skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Classical Use of Triplicities
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

Quote:
However, the rulership scheme itself is based on symmetry. Ptolemy's terms also, as you mention. Symmetry is not a modern concept at all.


I am not saying that there is no symmetry in Dorotheus' arrangement of the trigon/triplicity rulers. I am saying that there probably is an arrangement but we do not see it...The origin of the ancient trigon arrangements is lost over the centuries...

Quote:
The question is, is one arrangement better than the other?

In terms of practicality, I don't know.

Quote:
Is there experimental proof that Ptolemy's terms work better than Egyptian terms? Is there experimental proof that traditional rulers work better than modern rulers? Is there experimental proof that one house system works better than another? Tropical vs. sidereal zodiac? And so on.

There are proofs both ways. You can "disprove" by examples though you can never make universal proof out by laying down examples (no matter how many). To proof something to be true, it must be shown to be true for all cases. To disprove something, you just have to give an example. In studying astrological effects, you can never have a control group e.g. you cannot study the effects of one dignified planet over another debilitated planet while keeping other effects the same. The part to keep other effects the same is just higly improbable if not impossible. We cannot "control" our variables i.e. our planets. We can only study the validity of astrology through historical cases and in retrospect...and even this is...

Quote:
It's great to respect tradition, but if we don't understand and can't explain or prove why we're doing astrology that way, it is blind faith.

There are many levels of faith. Blind faith is faith w/o any examination. I could have faith that something works though I do not understand it. Of course I would have greater faith if it works and I understand the reason behind it. In this case, I would say that I have faith (albeit not completely) in Dorotheus because I think he knows his stuff. It is a shame that he did not lay out the reason. If he did, I would probably have GREATER faith in him. Personal experience in chart delineation would then increase/decrease my faith in his arrangement.

Quote:
The big question, "does astrology work?", is being answered by practicing astrologers in the affirmative, day in and day out. Does anyone take the time, however, to see why it works this way...


Due to the difficulties of isolating conflicting/supporting/interacting of the myriad factors in astrology makes it difficult to support/reject any arrangement (or any astrological theory for taht matter!). Dorotheus' arrangement seems to sing to me more than others'. Others' arrangement might sing better for you...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm having another look at the various triplicity ruler schemes. It is clear, from what I've read on this subject so far, that Lilly and Morinus didn't have as good a handle on these as did Dariot, Valens and Dorotheus.



You forgot Ptolemy. Wink Lilly used Ptolemy's system of two triplicity rulers, one for day and one for the night. I reacall Lee Lehman quibbling over whether or not Lilly correctly interpreted Ptolemy, but the thrust of the argument has escaped me.

Morin invented his own triplicity system which is, frankly, pretty elegant. The Day ruler is the ruler that has two dignities in the element. For example: the Sun rules Leo (fire) and is exalted in Aries (fire) so he gets the day rulership of the fire signs. The night ruler is the planet that rules the cardinal sign of the triplicity, so the night ruler of Fire is Mars, and the third or participating ruler is the remaining planet that rules a sign in that element. In this case it would be Jupiter as he rules Sagittarius. This can be doe for all the elemets.

Mornius believed that the triplicities were strongly associated with the elements whereas the Greek system seems to be more associated with sect.

I don't know any any of these men were lacking in knowledge of the use of triplicities, but there is a different perspective. I've never tried Morin's system, nor do I know anyone who has. I can't say how well it works or doesn't, but I still think it is elegant.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
aquirata



Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

astrojin,

Quote:
In studying astrological effects, you can never have a control group e.g. you cannot study the effects of one dignified planet over another debilitated planet while keeping other effects the same.

I disagree with this statement. Control groups come in two varieties: real or generated. Real control groups are being used in social studies all the time. This can also be done in astrology. For example, one can study people with certain traits, professions, etc. vs. those that lack the feature under examination. Given large enough samples, significant factors will emerge. A control group can also be generated automatically, much like in AstroDatabank. Here it is advisable to use a group several times the size of your experimental group so spurious effects can be avoided.

There is no requirement to "keep other effects the same" if by this you mean planetary phenomena. It is true that statistical studies will never give you 100% results, but what will in life? The likelihood of the Sun rising tomorrow morning is very close to 100%, but it is still less than certainty. So it is with other phenomena and proof - one can only talk about confidence levels with respect to any scientific experience, evidence, theory, model, etc.
_________________
Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aquirata



Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tom,

Quote:
You forgot Ptolemy.

Oh, that guy! Smile He was certainly an expert on rulerships and terms, but I'm not sure about his triplicities.

Quote:
I've never tried Morin's system, nor do I know anyone who has. I can't say how well it works or doesn't, but I still think it is elegant.

