30 degrees, or the sign) we see that concepts like these are only really applied to the Moon anyway. We don't see examples of a feral/wild Sun or Mars for example.
If it is rare, then we wouldn't expect to see many examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
This is just my $0.02, for me, it's clear that the spirit behind the meaning of a wild planet is one which is utterly abandoned during its time in a sign, and this only really happens to the Moon, certainly in this case the Moon will make an aspect to the Sun (or several) before it leaves the sign, so for me, this is not a wild/feral planet.
It's possible for people to go overboard with that.

For me, I limit Natal Charts to the current Sign. "What is this Planet doing in this Sign right now, and what will it do while in this Sign?"

A Planet in a given Sign is applying (seeking) the aspect of another Planet, or it isn't, and if it is, then either it perfects or does not.

Another Planet is either in an applying aspect to the Planet [in focus] or not, and if it is in aspect, then either it perfects or does not.

In this Chart, the Sun makes no aspects in Cancer, and none of the other Planets will make aspects to Sun in their present Signs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Just a tangent, but why is that absurd? It's not uncommon to see the orb of the Sun as 15 degrees in medieval literature.
No one said Medieval people had Big Brains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Right, but I don't think I said it was an aspect, so I'm not sure if that was just as a by the way, or in reference to something I wrote. I said "joined by body". This is in reference to your stating that they didn't allow out of sign aspects even when the 'aspect' is a 'conjunction'.
I know that you know, but I said that for the benefit of others who might have some bizarre ideas about aspects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Clearly showing that Sahl allows planets to perfect provided they enter into orb with one another in a given sign, and perfect with one another, even if they do so in the next sign. This isn't quite the same thing of course, but it's interesting and worth bringing up maybe.
Both Zael and Masha-allah say that a conjunction is "by degree" meaning that two Planets are conjunct only when they are in the same Degree.

Zael also says that once the lighter Planet (here Sun) moves off by 1 then the conjunction is no more...they have separated.

Both Zael and Masha-allah agree that for aspects (which do not include conjunctions) the lighter Planet has separated once it reaches half of half its orb.

According to Zael then, Sun's orb is 30 and its half orb is 15 so in an applying aspect -- a sextile, square, trine or opposition -- to Mars, Jupiter or Saturn he says Sun is joined at 15 applying, then the aspect perfects, then Sun separates at half of its half-orb once it is 7.5 past Mars, Jupiter or Saturn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_ View Post
Yes Schmidt runs project hindsight. I wonder if you could provide a quote or a rationale? I have never heard that only the superiors can make a phasis, and, to me, it makes no sense - clearly astronomically the inferior planets can make a phasis - they just need to be able to heliacally rise or set.
Never mind. In hindsight, Schmidt would never say something as silly as that. I had to dig up the paper I had been working on to refute the claims of some idiots who create non-existent problems and then try to attack them (a Straw Man) and I was actually using a quote from Zoller who said it was more important to note what Medieval astrologers did, instead of [the Hellenists] speculating on what the Medieval astrologers might have done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
My thought is that it wouldn't matter if the aspect perfects or completes in the next sign, because of the planets witnessing each other one will be applying ~that is seeking to join in aspect~ to the other no matter how far apart they are. This eliminates the notion of loss of hope and gives us more interpretive meaning. Whether or not the aspect will perfect gives us more interpretive meaning still.
Uh, I'll have to think about that.

Yes, the Planets all seek to join or aspect another for good or bad, but having done so, and completed whatever was they were doing, one moves off by separating.

There's nothing wrong with that...except for people who refuse to recognize that conjunctions are not aspects (because they butcher the interpretation).

When Planets are in aspect, they are in different Signs, and thus different Houses, and so they have differing agendas (good or bad), and that's where pushing management, power and nature, plus Reception (and location --- left vs right) tells you who comes out on top (as far as gaining the upper had with their agenda).

With a conjunction, the Planets are in the same Sign, and so in the same House, and so they have the same purpose/agenda (good or bad).

When Planets separate in aspect, that's it....the story's over.

When Planets separate from a conjunction --- it ain't over 'til its over.

