46
Yes, because they are malefics, they still do bad things. What I find interesting is that Valens says that it effects something bad "in the end". This seems to agree with the eminence as a form of "support" given to the native which we all lose (through the anareta to the Hyleg or simply through passing through the max time range without encountering malefic rays). It seems at the end we are the most vulnerable; it is when karma catches up with those who benefit at the expense of others.

Robert Schmidt had an interesting observation in regard to Valens eminence considerations: as he phrased it... malefics benefit the native at the expense of everyone else, whereas benefics indicate suffering that the native has taken on for the benefit of others. We can see that in the translation quotes above.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

47
Reminds me of the most modern interpretation of Karma:

Good karma is like a debit card - there is instant deduction and bad karma like the credit card - you enjoy for sometime but have to pay later :)

48
Martin, Gabe, thanks. :)
zoidsoft wrote:But I was saying that I don't think this was in the text. I think Riley just placed it there.
Not exactly. Actually, the phrase does contain the word "no" (m?; den is apparently Modern Greek), but this is the common way to express "with the exception of". If you wish, the text could be rendered as something like this: "The bad guys cause bad things, provided they are not in their sign or are not looked after by the good guys. If they are, however, they cause good things but also some bad things."

49
A lot of interesting ideas here, thanks for sharing guys.
zoidsoft wrote:Yes, because they are malefics, they still do bad things. What I find interesting is that Valens says that it effects something bad "in the end". This seems to agree with the eminence as a form of "support" given to the native which we all lose (through the anareta to the Hyleg or simply through passing through the max time range without encountering malefic rays). It seems at the end we are the most vulnerable; it is when karma catches up with those who benefit at the expense of others.

Robert Schmidt had an interesting observation in regard to Valens eminence considerations: as he phrased it... malefics benefit the native at the expense of everyone else, whereas benefics indicate suffering that the native has taken on for the benefit of others. We can see that in the translation quotes above.
Like a matyr versus a tyrant?

I take it you mean that if the malefics are well-placed, then they benefit the native, but at the expense of others. Based on the quotations above, it seems that if the malefics are not in good places, all kinds of harmful things occur to the native; no benefits will be gained.


Levente Laszlo wrote:"The bad guys cause bad things, provided they are not in their sign or are not looked after by the good guys. If they are, however, they cause good things but also some bad things."
Now you're speaking my lingo!



Coming back to the topic of whether "weaker" malefic planets become more "malefic", my opinion is that we also need to evaluate the compatibility of the planet's nature with the significator that is making the planet weak or strong. I am thinking about the houses in particular. For example, Mars and the 6th house are compatible due to their similarity of being related to physical injuries. So a domiciled Mars in the 6th may be productive. It is not a weakening factor despite the fact that Mars will be cadent here. Mars will be productive or strong here, but it will be good at creating injuries! So the next question is, is it good for the native? Maybe if you're a surgeon or any of those professions involving dissection...or any kind of work where creating injuries is what you should be doing. Otherwise, maybe not.
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.

50
Levente Laszlo wrote:Not exactly. Actually, the phrase does contain the word "no" (m?; den is apparently Modern Greek), but this is the common way to express "with the exception of". If you wish, the text could be rendered as something like this: "The bad guys cause bad things, provided they are not in their sign or are not looked after by the good guys. If they are, however, they cause good things but also some bad things."
OK. Thanks for the explanation. Is there a Greek version (untranslated) online somewhere?
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

54
Larxene wrote:For example, Mars and the 6th house are compatible due to their similarity of being related to physical injuries. So a domiciled Mars in the 6th may be productive. It is not a weakening factor despite the fact that Mars will be cadent here. Mars will be productive or strong here, but it will be good at creating injuries! So the next question is, is it good for the native? Maybe if you're a surgeon or any of those professions involving dissection...or any kind of work where creating injuries is what you should be doing. Otherwise, maybe not.
This is exactly my initial question, Larxene. As I see it, Mars, if "well placed" will be less malefic than usual. So let's say Mars is in Scorpion in the 6th, I would believe that he is less prone to cause problems for the native and, that, on the other hand, it could give him, for example, good servants and workers, people that work hard for the interests of the native. However, at the same time, I see this Mars in 6th can harm the native, with accidents or illnesses, because even though Mars is less malefic here, he is still a malefic. I would add a quick remark on that for my client. Just for comparison, if Mars was in the sixth but in Taurus, for example, then I would add a very important remark for my client (not a quick one), telling him to always take extreme care with dangerous actions, from driving a bike to bungee-jumping.