And that highlights one of the basic problems with our astrological worldview. No astrologer in the world has evidence for the workings of astrology with the exception of their personal experience with clients or otherwise. This is perfectly fine within the daily life of the practitioner, but is lacking in the context of astrology as a body of knowledge. The rulership scheme is very elegant, but do we have evidence to support traditional rulers vs. modern rulers? Any evidence to say which house system works better in what application? Any evidence with respect to aspects, orbs, harmonics? Asteroids, fixed stars? Tropical vs. sidereal zodiac? The list goes on and on. The papers and talks presented in the usual venues provide no evidence whatsoever. They are simply case studies, and case studies can be designed to show anything. I am not saying they are designed that way on purpose, just that they can be misleading. Moreover, they are nearly always after the fact.

Horary is a different beast as there is a very high emphasis on prediction. Once again, the practitioner have a feel for techniques that worked for her in the past, and this can be honed through a lifetime of study and practice. But do we know if we perhaps utilize only 5% of the most significant factors available to us? Well, no, because no-one can say for certain what works and what doesn't from a set of hundreds of thousands of factors. It is impossible to examine all of them even if one is totally dedicated to astrology for life. This task, however, is possible with the help of computers.

I have recently started examining these factors in one particular context (which do not necessarily translate to other applications), and the list of most significant factors contains quite a few surprises. This work has just begun, but I foresee a major shift in this century from astrology based on personal experience and tradition to astrology supported by scientific studies. This prediction goes against the popular shift towards the divinatory view, so it is contrary enough to warrant mention in case it comes true. Smile
_________________
Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh, that guy! He was certainly an expert on rulerships and terms, but I'm not sure about his triplicities.


See Tetrabiblos, Book I, chapter 18 page 83 (Robbins) Of the Triangles. Or if you have Ashmand, Book I chapter XXI, page 29, The Triplicities. Robbins was not an astrologer, Ashmand was, which is probably why Robbins used the word "triangles." I don't own Schmidt's translation.

I think the use of the triplicities is an excellent example of why statistical studies (I assume that's what you mean when you say "evidence") don't lend themselves to validating or invalidating astrology. Not only is there disagreement of what they are (do we use two? three? Does Mars rule water day and night? Is Morinus' system better or worse than the others? Do night triplicity rulers have an effect in day charts and vice versa?), but they are used differently by different astrologers. While all this would send a scientist running from the room holding his head in his hands while he was screaming, astrologers are quite comfortable with it.

For example, see Dorotheus' use of triplicities, Al Khayyat's use of triplicities, Morin's use of triplicities, and Lilly's use of triplicities. Someone is going to test all that? And if they do and the test results come in differently than an astrologer expects, will the astrologer change? Doubtful.

If people wish to pursue this line of thought, I suppose there is no harm in doing so. I just don't see it ever accomplishing much in my lifetime.

Enjoy your pursuit.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
aquirata



Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom,

Quote:
I think the use of the triplicities is an excellent example of why statistical studies (I assume that's what you mean when you say "evidence") don't lend themselves to validating or invalidating astrology.

It seems to me you are making a point contrary to what you are stating. It is exactly the confusion over triplicity rulers, houses, zodiacs, etc, that statistical studies can sort out. Hard evidence will pour clear water in the glass, so to speak. Having said that, it is still quite possible that the results will show e.g. that both tropical and sidereal zodiacs are valid.

Quote:
Someone is going to test all that?

I or somebody else will. Just wait and see.

Quote:
And if they do and the test results come in differently than an astrologer expects, will the astrologer change? Doubtful.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's an entirely different issue.

Quote:
I just don't see it ever accomplishing much in my lifetime.

Well, getting to a ripe old age there, aren't we? Smile Seriously, if you get the grace of living for a few more years, you will see changes. Of course, if you won't want to change, that's your prerogative.
_________________
Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is exactly the confusion over triplicity rulers, houses, zodiacs, etc, that statistical studies can sort out.


The problem is the premise: i.e. statistical studies have some sort of validity in all things. There are no statistical studies or anything else that can validate that statement. Statistics are used, misused, and abused all day and night long in all fields, each position claiming to have done it correctly while the methods of all others are wrong. Why something like astrology is going to produce better or even useful results when almost nothing else does, is quite beyond me.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
aquirata



Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The statement is that statistics have something to say about correlations, not that it has validity in all things. Astrology is in some way the study of correlations between celestial and earthly phenomena. You can be sure that statistics will have something valid to say about that because that's been the collective human experience for the past 350 years or so. Sure, statistics have been misused, but that doesn't invalidate the discipline or its applicability.
_________________
Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carnna



Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 44

Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I don't like about control groups, especially in nativities is this:

they generate non-live persons for charts.

in other words, how many abortions (doesn't matter whether intentional or not), infant death or those that never took nourishment, etc.

Do you see my meaning? how many of those charts could have sustained life to adulthood?

taking the "art" out of the science of astrology, is like making a robot equivalent and equal to life. And life is not equal amongst us, nor animals, terra.....amongst themselves.....etc.

How many times have you delineated someone's chart and saw failure (for example) and yet they managed to succeed or acquire. when looking back you note the accidental dignity of this or that by particpator or natural ruler or translation of light........or vice versa of this whole paragraph?