Why? Because the conjunct Planets are in the same Sign, and so when they separate, they are still assembled for the same purpose.....so long as they are within 12 or 15 (depending on the authority) of each other in the same Sign.

Understanding that allows to understand why a Planet in aspect that separates and is VOC has abandoned its cause....and that is different from a Planet that conjuncts and moves off, but has not abandoned its cause since it is still assembled with one or more Planets in the same Sign for the same purpose.

Can a conjunct Planet become Void?

Sure. Moon, Mercury or Venus conjunct one of the Superiors early in the Sign can separate, still be assembled for the same purpose, until it reaches the limit of assembly, and then if no further conjunctions or aspects are made, the Planet is VOC.

And that tells a different story.

Two Planets conjunct, one moves off, yet remains assembled until it exits the Sign, versus two Planets conjunct, one moves off remaining assembled, and then becomes VOC before exiting the Sign.

In the latter, the Planet "abandoned all hope" while in the former, the Planet continued serving its purpose until it changed Signs.

That's why we say in Electional, Horary and Mundane that the matter comes to nothing when the Moon is VOC, because it signifies the Querent gave up (or will give up), or in Mundane Charts where the issue is ultimately abandoned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
So a planet can be void in a sign even if another planet occupies the same sign in an earlier degree. And that will have a certain interpretation attached to it, because even though the planet is currently void, it may still be assembled with the planet it is disregarding (conjunction by sign), or still able to witness (aspect by sign.) Meaning that empty of course does not automatically confer wildness or annulment.
Uh, okay, I guess I should start reading the entire thread/post first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
So what we have here are actually two different ideas. One is emptiness, and the other is wildness.

A wild planet then isn't necessarily empty of course (and in physical fact using the strict Greek definition of empty completely impossible for any planet other than the Moon.)

The key here isn't an argument about who said what when, but identifying and understanding how to interpret a planet's significations in a chart.
I have an issue with the definitions, too.

Sure, Planets can seek to join or aspect others, but why can't a Planet seek solitude?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmall View Post
As Bob mentioned, there is in this chart no planet that impedes the Sun, likewise no planet that helps it. It doesn't take away from it's ability to act as much as it can for being in the 12th house at any rate) and it will still cast its rays into the houses it can regard. That too is a feature of planetary physics.
Again, we have to ask what is actually negative here?

Alnilam with Mercury: hasty, quick temper, quarrels with associates, domestic disharmony through actions, troubles through writings and opposite sex. (Robson).

Alnilam and Mercury culminate at 8403' and 8422' respectively.

But that's Mercury not Sun.

Contrary to popular belief, the Lights do not need to be Angular to be famous.

One can be a president, like Truman, who had Moon/Sun opposition on the 2/8 Axis....meaning Sun and Moon were in aversion to the Ascendant; or Reagan who had a 3rd House Sun and 6th House Moon --- more proof the Sect Light does not need to aspect the Ascendant; and "W" had a 12th House Cancer Sun, Leo Ascendant and 3rd House Moon.

Really, the only thing bad here is the Sun's Dispositor Moon, who is in Aquarius -- Sun's Detriment. Normally, the Ascendant Ruler in the 12th indicates self-destruction, but that's typically the case when the Ruler is afflicted or impeded, or otherwise in bad condition (like being in Detriment/Fall). Aside from that, 12th House Sun protect against powerful enemies, provided the Sun is competent (and if not, then aided by Venus/Jupiter). Sun is plenty competent here, and trouble will probably come from Aquarius Moon in the 7th -- [business partners, associates, legal actions, competitors and open enemies] and that will be associated with groups (Saturn in Gemini 11th).

.
__________________
Addressing his pupil, Satyacharya said, "The science of Astrology is a great secret. It should be guarded with care. This sacred science of Astrology should never be taught to bad people. Nor should it be revealed to too many people and very frequently. It should be taught only to a few chosen disciples who really deserve and have the necessary qualifications."
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BobZemco For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (08-12-2013), tsmall (08-12-2013)
Reply

Tags
feral, planets

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.