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

Just Past Perfection

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MarkF



Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 523
Location: Outside Washington, DC

Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:28 pm    Post subject: Just Past Perfection Reply with quote

I know everyone was all excited a few months back by John Frawley's article about how to time predictions based on applying aspects, but I have a different thought that I wanted to throw out there.

Sometimes I have noticed that an aspect that is separating but is still very close to being partile will indicate an event that happens shortly after a chart is drawn. If we go just by the books, a separating aspect will only show the past, not the future. But I have seen plenty of charts where an aspect that is maybe a degree or two past perfection will show an upcoming event.

My idea is that aspects have power all during the time they are in orb; that the power increases as the faster planet approaches and their power diminishes as they separate. But just as the warmest months of summer come after the summer solstice and the coldest months come after the winter solstice, perhaps an aspects effects in the real world can sometimes be most felt just slightly after the aspect achieves perfection.

In other words, don’t get all hung up on timing a prediction. An aspect that is just a bit past perfection may also show that something is about to happen.

This is of course, will all due apologies to John Frawley.
_________________
Mark F
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark,

I'm curious as to what you would classify as still being 'very close to being partile'. Lilly defines that separation has occured when the two planets are departed 6 minutes from each other. Bonatti says it has occured when the faster planet is 1 minute from the other. I take that to mean that separation begins immediately once the aspect has perfected. I have also read that some ancient authors believed it occurs when the planets are in different degrees. This doesn't mean one degree from each other but if, for example, Venus and Mars are in aspect at 5 degrees 45 minutes, separation has occured when Venus moves to 6 degrees.

My personal opinion is that once it has passed the opportunity has gone. It doesn't really matter whether it is one minute or one degree, it has still moved on. Unless the faster planet is retrograde and will come back to perfect the aspect, it will be moving on to other things and isn't available to bring the event or thing asked about to fruition. To me it's a bit like just missing a bus. You can miss it by mere seconds but you still miss it. And it doesn't turn around and come back for you.

To be honest, I haven't looked into this except in theory. Do you have an example that you don't mind sharing where the event has happened even though the aspect was separating? I'd be interested to see it in a practical way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
HoraryQueen



Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 104

Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

Just my tuppence worth ...

I must say that I have been judging horaries where aspects were partile but looking at them in the light of being applying or separating, using them as potentially translating light etc. and I have got it wrong. Sick

Because of this I have come to the conclusion that if an aspect is partile, it is 'static' in a sense. This is describing the situation as is, not about to be or having just been - perhaps showing people who are currently in contact for example.

However, once the aspect is no longer partile, I class it as a separating aspect (which may or may not be about to re-apply due to retrogradation).

I did not see your specific example, however, I am wondering if there could be any translation or collection of light applying in this case. Just a thought, although I presume you might have had that thought yourself.

Bye for now.
_________________
Susan,
Edinburgh.
www.horaryqueen.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just thinking last night that the Moon becomes void of course immediately it becomes partile to the last planet it will aspect before changing signs. If the last aspect is a conjunction to Jupiter, it will become void of course when they are both at exactly the same degree and minute. There is no leaway of a couple of degrees or minutes here or there. I don't believe in hard and fast rules but I also don't believe we can change the symbolism to suit the particular outcome we think might be in the chart. Each chart is different and needs to be interpreted on it's own merits but I'm not sure a separating aspect of a degree or two can sometimes show an event that is about to occur. Some past astrologers didn't even use separating aspects in their natal interpretations and only used applying aspects.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
it will become void of course when they are both at exactly the same degree and minute.


Some astrologers would dispute this, and argue that the Moon can’t be classed as ‘void’ until it has fully separated beyond the orb of an aspect. Historical charts show us lots of examples where separating aspects are used to show a force is still in operation, and that force is used to describe what is happening now and to give a potential for action. An example might be that if the querent asks about the prospect of a love match, and the significators are separating from trine, the advice would be to ‘get in quick’ and try to recapture an opportunity that is slipping away. Usually separating aspects show that the moment of peak influence has passed, but the application of the Moon can bring it back into prominence, as of course can translation, collection, or contact to angles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My software has the Moon becoming void of course immediately it begins to separate from its last aspect. I wasn't really sure about it and did wonder whether it only became void after it was out of orb. So I asked someone who teaches horary and was told that it becomes void of course at the very minute it begins to separate and that it would be a consideration before judgement to warn against reading the chart. I can see what you are saying but isn't the whole idea of 'void' that the Moon won't be making any other aspects before changing signs? When it is still applying, it will be about to make an aspect. When it perfects it has made its last aspect. Once it starts to separate, there will be no other aspects and therefore is void of course. I accept what you are saying though. I'm just thinking out loud.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In regard to other separating aspects, where did Lilly get the 6 minutes that he mentions in CA? Is there reasoning behind it that he explains somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn’t say that how you define it is wrong because it is clear that this is how many authors have defined it. The argument over what properly constitutes 'void of course' and ‘separation’ is huge – I don’t have time to do it full justice at the moment. The dispute, largely brought to light by the work of Sue Ward and Maurice McCann, centres upon Lilly’s definition of the term and arises out of the interpretation of his comment:

Quote:
A Planet is voyd of course, when he is seperated from a Planet, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that signe, apply to any other:


By ‘when he is separated from a Planet’ does Lilly mean when it has passed perfection, or when it has separated beyond the limit of the orb? By ‘doth forthwith’ does he mean sometime before the end of the sign, or immediately? By ‘apply’ does he mean move towards or be within a state of application?

There is a very good definition on Maurice McCann’s website where he shows the criteria for ‘whole-sign’ void of course (which is what you are using); and CA Void of Course, which is how Lilly appears to have used it (although there are examples where his use of it doesn't seem to have applied this rule).

It seems to me that there are two principles in operation here, both worthy of consideration.

It’s a similar issue over the use of the term separation. Traditional authors have complicated this by saying that a planet doesn’t begin to separate until it has passed an x amount of distance from perfection. Those limits vary according to which author you read. In my mind separation as a principle occurs from the very moment two planets have passed perfection and start to move away from each other. But I relate to the argument that even in the process of separation the planet is still affected by the influence of the aspect and therefore if you adhere to what McCann calls the ‘CA definition of VOC’ a planet is not considered to be VOC as soon as it has passed the degree and minute of perfection of an aspect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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