The two-dimensional is not the whole and cannot be.
I realize this is abstract, but I know not how to be more eloquent or poignant in explaining myself. I really need to increase my vocabulary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
taking the "art" out of the science of astrology, is like making a robot equivalent and equal to life.


Exactly. People have to be put into pigeonholes. Even without that we have to question the usefullness of any statistical study.

Gauquelin took the charts of 3,305 scientists and found Mars on an angle 666 times. Chance predicted 565 times. The odds against this being chance about 1 in 500,000. Value? Well if 3,305 scientists walked into the astrologer's lair, 666 would have Mars on an angle, 2,639 would not. Now let us suppose for the sake of argument that 1% of the general population become famous scientists. This is an absurdly high percentage, but let's continue. That means that if an astrologer saw 3,305, 000 members of the general population, the astrologer would look at all the charts with Mars on an angle and correctly identify 666 scientists or .02%.

Mars also figured prominetly in the charts of athletes, and military leaders. So the astrologer still has more than one possibility. And even then, this only worked with the top of the field. Average atheltes, average scientists, and average miliatry leaders showed nothing in their charts that was greater than chance. So then what did statistics "prove" that is of value to the astrologer? It "proved" nothing to the scientific community who took 40 years to admit Gaquelin's studies were performed within the rules of statistics. And then they still dismissed them.


Quote:
Sure, statistics have been misused, but that doesn't invalidate the discipline or its applicability.


It damn near does, or it at least calls into question it applicability to all the things it claims it can do. For example, pharmaceutical companies use statistics to determine the safety and effectiveness of their products. Lawyers use statistics to claim the pharmaceutical companies products aren't safe and/or effective. Both have champions to defend their statistical studies. Where is the truth? It should be easy enough to determine; patients' health improves without risk or it doesn't. The fact is that nobody knows regardless of how many studies are perfromed because they keep finding other areas to which they apply all sorts of statistics In the cases of medicine it's "side effects," so we apply statistics to that and by using those statistics we endeavor to prove or disprove wheteher or not the companies deliberately misled physicians and consumers and therefore are required to make law firms wealthy, or whether the lawyers are deliberately misuing statistics to make a pile. The pharamceutical companies wish to convince physicians and consumers their products are effective and safe. Lawyers have to convince 12 people picked at random that they aren't. "Safe" and "effective" are relative terms, but I'm sure standards must be met, so both sides use statistics to demonstrate that a) standards have or have not been met, and b) the other guys' stats are wrong (bad method, too small a sample, whatever). The point is that the truth remains hidden, because there is no one sure-fire way to demonstrate it. This calls into question the validity of statistics when two opposite sides of an argument can use experts and the rules of statistics to come to opposite conclusions. Each side uses the data that suits them, and both may have honest defenders or dishonest defenders. We'll never know and neither will professionals as they, too will differ on the results. So where is the value?

If we are going to apply statistics to astrology I submit we must first contend with the observation of J.B. Morin.


Quote:
"Ancient astrologers often based their judments on purely ficticious assumtions, contrary to the nature of things, or on certain elements which correspond to the natural order, but which were poorly understood. ... Until now, the study and use of these "universal significators" has been the principal preoccupation of Astrologers. I agree that the Sun by nature has a clear analogy with honors, kings, the father, etc, than with low station, peasants, children etc. and I also concede that the same connection exists between Jupiter and wealth, Venus and the wife, Mercury and the intellect and so forth. But it is absurd to claim that the Sun is the universal significator of the father or honors, and that therefore it follows necessarily, in no matter what horoscope, that the judgments concerning both the father and the honors attained by the native should be made according to the Sun, no matter what house it occupies or rules.

Celestial influences are indeed universal causes. But as such they do not manifest in themselves any preference for acting on one individual more than on another. Thus they are able to be determined by individuals. But, because there are many ways in which a celestial influx can be determined (ways which come down finally to two principal kinds: determination by position and disposition of the planets in the Horoscope), it follows that heavenly bodies do not influence beings in the sublunary world except according to the special manner determined by these same beings. That is, celestial influence on a given individual depends principally on the connections present at the moment of birth between the Planets and the Houses. These connections are based either on the physical position of the Planets, or on their aspects or their Rulership in this or that House, or their relationship with the Ruler of the House which they occupy*.


In other words, it all depends on the chart. Planets take their particular significance from the individual's birth chart, and how the individual applies his or her free will. Is there a test for that? If not, what can we test?


Tom

*Notes othe translation:

1) The quote is from the Lucy Little translation of Astrologica Gallica, book XXI pages 11 -12, Emerald Books, 1974. The italics are in the translaion I used.

2)The other major translation of ths book was done by James Baldwin. There are times, and this is one of them, that I wonder if the translators were working from the same text. The quote is taken from the introduction. Little's introduction is about half the length of Baldwin's. They both are on the same topic, but, and this is rare in my experience, Little's seemed more clear than Baldwin's. It is usually the other way around.

Little translated from a French translation. Baldwin translated from the original Latin. The Little translation served my purpose better, although I could have used Baldwin's, but it would have required more explanation, wehereas Little's seems to stand on its own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated