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

Weak malefics - even more malefic?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the Guidelines which are dated 2006. Actually it was before that:

Quote:
This particular forum exists to learn, apply, and exchange techniques and ideas regarding traditional and ancient astrology and astrologers. “Traditional astrology” is a pretty broad topic, so we’ll offer a rough definition as follows: the type of tropical astrology practiced prior to 1700 and everything between 1700 and Alan Leo is close enough to count as traditional with a few exceptions. This type of astrology uses the tropical zodiac table of dignities, planetary strength, and is somewhat more involved with events in the native’s life than with motivation for behavior. The accuracy of this definition is not important; it is only a guideline.


Please follow them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please let's not make tropical/sidereal a huge issue (again). But it must be noted that the definition of 'traditional' offered in the Guidelines is extremely problematic (or to put it bluntly, wrong), and should probably be updated. Otherwise, we can't discuss Valens, we can't discuss the Babylonians, we can't discuss the Persians, we have to be very picky about the Arabic sources, and we have to censure even parts of the Renaissance ones. (The Indians, of course, are right out.)

I don't remember the post Therese refers to, but I did discuss this briefly with Deb about a year and a half ago, following another unpleasant flare-up, at which time she replied as follows (this was in a private communication, but there's nothing personal in it, so I don't think she'll mind my quoting it):

Deb wrote:
The sidereal forum is the place for dedicated discussion on those issues - not the only place it can be mentioned. I suggest you ignore that suggestion and carry on as before.

_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The operative word is "mentioned," A private conversation is not what I asked for. Besides there is nothing in that quote that wasn't mentioned by me earlier, to wit:

Quote:
If something comes up in a thread where sidereal is appropriate that is one thing. If it becomes completely sidereal or a sidereal v Tropical it's going.


Martin writes:
Quote:

Please let's not make tropical/sidereal a huge issue (again).


Yes please. But then you go ahead and do just that.


Quote:
Otherwise, we can't discuss Valens, we can't discuss the Babylonians, we can't discuss the Persians, we have to be very picky about the Arabic sources, and we have to censure even parts of the Renaissance ones. (The Indians, of course, are right out.)


Yes the Indians are out. It is not the purpose of this Forum to be all things to all people. It was created so that Western Traditional Astrologers (and that term is defined) had a place to discuss Western Traditional astrology without being forced to defend themselves form moderns and others who preferred to pick fights than allow the discussions. We don't go wandering over to the General Nativities Forum and whine about not being able to discuss the essential dignities or present arguments in favor of Lilly over Leo. We do send moderns who do pick fights to the General Nativities section or toss them off the Forum for good.

Furthermore we have discussed Valens, Babylonians et al without difficulty for more than decade why should it become a problem now unless the siderealists make it one? There is a Sidereal Forum. It makes no sense that it needs to be brought over here, too. The purpose of the Traditional Forum does not include providing a captive audience for siderealists. Your arguments would make sense if the topic were completely forbidden, but it's not and it never was.

In order to comply with both of our wishes I'm locking this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apologies for my absence in recent weeks, which is likely to continue until the end of the month as I am heavily involved in building developments which have a tight deadline. Even when tied up in other things, I try to check the forum as often as I can to make sure there are no problems brewing, and hopefully this is one that can be nipped in the bud.
I see Martin and Theresa's point of view here, but I also think that Tom's reminder to not let the focus shift is appropriate too. Consider his comment:
Quote:

If something comes up in a thread where sidereal is appropriate that is one thing. If it becomes completely sidereal or a sidereal v Tropical it's going.


Obviously there is no intention to prohibit reference to sidereal techniques or perspectives, although heaving read the thread through, I don't see why this has become an issue here anyway. Martin made a brief reference to the fact that "not all traditionalists use the same zodiac", as part of one of many highly informative contributions he has made to the thread. That remark was singled out for attention it didn't deserve IMO, when it would have been better to move on with the assumption that no one is trying to change the focus of the discussion or this forum's policies. Tom has not directed personal comments at any individual but given his reminder to follow the spirit of the guidelines, since this issue itself has now undermined the thread - a pity because it has some really good points being made about the significance of combust malefics. It would be so much better if everyone returned to that opening question, because just as we don't want to disrupt threads with zodiac debates, we also don't want to disrupt them with debates about zodiac debates.
Tom, I hope you don't mind me imputing my thoughts on this straight into the thread as I am not likely to be around later today. It goes without saying that you are the moderator here, and the one to decide if and when comments are appropriate or likely to cause disruption to the flow of the debate. As an active forum contributor myself (usually) I know that applies to my comments too, so feel free to remove this if you think I have spoken out of turn.

PS - I see I posted as Tom locked the thread. I didn't unlock it to post my remark, but perhaps it got through because I had my posters window open for a long time (I got distracted whilst responding). So I have only just seen Tom's response after posting my own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb your post and mine probably were submitted nearly simultaneously. I'm unlocking the thread with the understanding that the original topic be discussed. As Deb pointed out it was a good one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I deleted the last two posts because they were off topic. What part of this:

Quote:
I'm unlocking the thread with the understanding that the original topic be discussed.


is difficult to understand? If it happens again I'm locking the thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jventura



Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 292
Location: Portugal

Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad wrote:
This general overview of a chart is the main reason for me concluding that attempts to "prove" astrology statistically are always going to fail. It just doesn't work that way.


Konrad, this is tangential to the current topic, but I just would like to say that I partly agree with what you are saying in the quotation, although I'd like to express another point of view.

