Parts and Accidental Dignities in Turned Charts 1 by Astraea Hello to all. Please excuse me if this question has already been asked and answered; if it has, I did not find it in my searches of the forum. In a turned chart, is it necessary to recalculate the appropriate Arabian parts and accidental dignities (i.e., angularity) according to the cusps in the turned chart? Or does one stick with the calculations derived from the original chart? Thank you in advance. I have recently registered with the forum and am very impressed by the depth of knowledge and gracious tone here. Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:19 pm
2 by Deb It's nice to know we have a gracious tone (it slips sometimes though ) I've never turned them - I've always stuck with the calculations from the radical chart. Good question though. I'm not sure if anyone else takes a different approach. Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:44 pm
3 by Tom Hi, This is a good question. I was taught to recalculate the parts. For example, If querent asks a question about her son, the part of fortune in the chart is hers, and therefore the part needs to be recalculated using the 5th cusp as the ASC. I've never considered the accidental dignities, but if the above logic is correct, then the accidental dignities would have to be recalculated as well. Like Deb, I wonder how others handle this. Tom Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:30 pm
4 by Astraea Thank you so much for your reply, Deb. I have never recalculated them, either, but lately I've been wondering about the logic of turning the chart and then using the original places for Parts and accidental dignities -- on the side of simplicity and directness, it makes sense to work with the original figure; but in the literal way of thinking, if the turned chart is viewed as essentially a new one, recalculation would seem logical. And trying to work with the Parts and accidental dignities calculated for both charts at once would (I believe) create quite a muddle! Last edited by Astraea on Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:35 pm
5 by Astraea Thank you for your reply, Tom -- I must have been typing as you were posting. Yes, it makes sense to me, too, that if the Parts are recalculated, then the accidental dignities ought to be, as well. Like you and Deb, I will be very interested to hear various viewpoints. Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:39 pm
6 by Deb but in the literal way of thinking, if the turned chart is viewed as essentially a new one, recalculation would seem logical. I don't work with the parts a great deal so I don't have strong views on this, but my only argument would be that the turned chart is never essentially a new one; only ever an extension of the original radical chart, so I'm more inclined to stick with the original positions. And what about the fact that some part calculations have house cusps built into them - doesn't that make allowance to a type of turning, in that it is inherent in the calculation? Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:05 pm
7 by Astraea Yes, I see what you are saying, Deb, and it makes sense. I guess my question is principally about consistency within the system -- if the unturned radical chart is the basis of determining angularity, joys, accidental dignities and Parts, then my question might be moot; but since the turned chart shifts the radical focus in rendering judgement, then its dignities might need to be considered on their own terms. Maybe the key lies in the consistency of method, rather than rules of technique, such that sticking with a particular approach yields consistently good results. Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:39 pm
8 by Deb You have to stick to a consistent approach, definately. I don't use the parts that extensively so this has never bothered me much. I can see Tom's point though. As a rule my approach is to try and take the symbolism back to the radical chart wherever possible and only turn when necessary. In matters of accidental dignity, I stick to the radical influences - so if a planet is angular in the radical chart it doesn't become angular in the turned chart. That's my opinion and the way I work; I can't think of an historical precedent to check this against but I'll look out for one. Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:02 pm
9 by Astraea Thank you! In the absence of historical precedent, it does make sense for practitioners to work according to their own lights, with consistency as the watchword. Quote Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:19 pm