3 sub-systems in natal chart analysis?

1
According to Mr spearbearer(i do not konw his true name.he is a Hellenistic Astrology expert):

?If the natal planets represent the ideal possibility, and the lots are the probable apportionment, then the twelfth-parts could suggest the actual outcome resulting from the determination made between the major players involved.?

and according to Mr Schmidt,whereas the lots belong to the ?descending path? of the differentiation of planetary powers, the twelfth-parts belong to the ?ascending path? of the unification of these same powers.?

and accroding to <Rhetorius>,"if the dodecatemorion of Mars falls into the place of Venus,he will be an adulterer"

and according to Mr Schmidt,dodecatemoria represents "outcomes" of the planet.?

and according to Mr Schmidt,?The purpose of the lots is to single out meanings from more general significators such as the planets so that these more specific meanings can be studied in isolation in the chart. ?

========================================
for example,moon can signify fortune,mother,wife etc
lot of fortune can be studied in isolation(it represents fortune)
lot of mother can be studied in isolation(it represents mother)

so maybe lots and dodecatemorion are very important in chart analysis?or natal planets,lots and dodecatemorion are 3 sub-systems in natal chart analysis?
any discussion?

========================================
BTW:I am a Hellenistic Astrology learner from China.
And i am not good at writting english.
If there is any mistake in this post or my post makes you unpleasant,please forgive me.

Awaken the inner Mercury

6
Good afternoon,

As mentioned in other threads, in my humble opinion attempts to simplify, label, package and sell a few astrological 'schools' or periods like 'Vedic, Traditional, Classical, Hellenistic, Mediaeval, Renaissance, Modern' are commercially and psychologically understandable but doomed to fail.

In every astrological period, school etc. encountered to date, there are in my humble experience essential differences of opinion on even basic astrological symbols amongst the various authors.

Astrology, methinks, is essentially 'mercurial'. One learns to read charts. If one wishes to more than dabble in it, one does well to 'awaken the inner Herm?s', the mental capabilities of coherence, comparison, discernment, judgement and the like. One simply cannot expect and in my opinion should not even desire to have everything chewed, digested and packed into neat bundles by 'gurus'. There are and will always be rough edges that require attention and diligent experimentation. Indeed, many contemporary astrologers are even overtly opposed to methods of scientific research in astrology and prefer 'channelled wisdom' via mediums and similar agencies as hallmarks of quality. By scientific i do not mean dogmatic 'scientism' that for example includes only material and efficient causes.

All of this is applicable to Hellenistic astrology. Instead of attempting to gloss them over, one does better by putting the differences of doctrines, approaches, methods, emphasis, etc. amongst the authors into stark relief, then by testing for inner coherence, then by experimental application. It should be obvious, but often is not, that incoherence in theory cannot become coherence in practice. The work of Dr H of Regulus Astrology is, methinks, a positive example of how this can be done in the framework of Mediaeval astrology.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

Re: Awaken the inner Mercury

10
lihin wrote:Good afternoon,

As mentioned in other threads, in my humble opinion attempts to simplify, label, package and sell a few astrological 'schools' or periods like 'Vedic, Traditional, Classical, Hellenistic, Mediaeval, Renaissance, Modern' are commercially and psychologically understandable but doomed to fail.

In every astrological period, school etc. encountered to date, there are in my humble experience essential differences of opinion on even basic astrological symbols amongst the various authors.

Astrology, methinks, is essentially 'mercurial'. One learns to read charts. If one wishes to more than dabble in it, one does well to 'awaken the inner Herm?s', the mental capabilities of coherence, comparison, discernment, judgement and the like. One simply cannot expect and in my opinion should not even desire to have everything chewed, digested and packed into neat bundles by 'gurus'. There are and will always be rough edges that require attention and diligent experimentation. Indeed, many contemporary astrologers are even overtly opposed to methods of scientific research in astrology and prefer 'channelled wisdom' via mediums and similar agencies as hallmarks of quality. By scientific i do not mean dogmatic 'scientism' that for example includes only material and efficient causes.

All of this is applicable to Hellenistic astrology. Instead of attempting to gloss them over, one does better by putting the differences of doctrines, approaches, methods, emphasis, etc. amongst the authors into stark relief, then by testing for inner coherence, then by experimental application. It should be obvious, but often is not, that incoherence in theory cannot become coherence in practice. The work of Dr H of Regulus Astrology is, methinks, a positive example of how this can be done in the framework of Mediaeval astrology.

Best regards,

lihin
thank you very much for you reply,Mr(Ms?)lihin