So this is the question.... the weak malefic is even more malefic and is the dignified malefic better for the native? How much better? Could it still cause harm?
Yair Alon
Kabbalist

55
Yair Alon wrote:
...As I see it, Mars, if "well placed" will be less malefic than usual. So let's say Mars is in Scorpion in the 6th, I would believe that he is less prone to cause problems for the native and, that, on the other hand, it could give him, for example, good servants and workers, people that work hard for the interests of the native. However, at the same time, I see this Mars in 6th can harm the native, with accidents or illnesses, because even though Mars is less malefic here, he is still a malefic.
(...)
So this is the question.... the weak malefic is even more malefic and is the dignified malefic better for the native? How much better? Could it still cause harm?
This is an interesting question, so I excerpted from AstroDatabank 4 all the charts that had Mars in the 6th house within a three degree orb of inconjunct (or quincunx) the ascendant in their domiciles, fall (Cancer) and exaltation (Capricorn). It seemed obvious that because the 6th house is part of the trinal group that includes the 2nd and 10th, planets in the 6th often relate to work, career or what one is publicly known for. Morin called this trigon The Triplicity of the angle of the Midheaven or the Triplicity of Action. I have posted the results here: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 1761#91761

It's possible to read only the tropical lists if that is preferred.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

56
Thank you for the list, Therese. Before we examine the details, let me give Yair Alon my own opinion on this issue.

Your question, which is "are weak malefics more malefic?", is not as simple and basic as it looks. There are two main variables (the third can be ignored for the moment) that we are discussing here. They are a) planetary strength and b) the favourability of a planet's effects from the native's point of view, respectively. For convenience's sake, let's call them Strength and Favourability.

The problem arises when we try to operationalise these variables. Let's use strength as an example. To "operationalise" strength means trying to answer this question: what does it mean for a planet to be strong or weak? I'll list three factors that may affect strength, but you may be able to come up with more:

i) Planetary phase: visible, making a heliacal appearance (difference between rising and setting?), invisible (which may be broken down into under the beams, combust, cazimi)
ii) Velocity: swift, average, slow (what about retrograde movements?)
iii) Angularity: angular, succeedent, cadent

Each of these factors may represent different kinds of planetary "strength", or they may refer to the same thing. Even if we assume they give the same kind of strength, each factor has at least three different conditions. This gives us at least 3x3x3=81 combinations to deal with. The keyword here is AT LEAST.

The next problem is with the math: adding up the testimonies. For example, suppose that for planetary phase, we argue that heliacal phase and cazimi give the most strength (let's assume they are equally strong), while visible gives us medium strength, and all other invisible conditions are weak (again, we assume they are equally weak). So we have three values for planetary phase:

Strong, medium, weak

Next let's talk about angularity. Angular is strongest, succeedent is medium, cadent is weakest. Great, we also have three values for angularity:

Strong, medium, weak



...does this mean "angular" = "heliacal phase" ? :)

Similarly, which is stronger:

1. A planet with strong phase, but weak angularity, or
2. A planet with medium phase and medium angularity?





I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here. Natal charts are like rare phenomena. Each chart's results cannot be replicated easily. Therefore, we need to find ways to compare different charts to find common patterns. Our efforts at defining the Strength and Favourability of a planet is one such attempt. However, it is not an easy task, due to the massive number of variables and factors.

In closing, I want to give another example, this time it will be "simpler". Traditional astrologers in the past mostly agree that among the angles, cadent houses are the "weakest". So the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th would be the weakest houses. However, the 9th and 3rd houses are considered favourable houses, while the 12th and 6th houses are considered unfavourable. Thus, despite being all cadent houses, some houses are more beneficial to the native than others. Mars in the 9th would be better than Mars in the 12th, in spite of the fact that both are about equally "weak". How do we resolve this?
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.

57
If I could use a little musical parallel here: if analyzing an opera (a score = a chart, life = performance), are we going to dissect it into every act and see how it could be played out and count all the possibilities? Or, are we just going to stick to the basics and see how this Gesamtkunstwerk was/has been/is/will be played out? All the ?fortes and pianos?, are the cellos too loud, shall we just shoot the trumpet player for being a bit too loud? I apologize to all non-musical astrologers, but do you get my drift?

Paul Paral