I am a big supporter of a statistical approach to astrology. Even more, I strongly believe that a scientific/statistical approach to astrology is currently one of the best ways that Astrology can move forward and start to be taken seriously by academic researchers. Ultimately, I believe that Astrology does need a new breed of academic researchers which can study and validate astrological results in practical ways.

It is all about the seriousness of the practice we are doing here! We have a fair share of people who are doing research on older texts and history, but few or none which are doing high quality research in "practical" astrology (i.e., on the practice itself).

With that in mind, I must say that I agree with you that trying to prove astrology statistically like people have been trying to do so far is very hard. Specifically, trying to prove "everything at once" is always going to fail. Like the example of Einstein, people are complex and currently we don't have the ability to measure all possible variables.

However, there is another approach which is to try to do small validations regarding specific techniques or very specific configurations, etc. For instance, some 5 years ago, I've done a statistical study on the Animodar (a traditional technique for rectification of charts). We've used data from a Maternity Hospital and from people around the world, and we could detected that the Animodar was a "statistical illusion", so our conclusion was that the Animodar was not a valid technique. Older astrologers could not have clarified that without access to modern computers and databases, but now we can.

So, my saying is that "small" attempts to statistically prove techniques and small isolated factors, can and should be done. The Animodar was just a small example, but more techniques can be studied in a similar way.


Regards,
João Ventura
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larxene



Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 312

Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, people, I didn't expect this thread to reach three pages. Smile



zoidsoft wrote:
...See Book 1, pg 17 Riley translation (I suspect error in inserting a "not" here because of the general principle that planets in their own domiciles and exaltations are beneficial and help to turn around negative aspects):

Quote:
21K;19P. The Combinations of the Stars.
...Saturn and Mars are hostile, productive of reversals and ruin. They bring family quarrels, disharmony, and hatred, along with treachery, plots, malevolence, and trials. However, if these stars are not in their own or in operative signs, and if they have benefics in aspect, they produce distinguished and noble nativities, although unsteady in their happiness and prone to unexpected dangers and treachery.


Well if Schmidt's translation is accurate, then yes, you're right:

Quote:
"Kronos and Ares, then, are hostile, productive of deterrents and demolition. For, they introduce seditions at home and malevolences and enmities, slaves and plots and malefactions and accusations (except that if they fall in their own zoidia or in profitable zoidia, and they are witnessed by benefics, they furnish notable and bright nativities), unreliability in prosperity, and unexpected dangers or betrayals."

Book I, p. 47, 1993.


Haven't read the other posts, just wanted to talk about this detail. (Also notice how, towards the end, Schmidt's translation brings about a totally different understanding than Riley's.)
_________________
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 182
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi everybody,

this textual problem made me wonder if Riley or Schmidt is more accurate in his translation, so I've decided to examine the Greek text myself. I think the meaning as it was transmitted (I 19, 3 in Pingree's edition, based on two manuscripts of different branches) quite straightforward, the transmission is fairly reliable, and we are in the fortunate position of having a late (probably 10th or 11th century) summary of the opinions of Dorotheus, Ptolemy and Valens on the planetary natures and commixtures, which is extant in two closely related manuscripts, and which faithfully reports the passage in question.

On one hand, the difference in the two translations is explained by the use of brackets in Pingree's text, which is reproduced by Schmidt, even though this editorial change isn't justified if one compares the main text with the summary. (In this respect the earlier edition by Kroll is superior.) On the other hand, Riley seems to fail to translate the expression ektos ei mē (which equals the plēn ei mē found in the summary) what it in fact means, "with the exception of". Therefore deleting the word "not" from the Riley translation gives perfect result, just as you observed.

To make comparison possible, I insert my translation of the summary (Appendix I 20) here:

Quote:
The co-presence of Saturn and Mars is productive of ruin, quarrels, plots, malefaction, unexpected dangers, accusations and various reversals with the exception of being in their own images and being watched by either Jupiter or Venus; yet even if this happens to be, they signify the prosperity will be unsteady and dangers will occur unexpectedly.

(Please note that English is not my first language.) Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wonderful! Thank you, Levente. There's nothing like a good classical education and first-hand knowledge of the source texts. And your English is excellent.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

English is just your 13th language, Levente. Razz
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Levente Laszlo wrote:
...Therefore deleting the word "not" from the Riley translation gives perfect result, just as you observed.


That's what I thought. The principle of planets in hard aspects, but of their own domiciles turns the delineation to a more favorable result as Schmidt has said because planets in their own places can effect from their own significations. The problem is that sometimes their own malefic significations get thrown in so at the end we see that it effects something bad as well.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1215
Location: Delhi

Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what is the traditional word for delete and not in ancient greek Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 944
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
what is the traditional word for delete and not in ancient greek Wink


δεν
den

But I was saying that I don't think this was in the text. I think Riley just placed it there. If one simply omits the bold then it reads correctly:

Quote:
However, if these stars are not in their own or in operative signs, and if they have benefics in aspect, they produce distinguished and noble nativities

_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1215
Location: Delhi

Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
pankajdubey wrote:
what is the traditional word for delete and not in ancient greek Wink


δεν
den

But I was saying that I don't think this was in the text. I think Riley just placed it there. If one simply omits the bold then it reads correctly:

Quote:
However, if these stars are not in their own or in operative signs, and if they have benefics in aspect, they produce distinguished and noble nativities


Thanks Curtis,

If I understand it correctly, the gist of Levente's translation is that it will be universally bad unless ...conditions...even then the optimism is very tenuous.



PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
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